Gay Marriage

[0marTheZealot]

I don't understand any of the logic behind the opposition to gay marriage.

Government has no business legislating morality. Sure, it can make recommendations (eg eat these foods, exercise, etc etc) and encourage certain behaviors, but it should not outlaw behaviors that harm exactly no one.

So what are the arguments against gay marraige? Marriage is the union between a man and a woman? That's a religious argument and if the local church does not want to sanctify the marriage, that's their prerogative. Gays pay taxes and deserve as much benefit from the government as do heteros that pay taxes.

Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage? So does divorce and adultery, why aren't these things illegal. You have to take the argument to it's logical conclusion, elsewise, it's just pure discrimination.

So what exactly is the argument that gays should not marry? How is logically sound?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Government has no business legislating morality.

I think you mean strictly personal morality. Most of the criminal code is merely a reflection of society's shared common morality, and I doubt you suggest the gov't shouldn't be in the business of enforcing it.

 

[ayabe]

Because it's a slippery slope that leads to bestiality and ensures state sanctioned child molestation.


Obviously.

 

[SAWYER]

I couldn't care less if gays marry, it has no affect on me.

 

[DefDC]

I can't believe this has lasted this long. Marriage isn't strictly for Christians, so there are no grounds on which to stand. It's sad, as a country, we allow policy based bigotry. It's never hard to get people to rally with hate. Or to dress up hate as morality. (See conservative talk shows)

Time and time again, bigots have controlled policy, and eventually, they are exposed as the retards they are. It'll just take time. Sadly, this one is dragging...

 

[SAWYER]

If you can't allow gays to be married because of religion, then what about atheists, agnostics etc?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
If you can't allow gays to be married because of religion, then what about atheists, agnostics etc?

Because this is a god fearing country of good honest people founded by christian men under one religion and allowing gays to marry will destroy the very fabric of American society by making my hetro marriage meaningless then in turn causing the final moral decay of our once great Christian nation and opening us up for Moslam domination.

 

[brandonb]

It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible. It's a union between man, woman, and God! Thats the definition. Not a union between man and man or woman and woman and the state.

Secular nations should not even recgonize marriage. Everybody should be just a person. If its for things such as being able to visit your gay partner an emergency room that only married people and relatives can enter, fight the battle at the hospital.

Why is there such a push to allow gays to marry? Who cares?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by: brandonb
It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

And the Bible has nothing to do with religion?

dude you contradicted yourself, and it ain't pretty. Care to essplain?

Oh, and I THINK marriage existed before the creation of Christianity and the Bible....just keep that in mind.

 

[SAWYER]

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible. It's a union between man, woman, and God! Thats the definition. Not a union between man and man or woman and woman and the state.

Secular nations should not even recgonize marriage. Everybody should be just a person. If its for things such as being able to visit your gay partner an emergency room that only married people and relatives can enter, fight the battle at the hospital.

Why is there such a push to allow gays to marry? Who cares?

If you don't care, why not allow it?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: brandonb
It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

And the Bible has nothing to do with religion?

dude you contradicted yourself, and it ain't pretty. Care to essplain?

Oh, and I THINK marriage existed before the creation of Christianity and the Bible....just keep that in mind.

How dare you trouble our pious minds and hearts with your irrelevant facts.

 

[Possessed Freak]

My issue with marriage rights is because there are federal bonuses to being married (IRS). There are other fiscal bonuses to marriage (health insurance coverage comes to mind). Why should some states impress their views to multi-state companies and Federal laws? It is with that view that I feel one standard must be used. If you marry in State X, does State Y recognize it? Does Company Z recognize it? Does the Federal level recognize it? If they are *forced* to recognize it, then there should be a single standard. Otherwise, if the states all want their own views on marriage, then companies/other states/fed should NOT be forced to recognize it.

I am not slanted one way or the other, but I *really* have a problem with the double standards that exist with State Rights impressing themselves beyond their borders.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
If you can't allow gays to be married because of religion, then what about atheists, agnostics etc?

I'm an agnostic and was married in the mayors office of her hometown. My commitment is to my wife, not any sort of spiritual being.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
My issue with marriage rights is because there are federal bonuses to being married (IRS). There are other fiscal bonuses to marriage (health insurance coverage comes to mind). Why should some states impress their views to multi-state companies and Federal laws? It is with that view that I feel one standard must be used. If you marry in State X, does State Y recognize it? Does Company Z recognize it? Does the Federal level recognize it? If they are *forced* to recognize it, then there should be a single standard. Otherwise, if the states all want their own views on marriage, then companies/other states/fed should NOT be forced to recognize it.

I am not slanted one way or the other, but I *really* have a problem with the double standards that exist with State Rights impressing themselves beyond their borders.

States recognizing other State Laws is a long standing and generally accepted legal practice...I don't see how this even ranks up there in terms of the issues surrounding gay marriage. But if you feel this is the prime reason to oppose gay protections then good luck with that.

This is like saying I oppose gay marriage because I won't recognize it nor want it in my own backyard. Hmmmmm sounds a bit bigoted but maybe I'm not understanding the entirety of your argument.

 

[bobcpg]

The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

....

