Thread: If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

But it'll never be a mariage because a mariage is a union between a man and a wife.

Says who?
Marriage is what we collectively say it is.

Says I, and says history.

I don't believe in "truth is what everyone agrees on". Truth is truth. If you feel the need to change a definition for something then why not just create something new?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

The reasoning "it doesn't affect me now" is one that does not and never will work. Because eventually it might affect you.

Consider that the law would find it ok that people should be sacrificed for religion's sake. Human sacrifice.

At first you say, well, I don't mind that because I don't know anyone who'd want to do that.

And then your SON joins a cult that does, and he's selected to be sacrificed.

You USED to not have a problem with the fact that it was legal. But now you think it is.

Humans don't just judge something by how it affects them right NOW. But also by how it might affect them in the future.

For many people mariage is a very sensitive thing. It's considered sacred by many individuals. When you start changing the definition of it in some way they become affraid of it being changed in other ways in the future. The very thing that Jockeys gave as an illustration (what if in the future gay couples become majority and decide that straight mariages aren't lawfull) becomes their fear. So of mariage is left for what it is, a union between a man an a woman, that fear leaves.

Hell, create another word for it if you like, call is a ssunion, or a gayriage, or awhatever you like. But don't call it mariage, that's just asking for trouble.

I thought someone would blurt out how if same sex marriage was legal (as it is in many countries) next people would want to marry their dog. I really thought that was going to be the far edge of ridiculousness. But Alex, here you topped that by a long shot! You are comparing same sex marriage to human sacrifice! Awesome, just awesome. We are talking about the joining of two consenting adults. The word marriage means any close joining or relationship. The flavors in a pot of soup marry. The pieces of a lawnmower are married to each other.

The funniest thing about your opposition to same sex marriage in the USA is that you live in the first country to legally recognize same sex marriage.

There was a news story in the US about Leona Helmsley, very rich hotelier who left some 25 millions to her dog. They finished a court case that allows the executors to divide the estate pretty much however they want without regard to more than a pittance for the dog. Seems that the dog was allowed to have a legal relationship, since it took many years of court and lawyer time to get this far in the decision. That sounds like a defacto relationship even though they weren't married.

I like Ray's point about "like non Jews wanting to be able to do Bar Mitzvah." There does not seem to be any point to the exercise of forcing society to accept when in the end it may be nothing more than a cultural difference that could more easily be tolerated. Except for the absence of tolerance by the majority...

I voted to say that it shouldnt be legal...

Am I opposed to homosexuality...my social mind says well i dont care i guess...my religious mind says its not right...

but the main reason I dont feel it should be legal is because this may cause a trend of people that arent really homosexual to marry just for benefits like health insurance, tax breaks, stuff like that. And now that DOES affect me because my tax dollars are paying for it.

Originally Posted by erictski

I voted to say that it shouldnt be legal...

Am I opposed to homosexuality...my social mind says well i dont care i guess...my religious mind says its not right...

but the main reason I dont feel it should be legal is because this may cause a trend of people that arent really homosexual to marry just for benefits like health insurance, tax breaks, stuff like that. And now that DOES affect me because my tax dollars are paying for it.

Finally, someone mentioning a rational argument for being against.
I am not agreeing with you, but at least you have an argument that makes sense.

I don't think it would be a big problem, because I don't see it happening in big numbers, any more than gay couples are intermarrying other gay couples for the perks.

Suppose I were single, would I marry by best friend for the benefits? No. I would not marry him, because I don't think it would improve my chances of picking up a single woman .

Even if I wanted to arrange for a bogus marriage, I would seek a female friend for doing so. Because all things being equal, I'd rather be fake-married to a woman than fake-married to a man (on account of me being straight).

In short, I think that the people who would abuse the system are already doing so now, and the persons who would marry would predominantly be the ones actually wanting to marry their significant other.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Says I,

I am right.
Why am I right?
Because I say I am right.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

and says history.

Humankind has a lot of things in its history that we thankfully abandoned.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I don't believe in "truth is what everyone agrees on". Truth is truth. If you feel the need to change a definition for something then why not just create something new?

Because then you have to maintain 2 complex legal concepts that affect a lot of things, instead of just one.

