A question to supporters of Gay Marriage

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following is a question to supporters of gay marriage, but first some context. In recent discussions about gay marriage, one phrase often used by the supporters has been "love is love". The idea being that marriage is (to supporters of gay marriage) primarily a decoration of love between two people, and the legal recognition of that fact.

My question therefore, in light of that fact, is as following:

If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?

In either of those two cases, I am sure that the participants involved would state that they have genuine romantic feelings. Is there any basis for preventing these people from also having their marriage recognised?

[Josh]

Do you understand the point that I'm trying to make? Do you understand that what I am saying is that yes, they both involve love, but that does not make them the same thing. So you can you, for the love of fuck, stop ignoring the important parts of what I'm saying to pick out specific things you have problems with that are irrelevant to the point. Also, the man dog argument I made, also debunked when I first made it, thanks for paying attention.

Question: If hetero and homo marriages are both based on love, should they both be legal?

Yes, you can change marriage to include polygamous relationships, I'm all for it. They are not the same thing however. Which is why your question, and I keep having to come back to this, is an over simplification.

It being based around a man and a women is irrelevant. Gender and sex do not define a person.

You miss understood me completely, I argued that it is impossible for some to ONLY love multiple people at one time, i didn't say it was impossible.

Are you saying there are legal expert who argue that it is inevitable that churches will be forced to marry people they do not wish to marry? If you are, I would argue that they must be omnipotent and that the only people who I know of who are playing this victim card are specific churches.

I'm seem to have have not made myself clear, which I apologize for. I was arguing the debate should be over because no one is arguing your initial question anymore, not that we came to a conclusion.

Why I think its the same: Gender and sex are irrelevant in marriage. You don't need a woman to perform a specific role, and you don't need a man to perform a specific role. So why should it be illegal? (rhetorical)

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Do you understand the point that I'm trying to make? Do you understand that what I am saying is that yes, they both involve love, but that does not make them the same thing.

 

Then let me ask you, what does make them necessarily "equal"? People talk a great deal about "marriage equality" but equality can only exist between two things which have something in common which can be considered equal. So what is it? What is comparable in such a way that requires straight marriage and homosexual marriage to be treated equally?

Also, the man dog argument I made, also debunked when I first made it, thanks for paying attention.

I was pointing out that you cannot use my argument to support the marriage of animals to humans, like you claimed you could.

Yes, you can change marriage to include polygamous relationships, I'm all for it. They are not the same thing however. Which is why your question, and I keep having to come back to this, is an over simplification.

Why not? Just because they include more people? Is that all? Why does that mean that it should be treated any differently? After all, heterosexual and homosexual marriage are considered equal because they are both about romantic love. Given that polygamy is also about romantic love, why not treat it as equal too?

You miss understood me completely, I argued that it is impossible for some to ONLY love multiple people at one time, i didn't say it was impossible.

Erm...can you rephrase that please. You sound like you've just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

I'm seem to have have not made myself clear, which I apologize for. I was arguing the debate should be over because no one is arguing your initial question anymore, not that we came to a conclusion.

 

Well the debate seems to have moved on, but that is not my doing.

Why I think its the same: Gender and sex are irrelevant in marriage. You don't need a woman to perform a specific role, and you don't need a man to perform a specific role. So why should it be illegal? (rhetorical)

Firslty, your phrasing is unneseecarily provocative. Gay marriage is not "illegal". There will not be police storming a gay marriage ceremony if it remains unrecognised. Gay marriage is simply not supported by legislation. Secondly, the reasoning behind my position is state benefit. IE the state has no compelling reason to spend its resources on marriages that ultimately do not benefit it in the way that straight marriages do.

[Josh]

What is comparable in such a way that requires straight marriage and homosexual marriage to be treated equally?

