Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Our government is based on compromise. I am willing to extend all the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals. Since homosexuals are not really under seige in any serious way, is it too much too ask that I and likeminded folk be allowed the single, harmless concession of pretending that the institutions we hold dear will not be thrown under the bus? It is this way with all these issues. The courts leave traditionalists with nothing to hang their hat on, and then the left accuses them of radicalism if they dissent.

In addition to legitimizing unions between man/man and woman/woman, recognizing that "marriage" includes same-sex couples is a shortcut to getting those legal rights. Without that, you would have to enact "separate but equal" laws in every single state. I am not a fan of that.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I also wouldn't object if the government simply ceased to recognize marriage completely and it became a purely religous designation. Treat everyone as an individual in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals would have no trouble finding Unitarians, etc. to "marry" them and traditionalists wouldn't be required to sanction something they abhor through public institutions. I've never been a big fan of the various benefits that married couples get anyways.

I think the transaction costs would be exorbitant, since, first, you have to overhall all laws relating to marital rights (e.g., taxes, adoption, joint ownership, etc.) and, second, you would have to have to come up with new ways to handle those situations (e.g., how many people could adopt a child?).

[Beemnseven]

Here's another argument against a gay marriage ban:

Right or wrong, the perception (and in some cases the reality) is that homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. So armed with that knowledge, why would we as a society try to prevent homosexuals from entering into a sacred, religious institution which promotes monogamy?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Here's another argument against a gay marriage ban:

Right or wrong, the perception (and in some cases the reality) is that homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. So armed with that knowledge, why would we as a society try to prevent homosexuals from entering into a sacred, religious institution which promotes monogamy?

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

With the divorce rate in the US I would agree with you.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

So refute it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So refute it.

I assume you are for banning heterosexual and very much atheist couples from getting married? What about heterosexuals in an open relationship? Cohabitating couples? God knows it's against doctrine to live with someone before you get married.

You're tethering in the brink of absurdity and in violation of so many fallacies it's difficult to list all of them. I would advice you against taking that line of argument, certainly when you are dealing with rational and intelligent people. Remember mon ami, we're playing chess not checkers. A greater emphasis in thinking is required.

[Beemnseven]

Let me clarify my point since I apparently wasn't clear enough -- Many times, social and religious conservatives voice their disapproval of homosexuality because of the perception that they are too promiscuous, that they have a hand in spreading disease. If they truly believe this, then they should be for gay marriage since that will take at least some of the people they have such big a problem with and put them in a relationship which promotes the values of monogamy.

If this is such an absurd argument that is loaded with fallacies then by all means, post them and maybe I will be proven wrong.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Let me clarify my point since I apparently wasn't clear enough -- Many times, social and religious conservatives voice their disapproval of homosexuality because of the perception that they are too promiscuous, that they have a hand in spreading disease. If they truly believe this, then they should be for gay marriage since that will take at least some of the people they have such big a problem with and put them in a relationship which promotes the values of monogamy.

If this is such an absurd argument that is loaded with fallacies then by all means, post them and maybe I will be proven wrong.

Beems, your take here assumes that there is some sort of logical and rational basis behind those that are against gay marriage. Let's cut to the chase and call it like it is. Religious wackos and ignorant homophobes are the problem, simple as that.