How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

[catzmeow]

The liberal con is insist this is about homosexual rights, when it's really about expansion of government to deny the rights of people of morality. This fact makes your whole argument about the government trampling rights hypocritical. You want to force churches to hand their property over to homosexual couples wanting to get married. You want to force church members to perform personal services at same-sex weddings. These things are already happening in parts of America.

What force is there in "banning same-sex marriage"?

What rights of people of morality would be denied by legalizing same-sex marriage?

No one is proposing that churches be required to marry anyone they don't want to marry.

Please, tell us where these things are happening. Links, prease.

1) Check the news, or Google.
2) Why do you need a link? Why don't you take a position on whether it should or should not be happening?

You made the claim that churches were already being forced to marry gays. Back it up.

 

[Ariux]

JS, this is clean debate zone, but not an honesty zone. Too bad. On other hand, if we all had to be honest, there would be no debate, because there would be no liberals here.

These same-sex marriage laws are typically passed along with anti-discrimination laws. If you were even modestly familiar with this issue, you'd already know this. And, if you were had even modest skills with Google, you'd have no trouble finding victims of these anti-discrimination laws. E.g. Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Lost Lawsuit

Again, this is the point of government recognition of same-sex marriage, to force people of morality to support and take part in homosexual activities.

A government violation of a right is characterized by the use of government force, or threat thereof. The only people having their rights violated in any state of the union are people of morality, not homosexuals.

A google search reveals no such efforts, Ariux. Fail.

What rights of people of morality would be denied by legalizing same-sex marriage?

No one is proposing that churches be required to marry anyone they don't want to marry.

Please, tell us where these things are happening. Links, prease.

1) Check the news, or Google.
2) Why do you need a link? Why don't you take a position on whether it should or should not be happening?

 

[Ariux]

Column: Penn State case bad, but church sex abuse worse

This is one of the fruits of our society's celebration of homosexuality, boys being molested by homosexuals. Cheers to the Boy Scouts for resisting opening up the Scouts as a meat market to homosexuals (which would be very costly to the Scouts, in addition to the boys).

 

[Noomi]

We cannot allow gay people to be married, because then people will just pretend to gay so they can get married and get money from the government!
Your kids will want to be gay to see what it feels like, and no one wants a homo for a kid.
And why stop at marriage? We all know that gay marriage will lead to multiple marriages, its just how these things work! And don't forget the pedophiles, they will want to marry children because they are in love and to deny them equal rights is discrimination!!!!!!!!!

Have I forgotten any retarded homophobic argument here?

 

[Artevelde]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

So I presume you also feel that there should be no ban against multiple marriage, underage marriage, marriage between siblings, etc?

 

[Noomi]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

So I presume you also feel that there should be no ban against multiple marriage, underage marriage, marriage between siblings, etc?

Bans against multiple marriages, yes. Bans on underage marriage, and no ban on sibling marriages, but no children can come of the relationship.

 

[JFK_USA]

Churches can do want they want but for the church to prevent the government from recognizing two people who want to make a commitment goes against what Thomas Jefferson said. Separation of Church and State.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

I have no "fear" of homosexuality or same-sex marriage. But I am concerned as to what the precedent of changing the legal definition of marriage would bring to the United States as time progressed.

Most obviously, once gay marriage has been legalized - the denial of other types of marriage between consenting adults will become all but impossible to argue against. Once we have, as a nation, stated that marriage is not the legal union of a man and a woman, but rather, the legal union of two consenting adults....there is NO argument for why it can't be a legal union between three, four, etc. consenting adults that will hold up in court.

Now, maybe thats fine. Maybe nothing bad will come of allowing six people from "marrying," but it is a conversation we should probably have now, that we aren't having. In fact, many gay-marriage supporters act OFFENDED when the idea is mentioned. This is either naivete or a willful blindness because they don't want to admit that their changing the definition of marriage will open the door to further changes down the road...changes that will only be easier because of their work.

