The Secret, Hypocritical TRUTH About Those Opposing Gay Marriage(LOL)
Quoting AlekD:
Sorry to dissapoint but I am not going to be dragged into a debate about this in a forum that is openly hostile to people who have different opinions on this issue. I'm just saying that maybe charicaturization and memes probably aren't the best way of dealing with such an emotional issue.
I never do memes.
I would like to ask you, though, what are the valid points against gay marriage?
Quoting Meadowchik:
The liberal case against same-sex marriage:
"Same-sex marriage changes the purpose of law. It no longer will serve, in cooperation with other parts of society, to channel behavior and socialization to achieve this synthesis of goods. It will function to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual friendships while excluding many other interdependent care givers. Rather than extending the marital status and privilege to same-sex couples and then gradually to other kinds of caring relationships (which logic will dictate), we should find alternative ways of meeting the dependency needs of same-sex couples, interdependent friends, and dependent but unmarried kin. Tax benefits, legal adoption, welfare transfers, and more refined and accessible legal contracts should be used to meet these needs, not the institution of marriage itself."
The above is a liberal argument explaining precisely how same-sex marriage would cause the institution to change to something not resembling marriage at all; that is what not "preserving the sanctity of marriage" literally means.
Wait....this doesn't make any sense.
What is it about allowing any two consenting adults who choose to enter into a legal marriage that threatens the institution of marriage?
That just friends could then do it?
So what?
Why must people go through the rigamarole of many contracts to determine their legal relationship to one another, including tax benefits and survivorship benefits, when just getting married solves the issue?
There is no reasonable side to denying equal rights.
Quoting AlekD:
So...everyone who opposes gay marriage is cheating on their spouse? Yeah that makes sense. There are valid points on both sides of this debate and taking cheap shots doesn't help.
Sorry to be a killjoy it just bothers me to see stuff like this from either side of the political spectrum.
It's a rational argument, one that shares points also used by conservatives. PPs have stated that there is not a rational argument against ssm, but there is, by conservatives and by liberals.
Quoting motha2daDuchess:just because "liberal" is in the title, doesn't mean anything.....fyi, that is some guys opinion, nothing more
Quoting Meadowchik:The liberal case against same-sex marriage:
"Same-sex marriage changes the purpose of law. It no longer will serve, in cooperation with other parts of society, to channel behavior and socialization to achieve this synthesis of goods. It will function to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual friendships while excluding many other interdependent care givers. Rather than extending the marital status and privilege to same-sex couples and then gradually to other kinds of caring relationships (which logic will dictate), we should find alternative ways of meeting the dependency needs of same-sex couples, interdependent friends, and dependent but unmarried kin. Tax benefits, legal adoption, welfare transfers, and more refined and accessible legal contracts should be used to meet these needs, not the institution of marriage itself."
The above is a liberal argument explaining precisely how same-sex marriage would cause the institution to change to something not resembling marriage at all; that is what not "preserving the sanctity of marriage" literally means.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting Meadowchik:
The liberal case against same-sex marriage:
"Same-sex marriage changes the purpose of law. It no longer will serve, in cooperation with other parts of society, to channel behavior and socialization to achieve this synthesis of goods. It will function to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual friendships while excluding many other interdependent care givers. Rather than extending the marital status and privilege to same-sex couples and then gradually to other kinds of caring relationships (which logic will dictate), we should find alternative ways of meeting the dependency needs of same-sex couples, interdependent friends, and dependent but unmarried kin. Tax benefits, legal adoption, welfare transfers, and more refined and accessible legal contracts should be used to meet these needs, not the institution of marriage itself."
The above is a liberal argument explaining precisely how same-sex marriage would cause the institution to change to something not resembling marriage at all; that is what not "preserving the sanctity of marriage" literally means.
Wait....this doesn't make any sense.
What is it about allowing any two consenting adults who choose to enter into a legal marriage that threatens the institution of marriage?
That just friends could then do it?
So what?
Why must people go through the rigamarole of many contracts to determine their legal relationship to one another, including tax benefits and survivorship benefits, when just getting married solves the issue?
They wouldn't necessarily have to go through a bunch of contracts; in some countries there are domestic partnerships or similar legal unions.
