Shared publicly  - 
 
We have news that will shock you: in states where gay marriage is legal, straight people still get married, too.
15
3
Janice Gelb's profile photoAnna Santos's profile photosomayeh bahadori's profile photocolin mcdermott's profile photo
43 comments
 
That would be an interesting "argument" ... it seems to imply the reason for many heterosexual marriages is that "gay" marriage is illegal? Hmmm ...
Matt C
 
I don't see why it would make a difference if it did affect hetero marriage or divorce rates.
 
Heteros don't need any help from homos in destroying marriage.
 
Another related shocking news, +Slate, is that my interracial marriage isn't affecting marriages or divorces between people of the same ethnicity.
 
My non-marriage to my common law wife and mother of my children isn't affecting anyone's marriage. And the marriage of others does not affect my relationship.
 
I think many straight dudes might find that picture (two chicks kissing) quite interesting to look at (unless I'm the only one). Good picture choice by +Slate (switch up the genders and you can read the outrage on this thread)
 
What is it with the Media anf their sick obsession with Gays...every other thing I read is about some gay or gays....its as though they want to cause a divide.....
 
you may have heard that gays are fighting for marriage equality. It's a common topic these days.
 
The arguments against gay marriage are usually based upon religious belief - yet in America, marriage is more secular/civil than religious.. Ordained clergy and a variety of civil magistrates (judges, justices of the peace, etc.) can legally marry a couple ... but only judges can divorce them. Both the marriage and the divorce must be registered in the local civil administration offices to be "legal". IRS taxes are levied differently for the same income to married vs non-married people, etc. If it is to be religious - then take away all the secular connections - if not, then extend the marriage option to all citizens without concern for race, gender, etc. This is America ... remember???
 
Exactly, +George Rowlett. I believe that all citizens should have the same civil rights and not be persecuted because of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
 
I have to agree with +George Rowlett, I personally am religious and don't agree with Gay marriage, but that also doesn't mean that I have any right to say that they can't. Separation of Church and State is exactly that, you don't just get to choose what is separate and what isn't. People just need to cool their jets and live their own lives.
 
In reality, there is no valid argument to prevent a minority to obtain these rights.The majority ,who is composed of heterosexuals, can't decide for them. Alexis De Tocqueville calls it "the tyranny of the majority" and sorry for my bad english, I'm french...
 
Except that we consider it immoral. Incestors are a minority, but we decide whether they can get married every day. I assure you though, an incestor's argument will be the same as a homosexuals, "But it feels good! I was born wanting this!" If we give homosexuals these rights, what about cousins, siblings, parent and child? If two women can marry, why not one man and multiple women? See the problem?
 
So homosexuals getting married is the same as a mother marrying her son? Got it....

You better hope the lawyers have stronger arguments than that.
 
+Rory Green This commonly cited reason ("If we allow this, then the next thing you know...") to oppose same-sex marriage is bogus. First of all, some of the bogeyman relationships cited are non-consensual (e.g., parent/child, person/cat), but same-sex relationships are consensual. More importantly, though, the only thing being considered at this point is same-sex marriage. Once it passes, if any of these other extrapolations are raised, society can deal with them as they are requested. They are not a reason not to grant same-sex couples the right to get married.
 
Not at all, but the arguments are the same. Homosexuality really has no other justification than that people say "It feels good," or that "they were born this way." The justification for incest is exactly the same. There is no other reason for both. Why doesn't the justification for one work for the other. I am in support of neither of these acts, but pray tell, what is the difference?
 
To Janice, is it impossible for homosexuality to be non consensual, or for incest to be consensual? Must it be rape?
 
+Rory Green Homosexual couples who want to get married are extremely unlikely to be in non-consensual relationships!

To get back to my main point, the only issue being considered now is same-sex marriage. If your bizarre extrapolation ever came true and people proposed that incest should become legal, that's the point at which people can start arguing about whether allowing same-sex marriage means we should also allow incestuous relationships. That is not the issue being considered now.
 
