Interesting how no one has been able to justify gay marriage.
Yet there is the obligatory yell of “closed mindedness”.
Interesting.
Very good Musclerob.
Very.
What qualifies as a “justification” of gay marriage? A justification of homosexuality, is that what you mean?
I don’t know how I would “justify” heterosexual marriage, except by appealing to a whole lot of lame arguments: property rights, prevents domestic fighting, prevents the spread of STDs, institutionalized jealously, etc.
The justification for gay marriage is simply “Why not?” as it is for heterosexual marriage. So what the heck are you talking about?
To add fuel to the fire!
A Scene in the San Francisco Courthouse!!!
“Next.” Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
“Names?”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest?” No, we are not gay."
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
“All right, all right. Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?” “David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
Me Solomon Grundy
Why not?
I went over that in a post above.
Not to mention, there is still the possibility that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Why on earth should they get special rights if they’re mentally ill?
Musclerob,
First of all, I don’t want to address whether homosexuality is a mental illness. I’ll leave that to mental health care professionals like yourself.
However, I do want to address your “reasons against gay marriage,” which you said have been ignored. You begin:
“??Marriage is between a man and a woman.”
That’s begging the question, so we can disregard it for the moment, and move on to your points.
“??It opens up a can of worms. If marriage is now undefined,”
Marriage will not necessarily become “undefined” if one of its definitions undergoes a change. Let’s look at your hypotheticals:
“then what about the following situations? Three or more people; brother and sister; 40 year old man and 13 year old boy (parents give consent); man and dog; man and himself.”
Man and himself, and man and dog are absurd (I refer to the actual definition of “absurd”) in the discussion of marriage. Dogs don’t have “rights” (although they are protected) and marriage contracts are written between two people. Therefore, these “pairings” cannot constitute any legal analogue to a marriage contract.
“Brother and sister” doesn’t apply to the gay marriage argument because gays are not (and will not) be asking that “brother and brother” and “sister and sister” be made legal. In fact, the gay community will vehemently uphold the taboo of incest, as much as heterosexuals currently do anyway. I assume “the 13 year old boy and a 40 year old man” won’t be an issue except where states allow parental consent for 13 year old girls to get married to 40 year old men, which is already morally questionable, to say the least.
(I should mention here that parental consent itself has been a stricture on heterosexual marriage that our society has been able to uphold for hundreds of years throughout the many changes to the institution of marriage. Also keep in mind the notable change of allowing blacks to marry, which was an acknowledgement that blacks had a higher than animal nature. Note that the act of reproduction entails our “animal natures.”)
“??Two college guys can now marry each other, and get all the benefits from it just to save some money.”
The government can investigate “marriage fraud” between same-sex couples just as it does now with heterosexual couples (most often with the INS).
Just because the definition of marriage opens up to include another set of monogamous relationships doesn’t mean that it’s suddenly open to every perversion your mind can conceive.
I wonder, since you support “civil unions” as an alternative to gay marriage, are you in favor of giving this measure of societal ratification to bestiality, incest, onism and pederasty (and tax fraud)? Your argument doesn’t imply an answer one way or another.
As for “civil unions,” keep in mind that once we create this institution, we will start comparing these unions to any marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace, and any fly-by-night marriage in Las Vegas. Then, this comparison will soon clarify that government has always been in the business of ratifying “civil marriages,” i.e. the secular aspect of marriage. (The houses of faith will still accept and reject gay unions according to their internal debates.)
I do think that “civil unions” state-by-state is the correct way to get the whole country accustomed to allowing gays into the institution of civil marriage.
“??Not allowing gay marriage does not give gay people any less rights than straight people. There is absolutely no argument that they have any less rights than normal people do. A gay guy can marry a woman just like I can, and I can’t marry a guy just like a gay man cannot. There simply is no argument here.”
This is a specious argument distorting what is meant by “right.” If I don’t have the “right” to use a bathroom for “colored people” and they similarly don’t have the right to use one for whites, then we must have equal rights?
“Don’t say that you should be able to marry who you love, cause I love Angelina Jolie but I can’t marry her (kidding). I also cannot marry a married woman despite me loving her.”
