|
Post by gillianren on Jun 19, 2007 0:45:41 GMT -4
Absolutely yes. No good reason for them not to.
Oh, I know--some people disagree. However, all their non-religious arguments, at least that I've seen, are logical fallacies, since it's so easy to prove that they don't hold the same standards to heterosexual marriages. As to the religious arguments, it is also a fallacy to claim that all religions are opposed; it's not even mostly true. Even looking merely at Abrahamic religions, which aren't all the religions there are.
Also, I hate to disillusion you, Jason, but the children aren't the primary reason for the state's interest in marriage; the property is. Always has been. Further, as to not having biological children of both parents, what about people in second (or third, or so on) marriages? What about my daughter's adoptive parents? She doesn't share a blood relationship with either of them. Not close enough for us to know about it, at least; obviously, all humans share a blood relationship if you go back quite a few thousand years. Does that make their marriage invalid? (Not that I'm 100% sure they're married, but let's assume they are for the time being.) What about my sister and her husband, who so far as I know aren't planning to have children?
This is what I mean about your non-religious arguments being fallacious. There's no data showing that homosexual couples have a greater incidence of mental health problems (unless you start from the incorrect assumption that homosexuality is itself a mental health problem). There's no evidence that they would have a higher divorce rate. There's no evidence that they harm society. Homosexual couples have a higher average income that straight couples.
And 20 years ago, conservative Christians were saying that the reason they were dying of AIDS (well, not AIDS per se; it wasn't called that yet) was that they wouldn't settle down. Now, they want to (I imagine a lot did then, too, of course), and conservative Christians aren't okay with that, either. How hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 19, 2007 7:28:51 GMT -4
Not to pick on you, Jason, but you're the only person who said no, so you're the only person with a negative argument to work from. The primary puropse for the state in granting legal recognition to marriage is to recognize the biological children produced by a marriage for the purposes of inheritence and family laws. I don't buy that. It's for inheritance purposes but that does not equate to children. If I had not married Emma last year on my death she would have received nothing, despite our living together as a couple for several years. As my wife everything now goes to her by default. Why should that be deined to a homosexual couple? The primary purpose you talk of here does not apply to my marriage. Emma and I have no intention of having children. Should we therefore not have been permitted to marry? What is immoral about two people falling in love, whatever their gender? Are they harming anyone? If procreation is the issue, the current population of the world could do with some non-productive couplings, frankly. Having the state forbid those who do not share that religious view because some religious groups consider it immoral is surely equivalent abuse? Why should I, as a non-religious person, have religious values forced upon me? So explain why it is immoral. 'Because the Bible says so' is not an argument. The Bible also talks of stoning people to death if they work on the sabbath, doing horrible things to women on their period, not eating certain things, not creating likenesses of certain things, and being unspeakably horrible to people who don't agree with that religion. As I understand it, Jesus also taught the abandonment of all that stuff and just to 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you,' though I admit my biblical learnings are limited. However, there are many areas in which major religious groups do not agree, and where state laws favour one group over another people get upset. Why should non-religious people be any less worthy of consideration when it comes to state laws? I know many homosexual people. They are not criminals, they are not diseased, they are not mentally incapable, they are not corrupt. They are perfectly nice people, and I am pleased and proud to have them among my friends. Above all, however, they are not given a choice about their sexuality. Do you think they choose a lifestyle that causes friends and family to turn their backs, that marginalises them in society, and which may well be against their own strict religious upbringing? They are what they are, and denying them rights is unacceptable in the 21st century, IMO. Do you realise that exactly the same argument works for why Siblings should be allowed to marry......That has not escaped my notice, Phantomwolf, and frankly I consider it just as ludicrous that the state shold intervene in any loving relationship. If two consenting adults fall in love and want to be together, why stop them? Of course, with family there is a biological issue of inbreeding depression, but that's separate from the legality issue.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 19, 2007 10:27:51 GMT -4
I voted yes, because Marriage in my view is a legal definition and agreement (and disagreement) between 2 people, regardless of Sex or Orientation,
I also noticed that Marriage term has been changed in ceremonies and Registration offices to civil partnerships for in relation to same sex couples, probably just to get around the law, and partly because of religious indignation to the use of the term marriage.
You can I believe register a civil partnership for a traditional couple as well, but through bitter experience (loss of all my stuff including the cat) I think I will settle for just a mutual co-habitation arrangement with my next Pixie instead.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 19, 2007 11:20:48 GMT -4
The ultimate hypocracy is when someone says that same sex marriage should be illegal because it "threatens" the sanctity of traditional marriage...
What "sanctity"??...these same people are silent when it comes to divorce.
If 2 people want to commit themselves to each other, the government shouldn't have any say in the matter. That the government "thinks" it can somehow legislate it's narrow version of morality says a hell of a lot about the lack of freedoms afforded to people in the US.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 19, 2007 11:59:37 GMT -4
Would this be the same sanctity, that allows you to travel to Vegas Queue for Half an hour or so to get a license, then get married by an Elvis impersonator in double quick time. Luckily you can get a super quicky divorce as well.
