Redefining marriage

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Why bother, I can (and have) post the countries that allow Gay Marriage, with no harm demonstrated, but you'll claim they havent allowed it long enough (for you) to be satisfied.

Since your for allowing the Government to prohibit Law Abiding Citizens from consentual entering a union, you obviously have some type of study that shows Gay Marriage would adversly affect society.

Of coruse it will be interesting to see how you explain allowing the Government to interfere with Law Abiding Citizens when there is no demonstrated harm, but against the Government interference when harm has been clearly demonstrated.

I think that a study in history might show that there are benefits to society from hetero marriage.
In so much as I can not point to direct adverse results on society from gay unions, I can also not find any value to society from it.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by bcp

I think that a study in history might show that there are benefits to society from hetero marriage.
In so much as I can not point to direct adverse results on society from gay unions, I can also not find any value to society from it.

I agree that there is a benefit to society for allowing hetero marriage. But the discussion was not about banning Hetero marriage and Hetero marriage is and would not be affected.

The question is, what adverse affect would gay marriage have on society? Even better question, what positive affect would Gay Marriage have on society? Short on natural children (they can have kids, just not by an act of their own... same as with some heteros'), how is having more marriage (and all of the benefits society reaps from it) in our society a bad thing?

[OoberBoober]

Originally Posted by bcp

I think that a study in history might show that there are benefits to society from hetero marriage.
In so much as I can not point to direct adverse results on society from gay unions, I can also not find any value to society from it.

Guilty until proven innocent in the United states of BCP.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by OoberBoober

Guilty until proven innocent in the United states of BCP.

Who did I say was guilty of what?
or are you just trying too hard to be offended.

[Cowgirl]

Originally Posted by bcp

I think that a study in history might show that there are benefits to society from hetero marriage.
In so much as I can not point to direct adverse results on society from gay unions, I can also not find any value to society from it.

What benefits are there to society from hetero marriages?

[OoberBoober]

Originally Posted by bcp

Who did I say was guilty of what?
or are you just trying too hard to be offended.

You are trying to imply that because their is no proof of the benefit of gay marriage, that it is bad.

In normal society and america we assume that they are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way.

[libertytyranny]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

There isnt a comparison between a marriage of adults and a marriage of animals and/or children. One is union between consenting adults the other involves those that can not consent.

Sure that is what you think now, but who knows how society will change. 18 to enter into a contract is an arbitrary number. people in other countries are married as young as 8..who is to say that could not be the case here? NAMBLA actively pursues lowering the age of consent...using the exact same logic that gay rights activists do...and that is my point..allowing that logic to work for gay partners...but not other types of partners is hypocritical.
AS for animals..they cannot consent to being owned..or walked..or taken to the vet, or flea dipped, or put down,...but we do it anyway..society does not value their consent..why would they for marriage? Same with inanimate objects. There are people who are sexually attracted to inanimate objects..should we let them get married? They feel it is natural and been around for centuries...sounds familiar right? again..same logic. They seem like silly examples now..but who knows in the future.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Why bother, I can (and have) post the countries that allow Gay Marriage, with no harm demonstrated, but you'll claim they havent allowed it long enough (for you) to be satisfied.

Interestingly, some people don't think polygamy is very good for society. Seems you're a bit behind in your assumptions.

Since your for allowing the Government to prohibit Law Abiding Citizens from consentual entering a union, you obviously have some type of study that shows Gay Marriage would adversly affect society.

The stem of your question is inaccurate. I don't accept "Government to prohibit Law Abiding Citizens (sic) from censentual entering a union". I define the union and expect people to be able to understand that.

I continue to be for allowing same gendered unions. The one called "marriage" I would restrict to those individuals who fit the definition of that union. Currently, there is no law on the books in any state which restricts the sexual orientation of someone entering into a marriage, merely the gender, age, and blood relationship of those entering that union. Now, if you believe that Law Abiding Citizens should be allowed to marry their sisters, daughters, etc., then you would be for allowing what you suggest.

Since not even you would suggest such a thing as acceptable, I presume you are for people who are still not already closely blood related, not too young, etc., to be allowed to "marry" regardless of gender. Unfortunately, that would not meet historical norms and standards, nor the definition of the word (save for the last few decades) in western society.

But, again, if you feel strongly that two same gendered individuals should be allowed a "union", I am for allowing them that, and see no restriction in any state to establishing such a thing as each state decides (it is a state issue, after all).

As usual for you, your problem is in understanding the issue. Giving a "marriage" license to same-gendered individuals would be akin to giving a commercial driver's license to someone because they drove a motorcycle. You give a motorcycle's license to someone for driving a motorcycle, and a commercial driver's license to someone for driving a semi-truck (or other appropriate vehicle). You give a marriage license to someone for having a marriage, and a civil union (or other appropriately named license for the appropriate union) license to someone in other forms of unions.

It's really not that hard.

Of course it will be interesting to see how you explain allowing the Government to interfere with Law Abiding Citizens when there is no demonstrated harm, but against the Government interference when harm has been clearly demonstrated.

Go, strawman, go!

I won't argue the positions you ascribe to me, only the positions I have.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by libertytyranny

Sure that is what you think now, but who knows how society will change. 18 to enter into a contract is an arbitrary number. people in other countries are married as young as 8..who is to say that could not be the case here? NAMBLA actively pursues lowering the age of consent...using the exact same logic that gay rights activists do...and that is my point..allowing that logic to work for gay partners...but not other types of partners is hypocritical.

Its already hypocritical, You might want to do some research first.

Almost every state in the union allows marriage at 16. Some have stipulations, Parental Consent and/or Parents at the ceremony.

A large number of states will allow marriage at 15 or younger, along with stipulations. Pregnancy and/or Judicial consent. One state (New Hampshire) will allow marriage at 13.

Originally Posted by libertytyranny

AS for animals..they cannot consent to being owned..or walked..or taken to the vet, or flea dipped, or put down,...but we do it anyway..society does not value their consent..why would they for marriage? Same with inanimate objects. There are people who are sexually attracted to inanimate objects..should we let them get married? They feel it is natural and been around for centuries...sounds familiar right? again..same logic. They seem like silly examples now..but who knows in the future.

Stick with pertinent points, you'll do better in a discussion. Our society and laws do not allow non-consentual marriage.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by OoberBoober

You are trying to imply that because their is no proof of the benefit of gay marriage, that it is bad.

In normal society and america we assume that they are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way.

no, Im just pointing out to Nucklesack that in stating that there are no documented detrimental effects from gay marriage, there are also no documented values.