There Are No Real Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Newbie First Class Joined: Jul 05, 2006 Posts: 28

Look, lets face facts here: Some Americans are just plain bigoted. They like what they like, and are disgusted by anything that isn't "the norm". Some Americans also believe that a book based on other culture's myths and stories is a great way to judge others and deny them rights.

Lets face facts, there are no real arguments against gay marriage. I, for one, must say that I don't like the idea of homosexuality. I don't like the idea of being checked out by another man. On the other hand, these people are humans. They deserve the same rights that I have. And according to that great hand book for our club, the USA, all people, no matter what background or origin they come from, receive these rights so long as they are citizens. So, why should it be a problem for gay marriage to occur? Marriage is first and foremost a contract. In ancient days of yore, it was more or less a business transaction, an exchange. The man got the bride and the parents received something in return. The religousness of marriage was later inserted. How else can you explain quicky marriages in Vegas, or going down to the courthouse? So, why discriminate against your fellow citizens?

I fully understand why religious people are opposed. After centuries of indoctrination and brainwashing, it can and has produced hatred, bigotry, and oppression. But why now? Why in this day and age when the earth is so advanced and diverse? One would think that we would get over these Bronze Age notions, that those striving to make utopias would actually care about their fellow man and his rights. Just because you have a few sentences from the same story appearing not once, but twice within the book, mistranslated and cherry picked, does not mean you're right. If you read your entire damn Bible, you'd find that the Sodomites were punished for being too prideful, not too homosexual. Reciting the written works of long, dead, forgotten men will not make it true either.

The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are humans too. They pay dues, in the form of taxes, to the club, known as the United States of America. They've been accepted in as citizens, and according to our handbook, the US Constitution, they are entitled to the same rights as others. Therefore, why are we denying them? Marriage is a contract between two people.

Now, would someone try to make an ass of themselves and prove me wrong. (Unless you're correcting my mistakes within this post, then you're just fine.)

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

There is no real argument FOR marriage in today's world either for anyone. Its an obsolete institution. The traditional definition was always a contract for the sale of property. The bride.

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:11 pm

Yeah, even now the only real reason to actually marry is for the legal benefits that come with it.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

sleepr wrote:

Yeah, even now the only real reason to actually marry is for the legal benefits that come with it.

Which is only enforced because of those who still believe in it, and these are the same ones who want to force their religious beliefs on all through rule of law.

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:40 am

sjc wrote:

sleepr wrote:

Yeah, even now the only real reason to actually marry is for the legal benefits that come with it.

Which is only enforced because of those who still believe in it, and these are the same ones who want to force their religious beliefs on all through rule of law.

I disagree and I'll tell you why.

The evolutionary evidence is that humans are natural polygamists...just like the other apes. This method of mate-division is clearly much more competitive and therefore more prone to violence than monogamy, since in polygamy some males get many women and some get zero (just ask an honest polygamist Mormon). From this perspective, marriage amounts to female-sharing as a means of reducing violence among males and therefore has a civilizing effect.

Also do not discount the progression of women's rights. When men first decided to divvy up women to reduce violence, I doubt the female perspective played any role at all in the decision-making process. As women's rights have become more of an issue (and legitimately in my view), a new layer has been added to the civilizing effect of marriage. Now more than ever (in rigts-progressive countries especially) marrige can be considered a kind of mutual ownership. If the man can demand (at the very least) female sexual exclusivity, then so can the female.

In these ways, the concept of marriage has added to the progressive self-civilizing (or self-domestication if you want to see it that way) of the human community at least twice over.

Of course I agree that, ideally, state-sanctioned marriage should be irrelevant...but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. I think a strong case can be made for the efficacy of the marriage idea itself.

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:29 am

kmisho wrote:

sjc wrote:

sleepr wrote:

Yeah, even now the only real reason to actually marry is for the legal benefits that come with it.

Which is only enforced because of those who still believe in it, and these are the same ones who want to force their religious beliefs on all through rule of law.

I disagree and I'll tell you why.

The evolutionary evidence is that humans are natural polygamists...just like the other apes. This method of mate-division is clearly much more competitive and therefore more prone to violence than monogamy, since in polygamy some males get many women and some get zero (just ask an honest polygamist Mormon). From this perspective, marriage amounts to female-sharing as a means of reducing violence among males and therefore has a civilizing effect.

You misunderstand our statements. We are calling "marriage" the one-man-one-woman tradition. Two bound by contract. You use it as if it meant the simple grouping of mates.
I'd actually agree with you on most of this and maybe we weren't using the term "marriage" in a way you might.

Just know we are criticizing the legal binding and extra benefits that are given to two people sharing the traditional social standard. Marriage isn't about the grouping of mates because marriage takes that and adds steps to it. I'd take your thoughts above as simple "mate grouping" while "marriage" is the additional bureaucracy (rules and incentives) attached. Marriage is unneeded for what you describe and unneeded for anything beyond what can be attained by following the weird system set up by law-makers.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 378

sleepr wrote:

Just know we are criticizing the legal binding and extra benefits that are given to two people sharing the traditional social standard. Marriage isn't about the grouping of mates because marriage takes that and adds steps to it. I'd take your thoughts above as simple "mate grouping" while "marriage" is the additional bureaucracy (rules and incentives) attached. Marriage is unneeded for what you describe and unneeded for anything beyond what can be attained by following the weird system set up by law-makers.

I like this discussion so far. I don't agree that we can say with any confidence that the stable pairing of mates (if sleepr intends "mate grouping" to mean that) among most people would happen without legal contracts or benefits. My ignorance tells me I need to learn more about this before opening up the doors to polygamy.

I hadn't previously read that people implemented mate sharing in order to reduce violence. Monogamy and polygamy might result from female choice evolved through nature's selection for higher fitness. In real life we see (some) women attracted to men with power and wealth, and no matching balance for women attracted to poor incapable men exists. Women's choosiness matters because humans need nurturing in the first two plus years of life and the male who protects and provides contributes that nurturing perogitive. The economic terraine determines whether a monogamous relationship to a man of average wealth or a polygamous relationship to a wealthy man better meets a womans biological drive for a rich nest.

Someone should note that nominally monogamous relationships often aren't. Men who can attract the favors of other women sometimes will and their wives often put up with it. This depends on what they can implicely (or explicitely) negotiate or coerce from one another.

Incidentally, who knows if the bible or historic documents tell us anything about the history of monogamy? I read an article about the Roman Empire's elite which explored how, while nominally monogamous, they actually had sex with many people, and that probably included their slaves. Of course, relying on literal readings of historic documents would likely mislead us because of the authors' great discretion about a subject that seldom receives frank treatment.

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:55 pm

sleepr wrote:

kmisho wrote:

sjc wrote:

sleepr wrote:

Yeah, even now the only real reason to actually marry is for the legal benefits that come with it.

Which is only enforced because of those who still believe in it, and these are the same ones who want to force their religious beliefs on all through rule of law.

I disagree and I'll tell you why.

The evolutionary evidence is that humans are natural polygamists...just like the other apes. This method of mate-division is clearly much more competitive and therefore more prone to violence than monogamy, since in polygamy some males get many women and some get zero (just ask an honest polygamist Mormon). From this perspective, marriage amounts to female-sharing as a means of reducing violence among males and therefore has a civilizing effect.

You misunderstand our statements. We are calling "marriage" the one-man-one-woman tradition. Two bound by contract. You use it as if it meant the simple grouping of mates.
I'd actually agree with you on most of this and maybe we weren't using the term "marriage" in a way you might.

Just know we are criticizing the legal binding and extra benefits that are given to two people sharing the traditional social standard. Marriage isn't about the grouping of mates because marriage takes that and adds steps to it. I'd take your thoughts above as simple "mate grouping" while "marriage" is the additional bureaucracy (rules and incentives) attached. Marriage is unneeded for what you describe and unneeded for anything beyond what can be attained by following the weird system set up by law-makers.

No problem. Religion is doing with marriage what it does to everything else: turns a reasonably good idea into bullshit by making it into an immutable law, thereby obscuring what made the idea good in the first place.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:45 am

I would have gotten married even if there were no benefits or government involvement because I wanted to make the most widely recognized commitment our society has that I would join my wife in building a family. It meant to me that I swore an oath to provide for my children a mother and father who will be there for them and will provide for them what children need and should have.

The only reason I can see for government to be involved is to encourage the behavior. Healthy marriages and families help increase the odds of producing the best citizens for the future of our country.

I have no moral objections to gay marriage or religious ones (as an atheist this is a given) and although the government interest in gay marriages is much less I still think they should be allowed. I don't want them to become allowed by court fiat however--I want them to become legal by the democratic legislative process.

In fairness gay couples should already have access to the same kind of contract benefits of hetero couples.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:24 am

Saitou, Are you against court fiat in all cases, or just in some cases. If in some cases and not others, by what criteria?

By democratic do you mean voting? The courts are a legislative process...

If you do mean voting, segregation would have lasted a lot longer in the south if people were allowed to vote against it. Court fiat was the best way forward BY FAR.

I make this equation because I accept equal rights for gays as a an equal treatment issue and therefore a civil rights issue.

Simply, if the advancement of civil rights was left to voters, they would advance much more slowly. We currently see this with the equal treatment of gays issue where many states have voted against gay marriage.

From a progressive ethical stance, I find this appaling.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:26 am

Saitou wrote:

I don't want them to become allowed by court fiat however--I want them to become legal by the democratic legislative process.

Why should this require a vote?
100 years ago, if the United States voted on the issue of interracial marriage, you know damn well how that vote would have went. Even 50 years ago we know how the vote would have went. I thought the governmkent's job is to protect the minorities--although it's historical record is to the contrary. Marriage is a contract between concenting people (two, but should be allowed more), not government, and not put into legality via vote.

Anton Batey

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:02 am

AntJ313 wrote:

Saitou wrote:

I don't want them to become allowed by court fiat however--I want them to become legal by the democratic legislative process.

Why should this require a vote?

All laws should reguire votes.

AntJ313 wrote:

100 years ago, if the United States voted on the issue of interracial marriage, you know damn well how that vote would have went.

Sure I know. Obviously even things as abhorrent as slavery can be illegal since it once was. This is not an argument to throw out democracy for benevolent unelected rulers.

AntJ313 wrote:

I thought the governmkent's job is to protect the minorities--although it's historical record is to the contrary.

That is not the government's job nor should it be.

AntJ313 wrote:

Marriage is a contract between concenting people (two, but should be allowed more), not government, and not put into legality via vote.

That's what you think it should be but not what it is. To say that is what it is means you are denying reality. Marriage is a state recognized and authorized contract between a man and a woman (in most states. We have MA where it is different now).

If people want to be considered married without state involvement they can do so. If they want the state to recognize their contract they must meet the terms required by the contract like any other state authorized contract.

Now before anyone gets all pissed off at me remember:
I personally am not opposed to gay marriage.
I believe that whether or not the people decide to extend marriage to include same sex couples that those couples should have access to the same benefits (and in some way penalties) that you can get from a marriage contract.
If I believed a state recognized marriage was a right I'd be with you and any court the overturned the less inclusive definition of marriage. I don't believe this is a right however. I do not see it as protected by the Constitution. It would not be a violation of the Constitution for states to eliminate state recognized marriage for everyone.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:26 am

"All laws" should require votes, huh? I'm sorry, but the state of Alabama under Jim Crow "law" would have not been overturned via vote. Why do you think personal choices like marriage choices need to be okayed by rest of the population? 100 years ago, if I wanted to marry a Black women, I shouldn't need the damn permission of the rest of the (racist) polulation for me to do it....which, by the way, wouldn't have been passed.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:44 am

AntJ313 wrote:

"All laws" should require votes, huh?

Of course they should. Usually its our elected representatives that do the voting. Now, if you interpret what I said as "any law that gets enough votes should become law" then you are making a mistake. I value the bill of rights for the protections it grants.

AntJ313 wrote:

I'm sorry, but the state of Alabama under Jim Crow "law" would have not been overturned via vote. Why do you think personal choices like marriage choices need to be okayed by rest of the population?

Probably because you are asking the rest of the population to honor and sanction your personal choice?

AntJ313 wrote:

100 years ago, if I wanted to marry a Black women, I shouldn't need the damn permission of the rest of the (racist) polulation for me to do it....which, by the way, wouldn't have been passed.

How about if we discuss this subject further you come join me in the present?

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:49 am

Take it to the present? Fine.

I want to marry a guy, I shouldn't need the damn permission of the rest of the (homophobic) polulation for me to do it....which, by the way, isn't going to be passed.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore