Gay Marriage: Arguments Against, Right or Wrong?

[Pandeeria]

Human rights aren't a popularity contest, though.

There's no fundamental right to marry. It's a game made up by people, and if the players want to change the rules, it can be done. It's not like being married makes one a full-fledged citizen.

Yeah, there's a fundamental right to marriage.

[Viritica]

So... just to recap... the only real arguments against gay marriage are:
1. Jeebus says it's bad.
2. Slippery slope (gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pet rats).
3. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!111!!!!1!!1!!one!!!

All those arguments are bullshit.

[Llamalandia]

Fair enough though, I guess what i'm saying is since that's what I believe the fight should be, that basically the whole gay marriage fight and all the energy spent on it will be wasted. I mean less say the supreme court universally recognizes a right to gay marriage next year and then ten years down the line marriage is disentangled from govt, at that point gay rights advocates would be proven to have fought a pointless battle. Basically what I'm saying is is that no one should be advocating for more govt involvement in marriage when marriage is the problem to begin with.

Nobody's advocating for more government involvement in marriage. Marriage equality advocates are simply stating that same-sex couples should have the same rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage, and should receive all of the attendant benefits. That's not greater government involvement. It's a simple recognition of the equality of the relationships and the people involved in said relationships.

As far as government getting out of the marriage business entirely goes, that's fine, but I somehow don't see the movement gaining steam, and until it does, it's an irrelevant topic.

Well, gay people are. They want the state and feds to recognize their marriages. Look the way i see you don't need a govt license to be married, you want to be married ya grab a minister (or have your buddy get ordained online for $20) throw a couple a rings at each other, kiss and bing bang boom ya married. To hell with the govt and what they will or won't recognize. My point is why have more people invested in the system of state approved marriage, rather than fight to remove the state from the marriage business altogether?

[Dyakovo]

No, I don't. And quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about what you or I think about its importance. The rights and benefits associated with marriage are, in fact, substantial from an objective standpoint and helps society in general.

Actually, rights and benefits of marriage can usually be obtained through other means anyway.

No, they really can't.

[Llamalandia]

So... just to recap... the only real arguments against gay marriage are:
1. Jeebus says it's bad.
2. Slipper slope (gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pet rats).
3. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!111!!!!1!!1!!one!!!

All those arguments are bullshit.

!. I don't recall jeebus actually expressing an opinion one way or the other, or if he didn't he wasn't very clear about it as far as I've seen.
3. Children are important, arguably one could make the argument that more gay marriage is actually good for kids cause it means more potential adoptive parents.

[Dyakovo]

Also, bonobos.

Bonobos exist within humans?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nobody's advocating for more government involvement in marriage. Marriage equality advocates are simply stating that same-sex couples should have the same rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage, and should receive all of the attendant benefits. That's not greater government involvement. It's a simple recognition of the equality of the relationships and the people involved in said relationships.

As far as government getting out of the marriage business entirely goes, that's fine, but I somehow don't see the movement gaining steam, and until it does, it's an irrelevant topic.

Well, gay people are. They want the state and feds to recognize their marriages. Look the way i see you don't need a govt license to be married, you want to be married ya grab a minister (or have your buddy get ordained online for $20) throw a couple a rings at each other, kiss and bing bang boom ya married. To hell with the govt and what they will or won't recognize. My point is why have more people invested in the system of state approved marriage, rather than fight to remove the state from the marriage business altogether?

You're equating recognition with involvement. That's ridiculous.

And you don't need a government license to get married, but you do need one to get the benefits that go with marriage. You know this by now. If you want to keep arguing that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (and it's amazing how this idea only seriously started to be discussed once gay marriage started to be an actual thing), that's fine, but it's a topic for another thead.

[Dyakovo]

Nobody's advocating for more government involvement in marriage. Marriage equality advocates are simply stating that same-sex couples should have the same rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage, and should receive all of the attendant benefits. That's not greater government involvement. It's a simple recognition of the equality of the relationships and the people involved in said relationships.

As far as government getting out of the marriage business entirely goes, that's fine, but I somehow don't see the movement gaining steam, and until it does, it's an irrelevant topic.

Well, gay people are.

No, they aren't.

[Llamalandia]

Actually, rights and benefits of marriage can usually be obtained through other means anyway.

No, they really can't.

Aside from differential tax treatment, most of the rest can be gained through mutual adoption, power of attorny, wills, living wills etc. In fact before civil unions and gay marriage this was in part not an uncommon strategy employed by gay people.

[Llamalandia]

Well, gay people are.

No, they aren't.

They want govt to recognize their marriage, that means govt would be recognizing more total marriage, hence govt is more involved in marriage.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Fair enough though, I guess what i'm saying is since that's what I believe the fight should be, that basically the whole gay marriage fight and all the energy spent on it will be wasted. I mean less say the supreme court universally recognizes a right to gay marriage next year and then ten years down the line marriage is disentangled from govt, at that point gay rights advocates would be proven to have fought a pointless battle. Basically what I'm saying is is that no one should be advocating for more govt involvement in marriage when marriage is the problem to begin with.

Nobody's advocating for more government involvement in marriage. Marriage equality advocates are simply stating that same-sex couples should have the same rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage, and should receive all of the attendant benefits. That's not greater government involvement. It's a simple recognition of the equality of the relationships and the people involved in said relationships.

As far as government getting out of the marriage business entirely goes, that's fine, but I somehow don't see the movement gaining steam, and until it does, it's an irrelevant topic.

If anything, surely the government putting less regulations on who can be marriage shows less involvement in the marriage business.

[Dyakovo]

No, they aren't.

