1,049 Reasons to have Gay Marriage

Ever hear of equal rights, anyone?

On edit:

This seems to be attracting quite a few people, so I'd like to explain a few things. One, I think it should be legalized from a secular point of view. I'm not saying the government should regulate churches, which it is forbidden to do. Forbidden as well are the Churches to set US government policy, which they are attempting to do right now anyhow. The battle never ends. Fundamentalists always want to rule the earth, but I suppose they never read history books (you know, the part about where empires have always NOT LASTED all that long. With modern technology, they're bound to last even less long now.)

Pax Americana? Ha! Not with Bush in office.

Comments

[coffee-beans]

John, your comment presupposes that marriage is a "right". There are generally two different approaches that support that idea: 1) marriage is a civil institution, in which case marriage is not a "right" but a "privilege" granted by the state; and 2) marriage is a religious institution, in which case marriage is a "right" granted by God. From what I understand, the homosexual advocates are resting their arguments on the first approach--i.e., they want tax breaks, etc. Those who claim that they have a "right" to show "affection" however they wish are on really slippery ground, as I think you'll agree, because fundamentally that's an "whatever feels good to me is what's right" attitude. Before this debate can be resolved, it needs to be determined whether marriage itself is really a "right", and where that "right" comes from.

[sal]

Thanks for this post. I must say, I disagree with 'coffee-beans'. If it's a right issued by the state, then all are entitiled to it, if it's a right issued by God, then everyone still has a right to it. To make it an issue of morality is of one's own personal belief system and as such is unrelated to legislation of Americans.

[John]

I have to agree with Sal. America is a secular nation last I checked, and there is the 14th amendment (whether it will be interpreted to gather gay marriage in as well, I don't know), and there is also the idea of all being equal UNDER THE LAW. As long as there are laws that let two people have tax breaks, etc. for being married, the State should not be able to deny that to any two people of legal age who consent to it.

It is also true, that the State cannot tell the religions what they have to do. There are plenty of religions who will marry gays and bring them into their congregation.

"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made,
new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy
as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -Thomas Jefferson

You do know Jefferson was a Deist (read Atheist in those days, since you could be killed or ostracized for being one, just ask Tom Paine), right?

[CB]

John, I don't believe Jefferson was a Deist according to the normal dictionary definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deist

I've read some of his personal writings, and he clearly believed that God judges men in history, that God grants men liberties, that God acts to defend the innocent, etc. As far as I know, a Deist doesn't believe these things. I think people get confused because Jefferson was against a lot of the "invented" additions to Christianity. This is nothing new--Jesus Himself decried such nonsense. And guess what, a lot of it is still around today.

[CB]

As far as gay marriage goes, equality under the law simply means that all people will be given the same rights to be considered innocent before proven guilty, to have a quick and speedy trial, to be judged by a jury of their peers, etc. The idea was that former abuses, such as the English King's "star chamber" (http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/StarCham.html) would be done away with. It DOES NOT mean that the legislature can invent "rights" as they see fit. Gay marriage is a slippery slope; every justification I've heard used for it can also be used to justify polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc. as legitimate candidates for marriage "rights".

[Eric]

http://www.narth.com/docs/dejavu.html

[John]

Nice Logical fallacy there, with the

"Gay marriage is a slippery slope; every justification I've heard used for it can also be used to justify polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc. as legitimate candidates for marriage "rights"."

At least my own position (I can't talk for others) doesn't allow for bestiality or incest. As for polygamy, it isn't a good idea either.

But your idea of 'slippery slope' should be re-examined. Yes, total chaos IS the end product of Liberalism gone bad, but it is also the same product of Conservatism gone bad.

If we privatize schools, then large corporations will be able to influence curricula, and if say, a Muslim or a Christian controls the purse strings, then the situation could get ugly.

If you're so confident of your 'rightness,' then why are you worried about Gay Marriage? Won't God take care of it?

[CB]

John, what part of your posted argument eliminates the possibility of "polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc." I must have missed it. You'll also notice that I didn't say that making gay marriage legal would inevitably lead to those things, but rather that all the justifications I've heard for it CAN ALSO be used to argue for those "lifestyles" too. No fallacy here. I'm glad we agree that those lifestyles are bad for individuals and society, but I'm curious about your reasons for opposing them. Finally, privitizing schools would open them up to influence by large corporations--you're right--but it would also allow independent organizations to do what they want apart from and corporate affiliations. In the business world, it is evident that being bigger is not always better. I think the same would apply in privatized education. Besides, I'd rather let "big business" determine their own curricula than say, big-unproductive-government.

[CB]

Oh, one last thing--God will "take care of it". When He gives a moral law, it is because that law is true to reality. When we break God's moral laws, we are in essence declaring that we will determine how reality works. It's kind of like telling God that you don't like gravity, jumping off a cliff, and expecting to float... Even if we could solve all the pysical complications involved with homosexuality, the human personality is designed to operate in male/female relations. There will be consequences to changing that, and they won't be good.

