Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Why not?

Nov 20, 2003 2:34AM PST

We've been going all around this for days. I've heard lots of discussion on lots of topics. So far no one has made an argument on the harm that would occur if gays were allowed to get married.

Can anyone give me a clear, simple explanation of the harm that would come to anyone who is married or who wants to marry just because gay couples can do it too? "Because it has to be a man and a woman" ain't good enough. "Because god said so" ain't good enough. "Because it will corrup our moral fiber" ain't good enough. "Because it's icky" ain't good enough. I want to hear about problems that will occur that are not happening now. Or whatever the harm is feared to be.

Thanks.

Dan

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Legal thoughts, Dave....
Nov 21, 2003 9:03PM PST

Dave, if this legal situation were to come to pass, it might get a tad interesing later on. The lawyers might have a field day. Say Bill and Tom get married, and later Tom gets caught fooling around with another man. Obviously, Bill might file for divorce. Would Bill get alimony? As adaption by gay couples is already accepted, that brings up the possibility of child support. As you said, But if, as many scientists now believe, sexual orientation is pretty much predetermined and not chosen, then that's not a real problem.
Of course, we could not have any discrimination against bi-sexual couples either. Would it follow in that line of thought that that would include a bi-sexual couple who were both males? Dave, what if the bi part in one or either was pedophelia? Having that sexual like does not mean that they have ever acted on it with a child in that side of the bi of that double perference. The above quote of yours that I mentioned would seem to say that that would have no effect on eligibility when it came to adoption. After all, heterosexual couples adopt, and they are not automatically disqualified because of something that they prefer but have never satisfied with a child before.
As I said, if this were to come to pass, eventually the lawyers might have a field day in several ways.

- Collapse -
Re:Legal thoughts, Dave....
Nov 24, 2003 12:04AM PST

These are all issues that have to be delt with under the current rules regarding issuing marriage licenses.

Dan

- Collapse -
That's the point, Dan..
Nov 24, 2003 10:31AM PST

Dan, "the current rules" is the point here. A proposal has been put forth is to change them. Changing them might have legal results that may not have been considered, so perhaps thought about that might be in order before a rule change. One example was the bi-sexual situation that I mentioned. If gays, then does that mean bi's? If bi's, all or just some? If pedophelia is a disqualifier, are there other disqualifiers?

- Collapse -
Etymology, Dave...
Nov 21, 2003 10:04PM PST

Dave, if that perjorative that you ascribe to the Inquisition and burning at the stake is a word that begins with the letter F and is a word meaning a bundle of sticks, may be a problem with your attribution.
That use of it in that way is a much later one. That word seems to be from 16th century Italian and in the latter part of that century became slang for a shrewish woman. It seems as if it wasn't until the early 1900's that it started to be used in english as reference to homosexual men.

- Collapse -
Re:It wasn't all that long ago ...
Nov 24, 2003 1:36AM PST
... that homosexuality was indeed classified by secular psychologists as deviant and abnormal behavior.

So recent proof that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice but one of inborn chemical factors should be dismissed? If this proof is true then I would assume their behavior is not deviant. As a libertarian myself I think it is most imporatnt to have an open mind here and not judge those by what may be the way they are born.
- Collapse -
Re:Re:It wasn't all that long ago ...
Nov 25, 2003 12:09AM PST

Hi Clay,

The word deviant is used as in "deviating from the norm". Even if it is inborn, then it could just as easily be classified as a birth defect if you think about it. The question then is how society treats that -- is it harmless one such as Down's syndrome or like the "bad seed" that some violent criminals seem to have been born with? In terms of survival of the species, Down's children are sterile. So to, would gays be w/o the intervention of science.

It's not a matter of judging anyone Clay. I just don't see any major benefit to society in allowing gays to redefine the institution of marriage that largely supercedes national borders. The focus should be on removing marriage promotion/penalty provisions in the law (e.g. tax code) so that gays, like straights, are not treated any differently under the law.

My initial point with the "it wasn't all that long ago" was that when we laxed the marriage requirement for having children in order not to punish the child, the unintended consequence was a dramatic increase in the number of illegitimate children who suffer the consequences. That is just one example of the slippery slope when basically the common good of the general society is thwarted in the elusive goal of utopia.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
English (or should it be Latin?) 101
Nov 20, 2003 6:38AM PST

you seem to awfully fond of the word "married" therefore i suggeste you check in your dictionary married, marriage, conubial, wedded, wedlock, nuptial, conjugal...

- Collapse -
Re: English (or should it be Latin?) 101
Nov 20, 2003 9:11AM PST

Hi, Jonah.

