Gay Marriage

The American Psychological Association does NOT support this type of "therapy." These "services" are offered by several churches, usually NOT by a licensed therpist, but by someone who has a vested interest in keeping the idea that being Gay is a mental illness out there.

Even people who have undergone this "therapy" admit they are "still gay" but no longer engage in ANY sexual activity. The few who do engage in hetero sex acts have claimed it makes them ill to do so, but it is what their families and church wants. CAN you imagine being married to someone like this?

Love is love. It doesn't really matter what sex organs the one you are in love with has. I am hetero, and I KNOW my marriage is strong, and nothing, not Gay people or Divorced people can have any effect on my strong relationship with my man.

 

Each issue does have its own merits. No issue can stand completely independent of other issues, though. When discussing interracial marriage in the context of legalizing same-sex marriage, the issue being discussed is marriage, not race. Also, many of the same arguments used against same-sex marriage have historically been used against interracial marriage. As we now know, interracial marriages have not led us down a slippery slope, to incest and polygamy. This is not an arguement, but panic. The truth is, marriage has changed many times over the centuries. Each change should be judged on its own terms, not as part of some seamless process of alleged disintigration.
-----------
Almost everyone seems to accept, even if they find homosexuality morally troublesome, that it occupies a deeper level of human consciousness than a sexual act or polygamous/incestous implusle. Homosexuality is not a behavior, but a trait. Even the Catholic Church, which defines homosexuality as an "objective disorder," concedes that it is a profound element of human identity.
------------
Where is the logical connection between accepting same-sex marriage and sanctioning polygamy? Rationally, it's a completely separate question whether the government should extend the definition of marriage to include more than one spouse or whether, in the existing institution between two unrelated adults, the government should continue to discriminate between its citizens. Politically speaking, the connection is even more tenuous. To the best of my knowledge, there is no polygamists' rights organizations poised to exploit same-sex marriage to return the republic to polygamous abandon.
--------------
I would expect arguments about gay parenting, adoption, etc, but I am shocked that the main arguemt continues to be this: If homosexuals can get married because they love each other, why not polygamy? Why not incest? The hidden assumption of the argument which brackets gay marriage with polygamous or incestuous marriage is that homosexuals want the right to marry anyone they fall for. But, of course, heterosexuals are currently denied that right. They cannot marry their immediate family or all of their sex partners. What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not anybody they love, but somebody they love, which is not at all the same thing. A polygamist can still marry one person they love. Homosexuals have no marital option at all. A demand for a polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivilous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not. There are no serious claims that I know of that suggest that there are people only attracted to relatives, or only groups rather than individuals. Homosexuals, however, are only attracted to members of the same sex. If people were to insist on marrying several lovers or their mother, they would be asking for an additional marital option. Homosexuals, in contrast, are only asking for the option of marriage.

 

i dont see why polygamy isnt a valid comparison to gay marriage.

The mantra of the gay rights movements seems to be "Dont legislate the bedroom." That applies equally to the polygamist movement and the incest movement.


Why should government tell two CONSENTING ADULTS who they can or cannot marry?

Your "marriage option" idea is flawed.

All humans in the US are given the same "marriage options." You can marry people of the opposite sex. If Homosexuals want to marry, they are asking for additional marriage options.

But seriously, if you're for gay marriage, why should you or any homosexual care about polygamy or incestual marriage? I would hope those who are against it dont use a 'moral stance' to oppose it...

 

In many poligamous societies, girls are married off without their consent. Many of these marriages can hardly be called "consensual."

 

Notice how i said CONSENTING adults.

 

I am not intending to make any stance for or against polygamy or incest. Neither can really be considered consensual, from my own research, but that it an entirely different argument. That is my point: Polygamy and incest are completely separate issues from gay marriage.

Homosexuals do not have the same right as heterosexuals in regards to marriage. Homosexuals cannot marry someone they love. I don't see how you can ignore such a glaring distinction.

 

It's really not though. The same logic that gays use can be used for polygamy and incest. So why are they separate issues? If those are separate issues, than interracial marriage is a completely different issue!

well, you have the same rights i do. To marry a person of the opposite sex. This is, of course, using your 'marriage options' idea. I dont have the ability to marry someone of the same sex.

What does it matter if 2 people marry or 3?

remember that for polygamy and incest. We cant choose who we love, government shouldnt discriminate against love.

Why not allow all of them?

 

Dude, the states is not a small minority against a vast majority. Bush won with 51%. That's barely half he country. Half the country disagrees. The point of democracy is that everyone gets heard. That's what prevents dictatorships, like your leader Bush would love.

 

Why should homosexuals be forced to give heterosexuals money when it is heterosexuals dening them basic rights.

 

and notice how I said in principal yes but in practice no.

 

i'm confused, i posted to maggie sugar..and you responded to this saying you said something???


How can you make wide spread judgment? If 2 women and a guy apply for a marriage license, how can you say its not consensual?

 

Bestiality:
Animals are not capable of consenting to sexual practices. All sexual behaviour with an animal is basically rape, as an animal is not capable of understanding or permitting the actions committed.
Polygamy:
The problem here is of emotions. Jealousy, competition. It has the potential to be incredibly psychologically harmful. It can be done, but does it need to be legislated for? I mean, seriously, why not just make a threesome into a foursome and get two marriages if you swing that much.
It's not a strong argument, and I'll surrender it if there ever becomes widespread or notable opposition - but hell - things are complex enough with two person unions!
Incest:
Danger of genetic disease. Commonly huge psychological damage. Weakening of gene-pool. Just plain old cautionary tactics, really.
Pedophilia:
A child is neither physically nor mentally developed and cannot be trusted to make rational decisions, nor offer consent. Two kids play together, fine. Adults, leave them alone.

Homosexuality doesn't produce any of these problems (although stigma sometimes means that psychological problems may accompany it).

 

Its important to remember a few facts of the matter:

- There is absolutely NOTHING forbidding any two men from living together, sharing everything they want and sleeping together for the rest of their lives.
Period.

I mention this because I notice many 'Kerry-ites' like to manipulate and slight-of-hand the debate to one of 'Being nice to Gay people'.
This is NOT a debate about 'whether we should tolerate gay people'.

This IS about the vast majority of tax-paying contributing citizens being asked to give more to a small minority of citizens.

They are giving more in the sense of taxes and benefits. (Think of money as our time, work, skills etc).

So, it IS not a question of two men (or two women) simply asking for what is 'theirs by right'.
No.

Its actually up to the rest of us to decide if we see a benefit in having homosexual marriages.

Watch out for sneaky 'do-anything-to-win' Kerry-ites who will try and pretend this is about 'likely gays' or 'not hurting gays'.
Bullshit!

It actually has nothing to do with tolerating gays, condoning gays or even praising gays.

Incidently, there are MANY men and women involved in homosexual lifestyles who WOULD STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH STATE-SPONSORED GAY MARRIAGES.

This is NOT because they 'hate gays' but because they do not believe they should be seeing their paycheques going to give those unions more money and benefits.

 

I think I was fairly detailed in my logic as to why they are not the same issue. What, exactly, is the logic you are using?

As I stated earlier, it only relates to interracial marriage in the similarities between marriage rights of individuals and the arguments against it. I would not, or at least did not, intend to equate same-sex marriage with that of interracial marriage.

 

This is simply not true. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia DOMA passed this year prohibiting any contract between two people that offers any of the rights of marraige. This statute prevents "sharing everything," such as next of kin rights, wills, second parent adoption and/or custody, life insurance, etc.

Assuming your argument were true, if it is a small minority of citizens, what is the cost going to be for society. This is a very weak argument. Large corporations have done extensive studies of the costs of administering same-sex employer benefits, and the costs have always proved both minimal and far from cost prohibitive.

The debate is not about whether to tolerate gay people, or be nice to them. The debate is for/against gay marriage. You are still free to be intolerant and mean to gay people. No efforts could be strong enough to legislate otherwise. Ignorance and bigotry is here to stay.

