The anti-equality side is arguing against marriage equality by claiming (1) homosexuals can't procreation (2) kids with homosexual parents turn out badly.
This is technically true. A homosexual couple cannot, on their own, reproduce. Fortunately, this doesn't get those against marriage equality where they want to go and produces very disastrous consequences that show the absurdity of the position. It's not even difficult to argue against this.
Here are some people who can get married and cannot reproduce:
-Disabled -Old women, and maybe a few old men -Felons (no sex in prison) -Infertile
So, if this argument is accepted, and those who cannot procreate are banned from marriage, it will not just affect homosexuals. It will affect all of these other groups as well!
For example, a 60 year old woman would not be allowed to marry anyone. She can no longer reproduce. However, a 60 year old man can marry a woman, but she must be of child-bearing age. Furthermore, the government would also have to test for infertility, and if an individual was so on account of surgery (vasectomy or tying tubes), or just a bad luck of the draw, they could not be married. Accepting this position leads to an increase in state power, something conservatives (not libertarians, who are more consistent) constantly decry while also advocating.
So, for the sake of simplicity and limited government, support marriage equality while you still have a chance to redeem the judgment history will cast if you oppose equal rights for all.
This is ad hominem and has no research to back it up. It's a pathetically weak point. For those still buying into this twaddle, I'll link this article that cites empirical data to show kids of homosexual parents are no worse than those with heterosexual parents, even though the claim is prima facie absurd on its own. http://www.salon.com/2012/09/04/gay_cou … pier_kids/
We are on the verge of a new era on marriage equality, the tide has shifted, not just in the US but all through the developed world and even large parts of the developing world. I am so glad. It's important we keep the work up and not get complacent on the issue, keep showing the arguments for what they are, not worthy of that title.
It would be a mistake for the Supreme Court out of timidity and fear of a backlash to duck the Constitutional issue of marriage equality. I remember seeing "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards on highways across the Midwest as a result of his courageous but controversial desegregation, First Amendment and voting rights decisions.
I hope they rule in favor of equality. Most people can't believe I'm in favor of gay marriage, but I am.
In truth, the best option would to be to get government out of the marriage business. Have the government issue civil union licenses to any consenting adults(minus the obvious exceptions), and let marriage be a private matter people do on their own or through a church.
Yeah, I am more of a libertarian(not Libertarian). People just assume since I liked Romney over Obama that I'm a toe-the-line Republican Bush-lover.
My two favorite arguments against gay marriage:
1 - "It's contrary to traditional American values!" Response = Treating blacks as property used to be a traditional American value. That doesn't mean it was right.
2 - "It's an assault on the family, traditional marriage is the cornerstone of society." Response = You should be campaigning to make adultery, divorce, and porn all illegal, because they do far more to attack the 'traditional' family that has a >50% divorce rate.
Personally, "it's just easier" has never been a particularly convincing argument, especially from a libertarian point of view. Then there is the moral hazard of essentially discriminating against single people.
I will admit though, it's not a subject that I've spent a ton of time thinking about, so implications like that I simply haven't considered. I do appreciate the input, I'm sure my views will continue to change until the day I die.
This case has nothing to do with marriage. Talk all they want , what this amounts to is whether or not the vote of the people is valid or not. I don't think the court will rule on it. They will send it back down,because it is a states rights issue. Now tomorrows case may be more of what you are looking for. If they redefine marriage I believe polygamy has a stronger case historically than gay marriage. Justice Sodamyor pointed that out today.
I don't know if it is really a states rights issues though. If a man marries a woman, that marriage is recognized in all 50 states.
Therefore, if a man marries a man in New York, shouldn't that marriage also be recognized automatically in all 50 states. A legal marriage in one state should be recognized in all 50 states regardless of the makeup of the couple.
Additionally, I don't really care if a man has 5 wives or a woman has 4 husbands. As long as they all agree to be in the relationship and can take care of any kids produced.
Yup I am fine with polygamy too so long as all are adults and consenting. I don't see why all these supposedly freedom loving conservatives want to tell people who they can marry, it's increasingly ridiculous.
Marriage equality is no more a state issue than racial equality all citizens deserve and will receive equal rights under the law and should not be forced to leave their homes and jobs to find it.
I don't know why that is so hard to grasp. If someone wants to live under a certain system, they can. If they don't want to live under a certain social order, they have the right to seek out a different situation. Seems easy enough.
No one is thinking about the effect that condoning homosexuality in our society will have on children. If it is abomination to God, it is an abomination to them. Lets just keep it the way it was meant to be. Men loving women, women loving men. Are four balls really better? Are four breasts really better? Thats what the kids will be wondering!
ITT: Kathryn believes marriage is purely about reproductive sex and that marriage based on love is irrelevant. Also, Kathryn openly hates old people and infertile people, as well as hermaphrodites and eunuchs.
And if your argument contains the word "Bible," then your argument is meaningless, as the commandment against homosexuality comes from the same book that says:
- Disobedient children should be bludgeoned to death - Men who rape little girls can pay the girl's father $50 to not only be absolved of the crime, but to also make the girl his wife, no matter how young she is - Wearing two different kinds of fabrics is punishable by death - Do you eat pork? You're dead, too. - Women who question their husbands? Out you go, and have a couple hundred rocks to the face until you die.