They want govt to recognize their marriage, that means govt would be recognizing more total marriage, hence govt is more involved in marriage.

No it isn't. Government involvement isn't increased in any way.

[Mavorpen]

Nobody's advocating for more government involvement in marriage. Marriage equality advocates are simply stating that same-sex couples should have the same rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage, and should receive all of the attendant benefits. That's not greater government involvement. It's a simple recognition of the equality of the relationships and the people involved in said relationships.

As far as government getting out of the marriage business entirely goes, that's fine, but I somehow don't see the movement gaining steam, and until it does, it's an irrelevant topic.

If anything, surely the government putting less regulations on who can be marriage shows less involvement in the marriage business.

It's seriously like arguing that the government getting rid of anti-sodomy laws is government getting more involved in the bedroom.

[Llamalandia]

Well, gay people are. They want the state and feds to recognize their marriages. Look the way i see you don't need a govt license to be married, you want to be married ya grab a minister (or have your buddy get ordained online for $20) throw a couple a rings at each other, kiss and bing bang boom ya married. To hell with the govt and what they will or won't recognize. My point is why have more people invested in the system of state approved marriage, rather than fight to remove the state from the marriage business altogether?

You're equating recognition with involvement. That's ridiculous.

And you don't need a government license to get married, but you do need one to get the benefits that go with marriage. You know this by now. If you want to keep arguing that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (and it's amazing how this idea only seriously started to be discussed once gay marriage started to be an actual thing), that's fine, but it's a topic for another thead.

Well they do say, if youre married you owe x much in taxes and if you aren't you owe y much in taxes. Which is bullshit, marital status shouldn't be involved in determining tax liability but it is. Or how about divorce, the some people have deliberately put off divorce for similiar reasons. Because even no fault divorce can be costly and in a down economy there's not a lot of extra dough floating around for most people.

[Viritica]

If anything, surely the government putting less regulations on who can be marriage shows less involvement in the marriage business.

It's seriously like arguing that the government getting rid of anti-sodomy laws is government getting more involved in the bedroom.

"I'm going to get more involved in marriage by butting out and letting people marry who they want."

[Llamalandia]

If anything, surely the government putting less regulations on who can be marriage shows less involvement in the marriage business.

It's seriously like arguing that the government getting rid of anti-sodomy laws is government getting more involved in the bedroom.

That would hold if the govt handed out sex licenses, but they don't. Thus yes, striking down antisodomy laws is less govt. Recognizing gay marriage is more govt, than having the govt not recognize any marriage.

[Mavorpen]

It's seriously like arguing that the government getting rid of anti-sodomy laws is government getting more involved in the bedroom.

"I'm going to get more involved in marriage by butting out and letting people marry who they want."

"I'm going to get more involved with religion by recognizing X as a religion."

This logic is glorious.

[Llamalandia]

They want govt to recognize their marriage, that means govt would be recognizing more total marriage, hence govt is more involved in marriage.

No it isn't. Government involvement isn't increased in any way.

Clearly it is it will take more beauracrats to issue more licenses, that means more govt. which means more total involvement, now on a per capita basis the government won't be more involved, or rather that is to say I'm not suggesting govt will scrutinize marriage more closely but rather will be scrutinizing more marriages total.

[Viritica]

"I'm going to get more involved in marriage by butting out and letting people marry who they want."

"I'm going to get more involved with religion by recognizing X as a religion."

This logic is glorious.

Because clearly recognizing a religion equates to massive government involvement in religion.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You're equating recognition with involvement. That's ridiculous.

And you don't need a government license to get married, but you do need one to get the benefits that go with marriage. You know this by now. If you want to keep arguing that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (and it's amazing how this idea only seriously started to be discussed once gay marriage started to be an actual thing), that's fine, but it's a topic for another thead.

Well they do say, if youre married you owe x much in taxes and if you aren't you owe y much in taxes. Which is bullshit, marital status shouldn't be involved in determining tax liability but it is. Or how about divorce, the some people have deliberately put off divorce for similiar reasons. Because even no fault divorce can be costly and in a down economy there's not a lot of extra dough floating around for most people.

Fine.

You should find a thread where that's the topic of conversation and make your argument there, or start one up if there's not one already available. As it is, however, that's not what we're discussing here.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No it isn't. Government involvement isn't increased in any way.

Clearly it is it will take more beauracrats to issue more licenses, that means more govt. which means more total involvement, now on a per capita basis the government won't be more involved, or rather that is to say I'm not suggesting govt will scrutinize marriage more closely but rather will be scrutinizing more marriages total.

Your "reasoning" is causing me physical pain.

[Mavorpen]

"I'm going to get more involved with religion by recognizing X as a religion."

This logic is glorious.

Because clearly recognizing a religion equates to massive government involvement in religion.

Banning religion is the solution. It's the only way to protect the First Amendment.

[Viritica]

Because clearly recognizing a religion equates to massive government involvement in religion.

Banning religion is the solution. It's the only way to protect the First Amendment.

Ban Amendments while you're at it. Too much government is involved in Amendments.

[Pandeeria]

"I'm going to get more involved with religion by recognizing X as a religion."

This logic is glorious.

Because clearly recognizing a religion equates to massive government involvement in religion.

Da giberment's oppreshions iz hurrting us!

[Llamalandia]

"I'm going to get more involved with religion by recognizing X as a religion."

This logic is glorious.

Because clearly recognizing a religion equates to massive government involvement in religion.

Is there actually a published list of govt recognized religions? I'm genuinely curious. I thnk basically all govt does in recognizing religions is merely refrain from taxing them. When government recognizes marriages it has a complex view on how it taxes them as opposed to how it taxed the two unmarried individuals previously. Much more involvement there.