Homosexual Marriage

[Rationalskeptic]

This topic is devoted to the question: Should we legally recognize gay marriage?

Some people think that gays are bad. Others think that they are not necessarily bad. Some people think that gay marriage is "morally wrong," others think that it is not wrong. Some think that giving gays equal rights will incourage an inferior institution. Others disagree. Some people think that the law should discourage that which they think is morally wrong, even when it does not involve agressing against the rights of others. Others disagree. Some think that there should be no gay marriage because gays are "disgusting." Others find that this does not matter. Some think that making laws protecting gays will add budgetary problems to our state and federal governments, and will hurt the rights of non-gay individuals. Others either disagree that gay marriage does, or that this is important. Some think that gay marriage should not be a legal status because it hurts "marriage." Others think that this is silly.

So what do you think on this controvercy. I have shown you most of what this issue covers. Have a fun debate.

[WinePusher]

1) A plausible but by no means proven argument that allowing gay marriage will increase the number of gays.

It won't neccesarily lead to more people becoming "gay" as in their sexual preferences, it may increase the number of people who choose to marry a person of the same sex rather than of the different sex. I will ask this question again, and hope a direct response will be given by micatala or Oobermann, would you rather homosexual marriage be the general norm for society rather than heterosexual marriage?

3) A barely plausible case that 1) will lead to a lower birth rate or depopulation.

Well, if a man were to marry another man or a woman were to marry another woman, how would they cretae NEW children, biologically its impossible. If we get to that point I suppose activists on your side will support open gay marriages and/or the increased use of donor banks.......

4) Vague assertions that the above will make the country weaker. Euphrates has neglected to, even it seems actively resisted, defining what he means by "weaker" and how he would measure this.

Destroying two institutions (marriage and the traditional family) of American society will make this country weaker. I don't want to beg the question, so I'll explain my premise. Marriage, as it has been defined in America, is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Redefining this institution in any way is a destruction of the original definition of marriage. The NUCLEAR FAMILY is ONE MOTHER, ONE FATHER, and a said number of children, Redefining this institution to permitt TWO MOTHERS or TWO FATHERS is a destruction of the original institution. So yes, when a traditional and beneficial practice is destroyed in America, it makes the country weaker.

[TheLibertarian]

Who are you, winepusher, to demand that the government not recognize marriage contracts filled by religious groups - such as the Quakers - that recognize the legitimacy of gay marriage? Aren't you essentially saying that the government has the right to intervene in their own internal religious policies?

[Abraxas]

1) A plausible but by no means proven argument that allowing gay marriage will increase the number of gays.

It won't neccesarily lead to more people becoming "gay" as in their sexual preferences, it may increase the number of people who choose to marry a person of the same sex rather than of the different sex. I will ask this question again, and hope a direct response will be given by micatala or Oobermann, would you rather homosexual marriage be the general norm for society rather than heterosexual marriage?

You can keep asking but that won't change that it is either a red herring or a false dichotomy fallacy, depending on what inference you are building into it. If you are implying that legalizing homosexual marriage will make it the norm, you have a false dichotomy as something can be both legal and relatively uncommon. Conversely, if you are not implying that legalizing same sex marriage will cause it to become the norm instead of heterosexual marriage, then your question is unrelated to anything under discussion.

To answer an unasked question, but one actually related to both reality and the point under discussion, I would rather have being able to marry the consenting adult of your choice, male or female, be the societal norm than requiring people to only marry people of the opposite gender regardless of the individuals in question.

3) A barely plausible case that 1) will lead to a lower birth rate or depopulation.

Well, if a man were to marry another man or a woman were to marry another woman, how would they cretae NEW children, biologically its impossible. If we get to that point I suppose activists on your side will support open gay marriages and/or the increased use of donor banks.......

Is there a problem with adoption, surrogates, or donor banks I am not aware of? Further, why are you assuming the people inclined to take gay marriage as an option would procreate to begin with?

4) Vague assertions that the above will make the country weaker. Euphrates has neglected to, even it seems actively resisted, defining what he means by "weaker" and how he would measure this.

