gay marriage

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

but as for the secular approach we must first look at the secular arguements against gay marriage. care to list a few?

You said, "clutch, the attack is two pronged. one in the secular arena and one in the church." I took that to mean that your proposed strategy included a church angle of attack and a secular angle of attack, and pointed out that thus far you've only expounded on the church angle (ie. study scripture and present Christians with a theological argument supporting gay marriage). Does your apparently rhetorical question to me about the secular reasons for opposition to gay marriage indicate that there really isn't a secular angle of attack to your proposition, or are you suggesting that non-believers studying scripture and making a theological argument for gay marriage is a secular approach?

[fatherphil]

its not a rhetorical question

there are secular reasons to be against gay marriage.

yes, the "ick" factor is one, shared by both camps at that.

straights not wanting to share perks with another group is one.

straights wanting to keep a position of power over gays is another.

straights feeling that the perks are associated with child rearing and therefore should not be available to couples that, by design, would not be able to have children.

think up others cause i don't think i've hit on all of them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

straights not wanting to share perks with another group is one.

straights wanting to keep a position of power over gays is another.

I feel like both of these are directly due to the "ick" factor. Only homophobes/anti-homosexuals would have any reason to discrimnate against gays in such a way. When you remove religious reasons, all you are left with is the "ick" factor.

straights feeling that the perks are associated with child rearing and therefore should not be available to couples that, by design, would not be able to have children.

This argument fails utterly when the issue of infertility is broached. Should infertile couples, or those childfree by choice, be barred from marrying as well?

Also, gays are as "able" to have children as heteros. Surrogacy, sperm donation and/or artificial insemination, agreement amongst opposite gendered friends, and even adoption in some states.

[fatherphil]

i think if an issue is economic, it need not be out of fear or disgust. if straights think that they will be less well off because they have to share a piece of their pie they will generally react negatively.

i'm not saying their reasons are inarguable, i'm just saying they got reasons. right?

[Ari]

there are secular reasons to be against gay marriage.

But none of them are any good.

yes, the "ick" factor is one, shared by both camps at that.

Except the "ick" factor falls appart as an argument specifically against gay marriage, and shows itself as prejudice, or homophobia.
Exactly what would married gays be doing that non married gays aren't?
I doubt many people would claim that being able to see someone you love who is dying in the hospital is "icky"

straights wanting to keep a position of power over gays is another.

So, straights want to be the top to the gays bottom, hmm, sounds a bit closet homo to me.

straights feeling that the perks are associated with child rearing and therefore should not be available to couples that, by design, would not be able to have children.

As pointed out, not all straights can have children, and gays can have children through the miracles of science (and since straights also use these miracles, I doubt an argument from "nature" can be made effectively).


I have found that practically every argument against gay marriage has some sort of "cut off your nose to spite your face" element to it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i think if an issue is economic, it need not be out of fear or disgust. if straights think that they will be less well off because they have to share a piece of their pie they will generally react negatively.

i'm not saying their reasons are inarguable, i'm just saying they got reasons. right?

True, I just feel if we are trying to find secualar arguments they should be valid and/or utilized by someone. The one instance of a LTTE by some nut is the first I have heard any economic argument.

Basically I don't see it as useful to try to imagine any and all possible "secular" arguments. The only ones I have ever heard are ick factor. Have you actually read, or heard any others? You seem to be just making up some possibilities.

[fatherphil]

lets see, my dad said it was just not right, that marriage should be between a man and a woman and he was coming from a secular mindset. he didn't mind unions but was not willing to concede marriage to gays.

are all freethinker secularists on this board pro-gay marriage?

and i avoided using the word valid because i'm not sure what it means here. the guy that says he does not want his companies health costs to go up because gays will get benifits for their spouses may have a valid point, no?

and if all the reasons boil down to the disgust, how are gays ever going to get married?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

lets see, my dad said it was just not right, that marriage should be between a man and a woman and he was coming from a secular mindset.

So your father is not a Christian? From where does he derive his ideas of right and wrong usually? "Not right" usually involves the ick factor when coming from a secular mindset, usually being synonymous with "not natural".

he didn't mind unions but was not willing to concede marriage to gays.

What is the difference, from your father's point of view? Most people with a secular midset don't care what the hell it's called, as long as it's called the same thing for everyone, and offers the same rights and responsibilities.

I could care less if my husband and I are married or unionized or what as long as I am his legal next of kin.

are all freethinker secularists on this board pro-gay marriage?

