Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

[Pangloss]

Sorry if I misunderstood.

[john5746]

At 6 billion and growing, I think we can afford to de-emphasize that...

 

Then don't have children.

 

 

Not really; the exact same reasons for preventing gay marriage were trotted out 40 years ago over inter-racial marriage: arguements about tradition' date=' the meaning of marriage, the morality of such unions, religion definitions and quotations, etc.

 

The point is that this arguement has happened before, and it was bigotry then, so it's bigtroy now. It's not a perfect analogy, I agree, but it's a potent one.[/quote']

 

I agree that it makes a powerful argument, but each case must stand on its own in the end. Since I see no reasonable argument against gay marriage, I support it. But, if I did see a serious problem with it, I would gladly be labeled a bigot - just as I am a bigot toward pedophilia or beastiality.

[padren]

Since I see no reasonable argument against gay marriage, I support it. But, if I did see a serious problem with it, I would gladly be labeled a bigot - just as I am a bigot toward pedophilia or beastiality.

 

I think its worth emphasizing the "serious problem with it" part because, in that case, you'd be present a case involving those rational and serious issues with it, and because of that, you would not be labeled a bigot (at least not by anyone with any sense).

 

I think if someone is against pedophilia and beastiality simply because they think "who cares, screw em pervs" then that would be a bigoted argument...however, there are "serious problems with it" which can be articulated rationally succinctly, such as issues of the trauma of child abuse, the inability to consent, and the fact that animal rights exist and that animals (which are less able to consent than any child which clearly can't) are protected by animal rights laws.

 

The problem is the proponents of a constitutional gay marriage ban in the senate, have failed to articulate a rational argument, and as such have understandably been called bigots.

[GutZ]

I think you may have misunderstood my post. When I said "Yes, of course, as long as the tax break were removed" I meant removed from everyone, not just removed for gay couples. The 'everyone' in that implies I am treating them all in the same way.

 

I totally agree.

 

I believe tax breaks were not originally intended for the couple that is married specifically though. I think it was built around the family idea. A tax break back then may have have helped when large families were common.

 

Obviously not every married couple is having children but I think back then when the state was more influenced by religion, people didnt procreate till they got married. If that were true you could assume that people who werent married weren't in a state to have kids. Certainly not in our age would such a relaxed idea would work, but it seems plausible.

 

Regardless of how it came about, the system doesn't really work well in our time. The government shouldn't be involved in this matter. I've always felt that marriage should be a ceremonial representation of "love", rather then a legal documentation with benefits.

 

Obviously there will be churches that will not marry a gay couple, but there are other ways to proclaim or celebrate love. Another thing too, why would gay couples want to marry in an establishment that doesn't like them. Right or wrong I am not going to force my way into becoming a black panther memeber (I mean no actual connection between the two) It's not going to work, thats my personal belief which lies beyond basic human rights anyway if you can even cut the line like that. Such conflict for things that are so trivial I guess bothers me.

[ecoli]

a desire to be recognized by the state, Gutz?

[Severian]

a desire to be recognized by the state, Gutz?

 

I don't have a desire for the state to recognise my chocolate addiction. If I were gay, why would I have a desire for the state to recognise that? Indeed, why would I have a desire for the state to recognise my love for my partner (in anything other than a legal sense)?

 

Someone who wants the state to recognize (or more correctly, give approval of) their relationships, clearly has no idea what the state is supposed to be. The recognition or approval must come from the community that you live in - not the beaurocrats in your capital city.

[gcol]

 

From a strictly legal point of view of course, in a "marriage" of two males, how would one one prove a state of pre-marital Virgo Intacta? Anyone know of an anal dilation tester whose results will stand up in court?

[GutZ]

a desire to be recognized by the state, Gutz?

 

lol not really. I'd rather them leave me the hell alone. Maybe I am baised because I never really believed in government (even though I work for them, shhh!). A fairy tale dream I guess as well.

 

I've just always though that government being involved in marriage degraded it. So naturally I would like the idea of seperating or abolishing government rule on marriage. I really don't see them authorizing personnales to preform or partake in voodoo rituals, so why marriage. It's not their job.