Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[Deleted member 848]

Your response demonstrates the importance of *heterosexual* sexual relations, but not the importance of *homosexual* relations.

"Marriage strongly implies heterosexual relations, which quite often results in procreation..." is a far more accurate statement than what you wrote.

And I've never seen anyone make a convincing argument about why *homosexual* relations should get any sort of preferential treatment over *asexual* relations? That is, put another way, if one is letting gays marry, why shouldn't ANY two people that aren't sexually involved, but wish these same protections of marriage, be allowed to marry? Including siblings, etc.

Because the idea of homosexual relationships existing is something that is seen everywhere, and has a respective, massive group fighting for their rights as individuals.


We don't need to worry about granting rights to asexual incest-relationships because a) the realism of that relationship existing is ****ing laughable; b) I have yet to hear of a single movement where people who are sincerely abstinent in their union with someone clamour for the rights to marry a close relative.

Pathetic comparison.

 

[Deleted member 848]

As I mentioned above, there are two main purposes for government sanctioned marriages: (1) to bind two people together, and (2) to bind children to parents. The second purpose involves establishing a safe environment in which children can be raised, a legal framework for establishing heirs, and so forth. I think it's every bit as important as the first purpose. (And yes, I recognize that not all heterosexual marriages can have children. That doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.)

Twofold irony:

1) the thought that any couple of parents (heterosexual, or homosexual) cannot be bound to their children if they're adopted, as your post infers. Embarrassing.
2) the status of having a union labelled as marriage would probably mean the homosexual couple would have a stronger union with each other, along with a stronger union with their children.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Won't bother replying to DutchJazzer, as per a promise I made to myself several weeks ago.

 

[Gameface]

Yes, gay marriage is exactly the same as racial segregation. /sarcasm



It's partly a vocabulary issue, but it's not only a vocabulary issue.

I used the segregation example because of your statements that gay marriage is "different" and therefore should not be called marriage but could be called an equivalent term, like a civil union. If that doesn't scream separate but equal to anyone but me I'll take it back.

And I find the argument that we have to preserve the definition of marriage for no other reason than to preserve the definition of marriage kind of odd from a logical standpoint.

I could understand if by eliminating a prohibition on a specific form of marriage in some way harmed others who wanted to enjoy their "traditional" marriages, but I just can't see how it does. So I have a very hard time taking those arguments seriously.

Much of what I'm hearing is that if we "give" gay people the right to marry what will they demand next? Or that they will use this legalization to further victimize society by inflicting their existence upon us. These arguments are not "love the sinner" arguments. They say nothing to me other than there are people who see homosexuals as inferior and their existence as an incredible nuisance and burden to the rest of us "normal" people.

 

[colton]

However, seeing as I literally cannot think of 5 people in the world who have an incessant desire to have this sort of right, I see no purpose in pushing through legislation that gives extended rights to essentially no one.

The discussion in the U.S. is about whether a fundamental right for gay marriage exists, not whether legislation allowing gay marriage should be crafted. Were it the latter, I would agree with you. But since it's the former, it doesn't seem like a fundamental right to marry should depend on the number of people involved. Either it's a right, or it isn't. In my view it isn't.

Anyway, I've just realized that I've gotten way off track. I entered the thread to dispute the idea that everyone opposed to gay marriage is a bigot. Not to argue against gay marriage itself.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The discussion in the U.S. is about whether a fundamental right for gay marriage exists, not whether legislation allowing gay marriage should be crafted. Were it the latter, I would agree with you. But since it's the former, it doesn't seem like a fundamental right to marry should depend on the number of people involved. Either it's a right, or it isn't.

The reason I bring up people number, is because I am proving you that it's an actual THING (unlike your imaginary assembly of asexual incestuous people).

The reason I would not grant incestuous people as being able to marry is because there is no way to 'prove' asexuality-- this would be a huge public health risk, and it's not hard to imagine how many would pretend to be asexual, but then go on and have sex anyways.

Extending the fundamental right to marriage to homosexuals is easy to imagine, it doesn't harm anyone, and it's fortunately inevitable.

Marriage status will not be granted to incestuous relationships until there is a group of people clamouring for their own rights, with whom we feel comfortable in knowing that they're actually asexual.

 

[8]

Worker-abuse with garbage working conditions, low pay, and no health standards is not synonymous with the only sure fire method of economic development for prospering countries.




Didn't know cheap labor and economic growth were synonyms. Confusing to have both of those terms, they should just pick one and stick with it. That would clear up a lot of my confusion

If it's better than what that person was doing before then it seems very mean to take that away from him/her.

Aww, I struck a nerve.

 

[stitches]

Wow, I'm shocked to read that from you. The whole issue here is that practically every state in the union has decided marriage is only between a man and a woman, and the courts have NOT allowed the states to decide what a marriage should be. This whole gay marriage movement is about about activist courts forcing people to accept a definition of marriage which is contrary to what the state has decided, under the guise of a civil right.

I meant the state in broader terms, as in "the authorities that have the right to decide what law should be". You live in a federal constitutional presidential republic, with whatever rules of change of the laws that entails. The federal government being able to say in certain cases what separate states can or cannot do being one of them.

There are other purposes, but you cannot deny that procreation has been fundamentally tied to marriage. Else why are incestuous relationships forbidden to marry? Why are "green card marriages" where the two parties don't live together as husband and wife considered to be a sham? Etc. As I mentioned above, there are two main purposes for government sanctioned marriages: (1) to bind two people together, and (2) to bind children to parents. The second purpose involves establishing a safe environment in which children can be raised, a legal framework for establishing heirs, and so forth. I think it's every bit as important as the first purpose. (And yes, I recognize that not all heterosexual marriages can have children. That doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.)

Anyway, I appreciated the rest of your post as well, but don't have time/inclination to type out a complete response.

Those are not the only two purposes and I've never ever heard anyone saying that if a couple cannot fulfill all of the purposes they shouldn't get married. EVER. If you want to forbid a whole group of people to marry because they can't procreate, I expect you to have the exact same attitude to ALL people who can't procreate. It only ever happens when it comes to gay people. And as pointed out, marriage has never been conditional on procreation. It has been conditional on granting sexual access to your spouse, I am not sure it is still so purely legally and I am not sure it should be. This whole point becomes moot when you realize gay people can adopt if they want to or can have kids of their own(surrogate mothers, artificial insemination, etc.). Then the marriage serves pretty much 1:1 the exact same purposes as straight marriage.

And to your point about asexual people - they can marry right now! If they are from the opposite sex they can marry.

Green card marriages that are proven to be a sham, are deemed illegal because they break pretty much every single purpose of the marriage and their only goal is to scam the government into granting access to a second person. Gay marriages do not break any of the purposes of the marriage and can fulfill even the ones related to raising a child.

 

[Gameface]

For something to be prohibited shouldn't it be proven to cause some sort of actual harm? At the very minimum.

 

[fishonjazz]

For something to be prohibited shouldn't it be proven to cause some sort of actual harm? At the very minimum.

Good post

 

[One Brow]

Such a case would be laughed out of court. To this day, no interracial couple has been able to sue to use a religious building, and it won't happen with gay couples, either.

Now, there may be suits regarding land/buildings owned by religious groups, but available for public use. In the law, these are very different things from religious buildings. Your temples will be safe havens for bigotry.

Another negative reputation comment:

I've never negged for this before, but I'm going to join the other guy that gave you a neg rep for calling our religion bigoted. At the very least, your attitude towards religion is at least as bigoted as my religion's attitude towards gay marriage

We never do really see our own bigotries, I suppose. I see myself as being disdainful of any sort of system that offers answers to human behavior that run counter to human nature, which would include religions, libertarianism, communism, etc. Maybe I am harder on religion than other sort of nonsense.

However, I don't have nearly the influence of the LDS. When I discriminate against religious people, it is unintentional and ineffective. When the LDS discriminates, it casts a pall on the lives of thousands of its own members. So, as much as I deeply, deeply respect the old rubber-glue argument, I don't think that I feel my comments are in any wrong inaccurate or inappropriate here.

 

[One Brow]

The state must be fair. A religion does not. They can exclude whomever they want.

I agree completely. The religion has every right to discriminate, and its members have every right to complain when they are called out on the institutional bigotry.