Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:58:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2621 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays.
You don’t have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs!
|
Don’t you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights
provided to married couples that wouldn’t be to anyone under something like
‘civil unions’. Speaking of which, is that what you’re advocating? If so, how
would a ‘civil union’ differ from a ‘marriage’ legally? Why not have all
heterosexual couples enter into a civil union? What’s the perk of being
‘married’?
| |
Again, I agree. What consenting adults do isn’t my business (as long as it
is legal).
|
But... aren’t you arguing that consenting same-sex adults shouldn’t get married?
It’s legal now in Massachusetts; does that mean you don’t mind?
| |
Not the unions, but the standardization of such unions. I am primarily
concerned with the education of our children. I think that such obfuscation
of gender would be damaging and unnecessarily destructive to their
development.
...
If gay marriage became normative, say just another option, I see it as an
extremely confusing matter to young kids. “Billy, when you grow up, are you
going to marry a boy or a girl? Why a girl? What is wrong with a boy, Billy?
Perhaps you should try both before you decide.”
...
With the advent of MTV and shows like “Loveline”, I think we can dispense
with any illusions that there is any secrecy left about sex for today’s
teens.
|
I’m not sure I see the difference. The exposure that gays get in the media
publicizes the idea of homosexuality PLENTY, even without allowing gays to get
married or not. How can modifying the legal definition of marriage provide a
level of gender confusion that it’d be stronger than the one that already
exists?
Perhaps you mean to say that by modifying the legal definition, it’s as though
the government is “endorsing” homosexuality, and that as such it’s sending a
stronger message to kids? If so, I’d have to say the above point is still in
effect. Kids don’t care so much what the government thinks, they care what
popular culture thinks. But if it’s government endorsement that you want to
avoid, then what about where courts have ruled in favor of gay rights? Isn’t
that another form of endorsing homosexuality?
| |
Sex is a private matter to me. I don’t want to know your sexual preference
because it doesn’t matter to me. So why is it so important to some gays to
shove my nose into their sexuality? Gay parades? Please. Rainbow stickers?
What is the point of that? There is something bizarre about defining oneself
WRT to one’s sexuality. There’s a little more to life than sex!
|
I agree with what you’re saying here-- I’m not big on ‘Gay Pride’ and whatnot.
If you’re gay, that’s fine, I really don’t mind, but you don’t need to go
advertising it to me. But that’s not really my point. But obviously that can’t
be the point because Gay Pride Parades and Rainbow stickers are going to
continue happening regardless of whatever decision is made with respect to gay
marriage. My question is where’s the negative side of allowing gays to marry?
| |
| |
I’m curious-- I hear this time and again, that “Oh, that’s not what our
founding fathers intended!”. Does it actually matter what they intended?
Shouldn’t we do what’s right, and not what they wanted us to do? I mean,
aren’t these the same guys who allowed slavery? If tradition is unjust or
immoral, don’t we have a just or moral obligation to *change* that
tradition?
|
How is defining marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 women “immoral”? That’s
just crazy!
|
I’m not saying its immoral, I’m saying it’s unjust. Or, more to the point, a
*legal* definition to that effect is unjust, because marriage entitles you and
your spouse to certain rights, and disallowing those rights two same-sex
partners is unjust. But the question still applies if a tradition is immoral
(note I don’t think I’d call “laws” immoral, but “traditions” probably could be)
| |
| |
| |
Okay, here’s a utilitarian argument: If the definition of marriage is
changed, then what does it become, and how is any definition (which,
uh, by definition, limits the scope of the concept) justifiable?
|
I think the definition I’d go with is something along the lines of “any two
adult beings
|
Whoa there, bigot:-) What about all of the polygamists out there? And how
about all of those incestuous lovers? Are you prepared to “normalize” those
relationships as well? And if not, on what basis?
|
I think the legal line has to be drawn somewhere. Take health care for example.
You’re allowed to provide health care for your spouse, which is great if they
wouldn’t otherwise get it. But as soon as you start getting into polygamy, you
have to wonder where the line gets drawn. Provide health care for your 80 wives
& husbands? That’s rather unfair to the insurance company, and people could take
unnecessary advantage of such a lack of restriction. I suppose I might be able
to be convinced that the limit should be *raised*, but not eliminated. I’m
pretty comfortable with the idea of a single spouse.
| |
Sisters marrying sisters; fathers marrying daughters and sons; recognizing
those types of relationships really shouldn’t matter?
|
Y’know, I’ve thought about that one, and really I don’t see the problem. I think
it’s always been the implication that there shouldn’t be inbreeding, and I agree
that inbreeding gives unfair disadvantage to children born of such a
relationship. But really that’s talking about procreation, not marriage. I think
there should be laws against procreating (not necessarily *sex*, but
procreation-- not sure how to enforce that one!) within close relation. But
marriage? I guess if you really want to, I say go for it. And again, before they
could enter into such a union, they’d have to be mutually consenting adults.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com... (...) example. (...) they (...) you (...) wives (...) could take (...) able (...) Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of dependants - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Does it? Why must marriage be a special case of contract? (...) I think that if polygamy became popular the insurance companies would have ways of covering their budgets worked out way before it mattered. It is frankly startling to me that (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays. You don't have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs! (...) I agree. (...) You assume incorrectly! The government is a terrible arbiter of right and wrong! (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
