10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

[Coyote]

Anthrolologically speaking, that isn't why marriage became an institution supported by the state. We have covered this as well. Since it takes so long for our young to reach a state of maturity in which they don't need parents to take care of them, it was to the benefit of the state to find a way to support a relationship between a man and a woman so that it could reasonably be expected to last long enough to see to the rearing of children. If our children matured to the point that they could leave their parents in a half a year or a year, then the insitution of marriage would probably never have come about.

That is incorrect. Procreation is only one aspect of the institutionalization of marriage. The reason that state gets involved is the legal union/distribution of property. That is why historically, marriage among poorer classes in Western societies is "common law" with no no state involvement.

Biologically speaking - permanent or long term unions have a beneficial survival aspect when raising children that are slow to mature but that doesn't totally explain marriage because in social many species the entire group helps to raise young but that doesn't explain the state involvement in marriage.

And in regard to your suggestion that other cultures supported homosexual "marriage", I would challenge you to bring forward evidence of such support, and what they called the relationship in their language and prove that what they called it was also the word, in their language, for marriage. I believe that you will find it quite impossible to meet the challenge because no culture has ever supported homosexual marriage.

You know of course that I can not totally meet that challange - nor, do I think you could meet the same challange in reverse because some of those languages contain many different words for relationships and some of those languages are dead.

I don't care what you call it - don't call it marriage if you don't want to. Call it civil unions. Regardless in the end it comes down to equal rights in a country founded on equality. Of course if you were being intellectually dishonest, you could insist that they have the same rights as heterosexuals (ie they can marry a person of the opposite sex) but you and I both know that is sophistry.

If the state is going to be involved in marriage and if it's going to confer special rights to married heterosexuals, then it needs to confer equal rights to committed homosexual couples or no rights at all.

 

[jb_1430]

Regardless in the end it comes down to equal rights in a country founded on equality. Of course if you were being intellectually dishonest, you could insist that they have the same rights as heterosexuals (ie they can marry a person of the opposite sex) but you and I both know that is sophistry.

If the state is going to be involved in marriage and if it's going to confer special rights to married heterosexuals, then it needs to confer equal rights to committed homosexual couples or no rights at all.

What would be the purpose of giving rights to "couples"? Why discriminate against singles? Does government legislation need no purpose whatsoever in your imaginary world?

 

[Coyote]

What would be the purpose of giving rights to "couples"? Why discriminate against singles? Does government legislation need no purpose whatsoever in your imaginary world?

That is a strawman argument - take it up as a separate topic if you wish.

Why should heterosexual couples be given legal recognition and special benefits and homosexual couples not? I can't come up with a single valid reason not to and several reasons to do so. I can find any valid rational showing it would harm the country, the culture, any individuals or the supposedly sacred institution of marriage.

The only reasons you appear to be able to come up with are...well....what?

 

[jb_1430]

That is a strawman argument - take it up as a separate topic if you wish.

Actually, it was three questions that you cant answer.

 

[9sublime]

"Numinus(HAS NOT)... argued that procreation is a necessity of marriage."

I'm pretty sure he has argued that.

The main argument against gay marriage - yours anyway JB - seems to be that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed and controlled by the govenrment because it is not neccessary because it serves no purpose.

By the same logic, shouldn't straight marriage be stopped as well - because well... it serves no purpose. Making children serves a purpose, but marriage is not a neccessity for procreation.

Marriage, by itself, serves no purpose whatsoever, heterosexual or homosexual, so it should not be regulated and legislated at all. Agree?

 

[Coyote]

Actually, it was three questions that you cant answer.

What would be the purpose of giving rights to "couples"?

Legally outlining certain responsibilities in regards to offspring (natural or adopted); uniting/dividing/defining property that is shared or not shared; inheritance rights. The ability of a married person to be considered "immediate family" to his/her partner.


Why discriminate against singles?

What discrimination - can you be specific? That is an issue impossible to address because most rights involved with couples specifically involve more then one person. It's a strawman because I'm not arguing discrimination for or against singles.


Does government legislation need no purpose whatsoever in your imaginary world?

It needs a purpose. I've outlined the purpose. Multiple times. You seem to feel the only purpose is related to procreation.

 

[jb_1430]

I'm pretty sure he has argued that.

No, you guys have just devoted so much time to refuting this nonexistant arguement, you have come to believe it is the arguement being presented.

The main argument against gay marriage - yours anyway JB - seems to be that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed ....

????? Actually, Ive REPEATEDLY, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, stated that no one is preventing you from getting married or arguing that you should not be allowed to. There are plenty of church denominations out there that will marry anybody.

 

[jb_1430]

What would be the purpose of giving rights to "couples"?

Legally outlining certain responsibilities in regards to offspring (natural or adopted); uniting/dividing/defining property that is shared or not shared; inheritance rights.

