quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: [QUOTE]Marriage can be for the churches.[/QUOTE} I'm unwilling to cede that to religion. If you're just using that as shorthand for "not the government" though, that's fine, but I'd appreciate the clarification.
What I was thinking was more not the government and also the idea that each individual religion can decide what they want to count or not count. I didn't intend it to mean that an atheist couple could never call themselves married.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: ... I deny that my taxes should be used to either endorse or license these activities (regardless of whether the participants are hetero-, homo-, bi-, tri-, quadro- or whatever else), or to officially proclaim things that simply aren't true, and that includes denying the correct definition of words.
Why is the way you define "marriage" the correct way? As has been pointed out already in this thread, marriage has meant many different things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't each individual religion already decide what counts as a "real" marriage? I suppose some religious organizations that receive government funds may be compelled to provide benefits to the partners of "fake" marriages, but that's merely an administrative requirement and doesn't force the organization to recognize those relationships as being sanctioned by their doctrine. "I must give your gay partner health benefits" does not equate to "I believe homosexuality is moral."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there is a fear that if the government sanctions ssm, religions will have to as well. My mother, for example, is fine with ssm as long as they don't make her church change their marriage standards. It doesn't hurt to say changing x won't change y.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not familiar at all with the law on this, but I don't think any church is required to marry anyone that they do not want to. Regardless, some of the SSM marriage legislation that I've seen has included a provision that churches not be required to perform these marriages or otherwise recognize them in non-secular contexts.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This argument, and most others that are now made against gay marriage, were used to justify the laws we used to have against interracial marriage. Why are these arguments more valid in this situation?
Haven't said they are. Haven't said I agree with them. Haven't said how much weight they should receive. But it is an argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature, which was what was being discussed when I posted it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case I'd just submit that they are not very good arguments that when it comes to civil rights issues that most people would agree that these arguments are not sufficient.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But their existence disproves the assertion that the only reason anyone would be against gay marriage is because of religious beliefs, which was my point.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'll find very few people putting forth these secular arguments who don't *also* have religious arguments against SSM. These arguments are put forth in leui of the religious arguments because the religious arguments are indefensible in a secular government. So while these arguments are secular, their *cause* is religious.
Additionally, these arguments do not appear to have any merit. They are "the sky will fall" conjectures rather than reasoned conclusions based on data.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Matt, I agree with Chris on this one.
While many people with Religious arguments against Gay Marriage exist, I find that the majority of arguments made against it are either non-religious, or weak in the religion.
Its Cultural.
They think gay sex is icky, they've been raised to think it is icky, and they don't like it so they look for any reason to be against it, whether that is a religious reason or a secular one, or just grabbing at straws.
Some don't want to be forced to witness two guys kissing.
I don't blame them as that is not a scene that I appreciate.
But I would rather turn my head than deny that such love could exist.
Some don't want to explain to their kids that what other people are doing is against their code of ethics, but is not illegal.
I don't want to explain to my children that something they may feel is illegal, or at least legally required to remain secondary.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I think that gay sex is icky too. That's not a reason for me to actively oppose granting equal rights to those who practice it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: This argument, and most others that are now made against gay marriage, were used to justify the laws we used to have against interracial marriage. Why are these arguments more valid in this situation?
Haven't said they are. Haven't said I agree with them. Haven't said how much weight they should receive. But it is an argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature, which was what was being discussed when I posted it.
Not all arguments are equal. Even opponents of same sex marriage realize how lame the secular arguments are. Pathetic, really. That's why they're so infrequently heard: people don't like being laughed at.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think mushrooms are icky. Yet people use them to ruin so many otherwise wonderful italian dishes.
They FLAUNT their nasty repulsive mushrooms in my face!
I don't want to see it, I don't want to smell it and I sure as hell am sick of biting into a pizza and finding one hiding under the pepperoni.
BAN MUSHROOMS!!!!!!!!!
And while we're at it, WWE annoys the holy living hell out of me. It re-enforces a stereotype of men as disgusting, loud mouthed, vain glorious reprobates.
So let's ban that too.
ORRRRRR we could just realize that everyone is different, and that is a good and glorious thing. Philosophically, all our liberties stim from the fact that we're all different and like different things. If we were all the same, we would need no freedom. The government could give us a Happiness script when we were born and we'd never have to do any thinking or worrying or anything else, we'd just follow the script and have a happy boring life.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that legallising gay marriage in Canada has yet to cause implosion.
Of course, Canada is pretty different from the 'States. I was just reading yesterday about a Lutheran church in Newmarket ordaining a (married) gay man.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: ORRRRRR we could just realize that everyone is different, and that is a good and glorious thing. Philosophically, all our liberties stim from the fact that we're all different and like different things.
I don't see that as where our liberties stem from.
Since it was asked earlier, I want to point out my reasons for opposing SSM. I've given them in other threads. I oppose legal recognition of SSM because I don't recognize the validity of the relationship, and I believe marriage is nothing more than a recognition of the society of the validity of the relationship. Inasmuch as marriage is a social construct, I feel offended that the state forces me to give consent when I oppose it.
If you want to talk about other rights, real rights, like visitation and inheritance, I'm open to it. What I oppose, and will continue to oppose, is being compelled to mouth the words to an oath of acceptance when in my heart I reject it. I don't believe marriage is a "right" and I don't grant that "love is all you need."
On a side note, related to something interesting William Saletan wrote when gay marriage was first recognized in MA, what is the ideological basis for preventing siblings from marrying, if not the "ick" factor? The only argument I've heard not involving "ick" was about children, but happily technology has progressed to a point where that no longer needs to be an issue. I think there is as much ideological reasoning behind outlawing sibling marriage as there is gay marriage; should the state recognize siblings' "right" to marry?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: What frustrated me (in MA) was the way the amendment supporters tried to frame the issue as one of political process, rather than ideology. Except that at no point had the political process been subverted. When the amendment wasn't voted on, due to the convention being closed prior to it coming to the floor, there were rules that were followed to make it so. And when the vote was taken, and it didn't pass, the proper process had occurred. Now, people complained of backroom deals, but look at it this way: the fact that these backroom deals worked strongly suggests that the the citizen's representatives decided school and road funding was more important than barring homosexuals from legal marriage. Obviously they weren't such strong supporters of the amendment to begin with, IMO.
Sorry to post twice in a row.
I understand your interpretation; I didn't think it was crooked, but I thought it was pretty cowardly to bury it the way they did. I mean, support or oppose, but have the debate; hashing out these hot button issues is one of the primary functions of the legislature. And this seems like a generation-defining social issue. So while I understand that there is business to be done, firefighters to be paid, schools to be built, etc. I think the amount of time and public interest invested in the debate warranted a more transparent handling by the legislature.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some don't want to be forced to witness two guys kissing.
There was a time when propriety didn't allow men and women to be seen kissing in public (other than a quick peck goodbye at the train station). I think it was a good idea. Propriety and privacy are way underrated in today's society. I don't want to see anybody making out in public, gay or straight.
But whatever's ok for straight couples, I don't have any problem with it for gay couples. And if people don't want to allow gay marriage because it makes them feel icky, I gotta wonder why they don't feel icky when they see straight couples doing the same thing.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't agree with some of Senej's post, he makes a valid point with the sibling marriage analogy.
I recognize that using the unable to procreate argument would also make marriage between infertile heterosexual couples invalid, therefore I am willing to concede that that this argument is invalid in this case. (Although if we applied Immanuel Kant's law of universality [which by the way I find to be the best philosophical definition on how to define what is moral.] it would lead to the extinction of the race and thus be proven immoral)
Therefore, I will bring up the second purpose of marriage, the upbringing of children. In a closed society, you have stagnation. If everyone is the same, then there is never any innovation. A diverse society has been proven to advance much more quickly then a closed stagnant one.