The issue with marriage is that the state has a vested interest in hetero couples being committed, because that is overwhelmingly associated witht he well-being of children, statistically speaking. Thus there is reason to make such commitment a conspicuous one in society, as hetero couples generally present unique problems and risks to society that no other kind of relationship presents.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting romalove:
Quoting Meadowchik:
The liberal case against same-sex marriage:
"Same-sex marriage changes the purpose of law. It no longer will serve, in cooperation with other parts of society, to channel behavior and socialization to achieve this synthesis of goods. It will function to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual friendships while excluding many other interdependent care givers. Rather than extending the marital status and privilege to same-sex couples and then gradually to other kinds of caring relationships (which logic will dictate), we should find alternative ways of meeting the dependency needs of same-sex couples, interdependent friends, and dependent but unmarried kin. Tax benefits, legal adoption, welfare transfers, and more refined and accessible legal contracts should be used to meet these needs, not the institution of marriage itself."
The above is a liberal argument explaining precisely how same-sex marriage would cause the institution to change to something not resembling marriage at all; that is what not "preserving the sanctity of marriage" literally means.
Wait....this doesn't make any sense.
What is it about allowing any two consenting adults who choose to enter into a legal marriage that threatens the institution of marriage?
That just friends could then do it?
So what?
Why must people go through the rigamarole of many contracts to determine their legal relationship to one another, including tax benefits and survivorship benefits, when just getting married solves the issue?
They wouldn't necessarily have to go through a bunch of contracts; in some countries there are domestic partnerships or similar legal unions.
The issue with marriage is that the state has a vested interest in hetero couples being committed, because that is overwhelmingly associated witht he well-being of children, statistically speaking. Thus there is reason to make such commitment a conspicuous one in society, as hetero couples generally present unique problems and risks to society that do other kind of relationship presents.
Before I respond to this, I want to be sure this is what you wanted to say. I think it isn't.
I completely agree with this statement about most topics...but have yet to hear a "reasonable" explanation against gay marriage.
Quoting AlekD:
So...everyone who opposes gay marriage is cheating on their spouse? Yeah that makes sense. There are valid points on both sides of this debate and taking cheap shots doesn't help.
Sorry to be a killjoy it just bothers me to see stuff like this from either side of the political spectrum.
New World Peace
Quoting romalove:They wouldn't necessarily have to go through a bunch of contracts; in some countries there are domestic partnerships or similar legal unions.
The issue with marriage is that the state has a vested interest in hetero couples being committed, because that is overwhelmingly associated witht he well-being of children, statistically speaking. Thus there is reason to make such commitment a conspicuous one in society, as hetero couples generally present unique problems and risks to society that
dono other kind of relationship presents.Before I respond to this, I want to be sure this is what you wanted to say. I think it isn't.
Thanks, there was a typo!
I corrected.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting romalove:They wouldn't necessarily have to go through a bunch of contracts; in some countries there are domestic partnerships or similar legal unions.
The issue with marriage is that the state has a vested interest in hetero couples being committed, because that is overwhelmingly associated witht he well-being of children, statistically speaking. Thus there is reason to make such commitment a conspicuous one in society, as hetero couples generally present unique problems and risks to society that
dono other kind of relationship presents.Before I respond to this, I want to be sure this is what you wanted to say. I think it isn't.
Thanks, there was a typo!
I corrected.
Ummm....are you sure you don't mean homosexual couples and not heterosexual couples?
Then I will respond. I promise.
no, there is NO rational argument AGAINST same sex marriage, none whatsoever
Quoting Meadowchik:It's a rational argument, one that shares points also used by conservatives. PPs have stated that there is not a rational argument against ssm, but there is, by conservatives and by liberals.
Quoting motha2daDuchess:just because "liberal" is in the title, doesn't mean anything.....fyi, that is some guys opinion, nothing more
Quoting Meadowchik:The liberal case against same-sex marriage:
"Same-sex marriage changes the purpose of law. It no longer will serve, in cooperation with other parts of society, to channel behavior and socialization to achieve this synthesis of goods. It will function to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual friendships while excluding many other interdependent care givers. Rather than extending the marital status and privilege to same-sex couples and then gradually to other kinds of caring relationships (which logic will dictate), we should find alternative ways of meeting the dependency needs of same-sex couples, interdependent friends, and dependent but unmarried kin. Tax benefits, legal adoption, welfare transfers, and more refined and accessible legal contracts should be used to meet these needs, not the institution of marriage itself."
The above is a liberal argument explaining precisely how same-sex marriage would cause the institution to change to something not resembling marriage at all; that is what not "preserving the sanctity of marriage" literally means.
Is Yoga a religion?
- witch_e_woman
on Sep. 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM