There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[Thought Criminal]

I'm still very confused by this. You're obviously no longer a Christian, and you state that you believe that homosexuality is genetic. Upon what morals are you still claiming that gays don't deserve to marry? Whether it's a good or a bad reason, you have to have a reason. People don't just do/believe things for absolutely no reason.

Well, you said apparently that you have prejudices, but that you treat homosexuals with the same respect as others. So your prejudices only apply to when they want to marry? If you're not even religious, than all marriage accounts for is a man-made idea that a man and a woman commit to spending the rest of their lives together. What's the big deal about extending this to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? I'm sure there's plenty of gays who have a better committment to each other than certain heterosexuals who get married.

I'm not asking these questions to ridicule you. I just don't understand what your motivation is for believing what you do when you're not even religious anymore.

Bigotry doesn't need religion, but it helps. In specific, the religion gives the person an excuse for holding bigoted beliefs.

TC

[Goat]

I recently had some fascinating discussions on a balcony overlooking Lake Garda concerning homosexuality and gay marriage. I mentioned that I saw nothing wrong with either, while the other contributor found both vile, disgusting and unnatural. When pressed, however, he could come up with nothing whatsoever which would pass as a valid reason for why it is 'wrong', apart from 'I don't like it'. Interestingly, although he is now a confirmed atheist, he spent the first 20 years of his life as a Catholic. I guess that it can take a lifetime to throw off previously-held belief if it is ingrained enough, no matter how vigorously we thrash.

To paraphrase someone much cleverer than I am, I see no reason why gay people should not be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us if they want to be.

We tend to blame certain segments of religious believers for anti-gay bigotry, but it is worth pointing out that a lot of anti-gay bigotry is simply what I refer to as "their different." Certainly when I grew up, the kids making fun of and harassing anyone even suspected of being gay were not motivated by religion.

I would even venture to say that many of those who couch their anti-gay rhetoric in religious terms are not really motivated by their religious beliefs, but just see gays as "yucky" or "wierd" and find it convenient to point to particular passages of the Bible to justify their attitude. One big evidence for this is the hypocrisy that is typically engaged in. Many believers cannot explain why it is OK to pass laws against gays on the basis of a few Bible verses but is not OK to pass laws against other 'sins' or behaviors that are spoken against in the Bible.

?

I also think there is some truth that some of the more vocal anti-gay religious people are what is known as 'latent' . They have been taught it was wrong, because of the bible. They react more strongly against it, because they see their desire for it, yet want to deny that desire at the same time.

[melodious]

I've got no problem with some kind of legal arrangement under the law that recognises them as a couple. Call it a Civil union if you like, that's what we have over here. But the whole wedding ceremony thing should be between a man and a woman IMO.

Why? You don't have to go to the wedding. Why does it matter? If you are going to recognize it as a legal institution, and they would recieve the same legal benefits of a traditional marriage, why would it matter if they had a wedding - the ceremony is a semi-private affair anyway? They could've always had a wedding - no one is stopping them. This isn't the issue with gay couples. It's the legal institution that they want to be recognized.

[OnceConvinced]

I'm still very confused by this. You're obviously no longer a Christian, and you state that you believe that homosexuality is genetic. Upon what morals are you still claiming that gays don't deserve to marry? Whether it's a good or a bad reason, you have to have a reason. People don't just do/believe things for absolutely no reason.

Well, you said apparently that you have prejudices, but that you treat homosexuals with the same respect as others. So your prejudices only apply to when they want to marry? If you're not even religious, than all marriage accounts for is a man-made idea that a man and a woman commit to spending the rest of their lives together. What's the big deal about extending this to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? I'm sure there's plenty of gays who have a better committment to each other than certain heterosexuals who get married.

Like I said, I am a traditionalist when it comes to marriage. It was always intended for man and women. That's the way I think it should stay.

Ah, the old "separate but equal". That's exactly like saying you're fine with, say, a white woman and a black man getting married, just so long as we don't call it a marriage. Marriage is for white couples only, right? Please tell me how this idea isn't completely bigoted.

I've got no problems with whites and blacks marrying.

Call it bigoted if you like, I don't give a shite. It's my opinion. If you don't like it, go jump. We all have out prejudices, just as you are obviously bigoted when it comes to Christians.

If women listened in on the ocassional conversation I had with my male friends, they might think I was a sexist pig. However no woman has ever accused me of being a sexist pig. Some people listening in on my ocassional conversations may hear me make negative generalisations about Maoris and Pacific Islanders and think I was a racist, but none have ever accused me of being so and some of my best friends are Maori.

We all have attitudes which we tend to keep hidden and don't bring out into the open. I don't claim to be any more moral than anyone else and I don't think anyone, even yourself can take a moral high ground either. What prejudices do you have TC that you shut up about?

Any way I posted a reply here because someone wanted to know who voted no. I've done that and have no desire to debate this.

