[haplorrhine]

When proponents say disallowing same-sex marriage is sexuality discrimination, opponents say it isn't because a gay man can marry a woman.
Technically, it's sex discrimination. He can't marry him, not because he likes men or because he's homosexual, but because he's a man.
Wouldn't acknowlegdement of this technicality make discussion much easier?

It's basically the equivalent of saying that a man can't wear a dress and a woman can't wear a tuxedo.

[SithLord777]

Yes, what you are saying is true. However, it is also equally true that to make discussion easier, it would help if it were acknowledged that keeping so called gay marriage from being legal does not keep people from marrying. It simply keeps people from inherently always marrying who they want to marry. There are other such limits on marriage. One cannot marry their own sibling or their parent. In some states, one cannot marry their first cousin. In all states, one cannot marry more than one person legally. One cannot marry people legally who are below a certain age. There are limits on marriage. In fact, the government really aproves who can marry by issuing a marriage license, which they don't have to do. What is more, while the other examples of marriage listed are specifically illegal, gay marriage is not. In other words, no one gets put in jail for a gay marriage, but you will get put in jail for marrying your sister or for marrying more than one person. So a lot of the arguments in favor of gay marriage rely on exaggeration and are inherently political.

[haplorrhine]

What is more, while the other examples of marriage listed are specifically illegal, gay marriage is not. In other words, no one gets put in jail for a gay marriage, but you will get put in jail for marrying your sister or for marrying more than one person.

But there are certain benefits that come with legally sanctioned marriage.


The examples of polygamy and under-age marriage are bad comparions.
Disallowing polygamy doesn't deny the right to marry any specific person, it just limits the number of marriages to one. That's like saying, "You can vote for whoever you want, but you only get one vote."
In the case of marriage of minors, the problem is that marriage is an impactful decision that under-age people should not be allowed to make. Furthermore, nobody is allowed to marry an under-age person. We are not saying that one group of people is allowed to marry under-age people and another group isn't.

The incest examples are a good counter attack because some individuals are off-limits to some people and not others. I could argue that the laws against incestuous marriage are less restrictive to the individual's options than the laws against same-sex marriage, but then I would be begging for a slippery slope rebuttal. Instead, I will argue that the main reason we don't allow incestuous marriage is that we don't believe it can really be in their best interest. For example, if an 18-year-old daughter wanted to marry her father, we wouldn't think of her as a criminal, we would probably think of her as the victim of an improper upbringing. That is why we would attempt to talk her out of it, not threaten her out of it. We would believe that marrying her father would not be in her best interest. In the case of same-sex marriage, there is no reason for us to think it's not in the best interest of the homosexual partners to marry one another.

[redcarpet]

And just what are the arguments made
in favour hat are 'exaggerated'? I beleive
you mean the ones made against it are.

[Joe Liberty]

The examples of polygamy and under-age marriage are bad comparions.
Disallowing polygamy doesn't deny the right to marry any specific person, it just limits the number of marriages to one.

If the argument is framed as one of preventing an individual from marrying whom he or she wants, then in that context there is no difference at all between gay marriage and polygamy.

In the case of marriage of minors, the problem is that marriage is an impactful decision that under-age people should not be allowed to make.

I agree with that, that's indeed a false comparison.

The incest examples are a good counter attack because some individuals are off-limits to some people and not others.

I see that as no different than the comparison to polygamy: government is telling an adult citizen which other adult citizens he can and can't enter into a marriage contract with. If marriage is not to be restricted to opposite-sex couples, I see no logical reason it can still be restricted to two people, or two non-related people.

Instead, I will argue that the main reason we don't allow incestuous marriage is that we don't believe it can really be in their best interest.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? That the collective has no business telling an individual what's in his own best interest? Especially when all parties involved are consenting adults.

In the case of same-sex marriage, there is no reason for us to think it's not in the best interest of the homosexual partners to marry one another.

