Gay Marriages. Should They Be Abolished?!

[puiwaihin]

I disagree with admin when he said that morallity, will say that you accept people for who they are. Wrong! Morallity will state that gay marriages, are immoral and should be banned.

As long as most people are of that opinion, there is no reason to permit gay marriage.

I'm not saying the morality/immorality of homosexuality or homosexual unions will change. I'm saying the general moral principles of society will change. 25 years ago homosexuality was barely tolerated at all. Now, showing a lack of acceptance (much less tolerance) is seen as wrong. The change is startling.

However, I would still not say a majority are willing to truely accept homosexuality yet enough to support marriage rights. It will take another 20 years or so of the media's influence to reach that level of conversion.

[boneyboy0]

after reading up on moral dilemmas of the last 200 years, I am amazed at how far morality and what is/was considered moral has changed

heres to a better future for us all

[puiwaihin]

why not? what benefit can society gain from the opression of gays?

That's not the point. Marriage is a social privilege. It is extended in order to promote stable families. Since homosexual unions do not generate stable families there is no reason for society to give that same privilege.

That's why not.

it will not make gays less gay or less likely to want to marry the one they love.

Sure. Again, that's not the point. They can love whomever they like and live with whomever they like. It just refrains from rewarding them for that behavior with tax breaks and legal protection.

it is not gay couples that are wreaking havoc in our society, that accolade must go to the criminals and the drug users who day in day out live by their own rules, not ours. not societies.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter that gay couples are not "wrecking society". Their union does not improve society, so there is no purpose in society encouraging it through offering it legal status.

how exactly would a gay marriage detract from society? what would be the ill-effect to society?

It doesn't have to detract from society. So long as it does not inherently improve society, there is no cause for the law to extend the incentive to stay together as a family to homosexual couples. It does not make sense for society to do so.

by promoting a society where any individual can feel accepted and part of that society would be more beneficial than one where you are accepted as long as you do not wish to marry someone of the same sex.

How about a society which forces you to accept other's chocies, and even support them? Where you can't disagree with what anyone else does? How free is that?

Like I said, until most people accept homosexuality as moral, society does not need to support them. Granting them the social privileges of marriage would be supporting them.

marriage in no way promotes less broken homes or single parent families, they will keep happening regardless,

On the contrary. Marriage is the single most powerful social force keeping families together. Do you believe that men (in particular) would not be less inclined to ditch a family without the protections of marriage for the woman and the children? Even the legal mechanism of divorce lessens the impact of a split marriage, helping to both ease the economic hardship and to arbitrate dispute in the case of custody, etc.

Remove marriage as a legal protection and MANY more families would disintegrate and there would be MANY more maladjusted people for our social structure to cope with.

Do you disagree? You think there should be no legal protections for mothers (and fathers, to a lesser extent), and more vitally, the children?

divorce will keep occuring too.

Yes. Single parent families and divorce will continue. Social values have actually shifted away from strong families and more towards individual gratification, creating an increase in social problems.

This doesn't mean that marriage is ineffective. It means that society's attitude towards marriage has changed in a dangerous way. It has lost it's sanctity, which has made it less effective than before. That however, does not mean that marriage does not help keep many families together when they might otherwise disintegrate or never happen.

a gay marriage is less likely to end with a single parent family, nature has seen to that

It is also less likely to create a single parent family if they don't marry.

If a boy and girl have sex but cannot marry, it is probable that you'll end up with a single parent family. If they marry, the risk to society is reduced. The same is not true of a homosexual relationship.

if the majority do not see that gays have rights then shouldn't we as idividuals change the majorities point of view?

Gays DO have equal rights.
Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the state.

perhaps the bill of rights should have had a little piece at the end of each line that read " unless you are gay and want to marry"

But the Bill of Rights is silent on marriage. There is no Amendmant 3.5: A person can marry if they want to.

We have no legal right to marry. Nobody does. You have to apply for a license to do it, and without that license the law will not have respect to your vows.

Again, LEGALLY, marriage is a tool of the government to promote a strong family unit, which is the foundation of a strong society. A society founded on individuals will have more social disorder. Granting LEGAL marriage to homosexuals does not benefit the state or society.

[puiwaihin]

after reading up on moral dilemmas of the last 200 years, I am amazed at how far morality and what is/was considered moral has changed

heres to a better future for us all

In some ways things have gotten better. In others they have gotten worse.

In freeing ourselves of some of the shackles that held us down, we removed some of the bindings that kept us together.

