Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument against Gays getting married yet?

[BigToque]

If marriage is religious, by definition, show me that definition.

I'll try to find exactly what I'm looking for so I can back up what I am saying.

What about atheists getting married?

Technically, they would be a "union" and not "married".

What about people getting married *outside* of a church with no pastor/minister/priest/etc?

You do not need to be married inside a church, but I believe it needs to be done by a priest/etc

What about pre-arranged marriages?

If they are done by a priest, I would say they are married.

What about our colonial history and the social/economic factors behind marriages?

I don't know much about this.

I'm certainly willing to change my thought on this. If it can be shown that the term "marriage" was ever used before it was a religious term, then I would no longer say that the term is reserved for God. Personally, I think it's stupid getting worked up over terms like this, but I think those who wish to deny "marriage" to a gay couple is justified (by this arguement only). I don't agree with any of their other reasons. I think gay people have the right to a "union" (or "marriage" if the term "marriage" has roots that are not religious)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: KK

But what if the woman wants more than a husband, maybe a female also. Or the same with the guy, what if he wants a husband to go along with his wife. Who the heck are you to deny these people of their rights? And don't go citing past examples as they have no bearing here. This a new age, not the caveman times you like to think it is.

KK

Uhh...where did I say this is caveman times? I said the exact opposite. Polygamy worked in the distant past as an economic means. That need has passed.

What's to stop someone from getting married and then going off and marrying several other people without telling the first spouse who, say, is opposed to polygamy?

To be honest, I would be for polygamy if weren't for the fact that today's society no longer has a need for it. The way we make a living and provide for our families based upon that nuclear unit, not the whole molecule.

Besides, when was it decided that polygamy was a right?  People don't want marriage "redefined" to allow same-sex couples but they're ok with allowing as many partners as a persons wants?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: KK

But what if the woman wants more than a husband, maybe a female also. Or the same with the guy, what if he wants a husband to go along with his wife. Who the heck are you to deny these people of their rights? And don't go citing past examples as they have no bearing here. This a new age, not the caveman times you like to think it is.

KK

Uhh...where did I say this is caveman times? I said the exact opposite. Polygamy worked in the distant past as an economic means. That need has passed.

What's to stop someone from getting married and then going off and marrying several other people without telling the first spouse who, say, is opposed to polygamy?

To be honest, I would be for polygamy if weren't for the fact that today's society no longer has a need for it. The way we make a living and provide for our families based upon that nuclear unit, not the whole molecule.

Besides, when was it decided that polygamy was a right?  People don't want marriage "redefined" to allow same-sex couples but they're ok with allowing as many partners as a persons wants?

So society no longer needs it? According to who? You? There is as much a right to marriage with multiple consenting partners as there is to a single partner of the same sex.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stefan

If marriage is religious, by definition, show me that definition.

I'll try to find exactly what I'm looking for so I can back up what I am saying.

Fine...I'll wait.

What about atheists getting married?

Technically, they would be a "union" and not "married".

Apparently, this is based upon your bogus definition of marriage.

What about people getting married *outside* of a church with no pastor/minister/priest/etc?

You do not need to be married inside a church, but I believe it needs to be done by a priest/etc

So, everyone in this country, who has obtained a marriage license and are considered married by today's society are not really married because it was done by a gov't official and not a priest?

What about pre-arranged marriages?

If they are done by a priest, I would say they are married.

So, in your opinion, many people in India and other countries are not married?

What about our colonial history and the social/economic factors behind marriages?

I don't know much about this.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502192_1/Colonial_America_Life_in.html

Can't find the link I had last week...went into better detail.

Many people, esp. in the South then, lived far apart from others, esp. those of the clergy or gov't officials. Someone was considered married simply by the two of them agreeing to it and stating to all others that they were married.

I'm certainly willing to change my thought on this. If it can be shown that the term "marriage" was ever used before it was a religious term, then I would no longer say that the term is reserved for God. Personally, I think it's stupid getting worked up over terms like this, but I think those who wish to deny "marriage" to a gay couple is justified (by this arguement only). I don't agree with any of their other reasons. I think gay people have the right to a "union" (or "marriage" if the term "marriage" has roots that are not religious)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...where did I say this is caveman times? I said the exact opposite. Polygamy worked in the distant past as an economic means. That need has passed.

