Thoughts on Gay Marriage

[RosettaStoned]

There is no rational argument against it.

There is no rational argument for SSM. Marriage is just regulations imposed on people who might seek monogamous sexually reproduction. Couples do not need to be married to express love or to be happy or to be sexually gratified.

Lack of marriage privileges for same-sex couples is a calamity because marriage also grants special socio-economic privileges. If you look at the income data, the only family demographic that earns more than median household income is dual income married couples. The current system screws all unmarried people to protect the sanctity of "traditional" single-income married households. Unmarried people include homosexuals in most instances.

I'm empathetic to the plight of gay couples, but SSM does not fix the problem nor does it represent civil rights victory. It is a silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people who are eager to avoid dealing with our real problems.

 Our real problems? Such as? I don't see how citizens being treated as scum is not a problem.

[DC Al Fine]

Polygamy is a whole different ball game to gay marriage, though. Polygamous societies are predominantly polygynous, so it degrades women and locks many men outside of relationships. Obviously piles of sexually dissatisfied men is bad news for society (don't laugh I'm serious), so I'm suspicious of promoting polygamy.

Given the way gay marriage has been promoted for the past 10+ years, I doubt people will consider those arguments valid. If I were to make an anti gay marriage post on Atlas or Facebook, one of the first replies would be something like "but they love each other, they should be able to get married".

A culture that bases its acceptance of gay marriage on "marriage=love" will have to accept polygamy too. Granted, there will still be inertia but it wouldn't be that surprising if our kids' or grandkids' generation feels the same way about polygamy that millennials do about gay marriage.

[bedstuy]

Polygamy is a whole different ball game to gay marriage, though. Polygamous societies are predominantly polygynous, so it degrades women and locks many men outside of relationships. Obviously piles of sexually dissatisfied men is bad news for society (don't laugh I'm serious), so I'm suspicious of promoting polygamy.

Given the way gay marriage has been promoted for the past 10+ years, I doubt people will consider those arguments valid. If I were to make an anti gay marriage post on Atlas or Facebook, one of the first replies would be something like "but they love each other, they should be able to get married".

A culture that bases its acceptance of gay marriage on "marriage=love" will have to accept polygamy too. Granted, there will still be inertia but it wouldn't be that surprising if our kids' or grandkids' generation feels the same way about polygamy that millennials do about gay marriage.

Regardless of the validity of the arguments pro or con, I doubt that's true. 

Homosexuality is an orientation.  Almost every gay person comes from a heterosexual family.  Every society has gay people.  But, polygamy is more societal way of structuring relationships. 

There's also the fact that there has been a large gay community in the United States for a number of years.  Gay people are a respected part of society.  Not so with polygamists, who are mostly in fringe religious cults.  Even in the most open, liberal communities, there isn't a thriving polygamist community the way there was a gay community even 50 years ago.  So, it's not really a perfect analogy. 

[AggregateDemand]

Maybe so, but that didn't stop the GOP playing the "defenders of marriage" card throughout the early 2000's. I can't help but feel a bit of Schandenfreude that now the cards are stacked against them, they awkwardly claim that the Democrats are talking about "non-important issues".

True, but how does poetic justice help the American electorate?

If Democrats spent less time trying to give uppity conservative Republicans their comeuppance, our country would be in better condition.

[Mechaman]

>2014
>pretending there are any real arguments against legal same-sex marriage

hahahaha, great one!

[Mechaman]

There is no rational argument against it.

There is no rational argument for SSM. Marriage is just regulations imposed on people who might seek monogamous sexual reproduction. Couples do not need to be married to express love or to be happy or to be sexually gratified.

Lack of marriage privileges for same-sex couples is a calamity because marriage also grants special socio-economic privileges. If you look at the income data, the only family demographic that earns more than median household income is dual income married couples. The current system screws all unmarried people to protect the sanctity of "traditional" single-income married households.

I'm empathetic to the plight of gay couples, but SSM does not fix the problem nor does it represent civil rights victory. It is a silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people who are eager to avoid dealing with our real problems.