Destroying two institutions (marriage and the traditional family) of American society will make this country weaker. I don't want to beg the question, so I'll explain my premise. Marriage, as it has been defined in America, is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

Actually, as it has been defined was one white man and one white woman or one black man and one black woman. Further, the definition in America really isn't relevant to the actual definition of marriage, which has at various times involved more than two people and was considered more of a property arrangement than anything else. Marriage is and constantly has been redefined by every society in every era.

Redefining this institution in any way is a destruction of the original definition of marriage.

For reference, allow me to call attention to a number of points here. Firstly, the American definition of marriage is not the original definition. Secondly, the original definition of marriage has not existed for centuries in any civilized country, unless you intend to have your parent purchase a woman you've never met from another family in exchange for some cattle. Thirdly, the definition of marriage is not society so "destroying the definition of marriage" has nothing to do with making society weaker or not.

The NUCLEAR FAMILY is ONE MOTHER, ONE FATHER, and a said number of children, Redefining this institution to permitt TWO MOTHERS or TWO FATHERS is a destruction of the original institution. So yes, when a traditional and beneficial practice is destroying in America, it makes the country weaker.

How? Proof please, not hollow unsupported speculation like Euphrates offers, proof.

[McCulloch]

I will ask this question again, and hope a direct response will be given by micatala or Oobermann, would you rather homosexual marriage be the general norm for society rather than heterosexual marriage?

I personally do not see the relevance of this question. I don't think that societal recognition of the reality of homosexual marriage will make such marriages the norm. Do you? Does anyone? Is there some kind of homosexual agenda that is attempting to remake society with homosexuality dominant?

Well, if a man were to marry another man or a woman were to marry another woman, how would they create NEW children, biologically its impossible.

Artificial insemination, adoption, prior relationships, sexual encounters outside of their marriage. All without violating the basic principles of biology. Are you opposed to all childless marriages or only the homosexual ones?

Destroying two institutions (marriage and the traditional family) of American society will make this country weaker.

I really don't get this one. My country accepts homosexual marriage, yet my own marriage and traditional family has not been destroyed. In fact, I know quite a few young people who are themselves beginning marriages and traditional families. I have seen no evidence that either of these two institutions are being destroyed or that our country has or will become weaker. Please explain.

Marriage, as it has been defined in America, is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Redefining this institution in any way is a destruction of the original definition of marriage.

In some states of the union, marriage was once defined as the union of one man and one woman of the same race. Those who argued for the anti-miscegenation laws did so on the same basis as you argue against the recognition of homosexual marriages.

No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

These arguments against interracial marriage sound eerily similar to the religion based arguments against same-sex marriage.

[micatala]

1) A plausible but by no means proven argument that allowing gay marriage will increase the number of gays.

It won't neccesarily lead to more people becoming "gay" as in their sexual preferences, it may increase the number of people who choose to marry a person of the same sex rather than of the different sex. I will ask this question again, and hope a direct response will be given by micatala or Oobermann, would you rather homosexual marriage be the general norm for society rather than heterosexual marriage?

Well, if the question is would I rather have a majority of marriages be heterosexual or homosexual, my first response is that it is a somewhat pointless question because the probability of the latter happening is rather small to say the least. It's sort of like asking would I rather most people be left-handed or right-handed, or albino or not albino in that respect.

If you want a direct response, however, I would say I would rather most marriages be heterosexual. The reason is, the only way gay marriages would predominate is if heterosexuals almost entirely abandond marriage. I do view marriage as a good thing for society and for individuals, provided it is entered into voluntarily and without coercion.

I guess I would ask what the point of your question is.



Also, I think Euphrates argument is that, since gay marriage represents an additional kind of social acceptance, it will lead some people who are somehow "on the fence" between gay and straight or who are gay but in the closet to declare that they are gay.

3) A barely plausible case that 1) will lead to a lower birth rate or depopulation.

Well, if a man were to marry another man or a woman were to marry another woman, how would they cretae NEW children, biologically its impossible. If we get to that point I suppose activists on your side will support open gay marriages and/or the increased use of donor banks.......

