Who is harmed by same-sex marriage?

[Frisivisia]

State intervention encourages marriage and staying in marriage, and marriage helps society.

Maybe it's just pathological then, but my experience says otherwise. I tend to see state intervention encouraging marriage and staying in marriage - including troubled and abusive marriages that negatively affect children.

While I agree that state policy can encourage marriage and discourage divorce, I'm not so sure there's a real net positive effect for society.

You take the good, you take the bad, you take it all, and there you have, the facts of life. Net good.

[Free Detroit]

I'm already regretting saying this, but if you want to win these big social battles, you sort of have to "Jew" them a little bit.

"Compromise" every time your opponents give ground, but never be satisfied. Take them apart piecemeal.

Hahaha. So we're still working with that liberal conspiracy that will eventually legalize bestiality and every other sort of abomination against god and country? Check, got it.

[Valentir]

No one but some people view as wrong because of personal or religious beliefs. I for one don't care. Do what you want but do not drag me into it.

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm already regretting saying this, but if you want to win these big social battles, you sort of have to "Jew" them a little bit.

"Compromise" every time your opponents give ground, but never be satisfied. Take them apart piecemeal.

Hahaha. So we're still working with that liberal conspiracy that will eventually legalize bestiality and every other sort of abomination against god and country? Check, got it.

By the time I'm done with society, it will be impossible not to commit bestiality because everyone will be a furry! Mwahahaha!

[Quintium]

I'll tell you who's harmed by same-sex marriage - taxpayers! If same-sex marriage is allowed, yet more people will be able to register their marriage with the government and receive unfair tax breaks and special treatment. I think the government should stay out of marriage altogether. It shouldn't recognise any type of marriage, and should leave it to social or religious communities. The government's only task in this matter should be to make sure people don't marry children or animals, but that's an extension of the normal police task to find out and prevent instances of pedophilia and bestiality.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'll tell you who's harmed by same-sex marriage - taxpayers! If same-sex marriage is allowed, yet more people will be able to register their marriage with the government and receive unfair tax breaks and special treatment. I think the government should stay out of marriage altogether. It shouldn't recognise any type of marriage, and should leave it to social or religious communities.

Why?

I mean, I can almost see the idea of taking government out of it, although that's obviously a terrible idea... but what possible advantage is gained from letting religious busybodies decide what someone else should be allowed to do?

[Amaterasu]

Bigots.

[Urmanian]

y'now, I've been thinking..."government should have no place in marriage" is more often than not not a genuine libertarian standpoint, but a rallying cry of bigots who, having spent their "jebbes sed so!!!1" and "its unnutrul!!11" ammunition take a "if gays can have it, let no one have it!" stance and begin advocating completely doing away with the current legal implications of marriage and leaving it almost exclusively in the church's clutches. but wouldn't removing the countless legal implications, obligations and rights associated currently with marriage in the current state of society hurt it, and redefine the current concept of marriage, far more than any polygamic gay marriage ever could?

[Tekania]

I live above a chapel that marries gays and whenever they ring the bells I get a nosebleed.

Which means you're harmed by ringing bells, not same-sex marriage. Unless you propose that when they ring bells for heterosexual marriages you wouldn't (in which case I would advise you going to see a psychiatrist, is that would likely be psychosomatic.

[Tekania]

I do have a thing for lost causes, it's true... and, it's not like I would vote against gay marriage.

But, still, I'd like to see some laundry aired one of these days.

I'm already regretting saying this, but if you want to win these big social battles, you sort of have to "Jew" them a little bit.

"Compromise" every time your opponents give ground, but never be satisfied. Take them apart piecemeal.

You're talking to a radical..... a radical is like a theoretician..... their ideas are useful to pull from, but there is no realistic or practical way to integrate their whole. Their entire philosophy is built around a set of non-existent idealisms.... ie, a state where "spherical chickens in a vacuum" would be a realistic state, to pull a BBT reference.

I have some private radical ideas myself, being a parecon.... I merely just self filter as I know there is no practical way to implement it directly or immediately.... and as such fight the battles I can win. A form of ideological triage, you could say.

[Saigonias]

Closed minded, hypocritical, old conservative republicans. And westbro baptist church.

[Northern Dominus]

y'now, I've been thinking..."government should have no place in marriage" is more often than not not a genuine libertarian standpoint, but a rallying cry of bigots who, having spent their "jebbes sed so!!!1" and "its unnutrul!!11" ammunition take a "if gays can have it, let no one have it!" stance and begin advocating completely doing away with the current legal implications of marriage and leaving it almost exclusively in the church's clutches. but wouldn't removing the countless legal implications, obligations and rights associated currently with marriage in the current state of society hurt it, and redefine the current concept of marriage, far more than any polygamic gay marriage ever could?

It would, and therin you see the mentality of people opposed to marriage equality.

It's like dealing with an especially selfish 3 year old. The 3 year old doesn't want to share this awesome thing that they have, and if any other person tries to take that awesome thing the 3 year old will try to keep it away, scream like they're being stabbed multiple times, try to eat it, and eventually attempt to destroy the awesome thing permanently, rather than share and still have access to it later.

