[Luis Dias]

The problem does not stem from the lack of my own elaboration, but from the proponents of the policy. There are a variety of reasons for the legalization / institutionalization of gay marriage, but I've always found them either lacking in logical terms or solvable through other (simpler) means.

The most common argument is that there are a lot of gay people who can't do what other heterossexual people can, namely marry, so they should be able to do this. While I recognize the emotional appeal to the argument, I do not find it logical. To agree with it would force us to agree with a much more alien generalization of the definition of marriage, that would allow polygamy, harems, and other strange things. Given that the main reason the government regulates and defines marriage is to organize and foster the creation of families as the best archetype of procreation and children education, to do so in gay marriages stretches the purpose of it into a kitch and fetiched territory.

The idea that gay people should be given the government right to marry is a silly idea in itself, that is, only with all else being equal*, for if the main purpose gays appeal to is the emotional one (we love each other), why then have the government have anything to do with it? Buy a ring to each other and make a celebration with your friends. If the purpose is to get legal rights that they otherwise wouldn't, then I agree there should be ways for these rights to be given (and let the society discuss them each one at a time), not only to them but also to unmarried heterossexual couples and so on.


Having said all this, I don't oppose it. I am 100% tolerant to it, and I hope it does give many homossexuals the happiness they strive for, and why not, teach the whole society to be more considerate towards them.




* This is the point that I find most unsettling, for obviously it isn't "all equal". Gays have been persecuted in our societies for so much and so long (and still are to incredible degree), that political measures like these have really important symbolism in itself, signaling to the society at large that homossexuals should be respected as equals and that their sexual inclinations are not morally wrong in any way. But there is also a problem in creating laws because of "symbolic importance". I don't like that kind of ****. To me, laws should be above symbols and the society should be able to grow itself out of its bigotry.

[The E]

The most common argument is that there are a lot of gay people who can't do what other heterossexual people can, namely marry, so they should be able to do this. While I recognize the emotional appeal to the argument, I do not find it logical. To agree with it would force us to agree with a much more alien generalization of the definition of marriage, that would allow polygamy, harems, and other strange things. Given that the main reason the government regulates and defines marriage is to organize and foster the creation of families as the best archetype of procreation and children education, to do so in gay marriages stretches the purpose of it into a kitch and fetiched territory.

Marriage confers a set of economic benefits in most jurisdictions. Married couples have legal options not available to unmarried ones; Being able to have shared banking accounts, being in the "next of kin" category in medical emergencies, that sort of thing. Denying homosexual couples those benefits is completely stupid in my opinion; and allowing those forms of marriage you term "strange" is a plus in my book.

Secondly, using procreation as an argument is spurious as well. I agree that a couple caring for a child should receive more benefits than one without a child, but whether or not that child was conceived by partner 1 sticking his penis into partner 2's vagina should be immaterial.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah thanks The_E you completely skipped most of my paragraphs that dealt with your comeback. Why not read what other people write before scrambling to the quick reply box?

PS: In Germany bestiality is legal. You also okay with that kind of ****? Why not even let a person marry its cat, if both love each other? (If you say "but marriage is a contract between two consenting adults", the answer is obvious: why is it so? If we are free to say marriage is not only something a man and a woman can do, we can also strip from "marriage" any other meanings we put into it. All those things suddenly become fair territory, and the word just loses meaning over time).

Secondly, using procreation as an argument is spurious as well. I agree that a couple caring for a child should receive more benefits than one without a child, but whether or not that child was conceived by partner 1 sticking his penis into partner 2's vagina should be immaterial.

It isn't spurious, it's the standard organization of our society. To call it spurious is indulging in empty abstract thinking that has little to do with how our world actually works. I think that many really important things in the social web are hidden or unnacounted for and whose importance would only come out if we suddenly didn't have it. This does not mean that people who foster children who aren't theirs should be unnacounted for, etc. and so on. But I also fail to see what that has to do with marriage, which is a traditional institution whose main job has been to date to create a stable organization between a man and a woman, financially, socially and educationally, in order to bring about the next generation of citizens.

[Apollo]

Yeah thanks The_E you completely skipped most of my paragraphs that dealt with your comeback. Why not read what other people write before scrambling to the quick reply box?

PS: In Germany bestiality is legal. You also okay with that kind of ****? Why not even let a person marry its cat, if both love each other? (If you say "but marriage is a contract between two consenting adults", the answer is obvious: why is it so? If we are free to say marriage is not only something a man and a woman can do, we can also strip from "marriage" any other meanings we put into it. All those things suddenly become fair territory, and the word just loses meaning over time).

