If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[Green Gaia]

Well that says it all. The arguments you use to defend gay marriage can be used for polygamy and incest, I demonstrated it, and you just don't care. Nutshell, your question has been answered, in the affirmative.

Nobody has denied that the same arguments can possibly be used. I am agruing against your assertion that same gender couples should be discriminated against because the same arguments could possibly be used. I believe your logic to be faulty. See Revasser's post above.

Gay marriage does not cause polygamous or incestuous relationships. Therefore, you cannot blame or hurt same gender couples because of them.

You cannot hurt one group because you don't like, or for the actions of, another.

 

[Green Gaia]

How DARE you?? Are you actually suggesting that I CHOSE to be this way? You think I WANT the weird looks and sideways glances for having two husbands? FOr being in love with my sister? Don't insult my intelligence; we're just asking for the EXACT same rights that you're asking for, stop denying us our love, we can't help how we feel.

You don't believe this way. What are your beliefs? Why should I not have the right to protect my family?

 

[HopefulNikki]

Oh, you won't find me failing to comprehend that - for I never use inter-racial marriage as an argument for same-sex marriage. But yes, you are right, just because inter-racial marriage is allowed doesn't mean same-sex marriage automatically has to be allowed as well. Same-sex marriage should be looked at on its own grounds to deem whether there is reason to not allow it...I have never used inter-racial marriage as an argument for same-sex marriage. Some others may have, but I haven't. In fact, the same-sex marriage debate should have nothing to do with inter-racial, polygamous, or incestuous marriages. Though some use inter-racial marriage as a precedent for same-sex marriage - as in a judicial/legal sense.

Thank you. Hopefully all people who have attempted to make that connection will retract their statements.

Oh, and just restating others' arguments to counter them isn't really going to get the debate rolling and just makes things unneccessarily repetitive. Maybe you could try countering them with some substance and not rephrasing everything to fit what you are trying to argue.

Except in this case it has a point. People have been attempting to claim that gay marriage can stand on its won, without at the same time justifying things like polygamy and incest. However, all their arguments thus far can quite easily be applied to either one, thus the reason that I used their arguments against them.

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't think Niki ever claimed that one will cause others. I think what she is trying to claim is that acceptance of one will lead to acceptance of the others.

And why should I be blamed or hurt because of that? If I didn't cause something to happen, I shouldn't be blamed and hurt because of it.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Legally, there will be a much harder time defending polygamous marriages than homosexual ones. The issue of homosexuality if closer to race, because it is an immutable trait. Wanting to marry more than one person.....not so much.

How in the world do you know that attraction to more than one person is not an immutable trait? It's not possible to love more than one person at one time?

Inter-racial marriage is often brought into the argument because it goes back to who qualifies for equal protection under the law, and shows that we thought it was OK to restrict marriage in this way years ago, but now we don't. Where's the difference between that and homosexual marriage now?

Because race and sexual orientation are two different things; I thought that was rather self-evident.

Inter-racial marriage was banned using the same arguments people are using against homosexual marriage - it will be bad for society, and because God doesn't like it. Ok, well it's been how many years later with plenty of interracial couples, and society has not come to a halt and acid has not rained down from the sky.

Show me what the difference is.

You know, I feel the same way and polygamy and incest. Why in the world should we ban those things, what's the difference between that and homosexuality? You think acid is going to rain down from the sky if we allow those things?

 

[Green Gaia]

Please realize that I was using the term as a discription, not an insult. Just in case I insulted you. I know how a lot of people are really sensitive about things like that today. *Sigh* It's a sad state of affairs when adjectives like liberal, conservative, homosexual, ******* bonkers, etc. all have negative connotations.

You did not insult me, but I do find the term insulting because it is used against us to deny us equal rights and being treated like a full citizen.

 

[HopefulNikki]

You don't believe this way. What are your beliefs? Why should I not have the right to protect my family?

Why should polygamists not have the right to protect their families? Why should those in incestuous relationships not be able to protect their families? The reasons are THE SAME, Maize, you have no reason to defend one without the other.

 

[Green Gaia]

a

Why should polygamists not have the right to protect their families? Why should those in incestuous relationships not be able to protect their families? The reasons are THE SAME, Maize, you have no reason to defend one without the other.

You're not a polygamist or advocating for incestuous relationships, neither am I.

Give me a straight answer for once.

Why shouldn't same gender couples be allowed to protect their families through the protections of civil marriage?

 

[MaddLlama]

How in the world do you know that attraction to more than one person is not an immutable trait? It's not possible to love more than one person at one time?

Is liking coffee ice cream an immutable trait too? Being attracted to men named "Mike"?

Because race and sexual orientation are two different things; I thought that was rather self-evident.

Two different things whos comparison illustrates a point that you've apparently missed.

You know, I feel the same way and polygamy and incest. Why in the world should we ban those things, what's the difference between that and homosexuality? You think acid is going to rain down from the sky if we allow those things?

I have no personal biases against polygamy. When done correctly such relationships and families can flourish. Incest however is dangerous because is corrupts the gene pool and if incest were the norm, most of us would be born with conditions like palsy. That's not good for anybody.

Are you going to answer my question? What makes the same arguments the religious used against interracial marriages then legitimate arguments against homosexual marriages now?

 

[HopefulNikki]

a

You're not a polygamist or advocating for incestuous relationships, neither am I.

Give me a straight answer for once.

Why shouldn't same gender couples be allowed to protect their families through the protections of civil marriage?

Maize, I am giving you a straight answer (I am straight after all, LOL....ok bad joke...). The validity or necesity of gay marriage is NOT the topic of the thread. The issue is whether or not condoning homosexuality leads to condoning other behaviors. Since the arguments for homosexuality can all be applied to those other behaviors, you have zero reason to support one without the other.