I honestly cannot fathom your perspective on this issue. There is more to the legalization of marriage then just whether love is involved, this is what I tried to point out with my dog argument, but I did it poorly. For a moment lets completely remove love from the equation, are homosexuals still justified in wanting and receiving equal marriage? From my point of view certain assumptions are made if you are choosing to get married, such as: You are committing yourself to another person, you have chosen that person to be legally the most responsible person for you if something bad happens, if you so chose to have children you will provide the best possible environment to raise a child or children with this person, you will support your partner to the best of your abilities. Hopefully I didn’t miss anything important. The next question I would ask would be, can a gay couple meet these criteria? The answer is clearly yes. This is why they deserve equal treatment, they can provide just as well to each other and their children. I have stated that I think your initial question is an over simplification and I’ll keep saying it. They are extremely comparable because for the most part they are the same; the differences lie in the sex involved and the methods of procreation… That is all. When you add love back into the equation all you have is the motivation to do these things. If there are people who argue that love is all that you need, then they are over simplifying this as well. There is my answer, in what ways do you think they differ enough to not deserve equal marriage status.

Given that polygamy is also about romantic love, why not treat it as equal too?

Well, I guess if you could assuming that romantic love is the only reason to consider allowing marriage... also create legislation that provided people in polygamous relationships the same rights (or rights polygamous could agree on) then there is no reason that it shouldn’t be considered an equal form of marriage. It would just require different assessment then gay marriage.

Erm...can you rephrase that please. You sound like you've just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

Sorry. I think that it is impossible for someone to only love (insert amount higher than 1 here). E.g john smith can only love 6 people. Never 5, never just 1, he is always in love with 6 people at one time. As opposed to someone who is on the homosexual end of the sexual preference spectrum who will only ever love their own sex.

Firslty, your phrasing is unnecessarily provocative. Gay marriage is not "illegal". the reasoning behind my position is state benefit. IE the state has no compelling reason to spend its resources on marriages that ultimately do not benefit it in the way that straight marriages do.

My use of ‘illegal’ was intended to mean ‘not legal’, I was not trying to be provocative. This is certainly not a topic I know anything about. Would marriage not create revenue? Will gay marriage being legalized cost more money then it makes? What if the majority of gay couples either do have their own children, or adopt children from government funded institutions?

[Josh Weeden]

Oh my goodness is the point about state resources still doing the rounds? I think I made it clear that in the UK at least the introduction of Civil Partnerships already extended the benefits of marriage to gay couples. Therefore to allow marriage instead of Civil Partnership will not cost the government any more than Civil Partnerships already do.

[Josh]

Well we have civil partnerships in Australia too, so I Vertigo can just ignore that like he has with other things people have said.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

As I've pointed out, the state resources issue still stands. The affects of it will not be felt for a number of years, but they will be felt. My argument in that respect is also against Civil partnerships.

[Josh Weeden]

Fantastic so now you are against Civil Partnerships as well...following your logic, partners of any orientation who are unwilling or unable to procreate should not be allowed to marry as this is a loss to the state?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

For a moment lets completely remove love from the equation, are homosexuals still justified in wanting and receiving equal marriage? From my point of view certain assumptions are made if you are choosing to get married, such as: You are committing yourself to another person, you have chosen that person to be legally the most responsible person for you if something bad happens, if you so chose to have children you will provide the best possible environment to raise a child or children with this person, you will support your partner to the best of your abilities. Hopefully I didn’t miss anything important. The next question I would ask would be, can a gay couple meet these criteria? The answer is clearly yes. This is why they deserve equal treatment, they can provide just as well to each other and their children.

 

Yes, but exactly those same arguments you use can be used in support of incestuous or polygamous marriage also. That is my fundamental point. If you accept homosexual marriage using these arguments, you must also accept other things which these arguments can equally be applied to.

Well, I guess if you could assuming that romantic love is the only reason to consider allowing marriage... also create legislation that provided people in polygamous relationships the same rights (or rights polygamous could agree on) then there is no reason that it shouldn’t be considered an equal form of marriage. It would just require different assessment then gay marriage.

 

I'm glad you are consistent. But why would it require different assessment? After all, the arguments you are using in support of gay marriage can equally be applied to other areas.