Well, with Angelina Jolie, now you’ve taken mutual consent out of the equation erasing ANY resemblance to marriage in the U.S. Then, you again contradict the ESSENCE of marriage in the U.S., which is institutionalized monogamy.
It seems, Musclerob, that you’re the one who unreasonably wants to portray the word “marriage” as a meaningless sound here, at least when you think it might help your argument for its sanctity.
If marriage signifies a spiritual bond, then it is the responsibility of the churches, temples, mosques and synagogues to bestow that significance. The government CANNOT do this.
I myself believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think I will always believe this. But I also believe that what the government creates are “civil marriages,” and our government cannot ultimately deny this right to same-sex couples.
Brian,
You’re right about the civil union thing, which is why I later questioned it in another post. I thought about it more and realized the same problems with “gay marriage” would apply to civil unions.
Why you won’t address whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness or not bothers me. Do you think this has no basis? I think it is an important issue that needs to be considered.
You try to compare this to segregation. I’m sure that’s insulting to blacks. How can you compare discrimination based on the color of one’s skin to discrimination based on sexuality, that could possibly be choosen or is a result of mental illness? The comparison is disingenuous to say the least.
Also, you give reasons of why those things I mentioned won’t happen NOW. But if the precident is made now that marriage isn’t just between a man and a woman, then that opens the door to all those problems. The same arguments you make now might be used later on to justify incest among other things, and it would slowly degrade.
How do you suppose the government would investigate for “fruad” in a gay marriage? How do you “prove” one is gay? It’s not possible.
And I was obviously kidding about the Angelina Jolie thing, but I WAS serious about me not being able to marry a married woman. She can consent to it and so can I, but we cannot legally be married.
Brian Smith,
Why bother? Such subtleties in argument such as begging the question and proper definitions of absurd will be lost on the audience.
The structure of your argument will likewise be lost. You will be forced to jump around like a madman just to restore order to the argument once the rebuttal is offered. Give up.
rangertab75-
did you get my pm?
thanks
Hell no I didn’t. What the fuck. I thought I registered my PM but I guess not. Sit tight for a second and lemme try to figure this bitch out.
(Moderator’s note: You’ll find the PM by clicking on the “register” button and scrolling down. Hope that helps.)
Why is gayness a private matter but when there are benefits to be gained it becomes a public matter?
Is there a connection between hypocritical thinking and gayness and having your morals and values all fucked up? Cause there appears to be one.
i dont mind gay marriage, but gay adoption is horrible. even if the gay parents are great people… it is just wrong… and dont give me that “well gay people should be able to have kids too!”, they can tough it out with some female poonanny for 18 years 
hehheheehehehehe
Bangs,
I agree with you. Musclerob makes comments that I have already anticipated and addressed, without trying to break down the answers I’ve given. However I do want to address this one point of Musclerob’s before I probably leave (never say never) the thread:
“You try to compare this to segregation. I’m sure that’s insulting to blacks. How can you compare discrimination based on the color of one’s skin to discrimination based on sexuality…”
I can’t speak for others who broach African-Americans in discussion of gay marriage, but I myself am restricting my comparison to two points. One is that informal marriage between blacks, called “jumping the broom,” existed before the marriages were given civil authorization. Until this changed, there may have been profound psycho-social effects of trying to be a couple or family in a second-tier or sham union. On the other side, there were those whites who wondered about how the meaning of their marriage was changed by admitted blacks into the institution. In the meantime, all blacks were officially “fornicators,” not partners in marriage. That’s point 1. You may not be very sympathetic to it, since it deals with psycho-social questions. Point 2 is that the unions sworn by blacks had more spirtitual legitimacy out of love than many loveless or arranged unions between whites that were ratified by the government. So basically, my main point is that a government cannot sanctify a marriage, but can only help support it in the secular world.
BTW, Musclerob, I hope you find it in your heart to support marriages between two bipolar people, or two schizophrenics.