Since we're being fussy about language, there are two "n"'s in "connubial."
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:OK then ...
Nov 24, 2003 1:28AM PST
... so if you want to marry your sister that should be OK too I guess?

Incest causes legitimate harm to the offspring in their deformity. So far I don't see where anyone has shown a civil union to cause any harm to anyone else.
- Collapse -
Not necessarily Clay ...
Nov 25, 2003 12:16AM PST

... such deformity is generally the result of a few generations of inbreeding aside from an isolated brother sister pair. And besides < devil's advocate > with current technology we can determine the deformity in advance of the birth. If the damned conservatives would get out of the way, gene therapy from stem cells could probably fix the little parasite in utero, but barring that I see no reason why the parents couldn't just abort the deformity at any time. < / da > So I see no reason on the basis of consenting adult behavior that sisters, adult parent/child, cousin, or whatever shouldn't be allowed to marry!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
What's funny Dan is...
Nov 20, 2003 5:43AM PST

that those who think that big brother should stop love between two people are the same ones that advocate "less government, more freedom"!

- Collapse -
Again WHY??
Nov 20, 2003 7:10AM PST

A law would have to be passed to allow Homosexual marriage! Why should it be a law??? Still no reasons Daniel! I am asking YOU why we should pass a law that is morally repugnant to most communities??

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re:Again WHY??
Nov 24, 2003 1:43AM PST
A law would have to be passed to allow Homosexual marriage! Why should it be a law??? Still no reasons Daniel! I am asking YOU why we should pass a law that is morally repugnant to most communities??

Why does a law need to be passed? Why don't we just repeal any existing laws that prohibit it? I would wager that any current law that prohibits such unions are based in religion and therefore in violation of the first amendment.
- Collapse -
Re:So! You give a reason WHY it should be passed.....
Nov 20, 2003 5:33AM PST

Glenda, it's not about passing a law that says they can marry. It is about repealing laws that say they cannot. LESS government intrusion, not more.

- Collapse -
I was not asked, but I will give my 2 cents to it...
Nov 20, 2003 5:41AM PST
"WHY should it be a law that Gay's can be married????" - Glenda

Because of the same reason there is a law permitting heterosexual couples to get married; LOVE! Two people love each other and they decide to get married and that's it! Why did you get married? I got married out of love. What takes place in everyone's bedroom I could care les about! The important thing is that there is love between two individuals.
- Collapse -
nobody gets married out of love
Nov 20, 2003 6:48AM PST

you get married because you want to have kids amd you don't want them called ********......

- Collapse -
You don't mean that. (NT)
Nov 20, 2003 9:39AM PST

.

- Collapse -
NT - I hope he doesn't.
Nov 20, 2003 10:17AM PST

.

- Collapse -
wanna bet?
Nov 20, 2003 3:05PM PST

think about it for a moment....

everybody here is spouting off about how the queers don't 'need' to get 'married' because in most states their rights are in the law books..

if you LOVE someone, does marriage HAVE to a foregone conclusion?

as i said, you don't want a ******* child? get married...

- Collapse -
Confusion caused by choice of words
Nov 22, 2003 5:51AM PST

.
After reading your later comments I understand what you are saying. It was your choice of words that confused me. Maybe if you had said 'many' or 'some' instead of 'no one' I could have understood sooner.
.

- Collapse -
Re:nobody gets married out of love
Nov 20, 2003 11:37AM PST

Speak for yourself, Jonah.

I know lots of (heterosexual) couples who married out of love yet either didn't want or knew they couldn't have children.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Wow, Jonah
Nov 21, 2003 2:17AM PST

That's a really awful thing to say. I got married out of love. At the time, neither of us wanted to have kids. We didn't change our minds on that until 8 or 9 years later.

I'm sure there are people for whom your observation is accurate, just as there are people who marry for money, one of the worst reasons.

- Collapse -
Environments Devoid Of Love...
Nov 21, 2003 3:01AM PST
nobody gets married out of love. you get married because you want to have kids amd you don't want them called ********...... - jonah jones

I think "*******" children who are raised with love are far happier than children raised in an environment devoid of it. I feel sorry for you, your wife, and your kids. I'm happy that most feel that love is an important aspect for creating and maintaining a marriage as well as a family environment...
- Collapse -
Re:Environments Devoid Of Love are to be avoided
Nov 21, 2003 4:18AM PST

and once again you proved you blindness!

#I think "*******" children who are raised with love are far happier than children raised in an environment devoid of it#
wow! did you think of that all by yourself blake?
what exactly is your point? why on earth come out with that?

#I feel sorry for you, your wife, and your kids#
why on earth would you feel sorry for us?

