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 -
Re:Re:Re:Re:Possibly.../ Just like any other sin, Josh........
Nov 24, 2003 2:07AM PST
Sin is sin no matter what name you choose to call it!

And our laws should be based on sins depending on whose religion? The protestants? The Catholics? The Muslims? Should work on Sunday be outlawed? Or may Saturday and Sunday since the muslims have sabbath on Saturday? What do you think?
- Collapse -
Re: Just like any other sin, Josh........
Nov 24, 2003 6:14AM PST

Hi, Clay.

>>And our laws should be based on sins depending on whose religion? <<
By George, you've got it! That's why the "Christian Right's" notion of legally codifying their own version of "family values" (supported by GWB) is inherently Unconstituional -- and why I'd never vote for Bush (well, maybe against Ashcroft...)
-- Dave K.

- Collapse -
(NT) - Honestly, Glenda, wouldn't you be happier without me in this forum? LOL!
Nov 20, 2003 8:52AM PST

`?

- Collapse -
Re: Why does a man want to 'marry' a man?
Nov 20, 2003 11:13AM PST

Hi, Evie.

For all the same reasons that a man and woman get married when they can't have or don't want children. And some gay couples also find ways to have children, either one of the partners' or adopted. That's not my personal preference -- but that doesn't mean "they" shouldn't have the same rights to happiness as do "we."
-- 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:Re:Re:Marriage is a government program?
Nov 20, 2003 9:49AM PST

Didn't you ask for any reason that a gay marriage would cause harm? you were just given one.

You can debate the reason, but it's one direct response to what harm gay marriage could cause isn't it?

Natural and/or adopted children raised in a gay marriage household will probably at the least face heckling at school.

So now they're all to be homeschooled? grow up without natural group activity with other kids because the other parents don't want their kids exposed to what they feel deviant?

And if the gays gather together into little subcommunities (not unlike some immigrants have) are we going to hear about the problem of prejudice against them from their neighbors?

roger

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Re:Marriage is a government program?
Nov 24, 2003 2:13AM PST
Natural and/or adopted children raised in a gay marriage household will probably at the least face heckling at school.

That may, or may not, be a reason as to why they may, or may not, be allowed to adopt childeren. That is not a reason as to why they should be denied the ability to marry.
- Collapse -
IS marriage a government program? or does law just reflect what marriage is?
Nov 20, 2003 10:11AM PST

"it is not the job of government to force a definition of family"

Isn't that what you are proposing, that government change the laws THAT are intended to REFLECT the governed's view on the definition of marriage?

I'm not sure when historically speaking marriage became the concept of a lifelong joining. Granted, most accounts of primitive society it was not just a pair. The normal seemed to be one man and all he could possess by power of fighting skill, income earning, or will/poltical power over others to leave his alone.

Along the way, the concept became one man, one woman, raise kids. I'm not familiar enough with history, secular or theologically, to take a guess when it became more accepted to be a pair than one man with a harem.

But it did develop into that. So the current laws you see as interferring and prohibiting an activity that you propose doesn't hurt anyone or society don't exist to discriminate against gays. At least not in the definition of the term marriage.


roger

- Collapse -
Re:IS marriage a government program? or does law just reflect part 2
Nov 20, 2003 10:12AM PST

So changing the law is changing the definition of the institution, changing the institution, not changing to law to stop denying the institution to a group discriminated against.

Once you change the law, you have undeniably change the agreed social understanding and defining of the institution of marriage.

I suspect that with the already existing decline in the seriousness most regard marraige, any more expanding the context the term may be used will only weaken it more. Eventually, it may become so weak as to be almost meaningless.

Then what will the advantage/disadvantag (outside of possible legal matters like taxes and property) of marriage/non-marriage of couples?

roger

- Collapse -
Doesn't hurt?
Nov 20, 2003 10:34AM PST

The bar for having laws should be a bit higher than not hurting anyone.

Anyway, it hurts gays that want to get married.

As you've noted, marriage is not a universal constant.

Dan

- Collapse -
Well, it's been interesting, but this discussion, just like Charlie's about Socialism
Nov 20, 2003 11:43AM PST

is going no where.

Some interesting points, and I've joined in with a few observations and point of views myself.

But it obvious that you want everyone else to agree with you that gays should be married, regardless of their personal reasons for disliking it.

You ignore or dismiss any stress on kids living in the household, instead of discussing how bad it might be or how to alieviate it, at least it seems that way. You dismiss any concerns that you're changing what marriage is instead of expanding it's availabilty.

This thread(s) is going no where, just like Charlie and Sweden's flirting with socialism.

Most has been at least half civil, and some even interesting. But after a point, there is no point.

To the rest of ya'll, have fun. Unless I see a specific point I feel strongly about or that makes a big change of pace here, I'll bow out and leave it to the rest of ya'll.

I think any usefulness, even any intergrity of purpose, in these particular threads is gone.

roger

- Collapse -
NT -Thanks for joining in!
Nov 20, 2003 10:26PM PST

.

- Collapse -
But after a point, there is no point.
Nov 20, 2003 11:16PM PST

Good point!

- Collapse -
Re: You missed it because you didn't want to see it...
Nov 20, 2003 11:21AM PST

Hi, Mary Kay.

>> If you say it's for shared benefits that can be arranged without marriage. <<
Without calling it that, yes. But as I pointed out in this post, in many states and/or communities there are various laws about what "unrelated people" can do, but which make exceptions for married couples. Absent a legal document that gives committed gay couples the same legal rights as married couples, your suggestion is not correct.
-- 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:You missed it because you didn't want to see it...
Nov 20, 2003 4:06AM PST

The Supreme Court has pretty much said that trying to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults is unconstitutional.