[Thought Criminal]

Ah, the old "separate but equal". That's exactly like saying you're fine with, say, a white woman and a black man getting married, just so long as we don't call it a marriage. Marriage is for white couples only, right? Please tell me how this idea isn't completely bigoted.

I've got no problems with whites and blacks marrying.

I didn't think you did, else I would have used some other example of a form of marriage that was once illegal but is now recognized as perfectly fine.

That's my point: if we allow people to marry but deprive them of the m-word, this is showing a strong bias against them. It's not as bad as stopping them from marrying in the first place, but there is injury along with the insult. In particular, a civil union is legally distinct from marriage and is not nearly as portable.

The analogy I was making is that, just as it would be bigoted if we said that "mixed-race" couples can only enter civil unions, it bigoted if we did the same for same-sex couples.

Nothing in your response has addressed this issue.

Call it bigoted if you like, I don't give a shite. It's my opinion. If you don't like it, go jump. We all have out prejudices, just as you are obviously bigoted when it comes to Christians.

I am calling it bigoted, simply because it is. You don't seem to be disagreeing so much as getting angry and taking it personally. Yes, it's your opinion, but that doesn't make it immune to criticism. Angering you was a foreseeable consequence of my comment, but not its goal. What I was, and am still, trying to do is make it clear to you how bigoted it is to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.

You'll note that I never suggested that Christian couples only be allowed civil unions rather than marriage, so I don't think you'd have a good analogy even if I were bigoted against Christians.

For what it's worth, I don't think I am. And if I were, it would be an error on my part. I am indeed strongly opposed to various forms of irrationality, but I don't single out Christians and I do differentiate between the moderate ones and the fundies. The former are mistaken on a particular issue, but that doesn't make them bad people. I reserve my anger and condemnation for the Fred Phelps' of the world.

If women listened in on the ocassional conversation I had with my made friends, they might think I was a sexist pig. However no woman has ever accused me of being a sexist pig. Some people listening in on my ocassional conversations may hear me make negative generalisations about Maoris and Pacific Islanders and think I was a racist, but none have ever accused me of being so and some of my best friends are Maori.

As I pointed out earlier, I would make more allowances for attempts at humor or words that slip out than I would for conscious, premeditated decisions about how to vote. If you made a sexist comment, that would be wrong and I would quite likely call you on it if I were in earshot. However, this would be much more forgivable than, say, voting to take away women's rights.

I would be very careful with the phrase "and some of my best friends are [minority group]". This has become a sort of clich that we expect bigots to utter. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what it sounds like.

We all have attitudes which we tend to keep hidden and don't bring out into the open. I don't claim to be any more moral than anyone else and I don't think anyone, even yourself can take a moral high ground either. What prejudices do you have TC that you shut up about?

If I had an irrational prejudice against some minority group, I would recognize it as an error and do my best not to ever act on it. In particular, I would never vote to deny this group rights. We are not responsible for our emotions, just our actions.

To be clear, I don't claim to be perfect, either intellectually or morally. I've made mistakes, been corrected and accepted correction. Having said this, I do try rather hard not to make mistakes, and certainly not to repeat them. If I can find the moral high ground on an issue, I take it, and that's what I've done here.

My impression of you from other posts is that you started off in a pretty bad place, intellectually, but you've worked hard to crawl out of it and stand on your own two feet. You've overcome much of the religious indoctrination that hobbled you. But you're still harboring semi-conscious bigotries that were inculcated along with the religious beliefs. I believe that, to the extent that you are conscious of them and willing to apply the same critical thinking that you did towards religion, you can rid yourself of these errors.

Any way I posted a reply here because someone wanted to know who voted no. I've done that and have no desire to debate this.

Uhm, you just did debate it.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Like I said, I am a traditionalist when it comes to marriage. It was always intended for man and women. That's the way I think it should stay.

Oh, I should probably address this as well. Marriage has varied among cultures and during different times, so the idea that it was "always intended for a man and woman" doesn't really hold up.

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.

As you can see, Christianity took the forefront in the denial of rights to homosexuals.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I can admit that the term "marriage" might, by technical definition, refer to a union between a man and a woman, but don't you think that a gay couple should at least have some kind of partnership so they can get the same rights and financial benefits of a straight married couple? Denying gays the right to marry wouldn't be such an issue if married couples didn't receive tax breaks, joint custody of children (If a gay couple adopts, only one is a legal guardian in most cases so if they die, the child gets taken away from the parent that is still living), and other benefits that gay couples (whether they are in a domestic partnership, civil union, or whatever) don't get. This is clearly prejudice against homosexuals by a government who is supposed to be blind to race, creed, religion, and sexual orientation.

So, is your discomfort limited to gay marriages, or would you also object to civil unions that give homosexuals the same benefits?

I've got no problem with some kind of legal arrangement under the law that recognises them as a couple. Call it a Civil union if you like, that's what we have over here. But the whole wedding ceremony thing should be between a man and a woman IMO.

