Dumb Anti-Gay Arguments...

[MilesDaddy]

You are agreeing to a falsehood.  No one is asking to have more benefits; they are asking for equal benefits. 

yes but equal benefits were almost never extended to straight domestic partners.

[bulbasaur]

What are you talking about?  I don't think you understand the issue. 

A short list...
1.  Medical.  Often times, a spouse can make medical decisions if a person is incapable of doing so. 

2.  Inheritance.  With an absence of a will, the spouse often receives it. 

3. Taxes. 

The list can go on.  You can argue that any two people can legally do these things without getting married, but that is similar to Jim Crow.  These are civil benefits, and thus, should be allowed to all civilians.  This is the reason why some make the argument that the term "marriage" be changed to "civil unions." 

yes but equal benefits were almost never extended to straight domestic partners.

[Believe_N_Me]

You are agreeing to a falsehood.  No one is asking to have more benefits; they are asking for equal benefits. 

Well they shouldn't have to "conform" to a heterosexual practice to get those same rights. During the Civil Rights, Black people weren't trying to be white nor did they wish to practice white traditions in order to get the same rights. Gays should be proud of who they are and not have to buy into the "marriage" institution just to get the same benefits. Marriage laws were put in place to uphold the traditional definition and principles of marriage. When you start changing the definition and principles than those laws no longer apply.

You often bring up slavery and the time when a black person was only considered 2/3 a person. Well that was implemented to protect "slavery". Since "slavery" was abolished, the rules no longer apply.

The government should do away with giving special privileges to "married" people because it's not blatant discrimination against gays (as some of you believe), but it's actually discrimination against any "non-married" people. The culture has significantly changed since the days when women needed to get married in order to be taken care of. People don't have to get married to have children and raise a family. If a couple want to pledge their love and "marry", they can say their nuptials in the church or whichever culture that administers that. But the government needn't get involved by granting benefits of any sort. A marriage is in the heart, we don't need the government to recognize our nuptials as legitimate or not. The only reason the government did that was to qualify people for benefits, which should've never existed in the first place.

[bulbasaur]

Talk about being oblivious.   

Well they shouldn't have to "conform" to a heterosexual practice to get those same rights. During the Civil Rights, Black people weren't trying to be white nor did they wish to practice white traditions in order to get the same rights. Gays should be proud of who they are and not have to buy into the "marriage" institution just to get the same benefits. Marriage laws were put in place to uphold the traditional definition and principles of marriage. When you start changing the definition and principles than those laws no longer apply.

You often bring up slavery and the time when a black person was only considered 2/3 a person. Well that was implemented to protect "slavery". Since "slavery" was abolished, the rules no longer apply.

The government should do away with giving special privileges to "married" people because it's not blatant discrimination against gays (as some of you believe), but it's actually discrimination against any "non-married" people. The culture has significantly changed since the days when women needed to get married in order to be taken care of. People don't have to get married to have children and raise a family. If a couple want to pledge their love and "marry", they can say their nuptials in the church or whichever culture that administers that. But the government needn't get involved by granting benefits of any sort. A marriage is in the heart, we don't need the government to recognize our nuptials as legitimate or not. The only reason the government did that was to qualify people for benefits, which should've never existed in the first place.

[Believe_N_Me]

Talk about being oblivious.   

You're oblivious because you know nothing about the principles of marriage and why back then the government felt there was a need to step in and give that group of people privileges. It wasn't meant to discriminate homosexuals, if that's what you believe.

Obviously, you're on that wave of let's just give everybody "Rights" otherwise it's discrimination . Help a man get pregnant, he should have a right to have a full-working uterus or it's inequality! 

The Gay Movement for Gay Marriage is not even about their right to get "married" but a principle move. They want to stick it to heterosexuals (no pun intended). Gays know that a gay marriage is different from a heterosexual marriage. Why do they have to "mimic" a heterosexual partnership in order to feel equal? That's what they're saying by pushing for this. 

I ask, "why piss off a big group of people over semantics when gays can get the same benefits without marriage?" Many other relationship arrangements want and deserve the same privilege, too.

It's the same thing with the neo-Feminists. This isn't about the equal right to vote, education, employment anymore. It's about, "I won't feel equal until I, too, have a penis!" 

[bulbasaur]

I am just trying to be nice.  Enough people have already schooled you.  If you really want, I can make you look silly...

1.  You wrote, "Black people weren't trying to be white nor did they wish to practice white traditions in order to get the same rights."  Gays aren't trying to be straight either.   They simply want their civil rights. 

2.  You wrote, "You often bring up slavery and the time when a black person was only considered 2/3 a person."  It was the 3/5 Compromise, not 2/3.  You overpaid for your education...if you even got one. 