What's to stop someone from getting married and then going off and marrying several other people without telling the first spouse who, say, is opposed to polygamy?

To be honest, I would be for polygamy if weren't for the fact that today's society no longer has a need for it. The way we make a living and provide for our families based upon that nuclear unit, not the whole molecule.

Besides, when was it decided that polygamy was a right?  People don't want marriage "redefined" to allow same-sex couples but they're ok with allowing as many partners as a persons wants?

So society no longer needs it? According to who? You? There is as much a right to marriage with multiple consenting partners as there is to a single partner of the same sex.

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...where did I say this is caveman times? I said the exact opposite. Polygamy worked in the distant past as an economic means. That need has passed.

What's to stop someone from getting married and then going off and marrying several other people without telling the first spouse who, say, is opposed to polygamy?

To be honest, I would be for polygamy if weren't for the fact that today's society no longer has a need for it. The way we make a living and provide for our families based upon that nuclear unit, not the whole molecule.

Besides, when was it decided that polygamy was a right?  People don't want marriage "redefined" to allow same-sex couples but they're ok with allowing as many partners as a persons wants?

So society no longer needs it? According to who? You? There is as much a right to marriage with multiple consenting partners as there is to a single partner of the same sex.

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

How hilarious you are - you call people opposed to same-sex marriage 'bigots', but insist persons wishing to marry multiple consenting parties somehow justifiy their choices to you. What are you, the marriage police? Who said marriage has to be about carrying on the population? If two men can marry, why not three?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...where did I say this is caveman times? I said the exact opposite. Polygamy worked in the distant past as an economic means. That need has passed.

What's to stop someone from getting married and then going off and marrying several other people without telling the first spouse who, say, is opposed to polygamy?

To be honest, I would be for polygamy if weren't for the fact that today's society no longer has a need for it. The way we make a living and provide for our families based upon that nuclear unit, not the whole molecule.

Besides, when was it decided that polygamy was a right?  People don't want marriage "redefined" to allow same-sex couples but they're ok with allowing as many partners as a persons wants?

So society no longer needs it? According to who? You? There is as much a right to marriage with multiple consenting partners as there is to a single partner of the same sex.

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

How hilarious you are - you call people opposed to same-sex marriage 'bigots', but insist persons wishing to marry multiple consenting parties somehow justifiy their choices to you. What are you, the marriage police? Who said marriage has to be about carrying on the population? If two men can marry, why not three?

Just answer the question.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: conjur

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

do we need men marrying men to carry on the population?

 

[BigToque]

So, everyone in this country, who has obtained a marriage license and are considered married by today's society are not really married because it was done by a gov't official and not a priest?

What I'm saying is that as long as the marriage is done by someone who has "churchly authority", then it is a "marriage".

Don't forget that when someone gets married, two things happen.

1) The people are married in the eyes of the church
2) The people get a legal union in the eyes of the government

If you are not married by someone of "churchly authority", I don't see how any union would be called a "marriage" (if the term marriage is indeed reserved for the church - which I have no problem with if it's origins come from the church). It would be a government sanctioned union.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...where did I say this is caveman times? I said the exact opposite. Polygamy worked in the distant past as an economic means. That need has passed.

What's to stop someone from getting married and then going off and marrying several other people without telling the first spouse who, say, is opposed to polygamy?

To be honest, I would be for polygamy if weren't for the fact that today's society no longer has a need for it. The way we make a living and provide for our families based upon that nuclear unit, not the whole molecule.

Besides, when was it decided that polygamy was a right?  People don't want marriage "redefined" to allow same-sex couples but they're ok with allowing as many partners as a persons wants?

So society no longer needs it? According to who? You? There is as much a right to marriage with multiple consenting partners as there is to a single partner of the same sex.

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

How hilarious you are - you call people opposed to same-sex marriage 'bigots', but insist persons wishing to marry multiple consenting parties somehow justifiy their choices to you. What are you, the marriage police? Who said marriage has to be about carrying on the population? If two men can marry, why not three?

Just answer the question.

OK, how's this? We 'need' a polygamy at least as much as we 'need' same-sex marriage. And just so we're clear on terms, polygamy is merely marriage with multiple partners. Polygyny (which seems to be what you're obsessed with preventing) is one husband/multiple wives, and polyandry is one wife/multiple husbands. Once you figure out what all these big words actually mean, you can go back see that I was always talking about polygamy, not polygyny, all along.

