Gay marriage arguments

markin ball

First off I'll declare what I think. I think people should be with or marry whoever they want to. I support a man's ability to legally marry another man and a woman's ability to legally marry another woman. What I can't get my mind around sometimes, is one of the arguments used to frame the debate. Sometimes proponents of same sex marriages claim homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. I would say "yes they do". Both groups, the homosexually oriented and the heterosexually oriented, only have the right to marry someone from the opposite sex. Now, obviously that is a bit inconvenient for the homsoxually oriented but everyone has the same rights, I think. Now some will say that heterosexuals do have an extra "right" because they can marry the person they actually want to. My response to that is define "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in a legal sense, which seems impossible to me. I know we're talking semantics here, but I think it should be considered.

My point is this...in my humble opinion the "gay marriage movement" would do better if the debate was framed soley as allowing "anyone and everyone to marry anyone they want to" instead of making it seem like a special case for a specific group of people.

Any thoughts?

catefrances

markin ball wrote:

First off I'll declare what I think. I think people should be with or marry whoever they want to. I support a man's ability to legally marry another man and a woman's ability to legally marry another woman. What I can't get my mind around sometimes, is one of the arguments used to frame the debate. Sometimes proponents of same sex marriages claim homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. I would say "yes they do". Both groups, the homosexually oriented and the heterosexually oriented, only have the right to marry someone from the opposite sex. Now, obviously that is a bit inconvenient for the homsoxually oriented but everyone has the same rights, I think. Now some will say that heterosexuals do have an extra "right" because they can marry the person they actually want to. My response to that is define "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in a legal sense, which seems impossible to me. I know we're talking semantics here, but I think it should be considered.

My point is this...in my humble opinion the "gay marriage movement" would do better if the debate was framed soley as allowing "anyone and everyone to marry anyone they want to" instead of making it seem like a special case for a specific group of people.

Any thoughts?

but 'anyone and everyone' can already marry whoever they please so long as theyre over the age of consent and a different sex. the gay marraige movement wants that right too. its not really a special case for a specific group of people. its about being able to marry who you love just like the heteros can. its about our society being inclusive.

markin ball

catefrances wrote:

markin ball wrote:

First off I'll declare what I think. I think people should be with or marry whoever they want to. I support a man's ability to legally marry another man and a woman's ability to legally marry another woman. What I can't get my mind around sometimes, is one of the arguments used to frame the debate. Sometimes proponents of same sex marriages claim homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. I would say "yes they do". Both groups, the homosexually oriented and the heterosexually oriented, only have the right to marry someone from the opposite sex. Now, obviously that is a bit inconvenient for the homsoxually oriented but everyone has the same rights, I think. Now some will say that heterosexuals do have an extra "right" because they can marry the person they actually want to. My response to that is define "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in a legal sense, which seems impossible to me. I know we're talking semantics here, but I think it should be considered.

My point is this...in my humble opinion the "gay marriage movement" would do better if the debate was framed soley as allowing "anyone and everyone to marry anyone they want to" instead of making it seem like a special case for a specific group of people.

Any thoughts?

but 'anyone and everyone' can already marry whoever they please so long as theyre over the age of consent and a different sex. the gay marraige movement wants that right too. its not really a special case for a specific group of people. its about being able to marry who you love just like the heteros can. its about our society being inclusive.

That is exactly my point. Everyone already has that right.

catefrances

markin ball wrote:

catefrances wrote:

markin ball wrote:

First off I'll declare what I think. I think people should be with or marry whoever they want to. I support a man's ability to legally marry another man and a woman's ability to legally marry another woman. What I can't get my mind around sometimes, is one of the arguments used to frame the debate. Sometimes proponents of same sex marriages claim homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. I would say "yes they do". Both groups, the homosexually oriented and the heterosexually oriented, only have the right to marry someone from the opposite sex. Now, obviously that is a bit inconvenient for the homsoxually oriented but everyone has the same rights, I think. Now some will say that heterosexuals do have an extra "right" because they can marry the person they actually want to. My response to that is define "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in a legal sense, which seems impossible to me. I know we're talking semantics here, but I think it should be considered.

My point is this...in my humble opinion the "gay marriage movement" would do better if the debate was framed soley as allowing "anyone and everyone to marry anyone they want to" instead of making it seem like a special case for a specific group of people.

Any thoughts?

but 'anyone and everyone' can already marry whoever they please so long as theyre over the age of consent and a different sex. the gay marraige movement wants that right too. its not really a special case for a specific group of people. its about being able to marry who you love just like the heteros can. its about our society being inclusive.

