Quote:This thread is not whether you yourself would *like* homosexuals getting married, nor is it about whether you think homosexuality is a sin/immoral/otherwise not good. The question being asked is simply, "Do you think we should allow, in the United States of America, a ban on homosexual marriage?" What I am asking is simply a question of legality and civil rights, secularity, not theocracy. Far too often does the question of gay rights devolve into a religious one rather than a secular one.

I am in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. Civil Unions are not enough. There are 1,049 federal rights and provisions specific to marriage and not civil unions, along with (on average) about 400 state rights. One such right is hospital visitation. Imagine, for a second, that your spouse (assuming you are married) gets into a car accident and is sent to the hospital with a very poor condition. (S)he is floating in and out of consciousness, and cannot speak. However, you are not allowed to visit, as you are not considered "family". This is absolutely unacceptable. Policies and laws whose goals are to provide separate but equal rights only obtain half of that which they set out for.

“...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...” (excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment)

To save time, I'm going to refute some of the opposition's argument before they have a chance to make it.

THE SLIPPERY-SLOPES ARGUMENT
"If you allow a man to marry another man, then what's to stop a man from marrying his dog, or his toaster, or a child?"
The problem with this argument is that pets, children, and household objects have no legal standing in court and cannot sign a marriage contract.
"And what about a man who wants to marry three wives?"
Well, I really have no problem with polygamy, so you're going to have to ask this one to someone else. The current marriage benefits would have to be rewritten, though.

THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE ARGUMENT
"Allowing homosexuals to get married would degrade the value of marriage."
Now for the sanctimonious bologna (see, I kept my message clean!). Hate to bring this up, as it is such a cliché nowadays, but when Britney Spears marriages are allowed... Or when people can get married by an Elvis impersonator, that's not exactly what anyone would define as sanctimonious (well, you could, but you'd be wrong). The Census Bureau of America estimates ~50% divorce rate, yet you still call it sanctimonious.
If anything, allowing homosexual marriage would at least lower the average divorce rate. The reasoning behind this is simple. Many homosexuals have worked hard to get these rights, and thus would have it as very important. Not many would want to throw away what has been worked for so hard.

THE TRADITION/MARRIAGE IS A CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION/REDIFINING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ARGUMENTS
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman under god, and has always been this way. Don't go about trying to redefine words to suit your purpose."
Marriage predates Christianity. So unless whomever first thought up this whole "marriage thing" happened to be a pre-Christ Egyptian Nostradamus... I mean, the earliest recorded marriage was somewhere around 500 BC, if my memory serves me correctly. And many Egyptologists agree that it had been around long (millennia) before that.
Also, if you'd all really like to go back to the traditional Christian marriage, there would be no divorces. There would be no marriages between people of differing color. There would be no marriage between people with differing socioeconomic status. Woman would be property. This, of course, would all be ignoring a little thing I like to refer to as secularity, more commonly known as the separation of church and state (as ruled by Gitlow vs. New York). The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Never be so deeply rooted in traditions so that your only reason for doing things is that they've always been done that way before.

THE UNNATURAL ARGUMENT
“Homosexuality is unnatural, and thus should be illegal.”
Unnatural? This argument is so bad; I’m going to refute it not once, not twice, but three times!!

Let’s just assume for a moment, that if something occurs fairly regularly in nature, it is, in fact, natural. I think it’s something along the lines of 90% of all male elephants have actively participated in homosexual sex. That’s just one example, and I can cite more if you’d like, and back it up with links.

Or if you’d prefer: Much like eyeglasses, synthetic fibers, and marriage itself.

Or how about: Why is it that, just because something is different, people feel it should be illegal? What harm is done to anyone? In fact, I’d say homosexuality is, in fact, better than heterosexuality. You see, hundreds of thousands of children (in the US alone) have no parents. Adoption is a very important option. And seeing as we aren’t close to the risk of being under populated, it lessens the need for more food.

THE ALLOWING IT WOULD ENCOURAGE IMMORAL BEHAVIOUR ARGUMENT
Many scientists are saying that it is genetic. So this argument is akin to saying “Allowing short people to get married would encourage other people to become short.”
(Note: This argument also rests on the [in my opinion, of course] fallacious idea that homosexuality is, in fact, immoral.)

Quote:Most states have the minimum age that someone has to get married. Now that would have to be apply to homosexuals.

Minionman,Aug 16 2004, 10:51 PM Wrote:With the crackhouse comment people could start an argument about legalizing drugs.

Anyway, the main difference between how a crackhouse and gay people effect society is that actual stasticics seem to show that a crackhouse would increase crime, and probably has other effects that have been shown bt that I can't think of right now, with little or no positives.  Allowing gay marriages, and improved gay rights in general, hurts some people's belief systems, but for sure it helps another group of people psycologically by getting them more accepted, into the prycologiand letting them cal advantages of marriage, which has more of an effect than the belief systems.  A crack house has actual negative effects, while having better gay rights has some negative effects that people know for sure happen, but also some positive ones that are worth more than the negative ones that people know for sure will happen.  Whether better gay rights destroy the "moral fabric" is something that people disagree on, and also is something nobody can show. 

I mention gay rights because gay marriage is a part of them and my opinions stretch to other arguments that may come up.

About whether the argument is infallible, no ti isn't, but it's still pretty good.

Quote:About this issue in the US (I have to talk about the US because in my country gay marriage is allowed): what does the land of the free exactly mean?

Quote:And more specifically why would a country, especially a first world country (one that is a "melting pot" of cultures) make it illegal for gays to marry?

Quote:And especially in the US, (politicians are always talking how great the US because everybody is free and can think, say and do everything they want) it seems strange to me that something (with which you harm absolutely nobody) like gay marriage is not allowed.

Quote:So does that actually mean that " the land of the free" is only for heterosexuals?

Quote:Nothing I said was "emotional". Some of my positions were definetly opinion, but I think I showed the the counter arguements were also matters of opinion.

Nantuko_Primus,Aug 16 2004, 07:17 PM Wrote:Opposing gay marriage implies some degree of fear of homosexuals, and I just don't see where that's coming from. Technically, gay marriage is constitutional in my view since all people have the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness according to the United State's of America's constitution.

Summary: I used tags, It's the pursuit of happiness, which is in the first sentence of the constitution.

Minionman,Aug 17 2004, 10:45 AM Wrote:You did make your point though about the "infallible" bit.

unrealshadow13,Aug 17 2004, 10:40 AM Wrote:

Quote:Nothing I said was "emotional". Some of my positions were definetly opinion, but I think I showed the the counter arguements were also matters of opinion.

Maybe I'm a little unclear on what you've said your posts? Can you recap all of your arguments that were solid facts and infalliable logic?

kandrathe,Aug 17 2004, 11:53 AM Wrote:Tradition
You then attempt to use the First Amendment argument to justify secularity, while the converse of that argument is the reality.  The state shall impose no law restricting the practice of religion.  In effect the attempt by the state to define marriage is contrary to the First Amendment.

Quote:In essence what the Government is legislating is who may apply for a marriage license and who may not. This in itself brings up its own problems as that goes contrary to the prevailing doctrine of citizens being equal in the eyes of the law.

Quote:I'm thinking that this question will actually play out in the Supreme Court after a state makes a law declaring marriages between gays illegal. I then expect someone will sue under Amendment XIV of the Bill of Rights. That is of course if the Federals don't pass their own amendment. I expect that will also be challenged as unconstitutional under Amendment XIV.