3.  You wrote, "Since "slavery" was abolished, the rules no longer apply."  Yes, antiquated rules should be abolished.   

4.  You wrote, "The government should do away with giving special privileges to "married" people because it's not blatant discrimination against gays (as some of you believe)..."  Sure.  Equal is equal.  Unfortunately for you, you don't understand practical and realistic. 

5.  No one cares about your personal feelings of marriage.  This is about equal rights, not whether your feelings were hurt. 

It is becoming clear why you don't understand.  You are simply uneducated on the issue.  You are uneducated on the history.  You are uneducated on the laws.  You are uneducated on the people involved.  Add also that you are misinformed, it makes you oblivious. 

I don't want to belittle you, but you are the one who keeps coming back asking for a whipping.  You can't even get your facts straight.  2/3?  Really?   

You're oblivious because you know nothing about the principles of marriage and why back then the government felt there was a need to step in and give that group of people privileges. It wasn't meant to discriminate homosexuals, if that's what you believe.

Obviously, you're on that wave of let's just give everybody "Rights" otherwise it's discrimination . Help a man get pregnant, he should have a right to have a full-working uterus or it's inequality! 

The Gay Movement for Gay Marriage is not even about their right to get "married" but a principle move. They want to stick it to heterosexuals (no pun intended). Gays know that a gay marriage is different from a heterosexual marriage. Why do they have to "mimic" a heterosexual partnership in order to feel equal? That's what they're saying by pushing for this. 

I ask, "why piss off a big group of people over semantics when gays can get the same benefits without marriage?" Many other relationship arrangements want and deserve the same privilege, too.

It's the same thing with the neo-Feminists. This isn't about the equal right to vote, education, employment anymore. It's about, "I won't feel equal until I, too, have a penis!" 

[Believe_N_Me]

I pretty much skipped over everything you wrote because YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. You keep saying it's about fighting for equal rights but clearly it's not. It's a war over SEMANTICS AND REDEFINING MARRIAGE in order to be included in the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. There are common law marriages all over the country that have opted out of being a part of the institution.

Let's go all the way back to why marriage even existed and the purpose of marriage.

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. Through marriage, a woman gained status and developed identity since she couldn't get that on her own. These are the core principles of marriage. Nowhere in that does it talk about "love". And because of that definition, society implemented rules and laws to protect "marriage".

Now in some cases where there was a shortage of men due to war, whichever body governed that society decided to impose more laws giving special privileges to married people. This encouraged men (whether single or married) to acquire a wife (targeting widowers with children) for the obvious reason of giving children a father figure as well as providing financial assistance to single mothers. This is how the government started sticking its nose into "marriage". This is how and why all those special privileges emerged for "married" people.

This is why "marriage" has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Now whether husband and wife choose to have children or can't reproduce does not take away the principle and definition of marriage - which has always surrounded "procreation". A uterus is a uterus whether it can conceive or not. It doesn't take away the principle of a uterus just because it's sterile.

I use the example of a transgender who has undergone surgery. A man that gets a sex change has the right to identify himself as a woman, but that doesn't change the definition "woman" to include men who have had a sex change.

So homosexuals can have a "marriage" if that's how they want to identify their union, but that doesn't mean "marriage" is the union of homosexuals. There is nothing unequal about that. Both relationships have equal value. The problem is that they're not being treated equal and that's what we ought to be fighting for.

[bulbasaur]

I am not surprised you skipped it.  Facts.  You think this is a debate between you and me.  However, this is a debate between you and the facts, and the facts are making you look silly.   

I pretty much skipped over everything you wrote because YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. You keep saying it's about fighting for equal rights but clearly it's not. It's a war over SEMANTICS AND REDEFINING MARRIAGE in order to be included in the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. There are common law marriages all over the country that have opted out of being a part of the institution.

Let's go all the way back to why marriage even existed and the purpose of marriage.

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. Through marriage, a woman gained status and developed identity since she couldn't get that on her own. These are the core principles of marriage. Nowhere in that does it talk about "love". And because of that definition, society implemented rules and laws to protect "marriage".

Now in some cases where there was a shortage of men due to war, whichever body governed that society decided to impose more laws giving special privileges to married people. This encouraged men (whether single or married) to acquire a wife (targeting widowers with children) for the obvious reason of giving children a father figure as well as providing financial assistance to single mothers. This is how the government started sticking its nose into "marriage". This is how and why all those special privileges emerged for "married" people.

This is why "marriage" has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Now whether husband and wife choose to have children or can't reproduce does not take away the principle and definition of marriage - which has always surrounded "procreation". A uterus is a uterus whether it can conceive or not. It doesn't take away the principle of a uterus just because it's sterile.

