|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2007 : 11:22:11
|
I can't think of any good reason these should be illegal.
Can anyone else?
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 16:10:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
I can't think of any good reason these should be illegal.
Can anyone else?
Nope. At least not the particular subset of "everyone" for which I speak. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 16:22:28 [Permalink]
|
Neither can I. As a lifelong heterosexual who has been involuntarily chaste for four years (due to a stroke and being divorced because of the stroke -- talk about a dry spell!), I sincerely envy anyone able to have a committed loving relationship with another human. Homosexuals should be treated no different than others. It's a matter of rights, and of recognizing an ongoing relationship. Relgious objections of the fundies intrude into matters of public policy. Let their churches not hold gay weddings, if they insist upon bigotry. But let gays and lesbians have the rights and recognition of marriage under the law.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/26/2007 16:25:17 |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 16:41:58 [Permalink]
|
what about polygamy or other such marriages that involve more than 2 people?
If 3 people want to get married, how does everyone feel about that? |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 16:55:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vegeta
what about polygamy or other such marriages that involve more than 2 people?
If 3 people want to get married, how does everyone feel about that?
Polygamy has been around for as long as there has been mammalian life on earth, and this includes all primates. Many modern cultures today practice it, notably the Muslims. Where is the problem?
As to homosexual marriage; what 'mooner said works for me...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 17:00:35 [Permalink]
|
| I'm not saying there's a problem, I'm just escalating the topic because it didnt seem controversial enough for me |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 17:21:55 [Permalink]
|
No, but I can sure think of a whole bunch of reasons why they should be legal. Here's just one:
"In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation." - Justice C.J. Marshall
From this article: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar13.htm
But IMO, the best part of the article is the Possible negative effects of SSM on the children. Here they are (in bold) with my comments (not in bold):
Children raised in families led by same-sex parents would be continually exposed to homosexuality. They may choose to become gay or lesbian at a higher rate than those raised by a father and mother. First, there is no evidence one way or another that shows that kids raised by gays are more likely to turn gay, and such evidence would be difficult when dealing with kids who are genetically related to their gay parents, since there is evidence that genes at least play a role in sexual orientation. That aside, given overpopulation, I would consider this a good thing for society at large, and it is not a bad thing for the kids if they live in a tolerant society.
Men and women have very different personalities, brain structure, talents, etc. They are designed to fit into very different roles within the family. While it is true that men and women are generally different in certain ways, every way that men and women are different - with the exception of actual organs (and let's keep in mind that sexual organs aren't used in the rearing of children) – is small enough that there are men and women who cross the divide. There are women who are taller, stronger, faster, better at math, and more logically-thinking that the average man, and there are men who are shorter, weaker, have more endurance, and more intuitive than the average woman. By this stupid argument, it would be equally damaging for a kid to be raised by an especially masculine woman and average man, or an especially feminine man and average woman.
In order for children to be properly socialized, they need to be brought up by both a father and a mother. The long range effects on children who are brought up by two women or two men are unknown and can only be speculated upon This is not really an argument for banning gay marriage since gay couples will raise children regardless of the legal recognition of their union. This is an argument for the government to take kids away from single parents and gay couples. Gee – which is worse for the kids, foster homes or living with one loving parent/two responsible same-sex parents?
God may punish same-sex parents. This might adversely affect the children in their family. God may punish same-sex parents? This might affect the children and their family? Wow, this is obviously a great bit of reasoning that public policy should be based on!
God may also punish the nation as a whole if SSM is legalized. That would harm all children in the nation. See above.
Children of same-sex couples will be exposed to a great deal of ridicule and hatred by their fellow students. This could negatively affect their development. What!? Don't let them get married ‘cause there's bigotry against them? Well fuck, there's still racism, so I guess we shouldn't let couples adopt kids of different races too, and ban interracial marriage.
This is really an argument that favors the legalization of SSM! Gays and lesbians are going to raise kids regardless of whether their unions are recognized or not. If the unions are recognized, they at least have legal benefits, and that helps foster greater social |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/26/2007 17:23:55 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 17:38:15 [Permalink]
|
Vegeta wrote: quote:
what about polygamy or other such marriages that involve more than 2 people?
If 3 people want to get married, how does everyone feel about that?
I wish they'd legalize polygamous marriages if only so all those women in Utah claiming welfare as "single mothers" would be legally and socially recognized for what they, their husbands, and cowives, are really doing.
My attitude is that if people are already doing it, and it doesn't inherently cause harm, it should be legal. If groups of people are going to live together as families, they should be legally recognized as each others' next of kin, and have all the other benefits of marriage.
But then again, I also think that it is way too fucking easy to get legally recognized marriage in the USA. I wish we'd get rid of legal marriage entirely and instead have civil unions which are granted upon a couple living together with their children, or couples living together for over a certain number of years (often called common law marriage; which was good enough for Ben Franklin!)
