Gay Marriage

[Sylvain]

Disclaimer: the following is an argument of logic, not religion.

THe only way your point is valid is if all religions are equally correct. But by definition they can't be. Assuming for the sake of argument the existence of a higher being (because without one, there wouldn't be a true religion), only one religion can be correct. By their nature they are all mutually exclusive.

Ergo, the argument that some allow it and some don't is inadequate to justify it's acceptability. It can only be justified according to the one true religion, whichever one that is.

So it's illogical to justify marriage between two people of the same sex based on religious acceptability unless you have evidence that the religion that accepts it is the one true religion.

On this point, I'm afraid, your argument is crap.

On the others, no such discussion is allowed. And even if it were, the two sides never start with the same premise anyway. Whether it's an issue of semantics or something much deeper, there is never going to be a meeting of the minds on defining marriage.

Gays went wrong with trying to co-opt the language. They'd have had a much better chance simply arguing that state-sanctioned unions disguised as marriages were nothing more than a contractual agreements between two parties and as such there was no legal basis to deny them the right to enter into such contracts with people of the same sex.

Crap argument back at ya.

The same argument can be used against marriage of a man and a woman then.
There are thousands of religions, im sure you can find one that supports only gay marriage and who is against the marriage between a man and a woman.
And like you said, there is no way to know which religion is the "true one".
So what you said can work the other way around as well.
So it's illogical to justify marriage between two people of different sex based on religious acceptability unless you have evidence that the religion that accepts it is the one true religion.
And like you said we cannot know which one is that "true religion".

So maybe gay marriage is the only "true marriage", who knows.

 

[88GT]

So when do you release your dictionary GT?

Are you refuting my argument or simply trying to throw gasoline on the fire?

 

[Lex Concord]

Are you refuting my argument or simply trying to throw gasoline on the fire?

Neither.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

Marriage is a religious covenant.

Everything else is a civil contract based solely on legal considerations. If gays want that, fine. Give it to 'em. It won't make it a marriage.

Freedom of religion...just saying.
if it's against yours (general population, not you specifically), so be it, don't marry same sex and all is well.
if its not against the couples, so be it, they can marry same sex and all is well.

your (again not you specifically) religion may not be their religion, or your (and again) views on said religion may be stronger then theirs. if either is the case, then it only hurts the people who want to be hurt by it..

FWIW: this is not the makings of a religion argument...it's in the constitution.

 

[subtlesixer03]

I am againist it being called marriage. In all the history of mankind weather it be for religous reasons or tribal reasons marriage is between one man and one woman. Yes there are some who have more than one wife or husband but the marrage is still just between the one man and one woman individully. Im all for civil unions. But marriage is a differnt thing to me.

 

[88GT]

lol you kinda did...
There is no such thing as "gay marriage" just marriage and nobody should be excluded from getting "married" regardless of sexual orientation!

No, that's not what I said. I said marriage had a specific definition. I also said that state-sanctioned legal unions are not marriage and should not discriminate based on the gender of the parties. Whether or not the parties are married is a matter of religious truth, not state approval.

Crap argument back at ya.

The same argument can be used against marriage of a man and a woman then.
There are thousands of religions, im sure you can find one that supports only gay marriage and who is against the marriage between a man and a woman.
And like you said, there is no way to know which religion is the "true one".
So what you said can work the other way around as well.
So it's illogical to justify marriage between two people of different sex based on religious acceptability unless you have evidence that the religion that accepts it is the one true religion.
And like you said we cannot know which one is that "true religion".

So maybe gay marriage is the only "true marriage", who knows.

Yes. From a logical argument, all true. But I never argued against gay unions...from any perspective either.

All I'm arguing is that marriage is NOT an institution of the state. It is a cultural and/or religious relationship (leaving open the question of origin) that exists independent of any state involvement.

Whether that definition delineates the players by sex is another discussion. But it doesn't matter: it would still just be marriage whether it excluded or included same sex relationships, was limited solely to same sex relationship, or remained silent on it altogether. Marriage is the definition. I guess what I'm saying is that the definition--whatever it would be--eliminates the need to qualify it.

If marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, then saying that two people are married is necessarily saying that one is a man and one is a woman.

If marriage is a relationship between a man and a man (or woman and a woman), then saying that two people are married is necessarily saying that both are male (or female).

If marriage is silent on the sex of the partners, then saying two people are married is sufficient to describe the relationship without regard to the parties' sex because sex doesn't matter. The purpose of the relationship is the only concern.

What gays are calling marriage ain't marriage. They want legal recognition from the state which occurs independent of the actual marital status of their relationship.

It is very much a semantics issue. I acknowledge that. But that's why it's such a problem issue because everybody comes to the table with their own starting premises. And it could all have been avoided by avoiding the use of the term "marriage." I also realize that there are some who still won't understand this line of thinking. And that's fine too.

