Difference between revisions of "Gay marriage"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
*** Opinionated snarky editorial reply: If we redefine marriage to include gay couples, what's to stop us from gradually refining it until it serves everyone to the best possible extent? --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:09, 20 August 2006 (EDT) | *** Opinionated snarky editorial reply: If we redefine marriage to include gay couples, what's to stop us from gradually refining it until it serves everyone to the best possible extent? --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:09, 20 August 2006 (EDT) | ||
** Redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples opens the floodgates, giving rise to redefine any terms with which the vocal minority does not agree. e.g. Marriage can be redefined to be a union with any number of people (Heinlen's S-Marriage). "Adult" can be redefined to anyone who can vocalize the word "no" (A commonly held belief in the MAA community is that children are capable of giving consent to sex). etc. | ** Redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples opens the floodgates, giving rise to redefine any terms with which the vocal minority does not agree. e.g. Marriage can be redefined to be a union with any number of people (Heinlen's S-Marriage). "Adult" can be redefined to anyone who can vocalize the word "no" (A commonly held belief in the MAA community is that children are capable of giving consent to sex). etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | you are wrong what is wrong whit gay marriage? | ||
===In Favor=== | ===In Favor=== | ||
Revision as of 17:37, 8 July 2008
Overview
Gay marriage (where "gay" refers to same-sex relationships of any gender; also called "same-sex marriage") is an issue because some people want to do it and some others find it distasteful and/or believe it to be immoral.
Reference
Related Articles
- Homosexuality
- Gay marriage is a reproductive issue, albeit in a backhanded sort of way
- Arguments against gay marriage include the completely irrelevant but apparently persuasive claim that being gay is a choice
News
- 2006-11-29 Sir Elton berates Australian PM: Elton John says "Up yours!" to John Howard for overturning a law allowing gay marriage
- 2006-10-25 N.J. high court opens door to gay marriage: ruled "that lawmakers must offer homosexuals either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions."
- 2006-05-18 Gay marriage ban advances to Senate floor by Bob Geiger at 9:56 AM
- 2006-04-26 A Real Live Brokeback Cowboy by Annie Anderson, In These Times: real-life example of how existing laws are harmful to gay people
- 2006-02-13 Civil partnerships likely to boost health of gay and lesbian people
- 2006-01-21 Maryland Judge throws out law banning gay marriages
- 2005-07-21 Canada becomes 4th nation to allow same-sex marriage
- 2005-07-05 Church of Christ endorses same-sex marriage
- 2005-07-01 Spain legalizes same-sex marriage
Opinion
- 2007-07-28 Why Civil Unions Aren't Enough by Greta Christina
- 2006 Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes by Eugene Volokh HTML PDF
- 2004-05-19 Slippery Slop: 'The maddening "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage'
Positions
- The Family: A Proclamation to the World: the official opinion of the LDS
- Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization: A cogent anti-gay-marriage opinion by Orson Scott Card, author and LDS member
Points
Against
- "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms
- This is a definitional argument, and it often confuses the issue. My understanding is that what gay people want, when they say they want the right to "marry", is the right to the legal recognitions and protections that come with marriage. There is no inherent contradiction to gay people being given those rights and protections, so the speaker who sees a contradiction must be defining "marriage" in some other way. A possible compromise position would be to separate the two – tie the legal rights to a word other than "marriage", and apply that universally. --Woozle 08:28, 16 Feb 2006 (CST)
- Some states (Vermont, California, and Connecticut) have tried this with "Civil Unions" and many proponents of gay marriage say that it is not enough, they want to redefine marriage. Personally, I believe that the governments should remove the term "marriage" from all government regulations and stipulate those rights for all persons as a "Civil Union," leaving marriages to the religious institutions. Midian 16:33, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
- This is a definitional argument, and it often confuses the issue. My understanding is that what gay people want, when they say they want the right to "marry", is the right to the legal recognitions and protections that come with marriage. There is no inherent contradiction to gay people being given those rights and protections, so the speaker who sees a contradiction must be defining "marriage" in some other way. A possible compromise position would be to separate the two – tie the legal rights to a word other than "marriage", and apply that universally. --Woozle 08:28, 16 Feb 2006 (CST)
- if we allow gay marriage, we allow anything and everything
- This is essentially a slippery slope circular argument – that is, it argues that gay marriage is bad because if we allow it, we might then allow something worse ("something worse" implying that gay marriage is bad, which implies the conclusion in its premise).