A family is essentially a society, I don't know what the consequences would be if you had three boys raised exclusively by two men. Or even if you were a girl and being raised by two men. I don't know if there is a denial per se, but if I were raised by two women.
To quote my female friend sitting next to me. "If I were raised by two men, I would feel cursed to be a woman that my parents felt no attraction to. If at least one of them didn't love women, how could they love me?"
I'm not in anyway saying that parents should be sexually attracted to their children, but there is a validation there in knowing that at least one of them is especially attracted to your gender, and that the other one is your gender. I'm not promoting an Oedipus complex.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what the consequences would be if you had three boys raised exclusively by two men.
Your question presumes the two men are identical. Neither having strengths to bolster the other's weaknesses, neither having personality differences.
It also assumes there will be no other influences on the child's life whatsoever.
The question only makes sense, in fact, if you assume that all male-female set of parents provide the requisite male and female characteristics for "proper" child rearing.
To answer your female friend, I would point out that she would be raised by two men who loved her and who might understand her better than a heterosexual father might. But mostly I don't understand the question. All gay men hate women? Really? Gay men may not be physically attracted to women, but there can certainly be deep bonds love and affection in their relationships. And these hypothetical gay parents would love their child, hopefully, for exactly the same reasons any parent does.
Gay people have raised children, secretly and very openly, for a very long time. Check any of the many gay foster parent families and see how those children are turning out.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Both of these relationships have produced children with special needs, although whether this resulted from their parents' biological proximity is unclear.
Some geneticists put the risk of producing a disabled child as high as 50%, but this is hotly debated. Opponents of the incest ban also argue there are double standards, noting that no-one would ban those with hereditary diseases from reproducing.
In some countries, the law has tried to take into account the risks while legalising incest in certain circumstances. In Brazil, an uncle and niece may have a relationship provided they undergo health checks.
In parts of the US, first cousins may marry if they are beyond reproductive age or ability.
This last bit is interesting precedent on the issue of marriage being for the purpose of reproduction. Seems like there should have been a stink if these states say it's ok for first cousins to get married as long as the man gets a vasectomy.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think when most of those laws were written that way, the possibility of volunary sterilization wasn't really on the radar.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Oh, and interestingly, a few states, or at least one, actually allow first-cousin marriage with two fertile partners, last I heard.
And actually, as long as that is a one-time event, not repeated, and there is no family propensity toward genetic disease, first-cousin marriage does not pose more of a risk than marriage between unrelated folk. It's only when cousin marriage is repeated generation after generation that the gene pool is likely to get "polluted." Thorough genetic screening before marriage is recommended, though, to make sure there aren't some recessive markers hiding in there that could cause problems.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
"Since it was asked earlier, I want to point out my reasons for opposing miscegenation... I oppose legal recognition of miscegenation because I don't recognize the validity of the relationship, and I believe marriage is nothing more than a recognition of the society of the validity of the relationship. Inasmuch as marriage is a social construct, I feel offended that the state forces me to give consent when I oppose it.
If you want to talk about other rights, real rights, like visitation and inheritance, I'm open to it. What I oppose, and will continue to oppose, is being compelled to mouth the words to an oath of acceptance when in my heart I reject it. I don't believe marriage is a "right" and I don't grant that "love is all you need." "
Is this argument any worse, in any meaningful manner?
Perhaps law, and other people's rights, aren't to be based on what we like or dislike... but on freedom, instead?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I understand your interpretation; I didn't think it was crooked, but I thought it was pretty cowardly to bury it the way they did. I mean, support or oppose, but have the debate; hashing out these hot button issues is one of the primary functions of the legislature. And this seems like a generation-defining social issue. So while I understand that there is business to be done, firefighters to be paid, schools to be built, etc. I think the amount of time and public interest invested in the debate warranted a more transparent handling by the legislature.
I hear you, but it was debated in the general public. I don't know what the legislators of MA could have added to the discussion in that regard.
