Gay Marriage

[dannieyankee]

I have several arguments in regards to gay marriage, pinpointing specific ideas that I have heard opposing such an arrangement.

 

1. "Gay people would get extra rights - straight people can't marry someone of the same sex, and neither can gay people. Allowing them to marry would be unfair."

 

However, when we mention that straight people would now have the right to marry the same sex just as gay people, they say 'What good is that to us?' Well, quite frankly, what good is regular marriage to gay people?

 

When someone gets married, the criteria isn't 'Opposite sex, check.' It's 'Oh, my God, I'm so in love.' You marry for love, not legality. Gays would marry for love. It's the same argument.

 

2. "It is harmful for children to be raised by gay parents."

 

Find me ONE good research study that proves this and I'll throw six more at your face. It is more common for kids raised by gay parents to be compassionate and more empathetic than their counterparts.

 

3. "It isn't natural."

 

Neither are your glasses, your computer, your desk, your mouse....

This argument leads to....

 

3 1/2. "Gay people choose to be gay."

Well, guess what. We're allowed to choose to be atheist, Wiccan, christian, Muslim, single, married, or forever dating, but we're not allowed to choose to be Gay? And at any rate, gay people argue that they did NOT choose to be gay, that it was natural. So, your argument is that millions of people are simply lying. All of them. Liars. Because they're gay. How completely inconsievable!

 

4. "God..."./"The Bible..." Or something similar

 

Any words that come after this are completely unscientific and should be ignored.

 

5. "The purpose of marriage is reproduction."

 

This one is so old that EVERYONE knows the counterargument for it - If that were the case, then elderly and infertile couples cannot marry. Those who already are married have their marriage either dubbed Unrecognised or Illegal.

 

6. "We don't have to call it marriage - it can be something else."

 

Genius, that's called 'Separate but Equal.' On numerous occasions, including the infamous Doll Test, it has been proven that Separate but Equal leads to both low self-esteem and *dundundun* exploitation of the minority. Separate is NEVER equal.

 

 

Can you name another argument that I missed ,or counter my own?

[InfiniteNow]

Marriage has a "traditional" definition and people who want to allow "same sex marriage" are "trying to change the definition of marriage."

 

This one is BS because marriage really doesn't have a definition in any law anywhere which dictates the genitals participants must have (not until 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed, anyway). It may have been common in society that a marriage was between a man and a woman, but nowhere was this codified (as, if it were, then DOMA would not have been needed in the first place).

 

Also, there were same sex marriages performed by the Christian church itself as early as the 8th century, and much more commonly in the 11th and 12th (they even had an office of same sex marriage)... so the "traditional" definition fails on that front, as well.

[lawcat]

 

2. "It is harmful for children to be raised by gay parents."

 

Find me ONE good research study that proves this and I'll throw six more at your face. It is more common for kids raised by gay parents to be compassionate and more empathetic than their counterparts.

 

 

 

 

Also, there were same sex marriages performed by the Christian church itself as early as the 8th century, and much more commonly in the 11th and 12th (they even had an office of same sex marriage)... so the "traditional" definition fails on that front, as well.

 

Let's not be disingenuous about this issue. Gay people are not similarly situated to heterosexual couples; namely, gays can not have children--it's impossible. Also, stating that the history and tradition informs us that marriage includes gay marriages is dilusional.

 

The best and the only argument for gay marriages is that gay people have a an equal right to pursue happiness in their life.

[lemit]

Something occurred to me in reading this thread: I don't remember choosing to be heterosexual. I could have chosen to be homosexual. That was the only "choice" available to me, since I was already heterosexual.

 

So, the public officials who claim homosexuality is a choice must know by having made that choice themselves. Since they all say they are heterosexual, that leaves two possibilities for them:

 

1. They are closet homosexuals.

 

2. They chose in childhood to be heterosexual and live in constant fear that their natural homosexuality will someday emerge.

 

So, I guess we should ask politicians who make that assertion which group they fall into. That should be an easy question for them, since it seems to be on their minds a lot. Of course, either possibility would probably require a lot of attention to such details.

 

I don't know. I don't think about it that much myself.

 

--lemit

[GAHD]

...gays can not have children--it's impossible.

not true, artificial insemination is a viable option. As is a surrogate mother.

 

The best and the only argument for gay marriages is that gay people have a an equal right to pursue happiness in their life.

Marriage is a legal institution. Why people want to bring the government in on their relationships is quite frankly oddball to me, but all you paper-signing ring-wearers made your choice there.

YouTube - Marriage comedy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUX6QhMA12c

IMHO all tax breaks and other legal hum-drum associated with marriage need to be removed. At that point who will really care who marries who or what?

[lawcat]

not true, artificial insemination is a viable option. As is a surrogate mother.