Oh, BTW I should have made it clearer I was talking in the context of matrimony in all of my examples. Now, I am not actually proposing that we allow incest etc, to be legalized by marriage, but asking you, if we do not see homosexual marriage as wrong, what really separates it from incest scientifically. In science, the only reason to not have incest is because of genetics, but with birth control, these two can safely "do it" with no baby in the equation. Scientifically, I don't get how you can call incest "wrong" and homosexuality "right". Actually, if you were going scientifically, Incest would be closer to right than homosexuality, because it at least produces offspring. Homosexuality produces none, and is essentially a genetic dead end. After many generations, incest genetics level out.

Also there is polygamy, which scientifically is much better than homosexuality, as it produces more offspring, and therefore, more genetic material. All of this is true. Scientifically, there is no real reason to say that homosexuality is better than either of these two examples.

Now, I also judge the world morally, and hold myself to the Christian God, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Because of this I can morally say, such and such is wrong, and such and such is right. Pure science, where you appear to be coming from, has no reason for morality, as you believe there is absolutely no reason for existence at all. How can you claim to be morally "just" when the system of morals scientific logic demands puts you clearly in the unjust category, and science actually leaves no reason to have "Morality" at all.

Please, do answer.
 
You are free to believe whatever you like. However, legislation should not be based on anyone's religious view of morality.

I'm not sure what made you decide that I "appear to be coming from science" - I haven't said anything related to scientific research at all. My own personal morality has to do with treating people fairly and equally, and with not coercing other people or harming them. Nothing about same-sex marriage is immoral using that definition.

I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion about what differences there might be between homosexuality and incest, bestiality, polyamory, or any other sexually related relationship you decide to bring up. The issue up for discussion is same-sex marriage. The only objections you have raised are (a) that it's immoral, which is a personal religious judgment that should not influence legislation meant for all citizens, and (b) that it does not produce offspring. Regarding the latter point, we do not impose a fertility requirement currently on marriage: couples are not required to prove they can have children or to swear that they plan to have children, and we do not forbid the marriage of older couples who are past child-bearing age, so that, too, is a dead-end argument.
 
no word,no say , simply i shut my mouth.i am so sorry about that.why not peoples being animals which r not think widely.u don't know about sodom?
 
OK. So I am free to believe what I like, but I cannot make decisions based on what I believe? I'm not sure if you see the purpose of religion in the political sense. My God guides me in everything I do, so why wouldn't I base my decisions on my decisions?

The reason I am saying you are coming from a scientific standpoint, is the three major religions all say homosexuality is wrong, so you must rely on science to justify your points, unless you belong to a religion which is pro homosexuality. Now, as you can see, we DO have non-fertile people married, which is the opposite of what we would expect from science, which shows you that possibly science is not the moral measure of the world. If we follow a religious viewpoint of morality, because without a higher power, any extra beliefs are pointless as they still end in death without either damnation or salvation, that means you must see that homosexuality is wrong.

My other points were that scientifically polygamy and incest are superior to homosexuality, so if you will justify homosexuality, why cannot you justify these other two. Since you cannot use religion, as it would show you to be a hypocrite who picks and chooses parts of the bible, unless you believe a different one, you must prove to me how homosexuality is scientifically superior to both polygamy and incest.
 
I support same sex marriage and my observance of science has nothing to do with it. We live in a representative democracy that strives to not discriminate based on religion. The only people opposing this do so on religious grounds which have, honestly, no place in the discussion.

That's it; nothing to do with polygamy or incest. The slippery slope argument was made when interracial marriage was up for debate. It's not about one type of relationship being superior to another. The object isn't to ensure maximum breeding potential, but rather to ensure that some US citizens aren't denied an opportunity offered to most US citizens.

Another solution may be to eliminate the legal benefits of marriage all together.
 
No such thing as marriage equality. 2 men are not equal to a man and a woman. A man is free to marry. A woman is free to marry. Its that simple. No one is being denied the "right" to marry.
 
If any man is free to marry, and it's that simple, then two men should be able to marry.
 
Two men would not be concidered a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. There are no rights being denied here. Marriage is a definition.
 
