Gay marriage

[Trinity]

So long as the majority of Americans oppose homosexual unions, then that's the way it is. Those who disagree will just have to suck it up. (oops - unfortunate choice of words there).

:rotflmao:

 

[Merlin]

I am looking for reasons why a married hetero should oppose extending civil union status to same-sex couples. I have actually read through this entire thread and haven't found a single one. There are repeated references to belief systems and social theory but no specific explanation of how gay marriage will cost me money, limit my freedom or in any other concrete, objective way hurt me in my actual life. If someone has a list of reasons, please post it. I want to read it, not argue with you about it. Non-specific answers will be ignored (by me, at least). Thank you.

It cost people money when they get sick looking at them and have to go to the Dr. to get nausea pills.

 

[no1tovote4]

We're forgetting one thing in this discussion of legitimate governmental function. The fact is that we the people have the right to regulate conduct and to decide what type of society we want to establish and maintain.

There is a difference between laws to restrict, and social norms that restrict. IMO, the government's job is not to set social norms and enforce them with the weight of law. As a Libertarian I have the view that the government power should be as narrow as possible and should not intrude past those narrow restrictions.

That means we have a right to restrict some conduct and encourage other. Everything from speed limits on the highway to laws protecting children come under this umbrella. Certainly it is no stretch to include laws governing who may marry and who may not. Government does not "sanctify" a marriage, it licenses the union. Governmentally speaking, there is no difference between laws covering who may marry and the requirements for getting a driver's license.

I never said "sanctify" I said "sanction" there is a difference between the words, one deals with religion the other is simply approving of. I don't think it is the government's place to approve of an individual's actions in this way. The Constitution was set up so that the Majority does not have simple rule and limits were set on the Government that are consistently crossed by one side or the other.

So long as the majority of Americans oppose homosexual unions, then that's the way it is. Those who disagree will just have to suck it up. (oops - unfortunate choice of words there).

Majority can only rule directly in a direct Democracy, which the US is not. We have a Representative Democracy with limits set upon the government. The assumption that just because the majority feels this way it should be a law is often unfounded.

While I don't think these specific laws are unconstitutional I do think that we have allowed the role of government to enter too much into our personal lives and for the simplest of reasons. Marriages have not been government controlled throughout our entire history, it was only after the government found that it could make money through the practice of "licensing" a marriage that such regulation began to cross the religious barrier and into civil life.

 

[dmp]

I am looking for reasons why a married hetero should oppose extending civil union status to same-sex couples. I have actually read through this entire thread and haven't found a single one. .

Again, this lends to my theory of your insanity. Nobody with a normal mental state would be able to read through this entire post and not find 'one' reason to oppose same-sex-unions. There are literally dozens of reasons listed - some are better argued than others; but even those which can't be argued well are still 'reasons'.

(sigh).

 

[Merlin]

Majority can only rule directly in a direct Democracy, which the US is not. We have a Representative Democracy with limits set upon the government. The assumption that just because the majority feels this way it should be a law is often unfounded.

While I don't think these specific laws are unconstitutional I do think that we have allowed the role of government to enter too much into our personal lives and for the simplest of reasons. Marriages have not been government controlled throughout our entire history, it was only after the government found that it could make money through the practice of "licensing" a marriage that such regulation began to cross the religious barrier and into civil life.

I have to agree with most of your statement. However, I don't agree with having a Representative Democracy. We do have a representative republic though, which meant majority rules. Our founding fathers went to great lengths to see to it that we didn't have any kind of democracy. The word isn't even in the Constitution. It was coined later.

 

[no1tovote4]

I have to agree with most of your statement. However, I don't agree with having a Representative Democracy. We do have a representative republic though, which meant majority rules. Our founding fathers went to great lengths to see to it that we didn't have any kind of democracy. The word isn't even in the Constitution. It was coined later.

Yes, I should have used Republic. The very reason that it isn't Democracy is because that even if laws are voted in that cross the lines of power directly given to the government they can be struck down. This makes it so that majority does not rule in every case, and it is fortunately so.

I should add again that I think the laws on marriage are constitutional, but just because something is constitutional does not mean that it should be done. I, personally, would put further restriction on the government than did the founding fathers.

 

[5stringJeff]

I am looking for reasons why a married hetero should oppose extending civil union status to same-sex couples. I have actually read through this entire thread and haven't found a single one. There are repeated references to belief systems and social theory but no specific explanation of how gay marriage will cost me money, limit my freedom or in any other concrete, objective way hurt me in my actual life. If someone has a list of reasons, please post it. I want to read it, not argue with you about it. Non-specific answers will be ignored (by me, at least). Thank you.

Using your logic, I could argue that murder should be legalized in New England, because it's not costing me money, limiting my freedom, or hurting me in my life, since I live on the West Coast.

 

[mrsx]

I'll toss in just one specific regarding how this will cost you money. One of the stated reasons that homosexuals want marriage or civil unions deals with emplyer provided health care. Homosexuals want their union to be legally blessed so that the partner who works for an employer who provides a health care plan can now get that coverage extended to his/her "spouse".

