Arguements against Gay marriage/Civil Unions

[MattM 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Live and let live ... what's the big deal?

did god create Adam and Steve?

That didn't take long!

I had a feeling that was coming too!

Matt

[shropshire 0]

The definition of a marriage is a legal one, not a religious one, so if the law states that same sex uniouns are O.K then they too are marriages...

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Johnnyskydive 0]

You're right about our argument. It started out as discussing it.....but went south quickly.

All of what is in your post....I should have written. My thoughts exactly. However....I need to learn to "cool" down before taking the same discussion else where.

Leaving marriage to religious institutions and civil unions to the government is exactly what needs to happen. I don't really see that happening however....

Johnny Skydive!

[Tink1717 2]

I have never heard ANY logical argument for banning gays from getting married. All arguments against it boil down to state enforcement of religious dogma. Whether the conservatives like it or not, the U.S. is a secular democracy. That means the state may not enforce the dogma, rules, rites or laws that apply to any and all religions. This also means the state can't restrict religious practice either.

If the state sanctions marriage and its associated rights and privileges, it does not mean that religions have to recognize or endorse it. They are free to ignore it completely.

And what of straight marriage? Well, how is it possible for someone else's marriage to affect, or weaken and destroy, the marriage of another. For six years I lived across the hall from a gay couple who got "C.U'ed " in Vermont. It didn't affect me and my then girlfriend at all. In fact, it was quite the benefit: she could go across the hall and talk to them about decorating and leave me in my decorating ignorance bliss. (They were quite the stereotypical couple.)

That being said, I can see no reason whatsoever for banning gay marriage.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[MattM 0]

Quote

The definition of a marriage is a legal one, not a religious one, so if the law states that same sex uniouns are O.K then they too are marriages...

You can't dispute laws, my views were simply personal, as I clearly stated.

Matt

[LargeBoy 0]

one up the bum, no harm done !

[Johnnyskydive 0]

As I have never heard a logical argument for banning it either.

Seems to me that SOME conservatives do have a problem realizing that we aren't a Christian state.

Johnny Skydive!

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Whether the conservatives like it or not, the U.S. is WAS a secular democracy.

Ah, nostalgia!

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[LargeBoy 0]

Quote

As I have never heard a logical argument for banning it either.

Seems to me that SOME conservatives do have a problem realizing that we aren't a Christian state.

the sooner people realise the world is a Muslim state, the better

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

By definition marriage is the joining of 2 of the opposite sex. Don't tell me everyone is going to get bent out of shape because it is called a civil union?

I knew the 'definition' as the joining of two people, with a historical presumption that it was two people of the opposite sex, and a recent drive by religious zealots to codify that distinction. But I choose to stick with the simpler one myself.

I don't know how many gays care about the name. Some probably would - Christians in particular. Some churches will in fact marry them if the law permits.

Divorcing the term marriage from the legal books and subsituting civil union would simplify matters and anyone who wants can use marriage as their religion dictates.

[shropshire 0]

fair does.

I guess that, it does not affect me directly in anyway.. but IMHO everyone should be treated the same [glib?] and with respect. The discrimination against people who want to live their lives differently from us but do not have any impact on us, is wrong and needed to be addressed (as it has been in many of our countirs now)... This can only be a step forward in our social development.

As for kids, why not. It's been shown in many studies that kids thrive in stable households, irrespective of the makeup.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't know how many gays care about the name.....
Divorcing the term marriage from the legal books and subsituting civil union would simplify matters and anyone who wants can use marriage as their religion dictates.

Both sides are terribly stuck on the semantics of it. I completely agree with just taking that stick out of the beehive as you suggest.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

taking that stick out of the beehive

Great straight line.

[Richards 0]

It doesn't affect my life so I can't see a reason to prohibit it.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[LargeBoy 0]

Quote

It doesn't affect my life so I can't see a reason to prohibit it.

Richards

well, taking heroin probably dosn't effect your life, but you wouldn't want that made legal would you?

[livendive 8]

Quote

I think all the rights that accrue to marriage need to be evaluated one at a time and then only applied where applicable to every form of family structure. Call each form of family structure whatever you want, but I'd like to remove the term "marriage" from civil arrangements and leave it for the religious only. Religious marriages should not result in any secular rights. Government licensed civil unions should only define partnering rights. Everybody gets a secular 'civil union' license that automatically invokes whatever benefits correspond.

If the government is too lazy to do that, then just eliminate all the rights that accrue to partnering and treat all adults as individuals in terms of taxation and benefits. If two people want a religious ceremony and partner up, then the government shouldn't treat it any different than housemates. If the government wants to encourage having and raising children, then any government sponsored benefits for children (education, etc) accrue to the children directly, a couple that has no children doesn't get any benefit relating to having children.....

It's easy to be objective if we stay on topic about the specific benefits etc. It's hard to when the topic goes off the 'acceptance' or 'why can't you understand' or 'what do you lose' tangents are confrontative and really just self congratulatory rhetoric that won't ever foster a productive discussion on the topic.

I think any direct benefits to secularly licensed partnering should be a simple short list that's the same for any type of partnering - inheritance to the 'spouse', hospital and medical decision making authority.....that's about it. What else needs to be there that can't just be eliminated by treating each spouse as a single? Immigration preferences for the non-citizen?

Pre-thief! That was supposed to be my post!

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Heroin may not have an effect on YOUR life...but it does on the lives of others. While someone just taking heroin might not hurt anyone, they DO hurt themselvs. Not to mention the addicts out there stealing to get their next "fix".

Johnny Skydive!

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Pre-thief! That was supposed to be my post! ***

By far the best post.....should have been what I posted.....but I let anger get in the way .

My boss says I'd make a great politician....but that I don't make a good campaign worker....seems I get to0 emotional about some issues.....

Johnny Skydive!

[Tink1717 2]

Yeah, I keep forgetting that the X-tain Taliban is in charge now.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

well, taking heroin probably dosn't effect your life, but you wouldn't want that made legal would you?

insert the standard argument about legalization.

If the price of heroin wasn't artificially high, most of the issues with it go away.

[LargeBoy 0]

Quote

Quote

well, taking heroin probably dosn't effect your life, but you wouldn't want that made legal would you?

insert the standard argument about legalization.

If the price of heroin wasn't artificially high, most of the issues with it go away.

i'd reply to your post, but i'm too off my tits on GHB

[Richards 0]

Quote

well, taking heroin probably dosn't effect your life, but you wouldn't want that made legal would you?

[Richards 0]

Quote

If the price of heroin wasn't artificially high, most of the issues with it go away.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Ending prohibition did not get rid of the gangsters. They just moved on to something else.

That's right. That's why we should legalize everything.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If heroine was legal

"heroine" n.

1) A woman noted for courage and daring action.
2) A woman noted for special achievement in a particular field.
3) The principal female character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.

Legalize heroines!

First Class Citizen Twice Over