It is up to WHO to decide? Only heterosexuals? Wouldn't that be similar to placing womens suffrage issues solely in the hands of men?

HUH? Where is this coming from? Again, I ask, what is the actual cost?

 

Thats because Second Parent Adoption and Custody are rights married people share.
Thats because Marriage is an exclusive right.

Even though you really proving a rule by finding the exception, you still are pointing out where there is NO prohibition against two people (anyone) living together and marrying their lives together.

Again.. they are being prohibited benefits and privilages granted only to the 'One-man/One-Woman' Unions.

This doesnt wash.

Lets agree to give Hawaiian Americans a 3% reduction on their personal income tax.
Arguably the over-all cost to the American Public would be minimal and far from cost-prohibitive.

Just try floating that balloon to the rest of the country.

In fact, the only reason people give the current Marriage a break is because we believe it is profitable to us in the long run!

There is already plenty of people who wish to propose legislation against 'being mean to gay people' and the same people are entirely intolerant of any intolerance against their world-view.

Agreed - this is NOT about 'being mean to Gay people'
Its about being 'Extra Nice' to Gays who want to be married. Or Not.

You said 'Only Heterosexuals'.
I pointed out it was 'Everyone Else' - meaning: Everyone besides the Gay Couple (who effectively will give more TO the Gay Couple)
This will also include gays and lesbians who do not choose to be 'Gay Married'.
They will also pay slightly more in their taxes.
So will singles of all sexual lifestyles.

 

Beastiality is sick and disgusting, and i am not mentioning it, same with pedophilia.


Polygamy: And a normal marriage cant be emotionally troublesome? It consenting adults want to do it, why should it not be allowed. They arent babies, they can handle the consequences.

Incest: There is a heightened chance of genetic diseases, so what? Should we scan potential partners so we dont have genetic diseases spread? Also, Marriage and Pregnancy are two different things.

Photo:

My logic is the same as the gay rights movement: What consenting adults do shouldnt be discriminated against by the government. I think thats fairly simple and concise.

As it stands now, marriage in america is defind as a woman and a male(DOMA). To accept homosexual marriage you would have to change what marriage is(same with polygamy). So its not like its different

I see a blatant hypocrisy here with gay rights activists who are against incest/polygamy. I believe they take a moral stand and 'see them as unacceptable,' ironically, many people see homosexual marriage as unacceptable.

 

I agree that this logic is often used, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the gay rights movement. I think this argument was more applicable to sodomy laws, and not as much gay marriage.

I don't agree. I don't think that allowing gay marriage is equal to offering additional marriage options to a population that already has marriage options.

While I understand and appreciate what you are saying, I still see a clear distinction (without necessarily taking a moral stand) between same-sex marriage and polygamy/incest.

 

Issue 1 in Ohio (an unnecessary amendment given Ohio's lack of recognition of same-sex marriage) and many other issues across the country had some less-expected consequences...

When Mary and Joseph had Jesus, they were unmarried. Under most of the decisions made in eleven states on Nov. 2, Mary and Jesus would not have been covered by Joseph's health insurance.

This isn't about only the issue of marriage; if I can find someone to marry a man and a donkey, there isn't thing one our government can do about it. The same should go for polygamy as well. The government should recognize the first union, and the rest are not recognized by the government--but then again I don't care what the government thinks about my marriage other than I am granted certain rights for being married (i.e. it does not comment on whether my wife and I love each other or if we are faithful to each other). There are same-sex marriages now and there will continue to be. Ultimately, the government does not have any say about "marriage" per se; it has domain over what it recognizes as "unions." This issue is about all citizens having equal protection under the constitution.

 

Exactly.

Exactly.

Giving Hawaiians a 3% reduction on taxes would be a special right. My argument is, same-sex marriage is not a special right, but a right that is denied a small minority of the population.

Also, we give special rights to groups of citizens all the time, without a motive for profit. For one example, Medicare.

What is the profit from marriage?

I am not awary of any such legislation.

Ok, so only persons who would not benefit from gay marriage should be given the choice? Am I understanding this correctly?