I feel for you, Senoj. I don't envy your position of being alienated in your own local society. I'm glad you've stuck around though. You're good people
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I feel for you, Senoj. I don't envy your position of being alienated in your own local society. I'm glad you've stuck around though. You're good people
-Bok
Thanks, Bok. The feeling's mutual.
Or are you just angling for an invite to our sweet new digs out in Lexington? Cause this house is awesome (it should be after all we went through to get into it).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the no-gay-marriage=moral castration argument.
The only Moral sex allowed is between a married couple.
So no sex until you are married.
But a gay man can never get married to another man, so that is no sex ever.
Ever.
Sure, he could have sex outside of marriage, but that would be sinful.
He could force himself to marry a woman, but if he loves another man that is living a lie, and every lie would be a sin.
Is it more sinful for a man to love another man, or for a man to live a lie?
Hence for a man to be moral and to be gay, he might as well be castrated.
Of course the solution is to get married in a church that performs such rights. Then he could be married, even if the state doesn't count it as such, and have sex and be moral.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Wait for the stream to load completely (listen to the first act while you wait... it's hilarious.)
Cue to 39:40, where Act 4 starts.
It's a story told by Dan Savage, a gay man, about an experience he had with his adopted son. It's not specifically about gay parents vs. straight parents. But it's a sweet and funny story, and it's a good example of what a gay parent might really be like.
Decide for yourself, but it doesn't sound like the destruction of society to me.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The U.S. is virtually alone among developed nations in outlawing marriage among first cousins. European countries have no such prohibition. In some cultures, particularly Islamic ones, first-cousin marriage is encouraged. Even in the U.S. laws forbidding the practice are far from universal. First-cousin marriage is currently illegal or restricted in 31 states. (Some states allow it if there's no chance of procreation--interesting in light of conservative opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that the institution's function is to produce children.) It's legal in the rest--and no, Kentucky and West Virginia aren't among the permissive ones. Try California and New York.
posted
Darth_Mauve's argument is exactly the one I'd give if I wanted to present a religious/moralist argument against gay marriage.
I think it may be important to stress that the state marriage is separate from the religious marriage, as has been touched upon. That is, a legal regognition of certain types of marriage that you would religiously reject is perfectly viable, and happens even sans the gay marriage issue.
For instance, in the Catholic Church, if a person marries, divorces, and remarries under the state law, and is not granted annulment by the Catholic Church, the Church does not recognize the second marriage, and would even claim the person is still bound by the first marriage, which the state dissolved. This is an example of a religion diverging heavily with the state interpretation of marriage, and it's done with a straight face.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: I recognize that using the unable to procreate argument would also make marriage between infertile heterosexual couples invalid, therefore I am willing to concede that that this argument is invalid in this case. (Although if we applied Immanuel Kant's law of universality [which by the way I find to be the best philosophical definition on how to define what is moral.] it would lead to the extinction of the race and thus be proven immoral)
Kant's law of universality doesn't apply here because marriage is not necessary for procreation (example: nearly every other animal species in existence).
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Therefore, I will bring up the second purpose of marriage, the upbringing of children. In a closed society, you have stagnation. If everyone is the same, then there is never any innovation. A diverse society has been proven to advance much more quickly then a closed stagnant one.
A family is essentially a society, I don't know what the consequences would be if you had three boys raised exclusively by two men. Or even if you were a girl and being raised by two men. I don't know if there is a denial per se, but if I were raised by two women.
This is a tenuous argument. I disagree with your assumption that two men = "stagnant" while one man and one woman = "diverse". Even if I accepted those assumptions, it would not be fair to ban ssm on the basis of a thought experiment.
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: To quote my female friend sitting next to me. "If I were raised by two men, I would feel cursed to be a woman that my parents felt no attraction to. If at least one of them didn't love women, how could they love me?"
I'm not in anyway saying that parents should be sexually attracted to their children, but there is a validation there in knowing that at least one of them is especially attracted to your gender, and that the other one is your gender. I'm not promoting an Oedipus complex.
