Gay marriage: Why not?

[TheBigDog]

If you're heterosexual and do not act on those impulses are you not heterosexual?

The celebate are arguably heterosexual. I would consider it the "default" biological setting.

 

Bill

[Jay-qu]

ok then I agree they should get said benefits that are intitled to married couples, maybe this should be taken up with the companies, if they dont want to support gay couples then thats their choice.

[infamous]

Not in America Infy,if the majority of people wanted racial group X to not vote how do you think that would go over?

I think several people here have missed my point entirely. You mention vote and that is exactly how we make our laws, by voting for the representative of our choice. Our nation of laws is a direct reflection of the general will of the people, or at lest, should be. Personally, I'm against gay marriage but as I stated earlier, the will of the people should decide these issues and at present, a majority of Americans side with my view on the subject.........Infy

[Zythryn]

I am still curious, other than 'becuase it is tradition' is there any reason for this stance?

 

As for majority rules, I think the USA could turn into something very ugly if we set all laws and our constitution by majority of the populace. If we want to go that way, instead of following polls I would recommend we instigate avoting system such that each person truly gets one vote, and all votes are counted. However, that is going off on a tangent, perhaps for another thread?

[infamous]

 

As for majority rules, I think the USA could turn into something very ugly if we set all laws and our constitution by majority of the populace.

If not by the popular will of the people, then how? By your standards, by mine, or maybe the fellow down the street??? Or maybe we should allow another nation to decide, maybe France, maybe the UN. Democracy...........How do you define it?.......................Infy

[Edella]

I respect everyones position,but is there something besides tradition or majority that can be brought up to justify these current and potential laws?Traditions are not always right and the majority can be wrong.I'm not comfortable with homosexual relations,but that's my problem.I think a gay man or woman can be a produtive member of society, and as such be given the same benefits of that society. I think I'll do less talking and listen for a while.

[Edella]

Edit Same question asked twice.Sorry Infy

[TheBigDog]

I am still curious, other than 'becuase it is tradition' is there any reason for this stance?

 

As for majority rules, I think the USA could turn into something very ugly if we set all laws and our constitution by majority of the populace. If we want to go that way, instead of following polls I would recommend we instigate avoting system such that each person truly gets one vote, and all votes are counted. However, that is going off on a tangent, perhaps for another thread?

Not because it is tradition. Because it is law. I would ask what is the purpose to expanding the law to include same sex couples? It is a typical tactic to frame one side of the argument as "negative" to make that argument seem wrong from the outset. What is the benefit of same sex marriage, and were are the new bounds of marriage?

 

If it is for legal benefits do people need to be gay to have a same sex marriage? Could I have married my best friend when he was my roomate so that he could have shared my medical benefits? How about my two single sisters with kids who live together? Should they be allowed to share their benefits like a married couple does?

 

One of the reason's not to do this is because of the cost. (everyone pile on for my bringing money in as an issue) The rates we pay for insurance are based upon heterosexual marriages and children. My insurance rates are currently insulated from the costs associated with a homosexual lifestyle by the current marriage laws. So by changing the laws it will cost all insured heterosexuals more for their health insurance than it does today.

 

Unless of course it will be legal for insurance companies to charge a higher rate for the "risky" lifestyle of being homosexual. Think that will stand up in court?

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

Infy,again,if the majority of people wanted racial group X to not vote how do you think that would go over?

Are you talking about non-native Hawaiian people in Hawaii not having a vote? That is currently before the Senate. It is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be law no matter how the vote turns out. What are you trying to prove by making this comparison? We are talking about defining social norms, not about legal rights. There is a distinct difference between having a say in your government by voting and being able to marry as you please.

 

Bill

[Erasmus00]

There is a distinct difference between having a say in your government by voting and being able to marry as you please.

 

Except when marriage also implies legal rights and benefits. I think the problem people have is that heterosexual couples can marry, and recieve tax benefit, estate planning benefits, government benefits, employment benefits, medical beneifts, death benefits, housing benefits, consumer benefits, etc. Homosexual couples are largely denied the same. It could be argued that voting is small in comparison.

-Will

[Edella]

I was referring to Infy's statment " In a Democracy, majority rules".He used it as a reason for for denying same sex couples marriage.I used the right to vote simply as an example of a right denied a group.

We are talking about defining social norms, not about legal rights.

Are you serious?Isn't this about the legality of same sex marriage?Agree with me or not, it is about the legality of same sex marriage. Read the initial question.

[Zythryn]

Are you talking about non-native Hawaiian people in Hawaii not having a vote? That is currently before the Senate. It is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be law no matter how the vote turns out. What are you trying to prove by making this comparison? We are talking about defining social norms, not about legal rights. There is a distinct difference between having a say in your government by voting and being able to marry as you please.

 

Bill

 

 

BD, Ella, I believe, was addressing Infi's point about the polling of the majority should set laws in the USA. For example, if a poll was taken in the nation that asked if we should allow Arabs to vote, and the poll came back indicating a majority said no, should that then be law?

 

As for social norms, it was not a social norm for a black man to marry a white woman in 1967, yet the laws prohibiting that were struck down.

