SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

X Factor said:

I don't want to see such acts. I also don't want to have to see naked fat men eating in a restaurant. Good grief, are you suggesting that simple decency laws will be next on the chopping block if SSM is made legal because the "harm" or lack of it is the same (as is the arguments in favor of such laws in many cases)?

Click to expand...

Actually Mac seems to be the one suggesting that as he's the one constantly trying to bring up everything but same sex marriage in hopes of somehow finding something that sticks.

Zyphlin said:

Actually, whether or not the discrimination is the same is irrelevant. And I've stated in this thread it is discrimination not allowing polygamy.

What matters is the levels of scrutiny required to allow the government to discriminate, and what level polygamy would fall under. It would fall under the lowest teir, which is lower than where Gender falls.

You can compare the discrimination against polygamists to the discrimination in regards to same sex marriage. What you can't do is suggest that the level of scrutiny on the part of the government is comparable in both.

Because one requires stricter scrutiny than the other, the same argument and same level of discrimination between both of them could result in one being constitutional and the other not being constitutional.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it fall under the same scrutiny, especially if one believes in polygamy for religious reasons?

X Factor said:

That's fine, be as proud as you wanna be. Just people don't tend to hold "pride" events in things they don't take pride in, in this case, being gay. BTW knowing your views on national pride, do you view gay pride the same way.

Click to expand...

I don't view it the same way, but it's stupid too IMO.

X Factor said:

I don't want to see such acts. I also don't want to have to see naked fat men eating in a restaurant. Good grief, are you suggesting that simple decency laws will be next on the chopping block if SSM is made legal because the "harm" or lack of it is the same (as is the arguments in favor of such laws in many cases)?

Click to expand...

Only if someone plans on fighting certain decency laws and can show that they are being harmed in some way by them and that their harm is more important than whatever harm(s) the state is claiming is in their interest to protect against.

It is unlikely that decency laws will go away any time soon, and I am pretty sure that they have been challenged and held up in a number of court cases due to their level of scrutiny, how little harm is being caused to someone by preventing them from having sex and/or being naked in certain places and the level of possible harm (supported by some evidence hopefully) that the laws are in place to prevent.

I have given at least one possible harm that could be claimed and probably has some psychologically supported evidence to back it that could come, at least to children, for these laws, as long as they apply equally to everyone. Still no one has been able to give me any sort of idea what harm could come from allowing same sex marriage, let alone why that harm should outweigh the harm of not allowing same sex couples access to marriage, most especially at the level of scrutiny that this type of discrimination would be at.

Zyphlin said:

Actually Mac seems to be the one suggesting that as he's the one constantly trying to bring up everything but same sex marriage in hopes of somehow finding something that sticks.

Click to expand...

I think Mac is worried, as I am, about the domino effect. I've seen a couple arguments here that suggest that to be for gay marriage, you have to chuck any meaning marriage has beyond just a contractual one. I also don't want to have to support public nudity or public sex. Does supporting SSM mean that morality no longer has a place in the law, at all?

X Factor said:

Why wouldn't it fall under the same scrutiny, especially if one believes in polygamy for religious reasons?

Click to expand...

Because the access to polygamy is still legal as far as religious ceremonies are concerned.

Access to multiple marriage contracts and the rights that go with those marriage contracts would be based on number of people allowed in a contract and/or number of contracts allowed at one time for each person. It is not a discrimination based on religion, since no religion is being denied access to their religious practice of marriage and every person is limited by number of/in marriage contract at a time. That puts the characteristic used for discrimination being number of/in contract, not religion.

roguenuke said:

Only if someone plans on fighting certain decency laws and can show that they are being harmed in some way by them and that their harm is more important than whatever harm(s) the state is claiming is in their interest to protect against.

It is unlikely that decency laws will go away any time soon, and I am pretty sure that they have been challenged and held up in a number of court cases due to their level of scrutiny, how little harm is being caused to someone by preventing them from having sex and/or being naked in certain places and the level of possible harm (supported by some evidence hopefully) that the laws are in place to prevent.

