[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

When I say it's irrelevant, that's because it's irrelevant. Okay, here's the difference. We can legislate against same-sex marriage and prevent that from happening, which is why people are vocal about it. We can't prevent spousal abuse.

You're cherry-picking to suit your argument again, as well as skirting the central point. Sure you can't legislate against spousal abuse much more than what's already on the books, but you could legislate against meaningless shotgun weddings that play a role in high divorce rates. And anti-same sex marriage people could put as much public energy into fighting spousal abuse as they seem to put into stopping the gays from getting married. Yet there's an inordinate amount of attention being heaped on same sex marriage as being some kind of "threat" that marriage apparently needs to be defended from. That's where the central point I mentioned really comes in. Spousal abuse, shotgun weddings, and high divorce rates are all actual threats to marriage, while gays marrying is not. Yet the "Defense of Marriage" act, prop 8 and such say nothing about abuse, shotgun weddings, or divorce - they only legally define marriage as being between a man and a woman. In my opinion, this is further evidence of shady motives on the part of the anti-same sex marriage crowd, because all that's really being threatened is the gay-free bubble that many of these people seem to want to live in.

Honestly, I used to think that bigotry was less of a problem than I do now, but I've had numerous rude awakenings throughout my life that have shown me just how alive and well it is in this country.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

This argument would be like shooting down a law preventing mental patients from getting guns on the grounds of "there is too much gun-related violence anyway, so why wouldn't you be focused on that?" Could I argue: what's the bigger threat; a few people getting the means to defend themselves, or a nation of murderers who kill each other in cold blood? It makes no sense.

Gays getting married are not analogous in any way to mental patients getting guns, and I think most gay folks would take issue with you on it. As for your analogy's counter-argument, it's confusing and irrelevant since the analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Are you really in support of same sex marriage? I find it increasingly hard to believe when you make a comparison like the gay/mental patient one above, or to marrying a goat, or many of the other statements and analogies you've made along the way.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

You honestly don't think these people care about the divorce rate?

I never said that. Not sure what led you to believe I did. But to answer, I'm sure they care about the divorce rates, but I don't know exactly how much because all I ever hear them talking about is why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. That's the point. What's so scary about same sex marriage that all these other marriage issues seem to be secondary to it?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

The definition:
The personal rights of the individual citizen to have equal treatment and equal opportunities

How you see that is up to you. A blind person, even one with terrific senses otherwise, it's going to get a hunting license. Now I suppose race is one thing and I probably shouldn't have said that it's not a civil rights issue, but in a way it kinda depends how you define the minority and how you see homosexuality. It's not that gay people can't get married; they just can't get married to the person that they want to. I'm not saying that gay men should marry women; obviously that wouldn't work, but they still have the opportunity to do so. Again I see this more in line with trying to marry your own sister rather than marrying out of your race; I know the interracial thing is relevant, but it's tough to compare since I don't think there was ever even a semi-solid argument against it.

Well clearly, on this aspect of things, you're just going to shape definitions and concepts into what they need to be to suit your arguments, so there's not much I can say. I mean really, "it kinda depends how you define the minority and how you see homosexuality"? If we can't even be on the same page about what a clear-cut term like "minority" means, or whatever you're saying about homosexuality here, then how can anyone understand where you're coming from enough to respond?

As for the siblings argument you keep coming back to, that in large part comes down to my personal belief that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Of course that has yet to be indisputably proven, but frankly, I believe the evidence points pretty solidly in that direction. So accepting that as my personal stance, I'd go on to say that people aren't born genetically predisposed to only be sexually attracted to their sister or brother. People who want to hook up with siblings probably just need to get out and meet some new folks. Gays don't have the choice to just un-gay themselves and hook up with girls instead of guys and vice versa.

And the fact that there was never a semi-solid argument against interracial marriage actually gives it even more in common with the idea of same sex marriage, because there are no good arguments against it either....or at least none I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Yeah, that's true. The thing is I'm not convinced this is necessarily a discrimination issue because gay people still do have the right to get married, even if they never would. It's the same as telling pot-smokers well, you've always got cigarettes. They wouldn't. But right now, the government doesn't cater to their preferences, and that doesn't make them necessarily discriminated against.

Again, we may differ on the issue of genetics versus choice, so in my opinion, the cigarette/weed analogy is irrelevant. It's not about catering to "preferences" to me, it's about acknowledging the rights of a minority group. I mean technically, you could say that legalizing interracial marriages was just "catering to the preferences" of the interracial couples who wanted to marry, but that severely short-changes the discriminatory aspect of the issue. Hell, ending slavery could be called "catering to the preferences" of slaves and those who opposed slavery, but is that an adequate representation of the situation?

What makes same sex couples discriminated against is that they, as a minority group, aren't allowed basic rights enjoyed by straight people through no fault of their own, and they are at a financial, social, and even health-related disadvantage as a result. That is classic discrimination in every sense of the word.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm not saying they shouldn't be changed. I for one support it. I'm just saying thats the way they are now.

But you didn't answer my central question. Where can I see these "rules" about what marriage is that you keep referring to?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

It exists because it's a biblical institute. The laws came in place to protect the mothers who didn't work. If you want to argue about reducing marriage benefits, well I'm on board with that, too. You have to recognize where the argument is. I hear a lot that gays feel like they can't make that lifelong commitment since they can't marry each other; you can commit if you want, you can be in a loving and caring relationship without a piece of paper. The issue is that they don't get the marriage benefits that were introduced mainly to protect women.

No, marriage is a social institution that exists in different forms throughout virtually all groups, religious or not. And the legal benefits that accompany marriage have been shaped over the years to support the unique needs of all married couples, not just those with a stay-at-home wife and/or mother.

As for your argument about "a piece of paper", all I can say is that I'm beginning to think that maybe you're not married? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think anyone who's experienced marriage would pretty plainly see the differences between even a committed unmarried relationship and one in which you make the public, legal commitment of transforming a girlfriend/boyfriend into a family member. It's a whole other level of commitment - one that has even proven to have inherent financial, social and health benefits outside of those that are legally granted to hetero couples. Just check out the article I previously linked to see more details on that.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Either way, I don't really want to get roped into further debate about this; like I said, I think that gay marriage should be allowed. I merely defended those who think it shouldn't be.

Look, I'm always thrilled to hear opposing viewpoints, especially if they explain reasonable motives I wasn't previously aware of. But in defending those who oppose same sex marriage, in my opinion at least, you've primarily succeeded in highlighting just how thin their arguments against it are. The "slippery slope" argument, or "marriage is for procreation", or "it's not necessary", or "gay people can legally marry, just not with people of the same sex" - these are all so flawed as to imply unspoken, underlying motivations, or as already stated, ignorance at the very least.

And for the record, no one's trying to rope you into anything I don't think. You chose to defend a certain point of view and some of us chose to take it on. I'm happy to continue discussing it if you'd like, but I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything.