Gay Marriage

Your mothers a semantic.

people need to keep debating, our forum is most active when people are debating

Your mothers active.

Or when LP starts yelling.

But honestly, what's the problem with gay marriage? Does anyone on the site think they should NOT be allowed to marry?

Yes, there are, unfortunately.

On this site?

If by marriage, Noc means civil union, than I'm fine with it.

I don't agree with it, but I don't believe that the government has the right to deny/mandate it.

Angatar wrote:Yes I did, and I do not believe that they would allow marriage to be lowered to civil unions, same as they won't allow civil unions to be raised to marriages.

So rather than taking the rational approach that may garner support from everyone but the minority extremists on the right and actually make progress because you "do not believe they would allow [it]", you think we'll make more progress by flipping the majority of the right the bird and pushing through gay marriage?

KrAzY wrote:yeah... I don't think there is any way to argue for siblings getting married.... I know that the argument for gay marriage is that it is "unnatural" so I don't like to use that for this... but it IS unnatural, so unnatural that it does terrible genetic things to the offspring.

As opposed to gay couples being so unnatural that they cannot even produce offspring? Why can't incestuous couples just adopt like gay couples do?

CivBase wrote:Nobody supports legal incest. That's why KrAzY said your point doesn't work.

Argumentum ad Populum. Just because nobody supports it does not inherently mean it is wrong. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, women's rights, and minority rights all saw times where nobody supported them, after all.

CivBase wrote:You can't say "why are you for A and not B when A is clearly worse?" if the person you're talking to isn't for A.

You seem to be confused, Civ. In your analogy, A is gay marriage and B is incest. KrAzY and everyone else drag posed the question to is in favor of gay marriage. Also, drag is equating the two, not saying one is worse than the other.

KrAzY wrote:well, despite the terrible overarching moral problems of incest. a big problem is that people could use it to financially exploit the system. since married couples are given tax breaks and other accomidations (for joining assets) imagine what a family with billions of dollars that didn't want any of it to leave the family could end up doing? marry all of children to eachother, get massive tax-breaks, and then produce genetically abhorrent offspring.

What, because gay marriage or even regular marriage magically can't be exploited in this way? I marry my roommate Reid. Neither of us is gay. We sign a prenup separating our incomes. We now get tax breaks.

KrAzY wrote:a common theme for inbred animals are psycopathic behavior and super aggressiveness and violence... happens in dogs after only 2 generations of inbreeding, genetic mutations happen right away

While parent-child and sibling-sibling have about a 20%-36% chance of the offspring having a serious disorder, cousin-cousin have as low as 4%. The general populace typically sees about 2%.

But, again, why can't incestuous couples just adopt?

Nocbl2 wrote:With the incest, they are actually capable of causing a problem (retards, four legged people, etc) whereas gays don't cause a problem except among themselves (and only if they are stupid about it).

Except in parent-child and sibling-sibling relationships, incestuous couples actually have almost as low a chance for genetic disorders as everyone else. And, again, incestuous couples can just adopt, just like gay couples.

KrAzY wrote:however on my first point, if there is a loophole to save money people will use it, people ALREADY do it for regular marriage. if brothers and sisters could marry then a divorce wouldn't even result in split assets leaving a family, if any system had a chance of being exploited, it would be that

You pretend like brothers and sisters share assets as it is. I don't know about your family, but my sister has her own bank account in which she puts money, and I have my own bank account in which I put money. I cannot touch her account, and she cannot touch my account. We don't live in the middle ages any longer, so assets leaving "the family" aren't really that big a deal. If I married my sister and then she divorced me and took half of everything I had, just because the money stayed within my family does not mean I would have all that money still.

In exploiting the system, this would be no different than any other marriage. If I marry my roommate Reid specifically to exploit the system and we sign an agreement that basically separates our accounts to prevent either of us from crossing the other, we are gaining the benefits of marriage without truly being married. If we divorce, it will likely be because one of us is interested in pursuing an actual relationship, and there will be no fight over money, because we never truly merged the money. In the same way, if I married my sister specifically to exploit the system and we sign an agreement that basically separates our accounts to prevent either of us from crossing the other, we are gaining the benefits of marriage without truly being married. If we divorce, it will likely be because one of us is interested in pursuing an actual relationship, and there will be no fight over money, because we never truly merged the money.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Yes I did, and I do not believe that they would allow marriage to be lowered to civil unions, same as they won't allow civil unions to be raised to marriages.

So rather than taking the rational approach that may garner support from everyone but the minority extremists on the right and actually make progress because you "do not believe they would allow [it]", you think we'll make more progress by flipping the majority of the right the bird and pushing through gay marriage?

Why the hell do you believe anyone would support lowering all marriages to civil unions? Anyone who opposes gay marriage on the basis of calling it marriage would have to be dumb to support removing it from everyone in a ploy to raise it again.