[Tsuken]

I believe it can hurt possibly many people. If the government puts their stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, then polygamists and MAPs will use the same arguements to get polygamy and pedophilia legalized. And where will that lead?

[Gurvine of Grimoria]

It would harm the straight people who think they're special. Marriage is a stupid idea anyway. "I love you so much, let's get the churches, lawyers and government involved!" If you love someone, live with them. Have children with them. Don't cheat on them. Blah-blah-blah. You shouldn't have to bet half your stuff that you can love them for longer than they can love you, that's just BS.

[Northern Dominus]

I believe it can hurt possibly many people. If the government puts their stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, then polygamists and MAPs will use the same arguements to get polygamy and pedophilia legalized. And where will that lead?

It willl lead to that slippery slope argument you postulated...and then nowhere. Because the only people who think that slope is slippery...or an incline at all have a tenuous grasp on reality and history.

See, that argument's been made before, only instead of same-sex marriage being the abomination it was interracial marriage. And wouldn't you know it, the Supreme Court smacked that down as well.

History is not on your side. Might want to examine where you're standing and just how shaky the ground is.

[Urmanian]

I believe it can hurt possibly many people. If the government puts their stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, then polygamists and MAPs will use the same arguements to get polygamy and pedophilia legalized. And where will that lead?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[Tsuken]

I believe it can hurt possibly many people. If the government puts their stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, then polygamists and MAPs will use the same arguements to get polygamy and pedophilia legalized. And where will that lead?

It willl lead to that slippery slope argument you postulated...and then nowhere. Because the only people who think that slope is slippery...or an incline at all have a tenuous grasp on reality and history.

See, that argument's been made before, only instead of same-sex marriage being the abomination it was interracial marriage. And wouldn't you know it, the Supreme Court smacked that down as well.

History is not on your side. Might want to examine where you're standing and just how shaky the ground is.

The government eventually realized that you cannot infringe people's rights based on something they cannot change (in this situation, it was race). I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this but I believe homosexuality is a choice. And it most definitely is a slippery slope. It is even hard to define what a homosexual is.

[Nui Magna]

Considering people in some polygamist relationships likely do love each other, I don't think it's an extreme slippery slope to say polygamy could feasibly be legalized if the U.S. says people should be able to get married as long as they love each other. After all, isn't that the whole underlying principle of the same-gender marriage movement?

Pedophilia, on the other hand, refers to taking advantage of children; this can be countered by saying marriage ought to be between people mature enough to make legal decisions about love, preferably legal adults.

EDIT: Also, the condition of homosexuality is itself not a choice, but living a homosexual lifestyle is.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The government eventually realized that you cannot infringe people's rights based on something they cannot change (in this situation, it was race). I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this but I believe homosexuality is a choice.

You can believe what you want; doesn't make you right.

And it most definitely is a slippery slope.

Not really, no, because children, unlike adult gay men or women, can't give informed consent.

It is even hard to define what a homosexual is.

One who is attracted romantically and/or sexually to members of the same biological sex or gender, I'd say.

[Heavenly Peace]

I live above a chapel that marries gays and whenever they ring the bells I get a nosebleed.

Are you Quasimodo?

[Urmanian]

The government eventually realized that you cannot infringe people's rights based on something they cannot change (in this situation, it was race). I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this but I believe homosexuality is a choice. And it most definitely is a slippery slope. It is even hard to define what a homosexual is.

well you see, your belief is wrong. like geocentrism-wrong. sexuality is not a choice. a homosexual is someone who is attracted, sexually and romantically, to people of their own gender. see, that's easy.

besides, this does not address the topic of the thread. who is harmed by same-sex marriage and how?

[Tsuken]

The government eventually realized that you cannot infringe people's rights based on something they cannot change (in this situation, it was race). I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this but I believe homosexuality is a choice.

You can believe what you want; doesn't make you right.

And it most definitely is a slippery slope.

Not really, no, because children, unlike adult gay men or women, can't give informed consent.

It is even hard to define what a homosexual is.

One who is attracted romantically and/or sexually to members of the same biological sex or gender, I'd say.

Does the homosexual have to act on that attraction in order to be a homosexual?

[Nui Magna]

Well... it could be argued homosexuals are morally harmed by legalizing same-gender marriage because homosexual acts are immoral, but that makes two big assumptions: 1. that a certain set of morals is the correct set, and 2. that legalizing same-gender marriage means homosexuals are now obligated to be married.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

You can believe what you want; doesn't make you right.



Not really, no, because children, unlike adult gay men or women, can't give informed consent.



One who is attracted romantically and/or sexually to members of the same biological sex or gender, I'd say.

Does the homosexual have to act on that attraction in order to be a homosexual?

No, I wouldn't think so.

[Tsuken]

Does the homosexual have to act on that attraction in order to be a homosexual?

No, I wouldn't think so.

Now lets say a heterosexual participated in homosexual activity, but no longer does. Is he a homosexual?