<p>“Well, if you are trying to change the status quo, what is your reason that they SHOULD have a right to get married? You just say “equality”. Then on that basis, why can’t I marry my father?”</p>
<p>Like I already said, the right to marriage has time after time been classified as a fundamental right - a right that everyone should have access to. The reason why the current system is discriminatory is because it singles out a single minority group for unequal treatment solely because of their inclusion in that minority.</p>
<p>Bans on zooerastic or pedophiliac marriage are not discriminatory because there is no consent…</p>
<p>Bans on incestuous or polygamous marriages are in place to prevent harm to society. Incestuous relationships lead to power imbalances, psychological damage, sexual abuse, and a high rate of genetic diseases, while polygamous relationships lead to power imbalances, sexual subjugation, and other abuses. In both of these cases, the harm to society is great enough to prevent the occurrences of these events, to all citizens equally, regardless of membership to minority classes or not.</p>
<p>On the other hand, same sex marriage does not harm society any more than opposite sex marriage, and therefore there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry.</p>
<p>Although I totally respect the rights of gays to live together and have a sexual relationship, I do not consider that relationship equivalent to that between a man or a woman- a relationship in which a child can be born, which created civilization as we know it.</p>
<p>Still, I believe gays should not be harassed and I don’t have a problem with gay people. But it isn’t marriage, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Heterosexual couples do not necessarily have the mental or emotional maturity to raise a child “normally”. Heck, I know many gay couples who are perfectly capable of raising children, and have done a better job than the majority of heterosexual couples that I do know. My parents are a fine example of the latter. I would have much preferred another mother than the man I was forced to call my father.</p>
That’s not at all what he/she said. The statement was that “All the arguments used to legalize gay marriage can be used to legalize a married person marrying a third individual simultaneously.” </p>
<p>I am in the pro-gay-marriage camp myself, but I have to admit that JamesMadison has presented the soundest line of reasoning in this thread. Everyone else is mostly resorting to twisting his words so that they have a basis to refute was he said.</p>
<p>And I never claimed that they did. Who knows- maybe two dads is what every child really needs. Its really another topic. </p>
<p>However, the fact remains that a marriage between a man and a woman can create new life…and that this matrimony is what created civilization as we know it. That is what makes this relationship unique, and what constitutes a marriage, in my opinion. </p>
<p>A relationship built on love, in my view, is not enough to be a marriage.</p>
<p>Gay people are more than welcome to follow their hearts and have romantic relationships, I just do not view this relationship as totally equal to that of a man and a woman.</p>
<p>True. But why? Why won’t the state recognize the relationship between my father and I as “marriage”? I don’t believe it will cause any devastating effects to society, and no genetic defects will occur since we can’t procreate. We are two consenting adults who love each other.</p>
<p>“All the arguments used to legalize gay marriage can be used to legalize a married person marrying a third individual simultaneously.” </p>
<p>“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against
miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions
against incest and incestuous marriages.”</p>
<p>The same argument was used against interracial marriage…</p>
<p>Also, I don’t understand your argument about procreation. You’re saying that because they can procreate their relationship is better? I don’t understand what makes procreation essential to or defining marriage.</p>
<p>Procreation is important because you want the privileges that come with a marriage. Those privileges cost the government; they are repaid because it is expected that a marriage would benefit the nation by bringing in more children.</p>
<p>^JamesMadison, why do you get to define marriage like that? If you believe that the creation of life is more important than the existence of love between two already live, why does that constitute an argument that gays should not be allowed to marry? That’s a personal opinion that we will of course respect, but your personal view on which is more important doesn’t constitute any sort of argument regarding other people’s right to marriage. Your belief has no bearing on another person’s rights in the same way my beliefs have no bearing on yours. If you “do not view this relationship as totally equal”, it shouldn’t affect whether the relationship actually is equal before the law. The government should be a neutral body, not playing favorites to any single group.</p>
