Non-emotional argument against Gay Marriage...

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by gncnew

 

So there's your thread - just like all the others.

Equal Rights vs Religious based ideology.

Sanctity of marriage? What a load of _______. Seen the divorced rates lately?

Traditional marriage? You mean woman as property - bought - sold - married off for political stability - etc.

Just Excuses. That is all they are.

Good grief you're doing your best to go out there into rant land.

I'm simply saying that if we legalize GM - then we CANNOT stop there because it's not an option. That's the argument - not about right/wrong - not about sanctity.

Stop trying to make this into some kind of emotional attack.

I'm not. Your whole focus/concern is both fear and emotionally based. "We can't do this - because this might happen." Fear is an emotion.

Do you feel I insulted religion? All the gays I've known have been Christian.

I said Religious "ideologies". You are the one who brought up Traditional Marriage - not me

----------------------------------------------------------

This is about LEGAL Equal Rights. Currently two consenting straight people can marry. Denying the right of same gender to marry denies them the same equal rights.

Other then the Ewwww! factor - which is emotional - - - I see no reason that the government has the right to tell brother and sister they can't marry. The biological reasons should be obvious.

I see no problem with any Group marriage of consent. Why is it the governments business. But to legalize Group marriage as a LEGAL Government marriage would require extensive changes in benefits and tax breaks - etc. The laws should just be removed against it.

Animals can't give consent - - so that's a dead issue.

Minors can't give consent - - non-issue.

As I first stated. The government tax issues and benefits are already in place for a couple. What gender that couple is changes nothing. Affects nothing.

The word Marriage is already being used around the world and in US states that allow gay marriage. Can't go backwards and create 2nd class citizens. Plus it is the word on the Legal Government License.

If religious have a problem with it - - it is they who need to come up with a new word.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by gncnew

 

So there's your thread - just like all the others.

Equal Rights vs Religious based ideology.

Sanctity of marriage? What a load of _______. Seen the divorced rates lately?

Traditional marriage? You mean woman as property - bought - sold - married off for political stability - etc.

Just Excuses. That is all they are.

Good grief you're doing your best to go out there into rant land.

I'm simply saying that if we legalize GM - then we CANNOT stop there because it's not an option. That's the argument - not about right/wrong - not about sanctity.

Stop trying to make this into some kind of emotional attack.

I'm not. Your whole focus/concern is both fear and emotionally based. "We can't do this - because this might happen." Fear is an emotion.

Do you feel I insulted religion? All the gays I've known have been Christian.

I said Religious "ideologies". You are the one who brought up Traditional Marriage - not me

----------------------------------------------------------

This is about LEGAL Equal Rights. Currently two consenting straight people can marry. Denying the right of same gender to marry denies them the same equal rights.

Other then the Ewwww! factor - which is emotional - - - I see no reason that the government has the right to tell brother and sister they can't marry. The biological reasons should be obvious.

I see no problem with any Group marriage of consent. Why is it the governments business. But to legalize Group marriage as a LEGAL Government marriage would require extensive changes in benefits and tax breaks - etc. The laws should just be removed against it.

Animals can't give consent - - so that's a dead issue.

Minors can't give consent - - non-issue.

As I first stated. The government tax issues and benefits are already in place for a couple. What gender that couple is changes nothing. Affects nothing.

The word Marriage is already being used around the world and in US states that allow gay marriage. Can't go backwards and create 2nd class citizens. Plus it is the word on the Legal Government License.

If religious have a problem with it - - it is they who need to come up with a new word.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

It's much more complex than just "equal rights v/s religious ideology". There is obviously something to way we make our civil laws.

All I'm saying is that creating the precedent for GM ... WILL lead to other boundaries being pushed. And it should. If we have accepted that the government has no right to deny people of a certain status due to their sexual orientation, then the precedent is being set for all kinds of other generally accepted rules and constructs for our society to be challenged as well.

Woman's suffrage lead to black suffrage and essentially kicked off the entire "civil rights movement."

I'm not saying any of these are bad - just saying that there are unintended consequences to actions that are taken - especially on a scale of this magnitude.