But I think that's probably the primary mindset of those opposed to it: that it's not in the best interests of the collective. Which is why I keep urging proponents to stop framing it as a "gay rights" issue and instead argue from a position of individual rights. That way, the typical tribal knee-jerking is not invoked since we're not dealing with "group" rights (which don't really exist anyway), and we aren't arguing from a position that somebody outside of the relationship has to agree that it's in someone's "best interest".

[redcarpet]

Which is why I keep urging proponents to stop
framing it as a "gay rights" issue and instead argue from
a position of individual rights.

Well the position of US law already IS that it's an
issue of fundamental individual rights.

Marriage is treated as a 'right', not a 'contract' as we're
told by opponents it is and henceforth demand legality
of refusals & so on. The US Cons. is about fundamental
individual rights to protect them against State violations
which the Enlightenment based US Founders were rebelling
against.

Who was it, Rich Santoroum saying it's a 'privilege'? How
typically ignorant of an establishment Republican.......

[neopagan]

One way of addressing the terrible injustice done to Gays by not allowing them to marry, might be to give them the institution, lock, stock, and barrel. Then normal people could create a new form of union that is specifically heterosexual.

[Baff]

Yes, what you are saying is true. However, it is also equally true that to make discussion easier, it would help if it were acknowledged that keeping so called gay marriage from being legal does not keep people from marrying. It simply keeps people from inherently always marrying who they want to marry. There are other such limits on marriage. One cannot marry their own sibling or their parent. In some states, one cannot marry their first cousin. In all states, one cannot marry more than one person legally. One cannot marry people legally who are below a certain age. There are limits on marriage. In fact, the government really aproves who can marry by issuing a marriage license, which they don't have to do. What is more, while the other examples of marriage listed are specifically illegal, gay marriage is not. In other words, no one gets put in jail for a gay marriage, but you will get put in jail for marrying your sister or for marrying more than one person. So a lot of the arguments in favor of gay marriage rely on exaggeration and are inherently political.

This cuts to the nub of it in my opinion.

This particularly rankles in terms of legal rights.
Gay couples want the same inheritance rights/tax breaks as married couples.
Ok.
But I want the same inheritance rights/ tax breaks as married couples with my mum. In fact everyone who lives with someone else in a life long commited relationship is equally worthy of this tax break as any gay couple.
I don't see why the act of gay loving making should morally infer this upon them.

Outside of that I would prefer to see the institution of marriage to be an issue between the church involved and the people involved. It's no one elses business.

There is an American chap on another forum I used to discuss this with.
He wanted to marry a gay lover who he met at his gay church.
As long as this didn't make him a first class citisen and me and my mum second class citisens, I consider this to be great.

A wedding is about confirming your commitment in front of your peers. It's a social bond that adds peer pressure to keeping your commitment.
Getting married for tax reasons? Piss off.

[Sceptic]

This particularly rankles in terms of legal rights.
Gay couples want the same inheritance rights/tax breaks as married couples.
Ok.
But I want the same inheritance rights/ tax breaks as married couples with my mum. In fact everyone who lives with someone else in a life long commited relationship is equally worthy of this tax break as any gay couple.
I don't see why the act of gay loving making should morally infer this upon them.

This is a ridiculous analogy, either you want less legal priviliges for same sex marital couples OR you are willing to confer those same priviliges to gay couples in a civil partnership or marriage, assuming the church consented to it. Your mum probably got child benefits of some sort, as do most parents in the UK, so that is not a valid analogy. Romantic couples living in the same house have perfect entitlement to look towards some sort of tax efficiency.

[Joe Liberty]

Well the position of US law already IS that it's an
issue of fundamental individual rights.

But that's not how I hear anybody characterize it, on either side. The rhetoric is always about (the completely fabricated notion of) group rights. That rhetoric automatically divides people and sets one against the other. If it were framed as an individual right I don't think it would be quite as divisive.

Then again:

Who was it, Rich Santoroum saying it's a 'privilege'? How typically ignorant of an establishment Republican.......

...I sometimes underestimate the stupidity of human beings.