As it is not an abomination to God, there is no reason to think it is an abomination to children, either.
But wait. You refer to your god, don't you? But that is irrelevant - that their god does not find it an abomination is what matters to them. What your god thinks, or what you think either, matters not one iota.
It is a bad example. Life should be about sex for the sake of reproducing life. It is deviated from what is natural. Maybe they should just stay in the closet. That's what they get. Don't get me wrong, I like the gay people I know. I just wish they weren't gay. Can't help it... I am very honest. And I can't get around my own honesty with myself. I would tell them to their face... what I am saying here.
Lol, I know them all. I "was" Christian, and still love the Christ and his teachings...those that have not been manipulated. As a Wiccan High Priest now, I face life with the Christian knowledge and arguments, haha.
It's amazing to me what people think. How would anyone argue against children being raised in a loving home environment by two people who love each other? Look at how many are raised in homes with a man and woman who yell and argue and hate each other, but stay together for the 'sake of the children'. To me, that is sick and sad for the children.
Based on what your expertise on children? All data indicates children raised by gay couples are just as if not more healthy, academically successful and mentally healthy.
As for natural or right that is complete rubbish it is absolutely natural in all higher animals homosexuality is common and it has been throughout human history, it was upon a time not only tolerated but considered completely unremarkable, that was in the first blossoming of human civilization under the ancient Greeks, then we had a dark age and the church decided it could tell people what is natural or right... based on their no knowledge what so ever.
Please provide a shred of credible proof that knowing about gay people is bad for children.
1. Give me a break. There are no extensive definitive studies on the subject.
2. Don't leave out the other abhorrent pagan societies that once embraced the errant practice. Like I said, it is the result of captivity. These "great civilizations " that you speak of were the first human zoos. Man began to engage in behaviors that only captive animals display.
Those great civilizations lead to the greatest period in human history for thousands of years, in wealth, int he arts, in philosophy and the recapturing of the values and idea of that age lead to the Renaissance you can call them a human zoo if you want (you are entirely wrong) but they were factually more successful and advanced than the societies which did not allow it.
Ignorance piled upon ignorance does not make an argument.
At what? The the best living standards in human history? The highest life expectancies in human history? The era in human history with the lowest crime rates? All of those things centered especially around areas where homosexuality is accepted, yeah looking around really convinced me
Oh yes and acceptance of homosexuality is demographically based in more economically successful and educated people, obviously has been really bad for them
You're kidding, right? Most thinking people now realize that the god(s) of the ancient peoples were but a myth, not real. To declare that god created anything is nothing more than a statement that your personal beliefs are factual - something that you have no idea is true or not.
God's wrath is not a human emotion, true. It is instead little but a phrase used to scare people enough to control them better.
As far as anyone - anyone at all - "defying the laws of nature", well, it has never been done. No one floats in the air, no one walks on water, etc. No one will ever "defy the laws of nature", your opinion notwithstanding.
And what a shock. Those who protest too much about "defending" the institution might do well not be throwing stones out of their glass bedrooms. We can see you in there!
What God has joined, let no man put asunder, eh?
2008 voter data shows that “red” states (states that tend to vote Republican), have higher divorce rates than “blue” states (states that tend to vote Democrat).
The Barna Research Group measured divorce statistics by religion. They found that 29 percent of Baptists are divorced (the highest for a US religious group), while only 21 percent of atheists/agnostics were divorced (the lowest).
People have actually married their dogs and no one made a big deal about it. People hold weddings for dogs, cats, everything under the sun and no one complains about it destroying marriage... A woman in the US has married a number of inanimate objects yet no one is screaming...
But, of course, marriage equity is allowing two consenting adults who are in love get married.
No, it means that Christians as a group claim it to be God's domain; that they want control over it. Nothing unusual there, religions typically want control over nearly every aspect of a person's life, but nothing of real value, either.
Followers of Allah say the same thing, as do most religions (although, of course, with a different god in mind).
With control comes responsibility and duty, and the more control the more of each. While I understand that many people will declare that their responsibility ends by hand the controlled one a bible or repeatedly quoting from it, I cannot agree. Neither the responsibility nor duty is something I want or accept.
Yes, greed has been legendary, including greed for control of others.
Doesn't make it right, though, just sad that such control is still exerted just for the sake of control. Governments often do it for money - politicians get rich from being in office - but religions do it simply for control. To force others to live the lifestyle considered "proper".
Not only that but in many civilizations marriage was entirely secular, one might call for good fortune on the couple from a god but it was not his authority that made a marriage but that of the individuals or families involved.
"Republicans and Democrats are girding for a politically explosive week as the Supreme Court prepares to rule as early as Monday on the federal health care overhaul."http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06...
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has issued a statement that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is illegal. “Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further...
For some reason I've been getting emails from Mike Huckabee, running for President. They include such statements as:"I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the constitution, and the citizens of the...