You claim that a "validation [exists] in knowing that at least one of [your parents] is especially attracted to your gender." I don't see a reason why this should be true. I know that I've never felt that way.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out to the Mormons that the same "tolerance" that you hate is the same "tolerance" from which you benefit. I have some Mormon-bashing friends, but I don't join in. Why? Because I know you guys, and I know the LDS church is probably no more shitty than any other organization of a similar size. How did I learn? Through being willing to listen. I listened. I'm not gay, but I hope you would be willing to do the same for gays who want to marry.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, I don't think (most of) the LDS folks on this forum hate the "tolerance" you speak of, and I think there are plenty of people besides the LDS here that have legitimate concerns over the allowance of ssm in our society.
It really is ok for people to be concerned about the effect of a major change in policy on the quality of our society, and to argue for or against the proposed change. This is the process of civic discourse.
I also think the candor of the discussion on this thread demonstrates that everyone involved has been willing to listen to different viewpoints than their own. Making an appeal to "tolerance" is generally only helpful when this isn't the case.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Both sides of this argument are using the same tactic, or perhaps its the reverse of the same tactic.
At first I labeled the "Leads to" as a slippery slope argument, not backed up with any facts that merit debate.
I was wrong.
It is a Comparative argument, the exact same definition argument that the other side uses when they mention inter-racial marriage.
We've heard the arguments that "If you allow gays to marry, then the xxx will be next." XXX has been Polygamists, Incest, Pedophiles, and yes--the famed bestiality / Goat.
These are not just Slipper Slope arguments, that this is the first step towards a distant disaster. This is an attempt to define homosexuality in the same category of deviant behavior, behavior of choice, that the others are perpetrators of.
The pro-marriage (I hesitate to use the initials SSM, since it is so close to S&M, a term for sexual deviance involving pain and humiliation. I wonder who has spent the most time championing those initials in order to sway the argument, but that is a post for another day.) people argue that the same reasons given to deny the marriages were used to deny inter-racial marriages, inter-faith marriages, and even cross tribal marriages centuries ago.
This is another attempt to define homosexuality, not as an optional behavior such as polygamy, but as a facet of a person, like race, nationality, or the faith you are born into.
Here we come to a standstill.
You can argue all you want about the appropriateness, safety, and health effects of bestiality, incest, and inter-racial marriages. Neither side will be convinced, because both sides have already cemented their own definition of homosexuality.
Until we can determine the true definition, is homosexuality a choice or an unchangeable facet of that individual, we won't come to any agreement.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"but there is a validation there in knowing that at least one of them is especially attracted to your gender, and that the other one is your gender. "
That's a very weird argument. I'm not married and I don't have children yet.
But one thing I do know is that my love for my children should by far exceed and be more obvious to them than my love for their *gender* in general.
If that female friend of yours needs to recognize her father's sexual attraction to women in general before she can recognize his paternal love for her, then something very weird and twisted is already happening...
quote:Until we can determine the true definition, is homosexuality a choice or an unchangeable facet of that individual, we won't come to any agreement.
I'm not convinced the choice-or-unchangeable is actually an important question at all, even though it tends to be presented as such by people in both sides.
What does it really matter if it's a choice or not? How does that affect anything -- other than perhaps some irrelevant discussions on the topic of sin, that shouldn't be injected in the issue of civil marriage anyway?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily, the United States doesn't recognize "sin" in its laws. And the Bible isn't part of the law either. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sin isn't being homosexual, it is engaging in a homosexual act, just as it is a sin for straight people to have sex outside of marriage. I also know heterosexual people who due to their beliefs and circumstances believe that anything but a celibate life would be a sin. So, for religious people, whether or not homosexuality is a choice does not matter.
However, as Jhai says, sin isn't how we determine our laws, so it really doesn't matter.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Homosexuality probably has both genetic and learned components. Plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior regularly. Plenty of traditional tribes engage in homosexual behavior, and plenty of prison inmates do too. This shows us that it may be largely a waste of time to bother framing this as a moral issue.