I hate that you tried to use this "logic" to argue against gay marriage.

continuing with your "logic" the elderly (impotent) or genetically ill/mutated should not be allowed to married either.

are you new here?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

Total BS...

We don't have any problem with under population in the US so that's out the window.
Where is your proof kids are better in a man+woman relationship?
It's not natural in your opinion. There's a lesbian woman where I work who got invetro (sp?) would disagree with those bigoted views.

 

[bobcpg]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

....

I hate that you tried to use this "logic" to argue against gay marriage.

continuing with your "logic" the elderly (impotent) or genetically ill/mutated should not be allowed to married either.

are you new here?

Thanks for the Smiley face.

You are correct with continuing with my "logic".

Problem is how do you tell. I mean, yeah we have an Idea on when people are impotent but I assure you that many times people are told they are impotent only to find out they are not. Again, someone who you say is "genetically ill/mutated" can still have perfectly healthy children, in fact it might be that gene combo that takes humans to the next evolutionary step.

 

[AlricTheMad]

Originally posted by: brandonb
<snip> If its for things such as being able to visit your gay partner an emergency room that only married people and relatives can enter, fight the battle at the hospital.

Why is there such a push to allow gays to marry? Who cares?

As someone who works in Health care I can tell you it's not possible to fight it with the health care provider.
Most are looking to state and federal privacy and security laws for guidance. Most have determined that they could be legally liable for allowing anyone but family by birth or marriage to access protected health information.

Federal law recognizing all 'married' partnerships as equal solves that problem.

I agree with the other posters regarding religions role here.
My religion recognizes all partnerships man-man, man-woman, woman-woman as acceptable and to be celebrated.

 

[bobcpg]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

Total BS...

We don't have any problem with under population in the US so that's out the window.
Where is your proof kids are better in a man+woman relationship?
It's not natural in your opinion. There's a lesbian woman where I work who got invetro (sp?) would disagree with those bigoted views.

We don't have any problem with under population in the US so that's out the window.

Exactly my point, why do you think we do not have a population problem? Do not think we are immune to it.


It's not natural in your opinion. There's a lesbian woman where I work who got invetro (sp?) would disagree with those bigoted views.

IV is a medical procedure, its not natural, simple as that. I'm sure she is a nice lady and all that but there you go with emotions getting in the way.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: bobcpg

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

....

I hate that you tried to use this "logic" to argue against gay marriage.

continuing with your "logic" the elderly (impotent) or genetically ill/mutated should not be allowed to married either.

are you new here?

Thanks for the Smiley face.

You are correct with continuing with my "logic".

Problem is how do you tell. I mean, yeah we have an Idea on when people are impotent but I assure you that many times people are told they are impotent only to find out they are not. Again, someone who you say is "genetically ill/mutated" can still have perfectly healthy children, in fact it might be that gene combo that takes humans to the next evolutionary step.

But if, as you say...it is the governments "duty to make sure we grow and prosper" then I will assume that by using your "logic" it will be the governments duty to determine who is fit for marriage...so that we can "grow and prosper."

Genetic tests, tests for fertility, tests for mental and emotional stability...all in an effort to determine who could and should marry, and make babies, in order to "grow and prosper."

Am I still on the right road here?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

because if you allow two men to live together, next thing you know it will be a man and horse. it really is the only logical step. (though TBH i dont really see a problem with either)

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad

Originally posted by: brandonb
<snip> If its for things such as being able to visit your gay partner an emergency room that only married people and relatives can enter, fight the battle at the hospital.

Why is there such a push to allow gays to marry? Who cares?

As someone who works in Health care I can tell you it's not possible to fight it with the health care provider.
Most are looking to state and federal privacy and security laws for guidance. Most have determined that they could be legally liable for allowing anyone but family by birth or marriage to access protected health information.

Federal law recognizing all 'married' partnerships as equal solves that problem.

I agree with the other posters regarding religions role here.
My religion recognizes all partnerships man-man, man-woman, woman-woman as acceptable and to be celebrated.

Same here. There have been a number of issues in our hospitals where "partners" were denied rights and family members got to trump them for medical decisions. It's a horrible situation and one that no one should have to go through. Many gay couples I know don't even care about the word "marriage", they just want the same protections provided to them that any other monogamous and legally bound couple would be provided. I can not think of a single logical reason why they shouldn't be allowed those same rights as my wife and I. My wife and I are technically "married", but it wasn't in a church or by a priest or minister. Same goes for anyone married by a justice of the peace at the county courthouse. How offering the same rights to a gay couple hurts anyone is something I simply can not comprehend.

It's just a simple legal binding of two names. Why there hasn't been something passed at a federal level that trumps the states on this matter is beyond me.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

Take this to the logical end.

People who are infertile should not be allowed to marry.

People who refuse to have children should have their licenses revoked.

If that's truly the rationale, then those two outcomes are the logical product.

If not, then it's simply discrimination once again against a group of people.

 

[0marTheZealot]

And I said marriage I meant in the federal sense.

The one where benefits, rights and the like come with the title of marriage.

It is up to the churches, temples, synagogues and mosques on whether or not they recognize two people as being married. However, the state/federal levels should not discriminate between homosexuals and hetereosexuals.