Irrelevance of Choice in Gay Marriage

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Any marriage is choice. Gay, straight, polygamous. Sexual orientation may not be, but marriage is.

I don't think the task of resisting our inate urges for sexual variety is as unrealistic as the expectation some have that gays simply renounce love.

Regardless, I'm not opposed to legalizing polygamy, but my sense is it would be heavily stigmatized like cigarettes, as it should be.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

To me the argument of whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. The real question is whether allowing two consenting adults to marry each other regardless of sex fits into the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness idea. Why should they be denied the full benefits of citizenship just because they don't fit the traditional definition of marriage? I can't think of any drawbacks to allowing them to marry. I don't know any examples where discrimination benefits society.

If marriage is essentially meaningless, then why do they need marriage so badly.

Marrigae forever has been thought of as being between a male and a feemale. How many other age old concepts do we just want to throw out because the Europeans in there forward thinking attitudes do it.

How about full nudity on public television. Does that really hurt. We can choose to watch it or not. There are many things I hear people give the why not argument and then point to Europe or someother progressive country.

Except for having a "marriage certificate", what other rights are they being denied as citizens that marriage will allow them to have.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by BYU71

If marriage is essentially meaningless, then why do they need marriage so badly.

Marrigae forever has been thought of as being between a male and a feemale. How many other age old concepts do we just want to throw out because the Europeans in there forward thinking attitudes do it.

How about full nudity on public television. Does that really hurt. We can choose to watch it or not. There are many things I hear people give the why not argument and then point to Europe or someother progressive country.

Except for having a "marriage certificate", what other rights are they being denied as citizens that marriage will allow them to have.

Who is making the argument that marriage is meaningless? If they thought it was meaningless, they wouldn't want it so badly. I guarantee that if the government banned all marriage, but didn't take any other rights, there would be an uprising.

I think we should throw out any and all descriminatory age old concepts. Its called progess. Slavery, sexism, racism. I suspect that in the near future defending banning gay marriage will be viewed as deplorable as defending those things.

I don't get where you are going with the nudity on public television. I'm not sure whether that would be harmful or not. What does that have to do with allowing gay marriage?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Who is making the argument that marriage is meaningless? If they thought it was meaningless, they wouldn't want it so badly. I guarantee that if the government banned all marriage, but didn't take any other rights, there would be an uprising.

I think we should throw out any and all descriminatory age old concepts. Its called progess. Slavery, sexism, racism. I suspect that in the near future defending banning gay marriage will be viewed as deplorable as defending those things.

I don't get where you are going with the nudity on public television. I'm not sure whether that would be harmful or not. What does that have to do with allowing gay marriage?

"I think we should throw out any and all discriminatory age old concepts." I assume that means any concepts. Not allowing full nudity on TV discriminates against those who want to show and see it. Each community or nation gets to choose what their social values are, don't they. I still believe in a form of sexism. I think the cheerleaders on NFL football teams should be hot looking. Rosie O'Donnell is not welcome.

If your side wins and eventually the country wants as there social norm, gay marriage, so be it. However, allow me the same right to try and convince people of the social norm I believe in.

And please, spare me the gay marriage issue is equivalent to how blacks were being treated. Not even close. While there may be some awful things that happen to gays as far as discrimination goes, it does't even come close to the blacks experience. Probably not even close to the early mormon experience.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by BYU71

"I think we should throw out any and all discriminatory age old concepts." I assume that means any concepts. Not allowing full nudity on TV discriminates against those who want to show and see it. Each community or nation gets to choose what their social values are, don't they. I still believe in a form of sexism. I think the cheerleaders on NFL football teams should be hot looking. Rosie O'Donnell is not welcome.

If your side wins and eventually the country wants as there social norm, gay marriage, so be it. However, allow me the same right to try and convince people of the social norm I believe in.

And please, spare me the gay marriage issue is equivalent to how blacks were being treated. Not even close. While there may be some awful things that happen to gays as far as discrimination goes, it does't even come close to the blacks experience. Probably not even close to the early mormon experience.

You are a smart guy, but I feel dumber having read that. You are awarded no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

You are a smart guy, but I feel dumber having read that. You are awarded no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

I am not smart enought o figure out if I nailed it and you are limping off or you think I am too intellectually deficient to carry on a conversation with you. Either way, I am not offended.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I am not smart enought o figure out if I nailed it and you are limping off or you think I am too intellectually deficient to carry on a conversation with you. Either way, I am not offended.

It was a joke (other than the part of you being smart). It was a quote from Billy Madison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

Seriously, I have no problem with you wanting to keep the "social norms" the way they are. Everyone is free to think the way they want. I also have no problem with churches preaching against homosexuality. I think legislating against it goes too far. Since allowing gays to marry wouldn't cause any harm to heterosexual marriage, I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

It was a joke (other than the part of you being smart). It was a quote from Billy Madison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

Seriously, I have no problem with you wanting to keep the "social norms" the way they are. Everyone is free to think the way they want. I also have no problem with churches preaching against homosexuality. I think legislating against it goes too far. Since allowing gays to marry wouldn't cause any harm to heterosexual marriage, I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

I guess I have bought into the argument it could hurt the institution of heterosexual marrige. I think highlighting and romanticizing people living together also hurts the institution of heterosexual marriage.

I will admit I haven't read studies on the issue and therefor I guess after time I could be convinced otherwise.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Yes, I dont see why this question was viewed to be such a smoking gun.

If everyone consents, again, why do I care? How does it affect my marriage? Or my personal beliefs?

Prohibiting gay marriage simply allows one to feel better about personal prejudice. There is no rational reason to oppose it.

Stanley Kurtz had an interesting piece in NR a while back on gay marriage and how it would further weaken the already ailing institution of marriage.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...cyODdjZGQxOTk=

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So where do you stand on Polygamy, assuming all parties involved are consenting adults?

I have never thought of this as a great analogy. The idea of marriage is that two people who love each other are joined together by the state upon request of that couple. Whether you are talking about a man marrying a woman, or a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman, you still have two people in the marriage, so that concept of two people being joined together isn't affected.

Opponents of gay marriage want to say that because the traditional version of marriage (man and woman) is breached, all other aspects of marriage must also be breached (number of participants, people marrying animals, etc.). But why is that the case? It seems perfectly plausible that one aspect would be breached but not another.

There are also several societal reasons to prohibit polygamy. It could well be that society decides polygamy is also worth allowing (ironic Mormons are the first to complain about this issue), but it certainly isn't a necessary result of allowing homosexuals to marry.