Again, if you are worried that allowing gay marriage will somehow lead to heterosexuals not having children in the usual way, I would suggest this is a ridiculous worry. Even if they don't get married, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests they will continue to procreate. I really don't understand why you are raising this as a concern.

Should we be worried that allowing sterile people to marry will somehow lead to a massive reduction in the birth rate? If not, then we have less reason to be concerned about gays. A sterile heterosexual person marrying a non-sterile heterosexual person actually does stop one heterosexual from reproducing naturally through that marriage. Unless you believe and can show a huge fraction of gay people are now having kids through heterosexual relationships, allowing them to marry is not going to have much if any effect on the birth rate.

4) Vague assertions that the above will make the country weaker. Euphrates has neglected to, even it seems actively resisted, defining what he means by "weaker" and how he would measure this.

Destroying two institutions (marriage and the traditional family) of American society will make this country weaker. I don't want to beg the question, so I'll explain my premise.

Marriage, as it has been defined in America, is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Redefining this institution in any way is a destruction of the original definition of marriage. The NUCLEAR FAMILY is ONE MOTHER, ONE FATHER, and a said number of children, Redefining this institution to permitt TWO MOTHERS or TWO FATHERS is a destruction of the original institution. So yes, when a traditional and beneficial practice is destroyed in America, it makes the country weaker.

Define what it means to "destroy" the institution of marriage.

It seems that, following your logic, we could say that allowing blacks to participate in democracy by voting, etc. redefines and destroys democracy. Allowing women to vote destroyed democracy.

What tangible or real harm do you contend would happen to marriage should we allow gays to participate in it?

How would it make the country weaker? I see an assertion here, but like Euphrates, I don't see an specifics. How do you define "weaker?" How would allowing gay marriage lead to this weakness?


And remember, there is the issue of justice. If we currently allow behaviors or sanction relationships that lead to the same or similar weaknesses and at the same or greater levels, why would we single out gays and prevent them from having legal sanction for their relationships?

Thus, AFTER you define weakness and show gay marriage would lead to that weakness, we need to compare the weakness caused by gays to other similar weaknesses that we allow to be caused. Principally, such weaknesses, to the extent they exist, are often allowed because not doing so is an infringement on someone's liberty, or because it is simply not feasible in practice to disallow the behavior.


I certainly accept that in most locations in the country at the present time, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. My response is the status quo is a poor justification for itself. At one time voting was defined as an activity engaged in only by adult males, pretty much white males. Was it a bad thing to "redefine" voting to include blacks and women?




Also, I am not arguing against the benefits of what you might call the traditional nuclear family. I think encouraging marriage and fidelity is a good thing. However, we allow single parenting, we allow sex and procreation outside of wedlock, we allow gay sex. Allowing these things and adding gay marriage to the list does not in any way prevent people from forming nuclear families, nor does it prevent society from encouraging the formation of these families. In fact, many have argued in this thread that allowing gay marriage would enhance some of the benefits to society provided by "traditional marriage." This case has even been made by conservatives, including Theodore Olson, as I alluded to in a previous post.[/u]

[Ooberman]

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Then God Almighty should have given people feet to walk, minds to devise boats and other transportation devices, eh? hahaha

Oh, and God shouldn't have made it possible for Men to love Men, or women to love women... right, winepusher?

It won't neccesarily lead to more people becoming "gay" as in their sexual preferences, it may increase the number of people who choose to marry a person of the same sex rather than of the different sex.

It MAY increase the amount of gay peole getting married? You think?!?! Gay marriage being allowed MAY increase gay marraige?!?!? Really?

I will ask this question again, and hope a direct response will be given by micatala or Ooberman, would you rather homosexual marriage be the general norm for society rather than heterosexual marriage?

1. It wouldn't be the norm, you are trying to do a Slippery Slope argument, but it doesn't work because
2. it wouldn't matter. So what if the majority of people who marry are gay.

3. If gay marriage is made legal, we can expect the Xian, Muslim and other antigay groups to simply create a different category for Marriage, or, found churches that don't allow gay marriages... or black people... or whatever it is they don't like.

