Gay marriage

[abeybaby]

Does the bible say I cant marry my car? Because I want to marry my car. He's the bomb.

This is why I want upvote buttons in Rants and Debates

[ShortBlackChick]

Im actually deadly serious. I cant trust people. We fuck up. My car is amaaaaaazing. He does everything I want him to, he loves unconditionally, regardless of how much of a fuckhead I am, he does what I tell him to even if its hard and could hurt him. All I do is abuse him in return.

Honestly, if you like it then why the fuck cant you put a ring on it?

[psyxwar]

Im actually deadly serious. I cant trust people. We fuck up. My car is amaaaaaazing. He does everything I want him to, he loves unconditionally, regardless of how much of a fuckhead I am, he does what I tell him to even if its hard and could hurt him. All I do is abuse him in return.

Honestly, if you like it then why the fuck cant you put a ring on it?

Marriage is by definition mutually consensual (and obviously your amazing car can't consent), though you probably could in some countries. I know guys in Japan have married video game characters.

Recognising gay marriage as legitimate does not deny the special social value of heterosexual unions, unless you agree that exclusive marriage rights are the sole and only way we (meaning society) can/should recognise the special value of heterosexual unions.

The way things are currently heterosexual marriage is this "special sanction" for straight unions; if we were to elevate gay union to the same level (gay marriage) then the two become equal. Because of the fact that they are not equal (as straight union = procreation, gay union does not), treating them as such undermines this "special sanction" of straight marriage.

This is of course assuming that premise 3 is true... which I'm not really inclined to agree with anyway

[Professor Polonsky]

The way things are currently heterosexual marriage is this "special sanction" for straight unions; if we were to elevate gay union to the same level (gay marriage) then the two become equal. Because of the fact that they are not equal (as straight union = procreation, gay union does not), treating them as such undermines this "special sanction" of straight marriage.

Except that many straight unions have nothing to do with procreation, rather with love. Unless you suppose that two 55 year olds marrying is going to bring about children somehow. That's perfectly legal.

So, using your logic, should we limit marriage to fertile opposite-sex couples?

[psyxwar]

So, using your logic, should we limit marriage to fertile opposite-sex couples?

Not at all. That's like saying we should limit human rights to those with two eyes, two arms, two legs etc. Humans are humans, regardless of whether or not they possess all the characteristics a "normal" human does; in the same vein, a straight couple that lacks the ability to procreate, either due to age or some kind of defect is still a straight couple. Heterosexual marriage is the "special sanction" for straight unions and not for procreation -- sure, the ultimate reason why such unions are "special" in the first place is due to the ability to procreate, but that doesn't mean that only those who are able to procreate fall under this "straight union" umbrella.

To use an analogy -- let's say there's a country that prohibits the eating of dogs because they are "a man's best friend"/ good companions/ insert other reasons why eating dogs is frowned upon in our society. Does that mean that a man in this country should be able to eat a dog that is, for whatever reason (eg. PTSD in dogs?),  hostile towards him?

[Professor Polonsky]

Doesn't work. We're talking about a significant subset of marriages, not a couple of exceptions. And looking at the original argument, it argues that since procreation is indispensable, then somehow heterosexual unions are - but there is no assured link between the two.

Basically, there are so many ways to deconstruct that argument it's a joke.

Anyone else gonna attempt a crack at a non-religious argument against ssm? There was an argument against same-sex couples adopting, but that is a completely separate issue from marriage. Marriage is governed under Federal law in Australia, adoption State. The funny thing is that in Victoria, an (gay) individual can adopt but not a same-sex couple...

[psyxwar]

Doesn't work. We're talking about a significant subset of marriages, not a couple of exceptions. And looking at the original argument, it argues that since procreation is indispensable, then somehow heterosexual unions are - but there is no assured link between the two.

It is still very much the minority. How many people do you think actually get married in their 50s, as opposed to being in a marriage in their 50s because they married previously? The subset of humans that lack certain characteristics (like functional limbs for example) is also pretty sizable.

Of course there is a link. The vast majority of procreation happens in these unions -- sure, you will have people who have sex and get pregnant outside of marriage, but most people who have their own children do so in a family.

[chasej]

. The vast majority of procreation happens in these unions -- sure, you will have people who have sex and get pregnant outside of marriage, but most people who have their own children do so in a family.

Not really true. I don't know the Australian statistics but in the US 41% of babies are born out of wedlock. In some areas that the rate is well over 50%.