[Progressive Patriot]

The issue of polygamy, underage marriage, marrying siblings etc. has NOTHING to do with the same sex marriage and to even bring it up only serves to obfuscate the issue and strike fear into the hearts and minds of people who dread a slippery slope scenario. Gay marriage would simply allow any gay person to marry an INDIVIDUAL of his or her choosing to the same extent and only to the extent, that other’s are allowed to do so under the law. I will also say that all of this discussion about whether opposition to gay marriage is sex discrimination or sexuality discrimination, as well as distinctions between individual or gay rights is equally pointless claptrap. The fact is that marriage is a right enjoyed by heterosexuals and there is no rational reason why it should be denied to gays. It’s really not complicated. Yet, those opposed to marriage rights keep coming up with an endless array of outlandish arguments, philosophical and political analysis, while jousting over semantics. Meanwhile, not to be outdone, proponents play along resulting in our getting further bog down in what amounts to incessant twaddle. It is incumbent upon those who oppose equality make a case that gay marriage will be harmful to society. And, the only way to do that is to offer proof that there were unintended negative consequences in some or all of 12 states, and an equal number of nations were it has been legal. I for one have not seen anyone even attempt that strategy, no doubt because it's a sure looser. Rather, opponents continue to resort to the tactics of confusion that we see here. The burden of proof should not be on those seeking equality any more than women should need to prove that they should be allowed to vote. These are people who are being denied the same rights as others because of who they are, plain and simple.

[Rainbow Crow]

The polygamy argument is that if we are going to let two consenting adults do whatever they want, why not let three or four consenting adults do what they want?

Considering how (as mentioned in another thread re: 10 years later in the Netherlands) most homosexuals do not take advantage of their ability to marry and those that do have much higher divorce rates, it seems that watering down the barriers is all that has really occurred. Homosexuals on this forum at least are open to saying that this was the goal to begin with because homosexuals seem to have a natural hatred of what has been termed "heteronormativity" i.e. the social expectations of heterosexual people.

[Progressive Patriot]

The polygamy argument is that if we are going to let two consenting adults do whatever they want, why not let three or four consenting adults do what they want?

{ NO! The question is WHY WOULD WE? It is not an issue. Heterosexual couples are not seeking to change marriage to include polygamy. Gays are asking for EQUALITY-The same rights as heterosexuals.Nothing more!! Why is that hard to understand? Look up EQUALITY. We could have a lofty philosophical discussion about why we should not have polygamy also, and I might well conclude that there is in fact no valid PHILISOPHICAL reason not to. However this is about a legal matter. It’s about human beings and their rights, In this context, your question is pointless. It’s exactly the kind of diversionary claptrap that I’m talking about}

Considering how (as mentioned in another thread re: 10 years later in the Netherlands) most homosexuals do not take advantage of their ability to marry and those that do have much higher divorce rates,

{Yes, fewer gay couples than heterosexual couples take advantage of the ability to marry in the Netherlands. However, according to an IMap Research Brief “Marriage as a social institution is in general decline among many if not all European nations……” That report goes on to say that there are “ three main reasons for the lack of nuptial enthusiasm among gay couples: less pressure from family and friends, fewer gay couples marrying to have children than their straight counterparts, and a more individualist, less family‐orientated mindset among many homosexuals.” Source: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf}

As far as divorce goes, the number of divorces of gay couples represent just 1% of all divorces while the number of gay marriages represent 2% of the total. Source: http://www.expatica.com/nl/life-in-neth ... 12249.html}


… it seems that watering down the barriers is all that has really occurred.
Homosexuals on this forum at least are open to saying that this was the goal to begin with because homosexuals seem to have a natural hatred of what has been termed "heteronormativity" i.e. the social expectations of heterosexual people.

{ Watering down barriers ? To what exactly? What does that mean.? And while you’re at it please explain how the Dutch experience justifies continued denial of marriage rights to gays. Please explain how this is not just an attempt to obfuscate the real issue of EQUALITY. And….”natural hatred of what has been termed "heteronormativity”?? Hatred??!! heteronormativity” ? What the hell is that ? Only people who have to hate others in order to feel secure their own positions need to accuse others of being that haters.
.

