Marriage

[Truronian]

On the contrary, just as MobBoss & Co. say that homosexuals can marry the opposite sex just-like-anybody-else, likewise heterosexuals would be able to marry the same sex just-like-anybody-else.

We are opening the gates to civil unions of convenience!

 

[MobBoss]

The redefinition of this nationwaide institution doesn't affect you in the slightest, so far as I can see. Pray enlighten me as to how it can.

Been over this plenty of times before. Lets just cut to the end where I say it does and you disagree ok?

But if I believe that it does affect me, just like someone thinks a guy doing drugs in his own house affects the neighborhood, then why is it so bad for me to be against it?

Anyone has the potntial to become a drug user. I'd say only homosexuals have the potential to enter into a homosexual marriage.

I would say you are wrong. Thats like saying under the current situation, only heterosexuals have the potential to enter into heterosexual marriage and we know that isnt always true. Homosexuals have indeed gotten married to women to father kids for example.

If I, as a heteosexual, wanted to marry a homosexual, for some crazy reason...maybe in CA homosexuals get better benefits or something.....who says I have to engage in homosexual sex to be married? Especially if marriage is just a contract between two adults?

On the contrary, just as MobBoss & Co. say that homosexuals can marry the opposite sex just-like-anybody-else, likewise heterosexuals would be able to marry the same sex just-like-anybody-else.

Cross post with igloo, but he is correct and that would be true, regardless of the crazyeye.

 

[IglooDame]

We are opening the gates to civil unions of convenience!

Indeed!! The horror of it all!!!

 

[Turner]

Homosexuals enter hetero relations for one of two reasons: 1) to blend in, or 2) because they didn't realize they were homosexual before entering the relationship.

If SSM was legalized, and there was no stigma attached with being homosexual (like there shouldn't be), then Reason #1 would simply disappear. There would be no need for it.

 

[Truronian]

Been over this plenty of times before. Lets just cut to the end where I say it does and you disagree ok?

But if I believe that it does affect me, just like someone thinks a guy doing drugs in his own house affects the neighborhood, then why is it so bad for me to be against it?

Ok, sure. But you are wrong

I would say you are wrong. Thats like saying under the current situation, only heterosexuals have the potential to enter into heterosexual marriage and we know that isnt always true. Homosexuals have indeed gotten married to women to father kids for example.

Of course, this would most likely stop if homosexual marriage was legalised. Marriages of convenience between gay and straight people are merely an exploitation of the institution that has rejected them. If they aren't allowed to marry for love, why not marry for another reason?

If I, as a heteosexual, wanted to marry a homosexual, for some crazy reason...maybe in CA homosexuals get better benefits or something.....who says I have to engage in homosexual sex to be married? Especially if marriage is just a contract between two adults?

Homosexual marriage would eliminate any such partnerships. There would be no benefit to homosexual marriage if you were straight (a side-effect of equality), and therefore no crazy reason to enter into a homosexual marriage unless you were homosexual and in love. (In fact there would be an obvious disadvantage, you would be unable to marry any true love that may arise)

 

[MobBoss]

Ok, sure. But you are wrong

Well, you see you might think so, but a lot of people like me think differently...and guess what? We are the majority.

Of course, this would most likely stop if homosexual marriage was legalised. Marriages of convenience between gay and straight people are merely an exploitation of the institution that has rejected them. If they aren't allowed to marry for love, why not marry for another reason?

For benefits, which was the argument for gay marriage for years. However, since the benefit gap has HUGELY shrunk in recent years due to laws changing, now the argument is about love. Imagine that.

Homosexual marriage would eliminate any such partnerships. There would be no benefit to homosexual marriage if you were straight (a side-effect of equality), and therefore no crazy reason to enter into a homosexual marriage unless you were homosexual and in love. (In fact there would be an obvious disadvantage, you would be unable to marry any true love that may arise)

I would say that your imagination is rather limited if you think this. That is like saying that heterosexual marriages would end people shacking up, but that certainly wasnt the case now was it?

 

[MobBoss]

Homosexuals enter hetero relations for one of two reasons: 1) to blend in, or 2) because they didn't realize they were homosexual before entering the relationship.