I use the example of a transgender who has undergone surgery. A man that gets a sex change has the right to identify himself as a woman, but that doesn't change the definition "woman" to include men who have had a sex change.

So homosexuals can have a "marriage" if that's how they want to identify their union, but that doesn't mean "marriage" is the union of homosexuals. There is nothing unequal about that. Both relationships have equal value. The problem is that they're not being treated equal and that's what we ought to be fighting for.

[Believe_N_Me]

Good listen, especially starting at 23:00. Also, the part about China on gay-marriage. Anyways, he makes great points about marriage and the purpose for it in heterosexual couples. It is true that part of marriage is a proclamation to remain monogamous - mainly for the benefit of the husband because he needs to ensure the children are his. Homosexual couples aren't at risk of having a child that isn't theirs unless someone is bi-sexual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebw3hEeU5KE

[Believe_N_Me]

I am not surprised you skipped it.  Facts.  You think this is a debate between you and me.  However, this is a debate between you and the facts, and the facts are making you look silly.   

FACTS? Of what? That marriage was and has always been defined as between a man and woman? Existing laws exist to protect that kind of union. Changing the definition means those laws (benefits) might as well cease to exist. Like I said, either change policies on Civil Unions or get rid of the Marriage Institution altogether.

[bulbasaur]

Believe_N_Me writes, "You often bring up slavery and the time when a black person was only considered 2/3 a person."

This debate is over.  There is no need to talk to someone who clearly doesn't know the situation. 

FACTS? Of what? That marriage was and has always been defined as between a man and woman? Existing laws exist to protect that kind of union. Changing the definition means those laws (benefits) might as well cease to exist. Like I said, either change policies on Civil Unions or get rid of the Marriage Institution altogether.

[Believe_N_Me]

Here's a great snippet from that panel. Reminder, the panelists are gays and lesbians speaking on marriage. I totally agree with Masha. Redefining marriage is going to change the institution. Homosexuals should be upfront about that. It's not going to be identical to current heterosexual marriages. In fact, heterosexual marriages do not reflect the reality of homosexual marriages at all is what she's saying and I agree. Homosexuals are either going to have to conform to the heterosexual marriage laws or the institution will inevitably have to change - which then DOES make marriage laws meaningless.

Nuptials can be made without asking the government (institution) to validate them. Example: Hmongs get married every year under their cultural practices but some don't bother to proceed to the court house to get their marriage license. Doesn't make their marriage mean any less. Homosexuals can marry under their own set of nuptials and skip the courthouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqL64TRib40

[Believe_N_Me]

It's rather absurd if we all sit down and think about it. In our modern-day society we have no problem developing new words that describe our current culture. We can easily come up with "tweeting" and "twerking" but there's no word for a homosexual union that is on the same level as marriage. We're fighting over the definition of a word that has existed in our vocabulary since long before any of us were born just so some members of our society can feel "equal". That's not equality at all. Surely there isn't a shortage in human vocabulary to describe what a man might call his male lifelong companion.

I'm reminded of Catholic missionaries into Laos. While introducing and converting the Hmong people over to Catholicism, the church was very adamant that they weren't just changing the definition of Shamanistic terms. After all, at that time the Hmong already believed in a creator whom they referred to as "saub". However, the term "saub" was clearly not used in the same light as the Catholic teachings of the Judeo-Christian God. A new term was needed.

[duckwingduck]

It's rather absurd if we all sit down and think about it. In our modern-day society we have no problem developing new words that describe our current culture. We can easily come up with "tweeting" and "twerking" but there's no word for a homosexual union that is on the same level as marriage. We're fighting over the definition of a word that has existed in our vocabulary since long before any of us were born just so some members of our society can feel "equal". That's not equality at all. Surely there isn't a shortage in human vocabulary to describe what a man might call his male lifelong companion.

I'm reminded of Catholic missionaries into Laos. While introducing and converting the Hmong people over to Catholicism, the church was very adamant that they weren't just changing the definition of Shamanistic terms. After all, at that time the Hmong already believed in a creator whom they referred to as "saub". However, the term "saub" was clearly not used in the same light as the Catholic teachings of the Judeo-Christian God. A new term was needed.

So you are saying gays can't marry.  Hence, they can't have a marriage.

[Believe_N_Me]

So you are saying gays can't marry.  Hence, they can't have a marriage.

They can legitimize their relationship and call it whatever they want. However, why they want to call it a "marriage" or be a part of the "marriage institution" in order to feel equal doesn't make much sense.

You're a straight guy, right? If you knew ahead of time that a woman used to be a man, would you really consider her as a female and pursue romantic interest? Some heterosexual males might be able to, but I have no doubt they would be in the minority.

This is about semantics. If gays didn't offend those who want to uphold their traditional views about marriage then it wouldn't be such a big issue.