10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Berzerker]

and mothers

[Berzerker]

"Homosexuality: Evolutionary Development, or Part of God's Plan?"

kinda, I'm not sure how Ben defines what is natural. To me its a religious thing, treat others the way you want to be treated. I dont want people telling me who I can or cannot marry so why should I tell them who they can or cannot marry. But I'm also free to point out that gay marriage changes the meaning of a word many people really dont want changed.

This is about using government to coerce people to treat gays better, even somewhat equal. That isn't the purpose of our government, freedom includes the freedom to not like people and refuse to associate with them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
This is about using government to coerce people to treat gays better, even somewhat equal. That isn't the purpose of our government, freedom includes the freedom to not like people and refuse to associate with them.

This is absolutely not true. It's a civil rights issue. Did the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act coerce people into treating blacks better? No, of course not. Nor was that the point. The push for gay marriage is a rights issue, and as such it is definitely teh provence of government.

(Incidently, the real problem here is that "marriage," as a term, is alone in being used to describe both a civil and a religious institution. The real solution is to just let religion have "marriage," and to use "civil union" for all state-sanctioned partnerships. If you married in a church, they could issue you a marriage certificate, but it would count for about as little as your baptismal certificate does. It would be your government issued Certificate of Civil Union -- like your government-issued Birth Certificate -- that actually mattered. That's the fix.)

[Bkeela]

I should have known there would be no real anti-homosexual sentiment expressed at this site.

[Berzerker]

This is absolutely not true. It's a civil rights issue. Did the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act coerce people into treating blacks better? No, of course not. Nor was that the point. The push for gay marriage is a rights issue, and as such it is definitely teh provence of government.

Civil rights regarding how gov't treats us is one thing, but this is also about civil rights that require private citizens to treat homosexuals "equally".

(Incidently, the real problem here is that "marriage," as a term, is alone in being used to describe both a civil and a religious institution. The real solution is to just let religion have "marriage," and to use "civil union" for all state-sanctioned partnerships. If you married in a church, they could issue you a marriage certificate, but it would count for about as little as your baptismal certificate does. It would be your government issued Certificate of Civil Union -- like your government-issued Birth Certificate -- that actually mattered. That's the fix.)

Won't happen, but I'd go a step further and not have the gov't create a special class of citizens by putting unions into law either. Equal treatment under the law doesn't work well when groups are created and treated differently under the law.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Civil rights regarding how gov't treats us is one thing, but this is also about civil rights that require private citizens to treat homosexuals "equally".

You've honestly lost me here. How would allowing gay mariage require anything of any private citizens except the two people who marry?

[Berzerker]

Many companies provide added benefits to married people, especially if they have kids. Gay marriage would be used to sue those companies for discrimination if they didn't provide equal treatment. Thats just the start of the ripple effect...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Many companies provide added benefits to married people, especially if they have kids. Gay marriage would be used to sue those companies for discrimination if they didn't provide equal treatment. Thats just the start of the ripple effect...

So what? If we acknowledge gay marriage is a right (and it is; its the right to enter into a contract), then its a right. Business's just have to suck that up.

Here's the real question, as I said before: if we were in Virginia forty years ago and talking about legalizing interracial marriages, would you make this argument? Legalizing interracial marriage forced businesses to provide benefits or be sued for discrimination. Was that wrong?

[Jon Miller]

I dont' acknowledge gay marriage as a right. Just like I don't acknowledge the right of people to marry when younger than 18, or two marry their cousin or all sorts of other things.

We draw lines, and they must be drawn, and they should be drawn reasonably, but the conservatives line as marriage being a contract between a woman a man is a reasonable line to draw.

The reason I support gay marriage is that I think that by not supplying the social support of the marriage contract, society weakens gay relationships. This makes a small (but noticeable) percentage of society unhappy. Also, this can be fixed (by providing the social contract, ie gay marriage) with minimum harm to the rest of soceity.

So I am in favor of gay marriage. But not because I think it is a right.

Jon Miller

[Berzerker]

So what? If we acknowledge gay marriage is a right (and it is; its the right to enter into a contract), then its a right. Business's just have to suck that up.