Thats the only two reasons? How do you know? Might they not do this to have kids where they otherwise wouldnt?

If SSM was legalized, and there was no stigma attached with being homosexual (like there shouldn't be), then Reason #1 would simply disappear. There would be no need for it.

So you think having SSM is going to remove the stigma from homosexuals? I think you greatly incorrect on that point. So, the USA legalizing SSM is going to change, for example, the Catholic Church's opinion on it? Other churches? Mom and Pop on the farm in Kentucky?

Abortion is legal is it not? And has the stigma been removed from that practice?

 

[IglooDame]

I would say that your imagination is rather limited if you think this. That is like saying that heterosexual marriages would end people shacking up, but that certainly wasnt the case now was it?

Can't say for sure, we don't have any statistics going back to pre-marriage days, do we?

 

[Turner]

You mean from when we were all running around in the bushes buck naked? Before we were even an oral society, let alone a written one?

Oh my, I just realized what a bad pun that was....

 

[IglooDame]

You mean from when we were all running around in the bushes buck naked? Before we were even an oral society, let alone a written one?

Right.

Oh my, I just realized what a bad pun that was....

Are you sure you're not gay?

 

[Turner]

Thats the only two reasons? How do you know? Might they not do this to have kids where they otherwise wouldnt?

We're not talking children. We're talking marriage.

So you think having SSM is going to remove the stigma from homosexuals? I think you greatly incorrect on that point. So, the USA legalizing SSM is going to change, for example, the Catholic Church's opinion on it? Other churches? Mom and Pop on the farm in Kentucky?

I suggest you go back and re-read what I said. I never said that legalizing SSM would remove the stigma.

Abortion is legal is it not? And has the stigma been removed from that practice?

You mean the stigma of imposing your morals on another? I'm not going to sidetrack this discussion into a Roe vs Wade thread. Suffice it to say that I'm against abortion, and I would never advocate someone to get one. Far be it from me, however, to make someone do something with their body that they don't wish to do. That's their karma, not mine. I certainly wouldn't look down on anyone for having one.

Are you sure you're not gay?

Not the last time I checked. But you're starting to look pretty good, big boy.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Well, you see you might think so, but a lot of people like me think differently...and guess what? We are the majority.

Proof?

.

 

[Truronian]

Well, you see you might think so, but a lot of people like me think differently...and guess what? We are the majority.

I get the feeling we have a circular argument going here...

For benefits, which was the argument for gay marriage for years. However, since the benefit gap has HUGELY shrunk in recent years due to laws changing, now the argument is about love. Imagine that.

Shrunk, but not disappeared. Eliminating the benefits gap is the most important thing when it comes to gay marriage, which is why it has been prominant in the argument for equality. Of course, denying two people the option to sanctify their love due to their respective genders is also pretty heinous.

I would say that your imagination is rather limited if you think this. That is like saying that heterosexual marriages would end people shacking up, but that certainly wasnt the case now was it?

Shacking up? Not sure on the exact meaning of that term (us backward Cornish folk ). I'm pretty sure its besides the point anyway. What I was saying was that introducing equality between hetrosexuals and homosexuals with regards to marriage would eliminate marriages of convinience. There would be no crazy reason for you to marry a gay guy, and as such, laws regarding homosexual marriage would not concern you.

Incidentally MobBoss, would you have a problem with Cuivienen's suggestion?

Get rid of marriage as a legal institution. No one is married legally. Offer civil unions to every couple. Marriage then becomes strictly a religious institution and carries no legal weight outside of religion.

 

[MobBoss]

We're not talking children. We're talking marriage.

You dont think a marriage is more condusive to raising kids? I do.

I suggest you go back and re-read what I said. I never said that legalizing SSM would remove the stigma.

Ok, but you did mention it along with legalizing SSM. If both are required to see a benefit from SSM, I dont think that will happen for a very, very long time.

You mean the stigma of imposing your morals on another? I'm not going to sidetrack this discussion into a Roe vs Wade thread. Suffice it to say that I'm against abortion, and I would never advocate someone to get one. Far be it from me, however, to make someone do something with their body that they don't wish to do. That's their karma, not mine. I certainly wouldn't look down on anyone for having one.