For what PURPOSE? What benefit to society? Why in the hell would government PROMOTE homosexuals entering in to such relationships? Why would you want government to encourage homosexual relationships period.... other than helping gays get over their own personal hangups. We know what it is that you want. I was looking for ANY reason why the government should give you what you want... other than you want it. I want a vehicle inspection sticker and vehicle registration for my bicycle. Thats not a reason the government should give it to me.
"offspring"?? biologically impossible. Would pretending that it is serve any purpose?

 

[Coyote]

For what PURPOSE? What benefit to society? Why in the hell would government PROMOTE homosexuals entering in to such relationships?

Since when does "recognizing" equal "promoting"?

What benefit to society is the state recognition of marriage? As stated, any church or other organizations can confer marriage.

The only benefit is legal: inheritence, property rights, offspring. As far as benefit to society: legally codifying those rights and responsibilities reduces strife.

Why would you want government to encourage homosexual relationships period.... other than helping gays get over their own personal hangups.

Well...your bigotry becomes more apparent as you switch from debate to insult.

Explain how the following is a "personal hangup":

- the right to be able to visit a critically ill spouse in the hospital or to make medical decisions for a partner in an emergency

Note: hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from a person or hostile to us or may ignore a partner's wishes regarding treatment. If a hostile family wishes to exclude the ill person's partner from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states.

- the right to be draw up a legally binding will and a legal recognition of the rights of shared property, and a reasonable expectation that it will hold up as occurs with the legal recognition of marriage.

Note: Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude a partner from a funeral . In addition, estranged families can, in nearly all states, legally seize real estate that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, sell it and even stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations despite the fact that the partner no longer owns it. This has actually happened.

- In marriage, a spouse can not be compelled to testify or provide evidence against their partner - without marriage, they can. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied if the prisoners blood family wishes. Conjugal visits - a well-established right of heterosexual married couples, are not available to gay couples.

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical or cultural origins of marriage.

We know what it is that you want. I was looking for ANY reason why the government should give you what you want... other than you want it.

You have no idea what *I* want. You do not know me. You seem to make a lot of assumptions. We are a country based on freedom, individual rights and equality. You would deny those rights to a portion of the population soley on the basis of their sexual orientation which may well not be a "choice" but a biologically determined state of being no different then skin color.

I want a vehicle inspection sticker and vehicle registration for my bicycle. Thats not a reason the government should give it to me.

And that has what to do with the debate and what I have outlined above?

"offspring"?? biologically impossible. Would pretending that it is serve any purpose?

Biologically impossible? Sorry to disappoint you - perhaps you need a reality check.

 

[9sublime]

No, you guys have just devoted so much time to refuting this nonexistant arguement, you have come to believe it is the arguement being presented.

How about you look back over the thread?

????? Actually, Ive REPEATEDLY, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, stated that no one is preventing you from getting married or arguing that you should not be allowed to. There are plenty of church denominations out there that will marry anybody.

So why are you even arguing this at all if you are happy to see gay marriage go ahead?

 

[jb_1430]

So why are you even arguing this at all if you are happy to see gay marriage go ahead?

Because the gays are demanding that not only should they be allowed to marry, they also want to be issued a license and subjected to the same laws as heterosexual couples.
The government promoting the procreation of children within a marriage and the raising of children by their biological parents would seem to be a worthy purpose. Encouraging billy to do bob in the but would seem to serve no purpose whatsoever.

 

[Coyote]

Because the gays are demanding that not only should they be allowed to marry, they also want to be issued a license and subjected to the same laws as heterosexual couples.
The government promoting the procreation of children within a marriage and the raising of children by their biological parents would seem to be a worthy purpose. Encouraging billy to do bob in the but would seem to serve no purpose whatsoever.

This has nothing to do with buttsex. Are you capable of addressing the legal rights aspects of it or are you just going to get hung up on private bedroom details and matters of basic biology?

If the role of the government in legalizing marriage is to promote procreation then please explain why people who are infertile or the elderly should be granted a marriage license.

 

[jb_1430]

If the role of the government in legalizing marriage is to promote procreation then please explain why people who are infertile or the elderly should be granted a marriage license.

When the laws were written, science didnt have the capeability to determine the fertility of a couple or the ability to determine paternity of the father.
Its done for administrative convienience and because a large percentage of pregnancies are not planned.

 

[Coyote]

When the laws were written, science didnt have the capeability to determine the fertility of a couple or the ability to determine paternity of the father.
Its done for administrative convienience and because a large percentage of pregnancies are not planned.

I don't think it would take science to determine that a 80 yr old woman is most likely infertile...

Try again.

 

[PLC1]

What would be the purpose of giving rights to "couples"? Why discriminate against singles? Does government legislation need no purpose whatsoever in your imaginary world?

Because singles don't need community property, and have no one with whom to share it or to share pensions, health insurance, or any of the other benefits of married people.