I have given at least one possible harm that could be claimed and probably has some psychologically supported evidence to back it that could come, at least to children, for these laws, as long as they apply equally to everyone. Still no one has been able to give me any sort of idea what harm could come from allowing same sex marriage, let alone why that harm should outweigh the harm of not allowing same sex couples access to marriage, most especially at the level of scrutiny that this type of discrimination would be at.

Click to expand...

I think you yourself have made an argument that marriage between two people will no longer be about family, as any two people of consenting age will be allowed to marry for whatever reason. Honestly, I would be less bothered by allowing only gay people (I know, how would you prove it?) to marry someone of the same sex, because I don't care for the cheapening of marriage that, what you advocate for, would cause.

X Factor said:

I think Mac is worried, as I am, about the domino effect. I've seen a couple arguments here that suggest that to be for gay marriage, you have to chuck any meaning marriage has beyond just a contractual one. I also don't want to have to support public nudity or public sex. Does supporting SSM mean that morality no longer has a place in the law, at all?

Click to expand...

How likely are those things to happen just because of SSM being legalized?

We can look at many things to determine this, such as what happened when other changes to marriage happened in the past, what has happened in states and other countries that have legalized SSM, what the arguments are for each of those things, from both sides and how likely those arguments are to stand up to the Constitution. Not every characteristic that is being discriminated against is given the same level of consideration by the courts in cases that could be a violation of Equal Protection. Some wouldn't even be considered a violation when everyone is treated equally under the law when they are in similar situations in regards to each issue that comes up.

X Factor said:

I think you yourself have made an argument that marriage between two people will no longer be about family, as any two people of consenting age will be allowed to marry for whatever reason. Honestly, I would be less bothered by allowing only gay people (I know, how would you prove it?) to marry someone of the same sex, because I don't care for the cheapening of marriage that, what you advocate for, would cause.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe marriage is very much for making a family (although I consider two married people who love each other without children to be just as much a family as those with children). I just don't believe that it is the government's place to decide whether or not people are in love, nor do I feel that people should have to reveal their sexuality when it comes to them getting married.

I love my best friend just as much, if not a little more sometimes, as I love my sisters and brothers. In fact, my brothers and sisters actually call her "sister". She is a part of my family. I believe that we should have some way for the law to legally recognize such things for certain cases, such as being able to claim a loved one has died or is in the hospital to justify taking emergency leave. Given the right circumstances (i.e. both of us had some bad experience with men or were both widows who decided that we didn't feel like bothering with a sexual relationship any more), I would consider it completely acceptable to make her my legal "wife", despite not being attracted to her intimately. I love her as I do a sister, but there is no other way, currently, to legally state that. If she were a he instead, I would actually have no problem doing what I just described right now, even if the relationship were exactly the same.

I am not saying that marriage should just be completely a legal contract. I am saying that legal marriage, in the eyes of the law, should be a legal contract. On a personal level, love is important to a marriage, along with many other things, but I do not want the government or society being able to tell me that I have to justify my love of whoever I say I want to marry.

roguenuke said:

Because the access to polygamy is still legal as far as religious ceremonies are concerned.

Access to multiple marriage contracts and the rights that go with those marriage contracts would be based on number of people allowed in a contract and/or number of contracts allowed at one time for each person. It is not a discrimination based on religion, since no religion is being denied access to their religious practice of marriage and every person is limited by number of/in marriage contract at a time. That puts the characteristic used for discrimination being number of/in contract, not religion.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. If polygamy is illegal then any "religious ceremony" is, at best, useless and at worst, illegal itself (by performing an illegal ceremony). Also, just because there is a secular reason for banning polygamy doesn't mean it's still not discriminatory to a particular religion. Take, for example, the proposed ban on circumcision, the reason behind it is secular, but it will discriminate against religions that require circumcision as a tenant of it's faith.