 

That is genetic news to me. If it is indeed possible to combine DNA, or chromosomes, of two gay people to produce a child I am unaware of that and I apologize.

[dannieyankee]

That is genetic news to me. If it is indeed possible to combine DNA, or chromosomes, of two gay people to produce a child I am unaware of that and I apologize.

 

While it is currently not possible to use the DNA of people to create a child without necessarily using it in the form of an egg and sperm, their is much speculation that within 20 years a breakthrough will allow a child to be formed from DNA rather than traditional conception.

[InfiniteNow]

Also, stating that the history and tradition informs us that marriage includes gay marriages is dilusional.

 

First, you spelled "delusional" wrong. Second, the word you should have chosen is "empirical."

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/17804-is-homosexuality-unnatural-10.html#post263888

 

 

I do, however, agree that the best argument is one about equal protections in our laws and removing baseless discriminations motivated by nothing more than a desire to invocate religiously-informed (nonsecular) teachings from our society.

[lawcat]

First, you spelled "delusional" wrong. Second, the word you should have chosen is "empirical."

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/17804-is-homosexuality-unnatural-10.html#post263888.

 

Thank you.

 

 

I do, however, agree that the best argument is one about equal protections in our laws and removing baseless discriminations motivated by nothing more than a desire to invocate religiously-informed (nonsecular) teachings from our society.

 

The argument is more fine than the noise we hear from the masses. Obviously, proponents of the gay marriage would love to smear the issue and make it one of religius dogma, because religious dogma has no place in law. But, no sane judge buys it. Marriage is not protected because of religion.

[Moontanman]

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

The argument is more fine than the noise we hear from the masses. Obviously, proponents of the gay marriage would love to smear the issue and make it one of religius dogma, because religious dogma has no place in law. But, no sane judge buys it. Marriage is not protected because of religion.

 

Then exactly why is relgion protected law cat and why can't gays be parents?

[lawcat]

Then exactly why is relgion protected law cat?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

and why can't gays be parents?

 

It is naturally impossible for two people of same sex to parent a child. Is that true?

[InfiniteNow]

It is naturally impossible for two people of same sex to parent a child. Is that true?

 

No. A parent is a person who will RAISE their child. To suggest that a parent is someone who can merely CONCEIVE a child is myopic and wrong.

 

 

Either way... We don't require opposite sex couples to prove their fertility or fecundity... we don't require them to promise they will have a child... we don't disallow the elderly from marrying... So all of this "child" talk is completely irrelevant to the topic... As explicitly noted in the OP.

 

Having children is a common byproduct of marriage, but is not a prerequisite nor requirement, neither for opposite sex nor for same sex couples.

 

Can we move on now from this irrelevant tangent?

[lawcat]

 

Can we move on now from this irrelevant tangent?

 

No we can not. Whatever you said there is completely irrelevant. yet, you refuse to acknowledge that it is not possible to combine two female strands and create a child.

[Moontanman]

I don't understand the question.

 

 

 

It is naturally impossible for two people of same sex to parent a child. Is that true?

 

No lawcat that is not true, why would you think so? I know several same sex couples who are parenting children and doing a very good job of it.

 

You stated that

 

Marriage is not protected because of religion.

 

I asked then why is marriage protected, I guess i should have said why is marriage protected from gays....

[InfiniteNow]

Whatever you said there is completely irrelevant. yet, you refuse to acknowledge that it is not possible to combine two female strands and create a child.

 

My acknowledgment is not necessary since the ability to "create a child" is only peripherally related to the institution of marriage. Two individuals are never required to prove either their ability or willingness to conceive children before being allowed to wed.

 

I don't know how many different ways I can make this point before it sinks in and you begin to grasp it.

[Moontanman]

No we can not. Whatever you said there is completely irrelevant. yet, you refuse to acknowledge that it is not possible to combine two female strands and create a child.

 

First, no as far as I know it is not possible for two female strands of DNA to be combined to make a child but I wouldn't surprise me if it can eventually be done.

 

Second that is not what you asked, you said parent a child, not conceive a child and with artificial insemination conceiving a child is irrelevant as well. Parenting does not imply conceiving a child. a great many children are parented by people who are genetically unrelated to them. male couples and female couples can and often are very good at parenting children.

[lawcat]

No lawcat that is not true, why would you think so? I know several same sex couples who are parenting children and doing a very good job of it.

 

When you come up with a way of combining two female strands to produce a fetus, let me know.

 

 

I asked then why is marriage protected, I guess i should have said why is marriage protected from gays....

 

Individuals are accorded limted constitutional protection to marry a partner of opposite sex for two reasons, neither of which is religious. One is natural: a man and a woman can conceive a child, and conitnue the family and the society. The second is history and tradition of basic economic unit of society, which is the natural family.