Even civil unions don't confer the same rights and duties as marriage atm, despite the fact that that is already existing for a long time. Creating yet another concept and updating all relevant legal and administrative texts is a metric ton of paperwork and overhead that is unnecessary because it doesn't change anything.

And if you allow for the concept of equal rights for civil unions, then the only difference would be to the people who are not affected by it, yet object to using the term 'marriage' on emotional grounds.

Why is it that when the topic of gay marriage comes up there is the statement that it is marriage or nothing. Civil unions are the rule in many states and afford all the legal rights to the parties involved and the states that do not have it, should. The majority of the American people are not in favor of the "marriage" title. Even O'Bama has come out against Gay marriage. I am sorry, gays do not procreate and that is what any successful society needs to sustain itself. It has nothing to do with civil rights and to infer that being gay is somehow on the same moral ground as the being denied basic rights because of ethnic differences is a fallacious argument.


Later,
Richard

Originally Posted by Bruno

Finally, someone mentioning a rational argument for being against.
I am not agreeing with you, but at least you have an argument that makes sense.

I don't think it would be a big problem, because I don't see it happening in big numbers, any more than gay couples are intermarrying other gay couples for the perks.

Suppose I were single, would I marry by best friend for the benefits? No. I would not marry him, because I don't think it would improve my chances of picking up a single woman .

Even if I wanted to arrange for a bogus marriage, I would seek a female friend for doing so. Because all things being equal, I'd rather be fake-married to a woman than fake-married to a man (on account of me being straight).

In short, I think that the people who would abuse the system are already doing so now, and the persons who would marry would predominantly be the ones actually wanting to marry their significant other.

Thanks ... you know thinking about what you said you are probably right...those that want to abuse the system will no matter what...they will find a way...

Originally Posted by honedright

Shouldn't we consider the value in some things remaining taboo?

Not good.

not good according to who? you? the masses have spoken and the majority of people like it. i realize our country was founded by prudes and puritans escaping from all the exciting sexuality going on in europe but seriously, it's a pretty recent idea that the human body is inherently naughty and seeing it is in any way bad.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

It might be semantics but that's the way life is. Mariage is for a man and a wife, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

If they want to make a civil contract, or a promise to each other or a covenant with each other that's just fine. But it'll never be a mariage because a mariage is a union between a man and a wife.

that's not what marriage IS, it's what you have arbitrarily defined it as. you're a cool guy and all, but just because you think something is, don't make it so. marriage is different for every instance of it. marriage means something totally different to me and my wife than it did to either set of our parents, and we're just garden-variety breeders!

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Maybe an analogy might help. Homosexuals wanting marriage is like non-Jews wanting Bar Mitzvahs. Sure it does little harm to allow it, but what's the point?!

the point is that arbitrarily outlawing it, even if it seems silly to YOU, is nothing short of tyranny and is an assault upon personal liberty.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

And then your SON joins a cult that does, and he's selected to be sacrificed.

You USED to not have a problem with the fact that it was legal. But now you think it is.

The very thing that Jockeys gave as an illustration (what if in the future gay couples become majority and decide that straight mariages aren't lawfull) becomes their fear. So of mariage is left for what it is, a union between a man an a woman, that fear leaves.

1. if my son is of consenting age, and is that dumb, he can go right ahead and kill himself, he's making the world a better place.
2. if you legally define marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, you are setting a precedent to make legal decisions about marriage in general. your point seems the opposite of valid here. writing it down in the law books opens the door for the whims of majority to control it in the future. deciding that the gov't shouldn't be involved AT ALL is the only way to preserve freedom for future generations regardless of their preference.

Originally Posted by erictski

but the main reason I dont feel it should be legal is because this may cause a trend of people that arent really homosexual to marry just for benefits like health insurance, tax breaks, stuff like that. And now that DOES affect me because my tax dollars are paying for it.

i could make the argument that everyone with more than 2 kids is also making my health insurance premiums go up, but if you tried to argue that having a lot of kids ought to be illegal, you'd get lynched. and i certainly know people that have had children just for the write-off. there will always be ways to "game the system" you can't realistically prevent that. what about straight couples that shack up doing this? are you implying that straight marriage shouldn't be allowed either, just because a few people abuse it for their own gain? i'll be honest, one of the biggest reasons my wife and i are married instead of just living together is the tax breaks and shared benefits. should we not be allowed to be married?