So, no I don't care if 99% of marriages are gay ones, it doesn't impact the commitment I made to my wife, or children.

Well, if a man were to marry another man or a woman were to marry another woman, how would they cretae NEW children, biologically its impossible. If we get to that point I suppose activists on your side will support open gay marriages and/or the increased use of donor banks.......

Yes, sperm donation is possible and it is already a reality.

However, gay people are already not having children?!?! Getting married would allow them to adopt children, or have children more easily - which would increase the population, or in the case of adoption, benefit society.

Do you get that point? Gay people are already not having children - whether they are married or not. HOW DOES ALLOWING GAYS TO MARRY DECREASE THE POPULATION?!?!?!?!!?!

Destroying two institutions (marriage and the traditional family) of American society will make this country weaker.

IT ISN"T DESTROYING THE INSTITUTION!!!!! Where do you guys come up with this?!?!!?

I don't want to beg the question, so I'll explain my premise. Marriage, as it has been defined in America, is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Redefining this institution in any way is a destruction of the original definition of marriage. The NUCLEAR FAMILY is ONE MOTHER, ONE FATHER, and a said number of children, Redefining this institution to permitt TWO MOTHERS or TWO FATHERS is a destruction of the original institution. So yes, when a traditional and beneficial practice is destroyed in America, it makes the country weaker.

It's not destroying the institution, it's allowing more people to be part of it. Do you understand? There is nothing about gay marriage that destroys marriage!

After all, then they wouldn't be marrying, if the practice of marriage was destroyed..

"I now you pronounce you husban....Oh, wait, the institution is destroyed, so there is no more marriage. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here... Bye."

It doesn't work like that. And BTW, do you realize there are already gay people married?!?!?!

GAY PEOPLE ARE ALREADY MARRIED!!!!! How has this destroyed the institution?

Come on, do you see how wrong you are?


Please address this one thing:

GAY PEOPLE ARE ALREADY MARRIED!!!!! How has this destroyed the institution?

[WinePusher]

You can keep asking but that won't change that it is either a red herring or a false dichotomy fallacy, depending on what inference you are building into it.

Well, I would just like an honest answer to the question, which is not a red herring because the result can be a direct consequence from the legalization of gay marriage.

If you are implying that legalizing homosexual marriage will make it the norm, you have a false dichotomy as something can be both legal and relatively uncommon.

I say that it is certainly a possibility, as I think everybody would agree. Now, just as there is nothing to prove my assertion that gay marriage could lead to it being the norm, likewise there is nothing to prove your assertion that gay marriage could be both legal and relatively uncommon.

Conversely, if you are not implying that legalizing same sex marriage will cause it to become the norm instead of heterosexual marriage, then your question is unrelated to anything under discussion.

See my first response, I was implying exactly what you suggest, that gay marriage could indeed become the general norm. I was sincerely asking whether or not other people agreed with that notion "would you rather homosexual marriage be the general norm for society rather than heterosexual marriage?" A question of personal opinion rather than to make a future prediction.

Is there a problem with adoption, surrogates, or donor banks I am not aware of?

First of all, I said how would NEW babies be created, not already existing ones, so adoption has nothing to do with this topic. If you think that a child should not be raised by their genetic mother, than you obviouosly have no problem with surrogacy. I think it is unpractical as it distorts family lines and, once again, destroys the nuclear family. The same problem with donor banks, that child may or may not ever know their biological parent (sperm donor).

Further, why are you assuming the people inclined to take gay marriage as an option would procreate to begin with?

The original argument was that gay marriage will lead to depopulation. I concur as their is no possible way homosexual partners can create NEW kids ON THEIR OWN.

Actually, as it has been defined was one white man and one white woman or one black man and one black woman.

Now this would be a red herring, as you are trying to divert from the actual topic. From your statement above, I think you agree that marriage than was still between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, the only contreversial factor at that time was race.

Marriage is and constantly has been redefined by every society in every era.

Yes, and here in America we have defined marriage to include one man and one woman and this practice has been great and beneficial.

Firstly, the American definition of marriage is not the original definition.