- Opinionated snarky editorial reply: If we redefine marriage to include gay couples, what's to stop us from gradually refining it until it serves everyone to the best possible extent? --Woozle 16:09, 20 August 2006 (EDT)
- Redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples opens the floodgates, giving rise to redefine any terms with which the vocal minority does not agree. e.g. Marriage can be redefined to be a union with any number of people (Heinlen's S-Marriage). "Adult" can be redefined to anyone who can vocalize the word "no" (A commonly held belief in the MAA community is that children are capable of giving consent to sex). etc.
- This is essentially a slippery slope circular argument – that is, it argues that gay marriage is bad because if we allow it, we might then allow something worse ("something worse" implying that gay marriage is bad, which implies the conclusion in its premise).
you are wrong what is wrong whit gay marriage?
In Favor
- Erin Lindsay writes (Venus Envy news for 2006-07-27) (with some reformatting and emphasis):
- This morning, the Washington States Supreme Court handed down their decision that homosexuals didn't deserve the right to marry. Their basic reasoning, like most every opponent's, is that being gay is a choice, so it's not something you need special consideration for.
- I'm not going to break off into a tirade about whether or not gay is in-born or learned, and whether its a choice or something you're just given without your consultation, but if it were up to these same sorts of people, being black would probably be considered a lifestyle choice, too.
- The line that really stuck it to me was in mentioning that gays weren't being discriminated against, because they're free to marry people of the opposite sex any time they want. Dear lord, if ANYTHING would cause damage to straight marriage, it would be forcing gays to do it.
- The primary justification for the judicial discrimination was that gay couples couldn't procreate (well... gay male couples, anyway; as near as I can tell, there's no such thing as lesbians), so in years to come, expect to see a lot of court decisions from Washington state outlawing marriage between the elderly, sterile couples, and heterosexuals who don't want children.
- Luckily, thanks to extremely close-minded birth-certificate modification laws that prevent a transsexual from being re-assigned as her new gender, I can still legally marry the woman I love. I guess two wrongs can make a right.
Inquiries
- What arguments can be leveled against gay marriage that cannot be leveled against interracial marriage? (see wikipedia:Loving v. Virginia; apparently, at the time of this decision, more people were against interracial marriage than are now against gay marriage – not that this proves anything, but it shows how opinion can change given a few decades)
Solutions
- Remove "marriage" from goverment governance.
- Remove references to "marriage" from all govermental documents, and replace it with "civil union" or "civil partnership", allowing any two or more persons to enter into such an arrangement for legal implications.
- Remove benefits and detriments from "civil unions" other than those pertaining to legal entities (e.g. health decisions, death benefits, etc.)
- Leave "marriage" and the rules regarding such up to the religions of those who engage in such ceremonies.
- A similar solution is suggested by Rob Howard in this posting (6:33 PM).
- TruthMapping: The USA government should not be involved in marriage (discussion)
- Educate the populace on the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage so that they stop thinking of "marriage" as a term that is synonymous with their religious ceremony.
- This may not help as the most vocally against "redefining marriage" tend to not understand that people of all religions and atheists also get married, not just people of their religion or religious people in general.
Quotes
- "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one!" – popular bumper sticker
- "MARRIAGE = [ male restroom icon ] + [ female restroom icon ]
- So... gay marriage is okay as long as one spouse wears a dress?
Notes
Countries supporting gay marriage: Canada, Spain, Norway, South Africa...