Yes, we will make more progress this way. It's very clearly working. Over the past ten years, ten different countries and six states have passed gay marriage. Up from zero and zero five years before. Support for this is picking up, and I sincerly doubt that dropping the present course of action and losing momentum for something that may or may not get any support is a good or sound plan.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:Nobody supports legal incest. That's why KrAzY said your point doesn't work.

Argumentum ad Populum. Just because nobody supports it does not inherently mean it is wrong. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, women's rights, and minority rights all saw times where nobody supported them, after all.

I never cited that support implies morality. I just said his argument wont work unless people from the opposite side support it.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:You can't say "why are you for A and not B when A is clearly worse?" if the person you're talking to isn't for A.

You seem to be confused, Civ. In your analogy, A is gay marriage and B is incest. KrAzY and everyone else drag posed the question to is in favor of gay marriage. Also, drag is equating the two, not saying one is worse than the other.

No... I'm not confused at all. He was saying that "incest is legal in some places, so why not gay marriage?" That argument doesn't work unless people are actually in favor of keeping incest legal while keeping gay marriage outlawed.

If everyone is against both, the argument simply has no basis. Additionally, even if people did support incest his point would serve only as a reason to outlaw incest, not legalize gay marriage.

The Scary thing is, there are people who think its fine to marry your cousin as long as he isn't the same gender as you, and they are the ones voting, most of the people who don't give two fucks don't vote.

Wait, I'm still confuzzled about the "marriage or civil union" thing.

Aren't they essentially the same? You are married and can share health benefits etc. Which, by the way, is kinda the point of the whole gay marriage shenanigans.

Usually but they can adjust the Civil Union laws so that they are legally "married" but get none of the benefits or the benefits are no where near what the straight community gets.

Nocbl2 wrote:Wait, I'm still confuzzled about the "marriage or civil union" thing.

Aren't they essentially the same? You are married and can share health benefits etc. Which, by the way, is kinda the point of the whole gay marriage shenanigans.

Yes, they're the same. The only difference is the word.

People are complaining that they can't use the word, even though nobody's actually stopping them.

No, the difference is that same sex marriages get worse health benefits and worse tax breaks and being given different rights because of their life style. Something that is rather looked down upon in this country.


"Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples get none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as spousal Social Security benefits after a death or the ability to bring a noncitizen spouse into the country"


If someone gets married in California then they move to another state they get considered legal strangers in that state and lose all their benefits as well.

A person who marries a government employee of the same sex cannot receive federal health benefits which are 1,138 federal rights and benefits for which only heterosexual married couples are eligible.


Yeah Civ, "The only difference is the word"

Angatar wrote:Why the hell do you believe anyone would support lowering all marriages to civil unions? Anyone who opposes gay marriage on the basis of calling it marriage would have to be dumb to support removing it from everyone in a ploy to raise it again.

Because it doesn't have to be a ploy to raise it again. Separating the terms marriage and civil unions gives gay couples all the rights they want without being unfair, but let's the churches keep their word.

Angatar wrote:Yes, we will make more progress this way. It's very clearly working. Over the past ten years, ten different countries and six states have passed gay marriage. Up from zero and zero five years before. Support for this is picking up, and I sincerly doubt that dropping the present course of action and losing momentum for something that may or may not get any support is a good or sound plan.

You mean from one and six, right? Of the ten countries that recognize same-sex marriage, Holland recognized it eleven years ago, Belgium recognized it nine years ago, Norway recognized it three years ago, Spain recognized it seven years ago, Canada recognized it six years ago, South Africa recognized it five years ago, Sweden recognized it three years ago, and Argentina, Iceland, and Portugal recognized it two years ago. Of the six states that recognize same-sex marriage, Massachusetts recognized it seven years ago.

And while your six states are very impressive and shiny, you're basically never going to convince the conservative states to go with it by saying "oh, and fuck anyone who disagrees, we don't compromise".

CivBase wrote:I never cited that support implies morality. I just said his argument wont work unless people from the opposite side support it.

On the contrary. His point works because no one supports legal incest. He is saying that incest and gay marriage are ethically the same, and therefore, anyone supporting gay rights should also support incestuous rights. That they do not implies a double standard. Since the only real argument against incest is that it is "unnatural", it totally defeats the perspective that calling gays "unnatural" is unfair and narrowminded.

CivBase wrote:No... I'm not confused at all. He was saying that "incest is legal in some places, so why not gay marriage?" That argument doesn't work unless people are actually in favor of keeping incest legal while keeping gay marriage outlawed.

You really need to reread his posts, Civ. He was saying "How can you claim that gay marriage is okay and marrying your first cousin, or really any matter of incest, is not?" That is to say, he was saying that anyone who supports gay marriage should also support incest, because they are ethically and morally the same; any argument that can be posed against gay marriage can similarly be posed against incestuous marriage.

CivBase wrote:If everyone is against both, the argument simply has no basis.

First of all, not everyone here is against both. A lot of people are for one and against the other. His point was that everyone should either be against both of for both, as they are equivocal.

CivBase wrote:Additionally, even if people did support incest his point would serve only as a reason to outlaw incest, not legalize gay marriage.

I'm not even sure how this makes sense to you. Even if drag were arguing what you think he is, this would only make sense if everyone was against gay marriage, which we clearly see they are not.

Lord Pheonix wrote:No, the difference is that same sex marriages get worse health benefits and worse tax breaks and being given different rights because of their life style. Something that is rather looked down upon in this country.

Keep in mind that Civ is talking about the gay marriage movement in Iowa, not in the United States.

Oh well if it's all good in Iowa then I guess the rest of the country should be fine then.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Oh well if it's all good in Iowa then I guess the rest of the country should be fine then.

His point being that, in Iowa, the gays are still fighting for Iowa to change, even though they already have full rights and are a protected class.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Why the hell do you believe anyone would support lowering all marriages to civil unions? Anyone who opposes gay marriage on the basis of calling it marriage would have to be dumb to support removing it from everyone in a ploy to raise it again.

Because it doesn't have to be a ploy to raise it again. Separating the terms marriage and civil unions gives gay couples all the rights they want without being unfair, but let's the churches keep their word.

I'd be so much simpler to just give everyone marriage, so everyone has the same rights and nothing else needs to be changed, and forget the church. Marriage in the United States has never been a strictly religious term, so there is no reason to please the church and not homosexuals.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
You mean from one and six, right? Of the ten countries that recognize same-sex marriage, Holland recognized it eleven years ago, Belgium recognized it nine years ago, Norway recognized it three years ago, Spain recognized it seven years ago, Canada recognized it six years ago, South Africa recognized it five years ago, Sweden recognized it three years ago, and Argentina, Iceland, and Portugal recognized it two years ago. Of the six states that recognize same-sex marriage, Massachusetts recognized it seven years ago.

And while your six states are very impressive and shiny, you're basically never going to convince the conservative states to go with it by saying "oh, and fuck anyone who disagrees, we don't compromise".

The exact date doesn't matter. It's a new issue and it doing it this way, homosexuals have made great progress. Eventually it will succede.

Compromise? How could you possibly compromise on equal rights for everyone? Calling everything a civil union would still make the church upset because it's not actually marriage, it's a civil union. They'll oppose that, just the same as they oppose marriage. Having this movement say "lol j/k guys, we don't want rights we want you to lose yours!" is probably the most insane plans I've ever heard. Who would actually support that?

Ang, you can't say they will oppose something that they have yet to show they will oppose. It really is the word that makes people flip out about it.

Angatar wrote:I'd be so much simpler to just give everyone marriage, so everyone has the same rights and nothing else needs to be changed, and forget the church. Marriage in the United States has never been a strictly religious term, so there is no reason to please the church and not homosexuals.

Marriage has been intrinsically tied to the church since the United States came into being, just as it was intrinsically tied to the church in Europe for many centuries. And no, it will not be easier to just flip the church the bird. Religious people outnumber atheists and agnostics combined by a HUGE margin in the United States. It would be much easier to change a word on a slip than get all of the religious people to give up.

Angatar wrote:The exact date doesn't matter. It's a new issue and it doing it this way, homosexuals have made great progress. Eventually it will succede.

It's made mild progress outside of the United States, but six states in eight years is hardly impressive. And what are you going to do when all that remains are the conservative states, and they won't budge?

Angatar wrote:Compromise? How could you possibly compromise on equal rights for everyone? Calling everything a civil union would still make the church upset because it's not actually marriage, it's a civil union. They'll oppose that, just the same as they oppose marriage. Having this movement say "lol j/k guys, we don't want rights we want you to lose yours!" is probably the most insane plans I've ever heard. Who would actually support that?

But no one is losing anything, you moron! They would be changing the name of something! Would the churches care if gays got civil unions? Sure. But not nearly as much as if the government sanctioned gay marriage. The key factor in this debate is the name. The churches do not want the government to call gay unions "marriage". If the government calls everyone's union a "civil union", then no one is being discriminated against. People can still call it marriage, but the government will call it a "civil union". Everyone wins.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:I'd be so much simpler to just give everyone marriage, so everyone has the same rights and nothing else needs to be changed, and forget the church. Marriage in the United States has never been a strictly religious term, so there is no reason to please the church and not homosexuals.

Marriage has been intrinsically tied to the church since the United States came into being, just as it was intrinsically tied to the church in Europe for many centuries. And no, it will not be easier to just flip the church the bird. Religious people outnumber atheists and agnostics combined by a HUGE margin in the United States. It would be much easier to change a word on a slip than get all of the religious people to give up.