[Rainbow Crow]

Well, thanks for the sources, I hadn't dug them up so specifically.

I hope that you aren't taking research confirming what I was saying earlier as justification since being family oriented and so on is generally a good thing.

[Baff]

This is a ridiculous analogy, either you want less legal priviliges for same sex marital couples OR you are willing to confer those same priviliges to gay couples in a civil partnership or marriage, assuming the church consented to it. Your mum probably got child benefits of some sort, as do most parents in the UK, so that is not a valid analogy. Romantic couples living in the same house have perfect entitlement to look towards some sort of tax efficiency.

Hang on a second, are you suggesting that gay peoples mum's didn't get any child benefits?

That I got child benefits as a straight man but a gay man did not?

That the 40% tax break he will recieve is in compensation for the child benefit he did not but I did?
We both had the same child benefit. Child benefit is not dependant on your sexual preference in any way.


Being romatically involved with some one means you are a first class citisen and not being romantically involved with someone makes you a second class citisen?

If I was shagging my mum as well as living with her then would I then deserve the same tax breaks as two gay men shagging each other and living with eachother?

Sounds like sexual discrimination to me.

Sorry but I see no reason why I should be taxed more than you just because you want to put your cock in another man and I don't want to put mine in my mother.
If you have romantic feelings for another man, good for you. That is your blessing.
But that doesn't make me a person less deserving of my home than you are yours.

[Rei Murasame]

Then you should call for an abolition of all tax breaks that all married couples get. I'd support you in that idea.

[Baff]

Not my style sorry.

I want less tax for every one. Not just married couples, or gay couples. Everyone.

So I am as unlikely to be calling for gays to pay tax as I am anyone else.


I think the reason for inheritance tax breaks are obvious. People who have lived together their whole lives have operated as a team. As financial mutual dependants.
They can't easily seperate out who owns what and the misery of their loss is not a golden opportunity to exploit them and steal their homes and their pensions.

If an elderly wifes husband dies, the last thing she needs is the govt to kick her out of her house and steal half her income to boot.
The same is true of a gay couple or indeed two sisters or a mother and son.


You see I buy into the fundamental principle gays are establishing on this point. But I'm not heterophobic. It's not just gay people it applies to.

So if, on recognising that need, you go on to apply it to gay people only, that is an act of sexual discrimination. (Which ostensibly is the exact thing we are trying to put an end to).

Replacing homophobia with heterophobia isn't a win. It's just more of the same.

[redcarpet]

Then you should call for an abolition of all tax breaks that all married couples get. I'd support you in that idea.

Do you want marriage to be symbolic or totally abolished?

[Rei Murasame]

Symbolic, basically. It should be a contract stripped of all other content.

[Rich]

I want all marriage abolished as a legal construct. State Marriage is reactionary and unjust. Progressives in the nineteenth century supported the abolition of slavery, they didn't support the extension of slavery to White people as an act of fairness.

Marriage evolved as a paternalistic patriarchal institution. Its whole purpose was discrimination. Discrimination against women and men who failed to follow societies dictates and discrimination against the children of the heterosexual unions that fell outside the society and state backed approved ones. Marriage wasn't a right it was a duty. It was a life sentence. There was a credible argument for society supporting marriage when marriage was for life. How are we to judge what was better for people in societies of earlier eras that even specialist historians can not fully understand let along the average ignorant Joe who thinks the American founders fought unceasingly to abolish slavery? in an age where the average person shows more loyalty to their email provider than their sexual partner, state backed marriage has become ridiculous.

The progressive support for Gay marriage comes from the same empty headed mentality that leads them to demand that Islam must be treated equally. But when it comes to pathetic jokes my friends, American Conservatism is the indisputable leader. American Conservatism is the king of the clowns. Who was the first governor to introduced no fault divorce legislation? American Conservatism led the world in the destruction of the institution of marriage. All that is left is a giant tax avoidance scheme.