Parents, not government, are really the best source of teaching acceptable behavior.

Having people in commited, exclusive relationships is an effective way of limiting the spread of STDs.

Thanks for you reply.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Re:You missed it because you didn't want to see it...
Nov 20, 2003 9:52AM PST

Do you think that allowing homosexuals a full marriage in the eyes of the law and language would increase their fidelity? increase the lenght of their relationships? why?

roger

- Collapse -
I suppose you're right
Nov 20, 2003 10:30PM PST

Gay marriages could have the exact same limitations and exact same failings as hetero marriages. I guess the problem of marriage is a good topic for its own thread.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:You missed it because you didn't want to see it...
Nov 24, 2003 12:39AM PST
it will further the progressive left's agenda and efforts to totally undermine and do away with morals and to legitimize sexual deviants.

It will help our people to be more understanding, tolerant, open minded and accepting.

It will cause ever more children to be brought up with warped ideas of what is natural and correct behavior.

It will cause more children to come to terms with their own feelings without fear of ostrization, to know that their feelings and thoughts are also acceptable.

It will "legitimize" a behavior that spreads disease far more undesirable than normal STD.

Unprotected sex spreads disease not homosexuality.


These are not "guesses" they are proven facts.

Proven facts or opinions?
- Collapse -
article on the subject
Nov 20, 2003 4:02AM PST
- Collapse -
NT - Interesting, thanks!
Nov 20, 2003 4:24AM PST

.

- Collapse -
That is a very good article, May Kay! Thanks for posting the URL.
Nov 20, 2003 5:59AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Hmmm, let's see now
Nov 20, 2003 4:37AM PST

it's not good enough that God condemns it, nor that God is deeply offended by it, nor that it will corrupt the nation's moral fiber, nor that marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman, nor that it is offensive and unnatural. That's old news about homosexual behaviour isn't it? You want to know what new problems homosexual marriage will produce.

I imagine children will be among the first casualties. Those raised by a homosexual couple will be missing either a Dad or a Mom both of whom are badly needed. They will have a poor concept of who they are because one of their biological parents will have chosen to abandon them. They'll probably have a tough time with peers who look askance at their 'family', and they'll be sought like trophies to crown the political triumphs of their 'parents'.

- Collapse -
Re:Hmmm, let's see now
Nov 20, 2003 4:43AM PST

Everything you just said about children could also be said about children of divorce, or children of a widowed parent. I am a child of divorce and do not suffer as you describe.

It will corrupt the nation's moral fiber? How?

And remember, it is offensive to you. Offensiveness is a personal thing.

- Collapse -
That's a bit sad don't you think?
Nov 20, 2003 5:42AM PST

To say that children raised in a homosexual home are in a situation which is analagous to divorce or the death of a parent. I think most health professionals would agree that divorce is not a good thing for a child. I can tell you, from personal experience, that the death of a parent is a very devastating thing for a child with lots of unexpected consequences. Similarly, I know many people who were profoundly affected by divorce.

If the nation accepts and condones immoral relationships, how can it avoid curruption to its moral fibre? If the nation accepted and condoned slavery, would it not become more corrupt? The real issue is whether or not homosexual behaviour is immoral. What is your authority for answering that question? If your authority is merely your own opinion, why would it carry any weight with me? However, if your authority was respected by me, you would surely carry the day.

- Collapse -
Re:That's a bit sad don't you think?
Nov 20, 2003 5:49AM PST

I am sorry for your loss.

However your arguments in your previous post were all things that can also be said about children of divorce. The things you spoke of are not unique to children living in homes with same-sex parents, so to claim that as a reason for keeping same-sex marriage illegal falls short IMO.

I have no more authority to declare homosexuality moral or immoral than you have.

And you'd be shocked at the statements that have been made in this forum in defense of slavery.

- Collapse -
You are repeating yourself, and missing my point.
Nov 20, 2003 6:22AM PST

I already addressed the issue of divorce.

As for authority, I never said I had the authority to declare homosexual behaviour immoral. I said it is immoral, but I didn't do that based on my authority.

By the way, I am talking about homosexual behaviour, not homosexuality. I think there is a difference between the two, and I don't think homosexuality is immoral.

- Collapse -
Re:You are repeating yourself, and missing my point.
Nov 20, 2003 10:07PM PST

But you do believe that the government has the authority to declare homosexual behavior immoral?

- Collapse -
Like us, government can only be responsible to...
Nov 22, 2003 1:21PM PST

the one who has the power to declare things moral and immoral. It has no authority to declare anything contrary to his judgement. If there is no ultimate authority, then morality has no meaning. All that's left is power.

- Collapse -
Re:You are repeating yourself, and missing my point.
Nov 21, 2003 3:24AM PST

Hi, KP.

>>I think there is a difference between the two, and I don't think homosexuality is immoral.<<
Ah yes, the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach. Of course, never mind that notion condemns the poor unfortunate to a loveless life. Remember Peter and Gordon?
"I don't care what they say,
I won't stay in a world without love."
-- 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 -
Off-topic trivia question, Dave:
Nov 21, 2003 3:30AM PST

And no cheating:

Who wrote "A World Without Love?"

- Collapse -
I know, I know. Pick Me!!! :-)
Nov 21, 2003 4:33AM PST