X Factor said:

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. If polygamy is illegal then any "religious ceremony" is, at best, useless and at worst, illegal itself (by performing an illegal ceremony). Also, just because there is a secular reason for banning polygamy doesn't mean it's still not discriminatory to a particular religion. Take, for example, the proposed ban on circumcision, the reason behind it is secular, but it will discriminate against religions that require circumcision as a tenant of it's faith.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards X. The Constitution states that the government cannot establish a state religion. As such, the government is not obligated to respect the practices of any religion.

Furthermore, freedom of religion does not entitle anyone to the privileges and rights of marriage. Those privileges and rights come from the state and no religion is entitled to them.

X Factor said:

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. If polygamy is illegal then any "religious ceremony" is, at best, useless and at worst, illegal itself (by performing an illegal ceremony). Also, just because there is a secular reason for banning polygamy doesn't mean it's still not discriminatory to a particular religion. Take, for example, the proposed ban on circumcision, the reason behind it is secular, but it will discriminate against religions that require circumcision as a tenant of it's faith.

Click to expand...

Then ban on polygamy applies to all religions equally. The ban on gay marriage does not apply to the genders equally.

And if you are going to go the religious discrimination route there are gay Christian Churches that do do gay marriages. So you effectively you'd be arguing for those marriages to have State recognition as well.

X Factor said:

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. If polygamy is illegal then any "religious ceremony" is, at best, useless and at worst, illegal itself (by performing an illegal ceremony). Also, just because there is a secular reason for banning polygamy doesn't mean it's still not discriminatory to a particular religion. Take, for example, the proposed ban on circumcision, the reason behind it is secular, but it will discriminate against religions that require circumcision as a tenant of it's faith.

Click to expand...

Polygamy is not illegal. Being involved in multiple legal marriage contracts at one time is.

And there is no such thing as an illegal marriage ceremony, unless it is violating a law that has nothing to do with the legal marriage contract (i.e. forced marriage, some sort of sacrifice involved, some act done during the ceremony that is illegal, etc.).

As for circumsion bans, they would not just be fought on the grounds of religious discrimination, although that could come up, because circumcisions are done by people for non-religious reasons (my sons are both circumcized for other than religious reasons).

Plus, you have to include all the arguments for and against any law. For polygamy, that would mean a discussion on how preventing legal recognition of multiple marriages or multiple partners in a marriage prevents the person from practicing their religion (what part of the things that come with legal marriage are involved in the actual religious practice of polygamy, does it mean that churches are not allowed to recognize a person as having more than one spouse if that is part of the religion), what is the potential harm in allowing a person access to polygamy, and which outweighs the other. For circumcisions, it would mean discussing how denying access to circumcisions prevents a person from practicing their religion, what is the potential harm in allowing circumcisions to be performed, and which outweighs the other.

From just looking at these two, I can tell you that unless I am missing something about the religions themselves that allow/encourage polygamy, they are completely legally allowed to still practice their religion as they see fit when it comes to their churches/religion being allowed to recognize polygamous marriages and/or conduct polygamous ceremonies (not sure if that is the right way to put that), while a law preventing circumcisions does not allow the practice of a particular religious rite because there is not legal way for a religious person to be able to get a circumcision for their child without breaking the law.

CriticalThought said:

You have it backwards X. The Constitution states that the government cannot establish a state religion. As such, the government is not obligated to respect the practices of any religion.

Click to expand...

You forgot part,

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

A religion that advocates polygamy sure has an argument that they are prohibited from their "free exorcise thereof".

Furthermore, freedom of religion does not entitle anyone to the privileges and rights of marriage. Those privileges and rights come from the state and no religion is entitled to them.

Click to expand...

An interesting argument from someone who believes gay people are (or should be) entitled to marry. So, are you saying non religious people have more rights than religious people?

winston53660 said:

Then ban on polygamy applies to all religions equally. The ban on gay marriage does not apply to the genders equally.

