Gay Marriage: Thoughts, Opinions, etc. (Denver, legal, activist, state)

[Cunucu Beach]

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Sure -

1) To extend all marriage-related rights, benefits, and protections to all relationships between consenting adults.

That's the goal, not the reasons behind wanting to legalize gay marriage.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

That's weird. Multiple people in a marriage. A bisexual with a husband and wife. A man with a harem like mormons, or muslims.

And I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks so.

And I think the idea that you only get one soulmate (or one life, for that matter) is weird.

But, everyone's different.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Leisesturm

There are many, many hetero couples who get married by a justice of the peace for civil reasons and later get married in a church for religious ones. There are even more who get married in church for religious and civil reasons. The church wedding is the gold standard and marriage as a religious institution has much more prominence than marriage as a civil construct. That is the way it is. It is disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst for gays that want a Christian marriage to say that they simply want parity on civil grounds. They already do. Civil Unions no longer raise eyebrows anywhere in the United States. I know gay couples that have taken care of their civil protections quite well with the tools already provided in every state of the Union.

When that is not enough it is a sure sign that the gay couple involved want a wedding and the pomp and ceremony and the husband/husband or wife/wife perversion of the Holy Institution of Marriage. I haven't heard a convincing argument for why after thousands of years of sustaining the institution of marriage as a mainly religious construct that religious people should offer the social significance of the act to individuals who cannot ever hope to meet the basic requirements for marriage as it exists.

Why is that so hard to understand? Really. Why? If you worked your a@@ off and paid a couple hundred grand to become a medical doctor you might be angry as all get out if the AMA started recognizing medical degrees from abroad by individuals who offered absolutely no proof whatsoever of being qualified doctors i.e. a satisfactory score on American State Boards. Their medical boards would say "get over yourselves", "stop being protectionist", "you're making plenty of money in your fancy practice, why do you care if Indian, Chinese or Japanese doctors come over and start practices without any certification". What you won't see or hear is qualified American doctors arguing for the relaxation of standards to allow the inclusion of unvetted individuals. Its a pride thing.

H

You might want to research marriage. The Holy Institution of Marriage you speak of, is a modern concept, and a controversial one at that. Martin Luther wanted Christianity to have no part in marriage.

Marriage has not been religious in nature for thousands of years. It began, and has primarily been a business contract between families since before recorded history.

Please educate yourself before spreading false information.

[Dampylle]

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

So far, the reasonings have been:

1) We should abolish all marriage instead

That looks earily like Exclusive Middle Fallacy... only hetero marriage or no marriage at all... extremes with no median

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

2) My religious beliefs say no

Appeal to Belief Fallacy from the looks of it... personal beliefs religous or otherwise to not proof make nor law dictate... in this case they do however contradict certain legal documents and amendments.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

3) They're icky and should stay out of view

That one looks suspiciously like Appeal to Emotion... ie "I don't like it is it is wrong"

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

4) There's no discrimination as everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender.

False Cause (the inability to marry at all is not the cause of discrimination), Straw Man (focusing on the ability to marry the opposite sex to the exclusion of inability to marry the same sex), and again... limiting or amending freedoms is still kind of illegal.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

5) We can't redefine marriage

Terms are redifined all the time... so that is pretty blatant Assertion Fallacy... it is how languages evolve and adapt after all.... in fact the only definition of marriage that mentions gender at all is the legal one which is in question as to being unconstitutional in several courts at the moment. Mariam Webster and Oxford list several definitions not related to the legal pretext which make no mention of gender at all.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

6) Same-sex couples are killed in muslim countries

Hasty Generalization (Country A kills for it, so country B should not allow it either).... also dangerously close to Red Herring as foreign policy is not relevant to US law and mentioning it kind of distracts from the actual issue.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

7) Beastiality is next!

Slippery Slope Fallacy (making an exagerated or extreme comment or offering such a result without any logical progression to support it).... as well as Assertion Fallacy since animals can not enter into a legal contract at all.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

8) 70-year old grandmas and their 10 year old boyfriends are next

More Slippery Slope and Assertion (see above, only substitute Minor without legal ability to consent or enter contract for Animal with no legal rights)

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

9) Polygamy is next!

More Slippery Slope (this fallacy seems pretty popular for this)

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

10) They can get everything with a POA

Assertion Fallacy.... especially since POA only grants the access to resources and ability to sign contracts, it grants no additional legal rights, protections, or benefits... cant take time off without fear of losing your job, can not make use of their insurance, and property is not communal (ownership remains unchanged, you just are granted the right to sign off on said property should the owner be unable to do so)

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

11) They can't have children through "normal" means

More Red Herring it seems... ability to conceive naturally is not the question, the ability to marry is. Also a dash of False Cause Fallacy... hetero couples with sterility or medical issues often can not conceive normally either.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

12) Marriage has always been 1man/1woman

More Assertion Fallacy... as was mentioned earlier the only definition of marriage that mentions gender is the legal one... well unless you resort to a Theocracy argument, which would just be more Red Herring since America is not a Theocracy.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

13) The majority is against homosexual marriage

So... more Appeal Fallacy... with a dash of Assertion Fallacy.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

14) Gays are crazy in the head

Pretty blatant Ad Hominem, with a dash of obvious Assertion... and in ignorance of the fact that one who is "crazy" can not enter into any legal contract (hell technically if you are impaired a contract is not binding) and the fact that homosexuals can in fact enter into contracts... kind of proves this wrong.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Any others?

Given that none of them were really very logical... I would hope not...

Plus there is that whole "limiting or amending rights of citizens without legal cause" being illegal thing to consider.... if you limit who they can marry, and there is no act in the limited marriage that is in of itself illegal.... then the act of limiting the marriage right itself is technically illegal on grounds of violation of certain clauses of certain amendments.

[LuckyGem]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

You might want to research marriage. The Holy Institution of Marriage you speak of, is a modern concept, and a controversial one at that. Martin Luther wanted Christianity to have no part in marriage.

Marriage has not been religious in nature for thousands of years. It began, and has primarily been a business contract between families since before recorded history.

Please educate yourself before spreading false information.

I'm still waiting for someone to post a link to something scholarly about gays marrying historically.

[gallowsCalibrator]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

I guess what people here are saying is that all the sexually confused or frustrated and mentally unbalanced people should have it their way.

A la-carte laws. Pick and choose what suits you and then create a society around it?

14) Gays are crazy in the head (Yet can sign legal contracts, be held for crime, etc)

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

That's weird. Multiple people in a marriage.

And I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Not really. Even the Bible contains polygamous relationships. As long as all persons involved are consenting and able to give consent, I don't see a problem with it.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Sorry, but the only reason any societies have their government endorse marriage is because of children. Or do you think it because we all like a lot of people with the same last name, or we love weddings and cakes and people kissing?

I think people just like Weddings. Have you see the fiasco over William and Kate's 20 million dollar wedding? Do you think people really give a crap right now about making sure children are part of the picture (aside from the royal heir issue)?

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

I'm still waiting for someone to post a link to something scholarly about gays marrying historically.

Just like I'm waiting for a reason why that's relevant to modern times.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Said you should deny people Civil Rights if the voters approve.



That is denying Civil Rights.

Nope. I said we should restrict people from marrying people of the opposite gender. That is not denying civil rights. Everyone can still get married--and everyone has the exact same rights.

The fact that men can't marry men is irrelevant. I can't marry another man either.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

The fact that men can't marry men is irrelevant. I can't marry another man either.

Which doesn't make it any less discriminatory.