I don't know for sure, but I am willing to bet most are pro-gay marriage and/or apathetic to the issue. Reasoning, thinking people know there is no valid argument against gay marriage.

and i avoided using the word valid because i'm not sure what it means here. the guy that says he does not want his companies health costs to go up because gays will get benifits for their spouses may have a valid point, no?

No, that isn't a valid point. How is giving a gay couple the same coverage as a straight couple going to increase health care costs? That's not only an invalid argument, it's downright nonsensical.

[fatherphil]

i heard a theory that straights wanted to hang onto the term marriage cause it was the only thing they had left to hang onto. my dad believes there is a higher power and that's about the extent of his theology. it costs more for coverage for a man and his spouse then it does just for a man. what don't you get about that?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i heard a theory that straights wanted to hang onto the term marriage cause it was the only thing they had left to hang onto. my dad believes there is a higher power and that's about the extent of his theology.

Straights need something to "hang on to"? That sounds like the mindset of a bigot. Is this your father's reasoning?

it costs more for coverage for a man and his spouse then it does just for a man. what don't you get about that?

Um, what I don't get is why a gay man and his spouse would cost more than a straight man and his spouse, what does gender have to do with anything, and how or why that would increase health care costs for Joe Blow in your scenario.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

lets see, my dad said it was just not right, that marriage should be between a man and a woman and he was coming from a secular mindset. he didn't mind unions but was not willing to concede marriage to gays.

Actually, now that you mention it, I have heard that one a lot.

And I can see that it doesn't have to be religious to make it, either. It strikes me more as just some kind of scary circular semantic prescriptivism.

[fatherphil]

right now the company does not have to insure the gay man's mate because they can not legally marry. when they are allowed to legally marry the costs to the company will go up.

and no, my dad isn't a bigot. he's a pretty good guy. he didn't make the "hang on" statement but he was unable to elaborate much on his feelings against homosexual marriage.

why do you think john kerry didn't come out strong for gay marriage?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Actually, now that you mention it, I have heard that one a lot.

And I can see that it doesn't have to be religious to make it, either. It strikes me more as just some kind of scary circular semantic prescriptivism.

Don't you think that still comes back to the "ick" factor? "I don't get it, I don't like it, so it just ain't right" kinda thing?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

right now the company does not have to insure the gay man's mate because they can not legally marry. when they are allowed to legally marry the costs to the company will go up.

Wow, that's still an invalid argument.

Costs to the company are not usually transferred to each individual on a group plan. The premiums are set as "Employee" or "Epmloyee plus 1" or "Employee and family" or whatever as a benefit. Some companies only pay for the employee and have the employee pay for added family members. It's the company's choice. Discriminating against only 1 type of spouse or family is illogical and bigoted.

What if the gay guy chose to marry a woman for whatever reason (many do), would the costs still go up? Why is that better than the gay guy marrying another man? What about the Mormon or Catholic who doesn't believe in birth control and has 6 or more kids on his plan?

Also, since the number of gay people in the population is estimated at less than 10%, and there is no way to know how many of them would marry, but it's safe to assume not ALL of them. I can't imagine any one company taking some huge hit from adding spouse premiums.

and no, my dad isn't a bigot. he's a pretty good guy. he didn't make the "hang on" statement but he was unable to elaborate much on his feelings against homosexual marriage.

Ick factor then, plain and simple. He doesn't get it and he doesn't like it. No need to think about it or come up with valid reasons I suppose.

I am curious to know where you got the "hang on" thing from.

why do you think john kerry didn't come out strong for gay marriage?

Because 80% of the country is Christians and most Christians don't want gay marriage. Anyway, politicians rarely run their platforms on their own personal beliefs and stances; they are vague and wishy washy and compromising so as to get the largest number of votes.

So, what does that have anything to do with what we are discussing. Are you purposefully this difficult to have a conversation with? You seem passive aggressive to me.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

right now the company does not have to insure the gay man's mate because they can not legally marry. when they are allowed to legally marry the costs to the company will go up.

What company are you referring to? Lots of companies offer domestic partnership benefits nowadays, including the two I've worked for since I graduated college.

[PinkRose]

so if two men "marry" hahahaha, health inusrance increases? they don't have to worry about pregnancy, neither, so why would insurance increase fatherphil? how ridiculous!

[fatherphil]

i ask a question and you seem to freak out. and i'm difficult.

if a company has to insure someone they didn't have to before (the gay spouse), its cost do go up. it cost me more to insure my spouse and myself, but not as much as it costs me to insure myself and my adult child who is not a dependent. i imagine the same applies to the gay couple who does not have the benifit of a company recognizing their civil union. livious, do all companies offer benifits for domestic partners?

[fatherphil]

lady, 80% Christian brings us back to the importance of approaching this from a Christian perspective.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i ask a question and you seem to freak out. and i'm difficult.