 

[BigToque]

So, in your opinion, many people in India and other countries are not married?

Again, if the term "marriage" is reserved for the church, then by definition they would not be married unless it was performed by someone of churchly authority.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

do we need men marrying men to carry on the population?

Sure. At least for a short period of time until we can extract enough sperm to last a few thousand milennia

In the long-run, I'm not opposed to polygamy, I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually make it legal.

Imho, it's enough of a justification to show that children of polygamous parents will be harmed from the outset to keep it illegal. Sure, there are bad monogamous as well as single parents out there, but the beneift of the doubt can be given that a monogamous couple has the ability to provide all of their free time to their children. The same cannot be said of polygamous relationships.

Some will say that insurance companies will fight against polygamy and that may well be but I don't think that's really a valid claim against polgyamy.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stefan

So, everyone in this country, who has obtained a marriage license and are considered married by today's society are not really married because it was done by a gov't official and not a priest?

What I'm saying is that as long as the marriage is done by someone who has "churchly authority", then it is a "marriage".

Don't forget that when someone gets married, two things happen.

1) The people are married in the eyes of the church
2) The people get a legal union in the eyes of the government

If you are not married by someone of "churchly authority", I don't see how any union would be called a "marriage" (if the term marriage is indeed reserved for the church - which I have no problem with if it's origins come from the church). It would be a government sanctioned union.

Wow....just.........wow

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

OK, how's this? We 'need' a polygamy at least as much as we 'need' same-sex marriage. And just so we're clear on terms, polygamy is merely marriage with multiple partners. Polygyny (which seems to be what you're obsessed with preventing) is one husband/multiple wives, and polyandry is one wife/multiple husbands. Once you figure out what all these big words actually mean, you can go back see that I was always talking about polygamy, not polygyny, all along.

Trust me, I'm using polygamy properly. It just so happens that history has shown that polygyny is the most common manifestation of that.

Oh, and, btw, you still haven't posed any justifications for making polygamy legal other than "We 'need'" it. The arguments for/against polygamy are not the same as those for same-sex marriages. It's two completely different lifestyle choices with one having much more of an affect on the lives of others, esp. children.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

do we need men marrying men to carry on the population?

Sure. At least for a short period of time until we can extract enough sperm to last a few thousand milennia

In the long-run, I'm not opposed to polygamy, I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually take something that is currently ILLEGAL (not something that's just not legal but rather something that is in state statutes forbidding it with sentences imposed if found guilty) and making it legal.

This may be news to you, but in California, gay marriage isn't just 'not legal', it's actually ILLEGAL; Proposition 22 did in fact pass.
And please, enough with the 'I only care about the children' BS - you still haven't explained why you'd let Bill & Ted marry, but not Bill & Ted & Tom, especially if they promise to use birth control and avoid having children.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

do we need men marrying men to carry on the population?

Sure. At least for a short period of time until we can extract enough sperm to last a few thousand milennia

In the long-run, I'm not opposed to polygamy, I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually take something that is currently ILLEGAL (not something that's just not legal but rather something that is in state statutes forbidding it with sentences imposed if found guilty) and making it legal.

This may be news to you, but in California, gay marriage isn't just 'not legal', it's actually ILLEGAL; Proposition 22 did in fact pass.
And please, enough with the 'I only care about the children' BS - you still haven't explained why you'd let Bill & Ted marry, but not Bill & Ted & Tom, especially if they promise to use birth control and avoid having children.

All Proposition 22 stated was that for a marriage to be recognized as valid it had to be between a man and a woman. All other marriages are not valid. They are mere ceremony and derive no government recognition nor benefit from the government in any way.

As for your last statement, that's a non sequitur and not worthy of a response.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

do we need men marrying men to carry on the population?

Sure. At least for a short period of time until we can extract enough sperm to last a few thousand milennia

In the long-run, I'm not opposed to polygamy, I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually take something that is currently ILLEGAL (not something that's just not legal but rather something that is in state statutes forbidding it with sentences imposed if found guilty) and making it legal.