So your basic argument is that changing the meaning of marriage to any degree whatsoever could lead to bestiality?

It amazes me that you can hold that position on gay marriage and still not be strongly opposed to it.

[Luis Dias]

So your basic argument is that changing the meaning of marriage to any degree whatsoever could lead to bestiality?

No, that's not "my basic argument". You'd know that if you read what I said and not skimmed what I said.

I said that the argument for gay marriage is weak. And that, in logical terms, it would mean that such things can theoretically come into play. I did not say that I oppose it, for I also fail to see strong arguments against it that make me really rally against the idea.

One thing is certain, the definition of marriage is being diluted slowly.

It amazes me that you can hold that position on gay marriage and still not be strongly opposed to it.

It does not amaze me at all that many people can't see the world isn't black and white.

[The E]

I obviously should have prefaced everything with "between consenting adult humans". I would have thought that caveat to be obvious, but I suppose it wasn't.

Regarding your PS: No, actually, it isn't legal. It's considered a violation of animal protection law.

One thing is certain, the definition of marriage is being diluted slowly.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Let me be more precise here: Marriage currently confers a set of benefits. Most of them were initially created to incentivise procreation. But there's a subset of those benefits that have nothing to do with that aspect, and everything to do with being a legal mechanism that defines the relationship between people who are not related in genetic terms.
That homosexual couples want their relationships to be recognized in the same way (with all the legal stuff surrounding it), is a completely understandable desire.

[Luis Dias]

I say it like it's a thing to consider, not a "bad thing". I think that if we are going to dilute it, we should be aware of that and the social problems that it may cause so we can react to it.

[Apollo]

So your basic argument is that changing the meaning of marriage to any degree whatsoever could lead to bestiality?

No, that's not "my basic argument". You'd know that if you read what I said and not skimmed what I said.

I said that the argument for gay marriage is weak. And that, in logical terms, it would mean that such things can theoretically come into play. I did not say that I oppose it, for I also fail to see strong arguments against it that make me really rally against the idea.

One thing is certain, the definition of marriage is being diluted slowly.

That seems to be your primary potential objection.

It amazes me that you can hold that position on gay marriage and still not be strongly opposed to it.

It does not amaze me at all that many people can't see the world isn't black and white.

Gay marriage is one of the simplest and most clear-cut issues ever. It would grant same-sex couples equal legal benefits, and we would be one step closer to removing religion from our legal system.

[666maslo666]

Some of those benefits of marriage discriminate against single people or polygamists, anyway. If they can be discriminated against, I dont see why it is suddenly more wrong when gays are. Its all pretty arbitrary.

If you want to incentivise reproduction, then the benefits should be tied to parenthood instead.

[Luis Dias]

So your basic argument is that changing the meaning of marriage to any degree whatsoever could lead to bestiality?

No, that's not "my basic argument". You'd know that if you read what I said and not skimmed what I said.

I said that the argument for gay marriage is weak. And that, in logical terms, it would mean that such things can theoretically come into play. I did not say that I oppose it, for I also fail to see strong arguments against it that make me really rally against the idea.

One thing is certain, the definition of marriage is being diluted slowly.

That seems to be your primary potential objection.

My primary objection is the dillution of the institution of marriage. Bestiality is *not* the focus of the objection, it's a simple example of a reductio ad absurdum, which I even think there's a chance it won't be considered "absurd" 30, 40 years from now.

Look, people already leave assets to animals nowadays. Marrying animals isn't unimaginable, even if it might be disgusting to 2013's tastes (and that's the point, since gay marriage would have been depicted as disgusting 50 years ago if anyone had the "bad taste" of bringing that kind of stuff out then).

The point is that this dillution will cripple the meaning of marriage to a point where marrying animals and other crazy things won't be seen as a big deal, since the institution won't have much of a "status" of itself anyway.

Gay marriage is one of the simplest and most clear-cut issues ever. It would grant same-sex couples equal legal benefits, and we would be one step closer to removing religion from our legal system.

That's the point I addressed, and you would know it if you didn't skim me. I don't think these rights should even be granted only for married couples. I am not married and I have most priviledges / rights a married couple has, since the state recognizes automatically that I am in a "joint - relationship". This is a conversation worth having in itself, but it is decoupled from marriage.

[Luis Dias]

Regarding your PS: No, actually, it isn't legal. It's considered a violation of animal protection law.

Regarding this small issue, you are absolutely right. A law passed on this February 2013 finally forbids bestiality.

[redsniper]

Lot of slippery slope fallacies in this thread...

[Luis Dias]

Ahah. Nope.

[The E]

Regarding your PS: No, actually, it isn't legal. It's considered a violation of animal protection law.

Regarding this small issue, you are absolutely right. A law passed on this February 2013 finally forbids bestiality.

Look, I can give you a bit of leeway regarding the historical and legal issues for why this took so long (Including such reasons as "the Nazis did it" and "Noone cares"), but please do not make this a bigger issue than it is.

Lot of slippery slope fallacies in this thread...

Ahah. Nope.

The point is that this dillution will cripple the meaning of marriage to a point where marrying animals and other crazy things won't be seen as a big deal, since the institution won't have much of a "status" of itself anyway.

Looks plenty slopey to me.

[Ghostavo]

I love how people try to link marriage to procreation and child rearing, as if infertile people are not allowed to get married.

[MP-Ryan]

Yeah, Luis, your argument is entirely slippery slope.  You can try to dress it up in terminology all you like, but we can all see what you're arguing.

Here's how I look at this:  Whether or not a homosexual couple can get married does not affect my marriage to my wife one whit.  It doesn't make it any less meaningful - our marriage is a social contract between us, we didn't have a religious marriage ceremony in the first place, and frankly we could have done it so much more informally but for one thing:

Government recognizance.

There are legal, social, and economic benefits to marriage.  Historically, the state has recognized that a socially-bonded couple makes a meaningful social contribution to society, and that behaviour is therefore rewarded.  This is historically predicated on the child-rearing aspects of marriage and the formation of the nuclear family.  However, there are no longer any barriers to homosexual adoption and rearing of children, or having their own for that matter, and every credible study on the subject has concluded there is no harm to being raised by two people of the same sex in a loving relationship versus two people of opposite sex, all other variables being equal.

Therein lies my problem with this "dilution of marriage" argument.  For one, the religious folk objecting to marriage do not have a monopoly on the term, the institution of marriage existed long before Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and the other major modern religions.  For two, it is fundamentally unjust in a democratic to arbitrarily deny government-recognize legal/social/economic benefits to couples that exhibit all the same characteristics as other couples, albeit they happen to be of the same sex.

Homosexuality does no harm to society; similarly, allowing marriage between homosexuals does no harm to the institution of marriage.  Frankly, at the end of the day it only affects you and me because allowing a government to arbitrarily apply their guaranteed charter/constitution-written protections in one context opens it up to others.

I've long argued that the best solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely.  Allow couples to apply for a benefits license and force that process to occur separately of any religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage simply becomes a term without any legal weight.  Then whomever wants to call themselves married can do so, and meanwhile the legal/social/economic coupling becomes a separate matter that is merely applied for.  Of course, this WOULD dilute the meaning of marriage because anyone could call themselves married if they chose to.  Then again, if you object to this then you would seem to also be rejecting the notion of granting legal status to homosexual relationships, something that has tangible social benefits.

[Meneldil]

To agree with it would force us to agree with a much more alien generalization of the definition of marriage, that would allow polygamy, harems, and other strange things.

Polygamy's hardly alien, humans have been known to practice it.

Given that the main reason the government regulates and defines marriage is to organize and foster the creation of families as the best archetype of procreation and children education, to do so in gay marriages stretches the purpose of it into a kitch and fetiched territory.

Even if we accepted this as "the main reason the government regulates and defines marriage", one would find that the LGBT families are just as good an environment for education of children. Promoting exclusively straight families is surely contrary to "the society growing itself out of its bigotry" idea you're espousing.
As for procreation, that's a non-issue, seeing that no one relevant calls the straight marriages which can't result in biological offspring kitch or fetiched.

The idea that gay people should be given the government right to marry is a silly idea in itself. [...] Buy a ring to each other and make a celebration with your friends. If the purpose is to get legal rights that they otherwise wouldn't, then I agree there should be ways for these rights to be given (and let the society discuss them each one at a time), not only to them but also to unmarried heterosexual couples and so on.

One wonders then why the government allows straight marriages, seeing how unnecessary they are.