 

[88GT]

Neither.

Then why would you ask it.

Freedom of religion...just saying.
if it's against yours, so be it, don't marry same sex and all is well.
if its not against the couples, so be it, they can marry same sex and all is well.

your religion may not be their religion, or your views on said religion may be stronger then theirs. if either is the case, then it only hurts the people who want to be hurt by it..

FWIW: this is not the makings of a religion argument...it's in the constitution.

Is critical thinking really in such short supply that people cannot see that I am not arguing for or against gay marriage?

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

Is critical thinking really in such short supply that people cannot see that I am not arguing for or against gay marriage?

never said you were or weren't

but i know it is on the minds of some on here, due to some of the poll results, so i took the opportunity to post using your post as a starting ground. that's all that was


P.S. in my comment i meant "yours" as a general term, not you specifically, and i edited my previous post to clear prior confusion.

Thanks

 

[FordMan08]

I only support gay marriages if both chics are hot.

 

[buford t justice]

5 pages of nonsense.

 

[dross]

Most people don't even know what they're arguing about on this thread.

In what state is gay marriage illegal? As far as I know, it's legal in every state.

 

[sepe]

lol why wouldn't it be "marriage"

Because some people are offended by the idea of gay marriage because they think it lessens the meaning of their marriage.

Yes and they should get the pleasure of the messy divorce to go with it!

Seriously though. 1 man and 1 woman make a marriage. Any other combination makes some kind of unholy abomination.

Reminds me of the story the old indian told about why the white man was crazy.
Indian men hunted and made war. Stole horses from their enemies. Fished with spears and made love when they felt like it. While Indian women skinned and cooked the game, made the leather from the skins, planted and harvested what crops the tribes grew, cooked for their men and tended the children. And made love when their men felt like it.

Why would the white man come along and spoil a good thing?

Gays and lesbians can date who they want, sleep with whomever they wish, have two incomes and no kids so they can buy the toys their hearts desire. Why would they want to get married and spoil a good thing?

Why would you care if they wanted to get married? Many gay people aren't in it for the chronic hook ups and random dating. They want the same rights as straight people when it comes to marriage (and I'm guessing the benefits that go along with it...isn't that why most people get married these days anyway?).

I know you won't agree, Sylvain, but to my
way of thinking raising children in a "gay marriage" should constitute child abuse. I understand all the wants of the gay couples. The rights to do as you please with your inheiritance, share medical benefits as a couple, visit a sick partner in the hospital could all be taken care of by simple legislation. Children should not be subjected to the situation. They get enough questionable ideas w/o telling them that gay is ok b4 they're old enough to have any feelings one way or another. It's a societal rot through brainwashing of children. When we cease to make judgements about what is right and what is wrong then society has no standards and has failed as a society and will fall of its own weight soon enough.
Asking to call a gay partnership a MARRIAGE is simply 3% of the population saying "WE"RE SPECIAL" and thinking they have the right to stick a finger in the eye of religion through manipulation of government through public propaganda. Tell a lie often enough and it starts to sound like the truth. Even to the liar. Hope I'm not being unclear.

Based on your other post that I quoted, I figured that this would be your thoughts on a same sex couple raising children. Comments like these really make me feel for the children you know and embarrass me because I'm from the same state. I would hope when I travel outside of the corn fields of Indiana, I'm not associated with bigoted, ignorant thinking.

 

[RockofStrength]

Against (religious reasons). The government has no right to make legal or illegal as if they have control over marriage. The government needs to eliminate the legal benefits/aspects of marriage altogether.

 

[longbarrel]

3 G's

 

[J_Wales]

The better question is why is government involved with marriage at all?

Arrangements between individuals can be covered through private contracts. Disparity in the income tax code could be addressed by abolishing it and adopting the Fair Tax. Likewise, the estate tax should be abolished.

So often folks say the government should be allowing this or the government should be allowing that when the fact is that it is it an area the government should not be involved in at all.

The government needs to get its nose out of the relationship between my wife and me as well as other arrangements between adults and be out back in its cage.

 

[Sigasaurus]

I believe in free will. And for the religous fanatics, by typical beliefs individuals are held accountable by god not his followers. If a person is truly a follower of god then they do not cast judgement they leave that up to the lord. And honestly there are plenty of straight couples out there that shouldn't be allowed to marry let alone reproduce.

 

[J_Wales]

Against (religious reasons). The government has no right to make legal or illegal as if they have control over marriage. The government needs to eliminate the legal benefits/aspects of marriage altogether.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

Well said and dead on target.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Denny347]

 

[neraph]

The better question is why is government involved with marriage at all?

This absolutely ought to be the context of the question.

In that regard, what about presumption of paternity? Do you believe we should abolish that as well? Or should every father be required to take a DNA test to prove that he is the father?