And this representative democracy is looking to expand that definition.
 
Do you have a better reason other than "that's what the word means"? If no, then there's certainly no sense in discussing it further.
 
+Rory Green You are indeed free to believe whatever you want. And I'm free to comment on your beliefs.

"The reason I am saying you are coming from a scientific standpoint, is the three major religions all say homosexuality is wrong, so you must rely on science to justify your points, unless you belong to a religion which is pro homosexuality. "

Here is a newsflash for you: there are people in the world who do not hold to any religion at all and base their morality on the principles I mentioned previously - fair and equal treatment of people and people not coercing or harming other people - without feeling they have to resort to religious teachings to make moral judgments. They make moral decisions not necessarily based on "science" (whatever your strange definition of that might be). Other people are basically religious but don't necessarily believe that the Bible is inerrant and disagree with their religions in some areas. Therefore, supporting same-sex marriage does not necessarily mean that someone is not religious, or that they only base their opinions on scientific truth.

"Now, as you can see, we DO have non-fertile people married, which is the opposite of what we would expect from science, which shows you that possibly science is not the moral measure of the world. If we follow a religious viewpoint of morality, because without a higher power, any extra beliefs are pointless as they still end in death without either damnation or salvation, that means you must see that homosexuality is wrong."

All I can gather from this basically incoherent sentence is that you have a really odd definition of what "science" means.

"My other points were that scientifically polygamy and incest are superior to homosexuality, so if you will justify homosexuality, why cannot you justify these other two. Since you cannot use religion, as it would show you to be a hypocrite who picks and chooses parts of the bible, unless you believe a different one, you must prove to me how homosexuality is scientifically superior to both polygamy and incest."

No, I don't have to prove anything is "scientifically superior." Contrary to what I am gathering is your point, anything in opposition to your religious beliefs is not "scientific." And as I have repeatedly said, the only legislation being discussed is same-sex marriage. No one at this point is proposing making polygamous or incestuous marriage legal. If they do, then that's when the discussion about that issue should occur.

Legislation for all citizens should not be based on any particular religion's beliefs. You have not yet put forward an argument against same-sex marriage that is not based on your religious beliefs that makes any sense. That's fine for your personal beliefs, but it shouldn't be the reason that the government does not recognize same-sex marriage.
 
certainly, and thankfully .....not yours!
 
OK so what you are essentially saying is that you have no argument. You are an atheist, who probably is an atheist based on scientific theory or fact, and you are saying you are ignoring science? Isn't that making a decision not based on anything at all other than blind emotion? You have just shot your own argument to pieces because self admittedly, it is based on nothing at all.

Your attempt to somehow link me to racism through your "Slippery slope came during black civil rights debates" is pretty silly, because as a whole, guess what, God's holy word has not changed one bit. No were in the bible does it say whites are better than blacks, because the only difference in humans are those who are saved by Jesus and those who have not. Men and women (all men and women) is justified by the bible, and since I base my views of the bible, unless you can find God, in the bible saying that blacks can't marry, you cannot associate me with this.

Please, give me one good reason, based in fact why we should change these laws, which have stood undisturbed for 6000 years.
 
Equality via 14th amendment to the Constitution, section 1.
 
Can you give one reason, not steeped in religion, why gay couples shouldn't be afforded the exact same opportunities as straight couples?

My guess is slippery slope is all you got.
 
Janice...geezzzzz if you really need to know where the definition is from, why are you debating it? As a matter of FACT, WHY are you attempting to CHANGE it?
 
+Bonnie Lu Your statement implied that there was one immutable definition of marriage that is naturally used by everyone the world over, so I asked where you were getting that definition. Your premise is incorrect: the definition of marriage has changed through history, and it is not even the same today from place to place and country to country. It's not a matter of changing one universally accepted definition of marriage given that there is no such thing: it's a matter of changing the legal definition used by the government to confer rights on married people.
 
Janice how about you giving me the facts on the changes of the definition of marriage throughout the ages? It never hurts to get enlightened. You know, dates, names, places
Add a comment...