If you get married by a Gay Elvis (or priest/vicar Religious personage) does that also effect the Sanctity, would that also mean that dependant on the higher Legal or Religious Rank of the officiator the more Sacred the marriage is.
If a couple from countries that already allow same sex weddings, travel to a country where it is forbidden, and an accident occurs that requires a next of kin agreement for a procedure, would the non recognition of the marriage exclude the legal partner?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 12:01:37 GMT -4
Not to pick on you, Jason, but you're the only person who said no, so you're the only person with a negative argument to work from. Yes, I rather expected to be the whipping boy on this thread.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 13:05:28 GMT -4
As to the religious arguments, it is also a fallacy to claim that all religions are opposed; it's not even mostly true. Good thing I didn't argue that then. Who are the primary inheritors of property? What do you think is the government's motivation for providing other benefits to marriage - tax benefits, child credits, etc.? Why does the U.S. government spend so many of my tax dollars on education? I have no problem with adopted children. My brother and sister-in-law are in the position that they have had to adopt in order to have children. I consider their marriage fully valid and their adopted son to really be my nephew, despite the fact that he looks nothing like the rest of the family. Of course, they have done so fully within the guidelines of my faith. I do in fact consider homosexuality itself, and other gender identity disorders, to be mental health problems. Didn't you say earlier that homosexual teens are more prone to depression? That was the impression I received from your earlier posts. There was a serious study perfomed in America in 1994 R. (Michael, J. H. Gagnon, et al., Sex in America: a Definitive Survey [Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1994].) The researchers found that the vast majority of heterosexual couples were monogamous while the marriage was intact. 94% of married heterosexual couples and 75% of co-habitating heterosexual couples had no partners outside their current relationship in the previous twelve months. Gay men who were coupled reported that they had sex with someone other than their partner in 66% of their relationships during the first year of their coupleship, rising to 90% if the relationship lasts for five years. Another extensive study on homosexuality and monogamy was conducted by David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison in 1984 ( The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop - the authors are themselves a homosexual couple). They found 156 couples who had been in relationships as long as 31 years. Two-thirds had entered their relationship with either the implicit or explicit expectation of sexual fidelity. Of the 156 couples only 7 had been able to maintain sexual fidelity, and of those seven, none had been together for more than five years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple who had maintained sexual fidelity for more than five years. A more recent study in the journal AIDS (17:7, 2003) conducted in the Netherlands by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service found that the average "marriage" of gay couples lasted 1 1/2 years with an average of eight partners per year outside their relationships. The Netherlands are, debatably, one of the most "gay friendly" nations on earth. Now, maintaining sexual monogamy may not be quite the same thing as avoiding divorce, but I think most people would agree the two are strongly linked.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 19, 2007 13:48:44 GMT -4
Marriage is a public and legal relationship, not a strictly private one. Agreed. One is no more entitled to marry than one is entitled to a driver's license. Just as it is to say that (state) recognition or denial of a marriage is any sort of interference in religious matters. Then there is no longer a reason for the state to sanction marriages at all, since science is capable of conclusively proving or disproving biological kinship. In which case, for the sake of American Jews and Muslims, pork products must also be banned.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 13:58:31 GMT -4
In which case, for the sake of American Jews and Muslims, pork products must also be banned. Rather I would say that American Jews and Muslims have a perfect right to advocate for the banning of pork products. If they manage to convince the rest of us then more power to them.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 19, 2007 14:10:22 GMT -4
It's certainly a novel take on the 1st amendment, that to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means the government is required to enforce the doctrine of a particular religion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 14:34:15 GMT -4
Only if you believe that all arguments against homosexual marriage must be religious in nature.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 14:37:58 GMT -4
The ultimate hypocracy is when someone says that same sex marriage should be illegal because it "threatens" the sanctity of traditional marriage... What "sanctity"??...these same people are silent when it comes to divorce. So your argument is that the sanctity of marriage has already been destroyed? Every government I am aware of has some laws about who you may or may not marry.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 19, 2007 14:40:06 GMT -4
I said the reason for government recognition of marriage was for the sake of the children, not that the production of children is the only reason for marriage. But wait, aren't you using that purpose as the reason why homosexuals can't get married? If the inability to produce children is enough to disclude homosexuals from marriage, then it should also be enought to disclude straight couples who cannot produce children.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 19, 2007 14:42:54 GMT -4
Well Jason, it's a good thing Christianity doesn't consider people named "Jason" immoral or you would be up a creek without a paddle wouldn't you? Would you still agree with that logic if you were the one being discriminated against?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 14:49:15 GMT -4
I said the reason for government recognition of marriage was for the sake of the children, not that the production of children is the only reason for marriage. But wait, aren't you using that purpose as the reason why homosexuals can't get married? No. Not the only reason, anyway. The primary reason homosexuals cannot be married is because they are the same gender.
|
|