[boneyboy0]

this is getting good,

why don't gay marriages generate stable families? do gay couples not stay together as long as hetro families?

why shouldn't gays get rewarded for being in a stable relationship ? I doubt wether gays want to get married for tax reasons alone. love does come into it the same as with hetro's

does someone not deserve legal protection solely because of their sexual orientation?

"Irrelevant. It doesn't matter that gay couples are not "wrecking society". Their union does not improve society, so there is no purpose in society encouraging it through offering it legal status." ??????? how is it not relevant? what doesn't kill you maks you stronger, I could see your point if gays were undermining society but they are not. criminals have rights when they get shot or beat up whilst breaking into your house, does this mean society is encouraging them?


"How about a society which forces you to accept other's chocies, and even support them? Where you can't disagree with what anyone else does? How free is that? "????? arent we forcing gays to accept societies view on gay marriage? how free is that?

having gone through a divorce, I beg to differ from your view that the legal mechanism lessens the impact, as a father, I know a mother has more legal rights than the father, I am living proof, being married is no protection to either mother or father, I was married yet I still have less rights than the mother of my children, is that right? is it right that my children should lose out on the love that I have for them just because I and their mother don't get on?

granting LEGAL marriage to gays doesn't harm either the state or society. we are not likely to change our sexual orientation just because gays get married, they pay their taxes same as you and I, let them have the same things we can have

[puiwaihin]

why don't gay marriages generate stable families? do gay couples not stay together as long as hetro families?

Because until they have children, they aren't really a family. Just a couple. That's why having a baby is called, "starting a family".

The primary interest of the state in the family is in child raising. The government could care less if your romance works out or not (homosexual or heterosexual). They just don't want abandoned kids and kids growing up without parents.

why shouldn't gays get rewarded for being in a stable relationship ?

Heterosexuals don't get rewarded for being in a stable relationship either. They are offered protections and incentives to keep a family together.

I doubt wether gays want to get married for tax reasons alone. love does come into it the same as with hetro's

It's about entitlement. They feel they want to be treated fairly, and equally. So, they want marriage. If it was about love they would just have a private ceremony and be done with it.

But in this case, they are wrong. They aren't being denied a right they deserve. They are being denied a privilege they don't qualify for.

does someone not deserve legal protection solely because of their sexual orientation?

We're not talking about protection from exploitation, a violation of civil rights, false prosecution, etc.

Of course they deserve these protections. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to basic civil rights. If you are a citizen you deserve the same rights as citizens. If you are a legal resident you deserve the rights of legal residents. If you are an illegal immigrant, you deserve the rights of legal immigrants.

But, as I have stated half a dozen times, marriage is NOT a basic right. It is an offer made to further the ends of society.

"Irrelevant. It doesn't matter that gay couples are not "wrecking society". Their union does not improve society, so there is no purpose in society encouraging it through offering it legal status." ??????? how is it not relevant?

It's not relevant because marriage is an incentive to further the basic family structure of society. The incentive is not offered to those who cannot further that goal. It doesn't matter that they aren't actively undermining it if the criteria for getting it is to be actively promoting it.

what doesn't kill you maks you stronger

Like polio, and being put into a coma for 40 years.

You are saying that if homosexual unions do not undermine society in any way, then they most be good for society.

Sorry, but the logic here is totally flawed. Pushing the elevator down button many times won't slow it down, but it won't make it come any faster, either.

I could see your point if gays were undermining society but they are not.

My point stands even if they aren't undermining society. But I'll digress from my main, amoral argument, to point out why there is such opposition to this:
<digression>
Many people still believe that a homosexual lifestyle by itself is immoral, and encouraging it is undermining society.

This is a matter of opinion, often a matter of religion. They are fully within their rights to believe this and to oppose what they feel is immoral. And it is the majority that feels this way.

I don't think this is an issue that can be proven either way because it involves personal values.
</digression>

Regardless, if homosexual unions do not as a general rule promote social stability, then they should not be encouraged by extending them legal status.

criminals have rights when they get shot or beat up whilst breaking into your house, does this mean society is encouraging them?

Yes, it does. By giving them legal protection in the course of pursuing illegal activities, they are emboldened.

How about a society which forces you to accept other's chocies, and even support them? Where you can't disagree with what anyone else does? How free is that?

????? arent we forcing gays to accept societies view on gay marriage? how free is that?

#1: They can marry, it just won't be legally recognized.
#2: The majority rules. When it comes to law, the majority determines what the government will do. Minorities have rights that cannot be abrogated, but they cannot force their views on the majority.

Once again: Marriage is not one of those rights, and it doesnt make sense that it would be.

having gone through a divorce, I beg to differ from your view that the legal mechanism lessens the impact, as a father, I know a mother has more legal rights than the father, I am living proof, being married is no protection to either mother or father

Don't you have to provide from them? Don't you have visitation rights? Without a court of law to make any sort of decision, wouldn't things have been worse?

The protections of the law in the case of divorce are inadequate, but they are better than nothing.

I was married yet I still have less rights than the mother of my children, is that right?

In most cases, it is better for the children and society that the mother be the primary caregiver. But not all cases. In most cases the father has the better earning potential, and the mother has the greater burden (although that has changed significantly since those laws were written). So, naturally, she would be given more protection.

But the law is not perfect. It works on generalizations, not specifics, and judges are bound by the precedents of these generalizations.

is it right that my children should lose out on the love that I have for them just because I and their mother don't get on?

granting LEGAL marriage to gays doesn't harm either the state or society.

Again, your assertion is based on your own moral position. Others will argue the moral part.

Second, it doesn't help society, so it should not be promoted.

they pay their taxes same as you and I, let them have the same things we can have

They can't have children together. So, why should they have marriage since that is the primary purpose of marriage?

[puiwaihin]

Let me put this to you another way:

Why should homosexuals want to get married?
1. Love?
2. For the social benefits/legal protections?
3. Political statement?

1. If it is love, then they can do so without any legalities. They can have a ceremony, make vows, etc. etc. etc.

2. What are the main benefits and protections of marriage?
Here's a nice list:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

If you look down that list, a good proportion of them fit one of two categories:
I. Related to children in the family
II. Related to protection from a partner

The website says:

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for.

But all the rights they mentioned that cannot be separately arranged or contracted actually fit into group I or group II.

If two people commit to each other, but then one wants to end the commitment later, why shouldn't that person be able to get end things without a mess? Remove children from the picture, and I don't see why both parties shouldn't just take their respective things and be free of each other (or the one be free of the other).

So, then there's tax and insurance benefits, and a few other things.

The main reason homosexuals would want to marry, I would say, would be #3: to make a political statement. Making it legal to marry would be an affirmation that they must be accepted into society by law.

[boneyboy0]

this debate could take months


not having children doesn't mean you are not in a family, I live with my partner, that is our family, children are an extension of that if we choose to have any, we consider everyone that has blood ties to us our family


"Heterosexuals don't get rewarded for being in a stable relationship either. They are offered protections and incentives to keep a family together. " why shouldn't gays have the same protections and incentives? just because they can't have kids?


"It's about entitlement. They feel they want to be treated fairly, and equally. So, they want marriage. If it was about love they would just have a private ceremony and be done with it" do you know any gay couples? if it were just about being treated fairly then I doubt wether they would be bothered,they have had to put up with prejudice and discrimination for a long time . one of the things its about is having the same rights by law that hetro couples enjoy if the partnership breaks up

you keep saying that marriage is not abasic right, thats a mute point, this is about wether gay marriage should be abolished, no one offered me marriage, I chose to get married, gays should be allowed to have the same choice

marriage in no way can be an incentive for furthering the basic family structure, if it is you are getting married for the wrong reasons, love and the desire to share your life with someone should allways be the incentive to get married

how do gay unions not promote social stability? you keep saying this but I cant see that there is any basis for this,

gay or straight, the relationship has the same chance of faliure or sucess.

"They can't have children together. So, why should they have marriage since that is the primary purpose of marriage?" so are you saying that having children is the prime reason to get married? I don't think thats true, and if it was the prime reason to get married then where does that leave barren couples? are they not entitled to get married because they can not have kids, or couples that choose not to have kids, what of them? some people choose not to bring kids into this world for all sorts of reasons, yet they are still entitled to get married, why should it be different for any one? marriage isnt just about having kids

marriage is not for the purpose of procreation, (thats one of the nice things that come with it ) marriage should be enjoyed by all, that means gays too,

[boneyboy0]

stop posting before i get the chance to reply

[boneyboy0]

non of your next post changes my mind, gay marriage should not be banned, not because of religion, politics or any nice lists.

on the bottom of your list was this interesting little bit, (see the "related essays on this subject" bit at the bottom)
and I quote:-


"Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. 3

and this bit

"Promoting hatred and bigotry in the name of God is what destroys society, not the marriage of two loving people of the same gender." Raymond Miller. 4

and

Gay people deserve the same right to marry that everybody else does. And God cares about our relationships the same way God cares about heterosexual relationships. We're making the same commitments to each other. We have the same responsibilities to each other, and we deserve the same rights and responsibilities under the law that everyone else has." Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign. 5

and


Anon: "A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?" Posting to an Internet mailing list; used by permission of the author.

and


Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: "...what two gay men do in the privacy of their bedroom is totally different. Unlike polygamy or incest, no rational person can argue that two men having gay sex is going to undermine the legal institution of marriage. Those that do are probably more interested in attacking gays than protecting marriage." 5

and

Anon: "Actually, I believe the best solution would be to remove government from the business of marriage altogether. Marriage should be a sacred trust between two consenting individuals and, if they wish, their families and houses of worship, not individuals and the government. We are treading in very dangerous waters when we ask the government to regulate personal relationships, especially something with the religious overtones of marriage." 6

and

Charles Johnson: "For gays who may have been viciously rejected by family and friends because of their sexual orientation, having legally and socially legitimate kin would have psychological benefits which cannot be ignored. Also, allowing gays to marry would help encourage stable, married life while discouraging the flamboyant and often promiscuous fringe lifestyle of some of the most vocal homosexual activists. Thus, gay marriage would not only bring the social benefits of stabler relationships to gays; it would also help end much of the ignorance, confrontationalism, and social stigmata--and thus the ostracism, brutal violence, and self-loathing--associated with homosexuality today." 9

and

Anon, "There is no reason that the federal government, or anyone for that matter, should restrict marriage to a predefined heterosexual relationship. Because it is the right of the homosexual legally, socially, and economically, matrimony between lesbian and gay couples should be accepted in the United States. Because our country has been founded on the Constitution, in which all men are created equal; we cannot deny the basic human and legal right of marriage to a class of individuals due to their sexual preference." 8


the list of quotes, and further reading on the subject went on, and on and on. it makes for worthwile reading, you should try it

[boneyboy0]

this made me laugh, on the top of the page you are on now came this little ad by google

New Jersey gay marriage
Garden State Equality, fighting for marriage equality (732) GSE-9001


how apt

[puiwaihin]

this debate could take months

Nah, it's already starting to go in circles.

not having children doesn't mean you are not in a family, I live with my partner, that is our family,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family
Look it up.

Yes, there are definitions of family that will include just a couple living under the same house, but most refer specifically to blood relation and shared ancestry.

When you marry, your partner is adopted into your ancestral family (and you to hers), but that is relative to your existing family with your father and mother and their ancestors.

When you have children, you have your own family.

That is the traditional sense of the word, and that is the what marriage is designed to protect.

children are an extension of that if we choose to have any, we consider everyone that has blood ties to us our family

Sure. That fits with the definition. And I'm not saying you aren't any less of "family" together because you don't have kids. But in terms of the framework of this argument and the laws of marriage and its protections, most of it doesn't apply.

why shouldn't gays have the same protections and incentives? just because they can't have kids?

MOST of the protections are BECAUSE of kids. The protections are against abandonment, insurance benefits in case of death of a spouse while you have to care for children, having your finances dedicated to providing a home for children.

If you don't have children, then there needs no protection against abandonment. If they want to split up, they just split up. Why should there be any hindrance to a breakup (as far as society is concerned)?

It's about entitlement......

do you know any gay couples?

Why, yes. I do. Keep reading.

if it were just about being treated fairly then I doubt wether they would be bothered,they have had to put up with prejudice and discrimination for a long time. one of the things its about is having the same rights by law that hetro couples enjoy

That is entitlement. That's exactly what I just said. They want to be treated the same, even when it doesn't make sense to get the same treatment.

if the partnership breaks up

That's a really silly reason to want to get married.

you keep saying that marriage is not abasic right, thats a mute point,

How is it a moot point? You keep arguing that gays want to have the same rights as everyone else. And I'm saying sure, but marriage is not a right. How is that not an important point?

If marriage is a basic right, then it should not be denied to anyone. If it is not a basic right, then the state has the right to determine what criteria are needed to gain the privilege.

It is an essential point.

this is about wether gay marriage should be abolished

Yeah. But in order to abolish gay marriage it must first be established. I guess I could say it shouldn't be abolished, it should never be permitted in the first place because it makes not sense.

no one offered me marriage

The state offered you marriage that was legally binding.

I chose to get married, gays should be allowed to have the same choice

No they shouldn't, not from a social perspective.
From a moral perspective, that only holds true if the majority of people believe that there is nothing inherently immoral about homosexuality. That is not the case.

marriage in no way can be an incentive for furthering the basic family structure

You got it wrong. It's an incentive to further the basic social structure. Marriage offers protections so that couples can rear children together safely, where otherwise they would be more likely to create a broken home.

Marriage is no guarantee of a good home environment, but it reduces the number of single-parent families and abandoned children.

if it is you are getting married for the wrong reasons, love and the desire to share your life with someone should allways be the incentive to get married

You reversed things. Yes, you marry for love. Marriage doesn't cause love. Marriage introduces duty and legal responsibilities that otherwise don't exist. So when there are fights or the guy wants to sleep with other girls, there's something there to act as a barrier.

how do gay unions not promote social stability? you keep saying this but I cant see that there is any basis for this

Children. Children. Children.

How do homosexual unions promote social stability? What do they offer society? What is better about two homosexuals in an exclusive relationship as opposed to two separate homosexuals that date whomever they like?

As far as society is concerned, nothing.

How do heterosexual unions promote social stability? What do they offer society? What is better about two heterosexuals in an exclusive relationship as opposed to two separate heterosexuals that date whomever they like?

As far as society is concerned, the children of these unions.

gay or straight, the relationship has the same chance of faliure or sucess.

And if there weren't any children, there'd be no need for marriage.

so are you saying that having children is the prime reason to get married? I don't think thats true, and if it was the prime reason to get married then where does that leave barren couples? are they not entitled to get married because they can not have kids, or couples that choose not to have kids, what of them?

This is the very first good point that you've brought up.
Socially speaking, there's no point in them getting married, yet they are still allowed to get married anyway.

I'm going to give a brief answer now because I have to go to work.

These couples can adopt. And if they don't, there's no negative consequence to society. That does not negate the purpose of the marriage contract, though.

Sorry I can't give a lenghthier response to this, your best argument, but I have 20 minutes to get to the train station.

marriage is not for the purpose of procreation

As far as society is concerned, yes it is.

[puiwaihin]

"Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. 3

Their assertion that marriage is a basic human right is false.
The rest is just rhetoric. It can be ignored.

If you want to argue that marriage is a right, rather than a privilege, then do so. But just say it is true and expect me to agree. Obviously, I don't.

A simple assertion will not suffice here.

"Promoting hatred and bigotry in the name of God is what destroys society, not the marriage of two loving people of the same gender." Raymond Miller. 4

Hatred and bigotry, whether in the name of God or not, is harmful to society. But that's irrelevant to the topic. It's a fallacious argument known as http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Gay people deserve the same right to marry that everybody else does. And God cares about our relationships the same way God cares about heterosexual relationships.

Marriage is not a right. And the person who wrote this is trying to tell us what God believes. That's a matter of religion and many people disagree.

We have the same responsibilities to each other, and we deserve the same rights and responsibilities under the law that everyone else has." Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign. 5

Rights, yes. Exactly the same treatment? No.

Anon: "A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?" Posting to an Internet mailing list; used by permission of the author.

That's a specious argument.

no rational person can argue that two men having gay sex is going to undermine the legal institution of marriage.

I agree. But extending the legal practice of marriage to homosexual unions could damage its usefulness for society.

Those that do are probably more interested in attacking gays than protecting marriage." 5

It really depends on how reasoned the arguments are. Saying a person must be a gay basher if they don't agree with a certain proposition is an example of an ad hominem argument--- another fallacy.

I don't agree with the reasons of many people who actually agree with me. My reasons are based on a proper understanding of the function of marriage in society.

The arguments of these others you are quoting are not based on logic, but on their passionate desire for acceptance and their feelings of entitlement. This isn't reason. It's emotion.

"Actually, I believe the best solution would be to remove government from the business of marriage altogether.

That's stupid. Removing marriage as a legal institution and making all marriages just be according to your own belief would create chaos. Don't make me go into all the problems that could cause.

[b]Also, allowing gays to marry would help encourage stable, married life while discouraging the flamboyant and often promiscuous fringe lifestyle of some of the most vocal homosexual activists.

Wishful thinking. They can have stable relationships without marriage. If they want to be flamboyant and promiscuous then they won't get married. If they want a stable relationship they'll have one.

So, no, it won't really benefit society any more than marriage among heterosexuals prevents there being promiscious men and women. The only benefit to society comes in the family unit and child raising.

There is no reason that the federal government, or anyone for that matter, should restrict marriage to a predefined heterosexual relationship.

Yes there is. It is the place of society to take action to benefit itself. Extending priveleges to those who will benefit society and not to those who will not is both right and proper.

Because it is the right of the homosexual legally, socially, and economically

No, it isn't a right.

it makes for worthwile reading, you should try it

I read that before.

[boneyboy0]

in the spirit of fairplay I have deleted my post, I think it is unfair to post an argument and not be here for a few weeks to challenge a reply,

[jukka7]

so boneyboyo, well wait until your return, your argument with puiwaihin is really good,