The question then is, does making SSM legal cause harm?--because the question of harm is all we're left with.
I've only heard 2 credible arguments about this, and I see both of them as causing negligible harm. The first is the issue of disease. Well, guess what? SSM will probably encourage monogamy, and monogamy is an excellent defense against disease. Besides, we'll probably beat AIDS in the next 15-20 years. The second is the issue of negative population growth. This is a ridiculous argument. Why? Because plenty of lesbian couples have kids of their own through sperm donation. Hello, anybody ever heard of Melissa Etheridge? The argument that gay men would be less likely to have kids if there were SSM is ridiculous, because 1 man can inseminate thousands of women.
If there really is a large amount of demonstrable harm from SSM, I humbly submit it isn't from disease or population issues, that I can see. But whatever. People are going to engage in a certain amount of Chicken Little behavior, no matter what you do. Pretty much everybody does, some more than others. It's more an issue of life experience, socialization, and education, instead of intelligence. IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Homosexuality probably has both genetic and learned components. Plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior regularly. Plenty of traditional tribes engage in homosexual behavior, and plenty of prison inmates do too. This shows us that it may be largely a waste of time to bother framing this as a moral issue.
I don't see the connection between the presence of homosexual behavior in history, and that historical presence of homosexual behavior making it NOT a moral issue.
Of course there is a history of homosexual behavior. There must have been plenty of homosexuality around or within the Israelites; otherwise, why would anyone bother addressing it in the form of commandments not to engage in homosexual behavior?
*edited to add:
I ask this lightly--would you mind enlightening me as to how SSM will encourage monogamy?
In reading about this, I have heard that some gay male couple define monogamy differently than I define monogamy--that is, my version of monogamy means no sex with any non-spouse, EVER.
I have known some hetero married couples who have a looser definition of monogamy, i.e., infrequent "cheating" is acceptable, and I have read that this is more frequently how monogamy is practiced in male gay couples.
That kinda-sorta monogamy is a better protection against disease than promiscuity, but still not as sure as total monogamy.
But the bigger issue here is, how does having a legal recognition of marriage make a difference in whether G/L couples are monogamous?
The pictures I see and stories I read focus on G/L couples who stick by each other and love each other. They reiterate, "Our love knows no bounds."
If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
If for some reason my marriage wasn't recognized by the government, it wouldn't change my fidelity to my husband.
Also, Steven, I do hope we beat AIDS in the next couple of decades. Does that mean we can stop pouring money into AIDS research and use it for something else?
posted
I used the fact that many animal species seem to engage in homosexual behavior to create doubt about it being only choice. The fact that prisoners and traditional tribes often do it shows how it's something other than purely genetic/inborn/natural. I'm saying that framing the debate as a moral one seems mostly useless.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm unwilling to cede that to religion. If you're just using that as shorthand for "not the government" though, that's fine, but I'd appreciate the clarification.
What I was thinking was more not the government and also the idea that each individual religion can decide what they want to count or not count. I didn't intend it to mean that an atheist couple could never call themselves married.
I wouldn't even have asked except that I do know of people who were married in under secular terms, only to find that some people didn't consider them "really" married. Thanks for the clarification, scholarette. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I've only heard 2 credible arguments about this, and I see both of them as causing negligible harm. The first is the issue of disease. Well, guess what? SSM will probably encourage monogamy, and monogamy is an excellent defense against disease. Besides, we'll probably beat AIDS in the next 15-20 years.
Actually, given the groups male-male couples, female-female couples, male-female couples, lesbians are in the lowest risk group for STDs of the three. Maybe opposite sex marriage should be reconsidered.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
If for some reason my marriage wasn't recognized by the government, it wouldn't change my fidelity to my husband.
At least part of it is about favoritism. People get certain benefits by being married. Why should two people who are in the exact same kind of relationship not receive the same benefits?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't know that Chris was actually arguing for or against anything. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
