Americans and Same-Sex Marriage

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I disagree. Why should the term marriage be special and reserved for heterosexual couples only? If you make up a new term, it may be looked down on as inferior. Will it fell just as good for someone to tell their family and friends they are getting a civil union as to tell them they are getting married? I don't think it would. Having different wor ...[text shortened]... ng depending on whether they are homosexual or heterosexual is discrimination plain and simple.

so should a grown man be able to marry a 8 year old girl? If not aren't you discriminating against him? There is no discrimination here. Marriage has been an institution for hundreds of years between a man and a woman--which makes sense since you need a man and a woman to reproduce. Saying that an alternative lifesytle needs the same rights is ridiculous. If that alt. lifesyle gets that right why shouldn't every alt. lifestyle, including the ones who like to marry 8 year old girls? Calling it discrimation is stupid and probably the weakest argument you can put forth. Taking the desires of a minority and imposing them on the majority makes less sense that keeping the status quo the majority wants. It's pretty simple here in the U.S. Each state can put it to a vote, if same sex marriage is voted for than it will pass and become law. We don't need rogue lawmakers usurping the will of the people, and the law, and deciding the issue for everyone.

Originally posted by newdad27
so should a grown man be able to marry a 8 year old girl? If not aren't you discriminating against him? There is no discrimination here. Marriage has been an institution for hundreds of years between a man and a woman--which makes sense since you need a man and a woman to reproduce. Saying that an alternative lifesytle needs the same rights is ridiculou ...[text shortened]... ht why should'nt every alt. lifestyle, including the ones who like to marry 8 year old girls?

Because society changes, and some things which weren't socially acceptable are now very much accepted.

Men used to be able to marry young girls, and we've developed as a society so that this is no longer acceptable.

Gay relationships used to be frowned upon (to say the least) and now, this is less so, so it is only reasonable that they should have the option to marry.


And, to pick up your edit, nobody is imposing anything on the 'majority'. Nobody is saying gay marriages are compulsory for everyone. If you don't like it, don't do it, but why should you impose your views on those who do like it?

Originally posted by Redmike
Because society changes, and some things which weren't socially acceptable are now very much accepted.

Men used to be able to marry young girls, and we've developed as a society so that this is no longer acceptable.

Gay relationships used to be frowned upon (to say the least) and now, this is less so, so it is only reasonable that they should have the ...[text shortened]... don't like it, don't do it, but why should you impose your views on those who do like it?

why should the will of the majority (80😵 be ignored by a minority. That's not the way our system works. I could care less what anyone wants to do with their life, I just don't think they should expect the laws to be changed to support their lifestyle. Also, with what has happened to marriage in the countries that have no standards for marriage is a compelling reason keep our standards for marriage the way they have always been. Again, this is a lifesyle. Discrimination would exist if you didn't allow a black person to marry a white person. That is discrimination. There is an important distinction there.

Originally posted by newdad27
why should the will of the majority (80😵 be ignored by a minority. That's not the way our system works. I could care less what anyone wants to do with their life, I just don't think they should expect the laws to be changed to support their lifestyle. Also, with what has happened to marriage in the countries that have no standards for marriage is a comp ...[text shortened]... n to marry a white person. That is discrimination. There is an important distinction there.

There are no countries where there are no standards for marriage, so I've no idea what you are referring to - do you have any kind of source for what I can only presume is a 'if you allow gay marriage then the fabric of society collapses' arguement?

And what do you mean keep marriage the way it has always been? The standards for marriage aren't static - they have changed over the years, and they will continue. It used to be permissible to marry 12-year old girls - are you advocating we return to this?

This is not a lifestyle. A gay person has no more choice in the matter than a black person does. And that makes it discrimination to prevent gay people marrying.

Originally posted by Redmike
There are no countries where there are no standards for marriage, so I've no idea what you are referring to - do you have any kind of source for what I can only presume is a 'if you allow gay marriage then the fabric of society collapses' arguement?

And what do you mean keep marriage the way it has always been? The standards for marriage aren't static - t ...[text shortened]... r than a black person does. And that makes it discrimination to prevent gay people marrying.

homosexuality is an alternative lifesytle, it is not the same as one's race. Making it a civil rights issue is where they lose credibility.

Originally posted by newdad27
homosexuality is an alternative lifesytle, it is not the same as one's race. Making it a civil rights issue is where they lose credibility.

Making it a civil rights issue is what makes the case so strong.

And I guess you've no answer to the other questions either?

Originally posted by Redmike
Making it a civil rights issue is what makes the case so strong.

And I guess you've no answer to the other questions either?

it doesn't make it strong because you cannot prove a homosexual is born that way. That's your opinion.

