Gay marriage: Why not?

[TheBigDog]

Sometimes people can control such impulses, sometimes some people cannot. That does not make something a crime in and of itself. A crime is an act that violates the rights of someone else. Two consenting adults of legal age are not violating someone else's rights with the acts they commit with each other.

If they are consenting then they are both choosing, correct?

According to who, the majority? If t he majority should decide that slavery is OK should that be the standard as well?

Yes, according to the majority. Slavery is not at issue. When it was at issue it was resolved and ended. The Constitution does not allow for it. End of story.

Who's interpretation counts as to exactly what a marriage is? In your view of vows you conveniently avoid the fact that many couples compose their own vows with say nothing about sex and the fact that gay churches perform marriages where they may. You certainly cannot claims that the later involves vows between a man and woman to share a life together.

This is the heart of the matter and a great point C1ay. Law is a concensus of the people. There are other legal avenues to the ends of having the same benefits of marriage. Instead the definition of marriage is being changed. Same sex couples have other avenues to them to get the rights they claim to seek, but they instead choose to change the existing definition. So if it is just about the rights, then why is this the method they choose?

If the question of sex is irrelevant then why does it matter if two gay men or women want to marry, if for no other reason than to enjoy the same legal benefits as other couples? What if they are not even gay? What if two best friends want to marry just for the benefits of marriage?

The vows are symbolic. Marriage is a legal contract. And sexual consent is part of the contract. The fact that you suggest that any friends could get married further reenforces my argument that there is more to this issue than just "same sex marriage for people deeply in love with each other who want the same rights as everyone else". It is not anti-gay. That is just the front put up to make everyone feel guilty for opposing it.

 

Bill (we don't do this often enough C1ay :lol: :shrug: :hihi:)

[Edella]

I have yet to see a good argument as to why a law-abiding mentally competent adult member of society should not be given all the rights enjoyed by the general public regardless of sexual orientation.If anyone has one I'm listening.

 

Quote mining-

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

-Thomas Jefferson

[C1ay]

I have yet to see a good argument as to why a law-abiding mentally competent adult member of society should not be given all the rights enjoyed by the general public regardless of sexual orientation.If anyone has one I'm listening.

I do not expect that you will see one either. Most of the debate I see against it is the result of people thinking of themselves and their own ideologies as opposed to thinking of others.

[TheBigDog]

Unfortunately, it can't be only at the state level. All states have to honor all other states driver's liscences/marriage certificates, etc. If one state legalizes homosexual marriage then all states will have married gay people living in them.

This is an issue, but there is room for compromise. That is the job of the various legislative bodies. And that is the purpose of the contiued debate.

 

Bill (Swingers? :shrug: :hihi: )

[TheBigDog]

I have yet to see a good argument as to why a law-abiding mentally competent adult member of society should not be given all the rights enjoyed by the general public regardless of sexual orientation.If anyone has one I'm listening.

How would you define marriage, and who would be included and excluded?

 

Bill

[C1ay]

This is an issue, but there is room for compromise.

That would involve compromising the very foundation of the Constitution. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause is one of the cornerstones that make us a nation as opposed to a collection states.

[Zythryn]

The vows are symbolic. Marriage is a legal contract. And sexual consent is part of the contract.

 

This is not strictly true. A man or wife, can at any time revoke that consent. More accurately, many state laws indicate such consent is not automatic. A number of criminal cases have gone to court charging a husband with raping his wife. If sexual consent were part of the contract that would not be possible.

 

I would also argue that the bigger factor for homosexuals is not sex, but love. And I don't believe you have that much control over who you love (this however would be yet another thread I think:)).

 

Great discussion, thanks to all that are sharing their thoughts.

[TheBigDog]

That would involve compromising the very foundation of the Constitution. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause is one of the cornerstones that make us a nation as opposed to a collection states.

That is why to be successful there has to be a different approach taken to this issue. If it took the form of a different legal contract that doesn't fall under that clause it would have far greater success state by state.

 

Bill

[C1ay]

How would you define marriage, and who would be included and excluded?

I would let each church define marriage for itself while abolishing civil marriage in favor of civil unions. I would then favor an allowance for the government to recognize marriages as civil unions for legal purposes.

[TheBigDog]

I would let each church define marriage for itself while abolishing civil marriage in favor of civil unions. I would then favor an allowance for the government to recognize marriages as civil unions for legal purposes.

Any restrictions?

[C1ay]

If it took the form of a different legal contract that doesn't fall under that clause it would have far greater success state by state.

 

Article IV. - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

 

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

How would you draft a legal contract not covered by this?

[C1ay]

Any restrictions?

You cannot restrict a church from practicing it's religion unless it violates someone's rights so it would be difficult to limit what some churches believe in but the state has a reasonable expectation for the church to be lawful. There are some exceptions like churches that use controlled substances in their religious ceremonies. A state could reasonably use laws like statutory rape laws to prevent churches from marrying adults to children for example. Restrictions would basically fall on the state instead of the nation.

 

Civil unions would be defined by the legislatures of the states as representatives of the people so some states might allow unions that are not allowed in other states. That is already the case now if you examine the legal age to marry across the many states. You will also find though, a marriage in a state with a lower age limit must still be recognized as a marriage in a state with a higher limit because of the "Full faith and credit" clause. This would also occur with other union types across state lines.

[TheBigDog]

How would you draft a legal contract not covered by this?