Originally posted by gncnew
I'm not saying any of these are bad - just saying that there are unintended consequences to actions that are taken - especially on a scale of this magnitude.

I'm not seeing that at all.

Right now Legal Government marriage is a couple. I see zero consequences in how gender affects what is Right Now.

Right now - I see inequality denying same gender the exact same rights as opposite gender.

Let's try the positive consequences. It will make it easier for gay couples to adopt. It will create a more stable society. It will open peoples minds to accepting differences. It automatically gives a child to a surviving spouse - so they don't have to again - fight for their rights in court.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fear of what happens next - is an emotional based thought. You can choose where you put your thoughts. My choice of where I put my thoughts is in the positive.

Beyond that - - things progress - - life changes - - people want more rights on what affects them. Mosques want to be built - - and there are protests and opposition to that.

Are we "losing our religion"? We must stop other religious buildings from encroaching on "our" land. What will happen next.

It is a continuing cycle in all facets of life. We can not think in terms of denying rights - - because something might happen next. Because something is always going to happen.

It seems the new trend, if you are against gay marriage but don't want to appear offensive, is to state that government has no place in marriage or unions and should keep out of our business.

Well, newsflash smarty pants - they are already up in our business and it doesn't seem as though it's going to change anytime soon so get out of my way while I gain equal submission to their rules.

There is no non-emotional, non-religious argument against gay marriage.

As long as divorce is legal, then gay marriage should be legal as well.

That's the only argument that matters.

I just do not understand why this matters in any way any more. Religion seems to me to just keep us from coming together. Gay not gay, honestly folks who gives a crap! If your dogma makes "gm" such a hot button topic then with respect stfu and deal. You will never see me trying to show you the logic diagrams that blow your religion out of the water. Nor will i point out the flaws about the lines of demarcation the POPE made, and the millions who died. Hows the one go about the mote and beam?

Less isolation, move love!

Peace light and love

Back when I was religious, I was against gay marriage just because my mom said she read in the Bible that God hates gays( I was very narrow minded to say the least). Now days I know a few guy dudes, but I don't hang out with them or anything. It doesn't change my life if they get married or not. So have at it gays. Go have your bachelor party at the local gay bar or whatever it is you do.

reply to post by SadButTrue


is a vow of celibacy natural ?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew
I'm not saying any of these are bad - just saying that there are unintended consequences to actions that are taken - especially on a scale of this magnitude.

I'm not seeing that at all.

Right now Legal Government marriage is a couple. I see zero consequences in how gender affects what is Right Now.

Right now - I see inequality denying same gender the exact same rights as opposite gender.

Let's try the positive consequences. It will make it easier for gay couples to adopt. It will create a more stable society. It will open peoples minds to accepting differences. It automatically gives a child to a surviving spouse - so they don't have to again - fight for their rights in court.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fear of what happens next - is an emotional based thought. You can choose where you put your thoughts. My choice of where I put my thoughts is in the positive.

Beyond that - - things progress - - life changes - - people want more rights on what affects them. Mosques want to be built - - and there are protests and opposition to that.

Are we "losing our religion"? We must stop other religious buildings from encroaching on "our" land. What will happen next.

It is a continuing cycle in all facets of life. We can not think in terms of denying rights - - because something might happen next. Because something is always going to happen.

People had plenty of positive thoughts about stuff like asbestos and cigarettes. But those darned unintended consequences again.

I'll give you a quick little example:

The U.S. enacted a luxury tax in November 1990, established by Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush. Buyers of private yachts, planes, furs, jewelries and luxury cars are levied excise taxes. When luxury goods exceed certain prices, they are charged with excise taxes. For example, yachts below $100,000 are taxed at regular rates, and for yachts above $100,000, in addition to the regular rates, a 10 percent tax is charged on the excess amount.