You can extend this argument as far as you like with whatever action you like. You would never take illegal drugs would you? However, you would discourage someone via the law from doing something to their own bodies with illegal drugs. We impose our morals on one another by our laws. We dictate those laws as a society. To say that its a stigma to impose ones morals on another flys in the face of the fact that we do exactly that on a wide variety of issues.

Proof?

The proof is in election results from states that put such state constitution measures as defining marriage as between a man and a woman on the ballot. To date such measures pass with roughly 60-80% of the vote....i.e. landslide majorities. Polls in the USA on the matter are slightly lower, but still indicate that a majority of Americans favor marriage be defined as that between a man and a woman.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It has been said that historically many mariages were not based on love. This is in fact true. Historically, for two people to get married it didn't matter if they were in love. It didn't matter if they chose the matchup or even knew each other beforehand (as in arranged marriages). It didn't matter if they were already married (as in poygamy). It didn't matter if they were related or not, or what the age difference was. But marriage was always between a male and a female. Until about 10 or 20 years ago, no one had the idea of same-sex marriages.

What does this mean? It means that we need to recognize that allowing same-sex marriages is a new way of looking at things, at the very least. Like I said I neither oppose nor support them, but at the very least it s a radical new concept.

 

[IglooDame]

You can extend this argument as far as you like with whatever action you like. You would never take illegal drugs would you? However, you would discourage someone via the law from doing something to their own bodies with illegal drugs. We impose our morals on one another by our laws. We dictate those laws as a society. To say that its a stigma to impose ones morals on another flys in the face of the fact that we do exactly that on a wide variety of issues.

Let's see where I fall into the inconsistency... drugs? Nope. Assisted suicide? Nope. Anything I'm missing, as far as "protecting us from ourselves via the criminal code"?

Edit: it can be extended in the opposite direction too; at what point do you oppose imposing morals on others via the law?

 

[Masquerouge]

Are we talking about religious mariage? Because that's up to the religious people to decide.
But for secular mariage, I think it's up to the people to decide, and my view on that are quite liberal : 2 or more people of any sex.

 

[MobBoss]

Shrunk, but not disappeared. Eliminating the benefits gap is the most important thing when it comes to gay marriage, which is why it has been prominant in the argument for equality. Of course, denying two people the option to sanctify their love due to their respective genders is also pretty heinous.

People can be in love without the governments sanctification. That hasnt stopped them yet.

What I was saying was that introducing equality between hetrosexuals and homosexuals with regards to marriage would eliminate marriages of convinience.

This I highly doubt. Such marriages are simply a fact and will continue to be done regardless of whether gay marriage is approved or not.

Incidentally MobBoss, would you have a problem with Cuivienen's suggestion?

Yes, it could possibly create situations in which you have a civil union with one person and a religious marriage with another. Moot point anyway, as the vast majority of people would never go for such an idea.

 

[MobBoss]

Let's see where I fall into the inconsistency... drugs? Nope. Assisted suicide? Nope. Anything I'm missing, as far as "protecting us from ourselves via the criminal code"?

Edit: it can be extended in the opposite direction too; at what point do you oppose imposing morals on others via the law?

Where I live they recently passed a statewide law banning smoking from privately owned bars and taverns. It basically took away the right for an owner to decide if he wanted his establishment to be smoking or non-smoking.

The measure passed overwhelmingly in this very liberal state. The liberals (and a good number of conservatives that simply didnt like smoking) voted their "morals" in regards to smoking upon the owners of such establishments and their property.

If the majority deems it moral to dictate what you can or cannot do with your own property, then of course we can do it where other issues are concerned as well.

 

[ComradeDavo]

The proof is in election results from states that put such state constitution measures as defining marriage as between a man and a woman on the ballot. To date such measures pass with roughly 60-80% of the vote....i.e. landslide majorities. Polls in the USA on the matter are slightly lower, but still indicate that a majority of Americans favor marriage be defined as that between a man and a woman.

Which states were those?

At any rate, I don't think it right for 8 people to stop 2 people marrying, it should be the descion of those 2.

You would never take illegal drugs would you?