There Are No Real Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:21 am

SvZurich wrote:

Saitou wrote:

My way of thinking is that laws should be made in a consistent manner and not circumvented by people who think they have the moral high ground. It's dangerous to think that "my" morality should trump the established legal process.

I love it when we share the same opinion. Very Happy

There is a circularity here that confuses people, especially those that think they can enforce their morality on others.

If I accept the value of an egalitarian legal process, then that is my morality. In this way, enforcing rule of law IS giving my morality precedence.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:35 am

kmisho wrote:

SvZurich wrote:

Saitou wrote:

My way of thinking is that laws should be made in a consistent manner and not circumvented by people who think they have the moral high ground. It's dangerous to think that "my" morality should trump the established legal process.

I love it when we share the same opinion. Very Happy

There is a circularity here that confuses people, especially those that think they can enforce their morality on others.

If I accept the value of an egalitarian legal process, then that is my morality. In this way, enforcing rule of law IS giving my morality precedence.

My statement does not mean that there is no morality in the established legal process or that there should not be any.

I started out with the people on the IG forum supporting civil unions but not gay marriage. I found the separate but equal argument compelling. After thought I decided I could and now do support gay marriage however when I look at our legal system I see a process that should be followed and changed properly despite the unfairness I personally see in the ban.

With Bush people have given a lot of thought into the power the executes does and should have but are giving the judiciary a pass. Two more conservative justices on the supreme court might change that. If judges are going to be biased as much as politicians they need to be elected and not serve lifetime appoints or we need to demand they not exceed their powers--When they make new laws they are doing that.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:39 am

bradsnet wrote:

Marriage is ritual... symbol...

In part but as also pointed out it is a contract. That's what the battle is about. If it was just a ritual people would just do the ritual.

bradsnet wrote:

Please list anything that a marriage provides that you can't get without it.

That's not the point. The separate but equal argument is also compelling.

bradsnet wrote:

IMHO, a system where the government is required to approve of my personal life is flawed. Gay or not. We shouldn't have put this kind of authority into the realm of government in the first place.

You may have a point here but there are limits. An extreme example would be should we allow adults to marry children? How about incest?

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:48 am

the slippery slope argument is ridiculous. we're talking about marriage. the ONLY and SINGLE aspect that should no longer be considered is the gender of the two people involved. age, species, etc... would remain unchanged.

Children have no legal right to sign a marriage license. Neither to goats, dogs or horses. nor corpses, the mentally ill, or the brain-dead. Two consenting adults, DO have the legal capacity to sign a marriage license.

Besides, the concept of marriage has CONSTANTLY been changing over the decades and millennia. Surely you understand that societal change is inevitable, Saitou.

What about incest, Saitou? We already have laws to prohibit that. no is talking about that OR paedophilia. the only people talking about it are the people using the slippery slope straw man .

besides, we're ALL related in some way. perhaps, just to be on the SAFE SIDE, we should prevent ANYONE from getting married because they MIGHT be related somehow. see how silly the slope is in reverse?

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 82

"In part but as also pointed out it is a contract. That's what the battle is about. If it was just a ritual people would just do the ritual."

It is only a contract because of the very problem I'm speaking against. There is no valid reason for it to be a contract.

"An extreme example would be should we allow adults to marry children? How about incest?"

If I had "my way" though, adults COULD marry children, but it would be pointless. It wouldn't protect them from laws against mistreatment of a child, child molestation, etc... they could say "This is my wife." and that would not confer any rights on them to do anything they can't do now with that same child.

As for incest, the same thing applies. Sure, you could marry your brother, sister, mother, whatever... why not? But all laws that currently apply would still hold.

Also, while I find it unappealing, I don't see any reason why incest should be an issue in the first place.

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 82

Moloth wrote:

the slippery slope argument is ridiculous. we're talking about marriage. the ONLY and SINGLE aspect that should no longer be considered is the gender of the two people involved. age, species, etc... would remain unchanged.

Children have no legal right to sign a marriage license. Neither to goats, dogs or horses. nor corpses, the mentally ill, or the brain-dead. Two consenting adults, DO have the legal capacity to sign a marriage license.

Besides, the concept of marriage has CONSTANTLY been changing over the decades and millennia. Surely you understand that societal change is inevitable, Saitou.

What about incest, Saitou? We already have laws to prohibit that. no is talking about that OR paedophilia. the only people talking about it are the people using the slippery slope straw man .

besides, we're ALL related in some way. perhaps, just to be on the SAFE SIDE, we should prevent ANYONE from getting married because they MIGHT be related somehow. see how silly the slope is in reverse?

The person who you are responding to was responding to my call to end government regulation of marriage altogether, and as such the objections are not a slippery slope argument. That person was trying to say we need governments to regulate marriage in order to prevent such things. My response is we only do if marriage is a legally binding contract of some sort, if it's not, those problems don't exist.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:06 am

thats true, but i'm looking at the more current issue of gay marriage. I'm trying to be a bit more pragmatic than hypothetical.