What applied to blacks many years ago is not comparable to what is going on with gays now. There have been black people (reverends, I believe) that have spoken out against this disgusting comparison. Comparing two people that just so happen to have a certain skin color, and went through an enormous amount of trouble because of it, to two guys that like to stick things up their butts and force their lifestyle on the US is insulting and disgusting.
BTW, if your argument, no matter how disingenuous, were to be accepted into law, then it would be used for justification of incest, pedophelia, etc. If you don’t mind it going down that road then don’t mix words.
Do I support to mentally ill people getting married? Sure, if it’s a man and a woman. They’re not asking for any laws to be changed for them. Just so long as they’re not a danger to society.
The fact remains that allowing “gay marriage” opens the door to many other perversions.
Oh, and don’t think I hate gay people. Just because I think it is a mental illness does not mean I hate them. I had a friend with ADD, and I never once said “Dammit, Gary, shut the hell up, you have ADD and no one likes you.”
Ok, I am going to throw a bone into this debate.
In the 1960’s, there were many people who thought that desegreggation was wrong, but it happened anyway.
Just because alot of people think that gay marriage is wrong, it will end up happening sooner or later. (whether you like it or not)
The US government should not be in the buisness of regulating morality. Only when people are being either mentally or physically abused, should the government step in and make a law.
I believe that the government should stay out of private matters altogether, unless in the instance of physical or mental abuse.
While I am not a homosexual, I belive that someone does not choose to become one. If one’s feelings are for men and you are a man, that cannot be helped.
Not only do I believe that homosexuality is not a choice, it has been proven! That is unless you choose to discount the American Psychology Association as a reputable source of information.
This web site will answer all your scientific questions about homosexuality–
But if you don’t have time to go there and read all the info, here are some nice little bites—
“Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?”
“No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.”
Here is an interesting one—
“Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?”
"Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not indicate their children’s.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children."
And here is the most important one—
“Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?”
“No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”
I am not trying to make anyone look stupid. I am just trying to bring people up to speed on what the medical community knows about homosexuality. If you choose to discredit the APA, which some may do, that is fine. This information is for people who take the scientific aspect of things into account when choosing what to belive.
Have a good day people, and I really did not mean to offend anyone. I was just trying to add some information to this debate.
Solomon Grundy: I loved what you said and I think thats what it boils down too.
ChrisR,
In the 1960’s, there were many people who thought that desegreggation was wrong, but it happened anyway.
How many times do I have to tell people to quite making this disgusting comparison! There is absolutely NO comparison between color of skin and wanting a guy’s dick up your ass!
Just because alot of people think that gay marriage is wrong, it will end up happening sooner or later. (whether you like it or not)
How is that an argument for?
The US government should not be in the buisness of regulating morality. Only when people are being either mentally or physically abused, should the government step in and make a law.
“Gat marriage” is not about morality. Did you even read my original post?
I believe that the government should stay out of private matters altogether, unless in the instance of physical or mental abuse.
You’re right! They should keep gay marriage outlawed. Doh!
While I am not a homosexual, I belive that someone does not choose to become one. If one’s feelings are for men and you are a man, that cannot be helped.
Then feelings for an 8 year old boy cannot be help and therefore should be socially justified? You’re sick.
Not only do I believe that homosexuality is not a choice, it has been proven! That is unless you choose to discount the American Psychology Association as a reputable source of information.
It was “proven” that high carb diets are good for you, and that fat is evil. There have also been studies that showed recent drugs to be perfectly safe, but more recent lawsuits showed otherwise…so PLEASE knock off these stupid studies.
Just look at a guy sometime. Make it a really good looking guy. Now imagine him sticking part of his anatomy in part of yours. If you don’t think that’s mental illness, then you’re gay. lol
Why didn’t you address any other of my points I brought up?
Again, not a single person has given a good argument for all the points I brought up. It still stands, NO gay marriage.
Brian: I gotta agree with Bangs on this one. You construct a well-structured, logical, and concise dissection of the argument, and receive, in return, the mindless braying of a donkee. Give it up, sit back, and relax. No sense trying to hammmer into concrete.
“mindless braying of a donkee”
Why don’t you explain what exactly was “mindless”? I’d appreciate your input.