#I'm happy that most feel that love is an important aspect for creating and maintaining a marriage as well as a family environment#
so? what has that got to do with what i said?

if you had bothered to follow this thread and read my post in that context, you would understand it a little better, but as per usual you wish to be your usual demagogic self...

so.........let me repeat and embelish for you...

in todays modern society, there is no need for a couple (man and woman) to marry, unless they have plans to have children, and then only if the word ******* bothers them....

if you think that marriage is a natural 'next step' in a relatinship "because thats what people do" then we disagree, there is no need for marriage per se....

- Collapse -
Canceling Unproductive Marriages...
Nov 21, 2003 4:53AM PST
if you think that marriage is a natural 'next step' in a relatinship "because thats what people do" then we disagree, there is no need for marriage per se.... - jonah jones

Well at least we agree on one issue anyway. I see very little need for marriage as a natural "next step" either. In fact, I think marriage is a huge mistake for millions of people. So many happy relationships are ruined after the paperwork and ceremonies are completed. What were once happy loving relationships, turn into living hell for a great many...

With the divorce rate in the US above 50%, one has to question how many of the other 50% are really and truly happy. It's probably safe to assume that half of those who remain married are doing so for the sake of the children or to honor their vows. So if that is the case, there is probably only a 25% chance that couples will remain happy with their relationships after the knot is tied. Those aren't great odds...

But you seem to think that the only purpose to get married is to procreate. If it is discovered that a couple cannot conceive, do you believe the marriage should be annulled? How about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be denied the right to a marriage license? If the sole purpose of marriage is to assure that a child isn't born to be "********", then by your logic, there is no other reason to tolerate those who, for one reason or another, don't have children. So perhaps the state should be allowed to cancel any marriage where a child isn't produced within a certain period of time...
- Collapse -
Re: then by your logic, there is no other reason to tolerate those who, for one reason or another, don't have children.
Nov 21, 2003 5:19AM PST

*sigh*
more greek logic blake?

that is not MY logic, it is yours... you translated what i said into that...

but as long as you're happy......

- Collapse -
If Love Is Not A Factor...
Nov 21, 2003 5:46AM PST
more greek logic blake? that is not MY logic, it is yours... you translated what i said into that... - jonah jones

Since you are either unwilling or unable to set the record straight, there's no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with my interpretation. How else could what you posted be interpreted? You did make the statement that love isn't part of the equation in marriage and the only real purpose for marriage is to assure that "*******" children aren't brought into this world and be forced to endure the wrath of their mean-spirited and hateful pears...

So either the reason to ban same sex marriage is because there is no natural way for reproduction, or hetero marriages that don't produce children naturally should be canceled by the state after a given period of time. Love would not a factor in either option...
- Collapse -
Re: there's no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with my interpretation.
Nov 21, 2003 3:45PM PST

and this from the man who said #It should be obvious by now that any attempt by you to disprove my perceptions is ridiculous and totally unnecessary because there is no possible way for you to understand, know, and/or prove the truth either way#

what i said was: nobody gets married out of love...you get married because you want to have kids amd you don't want them called ********... do we agree that IS what i posted?

did i say that 'love isn't part of the equation in marriage'? no i didn't.... if a couple (heterosexual btw) love each other and want to get married, let them...

do we also agree that nowhere do the words 'real purpose' appear in my post? of course we do, you said that, not me....

did i even hint at 'hetero marriages that don't produce children naturally should be canceled by the state after a given period of time'? of course i didn't, you said that....

the one thing you didn't say is "i agree with you jonah".... as any right minded person would do...

my original statement still stands "the ONLY reason a couple would HAVE to marry is to prevent a ******* birth"....

because (and this is based on what has been said here in this thread by members who know a lot more than me) the rights granted by state/local government to non-married hetero couples equal those of married couples...

as to homosexual couples, i posted my opinion and it was deleted, therefore my original post was in no way related to the subject of this thread (or the previous one on the same subject)...

- Collapse -
1 in 4 chance seems pretty good...
Nov 21, 2003 5:32PM PST

compared to the lottery and look at how many people play the lottery. Happy

How many of those marriages are multiple marriages? Of all the couples that I know/knew, there were some separations/divorces but not 50% of them. However, I do know some that have had multiple marriages (and are split up once again). But then, you did say it was 50% in the US and I don't live in the US...

- Collapse -
Have you ever considered, Jonah...
Nov 21, 2003 10:24PM PST

Jonah, have you ever considered two quadriplegics? Such has happened. Such has also happened with a couple who weren't ever able to have children, due to a medical condition of one or both.