This may be news to you, but in California, gay marriage isn't just 'not legal', it's actually ILLEGAL; Proposition 22 did in fact pass.
And please, enough with the 'I only care about the children' BS - you still haven't explained why you'd let Bill & Ted marry, but not Bill & Ted & Tom, especially if they promise to use birth control and avoid having children.

All Proposition 22 stated was that for a marriage to be recognized as valid it had to be between a man and a woman. All other marriages are not valid. They are mere ceremony and derive no government recognition nor benefit from the government in any way.

As for your last statement, that's a non sequitur and not worthy of a response.

Look, Proposition 22 legally defined marriage as between a man and a woman, so San Fransisco has no legal basis to issue marriage licenses to, and have city officials perform marriage ceremonies for, same sex couples. It's ILLEGAL. I thought that after your incredible "The Supreme Court will surely throw out as unconstitutional a constitutional ban on gay marriage" statement, you'd take a break from offering poorly-thought-out legal opinions on the internet, but I guess I was wrong. What state admitted you to practice law, anyway?

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stefan

So, everyone in this country, who has obtained a marriage license and are considered married by today's society are not really married because it was done by a gov't official and not a priest?

What I'm saying is that as long as the marriage is done by someone who has "churchly authority", then it is a "marriage".

Don't forget that when someone gets married, two things happen.

1) The people are married in the eyes of the church
2) The people get a legal union in the eyes of the government

If you are not married by someone of "churchly authority", I don't see how any union would be called a "marriage" (if the term marriage is indeed reserved for the church - which I have no problem with if it's origins come from the church). It would be a government sanctioned union.

Wow....just.........wow

Why "Wow....just.........wow"?

If the term marriage came about because of God and the church, why is it wrong to make a distinction between a marriage recognized by the church and an union recognized by the government. Just because the term has been adopted by everyone doesn't mean the word no longer belongs to the church. (assuming the term marriage has it's roots in the church)

Eg. Everyone calls facial tissue "kleenex" when they ask for it. "Kleenix" is a company's product name for facial tissue.

 

[ElFenix]

I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually make it legal.

what authority does the state have to interfere in the private relations of consenting adults?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur

Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

do we need men marrying men to carry on the population?

Sure. At least for a short period of time until we can extract enough sperm to last a few thousand milennia

In the long-run, I'm not opposed to polygamy, I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually take something that is currently ILLEGAL (not something that's just not legal but rather something that is in state statutes forbidding it with sentences imposed if found guilty) and making it legal.

This may be news to you, but in California, gay marriage isn't just 'not legal', it's actually ILLEGAL; Proposition 22 did in fact pass.
And please, enough with the 'I only care about the children' BS - you still haven't explained why you'd let Bill & Ted marry, but not Bill & Ted & Tom, especially if they promise to use birth control and avoid having children.

All Proposition 22 stated was that for a marriage to be recognized as valid it had to be between a man and a woman. All other marriages are not valid. They are mere ceremony and derive no government recognition nor benefit from the government in any way.

As for your last statement, that's a non sequitur and not worthy of a response.

Look, Proposition 22 legally defined marriage as between a man and a woman, so San Fransisco has no legal basis to issue marriage licenses to, and have city officials perform marriage ceremonies for, same sex couples. It's ILLEGAL. I thought that after your incredible "The Supreme Court will surely throw out as unconstitutional a constitutional ban on gay marriage" statement, you'd take a break from offering poorly-thought-out legal opinions on the internet, but I guess I was wrong. What state admitted you to practice law, anyway?

The State of Confusion.


So, tell me, why hasn't the mayor been arrested and charged with a "crime"? Why have two California State judges refused to act?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually make it legal.

what authority does the state have to interfere in the private relations of consenting adults?

For protection of one or both of the parties. In order for polygamy to be legal, the bigamy laws will have to be stricken across the land. Do you really see that happening?

 

[Moonbeam]

The bottom line is that times change and people don't like to go along with the changes. We are all attached to the thousand pounds of cabbage we carry and it makes us all bigots. I don't want no change cause it doesn't agree with how I think and how I think is sacred to me cause it's my substitute for real self love. My thousand pounds of cabbage protects me from my fears. And everybody's cabbage is different than everybody else's. But people of a similar cabbage do congregate together.