 

I think marriage should be prohibited when the marraige causes harm or when either of the people entering the marriage can't be expected to understand what it means. This would proclude children, and situations where one person is in a coma or some such effect.

 

As for bringing money into the subject, no issue here. I agree with you paying increased insurance costs seems unfair. I would like to thank you for paying a higher rate to help me cover my diabetic supplies.

We both pay higher home owners rates for all those people that enjoy living on the gulf and south-east coasts in the US. And, I suspect we pay the price of insuring homosexuals already, although you are right, that may increase.

I also don't like having to pay more insurance becuase some people don't want to wear their motorcycle helmets or seatbelts:)

[C1ay]

Something to think about:

 

Principles of Democracy - Majority Rule, Minority Rights

 

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

 

• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
   
  
• Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.
   
  
• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.
   
  
• Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.
   
  
• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.
   
  
• Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.
   
  
• There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.
  

 

Source

 

To date there is not one amendment that takes away anything that anyone is born with. There is not one scientist anywhere that can prove that sexual orientation is not biological for some, we just don't know. Why should the majority rush to an unprovable conclusion and rob anyone of the benefit of a doubt? Shouldn't everyone be able to enjoy who they are as long as they are not infringing on the rights of someone else? Remember, we are all members of one minority or another.

[Racoon]

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of citizens are beginning to realize that this issue is only brought up to distract the people, and bring out around election time those who will vote purely on one or two hot button issues... but tell me,

 

What are the reasons used to support and justify laws which might be enacted to prevent marriage between homosexual partners?

 

Ah Geez Infinite Now... :hihi:

I wish this issue would just shrivel up and go away. (distraction indeed)

Who cares?

Let 'em get married, or at least grant legal entitlements of marriage under Civil Unions. :confused:

 

Do I want to know which guy wears the Wedding Dress? NO!

[InfiniteNow]

It seems that so far no real reasons have been brought up besides:

 

1) It's illegal

2) Tradition

3) Personal discomfort with the idea of homosexuality (hmmm... two women never seemed so bad in the mind, why not two men? Give me a break. Double standards much?)

 

I knew I'd be hitting the hornet's nest with this one, but really everyone, there are no valid reasons to support it, are there?

 

I'm about to start a new thread. Link below:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/7088-law-how-gay-different-than-_blank_.html

 

 

Some points.

 

It would make sense for gays to be sympathetic to this heart felt tradition and opt for another word to describe the social status they are looking for. Most people would be sympathetic to a new label, since they would not become a victim of a minority.

It would make even more sense for society to be sympathetic to the hearts and minds of everyone, offering the same options to someone who is gay as to someone who is not. Isn't this the "freedom" that our troops keep dying for?

 

 

If we want to go that way, instead of following polls I would recommend we instigate avoting system such that each person truly gets one vote, and all votes are counted. However, that is going off on a tangent, perhaps for another thread?

The thread below is really good. Linked is a quick suggestion I made to webenton (aka TheBigDog):

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/5030-democracy-3.html?#post77948

 

 

Not because it is tradition. Because it is law. I would ask what is the purpose to expanding the law to include same sex couples? What is the benefit of same sex marriage, and were are the new bounds of marriage?

Your logic seems to imply that laws are never wrong. I think you're too smart to think that. Anyway, to answer your question, it's about equal opportunity Bill. It's about eliminating yet another form of discrimination, not supporting it, and growing as a culture.

 

If it is for legal benefits do people need to be gay to have a same sex marriage? Could I have married my best friend when he was my roomate so that he could have shared my medical benefits? How about my two single sisters with kids who live together? Should they be allowed to share their benefits like a married couple does?

Well, we are a free society, aren't we? :shrug: I may not agree with your choices, but it's not my place to make them for you.

 

 

One of the reason's not to do this is because of the cost. (everyone pile on for my bringing money in as an issue) The rates we pay for insurance are based upon heterosexual marriages and children. My insurance rates are currently insulated from the costs associated with a homosexual lifestyle by the current marriage laws. So by changing the laws it will cost all insured heterosexuals more for their health insurance than it does today.

And homosexuals who love and respect their partners are not provided the exact same benefits that a heterosexual couple is, as pointed out by Erasmus.

Except when marriage also implies legal rights and benefits. I think the problem people have is that heterosexual couples can marry, and recieve tax benefit, estate planning benefits, government benefits, employment benefits, medical beneifts, death benefits, housing benefits, consumer benefits, etc. Homosexual couples are largely denied the same.

Your argument about your insurance rates going up is a bit weak. Why are your finances more important (on a societal level) than those of someone who is homosexual?

 

 

Anyway, thanks for the input everyone. I'd still like to see some more valid reasons (even one) why we should support this form of discrimination on a national level.

 

 

Natural and unalienable rights, unless your gay? Come on...

[InfiniteNow]

Quite right BigDog, and one other good reason: The vast majority of American citizens are against it. I personally think that's a pretty good reason....................................Infy

I really don't think this is the case, Infy. I think that those who are polled will say they are against it, but is the sample really representative of our population as a WHOLE? Maybe I'm wrong, and my views are in the minority, but it just seems so ignorant to me.

 

Is this 2006 or 1006?

[Edella]

Maybe heterosexuality should be the official sexuality of the United States?:shrug: