Severian Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 I am against gay marriage. I think the state has no business asking, or condoning, or condeming, or even having an opinion on what 2 (or more!) consenting adults do in private. I think the state should abolish state condoned marriages of all kinds. There should be no tax breaks and no special rights for couples by default. Instead, if people want to get 'married' for religious reasons, they should go to their church and have a religious cerimony (with no associated legal binding). If they want to have the rights currently associated with 'marriage', they should go see their laywer and draw up a contract. I must admit though to being a little bit confused as to why the gay community is making such a stink about this. Surely there are only two reasons to get married - religous or legal (as outlined above). Since they can still do both of the things I suggest above (ie. have a religious cerimony, and visit their lawyer), why do they need the state to ratify their union?
Sayonara Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 Strange that you replied to this thread just before I was about to post this fairly related link: California annuls 4,000 gay marriages. Methinks that move will have repurcussions.
Severian Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 Good! It is a step towards annuling the other 50,000,000 (or whatever) marriages in the US. (I felt I had better add a wink smilie just in case...)
john5746 Posted August 13, 2004 Posted August 13, 2004 Marriage brings many benefits: Child custody, ownership rights, insurance reductions, tax benefits, etc. Also, I guess some want their union to be seen as more legitimate. Marriage also brings benefits to society and that is one reason for government to support it. Some would say that social engineering is not a role of government, but I say that it is a chief role of government. Forcing marriage would of course be a different issue, just as forcing gays not to marry. Society is changing, but slowly. Gay marriage is a question of when, not if.
budullewraagh Posted August 13, 2004 Posted August 13, 2004 ay, if you look throughout history conservatism has never prevailed over progressive movements.
Phi for All Posted August 13, 2004 Posted August 13, 2004 Marriage provides a stable platform for raising children, among other things. Notice that as divorce becomes easier problems related to raising children become more prevalent. Marriage also means people don't just pick up and leave in a fit of anger. Divorce is becoming too easy, though. I think it should be harder to divorce rather than easier. Too many people bail on their commitments rather than work through the problems. As an analogy, in Germany it costs about $1400 to get your driver's license (the sound you hear is the jaws of the American readers dropping). In the US it's about $25. In Germany, there's no point system. If you abuse your driving priveleges, they take your license away. Another $1400, please. Germans are some of the most serious drivers I've ever shared the roads with. In the US, people drive like idiots because they get points taken away first, then your license is revoked. It's easier to get your license back so people don't respect the privelege of driving. My point is, if it were more difficult to do, people wouldn't use divorce as a crutch as often. Families would become more stable because people would learn to work through their differences.
Severian Posted August 13, 2004 Posted August 13, 2004 ay, if you look throughout history conservatism has never prevailed over progressive movements. Which explains why homosexuality was more tolerated in Victorian England than in ancient Greece..... erm.... hang on a minute.....
budullewraagh Posted August 13, 2004 Posted August 13, 2004 :\ age of revolutions? civil rights movements?
Sayonara Posted August 13, 2004 Posted August 13, 2004 Which explains why homosexuality was more tolerated in Victorian England than in ancient Greece..... The intolerance of Victorian society was not to do with conservatism, it was the age of the socialite smear campaign.
SurfSciGuy Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 Just like to say that I am totally against ninjas, as they are merely assassins who kill for money - they have no honour. As for gay marriage - If the state sees fit to bestow priveleges on individual s who choose to get married then those priveleges should be open to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation if the society is to be fair, free and liberal. As for Victorian intolerance - it was a mixture of a reaction against the headonistic ways of the previous regimes and a rise to prominance of the US and it's puritanical culture. Victorian society becomes more and more intraverted as the years go by and imported ideaology from the likes of Kellog compounded this (can't believe the guy invented cornflakes believing they stopped masturbation). Victorian society also saw the rise of the middle class to the social forefront - traditionally a much more conservative group than the upper classes (who often continued their shenanigans anyway e.g. Prince Edward).
budullewraagh Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 i was referring more to civil rights issues and such. age of revolutions, anyone?
drz Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=75970#post75970
john5746 Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 ay, if you look throughout history conservatism has never prevailed over progressive movements. I think this is usually the case as new generations demand more freedoms within a society. But, when that society fails(Greeks) or is transported(Puritans), they seem to go backwards.
Chem-Maniac Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 I seriously don't see why a marriage allowed to only heterosexuals would draw the developement of a sociaty back. And other way around, why is it such a positive contribution to a sociaty if homosexuals are allowed to marry? Just bacause we can call ourselfes more tolerant? Could anyone tell me just one positive outcome of a law allowing gay people to marry? I can't think of anything right now. A marriage is a sacred thing, with a tradition going back almost to the roots of humanity. Gays marrying? No thank's.
Sayonara Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 I seriously don't see why a marriage allowed to only heterosexuals would draw the developement of a sociaty back. And other way around' date=' why is it such a positive contribution to a sociaty if homosexuals are allowed to marry? Just bacause we can call ourselfes more tolerant? Could anyone tell me just one positive outcome of a law allowing gay people to marry? I can't think of anything right now.[/quote'] Laws are made to protect the rights that a society affords its citizens. Your argument is circular, and unless it applied to every law that was made would be special pleading - i.e. discrimination. Nobody is asking for a special "gay law" to be made. You need to be more familiar with the issue if you want your comments to make sense. A marriage is a sacred thing, with a tradition going back almost to the roots of humanity. Gays marrying? No thank's. And how many times have such wooly and non-specific "arguments" been torn to shreds on here?
drz Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Could anyone tell me just one positive outcome of a law allowing gay people to marry? 2 people are happy. Can you tell me of one negative outcome?
Severian Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Can you tell me of one negative outcome? Reinforcing the idea that the state should need to legitimise people's private sexual preferences....
Sayonara Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Reinforcing the idea that the state should need to legitimise people's private sexual preferences.... That's not the issue, nor is it a negative effect.
Severian Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 I would regard it as a negative outcome. I think that government has no business telling us how we should or should not live our lives.
Sayonara Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 I would regard it as a negative outcome. I think that government has no business telling us how we should or should not live our lives. ...but only with regards to gay people?
Severian Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 ...but only with regards to gay people? No - quite generally, but extending the concept of state sanctioned marriage is still a bad thing. It makes it more accepted and 'normal'. We should do away with state marriages altogether and leave them for religious groups.
budullewraagh Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 agreed. but as long as state sanctioned marraiges exist, we must have equality
Severian Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Don't you think it would be easier to get people to accept its removal altogether rather than its enlargement to gay couples?
drz Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Reinforcing the idea that the state should need to legitimise people's private sexual preferences.... well, this has little to do with sex. This has more to do with recognizing and granting rights which are granted to others who are married. Tax breaks, benefits, access to emergency rooms for ICU, etc. But I fail to see where this is a negative effect of 2 gay people being married. I fail to see how this has anything to do with your life, nor can I see how this in anyway limits anyone's freedom, nor causes them pain, unhappiness, or makes them unable to live a decent life. Remember, cause and effect; gay couple married, which caused ______ to happen to me. The answer I'm looking for would go in the blank.
Sayonara Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 No - quite generally, but extending the concept of state sanctioned marriage is still a bad thing. It makes it more accepted and 'normal'. We should do away with state marriages altogether and leave them for religious groups. What DRZ said. Plus I see hypocrisy in complaining on the one hand that the government "has no business telling us how we should or should not live our lives", but on the other hand saying that something that does not affect you makes someone else's lifestyle "more accepted and 'normal'". The standards you want for yourself are too good for gay people. We're back to discrimination again.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now