Watching America

Sounds good right? Well here's the unintended consequences:
By 1993 the bill was repealed:

problems slowly emerge from the shortfall of luxury tax collection, and the the yacht industry took an unexpectedly hard hit. Within a year, sales plunged 70 percent, and many firms had to lay off workers and even declare bankruptcy. Large numbers of workers lost their jobs. In Florida, 13,000 yacht workers were unemployed, and related industries were also affected. The impact was significant. Ironically, the largest shortfall was in the tax revenue. After the luxury tax introduction, the 5-year tax revenue was estimated to be $9 billion. However, in its first year, the tax revenue was only a few tenths of a million dollars. In addition, the government also had to pay unemployment benefits.

You're operating in this esoteric mindset where "positive intentions" will be enough... we need to move past that and get to the guts of things to really evaluate it.

Originally posted by Garfee
It seems the new trend, if you are against gay marriage but don't want to appear offensive, is to state that government has no place in marriage or unions and should keep out of our business.

Well, newsflash smarty pants - they are already up in our business and it doesn't seem as though it's going to change anytime soon so get out of my way while I gain equal submission to their rules.

There is no non-emotional, non-religious argument against gay marriage.

Really? There is none? Why? My argument isn't as much "against GM" as it is against the emotional response for GM. We are failing to look at the big picture and getting all wrapped up in the "feel" of the issue.

Bad practice...

Originally posted by JimmyJim
Back when I was religious, I was against gay marriage just because my mom said she read in the Bible that God hates gays( I was very narrow minded to say the least). Now days I know a few guy dudes, but I don't hang out with them or anything. It doesn't change my life if they get married or not. So have at it gays. Go have your bachelor party at the local gay bar or whatever it is you do.

Your mom lied. The Bible doesn't say that at all. In fact, while it does say that dudes shouldn't sleep with dudes and girls... actually it doesn't say anything about girls - so have at it ladies.

Anyway, the dudes not laying with dudes thing is a social construct meant to try and keep the early Israelites from destroying their society before it was formed. There are/is LOTS of "rules" in the Bible modern Christians don't follow or selectively interpret.

So relating GM arguments to religion is really a ploy to try and remove the ability to debate the subject by "demonizing" the other side.

Originally posted by Garfee
There is no non-emotional, non-religious argument against gay marriage.

Originally posted by gncnew
Really? There is none? Why? My argument isn't as much "against GM" as it is against the emotional response for GM. We are failing to look at the big picture and getting all wrapped up in the "feel" of the issue.

Bad practice...

I agree there is none.

What big picture? Other countries have had gay marriage for years - - and it changed nothing in the negative.

If anything - - a fringe society group - - now a part of society is a positive thing.

Fear is the only argument - - and that is not really an argument. It is an unfounded projection.

Originally posted by gncnew

People had plenty of positive thoughts about stuff like asbestos and cigarettes. But those darned unintended consequences again.

You do realize that other countries have allowed gay marriage right?

As for your so called "logical" argument against gay marriage: Incest (As Long As They Don't Have Children) and Polygamy is fine. Pedophilia is illegal, and besides: is there any actual argument against allowing only consenting adults to marry? Well at least you didn't include bestiality, so there's that.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Garfee
There is no non-emotional, non-religious argument against gay marriage.

Originally posted by gncnew
Really? There is none? Why? My argument isn't as much "against GM" as it is against the emotional response for GM. We are failing to look at the big picture and getting all wrapped up in the "feel" of the issue.

Bad practice...

I agree there is none.

What big picture? Other countries have had gay marriage for years - - and it changed nothing in the negative.

If anything - - a fringe society group - - now a part of society is a positive thing.

Fear is the only argument - - and that is not really an argument. It is an unfounded projection.

edit on 27-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Really? What other countries have had GM for years? And how are you sure it changed nothing in the negative? Social order is descending into chaos all over the world. I'm not even trying to propose that GM is the cause, but to say there is no link to our new found "acceptance" doctrine and the loss of decency and decorum in modern society is just putting on blinders.

It's a little early to tell in Argentina since they just adopted it in 2010. Are we really going to look to Belgium to decide what's good for a society - or Iceland for that matter?