The "traditional marriage" has already been destroyed, we have couples which live with each other for 30 years and never get married, people that have one night stands and children that grow up never knowing their birth father, celebrities that use marriage for money making (kardashian *cough cough*), single parents, even believe it or not relationships between black and white people used to be looked down upon and many argued this would be destroyed and that would be destroyed in society, 50 years on and the world hasn't suddenly blown apart and the western world hasn't descended into some sort of perverted lawless wasteland.

People only oppose it because they have their own insecurities being scared of the unknown and change, two people that love each other shouldn't be told their love isn't as important as someone else's just because someone else thinks gay sex is icky or a sin.

[psyxwar]

Not really true. I don't know the Australian statistics but in the US 41% of babies are born out of wedlock. In some areas that the rate is well over 50%.

That simply means they're not married, not that they're not engaged in a relationship.

People only oppose it because they have their own insecurities being scared of the unknown and change, two people that love each other shouldn't be told their love isn't as important as someone else's just because someone else thinks gay sex is icky or a sin.

I agree with you here to some extent, though I wouldn't go as far as to say the only reason people oppose it is due to their own insecurities/ scared of change. I'm fully in support of gay marriage by the way.

[lala1911]

All I am going to say is that I do not support it. Also, to answer the second part of the question, I was raised in a household where homosexuality is forbidden and frowned upon.

I'm expecting someone to quickly attack me on my view actually. So I'll edit and add in this:
- It doesn't bother me if gay marriage was legalised. If it was, so be it, I'm not going to go out of my way to amend the law and join protests. I dont go and discriminate against gay people as well. I wouldn't even care if it was legalised.

[Limista]

I haven't read all the replies (considering there's about 60!), but to keep the fire burning I'll just add my own little take:

I feel uncomfortable when I see any form of intimacy between gay people (excluding hugging of course. I'm talking about kissing etc..). I guess this is because of the way I was brought up - sex of any form wasn't exactly discussed in the household. It was just one of those taboo and tacit topics which my parents just assumed I knew about. So if sex is not a conversation topic, then homosexuality is definitely out of the question! I guess this parochial mindset or upbringing contributed to the prejudice I have against gay people - I see it as an abnormal relationship that's kind of "icky".

That said, I would never discriminate against them. Let them marry if they want, let them have all the liberty they yearn for and let them parade their marital status. But I'll still be feeling nauseous all the same, when they do their 'up close and personal' public displays of affection.

[JellyDonut]

It doesn't bother me if gay marriage was legalised. If it was, so be it, I'm not going to go out of my way to amend the law and join protests. I dont go and discriminate against gay people as well. I wouldn't even care if it was legalised.

Do you support gay marriage in principle?

[lala1911]

Do you support gay marriage in principle?

No I don't.
I don't want to be involved in a debate about this though.

[thushan]

I haven't read all the replies (considering there's about 60!), but to keep the fire burning I'll just add my own little take:

I feel uncomfortable when I see any form of intimacy between gay people (excluding hugging of course. I'm talking about kissing etc..). I guess this is because of the way I was brought up - sex of any form wasn't exactly discussed in the household. It was just one of those taboo and tacit topics which my parents just assumed I knew about. So if sex is not a conversation topic, then homosexuality is definitely out of the question! I guess this parochial mindset or upbringing contributed to the prejudice I have against gay people - I see it as an abnormal relationship that's kind of "icky".

That said, I would never discriminate against them. Let them marry if they want, let them have all the liberty they yearn for and let them parade their marital status. But I'll still be feeling nauseous all the same, when they do their 'up close and personal' public displays of affection.

Ah :/ sorry to hear that. I get what you mean, it is hard to change your innate tendencies that were shaped by your upbringing. That said though, I am impressed that despite the fact you are super uncomfortable, you understand that it's something that you have to master, rather than something that can be dealt with by stripping gay people of their rights.

[Lolly]

I don't think that fear should be one's guiding principle in making judgements about this issue. I understand both lala and Starfish's position of not being brought up with any discussion of sex or sexual behaviour. ( this hasn't been the case for me, but I can empathise with being brought up in a fairly conservative background when it comes to these matters.)  However surely this aversion can be overcome? If you're going to live honestly,  the reality of homosexuality can't be avoided.  I guarantee that you will confront its existence within your lifetime.  I understand if you don't want to discuss the topic here, but  I think it's important for /yourself/ that you critically appraise why you feel the way you do and assess if it has a rational basis.  If you reject homosexuality, fine, but find a reason for it.  If it helps,  this is what I'm trying to do now. I want to challenge myself and form a justified opinion that is fair and honest and takes a number of factors into account.