Seems to contradict your above statement "Marriage is and constantly has been redefined by every society in every era." Either we should stick by the original universal definition of marriage, which you have not specified, or we should by the original American definition of marriage, or we should constantly change the definition once a group feels excluded and begins to lobby

Secondly, the original definition of marriage has not existed for centuries in any civilized country, unless you intend to have your parent purchase a woman you've never met from another family in exchange for some cattle.

Man and woman sleep together. Woman gets pregnant. Woman gives birth and has kid. Man and Woman raise kid togeter (Marriage) Man and Woman live together to be close to kid (the nuclear family). That is the original universal definition of marriage. So, we should stick by this definition, of the original american definition, or constantly change the definition to meet the needs of other groups with different preferences.

The NUCLEAR FAMILY is ONE MOTHER, ONE FATHER, and a said number of children, Redefining this institution to permitt TWO MOTHERS or TWO FATHERS is a destruction of the original institution. So yes, when a traditional and beneficial practice is destroying in America, it makes the country weaker.

How? Proof please, not hollow unsupported speculation like Euphrates offers, proof.

My premise is that the destruction of a traditional institution ( in this case 2 of them ) makes a country weaker. I have proved that redefining marriage to mean anything other than one man and one woman destroys the institution (above).

[Goat]

I say that it is certainly a possibility, as I think everybody would agree. Now, just as there is nothing to prove my assertion that gay marriage could lead to it being the norm, likewise there is nothing to prove your assertion that gay marriage could be both legal and relatively uncommon.

Conversely, if you are not implying that legalizing same sex marriage will cause it to become the norm instead of heterosexual marriage, then your question is unrelated to anything under discussion.

See my first response, I was implying exactly what you suggest, that gay marriage could indeed become the general norm. I was sincerely asking whether or not other people agreed with that notion "would you rather homosexual marriage be the general norm for society rather than heterosexual marriage?" A question of personal opinion rather than to make a future prediction.
.

The biggest argument about it not becoming the norm is that fact through out the world, no matter how tolerant or intolerant the culture is, the percentage of gay individuals in the society is approximately the same.

[WinePusher]

I personally do not see the relevance of this question. I don't think that societal recognition of the reality of homosexual marriage will make such marriages the norm.

Its certainly, a possibility that would have damning effects on the future of any civilization.

Do you? Does anyone? Is there some kind of homosexual agenda that is attempting to remake society with homosexuality dominant?

No, this is a confusion of two completly different topics. Homosexual preference is different from homosexual marriage. Legalize homosexual marriage and you may or moay not get heterosexual people marrying people of the same gender, as I said it is a catastrophic possibility.

Artificial insemination, adoption, prior relationships, sexual encounters outside of their marriage. All without violating the basic principles of biology.

All that are contrast the traditional way procreation has been practicied as well.

Are you opposed to all childless marriages or only the homosexual ones?

I'm not opposed to childless marriages. Again, the original argument was that homosexual marriage could lead to depopulation, and on their own two men and two woman cannot produce a baby. So that would lead to the practices you suggest above. I do not think those are good and should be practiced often, do you?

Destroying two institutions (marriage and the traditional family) of American society will make this country weaker.

I really don't get this one. My country accepts homosexual marriage, yet my own marriage and traditional family has not been destroyed.

Nor did I ever claim it would be. The future of it could.

In some states of the union, marriage was once defined as the union of one man and one woman of the same race. Those who argued for the anti-miscegenation laws did so on the same basis as you argue against the recognition of homosexual marriages.

Race was the contreversial factor back then, not gender. There is a distinction between the two. A black and a white can produce children.

These arguments against interracial marriage sound eerily similar to the religion based arguments against same-sex marriage.

My arguments aganist same sex marriage are not religiously based.

[Goat]

I personally do not see the relevance of this question. I don't think that societal recognition of the reality of homosexual marriage will make such marriages the norm.

Its certainly, a possibility that would have damning effects on the future of any civilization.

These seems to be an appeal to fear, rather than based on facts.

this same kind of argument was used with interracial marriages too.

And, allowing women to vote.

this appeal to fear is not one I accept as a valid argument.