I don't know that you can slough off at least 5,000 years of marriage being between men and women. You see it one way, someone else sees it another way. To some, based on their beliefs (which may not be held in a state of malice at all), same sex marriage might seem little different than allowing marriage between humans and dogs or cats (something PETA might soon be arguing for, since they seem intent on giving animals human-like rights).
I don't think you're taking the opposition seriously enough.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not taking one side or the other here. Just saying it's very easy to be so enthusiastic for one's own view that one can't empathize with those who hold the other view.
Don't always assume that people who disagree with you have evil ulterior motives.
After all, it's simply a dispute over a word, as long as the rights are the same. A rose by any other name...no?
Like I said, I'm not taking one side or the other, but I'm happy to play Devil's Advocate.
But why should we be slaves to history anyway? Same-sex marriage is a perfectly logical application of the term 'marriage' that reflects the current values of a growing number of regions. It's the exact same union as current heterosexual marriages only with a different anatomical arrangement.
Why be slaves to the history that marriage always involves humans. Already we hear of people wanting to marry a pet or their girlfriend's corpse. You want a logical reason? Okay, it's simply obviously the first gentle angle in what is a slippery slope we can already see ahead of us.
No. If there is going to be a legal discrepancy, it has to be rationally justified.
Perhaps, but the discepancy is more linguistic than legal. A legal definition would have a legally relevant distinction, but it sounds like a case where the only difference is a word with no distinction in terms of rights (property and inheritance rights, rights to parent children, rights to visit their mate when they are in the hospital). You're arguing about a distinction without a difference, and you're making well-meaning traditionalists unhappy with no particular intent, it seems, then to make them unhappy.
The slope STARTS with heterosexual marriage? By that logic, EVERYTHING that exists is the start of a slope. Private property is the start of a slide toward state ownership. Long skirts are the start of a slope toward short skirts. Healthy living is the start of a slope toward ill health. No, the status quo is a plateau.
Remember, I'm still playing Devil's Advocate here, but doesn't it make more sense for a rational justification AWAY from what's been the case for thousands of years? Why is it that new ways don't have to justify themselves by proving they are equal to or better than traditions?
If you''re basing your support on an appeal to Justice, then prove that it's more just to the children of gay couples to be raised in gay families than in heterosexual families. Prove that it's a better world if we use the word "marriage" instead of "union" (or whatever the word is in Australia).
When people insist on change, it is clear that the burden of proof is on them, not on those in the traditional position. Why, because the tradition exists through some process proving that it is successful, better, or that there is a need for it. A process akin to natural selection.
Something new cannot make a claim for itself without attacking whatever it seeks to set aside.
So far, I see no proof.
The problem with civil unions is that they lack portability. If same-sex marriage is not recognized federally, any rights that you have been given by your civil union, whether they be the same as marriage or not, are not recognized as soon as you leave the state. That is not equal.
And on the note of people always jumping to the conclusion that we are on the slope of people being allowed to marry their pets or girlfriends corpse.. how is it that this leap is made? It's not even comparable. Talking about same-sex marriage is still under the presumption that we are talking about two adults giving their mutual consent to enter into a marriage. It is not comparable to a pet or corpse or what have you, that cannot consent.
That can be fixed and probably will be once the Supreme Court deals with the question.
I agree completely. Giving the lgbt community a separate but equal status just deems them second class citizens. It's just saying that even though they may deserve equal rights, they are not deserving of a marriage.
You know, a lot has to do with one's attitude. Reading into it something that wasn't intended. I'm sure everyone who worked so hard to give gays equal rights had no idea their good deed would be sending a "You don't deserve marriage" message.
What evidence do you have that it has anything to do with what gays deserve? Were there, in the debates leading to the legislation anyone testifying "Gays don't deserve to have this labeled 'marriage'?" I doubt it.
In the end, we are all responsible for our feelings and how we respond to what happens to us. Don't make it someone else's responsibility, especially when a lot of hetero legislators took a big risk by bucking the sentiments of a huge part of the electorate.
I'm sure some of the legislators who spent a huge amount of political capital to give gays equal rights are having that "No good deed goes unpunished" feeling.
None whatsoever unless they have a really bad band organised for the reception. The chances of that are very slight though. That would be my main concern.
None. There is no argument a secular and non against gay marriage. People need to grow up.
Shouldn't it be their choice to pass on or not pass on their genes? Also, if a woman marries another woman...she can still get pregnant...
TL;DR not exactly a "good" argument....probably the best one so far...
People can successfully pass on genes without being married, so I don't believe gay marriage bears any effect on that.
If the only argument that can be found is about procreation, and procreation can be done without marriage, this still inevitably down the line falls into a theological argument. Why?
- because religious belief states that we should be married first in order to procreate. Physiologically, we are still able to make babies as unwed lesbian mothers. It has been brought up that if marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then infertile couples, post-menopausal women, and couples that choose not to have children should not allowed to be married either. Clearly, this is not the sole purpose of marriage.
Again, playing devil's advocate here, but gay-marriage opponents would go beyond just procreation, and say that gay marriage goes against the traditional family structure, so the kids would be lacking proper mother/father figures, which, they would argue, will have negative effects on their development.
But it's still bullshit.