 

[MaddLlama]

Why should polygamists not have the right to protect their families? Why should those in incestuous relationships not be able to protect their families? The reasons are THE SAME, Maize, you have no reason to defend one without the other.

So, if I am an advoate for something, I must be an advocate for all things related to it also? Hmm, that's funny I never got that memo.

But, that also means that if you think interracial marriage is OK, then you have no business saying that homosexual marriage is not. Just a thought..

 

[HopefulNikki]

Is liking coffee ice cream an immutable trait too? Being attracted to men named "Mike"?

Could be. You can't help who you love, Madd, that's nothing like ice cream preference. I love two men. Romantically, with all my heart, I love two men. Why shouldn't I be able to marry them?

Two different things whos comparison illustrates a point that you've apparently missed.

When you don't make the point, missing it is easy to do.

I have no personal biases against polygamy. When done correctly such relationships and families can flourish. Incest however is dangerous because is corrupts the gene pool and if incest were the norm, most of us would be born with conditions like palsy. That's not good for anybody.

My sister and I don't plan on having kids Are you going to deny us our love and the right to support our family?

Are you going to answer my question? What makes the same arguments the religious used against interracial marriages then legitimate arguments against homosexual marriages now?

I never claimed that an argument was valid just because it was used against inter-racial marriage. And argument is legitimate on its own. See standing_alone's posts earlier as to why your reasoning is faulty. The two are not related and one should not be used to justify the other.

 

[MaddLlama]

Maize, I am giving you a straight answer (I am straight after all, LOL....ok bad joke...). The validity or necesity of gay marriage is NOT the topic of the thread. The issue is whether or not condoning homosexuality leads to condoning other behaviors. Since the arguments for homosexuality can all be applied to those other behaviors, you have zero reason to support one without the other.

Not necesarily. There's no hard evidence that homosexuality is genetically based, but it is accepted as something that you are, rather than something that you choose to be. Being a homosexual is not the same as liking red cars, or even liking more than one person. Legally the one will not lead to the other because having more than one partner is not immutable, and incest is bad for the future of our species.

Not to mention the fact that legally polygamous marriages would have to jump through dozens of more legal hoops, and most politicians and beaurocrats can't be bothered. Homosexual marriages would not make as large a (paperwork) problem for them.

 

[HopefulNikki]

So, if I am an advoate for something, I must be an advocate for all things related to it also? Hmm, that's funny I never got that memo.

In some cases, yes. That's the point of the thread; no one has yet produced an argument for gay marriage that cannot be used for polygamy and/or incest.

But, that also means that if you think interracial marriage is OK, then you have no business saying that homosexual marriage is not. Just a thought

Not really. One deals with race, the other with sexuality. Polygamy and incest also deal with sexuality, not race, thus the connection. Again, I thought that was rather obvious.

 

[sojourner]

maybe "marriage" is the wrong term. Most homosexuals I know don't really care about the "marriage" aspect. Their issue is with being denied rights. No one has the "right" to be married -- marriage is a sacramental covenant that a couple is called into. But, everyone does have the right to the same protection under the law as everyone else.

Case in point: Couples who've "lived together" as a family for more than seven years are granted a "common law" union, whereby they enjoy the same benefits and protections as married couples. Yet, they've never been "married." Why can't the same concept apply to homosexuals who wish to live together as a family?

Those homosexual couples who do care about the marriage part can fight it out with their churches in order to determine whether God is calling them to marriage, or not.
In the mean time, why can't the government protect these families, as they protect other families, by granting them a civil union???

None of this is really about the degradation of society, or else heterosexual "living together" would be illegal. This is about some folks who can't stand the thought of "something as abhorrent as homosexuality" being granted truly 'legal' status and recognition." In other words, it's about BIGOTRY.

 

[Revasser]

Maize, I am giving you a straight answer (I am straight after all, LOL....ok bad joke...). The validity or necesity of gay marriage is NOT the topic of the thread. The issue is whether or not condoning homosexuality leads to condoning other behaviors. Since the arguments for homosexuality can all be applied to those other behaviors, you have zero reason to support one without the other.

Actually, you have not given an answer at all. All you have done is throw around the slippery slope and make a series of irrelevant appeals.

If you are the one making the assertion that alowing homosexual marriage will lead to allowing polygamous and/or incestuous marriage, you need to actually provide a reason why and some evidence to support your assertion.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Back in a half hour, sorry all!

 

[MaddLlama]

I never claimed that an argument was valid just because it was used against inter-racial marriage. And argument is legitimate on its own. See standing_alone's posts earlier as to why your reasoning is faulty. The two are not related and one should not be used to justify the other.

So, then it's crying wolf. Interracial marriages are bad because God doesn't like it, and if we let them society will come crumbling down on itself. Oh, wait...what? That didn't happen? Ok, well, you know if we let those gay people get married, then society will come crumbling down on itself.

It's not a justification, it's an illustration of the extension of that silly old "equal protection clause".

 

[Sunstone]

I, for one, deeply believe it is sheer social insanity to allow homosexuals to marry. If homosexuals marry they will want to have sex, rather than pick our fruits and vegetables.

Wait a minute! It's not homosexuals who pick our fruits and vegetables. It's migrant laborers. Sorry for that! I was confused which group I should be prejudiced against. Carry on!

 

[lilithu]

Revasser, I'd just like to point out that it says "Certain rights" not "All rights." That wording might throw a monkey wrench in the works.

The phrase "certain rights" refers to those rights which are enumerated, not to the ones that are not.

In plain English, we're listing certain rights that are explicitly guaranteed. But just because these certain rights are listed does not mean that you should assume that the rights that are not listed are not guaranteed.