That's a very cute thing for you to say.  And I mean that with all due respect.  Sure, to you it might not be a "real problem", but to people like TDAS I imagine it's a heck of a "problem".  But I guess that's the thing though, and what is wrong with a lot of people in this country really.  As long as it's not affecting you, who gives a sh*t, am I right?

I'm trying to remain calm here, but I really can't believe I just can't believe that last sentence I read.  I mean really, I actually it's more insulting to the millions of gay Americans and their allies who have been fighting this cause for decades to have their movement demoted down to a "silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people" more so than people who claim it's a sin.  In the latter case, at least those opponents recognize it's a legitimate issue that has a profound effect on American society.

If you want to say you are against gay marriage because you don't like it, just come right out and say it.  Don't hide behind this legalistic tax code bullsh*t.  I'm not buying it, TDAS is not buying it, and neither is nobody else in this thread.

[AggregateDemand]

That's a very cute thing for you to say.  And I mean that with all due respect.  Sure, to you it might not be a "real problem", but to people like TDAS I imagine it's a heck of a "problem".  But I guess that's the thing though, and what is wrong with a lot of people in this country really.  As long as it's not affecting you, who gives a sh*t, am I right?

I'm trying to remain calm here, but I really can't believe I just can't believe that last sentence I read.  I mean really, I actually it's more insulting to the millions of gay Americans and their allies who have been fighting this cause for decades to have their movement demoted down to a "silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people" more so than people who claim it's a sin.  In the latter case, at least those opponents recognize it's a legitimate issue that has a profound effect on American society.

If you want to say you are against gay marriage because you don't like it, just come right out and say it.  Don't hide behind this legalistic tax code bullsh*t.  I'm not buying it, TDAS is not buying it, and neither is nobody else in this thread.

From your point of view, the problem is that Romeo and Julian are star-crossed lovers who've been damned and disrespected by a bigoted society that will never accept their forbidden love. Oh, the humanity!! When will society learn that a gay rose by any other name still has constitutional rights?! [drop curtain]

It's adorable.

From my point of view, the government doesn't have any real control over love or monogamous human sexuality between consenting adults. The real issue is that these same-sex couples are being denied socio-economic rights that have been conferred upon married couples. Furthermore, CBO income data (by family demographic) indicates that dual-income married people are the only demographic getting ahead in this country. Everyone else is being hammered down, particularly single-women, which explains Democratic Party initiatives like universal birth control.

From your point of view, America has erratic hairloss and skin irritation caused by harassment from bigots. You want access to Rogaine and anti-histamines. I realize we need to start treating lupus. How dare I deny Rogaine from these unfortunate people? If I don't want to help bald people, I should just admit it!!

How much longer before I get murdered by a revolutionary zealot who doesn't think I'm pure enough for the cause? Can't be far away. That's how all of these movies end.

[bedstuy]

Yeah, come on guys. 

Two people with two incomes who share expenses have more money than single people with one income and no sharing of expenses.  So, therefore, we can't let gay people get married or we'll all get lupus.

[Oakvale]

I'm for legalising it, albeit significantly less enthusiastically than I was when I first joined the forum. I am mildly disappointed that gays want to sell out by endorsing a concept like marriage, and irritated that it's literally the only issue that anyone seems to care about despite it being such a minor little thing that affects very few people.

'Cuz why not?

Anyway, I support Gay Marriage 100%, and it should be legalized statewide, I'm surprised it's taken the US this long to finally start to support it.

I don't know why you'd be surprised, the US has rapidly adopted gay marriage at a faster pace than most similar countries.

Polygamy is a whole different ball game to gay marriage, though. Polygamous societies are predominantly polygynous, so it degrades women and locks many men outside of relationships. Obviously piles of sexually dissatisfied men is bad news for society (don't laugh I'm serious), so I'm suspicious of promoting polygamy.

Given the way gay marriage has been promoted for the past 10+ years, I doubt people will consider those arguments valid. If I were to make an anti gay marriage post on Atlas or Facebook, one of the first replies would be something like "but they love each other, they should be able to get married".