I realize that you're somewhat reluctant to debate this, but humor me for a bit here. How would you go about stopping two gay people from having a marriage ceremony? Currently, that isn't illegal anywhere in the western world (that I know of). The ceremony will not come remotely close to being licensed by the government, no one will recognize it, and it would be nothing but symbolic, but people are allowed to do it none the less. Some might argue that this is mocking or trivializing marriage (and I would dispute that), but even if it were, why would take away a person's right to do that? Make it the law of the land that marriage cannot be "mocked" and you set a precedent that basically says everything else people view as important must not be made fun of. You would probably be fined at the very least for those things that would make people think of you as sexist, or racist. Anything that could be viewed as offensive would result in punishment by the government. Speech, media, and actions could be censored, almost at will. Why would you want to give the government that kind of power?

[Thought Criminal]

I realize that you're somewhat reluctant to debate this, but humor me for a bit here. How would you go about stopping two gay people from having a marriage ceremony? Currently, that isn't illegal anywhere in the western world (that I know of). The ceremony will not come remotely close to being licensed by the government, no one will recognize it, and it would be nothing but symbolic, but people are allowed to do it none the less. Some might argue that this is mocking or trivializing marriage (and I would dispute that), but even if it were, why would take away a person's right to do that? Make it the law of the land that marriage cannot be "mocked" and you set a precedent that basically says everything else people view as important must not be made fun of. You would probably be fined at the very least for those things that would make people think of you as sexist, or racist. Anything that could be viewed as offensive would result in punishment by the government. Speech, media, and actions could be censored, almost at will. Why would you want to give the government that kind of power?

In the US, same-sex marriage is legal in California and Massachusetts, so such a ceremony would indeed be licensed by the government. More specifically, same-sex couples could obtain marriage licenses. The way it would normally work is that, after the ceremony, the person performing it would sign the license. This, alongside the signatures of the couple (and in some places, two additional witnesses) makes it a legally binding marriage.

In places where same-sex marriage isn't legal yet, people can still perform ceremonies that serve much the same function, but they're not legally binding and it would be fraud for a priest (or whatever) to pretend they are performing a marriage.

In any case, the issue here isn't really about the ceremony, but about the marriage itself. He's suggesting that a same-sex couple could have some sort of ceremony and enter into a legal relationship much like marriage but he would not allow them to marry, as such. This means they only gain the rights that a civil union gives, which is at best a subset of those granted by marriage. Consider that a civil union performed in one state is ignored in other states, while a marriage is not.

(The whole fuss about the DOMA is that it violates the constitutional protection under which marriages are portable.)

TC

[OnceConvinced]

I didn't think you did, else I would have used some other example of a form of marriage that was once illegal but is now recognized as perfectly fine.

That's my point: if we allow people to marry but deprive them of the m-word, this is showing a strong bias against them. It's not as bad as stopping them from marrying in the first place, but there is injury along with the insult. In particular, a civil union is legally distinct from marriage and is not nearly as portable.

The analogy I was making is that, just as it would be bigoted if we said that "mixed-race" couples can only enter civil unions, it bigoted if we did the same for same-sex couples.

Nothing in your response has addressed this issue.

Male and female are a completely different issue to black and white. To me that's a very big strawman.

I realize that you're somewhat reluctant to debate this, but humor me for a bit here. How would you go about stopping two gay people from having a marriage ceremony? Currently, that isn't illegal anywhere in the western world (that I know of). The ceremony will not come remotely close to being licensed by the government, no one will recognize it, and it would be nothing but symbolic, but people are allowed to do it none the less. Some might argue that this is mocking or trivializing marriage (and I would dispute that), but even if it were, why would take away a person's right to do that? Make it the law of the land that marriage cannot be "mocked" and you set a precedent that basically says everything else people view as important must not be made fun of. You would probably be fined at the very least for those things that would make people think of you as sexist, or racist. Anything that could be viewed as offensive would result in punishment by the government. Speech, media, and actions could be censored, almost at will. Why would you want to give the government that kind of power?

I'm not motivated enough to do anything about it. Down here in New Zealand the government generally does what it wants and doesn't listen to those groups who oppose it's decisions. It's not a big enough issue for me to even go out and demonstrate against it. As it is, gay marriages were made legal here about two years ago. I didn't like it, but that's the way it is. I just have to accept that.

But if it's illegal, then it's like any other crime isn't it? You can't always police it effectively. People are going to smoke marijuana in their own homes, even though it's illegal. People are going to download music and movies off the Internet, but you can't do much to stop that either. Just because something is difficult to police and even though you may not be able to stop the perpetrators from offending again, doesn't mean you should make something legal.

[Thought Criminal]

Male and female are a completely different issue to black and white. To me that's a very big strawman.

Please explain the morally significant difference.

TC