With that problem comes other problems - how do we identify legal parents when a marriage might consist of six people? How do businesses handle the healthcare of families of these types? What happens to assets, children, visitation rights, spousal support, etc. when these families "divorce?"

Again...these problems might not be the end of the US as we know it. They might not even happen. But shouldn't we at least discuss where redefining marriage might lead?

Then there is the question of discrimination...and many here have said "It won't happen." But it IS happening. Denmark is forcing its churches to perform gay marriages. And a wedding photographer in New Mexico lost a law suit when she was sued for refusing to photograph gay marriage ceremonies.

Once we legally recognize something...we are going to have to address whether someone's civil rights are being violated if they are then "denied access" to that "right." These cases WILL become common...and our courts WILL have to address whether or not a church has the right to deny someone something that the United States says they are legally allowed to have. You may feel that churches should have the right to deny a gay couple the ability to marry at their church...but given the fact that other nations are already dealing with this very issue...and given the fact that we are already seeing discrimination cases in our own nation...shouldn't we at least discuss it?

Sadly...I think one of the biggest hindrances to REALLY addressing gay marriage and if it should be legalized is the gay marriage supporters labeling anyone who questions the wisdom of such a decision as a homophobic bigot...effectively stifling any intelligent debate and potentially causing us to make a decision without fully considering the consequences.

I am not against gay marriage - I'm not necessarily for it yet either. I have numerous homosexual friends whose weddings I would be honored to attend. But first, I want to have a thorough, calm, and well-reasoned debate as to whether it is the right decision for our nation - and how we are going to deal with the issues that legalizing gay marriage would bring.

If I said, "If we allow felons to work at McDonalds the next thing you know they'll be controlling the country!!" What would you think?

By chance, would you think that's a bit silly? Maybe...a bit of a leap?

The above is, essentially," the shoe on other foot."

You generalize and assume, you've compared the legitimacy of a union between two lovers to that of an orgy. Are you really surprised homosexuals get offended?

A conversation can be had about redefining marriage without comparing gay marriage to a 6-person "lovefest"

 

[Artevelde]

Churches can do want they want but for the church to prevent the government from recognizing two people who want to make a commitment goes against what Thomas Jefferson said. Separation of Church and State.

That is complete nonsense. This has nothing to do with religion, and everything with the fact that marriage is a union between man and wife, as a foundation of society.

 

[BDBoop]

Churches can do want they want but for the church to prevent the government from recognizing two people who want to make a commitment goes against what Thomas Jefferson said. Separation of Church and State.

That is complete nonsense. This has nothing to do with religion, and everything with the fact that marriage is a union between man and wife, as a foundation of society.

That assertion no longer holds water.

 

[Artevelde]

Churches can do want they want but for the church to prevent the government from recognizing two people who want to make a commitment goes against what Thomas Jefferson said. Separation of Church and State.

That is complete nonsense. This has nothing to do with religion, and everything with the fact that marriage is a union between man and wife, as a foundation of society.

That assertion no longer holds water.

You're just too narrow-minded and provincial to realize that it does.

 

[Noomi]

That is complete nonsense. This has nothing to do with religion, and everything with the fact that marriage is a union between man and wife, as a foundation of society.

That assertion no longer holds water.

You're just too narrow-minded and provincial to realize that it does.

So the marriages of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian are somehow valuable?

 

[Artevelde]

That assertion no longer holds water.

You're just too narrow-minded and provincial to realize that it does.

So the marriages of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian are somehow valuable?

It is not because some people make a mockery of marriage that we should dump the whole concept and destroy one of the foundations of society.

 

[Noomi]

You're just too narrow-minded and provincial to realize that it does.

So the marriages of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian are somehow valuable?

It is not because some people make a mockery of marriage that we should dump the whole concept and destroy one of the foundations of society.

Explain how marriage is a foundation of society with the divorce rate the way it is.

 

[Artevelde]

So the marriages of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian are somehow valuable?

It is not because some people make a mockery of marriage that we should dump the whole concept and destroy one of the foundations of society.

Explain how marriage is a foundation of society with the divorce rate the way it is.

It is still the basic building block of society and of how human society perpetuates itself.

Why do you want to dump marriage and destroy it?

Lots of school are pretty miserable. Should we abolish education?

 

[BDBoop]

It is not because some people make a mockery of marriage that we should dump the whole concept and destroy one of the foundations of society.

Explain how marriage is a foundation of society with the divorce rate the way it is.

It is still the basic building block of society and of how human society perpetuates itself.

Why do you want to dump marriage and destroy it?

Lots of school are pretty miserable. Should we abolish education?

Nobody wants to dump marriage. I should be able to marry Noomi, just as you can. You should be able to marry Mani, just like I can. People who love within their own gender are being denied equal rights under the law.

 

[Artevelde]

Explain how marriage is a foundation of society with the divorce rate the way it is.

It is still the basic building block of society and of how human society perpetuates itself.

Why do you want to dump marriage and destroy it?

Lots of school are pretty miserable. Should we abolish education?

Nobody wants to dump marriage. I should be able to marry Noomi, just as you can. You should be able to marry Mani, just like I can. People who love within their own gender are being denied equal rights under the law.

You are writing complete nonsense. Noomi at least is honest enough to admit that she finds marriage nonsense and useless and wants to dump it.

You just want to destroy it because it doesn't fit in your narrow-minded agenda.

 

[manifold]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

So I presume you also feel that there should be no ban against multiple marriage, underage marriage, marriage between siblings, etc?

you presume incorrectly

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are right, your dishonesty is apparent. The case is discrimination by the individual in business, Ariux, and you were clearly referring to discrimination by the state. If you were in private business serving the public, you cannot discriminate based on certain protections passed by We the People. Take your dishonesty elsewhere.

Your real problem is that the state will not let your discriminate based on race. Politely, step off, fellow.

JS, this is clean debate zone, but not an honesty zone. Too bad. On other hand, if we all had to be honest, there would be no debate, because there would be no liberals here.

These same-sex marriage laws are typically passed along with anti-discrimination laws. If you were even modestly familiar with this issue, you'd already know this. And, if you were had even modest skills with Google, you'd have no trouble finding victims of these anti-discrimination laws. E.g. Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Lost Lawsuit

Again, this is the point of government recognition of same-sex marriage, to force people of morality to support and take part in homosexual activities.

A government violation of a right is characterized by the use of government force, or threat thereof. The only people having their rights violated in any state of the union are people of morality, not homosexuals.

A google search reveals no such efforts, Ariux. Fail.

1) Check the news, or Google.
2) Why do you need a link? Why don't you take a position on whether it should or should not be happening?

 

[Si modo]

Sure. But the government is involved. I recognize that you don't want it to be, but it is.

Since it is, is there any reason that same-sex marriages should be discriminated against?

I thought my views were clear on that. Techincally, the only type of marriages the government is involved in are civil unions, except for their recognition fo the authority of religious persons on granting civil unions. The latter would be easy enough for the government to stop doing.

But, getting into details, marriage is a religious ceremony and the government cannot tell churches what marriages they can or cannot do.

Anyone can have a civil union, on the other hand.

So green cards and survivor benefits should go to the spouses in civil unions?


Edit to note that I'm replying as I read along. My apologies if you have already answered this.

Absolutely. ALL the benefits, and the legal problems, associated with marriage should go to civil unions (or marriage - whatever one wants to call it doesn't matter to me).

A good start to getting a better separation of chruch and state in the matter of marriage, is to require ALL couples who want to have a legally recognized marriage/union, to go to the magistrate/justice of the peace/whatever for a civil marriage. Everyone.

If you want a church wedding, great. But without that civil union/marriage, you are not legally married.

I have never liked this default agent of the state being a church person, when it comes to marriage. Never. It's just constitutionally wrong, IMO.