A culture that bases its acceptance of gay marriage on "marriage=love" will have to accept polygamy too. Granted, there will still be inertia but it wouldn't be that surprising if our kids' or grandkids' generation feels the same way about polygamy that millennials do about gay marriage.

I actually think you're correct here in that acceptance of gay marriage will probably lead to polygamy becoming the next safe social liberal cause celebre a few decades down the road, but I don't accept the premise that that's inherently a negative thing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm for legalising it, albeit significantly less enthusiastically than I was when I first joined the forum. I am mildly disappointed that gays want to sell out by endorsing a concept like marriage, and irritated that it's literally the only issue that anyone seems to care about despite it being such a minor little thing that affects very few people.

This exactly.

[afleitch]

I am mildly disappointed that gays want to sell out by endorsing a concept like marriage

I know right? Marriage is just so not the gay thing to do. Let's just join a f-ck circle. Me and Michael would be much better off separated by the Atlantic. I feel like such a f-cking sell out everytime I wake up next to him and realise he's not in Pennsylvania.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There is no rational argument against it.

There is no rational argument for SSM. Marriage is just regulations imposed on people who might seek monogamous sexual reproduction.

Implying marriage is about reproduction...

[Mechaman]

That's a very cute thing for you to say.  And I mean that with all due respect.  Sure, to you it might not be a "real problem", but to people like TDAS I imagine it's a heck of a "problem".  But I guess that's the thing though, and what is wrong with a lot of people in this country really.  As long as it's not affecting you, who gives a sh*t, am I right?

I'm trying to remain calm here, but I really can't believe I just can't believe that last sentence I read.  I mean really, I actually it's more insulting to the millions of gay Americans and their allies who have been fighting this cause for decades to have their movement demoted down to a "silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people" more so than people who claim it's a sin.  In the latter case, at least those opponents recognize it's a legitimate issue that has a profound effect on American society.

If you want to say you are against gay marriage because you don't like it, just come right out and say it.  Don't hide behind this legalistic tax code bullsh*t.  I'm not buying it, TDAS is not buying it, and neither is nobody else in this thread.

From your point of view, the problem is that Romeo and Julian are star-crossed lovers who've been damned and disrespected by a bigoted society that will never accept their forbidden love. Oh, the humanity!! When will society learn that a gay rose by any other name still has constitutional rights?! [drop curtain]

It's adorable.

From my point of view, the government doesn't have any real control over love or monogamous human sexuality between consenting adults. The real issue is that these same-sex couples are being denied socio-economic rights that have been conferred upon married couples. Furthermore, CBO income data (by family demographic) indicates that dual-income married people are the only demographic getting ahead in this country. Everyone else is being hammered down, particularly single-women, which explains Democratic Party initiatives like universal birth control.

From your point of view, America has erratic hairloss and skin irritation caused by harassment from bigots. You want access to Rogaine and anti-histamines. I realize we need to start treating lupus. How dare I deny Rogaine from these unfortunate people? If I don't want to help bald people, I should just admit it!!

How much longer before I get murdered by a revolutionary zealot who doesn't think I'm pure enough for the cause? Can't be far away. That's how all of these movies end.

Nice cop out.

If you notice, I'm not saying this to posters like TJinWisco and DC who are at least honest enough to admit that they have a moral problem with gay marriage.  You, however, seem content and adamant to hide behind the usual tax code bullsh*t card that many conservatives use now days to find a moderate hero way out of a debate that they don't like.  You think you are doing some revolutionary new argument, but really you're not as we've seen this kind of argument more than a few times on here (and the people who use it are promptly laughed out the building).

That you are now devolving into strawman hyperbole is just further proof of the legitimacy of your faux libertarian persona.

[SWE]

I'm for legalising it, albeit significantly less enthusiastically than I was when I first joined the forum. I am mildly disappointed that gays want to sell out by endorsing a concept like marriage, and irritated that it's literally the only issue that anyone seems to care about despite it being such a minor little thing that affects very few people.

This exactly.

