Gay marriage. Are you for or against it?

[crazyfingers]

I see that one more nonsense argument against gay marriage has met the smack down.

 

[TooCurious]

A good reason? Of course! Gays violate the sanctity of marriage, and the relationship God intended people to have.

I know I asked for a "valid legal reason." The statement you've provided rather dramatically fails to meet this criterion.

The State has a duty to protect what you call "civil" marriage.

Precisely why it should protect that right for all consenting adults--equality under law.

A child is best raised by his or her biological mother and father.

This is demonstrably NOT universally the case. How often in this country is a child removed from the custody of a biological parent due to abuse or neglect? This would not occur if your statement were true.

A child is best raised by people who love that child and have his or her best interests at heart.

Opening the door to gay marriage, opens the door to bi-sexual marriage (three people),

This is not "bisexual marriage." Bisexual marriage is a marriage wherein one or both of the members of the couple is bisexual. Bisexuality is the ability to be sexually attracted to members of EITHER gender, not a need to be partnered with members of BOTH genders simultaneously.

and then to heterosexual three or more people marriage.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Marriage is for the stability of the children.

If this were true, then couples who cannot or choose not to have children should not get married. This is not the case, and so your statement is false. People marry for many reasons, including to affirm their lifelong commitment to one another, and to benefit from the lengthy list of priveleges and protections legally afforded married couples.

Gays do love each other but marriage is not necessary nor is it discriminatory.

Who are you to judge what is "necessary" for another person or couple's life and happiness? Would you like to be told that marriage "is not necessary" for you?

Gay people could be allowed to have all the other rights they want and they should have equal protection under the law.

Then they should have the right to affirm their commitments to their partners through civil marriage, and gain the priveleges and protections that the state affords to married couples.

They should not be harassed or harmed by anyone.

I'm glad you agree.

But gay marriage is step one toward making all marriage meaningless.

What?! How does another couple legally solemnizing their romantic commitment to one another make anyone else's marriage "meaningless"? Did the legalization of interracial marriage make anyone else's marriage "meaningless"? (Hint: no.)

I love my parents very much but I do not want to have sex with them.

I'm glad for you. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, or for that matter the topic of this thread or anything else you've said here?

 

[beth34]

You asked the question "Are you for or against gay marriage?" For the ones that have said they are against it, they get questioned about it or given a hard time. That's amusing to me. I'm against it.

 

[eddieJ]

The slippery slope fact. Just google "beyong gay marriage" or go to www dot firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330


The social engineering experiment is trying to get off the ground. It's 1968 and "Free Love" all over again.




God bless,
Eddie

 

[Skaloop]

You asked the question "Are you for or against gay marriage?" For the ones that have said they are against it, they get questioned about it or given a hard time. That's amusing to me. I'm against it.

Asking them why is not giving them a hard time. Neither is further asking them why their religious-based opinion should determine the law. Remember, this is a debate forum.

 

[YamiB]

The slippery slope fact. Just google "beyong gay marriage" or go to www dot firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330


The social engineering experiment is trying to get off the ground. It's 1968 and "Free Love" all over again.

God bless,
Eddie

Wow I didn't know that you could see into the future and therefore know that the nonsense about slippery slope is true. As I've said before each issue should be evaluated on its own merit. If the other things that people are afraid of coming up after same-sex marriage have valid reasons to be kept illegal than they will stay that way. If this idea really had any truth then the real solution would be to ban marriage for everybody because obviously allowing heterosexuals to have marriage makes homosexual want it.

 

[Valgaav]

A good reason? Of course! Gays violate the sanctity of marriage, and the relationship God intended people to have.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[tocis]

and seeing that so many gay couples want to get married in states that dont allow them to might be violating their rights? why is it a violation to their rights? i dont understand. they do have the right to be together. dont get me wrong. if they want to be together, fine you know. but the right to marry? i think thats just a little over the top.

Well, as long as it's all just about "being together", no one needs a marriage. Just be together and be happy.
It starts to get interesting (and problematic...) for two reasons as far as I can tell:
1. religious convictions - well, if your religion doesn't condone homosexual marriage then don't bless it for couples in your faith. Period. That's every religion's right... as long as they restrict their opnions to their faith.
2. secular benefits, like tax breaks et al. Now these have to conform to the nature and the constitution of the corresponding government. In a theocracy, it's fine if religious convictions also determine who gets or doesn't get tax breaks. In a nation without any official state religion it's not okay.

Over here in Germany we strictly differentiate between "standesamtliche Hochzeit" (secular/civil marriage) and "kirchliche Hochzeit" (religious marriage, commonly referring to christianity). The latter the corresponding church can condone or oppose - although opposition is likely to draw some flak. The former is something where no discrimination based on anything is allowed if the constitution clearly says that the law mustn't differentiate... and as (among other things) our constitution says that there mustn't be any discrimination based on sexual preference, a ban of gay marriage is basically out of the question, whether half the population wants it or not. You want to change that, you better go ahead and work on changing the constitution. Good luck trying that, considering the many safeguards implemented after the end of the nazi horror...