And if you are going to go the religious discrimination route there are gay Christian Churches that do do gay marriages. So you effectively be arguing for those marriages to have State recognition as well.

Click to expand...

Oh, I have no trouble agreeing that this would be the case in order to be consistent. BTW, I don't support polygamy, I just see the issues and arguments as being very similar.

mac said:

Well, I disagree with that. The regulation changes that some are saying would be necessary wouldn't be enitrely necessary except for a little bit of wording. For example, if one of 3 persons in a marriage wished to divorce than the remaining two would be treated as one party to the divorce.

It's just perception, really.

Click to expand...

Problem is the benefits that both SSM and traditional marriage bring to individuals an society are not shared by poligamy. Therefore, there is no reason for state sponsership.

mac said:

I'm not. You are ignoring that marriage between a man and woman is the traditionally accepted and legal form of marriage. Gays are asking for that to be changed, straights are not.

Click to expand...

So what? It still gives straights specific rights not afforded gays... and don't go with your "gays can marry those of the opposite sex, too" argument, because I've already shot that to smithereens. Straights can marry who they are attracted to. Gays cannot.

mac said:

Again, you are operating under the assumption that ssm is the same thing as osm...it is not. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and every man and every woman has equal access to it.

Click to expand...

SSM and OSM have no differences other than the people involved. No difference in how it affects each, no difference in how partners are chosen.

OscarB63 said:

whose rights are violated by allowing me to marry my sister (if I had one)?

that's my big problem with all the gay rights supporters. If you want equal rights for everyone, then dammit support equal rights for EVERYONE

Click to expand...

Gay rights is about GAY rights. The incest rights folks can lobby to marry their sisters. It's not the fight of gay rights folks.

mac said:

there are plenty of beneficial reasons to open the civil union floodgates...and thats no slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Of course it is. I don't hear a lot of people clammoring to marry their sister.

I really don't see how two homosexual couples getting married is anybody's business but their own. I believe in freedom and I just really can't see the logical reasoning for why this would ruin traditional marriage. As Americans we ignore a lot of things like other countries eating dog or Korea letting off missiles in the ocean but we all seem to take this personal and make it the biggest deal. It also seems that the ones who are most concerned with this are homophobic. And we all know what's wrong with homophobes: they are worried they themselves could be swayed to the gay side lol

mac said:

i love when people say, oh that could never happen.

Click to expand...

I love when people try to use what could happen as a basis for their position on what is happening. The issue is SSM. Whether consent is erradicated in 100 years is irrelevant to the discussion. You keep throwing out irrelevancies like polygamy, incest, apple tree, toasters, lack of consent, etc... None of these things have any LOGICAL bearing on the issue. If they do to you, it is because you are not debating logically, but are diverting away from the simple fact that your position is faith based... not logic based.

mac said:

I've given you my honest reply on this many times...and you keep trying to twist it to attack me.

In my opinion homosexuality is wrong and it is unnatural. It is not wrong because it is unnatural it is wrong because my religion deems it wrong and I agree with that because there is nothing in science or nature to tell me otherwise. Go ahead and make up some more lies.....

Click to expand...

Define unnatural.

OscarB63 said:

I think you have it backwards. most people (at least those I know) have no disagreement with a LEGAL recognition of a gay couple, they just don't want the church to be forced to condone it via the religious act of marriage

Click to expand...

Huh??? Where do you get that the Church would be forced to condone it? This is solely about government. The church can and does what it wants.

OscarB63 said:

I'm saying, what would be wrong with having a govt recognized civil union for everybody and then letting those who wanted, and the church approved, do the religious thing?

Click to expand...

This is probably the most reasonable solution. Complete separation. Government handles civil unions for all... straights and gays, and religion handles marriage. Each religion can determine what type of marriage they will recognize, whereas the government recognizes both. Very simple solution.