[zk]

meadandale:
“The government already intercedes in marriage beyond prohibiting gay marriage.”

That’s right. And there’s reasons for it. Unlike the “reasons” against gay marriage. And I’m not using “marriage” in the religious usage. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “marriage as defined by christians.” It can be a civil affair. Several of your arguments, meadandale, revolve around marriage as a religious event. It isn’t necessarily a religious union. Can you tell me why you think it always is?

“In most places, I can’t marry my 14 year old neighbor (I love her, it’s not my fault she’s younger than me and I don’t want to have to wait for her to be 18).”

The reason for that is that people of that age aren’t considered ready to marry. Whether 18 is the correct age or not is certainly open to debate. I personally think it should be a bit younger. But it shouldn’t be 4. What should it be? I don’t know. But there should be a limit.

“In most places, I can’t marry my sister (I love her, it’s not my fault we are related).”

If you have children with your sister, the odds of them having genetic defects are very high, and they shouldn’t be subjected to that. Now, if one of you were not fertile, that would be different, and I think you should be able to marry her. Or maybe it should just be illegal to have children with a sibling.

“In most places I can’t have more than one wife (I love them both and can support them, why can’t I marry them both).”

That one’s tricky. I’m not sure I agree with it. I did a little research and saw some of the justifications for it being illegal. I don’t think they made much sense. Maybe it should be legal.

“I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?”

Those women and children have been brainwashed since birth to go along with whatever the men say. And you think that’s okay? I think that’s scary.

“You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.”

I don’t think that “social norm” should enter into it. Whatever form of marriage doesn’t hurt other people should be allowed whether society thinks it’s “normal” or not.

[zk]

meadandale:
“The government already intercedes in marriage beyond prohibiting gay marriage.”

That’s right. And there’s reasons for it. Unlike the “reasons” against gay marriage. And I’m not using “marriage” in the religious usage. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “marriage as defined by christians.” It can be a civil affair. Several of your arguments, meadandale, revolve around marriage as a religious event. It isn’t necessarily a religious union. Can you tell me why you think it always is?

“In most places, I can’t marry my 14 year old neighbor (I love her, it’s not my fault she’s younger than me and I don’t want to have to wait for her to be 18).”

The reason for that is that people of that age aren’t considered ready to marry. Whether 18 is the correct age or not is certainly open to debate. I personally think it should be a bit younger. But it shouldn’t be 4. What should it be? I don’t know. But there should be a limit.

“In most places, I can’t marry my sister (I love her, it’s not my fault we are related).”

If you have children with your sister, the odds of them having genetic defects are very high, and they shouldn’t be subjected to that. Now, if one of you were not fertile, that would be different, and I think you should be able to marry her. Or maybe it should just be illegal to have children with a sibling.

“In most places I can’t have more than one wife (I love them both and can support them, why can’t I marry them both).”

That one’s tricky. I’m not sure I agree with it. I did a little research and saw some of the justifications for it being illegal. I don’t think they made much sense. Maybe it should be legal.

“I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?”

Those women and children have been brainwashed since birth to go along with whatever the men say. And you think that’s okay? I think that’s scary.

“You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.”

I don’t think that “social norm” should enter into it. Whatever form of marriage doesn’t hurt other people should be allowed whether society thinks it’s “normal” or not.

[zk]

DWCAP:
“Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.”

That would be fine. If it were legal, which it isn’t. Which is the problem.

[zk]

DWCAP:
“Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.”

That would be fine. If it were legal, which it isn’t. Which is the problem.

[zk]

DWCAP:
“Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.”

That would be fine. If it were legal, which it isn’t. Which is the problem.

[zk]

DWCAP:
“Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.”

That would be fine. If it were legal, which it isn’t. Which is the problem.

[zk]

DWCAP:
“Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.”

That would be fine. If it were legal, which it isn’t. Which is the problem.

[zk]

“In any case, I’m of the opinion that with the exception of rare cases, homosexuality is a choice. So, yes, my boys could choose a homosexual orientation/lifestyle, but I’ll be honest, I’ll be VERY disappointed. My opinion, my prerogative.”

Marion,

I feel sorry for your sons. My opinion, my prerogative.

[zk]

“In any case, I’m of the opinion that with the exception of rare cases, homosexuality is a choice. So, yes, my boys could choose a homosexual orientation/lifestyle, but I’ll be honest, I’ll be VERY disappointed. My opinion, my prerogative.”

Marion,

I feel sorry for your sons. My opinion, my prerogative.

[zk]

“In any case, I’m of the opinion that with the exception of rare cases, homosexuality is a choice. So, yes, my boys could choose a homosexual orientation/lifestyle, but I’ll be honest, I’ll be VERY disappointed. My opinion, my prerogative.”

Marion,

I feel sorry for your sons. My opinion, my prerogative.

[zk]

“In any case, I’m of the opinion that with the exception of rare cases, homosexuality is a choice. So, yes, my boys could choose a homosexual orientation/lifestyle, but I’ll be honest, I’ll be VERY disappointed. My opinion, my prerogative.”

Marion,

I feel sorry for your sons. My opinion, my prerogative.

[zk]

“In any case, I’m of the opinion that with the exception of rare cases, homosexuality is a choice. So, yes, my boys could choose a homosexual orientation/lifestyle, but I’ll be honest, I’ll be VERY disappointed. My opinion, my prerogative.”

Marion,

I feel sorry for your sons. My opinion, my prerogative.

[zk]

“I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.”

Well, one can’t really argue with logic that isn’t there. “I just won’t support it” isn’t logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don’t think it’s necessary to do it here. Although I’ll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that’s fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it’s an abomination (and we’ll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you’re a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that’s wrong. That’s like me saying, “my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes.” Just because my religion doesn’t have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents – doesn’t mean my religious views shouldn’t have as much weight as yours. (And don’t start with the “founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion” argument, because it isn’t true and it won’t fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we’ll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn’t have any effect on the laws of this country.

I’ve got more, but I’ve got to get back to work.

[zk]

“I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.”

Well, one can’t really argue with logic that isn’t there. “I just won’t support it” isn’t logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don’t think it’s necessary to do it here. Although I’ll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that’s fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it’s an abomination (and we’ll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you’re a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that’s wrong. That’s like me saying, “my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes.” Just because my religion doesn’t have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents – doesn’t mean my religious views shouldn’t have as much weight as yours. (And don’t start with the “founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion” argument, because it isn’t true and it won’t fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we’ll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn’t have any effect on the laws of this country.

I’ve got more, but I’ve got to get back to work.

[zk]

“I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.”

Well, one can’t really argue with logic that isn’t there. “I just won’t support it” isn’t logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don’t think it’s necessary to do it here. Although I’ll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that’s fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it’s an abomination (and we’ll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you’re a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that’s wrong. That’s like me saying, “my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes.” Just because my religion doesn’t have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents – doesn’t mean my religious views shouldn’t have as much weight as yours. (And don’t start with the “founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion” argument, because it isn’t true and it won’t fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we’ll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn’t have any effect on the laws of this country.

I’ve got more, but I’ve got to get back to work.

[Author]

Posts