Why should not homo couples have the same marriage rights as heteros?

Since there is so much dancing around on this- I thought I would open a thread to discuss- and debate why anyone believes homosexuals should not have the same rights and responsibilities to marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

Please do not derail this with an argument that marriage should be abolished- that is another topic- abolishment is actually an argument for equality.

So do any of you who oppose gay marriage have a cogent argument to be made on why same gender/homosexual couples should be treated differently than opposite gender/heterosexual couples?

I eagerly look forward to your responses.

 

Let me guess that "someone" will try

"The Government clearly has an interest, as the Constittution indicates, to promote heterosexual marriage to reduce single motherhood becaue only heterosexual marriage has the potential for procreation even if undetectable, and thus it would be go against the Government's interest to allow same-sex marriage because...er...uh...it will somehow stop men from marrying the women they impregnate.... and besides it would be discriminatory if we don't allow Mee-maw to marry her grand-daughter....and...uh...er...that has been REPEATEDLY answered"

 

I appreciate the fact that you're trying to start anew, fresh and clean, free of the trolling and logical fallacies but I for one do not hold much hope. It will be interesting to see who shows up here.

 

It's because
(1) Queers are icky and don't screw right
(2) We've never done it that way
(3) If gays marry, it will reduce AIDS, and THEN what will be blame them for?
(4) If married gays raise kids, they'll be perfectly normal and THEN what will we blame them for?
(5) If we allow gays to marry, we'll have to allow dogs to marry fire plugs
(6) Same sex marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution
(7) Reducing discrimination only increases discrimination

How many reasons do you want, anyway?

 

No they should be treated the same by the law. Though I believe most laws state a man and woman as such we are all being treated the same all the men in the country can only marry women and vice versa. What you are really saying why should we not change the laws so that people of all sexuallitys can be married. I suppose I would like to know why should we expand the law to include people of the same sex getting married. What benefit does it provide to our society? If a clear benefit can be shown then we should change it, if not then I suppose it should only be changed if enough of the voting populace want the law changed.

Now personally I do think gay couples should have the same privileges and responsibilities granted them by marriage laws. Even though I do not believe they can truly be married in the eyes of God they should be allowed in the eyes of the state.

 

OMG! this is exactly what I was expecting! This isn't even coherent leave alone approaching anything resembling a valid argument against same sex marriage. All are being treated equally now!?? "people of all sexuallitys?" sexuallitys?? Gays have to show the benefit of being allowed to marry? The eyes of god?? Have you read the first amendment? It's apparent that you have no understanding of how things work or what the courts have been saying. Please go and sober up and come back when you have something rational to contribute

 

So insults is the best you can retort with, that sir is poor debating at its finest.

Do you dispute that all males according to these laws are only allowed to marry females and vise versa? The laws do not make a distinction on who you like to have sex with or if you love one another in fact it is not even asked. The people not allowed to marry under the law wish to make that distinction.

Now of course you seem to have missed where I said "Even though I do not believe they can truly be married in the eyes of God they should be allowed in the eyes of the state." which clearly shows I have read the first amendment, perhaps YOU did not read my post in full since I separated my beliefs in God and be beliefs on how the law should be applied.

Also I do believe that if laws are going to be made or changed they should either have some benefit to society OR have the approval of the majority of the people. What is wrong with that?

Finally I am well aware of what the courts have been saying and how things work and marriage between people of the same sex will be the norm across the country and rightly so. I can believe that something is wrong religiously while also believing that it should be allowed legally, can I not?

 

Uh, the US is supposed to be a free country. What that means is, people are free to do as they choose provided the exercise of that freedom does not do unacceptable harm to others. And to outlaw something, the State must show that it DOES do unacceptable harm to others. It has NEVER been that case that you are only free if you can demonstrate to the State that your freedom is a benefit to society! And so basic freedoms cannot be subject to popular vote. As many have said, this is three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Rights are something you HAVE, not something you must win a popular vote or demonstrate benefit in order to be granted.

Here I think everyone is pretty much in agreement - whether your marriage is valid in the eyes of your god depends on which god you believe in. Right now, I think about half the Christian gods approve, and half don't yet, if we count denominations. Christian gays and lesbians do not seem to be having any particular problem god-shopping, and finding one who blesses their union.

 

Please try to explain exactly where you stand on this and why

 

I am not really sure what you are struggling with here - His position is pretty clear to me.

 

Is it? I don't think so? He's very inconsistent. While he clams to be for legal same sex marriage in several places, he also said some things that cast doubt on that.

 

What is unclear about saying in the eyes of his faith, he does not agree with it. But accepts in the eyes of the state they should be allowed to enjoy the legal rights of marriage.

