Who does homosexuality hurt?

[limey]

Originally Posted by dar512

How to phrase this...

I can fairly confidently say that that's not it.

[smirk]

[Aliantha]

Oh so you've already tried it or no the thought of the bottom/poo thing doesn't turn you off?

[Aliantha]

Because God said so!

[Elspode]

No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?

I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.

Go ahead. Try it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Elspode

No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?

I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.

Go ahead. Try it.

None of that was in the title of the thread.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

None of that was in the title of the thread.

That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.

Certainly you could make a case that since there was no other kind of marriage in history that the term "traditional Marriage" only came about because people who were gay wanted to marry and it now introduced an alternative to marriage as everyone knows it. Certainly there is history to it. Arranged marriages were not the status in quo in most cultures, same for dowerys. None of those things were part of US culture. And certainly it has changed over history, and certainly there is this new thing where same sex couples can marry, but to say that "traditonal marriage", as defined between and man and a woman, does not change history. Those who don't support this idea, chose a common theme against it and stuck with just that, because it is not in alignment with what they want. Just a different point of view. I personally don't have to much of an opinion on it.

[Aliantha]

You can't have the argument without including God in the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.

ETA: You can't refuse to acknowledge one side of an argument just because you don't agree with it imo. It is a part of the argument/social discourse and therefore cannot simply be set aside as it forms a part of how society views the issue.

What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You can't have the argument without including God into the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.

Not in my theology, it doesn't. And I'm real mod.

What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.[/quote]

In the Constitution of the United States, there's a separation of Church and State (work with me, okay, Radar? TW?).

Marriage, as seen by law, is a *contract*. Its a business deal, pure and simple. Otherwise, when the marriage fails, there'd be no need to divide the property and income into the future and such.

My point is this: Marriage is a contract that is only currently available to heterosexuals. Why? Don't just tell me " 'cause that's how it is".

Tell me *why*...seriously, why?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You can't have the argument without including God in the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.

And in even more modern history ( and most of us also live in even this level of modernity) it has been perfectly possible to do so before a justice and witnesses. The religious argument only applies to marriages performed by a religion - and different religions will have different rules.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And in even more modern history ( and most of us also live in even this level of modernity) it has been perfectly possible to do so before a justice and witnesses. The religious argument only applies to marriages performed by a religion - and different religions will have different rules.

That's true, however prior to the middle of this century, it was generally people whose relationship was not sanctioned by family that chose this route, or of course quick weddings before the man went off to war.

Even in many civil ceremonies God still gets a mention.

[Elspode]

I still don't see an argument that addresses the ultimate basic notion of marriage as a simple contract.

God in, God out. Marriage before a JOP or a Priest.

*WHY* can't gay people get legally married? Why can straight people do so without question?

"That's just the way it is" does *not* answer my query. I want to hear opinions as to why it is illegal for gay people to enter into the legally binding state of matrimony.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

That's true, however prior to the middle of this century, it was generally people whose relationship was not sanctioned by family that chose this route,
...

And/or, as with gays, people whose relationship wasn't sanctioned by their religions, i.e. mixed-religion marriage.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And/or, as with gays, people whose relationship wasn't sanctioned by their religions, i.e. mixed-religion marriage.

That's true HM. Of course it's also true that often times the family is driven by their religion when they make these sorts of 'judgements'.

[Aliantha]

ok then. The reason is that too many people sit around complaining about it and not enough actually get up off their butts and do something about it, such as protesting, raising community awareness etc.

On the other hand, 20 or even 15 years ago, gay people had it a lot tougher than they do now. At least they have a reasonable chance of walking down the road without having the crap bashed out of them these days.

Change in this regard - that is changing the social structure of the environment - happens slowly, but at a much faster rate than ever before. Maybe it's still not fast enough, but to use your words, 'that's how it is'.

Personally I don't care if gay people get married or live in sin or live their life however they choose, just as I feel about straight people, or people who aren't sure about their sexuality, or people who choose to have open marriages even. I don't have any reason to stop anyone from living their personal relationships how the choose to, but some people do, and to most of those that do, it comes down to religious beliefs or social beliefs.

Saying that God has nothing to do with the discussion is like saying you don't like how rain makes puddles, so let's only talk about the puddles that appear because of other things.