If we want to extend it to polygamy, how about civil unions being extended to any group of adults who live together as a family unit for a certain required number of years and who then apply for recognition and benefits? Do sex and romance necessarily have anything to do with family units? The USA is getting increasing diverse in its family and social units. The laws should reflect that diversity.
For the sake of everyone, including the children. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 18:57:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Children of same-sex couples will be exposed to a great deal of ridicule and hatred by their fellow students. This could negatively affect their development. What!? Don't let them get married ‘cause there's bigotry against them? Well fuck, there's still racism, so I guess we shouldn't let couples adopt kids of different races too, and ban interracial marriage.
This is really an argument that favors the legalization of SSM! Gays and lesbians are going to raise kids regardless of whether their unions are recognized or not. If the unions are recognized, they at least have legal benefits, and that helps foster greater social acceptance. But if they are not legally recognized, that is just more ammo for those who refuse to accept that homosexuality isn't deranged, dangerous, evil, or anything else bad for society.
Interesting you point this out. While this doesn't apply to homosexuality per se, it does apply in the broader sense of prejudice. The military enforced desegregation of the races long before the civilian community in the US. There are more inter-racial couples in the military and more acceptance racial diversity in the military. I can see where support of SSM would reduce the prejudice toward this type of relationship. It's easy to fear and hate the 'uncommon' vs the 'common. By moving the idea into the acceptable norm of society one would hope that this type of relationship would become more acceptable to the majority of society. Otherwise, you'll always have a few nuts running around. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 19:21:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
quote:
Children of same-sex couples will be exposed to a great deal of ridicule and hatred by their fellow students. This could negatively affect their development. What!? Don't let them get married ‘cause there's bigotry against them? Well fuck, there's still racism, so I guess we shouldn't let couples adopt kids of different races too, and ban interracial marriage.
This is really an argument that favors the legalization of SSM! Gays and lesbians are going to raise kids regardless of whether their unions are recognized or not. If the unions are recognized, they at least have legal benefits, and that helps foster greater social acceptance. But if they are not legally recognized, that is just more ammo for those who refuse to accept that homosexuality isn't deranged, dangerous, evil, or anything else bad for society.
Interesting you point this out. While this doesn't apply to homosexuality per se, it does apply in the broader sense of prejudice. The military enforced desegregation of the races long before the civilian community in the US. There are more inter-racial couples in the military and more acceptance racial diversity in the military. I can see where support of SSM would reduce the prejudice toward this type of relationship. It's easy to fear and hate the 'uncommon' vs the 'common. By moving the idea into the acceptable norm of society one would hope that this type of relationship would become more acceptable to the majority of society. Otherwise, you'll always have a few nuts running around.
Interestingly, the reason the military got rid of racial segregation was a practical, military one. Soldiers in separate African-American and white units fighting in Korea were accusing one another of not taking on the dangerous missions. This was beginning to widely effect morale and the fighting ability of many units. Eisenhower saw this and ordered immediate integration -- problem solved.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/28/2007 19:21:52 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 22:10:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Interestingly, the reason the military got rid of racial segregation was a practical, military one. Soldiers in separate African-American and white units fighting in Korea were accusing one another of not taking on the dangerous missions. This was beginning to widely effect morale and the fighting ability of many units. Eisenhower saw this and ordered immediate integration -- problem solved.
True, but it did cause the military community to move toward a society of less racial prejudice more quickly than in the civilian community. Granted the rules were draconian when this was first institutionalized. And the Marines finally caught up with integrating women about 10 years later than the rest, except for separate bootcamps. But I don't think even the military is ready for men and women together in open squad bays. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:52:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
Interesting you point this out. While this doesn't apply to homosexuality per se, it does apply in the broader sense of prejudice. The military enforced desegregation of the races long before the civilian community in the US. There are more inter-racial couples in the military and more acceptance racial diversity in the military. I can see where support of SSM would reduce the prejudice toward this type of relationship. It's easy to fear and hate the 'uncommon' vs the 'common. By moving the idea into the acceptable norm of society one would hope that this type of relationship would become more acceptable to the majority of society. Otherwise, you'll always have a few nuts running around.
Interesting analogy - When the SSM controversy was at it's peak in Canada, I heard a caller on phone-in show say that the people who were opposing SSM are the same kind of people who opposed inter-racial marriage 50 years ago. I think he was not far off the mark. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:57:04 [Permalink]
|
Yes, the results of military integration were socially progressive, even though the intention wasn't, and the impetus for it didn't come from the general staff.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 00:26:08 [Permalink]
|
Not quite as funny as Creation Science 101 but still good
Roy Zimmerman on Defenders of Marriage
|
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 20:41:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vegeta
I'm not saying there's a problem, I'm just escalating the topic because it didnt seem controversial enough for me
I'm less comfortable with polygamy. I've known several couples to have experemented with it, but I found that in each couple there was one that really wanted to be monogamous, but went along with it because they feared losing their s/o if they didn't.
Anecdotal, yes, but I'd be very surprised if this wasn't more typical than not. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Same-sex Marriage
Topic Locked