Given the fact that the disease rate, particularly among male homosexuals is rampant, this will place an even greater burden on employers who are already have difficulty dealing with the astronomical costs of employee health insurance programs.

Thank you for this interesting point.

 

[Minuteman]

Think about this for a minute, Homosexuality becomes the norm. 200 years from now there are no male, female relationships. How long do you think it will take for the human race to die off?

Do you really think homosexuals will turn STRAIGHT people GAY??? Can you explain that logic.

 

[mrsx]

Using your logic, I could argue that murder should be legalized in New England, because it's not costing me money, limiting my freedom, or hurting me in my life, since I live on the West Coast.

Go ahead. Why not stick to the topic? Your assumption of the interchangability of murder and gay marriage is tendentious. Your assumption of the contrapositive (that unless there is immediate harm to you there is no basis for prohibition) invalid. I like your tats, though.

 

[007]

Go ahead. Why not stick to the topic? Your assumption of the interchangability of murder and gay marriage is tendentious. Your assumption of the contrapositive (that unless there is immediate harm to you there is no basis for prohibition) invalid. I like your tats, though.

Since you so vehemently argue in support of this vile and disgusting sickness, I wonder, are you a queer yourself?

 

[mrsx]

Since you so vehemently argue in support of this vile and disgusting sickness, I wonder, are you a queer yourself?

I am not arguing in support of gay marriage. I ask those who oppose it to show me how legalizing gay marriage would hurt me. I am not gay, I have never had any lesbian experience. At my age, I might be tempted to give it a whirl, though - what have I got to lose?

 

[dmp]

Go ahead. Why not stick to the topic? Your assumption of the interchangability of murder and gay marriage is tendentious. Your assumption of the contrapositive (that unless there is immediate harm to you there is no basis for prohibition) invalid. I like your tats, though.

Uh...crazy-person...he's applying YOUR 'logic'.

Here's what you wrote, to justify homo-marriage:

no specific explanation of how gay marriage will cost me money, limit my freedom or in any other concrete, objective way hurt me in my actual life

Jeff was reminding you the 'test' to see if laws should be passed don't include those factors.

(sigh).

 

[Avatar4321]

Go ahead. Why not stick to the topic? Your assumption of the interchangability of murder and gay marriage is tendentious. Your assumption of the contrapositive (that unless there is immediate harm to you there is no basis for prohibition) invalid. I like your tats, though.

um, thats what you guys are arguing. that if there is no harm to us individually from gay marriage then there is no basis for prohibiting it. Which is a bunch of BS. Which i think was the point of the analogy.

And murder and gay marriage are easily interchangible. Both are wrong. Both are actions that occur when you disrespect life and death. Life and death are serious matters and have serious consequences on the rest of society.

 

[mrsx]

um, thats what you guys are arguing. that if there is no harm to us individually from gay marriage then there is no basis for prohibiting it. Which is a bunch of BS. Which i think was the point of the analogy.

And murder and gay marriage are easily interchangible. Both are wrong. Both are actions that occur when you disrespect life and death. Life and death are serious matters and have serious consequences on the rest of society.

Please explain the "life and death" dimension of gay marriage.

 

[dmp]

um, thats what you guys are arguing. that if there is no harm to us individually from gay marriage then there is no basis for prohibiting it. Which is a bunch of BS. Which i think was the point of the analogy.

And murder and gay marriage are easily interchangible. Both are wrong. Both are actions that occur when you disrespect life and death. Life and death are serious matters and have serious consequences on the rest of society.

...both the Homosexual and the Murderer act on impulses...they act on 'something from within'...they could be 'born that way' maybe, so to excuse their behaviour as 'normal'. After all, ANIMALS kill eachother...we should sanction MURDEROUS Relationships.

 

[Trinity]

So I guess we are going to beat this dead horse again!

 

[Avatar4321]

I am not arguing in support of gay marriage. I ask those who oppose it to show me how legalizing gay marriage would hurt me. I am not gay, I have never had any lesbian experience. At my age, I might be tempted to give it a whirl, though - what have I got to lose?

Self respect?

 

[Joz]

So I guess we are going to beat this dead horse again!

Apparently.
But as each new person arrives......
History repeats itself.

 

[Avatar4321]

Please explain the "life and death" dimension of gay marriage.

1) Both murder and homosexuality dramaticly shortens a persons life expectancy.

2) Everything that involves marriage and sex involves life. And you disrespect life and death when you are irresponsible with the power to give or take life.

I am always amazed at some people who seem to think that their sexual conduct effects nobody and nothing. It's short sighted. the power to create life is one that is given to almost all people. And with great power comes great responsibility. Those who dont act responsibly will regret it someday. and their actions will effect GENERATIONS of society. When are people going to wake up and realize there actions have consequences on all of society and not just themselves.