[John]

Oh... I'm so scared. There are so many OTHER PRESSING PROBLEMS like global warming, fossil fuels vanishing, etc. To have Bush raise a brouhaha over this issue is but a distraction from his HUGE failure as a leader.

[John]

Also, don't forget companies don't really have to worry about free speech so much.

Well, basically if two adults (legally defined here as 18 or older) want to do things with each other, I don't see any reason to stop them, within reason (ie, none of that cannibalism stuff in Germany).

As for bestiality, it is bad for the animal, and can spread diseases to humans or animals.

Pedophelia does not involve two consenting adults.

Incest can cause birth defects. So it isn't healthy.

I think you're trying to skirt around the logical fallacy issue. If the only argument you have is a moral one, then I don't think you have any basis to wish homosexuals to marry, other than you can't stand people not thinking like yourself.

[CB]

So... homosexuality doesn't foster disease and lies "within reason"? I'd like to see those two claims justified.

[John]

Well, sex can spread disease whether homo or hetero in nature... and for you to suggest that diseases are caused by homosexuals or that homosexuals are less honest than the rest of us is repulsive to me. Why don't you actually use your brain before you accuse homosexuals of being disease fostering liars as you've just done?

[Eric]

He wasn't calling them liars. "Lies" is a form of the word "lay". He was referring to your earlier statement:

"I don't see any reason to stop them, within reason (ie, none of that cannibalism stuff in Germany)."

Maybe you should stop and use your brain before you put words in other people's mouth.

[CB]

John, I never accused homosexuals of being liars. You're right--any sexual activity that escalates to the point of reckless obsession can, and often does, spread disease. The point is that homosexuality, at its core, is kind of like the sexual version of obesity. It's taking a good thing--sex--and abusing it to gratify passions that aren't controlled. And this isn't just my opinion. There are books that have been written by former homosexuals that testify to this fact. Therefore, I don't see homosexuality as healthy or reasonable.

[Eric]

As far as homosexuals fostering disease, I quote:

"For those who find journal articles difficult to read, the Rotello and Signorile books are an excellent resource. Both men are homosexual activists. It is Rotello who demonstrates how in spite of all the safe sex education for the foreseeable future one out of two men who have sex with men will become HIV positive."

from the site http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/alcohol.html

Obviously half the population is not HIV positive, therefore there is a much higher concentration of HIV positive homosexuals than HIV positive heterosexuals.

[John]

"The point is that homosexuality, at its core, is kind of like the sexual version of obesity. It's taking a good thing--sex--and abusing it to gratify passions that aren't controlled. And this isn't just my opinion. There are books that have been written by former homosexuals that testify to this fact. Therefore, I don't see homosexuality as healthy or reasonable."

What are you smoking?

Sexual version of obesity?

Former homosexuals? I doubt there are such things in large quantity.

It should not be up to the State to decide our morals or what goes on in our bedrooms with other consenting adults.

Besides, I am arguing this from a strictly legal and secular point of view, and you keep trying to hijack it over into an emotional area. I don't really give a damn if anyone is grossed out by two guys or two girls kissing. The Churches can say 'gay is bad' or 'homosexuality equals sexual obesity' all they want as the state cannot regulate that either, but to try to get a vocal minority of of people to enshrine inequality in the Constitution of the Greatest Idea in the world is fucking horrifying.

"It should not be up to the State to decide our morals or what goes on in our bedrooms with other consenting adults."

It's funny that you want the state to stay out of the bedroom, but you're inviting the state to give its blessing to homosexual couples through the civil recognition of marriage. How does that work?

Even if you do argue on a "strictly legal and secular point of view", you haven't proven your claims.

No, I'm not the one using emotion, and yes, there are many former homosexuals.

[John]

I don't want the State to give its "blessing" as you say, since its SECULAR, as in non-religious.

Ah, so the religious claim commitment to be its own thing, unavailable to anyone else? I think the State should recognize commitment in marriage (call it what you want), but the point is the legal rights and entitlements a couple has when marriage occurs is what I'm getting at.

Also, its up to the People to force the government to give the right, as the State runs on mainly forcing people to do what it wishes with threat of force/imprisonment.

Of course, the fact that 'abstinate' teens and sexually active teens have the same STD rates apparently doesn't stop the Conservative argument for abstinence... So keep on with your Faith Based line of Malarkey while the rest of us try to deal with reality.

[aleks katane]

if your gay then you suck nuts

[shane larson]

gay people are retarded and should be straight you faags

[B-Rad]

gay people are gay

[John]

B-rad... Why you are utterly right.

Gay people are Gay
Straight people are Straight.

Wow!

[Eric]

John, looks like your site is attracting some stunning linguists.......

[Seraph]

"Former homosexuals? I doubt there are such things in large quantity."
-Actually, it turns out that somewhere between 81 and 93% of gays/lesbians change their sexual behavior after age 12...
from 58 and 77% make a second shift in sexual orientation. There were a series of studies done by Kinsey Institute in the 1970's.