That is exactly my point. Everyone already has that right.

what they have is the right to marry a woman if theyre male or a man if theyre female. so what theyre fighting for the right to marry their same sex partner. its a discrimination case plain and simple. so i guess it really is about a specific group of people who are being discriminated against.

markin ball

catefrances wrote:

what they have is the right to marry a woman if theyre male or a man if theyre female. so what theyre fighting for the right to marry their same sex partner. its a discrimination case plain and simple. so i guess it really is about a specific group of people who are being discriminated against.

I understand that the fight is to marry someone of the same sex. Is it discrimination, though? Gays and straights still have the same right, which is to marry someone of the opposite sex and both gays and straights are denied the ability to marry someone of the same sex.

Wilds

markin bull wrote:

catefrances wrote:

what they have is the right to marry a woman if theyre male or a man if theyre female. so what theyre fighting for the right to marry their same sex partner. its a discrimination case plain and simple. so i guess it really is about a specific group of people who are being discriminated against.

I understand that the fight is to marry someone of a different race. Is it discrimination, though? White's and Blacks still have the same right, which is to marry someone of the same group and both blacks and whites are denied the ability to marry someone of the opposite group.

What if white people could only marry white people, and black people could only marry black people?

Would that be fair by your definition? They both get to marry.

(I've altered your quote to see how that would sound.)

unsung

I personally find it repulsive, simply because I am not attracted to men.

However I don't care if someone else is. I don't care one bit what people choose to do with their own lives, as long as they don't harm others in the process and as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Have a gay parade, have a ball, buy window treatments, get married. If my taxes don't go up I'm fine with it.

catefrances

markin ball wrote:

catefrances wrote:

what they have is the right to marry a woman if theyre male or a man if theyre female. so what theyre fighting for the right to marry their same sex partner. its a discrimination case plain and simple. so i guess it really is about a specific group of people who are being discriminated against.

I understand that the fight is to marry someone of the same sex. Is it discrimination, though? Gays and straights still have the same right, which is to marry someone of the opposite sex and both gays and straights are denied the ability to marry someone of the same sex.

yes. its discrimination based on sexual orientation. it is denying my same sex life long partner the same rights he/she would have if we were a married male-female couple. who i choose to marry is my business, the govt should not be involved. and they should never be allowed to legislate discriminatory practices by omission or otherwise.

Wilds

unsung wrote:

I personally find it repulsive, simply because I am not attracted to men.

However I don't care if someone else is. I don't care one bit what people choose to do with their own lives, as long as they don't harm others in the process and as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Have a gay parade, have a ball, buy window treatments, get married. If my taxes don't go up I'm fine with it.

One of my best friends used to be repulsed by it. Most of my other friends were just like no big deal. (myself included)

Then the friend that was "repulsed" by it came out of the closet. He is much happier now.

unsung

Interesting. I find it is not a big deal, let them do what they want. Some of it is a bit over the top is all.

markin ball

catefrances wrote:

markin ball wrote:

catefrances wrote:

what they have is the right to marry a woman if theyre male or a man if theyre female. so what theyre fighting for the right to marry their same sex partner. its a discrimination case plain and simple. so i guess it really is about a specific group of people who are being discriminated against.

I understand that the fight is to marry someone of the same sex. Is it discrimination, though? Gays and straights still have the same right, which is to marry someone of the opposite sex and both gays and straights are denied the ability to marry someone of the same sex.

yes. its discrimination based on sexual orientation. it is denying my same sex life long partner the same rights he/she would have if we were a married male-female couple. who i choose to marry is my business, the govt should not be involved. and they should never be allowed to legislate discriminatory practices by omission or otherwise.

None of us can marry anyone we want to. What if I, as a straight person, want to marry another man for tax purposes or because we have a great partnership or whatever? We all must marry someone of the opposite sex. So since we all are denied the same thing, and only allowed to do the same thing, how can it be considered discrimination? That is why I am saying "let's frame the debate to allow anyone to marry anyone else". What's gay or straight, homo or hetero, got to do with it?

catefrances

markin ball wrote:

catefrances wrote:

yes. its discrimination based on sexual orientation. it is denying my same sex life long partner the same rights he/she would have if we were a married male-female couple. who i choose to marry is my business, the govt should not be involved. and they should never be allowed to legislate discriminatory practices by omission or otherwise.

None of us can marry anyone we want to. What if I, as a straight person, want to marry another man for tax purposes or because we have a great partnership or whatever? We all must marry someone of the opposite sex. So since we all are denied the same thing, and only allowed to do the same thing, how can it be considered discrimination? That is why I am saying "let's frame the debate to allow anyone to marry anyone else". What's gay or straight, homo or hetero, got to do with it?

the dsicrimination comes, as i said, due to sexual orientation. you cant seriously think were all equal on this when i can, if i so desire, marry someone of the opposite sex... but if i fell in love with a women then i cant marry her. gays are denied the right to marry someone they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. we straights are not denied this right. wheres the equality???