The opposition to gay marriage stems from a bigoted dislike of the notion, complete irrationality in search of a reason. The categories of irrational thinking are well documented and visible if you yourself are free of the particular form of the disease. There is no logical reason, only irrational feeling, generally religiously based.

The really important thing to realize in looking at your own bigotry is that others are doing rather nicely without any of it. We cling to our bigotry because we feel that it is a good and the world would be worse off without us bigots. For example, if there is nothing wrong with gay marriage there's something wrong with the Bible, and if there's something wrong with it then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no good in the world and everything is meaningless. And if everything is meaningless then everything is empty. I went that road and suffered the black empty pit. When there was nothing left of what I thought I was then and only then somehow did I discovered what cannot be lost, that about us which is real. I would call that God for convenience, or my real self. It's really impossible to tell.

The point is that we hang on for dear life to our illusions because we think they are required for the Good. But it seems to me that this game of life can only be won by loosing because loosing is an illusion too. What you loose are your illusions.

I offer this to those whose personal questioning of the meaning of life destroys every meaning we carry. Destroy everything and what is left can't be destroyed. What can't be destroyed is the Good. Good luck.

 

[Tom]

I heard what I thought was a good argument against it on Macneil-Lehrer a couple of nights ago. During the discussion that took place between Shields and Safire, about the Democratic debates , Safire pointed out that a majority of Americans probably favor civil unions, giving gay couples most of or maybe all of the tangible benefits of marriage like survivor benefits, etc. that the issue is the word "marriage" itself.

That by using the word "marriage" there is an element of approval, or even promotion, of homosexuality. Safire said the opponents and proponents both know this, it's one reason why gay activists are pushing to use that word.

I though he made some sense in describing the reason there is an issue. Personally I'm not completelty decided, I keep going back and forth about it.

edit- I think it was Safire but I'm not sure. It was the conservative who debates issue with Mark Shields, but not the regular guy from the Wall Street Journal.


edit- here it is..

"WILLIAM SAFIRE: Yes. Semantics and words are important. The word "marriage" is the key here. Most Americans I think will go for civil unions because there should be equal treatment of partners. And when it comes to hospital visits or survivor benefits, things like that, and alimony and child support, that should apply to straights and gays equally.

But when they use the word "marriage," that moves the debate from tolerance -- which is the whole idea of civil unions -- to approval and perhaps encouragement of homosexuality. And that use of that word, the gay community knows it, and so does the straight community. And that word is a passionate word. "

Safire quote form pbs.org

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

The wording is important because that is what the argument is all about. This is not a civil rights issue. The civil unions are exactly the same as marriage except under a different name. Marriage has a long sttanding history of being wholesome and admirable. Civil unions have no such history and noone is really sure it is even going to work.
The gays want the definition of marriage to be changed to include them under the meaning. This would give their relationship the same good connotation as heterosexual marriages. If gays just wanted rights then civil unions would be enough since those are the same rights.They don't just want rights they want to change our thoughts by changing the dictionary. How very 1984'ish. Change marriage to mean a union between two people and all of a sudden homosexual unions become wholesome and admirable too. I don't buy it. Let them put in a few thousand years to get a nice track record that heterosexual unions have, then if civil unions are still doing OK we can merge the two into one term.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
As I said, look at the history of polygamy. It's generally been much to the detriment of women. It's been condoned in societies where women were treated as property. It might have made sense back in our hunter/gatherer days, but not in this day and age.

Also, not every family has two incomes. In those that do, the second income is usually just enough to cover the cost of the extra childcare expenses. As for more parents in the houseshold, what makes you think 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. wives will be living in the same household? Yeah, that will go over real well with today's modern woman. Let's just make them all into concubines and keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Besidis, I find it rather hypocritical of someone who opposes same-sex marriage to be condoning polygamy.

Here we go with that reading comprehension again Conjur, if you actually read what I posted you would have seen that I mentioned specifically "polyandry" to balance out polygamy, might help if you did a search on the term and got a definition....and also as I said even this society much until recently treated women badly, do you think that a society that allowed both polyandry and polygamy wouldn't balance itself out?? maybe men would be treated as property instead?

Personally I don't believe in or condone any multi spouse union, and I don't oppose same sex unions either...I just feel your arguments are rather laughable at times boarderline pathetic.