<p>Of course, you can get into the specific reasons why the government incentivizes marriage, but you have to remember that the government doesn’t capriciously choose to exempt any other group that doesn’t help them accomplish what they wish to with said incentives. If, for instance, we assume that they attach benefits to marriage in order to incentivize having children (the underlying implication of your post, I think, though you never came out and said it), we should then look to see whether they deny the benefits associated with marriage to those who do not have children. The answer is a resounding no. It’s unthinkable. The benefits come simply from the marriage, not the production of children. Using the logic that marriage carries benefits due to the production of children is invalid because we still extend the same benefits to those who don’t have children. Of course, there are certain extra benefits that come specifically with having children, but <em>no one is arguing that gays should be allowed these benefits</em>.</p>
<p>Also, what about adoption? Legalizing gay marriage would surely increase the number of adoptions taking place, and surely that’s even more beneficial to society? Preventing children from growing up parentless rather than introducing even more children into the world?</p>
<p>I argue that because a marriage between a man and a woman can produce children…and that this union is the very cornerstone that created civilization and life as we know it, then this relationship is different than other relationships simply based on love. Not better, not worse, just different. That is what makes marriage truly something unique. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we as a society have to decide whether gay marriage is, indeed, “marriage”. I have attempted to argue that it is not. MANY issues are decided through voting, where one person’s personal view affects other people’s rights. Nothing new here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. But the fact that it could benefit society (at least in one way) does not make it marriage.</p>
<p>What’s the difference between the marriage of two heterosexuals who cannot procreate and the marriage of two homosexuals who, also, cannot procreate? Is a marriage based on love and commitment essentially not “marriage”? Marriage is a very broad term…y’know? Trying to see the argument.</p>
<p>So the real question is, is marriage:
A) A loving relationship between two people.
B) A set of benefits given to two people who have the option of procreation (but don’t necessarily procreate) plus a few extra people who are sterile but still get the benefits.</p>
<p>Also, you said neither is necessarily better or worse. Why then, does one have better benefits? There are stories on the news of one partner being deported since there relationship won’t allow them to become a citizen.</p>
<p>Checking every couple for fertility would be extremely impractical and not absolute (even vasectomies are not 100% effective).
Similarly, the government doesn’t test every teenager individually on whether they are able to give consent - there is a blanket age.</p>
<p>@runallday4
Those aren’t all the possible definitions. Since you like singling out logical fallacies (which may or may not be fallacies), you should be aware that what you’re saying is a false dichotomy. Also, do you think a “loving relationship between two people” requires marriage?</p>
No more impractical than making sure every child got vaccinated before they enter the public school system. </p>
<p>But giving special benefits to two people who have the option to procreate seems like a misguided policy too. Let’s reserve special benefits for two people who are actually raising a child together.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I am bisexual, but I think JamesMadison’s arguments are sound. I obviously don’t agree with him, but I think he has argued his case better than most posts on this thread. I could see the fact that marriages in their traditional sense create children as an important (perhaps not as important as he thinks, but I get it) benefit to society, and I support rewarding that with benefits to the couple. I would more support benefits to couples, who, as barium said, are actually raising children. </p>
<p>However, in our society, I don’t think the prevailing notion fits with what JamesMadison is talking about. Fewer children than ever are being born these days, and if you took a poll, I think people consider marriage more as just based on love and commitment for life. Hell, not everyone even believes that - consider celebrities and their crazy month-long marriages or the wedding chapels in Vegas. Lots of people’s stock in the “sanctity of marriage” is pretty much zero.</p>
<p>I also think that the LGBT population is sizeable enough that denying them the ability to get married really does impact lots of people, more so than people who would want to marry multiple people or marry their family members or whatever, which is more of a niche kind of thing. Furthermore, marriage is one of those basic life events that most people do expect you to do one day, and cutting LGBT people out of that entirely really does impact them pretty negatively. If marriage were a thing that wasn’t as culturally compulsory and really optional (and I mean fully accepted if people chose not to, no questions asked), then I don’t think it would be a huge deal. But there are so many LGBT people out there in wonderful relationships who are getting the message that their relationships aren’t worth as much, that the way they conduct their lives is not okay. Even if they don’t believe that consciously, it does harm them on some level, and I think that we need to attempt to lessen that as much as possible for the mental health of a small but still sizeable amount of the population.</p>