Blah

markin ball wrote:

My response to that is define "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in a legal sense, which seems impossible to me.

There's the problem. Trying to define and seperate "us" from "them". Were all the same fucking thing.........people.

It's a shame some people have such bad lives that they have to worry about who's fucking who. If someone told me it's a sin to have sex with the opposite sex and I was gonna burn for going against God. Then I'd smile all the way to hell. I sure am not gonna tell anyone who to have sex with because, they are attracted to who they are attracted to. Marriage is a word, grow the fuck up people and get a life before it's too late. Ya know.

know1

catefrances wrote:

its about being able to marry who you love just like the heteros can. its about our society being inclusive.

I only WISH we had the right to marry who we love....but Jennifer Aniston won't take my calls.

What if we love 2 people? Shouldn't we have the right to marry both of them?

My point here is that I agree that very few of the arguments - both for an against - make any real sense.

Get the government out of it and let people marry, form unions, groups, or whatever they choose of their own free will. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

catefrances

know1 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

its about being able to marry who you love just like the heteros can. its about our society being inclusive.

I only WISH we had the right to marry who we love....but Jennifer Aniston won't take my calls.

What if we love 2 people? Shouldn't we have the right to marry both of them?

My point here is that I agree that very few of the arguments - both for an against - make any real sense.

Get the government out of it and let people marry, form unions, groups, or whatever they choose of their own free will. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

how can equal rghts make little sense... at least on this issue???

know1

catefrances wrote:

know1 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

its about being able to marry who you love just like the heteros can. its about our society being inclusive.

I only WISH we had the right to marry who we love....but Jennifer Aniston won't take my calls.

What if we love 2 people? Shouldn't we have the right to marry both of them?

My point here is that I agree that very few of the arguments - both for an against - make any real sense.

Get the government out of it and let people marry, form unions, groups, or whatever they choose of their own free will. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

how can equal rghts make little sense... at least on this issue???

Because as the OP pointed out, technically there are already equal rights. All people can legally marry someone of the opposite sex.

Like I asked, what if I was in love with 2 people? Shouldn't I have the right to marry both?

And look at my last line - I think people should be allowed to "marry" or whatever they want to call it whomever and as many as they please....outside of the scope of the government. I think you said something similar yourself earlier in the thread so I guess we basically agree on that point.

catefrances

know1 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

know1 wrote:

I only WISH we had the right to marry who we love....but Jennifer Aniston won't take my calls.

What if we love 2 people? Shouldn't we have the right to marry both of them?

My point here is that I agree that very few of the arguments - both for an against - make any real sense.

Get the government out of it and let people marry, form unions, groups, or whatever they choose of their own free will. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

how can equal rghts make little sense... at least on this issue???

Because as the OP pointed out, technically there are already equal rights. All people can legally marry someone of the opposite sex.

Like I asked, what if I was in love with 2 people? Shouldn't I have the right to marry both?

And look at my last line - I think people should be allowed to "marry" or whatever they want to call it whomever and as many as they please....outside of the scope of the government. I think you said something similar yourself earlier in the thread so I guess we basically agree on that point.

yes i know but where we differ(seemingly) is the opinion that what is not equal is the right to marry the one person we love... if we happen to be gay. that basic right is kept from us.

know1

catefrances wrote:

yes i know but where we differ(seemingly) is the opinion that what is not equal is the right to marry the one person we love... if we happen to be gay. that basic right is kept from us.

Love is very, very hard to define. As I asked, what if I "love" 2 people. Should I have the right to marry both? What if it's 12 people?

catefrances

know1 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

yes i know but where we differ(seemingly) is the opinion that what is not equal is the right to marry the one person we love... if we happen to be gay. that basic right is kept from us.

Love is very, very hard to define. As I asked, what if I "love" 2 people. Should I have the right to marry both? What if it's 12 people?

who in their right mind would want to marry 12 people??

yes love is very difficult to define and it can not be legislated. EVERYONE should have the right, if they so choose, to marry the person theyve fallen in love with and want to spend the rest of their life with. unfortunately gays have to have that right legislated cause its not a basic right for them. and the fact that it is NOT a basic right for them is not just wrong, its discriminatory.

Kel Varnsen

know1 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

yes i know but where we differ(seemingly) is the opinion that what is not equal is the right to marry the one person we love... if we happen to be gay. that basic right is kept from us.

Love is very, very hard to define. As I asked, what if I "love" 2 people. Should I have the right to marry both? What if it's 12 people?

I wouldn't really care if someone wanted to marry 12 people. I mean such a small segment of the population would want to do that it would have no effect on me. And as long as all 13 people in that relationship knew about each other and things like property/inheritance rights and power of attorney were settled in advance why should I care?

mrvedderson

Marriage is a strang thing anyway. I say no marriage for anyone.