Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? (Page 10)

My wife told me that exactly three days ago. Except I don't have his nose.

That's probably a good thing. Owen Wilson has a bizarre nose. In fact, I can't even think of what he looks like except that he has a crazy nose.

How's that for an post on a gay marriage thread?

It only took 226 posts for a good hijack. Except OW is mildly on-topic, cause doesn't he play naked bongos with Matthew McConaughey?

I wouldn't include that because lots of things cost money but I think that financial reasoning is suspect at best.  It is usually either a smoke screen for people who really agree with argument #1 or is refuted by people who provide data showing that gay marriages cost society no more than "regular" (ha!) marriages. 

One interesting point made durin the Bennett interview is this.  If the preventing gay marriage protects the institution or sanctity of marriage, why stop with preventing gay marriage.  Why not legislate against divorce?  Right.  Ok, follow my logical path.

1.  Couple gets married, decides it was a mistake (1 year or 30 yrs later, doesn't matter) and wants a divorce.

2.  They are damaging the institution of marriage by getting a divorce.

3.  If gay marriage is illegal because it damages the institution of marriage, then it is a crime.

4.  Damaging the institution of marriage is a crime.

5.  Divorce is a crime.

6.  Outlawing divorce, with stiff penalties for comitting such an act, would be a deterrent to this crime.

7.  Similar reasoning is used by certain people when stating that capital punishment is necessary to deter crime.

8.  Marriage is similar to capital punishment.

Ok, at the end I'm just making a joke, anyone who reads what I write about my wife and family knows that. 

Why stop there. We should probably delve into the divorece rate statisitics.

Say poverty-level marriages have the highest divorce rate. Let's pass legislation so that marriage comes with an income requirement.

Say 3 children marriages have the highest success rate. Let's pass legislation requireing marrying couples to agree to have three children.

Say more registered Republicans have divorces than do registered democrats. No marriage licenses for you conservatives!

If by judgement we mean to say that some action or another is either moral or immoral, then it seems to me that it is impossible not to judge.

For example, to say that it is wrong to judge another is itself a moral statement, the statement being that it is immoral to judge another in a particular case.

It seems to me that proponents of gay marriage are claiming that opponents to gay marriage are immoral if they judge, and that only proponents of gay marriage have the right to make a moral judgement on this issue.

Jim - you fell into Bennett's trap.  If you said that to him he would say your comments are exactly why we can't change marriage in the first place (ignoring as you pointed out that it has already been changed).  That's why I'm sticking to the 'legislating divorce' idea, it goes with the concept of legislating against gay marriage.

I don't know from whence this "who are you to judge me" phrase came, but I will say this...as far as I am concerned, you can judge all you want...anybody with any moral code whatsoever will necessarily judge others.  But, because we all can judge others, be prepared for me to say that your judgment (this is a hypothetical) is flawed because X,Y, and Z.

So now I have to bug marma about a "tongue-in-cheek" font?

(I didn't add the quote author's name because my response wasn't directed specifically at her, but to the group in general)

Yes, I agree that I must be prepared to defend my judgement.

I would just like to clear the deck of a common argument that says that opponents to gay marriage are wrong because they are judging.   

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic, not tongue-in-cheek.  You may want to reconsider using that phrase in a gay marriage thread.

Ba dum dum

I have not found this to be a common argument...and unless somebody says otherwise, consider the deck cleared.

I'm sure it's been discussed (I don't have the stamina or time to re-read the whole thread), but I tend to feel that a civil union, given the same rights under the law as marriage, would be an acceptable compromise. I'd be interested in hearing from any gay folks here who can tell me why this would not be acceptable and similarly from those on the religious side of this conversation as to why they would oppose civil unions...

I find that like abortion, I'm forced to support an extreme - that it should be legal at all times in order to keep those opposing it from whittling away at those rights (for abortion, I support full right to abortion, though personally I would like to see it as an option within the first 3 months only without doctors concent - I'm in favor of parental notification under 17, etc...). With Gay marriage, I don't really understand the need for a marriage as opposed to civil unions, particularly as on it's surface it would seem that belonging to a religion that precludes your involvement, and taking part in a religious rite to obtain legal standing sites wrong with me....

I made the point earlier that marriage by church and marriage by some civil authority are two different animals. I'm not gay, but "marriage" and "civil union" are semantics, as long as the rights conferred are equal.

But that being said, if a judge "marries" a heterosexual couple, it should be called the same thing if he performs the same service for a same-sex couple. But that's just my opinion.

OK, good.

So, do you agree with those who say that it is immoral to oppose gay marriage?

If so, and this question is really for anyone who believes it is immoral to oppose gay marriage, what is your position based on? What underlying system of morals can you point to that would show that it is indeed immoral to have such a position?

I don't believe it's immoral as much as it is wrong.

Bu seriously, it boils down to a differences in belief systems. One person's moral isn't anothers. So if a person's oppostition  to gay marriage is based upon what that person believes to be moral and what isn't, you can't really argue that that person's belief is immoral.

Possibly mismoral.

The bottom line is it violates you morality, but it's in line with theirs, so it's by definition not immoral.

I do not think gay marriage is either immoral, amoral, or moral.

I do not think proponents or opponents are immoral, amoral, or moral.

I do believe that BANNING marriage for gay citizens at the federal level is unconstitutional.

And that's *really* the bottom line.

Now as most of you know, I am PRO gay marriage/civil union.  So here is me being open minded to a point someone made I've never thought of before.

Someone pointed out that if being gay is a "gene", then why is it any different than having the obesity "gene" or the alcoholic "gene" or any other "gene" they've come up with?  I personally haven't done the research enough so be pro or anti gay "gene", so I can't comment on that.

But these other "gene's" society says we, as people, can and should supress.  What's the difference in this case?

Note:  I'm not playing devils advocate, I belive in truely listening to anothers arguments and taking them on it's merits.  And NO NO I'm not associating being gay with being a drunk, fat child abuser. 

I know and respect many gay couples who have kids, don't have kids and even on several occasions was uncertain about my sexuality.  That's why I don't know if the gay gene is part truth or not.  Just time will tell.

I would hazard a guees to say the different is a "gay gene" does not impose the will of an illegal act on another - being addicted to booze is not a crime nor is being fat - discussing if there is a gay gene is a slippery slope - it does not matter if it's genitic or not, it is not illegal, there for it's discriminatory to segment that section of society from the priveliges enjoyed by the rest of us.

Probably something along the lines that being obese can kill you, and being an alcoholic can kill you and others. 

I get your point, but I feel that gay marriage, or any monogamous marriage for that matter, represents morality in its highest sense - making a unselfish commitment to another.  It's living up to all that "for better or worse" stuff.

Mark

I think (and again, my opinion but backed up some by my knowledge of biology) that a tendancy towards alcoholism or pedophilia is inherantly and fundamentally different than *being* homosexual. Sexuality (again, in my opinion) is innate. There's no more of a genetic tendancy (again, IMO) towards homosexuality than there is towards heterosexuality. I for one, could never "suppress" my love for women.

I believe this because in part from the representation of homosexuality in nature. Sure chimps will f*ck anything, but deeper than that is how, for instance, seagulls commonly form lesbian pair bonds. And that's a relationship that goes far beyond sexual.