I find you are unclear, not concise, do not respond to most points made to you, and ask odd, seemingly rhetorical and off topic questions. Yes, I find you difficult and frustrating. I would like to discuss this but you never seem to offer your opinion, or lay out an argument, or defend your position.

if a company has to insure someone they didn't have to before (the gay spouse)

Or hetero spouse if a hetero employee gets married or a child if a hetero couple has one.

its cost do go up.

Sure, but not unexpectedly or dramatically or bizarrely or anything.

it cost me more to insure my spouse and myself, but not as much as it costs me to insure myself and my adult child who is not a dependent.

You are allowed to cover undependant children? Wow, that's quite a benefit there. Anyway, if you choose to take on the extra expense what's that got to do with anybody else?

i imagine the same applies to the gay couple who does not have the benifit of a company recognizing their civil union.

Right, but you haven't explained how a gay man paying more to cover his spouse is any different than a straight man paying more to cover his spouse or children. You also haven't demonstrated how those costs would or could be transferred to anyone but the employee in question.

You said

the guy that says he does not want his companies health costs to go up because gays will get benifits for their spouses may have a valid point, no?

Is "The Guy" the owner? If so, he can choose to offer partial or full premium payment only to the employee and require them to pay for any added people. If he chooses to offer partial premiums for added people, then he accepts that he will pay for employees and spouses and children and whatever. Where does homosexuality even come into play in this cost/benefit analysis?

Have you ever run a company? What do you do for a living that this argument makes sense and seems so apparently true to you?

livious, do all companies offer benifits for domestic partners?

No, but some do not require marriage and will cover any one additional person, whether it be spouse, domestic partner, roommate, mother, etc. Same as your company covering non-dependant children. That's quite rare.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Don't you think that still comes back to the "ick" factor? "I don't get it, I don't like it, so it just ain't right" kinda thing?

Maybe there's some of that still, but when people endorse civil unions, I tend to interpret it as more circular reasoning than anything else. Like the DARE program's "Drugs are bad because they're illegal. Drugs are illegal because they're bad" arguments, or when people complain that new words are being added to some dictionary because they're not real words because they're not in the dictionary.

In fact, all too often, people making this argument cite dictionary definitions to prove that marriage is exclusive to a man and a woman. If they actually do support civil unions that are equivalent to the marriage contract in every way except title, it would almost have to be a semantic argument, it seems.

That's just my interpretation, though. I can't pretend to actually understand it, so you may well be right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

lady, 80% Christian brings us back to the importance of approaching this from a Christian perspective.

One last time. I am not a Christian. The Christians themselves cannot seem to agree on anything as the sects are divided on any number of doctrinal issues. I can't think of any sect that doesn't believe their interpretations of the Bible are infallible, nor any sect who would hear one word regarding Christian doctrine from a non-Christian.

What have you not understood about my posts regarding why your idea won't work?

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

livius, do all companies offer benifits for domestic partners?

No. Do all companies offer benefits?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Maybe there's some of that still, but when people endorse civil unions, I tend to interpret it as more circular reasoning than anything else. Like the DARE program's "Drugs are bad because they're illegal. Drugs are illegal because they're bad" arguments, or when people complain that new words are being added to some dictionary because they're not real words because they're not in the dictionary.

In fact, all too often, people making this argument cite dictionary definitions to prove that marriage is exclusive to a man and a woman. If they actually do support civil unions that are equivalent to the marriage contract in every way except title, it would almost have to be a semantic argument, it seems.

That's just my interpretation, though. I can't pretend to actually understand it, so you may well be right.

Oh I get you. And I totally think you're right as well.

Seems to me people use such arguments when they have a strong opinion on a subject (from whatever emotional place or from "that's just what I was taught/how it's always been/traditional"), but nothing to back it up with and without explainable reasons to hold that opinion.

[PinkRose]

yes some insurance companies pay for domestic partners, agree. but my health plan price for a single man is cheap, its the women that are more expensive. i have a young woman here who is single no children and her rate is double the men the same age? she is more apt. to have a child? this insurance plan i have is one of the best in this state. i would think gays would have lower costs, as childbirth is expensive. its complex and everything has a price.

[fatherphil]

i am in favor of legalizing gay marriage. just trying to come up with the best way to achieve this.

i like short posts and one question at a time. long drawn out responses that pick apart sentence by sentence a post and can only be answered by a long drawn out post defending the attack sentence by sentence just take more time than i'm willing to invest.

sorry i piss so many folks off here, i've tried to be polite. if asked to leave i will gladly do so.