Now... Canada is interesting... But they handled - well - pretty much the way I said it would HAVE to go:

Civil Marriage Act defined marriage throughout Canada as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

Reading that - you see the language already put into place. "Two persons to the exclusion of all others". All it's going to take is a person who doesn't care about the social taboo to challenge incest or other extremes.

Again - you are taking this as some kind of attack on homosexuality or GM. I've stated at the outset that I've never had a real beef with it and I don't think it's something we should be legislating.

You're trying to project a sense of hysteria onto anyone who criticizes GM like they're all homophobes - and it's simply not true.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by gncnew

People had plenty of positive thoughts about stuff like asbestos and cigarettes. But those darned unintended consequences again.

You do realize that other countries have allowed gay marriage right?

As for your so called "logical" argument against gay marriage: Incest (As Long As They Don't Have Children) and Polygamy is fine. Pedophilia is illegal, and besides: is there any actual argument against allowing only consenting adults to marry? Well at least you didn't include bestiality, so there's that.

I didn't include bestiality because that's just completely jumping the shark (so to speak). I think that the whole "people will start marrying horses" argument is complete idiocy.

The point about the cigarettes and such is only to show that there are unintended consequences to things we legislate and sometimes it takes decades to realize them.

It seems to me that everyone is taking the quick knee jerk reaction to this whole debate and jumping to a "for" or "against" side without rationally thinking about the whole picture.

Originally posted by gncnew
consequences again.
The point about the cigarettes and such is only to show that there are unintended consequences to things we legislate and sometimes it takes decades to realize them.

There is no way I am going to compare humans to cigarettes.

That is complete idiocy to me.

And yes - I get what point you are trying to make - - and don't agree in the comparison. I think its way off.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew
consequences again.
The point about the cigarettes and such is only to show that there are unintended consequences to things we legislate and sometimes it takes decades to realize them.

There is no way I am going to compare humans to cigarettes.

That is complete idiocy to me.

And yes - I get what point you are trying to make - - and don't agree in the comparison. I think its way off.

meh, fair enough. Guess agree to disagree?

dble post

Originally posted by gncnew
But here's where I started going - if we legalize GM - we are in essence redefining the construct of marriage. We are establishing that marriage is the union of people - regardless of sex - that are vowing commitment to each other - and therefore have certain rights under the laws of the state.

How is that redefining marriage? Here's what you said marriage is:

Originally posted by gncnew
Essentially the legal idea of marriage (in a nutshell) is two people becoming legally bonded together. This pertains to financial matters, medical matters, legal matters, as well as certain other inherited rights and privileges. It's really the only construct we have to equate two people into "family" after the age of 18.

Two gay people who want to marry fit perfectly into that construct. Nothing has been redefined, redesigned - nothing changed or messed with. Just two people becoming legally bonded together.

Why is marriage limited to only two people? Polygamy becomes in play as well if we're reconstructing what defines a legal "marriage".

I have no problem with polygamy whatsoever, providing all are willing participants.

If our criteria are only that we have consenting adults - wait... why stop there? Why can't a 12 year old girl marry a 40 year old man?

Because the criterion is consenting adults.

This is the crux of the argument. Not that somehow homosexuality is equivalent to insest or child sexual abuse - but that we're essentially arguing over the constructs that define a marriage and how it's based upon our long held conventions that a marriage is between a man and woman, at, or over, the age of majority, who are not related, and not otherwise married.

But there really is no definition of marriage that encompasses all marriages. Each couple defines their marriage. It's a personal relationship, the construct of which is up to the persons involved. You say it's based on our "long held conventions that a marriage is between a man and woman", but not everyone shares those conventions. And as our society changes and grows, more and more people define marriage as something more unconventional than just one man, one woman.

People are still free to define their marriage any way they wish, just as they always have been, but insisting that everyone in a society agree on one state-sanctioned definition is asking for way too much. I have a very unique marriage and no one can redefine, restructure or in any way affect MY marriage, no matter if dogs are marrying cats or robots are marrying cars or old men are marrying pigeons. MY marriage is what I (and my spouse) define it to be and it always shall be. It's MINE.