As for the concern that the same-sex marriage will lead to bestiality, that's easily solved by never allowing bestiality.
You could make the same argument against any change of any law, which is patently absurd. Marriage is an institution that predates religious and legal codification, and how it's codified is obviously subject to discussion and change.


added: not trying to repeat what MP-Ryan said, just posted at the same time

[Flak]

While many would think that it is 'just' seen as wrong in many religious beliefs. Even long before these same sex marriage things became an issue, the meaning of marriage (very very sadly) has slowly faded into the wind, see how they made marriage looks like troublesome and unecessary.  Allowing same sex marriage will just push that even further, and I do not with to delve further into bestiality here. Still, even as a religious person, I do not by any means, condemn the homosexuals to hell and back like the WBC does all the time.  Still, sorry if I offend anyone, since this is a highly sensitive topic that is very very hard not to piss off anyone, just like polygamy.

[Flipside]

Thing is, the argument 'marriage has been between a man and a woman for hundreds of years' I hear so often is actually simply repeating the problem not stating a reason not to fix it. The whole reason that marriage has been heterosexual only is because the main influencing spiritual power has had anti-gay tendencies for hundreds of years.

I'm not sure where bestiality comes in, but the idea that marriage is a Christian, or even a religious monopoly is where this problem starts.

[Herra Tohtori]

It's always a good thing when someone sees the light.

I don't think these people know what "hypocrisy" is. It would be hypocritical if someone supported same-sex marriage, but if their OWN child were to be homosexual and wanted to marry someone, they would suddenly be against it.

It would also be hypocritical if they were to support their child in their life, but still publicly opinionated their opposition to same-sex marriage.


Changing one's point of view does not make one a hypocrite. Regardless of the reasons that made you change your position, that just shows that you have a sufficiently ductile brain that you can actually change your point of view when given sufficient cause to do so.

Hypocrisy is when you have some view for some cases, and another view some other cases. Ie. when you're not consistent in your thinking, speech, and actions. In other words, hypocrisy is when you "talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk".




I shall now generously share my correct views on this matter, so that everyone can agree with me


The solution to all problems related to "gay marriage" is obvious... all you need to do is separate the concept of marriage as a religious union, from what it objectively is - a secular union between two people.

I don't really give a **** what different religions think about their particular view of marriage. It shouldn't even matter. All arguments AGAINST gay marriage simply fall apart when you consider what marriage actually IS from secular point of view - a registered relationship which grants you certain benefits and gives you certain responsibilities.

Anyone should be allowed to register such a relationship with another consenting person (when both are legally adults, obviously). It is not the state's business to arbitrarily name conditions on who you can or cannot register such a relationship with. Saying that same-sex couples should not have this right is discrimination, whatever words are used for it.


Churches should have absolutely no business in the official registration of such relationships. Especially in the US of A where it is actually specifically mentioned in their constitution that the church and the state are supposed to be separate entities, yet the clergy still somehow holds power to officiate marriages.

Churches, then, must make up their own mind about whether their god approves of same-sex couples or not, and based on that decide whether they will allow same-sex couples to go through their particular religious marriage rituals in their church, or not. This is an issue about religious freedom, and as ridiculous as I think it is, churches should have the right to decline to marry same-sex couples. But that matter is between the church and its members. If you disagree with your church's official position on whether same-sex couples can be married or not, you're always free to find another church that will perform the marriage.

After all, why belong to a church that you disagree with?

However the churches' right to refuse same-sex couples has absolutely nothing to do with whether same-sex couples should have the right to register their relationship via official channels and get the same benefits and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. And the official marriage registration should have nothing to do with the clergy, but instead it should be done in the magistrates.


The issue of polygamy should similarly be treated separately as a religious issue (which doesn't matter) and a secular issue (which is what actually matters). I don't have a particularly strong position either for or against. I think from secular point of view the biggest question is, if there is a group of people living in a polygamous relationship, should all participants receive equal tax breaks, or should it be considered as a singular marriage where the tax breaks per person depend on exactly how many people are in the relationship.

Religiously, I hold no views on any matter.Ethically and morally, I really don't see anything wrong in any relationships between consenting adults*, so polygamy itself cannot be a bad or a good thing - it is what the people practicing it make it to be.

Notoriously however, polygamy is often practiced in patriarchal societies or even cults where the conditions for freely given consent are usually not fulfilled. In such cases I consider the "consent" usually given under duress - either by threat of being thrown out of the cult, or threat of punishment of some other kind (physical or otherwise). These schemes often concentrate on keeping their members - especially females - dependent on the males, economically and emotionally, which means leaving the cult is not usually a viable option and thus the decision to enter polygamous relationship is not consent in my view - it's a decision made under duress, with no other options. Needless to say, I find polygamy in these conditions to be despicable - especially in those cults where underage girls are sent to polygamous relationships by parental consent.