And I object to this, the gov't does not exist to make us treat each other "equally". The freedom of association translates into a right to discriminate...a right we all use everyday of our lives. You say gay marriage is a contract and it is, a contract between 2 gay people. Not 2 gay people and all the people at IBM.

Here's the real question, as I said before: if we were in Virginia forty years ago and talking about legalizing interracial marriages, would you make this argument? Legalizing interracial marriage forced businesses to provide benefits or be sued for discrimination. Was that wrong?

I dont believe marriage is the gov'ts business at all. And I'm not arguing against gay marriage, I merely pointed out what this is really about. If gays want to marry they can't sue others for not treating them like they're married. That preserves freedom for everyone...

[Jon Miller]

The only reason I am a bit worried about gay marriage, is that I am afraid that other (smaller) groups will say that marriage is a right, that they should have available to them.

And then we will have group marriages and such things, which I think will harm the rest of society.

Jon Miller

[Berzerker]

Jon

I dont' acknowledge gay marriage as a right. Just like I don't acknowledge the right of people to marry when younger than 18, or two marry their cousin or all sorts of other things.

We draw lines, and they must be drawn, and they should be drawn reasonably

Drawing lines requires moral authority... from where did you get the moral authority to decide who everyone else can marry?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I dont' acknowledge gay marriage as a right. Just like I don't acknowledge the right of people to marry when younger than 18, or two marry their cousin or all sorts of other things.

We draw lines, and they must be drawn, and they should be drawn reasonably, but the conservatives line as marriage being a contract between a woman a man is a reasonable line to draw.

Do you know how fallacious it is to draw a parallel between gay marriage and pedophilia or incest?


The only reasonable line to draw for legal protection of a couple's marriage, is when it's between two consenting adults who are not related to one another regardless of sexual orientation.


People used to think it was reasonable to draw the line prohibiting interracial marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, I can use the conscience argument when I hypothetically accept at face-value, for sake of argument, the false claim that sexual orientation is a choice.

The reason I use this approach, is because people who argue that sexual orientation is a choice, have the mistaken presumption that if they can convince people it's a choice, then in turn, they can morally and legally justify discrimination against gays.

Okay, so you really don't believe that being gay has anything to do with freedom of conscience. Glad to hear.

So why then should folks be required to recognise gay marriage? Upon what basis is it wrong for people to discriminate?

But by my using the conscience argument, I deconstruct this fallacious argument by pointing out that even if given that sexual orientation is a choice, it does not follow that we can justly discriminate against gays.

We do that all the time. If a person chooses not to go to war and fight, do we give them veteran's benefits? No. If a person chooses not to have kids, do we give them a stipend to raise kids?

Is that not discrimination against people for the choices that they make?

Secondly, I can still use the conscience argument even with the valid claim that sexual orientation is a not a choice. The reasoning behind this, is that, as I have already said, the process of a person realizing that he is gay and whether he chooses to accept himself as a gay man is part of his own conscience. So in of itself, his sexual orientation is not a choice, but he does have a choice in how to deal with his sexual orientation identity.

Then it really isn't a conscience issue. You are trying to make the rights argument based on 'identity' rather then conscience. The biggest problem is that there really isn't a good definition as to what makes someone 'gay'. I've suggested a very simple measure, such as any man who has every slept with a man, and you have rejected that suggestion as without merit without offering a concrete competing argument.

If you are going to base the argument on a person's identity, then you have to come up with a concrete definition based upon physical reality. For example, I can consider myself to be hearing impaired based upon a specific definition as to what proportion of hearing loss constitutes an impairment.

This is what all the other groups have to do in order to receive assistance, in defining what constitutes a disability.

If we can simple 'out' ourselves then being gay is most definitely a conscious choice, and thus falls under freedom of conscience, with conversion and the whole lot becoming applicable.

[Jon Miller]

I am not saying it is similiar to pedophilia or incest

I am saying that we draw lines... we say what sort of contract it is

saying it is a contract between a man and a woman is just defining it

which is ok, we do that all the time

and some people like you say that you think that the only reasonable line is that it is between two adults who are not related..

And I agree that that is not an unreasonable line, which is why I say that gay marriage doesn't harm society, but it isn't the only reasonable line.

Jon Miller