 

Nothing. If that is what is being said. However, he started out in his first post by seemingly saying that gay people already have the same rights as straight people because they both can marry someone of the opposite sex. Are you getting that?

Elsewhere, he makes the legal right to marry contingent upon gays proving that being allowed to marry will provide "some benefit to society" or that it should be decided by popular vote.

Sorry, there is much left to be explained.

 

Ok the laws do not say everyone can get married except gays. Me and you have the same privileges and restrictions placed on us by the law I can marry a woman if I want and so can you. Now you want the law changed and as a citizen you have that right to petition for that to happen through your representatives the same as me. The question is why should they change the law to accommodate your situation? What makes your situation unique versus any other group that is not specifically included in the marriage laws as now written? Anyone that wants to change a law needs to make a case for that change and having a benefit to society makes that all the easier.

Personally I think the easiest would be to remove any distinction beyond the legal ability to sign a contract. That would solve the problem in my opinion.

 

In other words completely destroy the institution of marriage in order to avoid having to extend legal marriage to gays? How do you think that will go over with the "traditional marriage" folks who decry gay marriage as destroying traditional marriage. Completely upending the who social and legal system is the "easiest way" maybe you would like to think that through and share your plan with us. Explain exactly how you see that playing out.

 

Why would the fact that any two adults can get married destroy the institution of marriage? That is what is required to sign a contract being two adults of sound mind. Fact is that is all civil marriage is, a contract. You should be able to enter into any form of contract you want gay, strait, or other, hell you can call it marriage if you want to I dont mind. I dont own the word. I just dont agree that the law is persecuting you or treating you differently. It just does not reference your prefered relationship construct and you want it to. Now you just have to convince the politicians that it needs too.

 

The courts have recognized that marriage is an essential individual right in the United States

While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships and child rearing and education[/I]

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process

The courts have recognized that States cannot restrict such rights without a compelling state interest- even inmates in prison have been found to have the right to marry.

The Courts have recognized that States have not shown a compelling reason to prevent two individuals of the same gender from marrying each other.

In other words, without a compelling State interest, the State cannot discriminate against same gender couples.

 

What I find fascinating about this thread is I offered a forum here for anyone who has strong views why homosexuals should not be treated equally with heterosexuals in marriage to present their case.

No takers. Not Sec. Not Dixon. Not Sam.

Without comment, I will invite them again to present their case as to why they believe marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals, so we can discuss the specifics rather than all of the distracting side issues.

 

The topic of this thread is marriage equality. The equal treatment of gay couples and straight couples as is now provided for by law. If you're going to insist that currently gays are not being treated different, we're done here. That is just pure ignorance. Willful ignorance. Now see if you can explain why gays should not be able to marry on the merits of the issue as presented.

All of this other extraneous stuff about "others groups" and marriage being just a contract with no other government involvement are just logical fallacies designed to derail the conversation. I've heard all of this horse(*)(*)(*)(*) before many times before and I'm not going to let you drag this thread into the gutter. The only valid question is what compelling government interest is there in denying marriage to gay couples. Bet you can't think of any.

 

It's a slow softball pitch to dixon...but he won't take a crack at it? Odd?

 

For one thing no one has the right to be married.

WHen ever anyone claims to be an advocate for equal marriage rights they are stating a fallacy.

Marriage is a state controlled privilege. If someone wishes to expand that privilege to a few select more people than it is already granted to I don't really care but either way call it what it is.

I know of no one who wishes to see marriage abolished. I do see some ( including me ) to see government control of it abolished and for it to become what it truly should be: a contract for free peaceful association between any two or more consenting adults.

 

Why would I do that when I believe they should be able to marry? I think I have been clear on that, I just do not agree with everything you have said I come at it from a different angle then you do but come up with the same conclusion "gays should be able to marry.".

You know if this is how you respond to those that want you to be able to marry who you want, no wonder you have problems with those that don't. You may want to consider a little mutual respect and try not to insult those that are trying to have a debate with you. Have I at any time ridiculed you or your thoughts? Have I called you names, insulted your intelligence, person or ideas? Most of the time I think members of the gay community really just want respect but representatives like yourself make it very hard to offer it.

 

According to decisions by the Supreme Court is is indeed a right.

Inmates in prison have a right to marriage. Men who don't pay child support have a right to get married. People of two different races have the right to get married.

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)
"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

as I said in my OP, I don't want to really discuss the elimination of marriage- but eliminating government involvement would make it equal for all.

 

I have done nothing but ridiculed your posts because they are in fact worthy of ridicule. Stick to the topic. Tell the truth about what you believe, and we won't have a problem

 

Regardless of any USSC decision the reality is marriage is not a right it is a state licensed privilege.

SO long as the state is licensing it marriage is not a right and never will be until the state is forbidden to require or issue such licenses.

None of your post refutes that fact