[Maistre]

The whole issue with 'marriage equality' or whatever isn't about gay marriage. Even here in SC, there is no police or anything stopping two homos from going to an Episcopal Church (except the Lawrence affiliated Southern Diocese, won't fly there) and having a gay marriage ceremony. The difference is that they now want me (via the state) to recognize that their union is now a 'marriage.' That's what this gay rights movement is about, codifying their lifestyle into public law and gain the acceptance (whether forced or not) they most cravenly want.

Then madness and persecution is sure to follow. 

[AggregateDemand]

Nice cop out.

If you notice, I'm not saying this to posters like TJinWisco and DC who are at least honest enough to admit that they have a moral problem with gay marriage.  You, however, seem content and adamant to hide behind the usual tax code bullsh*t card that many conservatives use now days to find a moderate hero way out of a debate that they don't like.  You think you are doing some revolutionary new argument, but really you're not as we've seen this kind of argument more than a few times on here (and the people who use it are promptly laughed out the building).

That you are now devolving into strawman hyperbole is just further proof of the legitimacy of your faux libertarian persona.

The only reservations I have about gay marriage pertain to the possible negative consequences of imposing heterosexual laws on homosexuals. Kinship restriction, for instance, would make same-sex marriage between cousins a crime in the state of Texas, even if one of them is adopted. In Arizona, gay cousins could marry as long as they could prove that one of them is sterile. Sure, that's relevant exception for same-sex marriage. Maybe a lesbian woman or gay man would not be given visitation rights after a divorce because they are not the biological parent, though they consented to raising a child with their partner.

Homosexuals should have options, particularly if they live in a state with Draconian marital regulations or fundamentalist marriage courts. You're willing to give them options, as long as it's marriage.

Your progressivism is commendable. Really.

[SteveRogers]

Marriage precedent confers preferential status upon women, which doesn't particularly make sense in same-sex relationships.

[Randy Bobandy]

Am I the only one here who wants to insult AggregateDemand everytime he makes a post?

[AggregateDemand]

Am I the only one here who wants to insult AggregateDemand everytime he makes a post?

Seek therapy. This sort of passive-aggression suggests you are deeply disturbed. Furthermore, if you learn to construct a condescending counter-argument, you won't have to resort to insults.

[Randy Bobandy]

Am I the only one here who wants to insult AggregateDemand everytime he makes a post?

Seek therapy. This sort of passive-aggression suggests you are deeply disturbed. Furthermore, if you learn to construct a condescending counter-argument, you won't have to resort to insults.

I am in therapy, thank you very much.

That's not something to joke about, you asshole.

[AggregateDemand]

I am in therapy, thank you very much.

That's not something to joke about, you asshole.

My mistake. I'll leave you to handle your own mental health.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

'Cuz why not?

Anyway, I support Gay Marriage 100%, and it should be legalized statewide, I'm surprised it's taken the US this long to finally start to support it.

This is one of the issues where the US is generally better than average among Western democracies. Credit where credit is due.

Contrary to popular belief, Americans by and large are more socially permissive than Europeans.

[Franzl]

'Cuz why not?

Anyway, I support Gay Marriage 100%, and it should be legalized statewide, I'm surprised it's taken the US this long to finally start to support it.

This is one of the issues where the US is generally better than average among Western democracies. Credit where credit is due.

Contrary to popular belief, Americans by and large are more socially permissive than Europeans.

This I disagree with. There are some very progressive parts of American society, perhaps more so than in Europe, but them again, there's also much stronger opposition, where in Europe it's mostly people either just not caring or thinking it's a legitimate political issue. America is more polarized.

But again, the legal situation (regarding gay rights) is better than average in the States.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'd just like to state that this is the funniest thread I've seen in a while.

[IceSpear]

I'm for legalising it, albeit significantly less enthusiastically than I was when I first joined the forum. I am mildly disappointed that gays want to sell out by endorsing a concept like marriage, and irritated that it's literally the only issue that anyone seems to care about despite it being such a minor little thing that affects very few people.

This exactly.

Because discrimination is okay, as long as the group getting discriminated against is small.