 

Sorry. I think that it is impossible for someone to only love (insert amount higher than 1 here). E.g john smith can only love 6 people. Never 5, never just 1, he is always in love with 6 people at one time. As opposed to someone who is on the homosexual end of the sexual preference spectrum who will only ever love their own sex.

You may think it is impossible, but others would disagree, based on their own experience.

[Josh]

Yes, but exactly those same arguments you use can be used in support of incestuous or polygamous marriage also. That is my fundamental point. If you accept homosexual marriage using these arguments, you must also accept other things which these arguments can equally be applied to.

the criteria applies to any form of marriage you can think of, it doesn't mean they all tick the boxes, does it?

Yes, exactly, but when taking incestuous marriage into account you have to, you know, consider the implications of INCEST. With gay marriage, homosexuality needs to be taken into account. For the majority of people in Australia (possibly the UK and America) Homosexuality has been assessed and it was found to be worthy of the benefits gained by marriage. When or if people ever consider the implications of incestuous marriage they will have to assess the implications of normalizing incest. How do you not see that these things differ? Of course you assess incestuous, polygamous, homosexual and heterosexual marriage on the same criteria, by they are individual issues that would require slightly different methods of assessment. With polygamy you would have to completely reevaluate divorce, power of attorney etc. With incestuous marriage you have to take into account the possible impact of normalizing incests and all its impacts. Homosexual marriage has been found to have no negative impact on society and your "but think of the children state!" is not valid at this point in time, there isn't substantial evidence to suggest that gay marriage will be a drain on resources, or that birth rates will fall.

So yes, you could use my argument on other forms of marriage, if they pass than there is no reasons to not allow them... Will people accept incestuous marriage as a suitable relationship to be deemed marriage worthy? (or polygamy etc) That's a different question.

Love does not equal marriage.

I'm glad you are consistent. But why would it require different assessment? After all, the arguments you are using in support of gay marriage can equally be applied to other areas. 

They require different assignment, and I've said this a few times already, because polygamy and incest bring forth different aspects in which to take in to account, they might be irrelevant, they might be relevant. Numbers in a marriage might be considered irrelevant, incest my be considered very relevant.

You may think it is impossible, but others would disagree, based on their own experience.

Well when these people want to get married I will support them, and probably be on the internet debating people of why their arguments aren't justified and why we can't just all get along.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm sorry, I can agree that some people can hate the sin but not the sinner but this guy isn't one of them. He's spitting the kind of venom at gays that genocides are made out of. The letter reeks of paranoia and delusions and nothing but the worse kind of aggression. He doesn't actually have to specify that he hates gays for it to come through in his words.

Whether or not he hates them isn't relevent. It's whether or not he encourages people to hate. And that he doesn't. He encourages people to have negative opions based on morality etc (his stance is not my own I hasten to add) but he doesn't encourage their deaths etc. That would be hate. This is not the stuff of genocides. The stuff of genocides is where people say "Go and kill all the X".

 

The problem is that you are labeling this man as hateful, primarily because he has a negative opinion of gay people. It is a very negative opinion, naturally, but the only differnece between your opinion and his is direction and degree. And this is a very fundimental question. At what point does a negative opinion become hate speech. Quite simply, it becomes it when you start getting threats of viloence involved. Any point before that, and you move into more arbitary waters, not clearly defined.

[Nelson]

It's whether or not he encourages people to hate. And that he doesn't. He encourages people to have negative opions based on morality etc

Taking whatever steps necessary can include murder, anything really. He encourages people to take those steps, even though he is being clever and does not name them.

That would be hate. This is not the stuff of genocides. The stuff of genocides is where people say "Go and kill all the X".

Because if it's not genocide it's not hate.

You're a poor delusional person with a terrible superiority complex. I've tried being reasonable with you, but it has proven time and time again that that's not possible.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Taking whatever steps necessary can include murder, anything really. He encourages people to take those steps, even though he is being clever and does not name them.

That is not the nessecary interpretation. And given that the rest of the piece does not mention viloence, it cannot be inferred as especially likely.

 

Because if it's not genocide it's not hate.

No, I didn't say that. I said it is not genocide. "Hate" is too difficult to quantify to pass laws about.