You can go out and get married without going to a church at all. Just because you and others think that religion is the only way to get a marriage doesn't mean that it is. Marriage is not a religious word, and thus, religion should not have any say in who can use it.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:The exact date doesn't matter. It's a new issue and it doing it this way, homosexuals have made great progress. Eventually it will succede.

It's made mild progress outside of the United States, but six states in eight years is hardly impressive. And what are you going to do when all that remains are the conservative states, and they won't budge?

The United States has always been slow dealing with issues, so the conservatives will budge eventually. People follow the majority, so it will work once they see more states and more countries support it.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Compromise? How could you possibly compromise on equal rights for everyone? Calling everything a civil union would still make the church upset because it's not actually marriage, it's a civil union. They'll oppose that, just the same as they oppose marriage. Having this movement say "lol j/k guys, we don't want rights we want you to lose yours!" is probably the most insane plans I've ever heard. Who would actually support that?

But no one is losing anything, you moron! They would be changing the name of something! Would the churches care if gays got civil unions? Sure. But not nearly as much as if the government sanctioned gay marriage. The key factor in this debate is the name. The churches do not want the government to call gay unions "marriage". If the government calls everyone's union a "civil union", then no one is being discriminated against. People can still call it marriage, but the government will call it a "civil union". Everyone wins.

No one is losing anything? What is anyone gaining?! Homosexuals still don't get the federal benefits, nor can they be recognized in all states, and everyone has to lie to themselves. You've just delayed the issue, you haven't solved it. No one would win anything in that situation.

Angatar wrote:You can go out and get married without going to a church at all. Just because you and others think that religion is the only way to get a marriage doesn't mean that it is. Marriage is not a religious word, and thus, religion should not have any say in who can use it.

Now, sure, but when the country was founded, marriage was intrinsically tied to the church, and has been for centuries. I don't think that churches should have a say over who can receive government benefits for being in a union, but I understand why churches are so reluctant for the government to sanction gay marriage.

Angatar wrote:The United States has always been slow dealing with issues, so the conservatives will budge eventually. People follow the majority, so it will work once they see more states and more countries support it.

And since it'll work eventually, we should take the route that pisses off the most people, moves the slowest, and has the highest chance of embittering gays to a large group of people. You, sir, are brilliant.

Angatar wrote:No one is losing anything? What is anyone gaining?! Homosexuals still don't get the federal benefits, nor can they be recognized in all states, and everyone has to lie to themselves. You've just delayed the issue, you haven't solved it. No one would win anything in that situation.

...You realize that the point of reducing marriage to civil unions is because the church won't care nearly as much about the government giving gays civil unions, right? And if gays and straights have civil unions, which grant all the benefits that marriage does now, then they have gained federal benefits. You understand that, right?

in short

people are really stupid and don't like freedom

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:You can go out and get married without going to a church at all. Just because you and others think that religion is the only way to get a marriage doesn't mean that it is. Marriage is not a religious word, and thus, religion should not have any say in who can use it.

Now, sure, but when the country was founded, marriage was intrinsically tied to the church, and has been for centuries. I don't think that churches should have a say over who can receive government benefits for being in a union, but I understand why churches are so reluctant for the government to sanction gay marriage.

Doesn't matter what was going on 250 years ago, now is far more important and where we live and where we can create, change, and destroy laws. We can marry now without a church, so the church doesn't need to be telling anyone who can get married or not.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:The United States has always been slow dealing with issues, so the conservatives will budge eventually. People follow the majority, so it will work once they see more states and more countries support it.

And since it'll work eventually, we should take the route that pisses off the most people, moves the slowest, and has the highest chance of embittering gays to a large group of people. You, sir, are brilliant.

People that get pissed off about gay marriage and more freedom and equality should all move to Iran and live a homosexual-free life like they want to.

Moves the slowest? What is the other option that has worked for homosexuals? Remember, no countries before 2001 supported gay marriage.

Doesn't matter who likes them as long as they have equality. Besides, anyone that doesn't support homosexuality is either A. religious and stupid or B. a homophobe that hates them either way. Neither would like gays either way.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:No one is losing anything? What is anyone gaining?! Homosexuals still don't get the federal benefits, nor can they be recognized in all states, and everyone has to lie to themselves. You've just delayed the issue, you haven't solved it. No one would win anything in that situation.

...You realize that the point of reducing marriage to civil unions is because the church won't care nearly as much about the government giving gays civil unions, right? And if gays and straights have civil unions, which grant all the benefits that marriage does now, then they have gained federal benefits. You understand that, right?

And who support this? Has this ever even worked? Why would homosexuals and churches support this? I really do not believe that all the effort homosexuals have put into their current goals should just be forgotten to go for a completely new set that may or may not work or have support. Also, having to lie to yourself is a pretty big drawback.