 

[tocis]

YES!!!

Careful... if you define sexual relations as "okay only if reproduction is possible", are we then to ban relations between couples where at least one partner is infertile?

 

[sparklecat]

Really? Here in Canada, Justices of the Peace cannot refuse to perform a civil marriage for a same-sex couple. As they are government agents, they are not allowed to discriminate in that manner. When SSM was made legal not too long ago, several JPs who objected to it were forced to resign their positions (or at least stop performing marriages).

Churches, priests, anyone else performing a religious marriage; they are still free to refuse to perform a marriage for whatever reason they see fit based upon their beliefs.

Yes, really. Perhaps they just try to make sure there is always someone available who will perform the ceremony in a given area? Since there's a waiting period anyway, you've got time to find someone.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You asked the question "Are you for or against gay marriage?" For the ones that have said they are against it, they get questioned about it or given a hard time. That's amusing to me. I'm against it.

That is because those who for gay marriage, almost always post their reasons (usually based on the null hypothesis: there's nothing wrong with it, no reason to ban it, etc). Everyone knows the legitimacy of these arguments, so no-one bothers to debate them.
However, those who are against gay marriage are questioned because everyone wants to know why. As I'm sure you've noticed, there has been not one legitimate reason (even the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality).

It is amusing to me that you berate the fact that anti-gay-marriage-ers are the only ones questioned, yet you do nothing about it. Perhaps you would like to question a pro-gay-marriage-er, if you feel so victimised?

 

[violetchick]

Yes, really. Perhaps they just try to make sure there is always someone available who will perform the ceremony in a given area? Since there's a waiting period anyway, you've got time to find someone.

Sparklecat:
I don't know if the law is different in Scotland than the rest of the UK - but here in England (and Wales) Registrars are not allowed to refuse to perform a Civil Partnership. It is classed as part of their job description and if they refused to perform one then they would be in breach of their contract and up for disciplinary action and possible dismissal.

 

[Madcoil]

I am against gay marriage, because it means I'll have to attend more marriages.

 

[sparklecat]

Sparklecat:
I don't know if the law is different in Scotland than the rest of the UK - but here in England (and Wales) Registrars are not allowed to refuse to perform a Civil Partnership. It is classed as part of their job description and if they refused to perform one then they would be in breach of their contract and up for disciplinary action and possible dismissal.

Possibly it is just Scotland. I'll see if I can find where I got that bit of information.

 

[sparklecat]

Here it is:

"A registrar must be authorised to perform civil partnerships, just as a registrar must be authorised to perform civil marriages. About 85% of registrars are authorised to perform civil marriages, and not all registrars will be authorised to perform civil partnerships. A registrar who is authorised to perform civil marriage cannot refuse to carry out a civil marriage on "conscientious objection" grounds (for example, a civil marriage where one partner has a gender recognition certificate) but could refuse to be authorised to perform civil partnerships."


So rather than specifically declining, they just never get the permission to do so in the first place.

 

[violetchick]

Oh I see. However, I was under the impression that each Local Authority had a duty to provide a Registrar authorised to perform a Civil Partnership.
I'll just check it out further. I know that there were alot of resignations when CPs were legalised, so that would indicate that some Registrars thought that they would have to perform them and quit rather than be forced to.

 

[sparklecat]

Oh I see. However, I was under the impression that each Local Authority had a duty to provide a Registrar authorised to perform a Civil Partnership.
I'll just check it out further. I know that there were alot of resignations when CPs were legalised, so that would indicate that some Registrars thought that they would have to perform them and quit rather than be forced to.

I was under the same impression. Perhaps it has to do with the sizes of the local offices and whether they can manage to keep people on staff who won't get certified?

 

[Blackness]

I personally am against it. One thing I'd like to clear up, however, is that I'm not homophobic. Most of my life people have called me a "crazed homophobe". I am NOT homophobic. I do not fear them, I just do not like them!

Do you not like them, or do you not like their actions?

 

[crazyfingers]

You asked the question "Are you for or against gay marriage?" For the ones that have said they are against it, they get questioned about it or given a hard time. That's amusing to me. I'm against it.

They get questioned because those who are against allowing gays legal civil marriage have been universally unable to provide a secular reason for it that holds any water.

Religious reasons for disallowing legal civil marriage are disallowed because laws must have secular purposes.

 

[Parmenio]

You know, I think Madcoil is on to something. I've attended enough weddings in my short life. If I have to attend my gay friends' marriages too.. oh man. I'm anti-weddings. For anyone. No more weddings. You have to elope. Send me pictures.