Looks tough! I have heard some legal arguments on the matter that have leaned both directions. I am under the same impression as you are actually the clause mandates that all states mus accept the contracts awarded by other states. I have heard some debate on the topic that lead me to belive that there is at least a little room to work with depending upon how the contracts are drawn. They can be a contract specific to residence for instance - like tuition for people living in a state being lower than our of state.

 

Bill

[Edella]

How would you define marriage, and who would be included and excluded?

 

Bill

For the most part Bill,the definition is up to the couple,as far as the relationship goes.That's an excellent question, and have asked myself that before.I'm certainly no expert on marriage and all it entails ,but for the sake of this discussion I think we should stick to gay marriage.If you think that sounds like a cop out I would agree,but I readily admit I don't have a set definition for marriage and my knowledge is incomplete.It may change as I learn.As you've seen I do have my opinions though.Does that seem to be a fair answer?

[TheBigDog]

For the most part Bill,the definition is up to the couple,as far as the relationship goes.That's an excellent question, and have asked myself that before.I'm certainly no expert on marriage and all it entails ,but for the sake of this discussion I think we should stick to gay marriage.If you think that sounds like a cop out I would agree,but I readily admit I don't have a set definition for marriage and my knowledge is incomplete.It may change as I learn.As you've seen I do have my opinions though.Does that seem to be a fair answer?

More than fair. It is always fun to engage in civil debate. And no better place to find them than here at Hypography.

 

I like the definition given by C1ay about letting the Churches define who they allow to marry. But I would protect the Churches right to refuse marriage on any basis they see fit.

 

What really disappoints me is the the gay community didn't come up with something original and fun as their alternative to marriage. And get everyone else clamoring to do what the gay people are doing. It is a testament to the power of tradition that seems to be such a scoffed at argument that so many who are bucking tradition still need it to make themselves feel accepted.

 

Anyway, time for bed. In 30 minutes I will have heard "no" enough times and retreat to my corner of the bed. So much for the vows the SHE wrote! :shrug:

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

I've read all seven pages of this thread.

 

Let's sum up for those just joining us.

 

1)Gay people are icky.

 

I've had this argument a lot with people, since my best friend really IS gay, and it never fails to amaze me that this is the only argument ever presented. Everything else people say about gay marriage dances around this issue.

 

Claim: Society has decided that marriage is between one man and one woman!

Question: Why? It's not because of children, legal benefits or sex, so why?

 

The only answer that remains is because gay people are icky.

 

Claim: If you allow one group of (icky) people to have sex, any group of (icky) people can have sex!

Question: So? Between consenting actors what's the problem?

 

The only answer that remains is because gay people are icky.

 

There is no rational reason for denying the benefits of marriage to gay people. ZERO. The only reason you've got is that gay sex makes you uncomfortable, and let's be just REAL honest, and we'll realize we're mostly talking about gay men. Now, let's be doubly honest, and we when we think about when straight couples do what gay coupes do, it's NOT icky. In fact people pay good money to watch it! ($7.99 on pay-per-view last I looked.) So it's not about which tab goes in which slot, even, it's just that gay people are icky.

 

Well, bad news. People's rights are not contingent on their relative level of ickyness. Furthermore, other people's rights are certainly not dependent on your level of comfort.

 

As for whether being gay is a "choice" or not. There's little debate that having homosexual attractions is not a choice. (Don't believe me? Ask someone who's gay.) The question at the heart of the debate is simple - "do all people have the same right to pursue happiness?" (Or do some of you just need to keep it in your pants, because, you know, it's gross.)

 

So there you go. When someone presents to me an argument that doesn't hinge upon the fact that they think gay people are icky, I'll listen. Until then, it's just plain good old fashioned, red-blooded heterosexual white male, Christian BIGOTRY

 

TFS

[EWright]

The attraction and the impulse are not the choice. The action is the choice. And the label of "gay" comes from the action, not the impulse. The way people are define as gay is by having engaged in homosexual sex, not by who they find attractive.

 

Bill

 

Bill, you are speaking pure igorance here and based on that I will say you are ignorant person. Personally, I don't fully support gay marriage, but I am open-minded enough to consider reasons for or against it and then to make a decision based on that. In my opinion, you are not open-minded enough to deserve any more of a say on the matter than you feel gays are deservant of marriage.

 

For someone to have a valid opinion, I think it is important for them to have enough of an open mind to make rational decisions. You have shown through ignorant dialogue that you are not open-minded or rational; you are close-minded and prejudice. I am not being judgemental and have no ill-will agianst you; I am just stating my interpretation based on the evidence that you've laid out for us. You most certainly have no basis for, or right to, define homosexuality as the act of sex with, as opposed to the attraction to, someone of the same sex. You've not walked in their shoes to know.

 

Furthermore, your post on increased health benefits to support persons of the homosexual lifestyle is blatently prejudice for the fact that you make the presumtion that MARRIED homosexuals will be out sleeping with hoards of other homosexuals as opposed to honoring the sanctity of their marriage. The gays (and hetros) that are out whoring around and spreading communicable diseases are costing health care companies and those like yourself making contributions to those companies, whether marriage is in place or not.

 

If you are going to look at the sexual act as immoral, you might want to look at hetrosexuals as well. Do you do nothing immoral? Do you not view porn, lust over various women, harbor hatred toward some groups of people, have you abused drugs or alcohol or perhaps even persons close to you? There is plenty of immorality in the world, sexual and otherwise no matter what group you belong to. Your argument against gay marraige is insufficient, so either step up to the plate with a stronger and more valid argument or ST#U and stop rehashing the same tired trash.