My point referes to numerous studies that shows that in legal same sex marriage countries the marriage rates went down signnificantly. That is not good for society.
We can debate all day long wether they should be able to get legally married, but the main point in the U.S. is that at present it is against the law. Even though it is against the law we have activist law makers and judges allowing it in a few states. They won't put it to a vote to change the law (because they know voters would never pass it) so they make their own (temporary) rulings until a higher court comes back and overturns their illegal decisions. I live in a democracy so if same sex marriage gets put on a ballot to vote on, and gets passed, then great...it will not be against the law anymore.

Originally posted by newdad27
it doesn't make it strong because you cannot prove a homosexual is born that way. That's your opinion.

My point referes to numerous studies that shows that in legal same sex marriage countries the marriage rates went down signnificantly. That is not good for society.
We can debate all day long wether they should be able to get legally married, but t ...[text shortened]... on a ballot to vote on, and gets passed, then great...it will not be against the law anymore.

A gay person doesn't have to be 'born that way' to have civil rights. People with disabilities have civil rights, regardless of how their disabilities arose.

Do you have any sort of source for your claim that in countries which introduced same sex marriages the overall marriage rate went down as a result? You say there are numerous studies - can you cite any of them? Just one of them?

It is just your opinion that a reduction in marriage rates is bad for society - I happen to disagree.

I cannot really speak to the political position in the US. I'm more interested in supporting the principle of gay marriage, everywhere.

Originally posted by Redmike
A gay person doesn't have to be 'born that way' to have civil rights. People with disabilities have civil rights, regardless of how their disabilities arose.

Do you have any sort of source for your claim that in countries which introduced same sex marriages the overall marriage rate went down as a result? You say there are numerous studies - can you cite ...[text shortened]... tion in the US. I'm more interested in supporting the principle of gay marriage, everywhere.

he does need to be born that way, besides you don't have a civil right to marry whomever, or whatever, you want. Also, if you legalize same sex marriage you have to legalize all other groups, like poligamist, to legal marriage under equal protection.

here is one study, although this one focuses on the fact that divorce rates are higher among homosexual marriages.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2004-018.pdf

Originally posted by newdad27
he does need to be born that way, besides you don't have a civil right to marry whomever, or whatever, you want. Also, if you legalize same sex marriage you have to legalize all other groups, like poligamist, to legal marriage under equal protection.

here is one study, although this one focuses on the fact that divorce rates are higher among homosexual marriages.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2004-018.pdf

Why does a gay person have to be born that way to have civil rights?

I agree that you don't have a civil right to marry whoever you want, and nobody is claiming you do. However, I'm arguing that two people of the same gender who want to get married, and who are of a suitable age etc etc, should be allowed to. Not whoever you want. Not your sister or your goat. Nor yor sister's goat.

You don't have to allow marriage for all 'other groups' - the law isn't a blunt instrument like this - people get paid lots of money to frame laws in a suitable manner. If this equal protection is such a powerful device, why has it not been used to gain the right to same sex marriages?

So, you made a claim that the marriage rate declines overall when gay marriage is introduced, and said this could be backed up by studies.

And then you produce a study which says something completely different. That really doesn't help. Do you have reference to a study which backs up your position or not?

Originally posted by Redmike
If this equal protection is such a powerful device, why has it not been used to gain the right to same sex marriages?

It has. Also, many of the current arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are based on equal protections under the law.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
It has. Also, many of the current arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are based on equal protections under the law.

-JC

OK - this is clearly a US-specific thing I'm not familiar with.

It clearly hasn't been succesful in allowing same sex marriage, so I do not understand how, if legislation were passed allowing same sex marriage this could automatically lead to the right to marry my goldfish.

Originally posted by Redmike
OK - this is clearly a US-specific thing I'm not familiar with.

It clearly hasn't been succesful in allowing same sex marriage, so I do not understand how, if legislation were passed allowing same sex marriage this could automatically lead to the right to marry my goldfish.

It clearly has. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage two years ago, based largely upon equal protections within the MA constitution.

However, I do not agree that equal protection can be applied to marrying red herrings, pun intended.

-JC

Originally posted by Redmike
OK - this is clearly a US-specific thing I'm not familiar with.

It clearly hasn't been succesful in allowing same sex marriage, so I do not understand how, if legislation were passed allowing same sex marriage this could automatically lead to the right to marry my goldfish.

because marriage is between a man and a woman (the two sexes that can reproduce). Homosexuals want change the definition to allow their minority group, and lifestyle, to get legally married too. If one alternative lifestyle is allowed so must all others or you're discrimination against them. At present "marriage" in our law refers to a man and a woman getting married, which is the natural majority. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Originally posted by newdad27
because marriage is between a man and a woman (the two sexes that can reproduce). Homosexuals want change the definition to allow their minority group, and lifestyle, to get legally married too. If one alternative lifestyle is allowed so must all others or you're discrimination against them. At present "marriage" in our law refers to a man and a woman getting married, which is the natural majority. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

I'll humor you.

Is reproduction the requirement in your mind for defining man and woman, and therefore the right to marry?

-JC