Gay Marriage is not "Progressive"

[stromboli]

Every statement you make is based on a fallacious initial argument. That marriage exists intact in a modern age says something about the importance of it, and it is not based on a single reason but several reasons. As I pointed out, there is a singular uniformity in the decisions made by the courts in approving gay marriage. Otherwise the decisions would be ambiguous and vary greatly. The CONCEPT of marriage as described by law in a society is itself a comprehensive set of legal precedents under one title. Marriage is a concept as is that of moral conduct or any other entity describable with legal terminology.

The uniformity of approval of gay marriage across the legal spectrum is itself a clear argument to its validity. Your opinion fails in the  light of a considerable body of approval by law.

[VladK]

Let's put this another way.

If human reproduction did not exist, sex was purely for pleasure and humans just popped out of trees fully grown with the maturity of 25 year olds complete with high school or college level knowledge, would either gay or straight marriage make sense from a legal standpoint? Or to put it simply, would marriage (as a legal not social institution) make sense in a world without children?

And why? Why should Sarah and Bob have access to all sorts of benefits that other people don't, like maybe an opportunity to pay less taxes or whatever? Is there any particular reason the government should be subsidizing that kind of union in that kind of a hypothetical world? Yeah they fuck and live together, so what a third party might say?

[Hydra009]

"Progressives" will argue that this definition of marriage as male+female is "discriminatory" because it means gays and lesbians "aren't allowed to marry". But this is pure sophistry given that gay and lesbian inviduals can in fact enter into marriage, they just have to find a partner of the opposite sex.

By the same logic, banning interracial marriages isn't discriminatory because anyone can in fact enter into marriage, they just have to find a partner of the same race.

It takes one hell of a mental gymnastics routine to not see that as discriminatory.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You know it seems to me that most religious people have argued their case so poorly against gay marriage that atheists and other secular-minded folks have forgotten that, yes, there can be secular arguments against gay marriage too.

Anyone from any religion, race, or creed can make an argument for or against anything. The trick is making an argument that isn't nuttier than candybar shit.

[Mermaid]

What I don't get is why anyone gives a flying fuck who marries whom. It's the same thing as telling someone what color pants to wear or what to order at a restaurant. It's nobody's business. And being a douchebag about it isn't going to change that some people are gay.

[SGOS]

Even manage someone else's property. Attorneys can do it. So can your friends if you empower them through a legal document to act on your behalf.

If this isn't easily doable by any two individuals in your country, including two friends, then maybe the laws should be changed to make things easier. Or maybe we can discuss civil partnerships. You do not need to redefine marriage which has far more complex implications than changing how property or inheritance works. Got it?

As for "love", the idea that I need the government's involvement to love someone or fuck them is quite absurd.

What gives you the authority, knowledge, and experience to arbitrarily decide what should be changed and what should not?

[Aroura33]

Given that homosexual or lesbian couples can neither produce children of their own, nor provide the most optimal substitute parents for orphans, /snip

Um, please provide evidence that having 2 parents of the same sex is not optimal.

Also, being adopted by loving people of either gender is leaps and bounds better than staying in the system.

Even if your argument that children are the only real reason for marriage were correct (and it isn't), you follow that up with yet another fallacious argument.  This is your opinion, not a fact.

[Mr.Obvious]

No, it's not just "nice to have", it's pretty important so the child can learn different personality traits. Boys and girls also need role models for their own gender and you might not get that in a gay family upbringing.

Believe me, I'm not one to jump up in a social-warrior fit and shout out: 'We don't need your cisgender bias, check your privilige!". But I'm not a fan of telling others how to live their lives either. Boys only need role models for their gender if we assign importance to the concept of gender. Same for girls.
Now, I'll be completely honest, if I ever have a son I'll give him cars when he's a kid. A girl I'll probably give dolls. That's how I was raised and where my starting point in raising my children will be. But if my kid shows signs of having interests in things we typically assign to the 'other gender', I hope I am freeminded enough to accept that.
If my future hypothetical son would want to dance ballet, or if he liked boys, or if he wanted to design clothes... So be it. If my future hypothetical daughter would want to become a car-mechanic, or if she liked girls, or if she wanted to play rugby... So be it.

Now if you mean "Boys and girls also need role models for their own SEX and you might not get that in a gay family upbringing." Then I still won't necessarily agree with what you implicate. In one-parent families you typically have more problems on a financial basis, which accounts for a lot of disadvantages and strife a kid in such a situation will grow up with. But the lack of a 'male rolemodel' for a boy, or a 'female rolemodel' for a girl are not the main problem.
Because yes, in multiple European studies there are statistically significant 'slightly' (and I do want to emphasise 'slightly') higher rates of children having identity problems when they grow up in homosexual parent families. But these tend to arise, if I remember my studies correctly, around the time that children start to find their peers more important and thus are more susceptible to possible bigotry and preconceptions. To give you an idea, the 'slightly higher' rates are about the same as with adopted children with different-sex parents.
I'm not gonna lie, I imagine it can be hard for a kid who grows up with gay parents. This is true, but this is no reason to deny gay marriage, nor the right for homosexuals and lesbians to raise kids in a same-sex marriage or partnership. The problem at this point lies with those who hold contempt or preconceptions against these kinds of parents and these kinds of marriages. They are what makes it harder for a child growing up with same-sex marriages. We have to fight for the rights of those people who are typically more sure they want children, who don't conceive them accidentally, who (as a couple) can provide the financial stability that improves the life-conditions of the child and who tend to, relatively, adopt more 'unwanted' kids in the first place.
Marriage shouldn't be kept as a union between a man and a woman solely. It may indeed have been intended as such in the beginning. But many laws and rules and such have been changed throughout time because we come to a point in which we realize they are not just or fair. And you're right, lesbians can marry, they just have to mary guys in some states. The opposite for homosexual men. But is that fair? Is that just? Is that an arrangement with an eye on the individuality and equality of every human being which we are supposed to hold so dear? Just because an idea is old, doesn't make it right. A tradition can be wonderfull, but musn't be carried blindly nor be allowed to determine the future without scrutiny. Me personally, I maintain initial, and I think healthy, scepticism concerning tenacious social constructs. Especially for those that came into being before 'la déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen' was even written. (Or, credit where credit is due, the declaration of independence.)

I would bring up Elliot Rodger to point out this problem. Now, he didn't actually lack a father, but his father was largely absent from his life which is almost as bad. He never learned how to "be a man" which lead to his misery from failure with women. And you're seriously going to sit there an tell me fathers are irrelevant?

Might help your case in the future if you use an actual example of someone who went on a killing spree who had gay parents, rather than one who had straight parents and a relationship that didn't work out. Because parents staying together while they hate eachother or don't want to be together anymore but do so for financial reasons or the kids or whatever, actually doesn't have a better influence on the child's upbringing. But you'd still be implying a causal link that you can't prove with such an example. So best leave these appeals to emotion lay.

I dunno about you but growing up there were things I could not discuss with my mother, such as male sexual issues.

So sorry to hear that. I could. And I'm glad I could.

[Poison Tree]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzUFYNjUTcM

[GSOgymrat]

If marriage is about a stable, enduring relationship between a heterosexual couple for the purpose of raising children shouldn't only heterosexuals with children be married? A woman in a heterosexual couple becomes pregnant, the couple marries, they are given the legal benefits of marriage, and perhaps even some other perks, and then the government makes it extremely difficult for them to divorce. This would focus the government benefits on the children, give couples without children less government interference and discouraging single parenthood, because only married heterosexual couples would get the government benefits. You have made good arguments why the government should not be involved in personal relationships unless children are being raised, so doesn't it make sense to give marriage benefits to the parents who actually need them?

[the_antithesis]

So what is the real purpose of having this institution? Children.

Fuck off, buddy.

People have children outside of marriage just fine so fuck off, buddy.

Marriage has no purpose. We'd be better off without it.

[SGOS]

It's all about the children (or at least the anatomical possibility thereof)

A very nice dissection of the flawed logic used by the anti gay marriage crowd.

[Hydra009]

If marriage is about a stable, enduring relationship between a heterosexual couple for the purpose of raising children shouldn't only heterosexuals with children be married? A woman in a heterosexual couple becomes pregnant, the couple marries, they are given the legal benefits of marriage, and perhaps even some other perks, and then the government makes it extremely difficult for them to divorce.

With that whole marriage is about children thing I think Vlad was shooting for no queers allowed, not stopping childless heteroes from getting hitched or restricting divorce.  But it's amusing just how many nasty implications this argument has.  I don't think Vlad thought this all the way through.

[SGOS]

With that whole marriage is about children thing I think Vlad was shooting for no queers allowed, not stopping childless heteroes from getting hitched or restricting divorce.  But it's amusing just how many nasty implications this argument has.  I don't think Vlad thought this all the way through.

Those who oppose gay marriage seem to be flailing in desperation with their arguments (That's "flailing as in swinging your arms wildly about).  So much so that it strikes me as a last ditch hail Mary ploy.  I suppose, many of them actually believe their arguments, but as the guy in that last video pointed out, there is a certain comical failure of the child rearing argument.  But I've sensed the same comical failure in their other arguments as well.  In the past, there was no need to think such arguments through.  Well, they actually didn't even bother with arguments.  They anti gay marriage crowd was simply right because well, they were right.  People are stopping to think this through now, and this is a major and quite unusual thing in political affairs.

[Solitary]

  Marriage is a man made institution that was formally decided by a couples parents by the Church's  approval, whether the couple wanted to or not. We progressed to making it legal for any marriage between man and wife that were as young as 13 that wanted to get married with parents approval, and then we made it legal for anyone that wants to that are adult male or female. But now we have progressed farther and made it legal for consenting adults, man and man, and woman and woman. So how is this not progressive? Marriage is not for the production of children. How many man and woman marriages have resulted in harm to children by brain washing them when they are too young to question authority with superstitious nonsense?

Why does the Church, or churches, have any say in a secular society what a marriage is, or just to have children?  In fact the reason we have so much pollution and environmental damage and the quality of life going down hill is because of TOO many children and people because of religious doctrine that is living in some imaginary world instead of reality.  :fU: Take your fucking delusions somewhere else, and your lying fucking mouth that you supported gay marriage. What are you, a part of the idiotic Quiver Society?    Solitary