The problem is that marriage DOES have legal, financial and therefore, governmental effects.

I agree with you, bradsnet, that marriage shouldn't be business of the government. but, right now, it IS.

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 82

FYI, my opinion about gay marriage if it must remain a contract is this. I have no idea why it is not considered to be legal now. (In states that have not specifically banned it.) In a state that hasn't, I have no idea what is preventing gay marriages. Why can't gay people enter into a marriage contract? Are JOPs just refusing to acknowledge them? If so, I think the JOPs are breaking the law.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:15 am

hm... i have no clue. thats a good question.

i've never been married and I frankly don't have a working knowledge of the legal process.

all i can do is look at the issue from an outside viewpoint.

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 82

I would think that would be essential to this debate.

If a gay couple tries to get married in a state that hasn't banned it.... what happens?

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:40 am

The reason it isn't legal even though not explicitly banned is because the language of the law that pertains to marriage makes the gender distinctions clear in the majority of cases.

I think Massachusetts was an exception and is why gay marriage is legal there. I would like it to continue to be legal there.

Moloth, I wasn't making a slippery slope argument. There is a slope however. We do draw the line somewhere though and that's the point I was trying to make when it came to government approval of personal lives. What are the boundaries of what is part of a personal life and what a government can legitimately limit or control for the interests of society or protecting people from abuse?

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 82

"What are the boundaries of what is part of a personal life and what a government can legitimately limit or control for the interests of society or protecting people from abuse?"

I think your question answered itself in a way. I would have to think more about it though, but at a glance "protecting the people" seems the primary reason for law. So it is fairly easy to say the boundry is this... whatever laws are required to protect the people (I would say animals should be included in this, so maybe it could be simplified to "protect.") are on the government side of the boundry, everything else is personal life.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:37 am

Saitou wrote:

The reason it isn't legal even though not explicitly banned is because the language of the law that pertains to marriage makes the gender distinctions clear in the majority of cases.

I think Massachusetts was an exception and is why gay marriage is legal there. I would like it to continue to be legal there.

Moloth, I wasn't making a slippery slope argument. There is a slope however. We do draw the line somewhere though and that's the point I was trying to make when it came to government approval of personal lives. What are the boundaries of what is part of a personal life and what a government can legitimately limit or control for the interests of society or protecting people from abuse?

oh, i agree that there is a slope... as well their should be. Nothing is static, nothing we're doing now is the best way to do things. Change is inevitable and, if prepared for thoughtfully, is a welcome thing.

Personally, i think the boundary should be drawn as it is in my personal philosophy: do whatever you want as long as it does not effect someone else in a negative way. I fail to see how two willing, homosexual men getting married affects me in the slightest, for good OR ill. What do i care? how does it effect me? More or less than Brittney and Cletus getting married?

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 82

I think that is a dangerous philosophy, were it applied to law. If effecting someone in a negetive way were illegal... well there goes art, television, sports, books, philosophy, and just about everything else I can think of.

I'm sure you didn't mean that, but the reason I point it out is because I think that this deserves a lot more thought.

Two men getting married, btw, would have both a positive and negetive effect on me. It would make me happy to see two people happy, but it would also discourage me, as it is an indication that rather than make real progress towards a legal system that stays out of private lives, we have brought yet another issue under the umbrella of our government.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:40 am

bradsnet wrote:

I think that is a dangerous philosophy, were it applied to law. If effecting someone in a negetive way were illegal... well there goes art, television, sports, books, philosophy, and just about everything else I can think of.

I'm sure you didn't mean that, but the reason I point it out is because I think that this deserves a lot more thought.

Two men getting married, btw, would have both a positive and negetive effect on me. It would make me happy to see two people happy, but it would also discourage me, as it is an indication that rather than make real progress towards a legal system that stays out of private lives, we have brought yet another issue under the umbrella of our government.

yeah, i know that "harm" and "effect in a negative way" are VERY broad terms... probably why i would make a horrible politician. You DID forget "religion" in your list, though. Wink

Well, we can look at some laws we have no that are based on that concept: murder, rape, theft, and assault are all illegal because they cause harm to to others. making it illegal and punishable is supposed to discourage people from doing it, right? Same reason we have public health and safety laws, food and drug standards, anti-monopoly laws, etc... they're their to protect the people, the citizens.

making gay marriage illegal does not protect anyone from anything. It is not the protecting of a freedom, it is the taking away of a freedom.

I admit that there are some grey areas with that... drug use (abuse?), prostitution, gambling... they're "morality laws" by and large, but not explicitly. even then, the Government is confused itself: alcohol? A-OK! pot? 5 years in jail! Prostitution? in a few counties in Nevada, sure! gambling? not on land... on a riverboat? sure!

weirdness.


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