Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

[Sy Borg]

Ted Haggard was another. Also Larry Craig's famous "wide stance"

[Obvious Leo]

And, VJ, it's true, "it is always what is best for other people that these people know". But when we look at the lives of people who holler that we are living evil sinful lives we invariably see that their own are not running "like perfect engines". In fact I would hazard a guess that the louder such people insist that others must do or must not do X (usually to do with sex) the more we are justified in suspecting that all is not as it should be with them. They are the pedophile clergy, and the Jimmy Bakers and Jimmy Swaggarts of this world.

Surely the jury has returned with the verdict by now for those who follow the news. Such proselytising ideologies have become a safe haven for sexually dysfunctional perverts of all kinds. This has been going on for hundreds of years, if not thousands, and not just within Christianity. It's also been happening in every country of the world. Those who presume to tell others how to live their lives on the basis of their own personal beliefs are immoral villains.

The very idea of such people being in a position of power where they can capture the hearts and minds of children makes me want to puke. If they come near my grandchildren I'll have no need of dog or wife. I'll kill them with my own bare hands or die in the attempt.

Regards Leo

[Supine]

Both types of couple should be able to marry. I've never understood the opposition to gay marriage and laws that used to prevent people of different races from marrying leave me flabbergasted. It's hard to believe that there are still people out there who think this way. [...]

Modern marriage is, to my mind at least, about love and mutual support. Kids may or may not be part of that - they are not the raison d'etre of marriage. If I were making the laws people who intend to have kids would need to show that they are capable of providing a loving, safe and nurturing environment for kids before being licensed to have them no matter what their race or sexuality or marital status.

I agree. The reductio ad absurdum concern raised by Supine points out the dangers of a regulatory approach but it's clear you are not advocating pressuring regular people but reducing the most damaging child abuse and neglect. Nonetheless, people will always be concerned about where the lines are drawn.

In the real world any such law would be disproportionately aimed at racial minority groups, not unlike the forced sterilization of girls and women was used throughout the eugenics era of the United States. You could even use the law to target anyone suspected of being bisexual. Girls and women already lie (with relative ease it seems--in the culture of the USA at least), so, I can imagine the lies they would tell police and authorities, even as teenagers, to ruin some young guys hopes of becoming a father. Men lie too. And Americans seem to be increasingly vindictive predators towards one another, ready to lie and snitch on one another. Of course, the governments promote snitching.

I'm all for reducing child abuse. But then what some don't consider abuse I do and what some do consider abuse I don't. Beating a child, burning a child, refusing to feed a child. All of these are clearly wrong things--and already against the law. Short of a new eugenics program how does one suggest a government can predict what person will 10 or 20 years later snap and throw hot grease on a child?

And I wouldn't say it is clear lagayscienza is advocating specific things that would be universally agreed upon in the USA let alone across all countries and cultures on planet earth.

The eugenics movement was promoted by political liberals. It was science based. It was science influenced. To the credit of Catholic intellectuals they opposed it--even though they were mocked for being "anti-science" and "behind the times."

The pro-abortion book associated with past affiliates of Planned Parenthood should be illustrative of who would be targeted: Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.

-- Updated February 23rd, 2015, 5:53 pm to add the following --

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/laure ... eral-court

People who suggest the government stay out of marriage seem ignorant of the primary legal purpose of marriage - to support the establishment of a family and the well- being of children. Obviously not all hetero couples have children but ALL children come by a father and mother (man and woman).

Lesbian women can have artificial insemination (or as my niece did - have a wild fling or 2 get preg & hide it from dad) and thereby deny their child of their father. Elderly couples usually have no interest or capability of conceiving children. And I don't see elderly people fussing about special rights just for having "special" sexual substitutes.

Yes, that's why secular governments opted to promote and privilege the ancient and often religious institution of marriage.

Two teenagers dating and having sex in high school can be in love. Some can be in a more honest and greater depth of love than some adults who marry. Humans being animals don't have to or necessarily need to marry.

I would probably say that in the Catholic--as well as Eastern Orthodox--conception of marriage vs dating... a great many Americans married by law are merely dating. Marriage in the former's conception is not simply about a long term or short term emotional feeling we in contemporary times refer to as "love" (and then divorce when "love" no longer exists). Love in the Catholic conception (not sure about the Eastern Orthodox) is illustrated in the parent disappointed, hurt, and no longer having those pleasant emotional feelings referred to as "love," in his or her drug addicted son now incarcerated doing a 30 year prison sentence for a crime he committed; and yet that parent still writes or visits annually or biannually his or her locked up son.

So, love is in action and commitment.

But love was not a principal reason for marriage. As stated earlier two teenagers not married to each other can be deeply in love.

Marriage was formed for the outcome of sexual intercourse we call children. Marriage became a structure for family and marriage served a purpose for inheritance rights.

From the traditional Christian standpoint what need is there of two homosexual persons--even deeply in love (emotionally or otherwise) with one another--to get married? Not being married does not stop them from being in love nor stop them from holding hands or having sex with one another.

So, Rosie O'Donnel got married to a woman. Now she is divorcing. In the Catholic conception a sacramental marriage never existed in the first place. But on a cultural Catholic level the marriage and now divorce between the two seems like two adults were "playing house" and now the fun and playtime is over. However, secular civil marriage with no-fault divorce among heterosexuals created this culture of adults playing house before homosexuals and lesbians ever undertook to playing house.

Within the Catholic conception it is not the government, not political parties, not political interest groups, not prisons or reform schools, and not the military that has rights to being the first and foremost educator of children. Not even the Pope has that right. That right belongs to the parents of their respective children. Marriage being a structure of family is tied into that system of educating children. Providing morals and the cultural mores of their nation. Or in the case of being Catholic... promising to take on the responsibility of rearing that child within the Catholic faith/view.

Secular governments very early on realized that the family is the foundational unit of a country. When families start collapsing then communities start collapsing and falling prey to various social pathologies. Kind of like the greater bulk of Black-American communities.

So, governments and political philosophers got themselves involved in the business of promoting marriage because they thought it would strengthen families and that strong families would strengthen the country. As for the military--or in this case the U.S. military--the officer corps has always understood that soldiers are created in families and communities and not in the military. And therefore, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines would and will reflect the American families and communities they are drawn from. Ergo, they will bring the gangs and broken homes and problems--or virtues--with them. They are products of them.

-- Updated February 23rd, 2015, 6:10 pm to add the following --

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/laure ... eral-court

People who suggest the government stay out of marriage seem ignorant of the primary legal purpose of marriage - to support the establishment of a family and the well- being of children.

And where does it say that in the legal code?

A group of mutually supportive individuals whether married or not and with or without children (but committed to their nurturing and flourishing where children are present) constitutes what I believe is a better more inclusive sort of family. The gun-totin'-praise-the-lord-and pass the ammunition tribe do not provide the environment most conducive to the happiness and well-being of individuals, groups or to society as a whole. As we will continue to outgrow such primitive and dangerous naivete the world becomes a better place.

That liberal atheist that murdered three young Muslims (young Muslims working heal and improve people) was one of those gun totin Americans. He was more hostile about protecting gun rights than I am. Apparently, he asked anyone that supports gun control to de-friend him on Facebook. I don't get that bent out of shape over debates on gun control. The Bishops of the American Catholic Church tell Catholics they *must* vote for gun control, organized labor, and against abortion. So, not quite your caricature.

I'm told--or was--online that the gun rights laws of America has its roots in Reformation England were people were given the right and encouraged to bear arms, out of concern that Catholics might attempt to overtake then nation.

I believe in the right to own and carry firearms because I live in central city Milwaukee and area with lots of felons packing heat, lots or robberies, lots or rapes, lots of killings. When the cops show up after a knife attack or shooting its to seal off the crime area with yellow tape. Not to have intervened in the nick of time to save lives.

And I'm not the President or some rich American or Hollywood star that can outsource my personal protection to other men with guns to stand and walk around me.

I don't doubt a lesbian couple or a gay male couple can raise a child better than this or that heterosexual married couple. My lesbian aunt and her now wife had taken in--some years ago--a boy that sexually abused his younger sister. Apparently he was sexually abused by his mother. His father was an educated white collar professional and asked them if they could take his son in because the courts banned the boy from his home. They did well for the boy and apparently he's doing good now.

But I have to tell you... the crack addicted mother of two cousins of mine, was kinder to her two boys than one of my uncles (former cop) was to some of his own kids (who he reportedly used to beat badly and frequently).

-- Updated February 23rd, 2015, 6:18 pm to add the following --

Lesbian women can have artificial insemination (or as my niece did - have a wild fling or 2 get preg & hide it from dad) and thereby deny their child of their father.

Uummm, you are aware that there is a situation called: single straight moms, they're actually pretty common, right? No dad involved whether intentional or not. Happens at the current time pretty frequently, civilization seems to be handling it OK. What's the difference?

There are drunk drivers too. Married men like Sandusky that has sex with young boys. And lesbian women that have sex with underage teenage girls. The famous Vagina Monologue originally celebrated an adult lesbian woman sexually mentoring (or some like to use the word "grooming" or sexual assault of a child) a girl character that was set at the age of what... 13 or 14 years-old I think. (Americans in the audience routinely applauded this too--but then a growing number of complaints came in and the character's age in the play was raised to 18 or something.)

So, you can point out wrongs in this world all over the place. You can point out flawed monogamous marriages too if you want to make polygamy legal.

[Sy Borg]

I agree. The reductio ad absurdum concern raised by Supine points out the dangers of a regulatory approach but it's clear you are not advocating pressuring regular people but reducing the most damaging child abuse and neglect. Nonetheless, people will always be concerned about where the lines are drawn.

I'm all for reducing child abuse. But then what some don't consider abuse I do and what some do consider abuse I don't. Beating a child, burning a child, refusing to feed a child. All of these are clearly wrong things--and already against the law. Short of a new eugenics program how does one suggest a government can predict what person will 10 or 20 years later snap and throw hot grease on a child?

It's a good point that "abuse" is a subjective term. It's also true, as you say, that laws tend to be subject to scope creep.

However, I think we can easily avoid falling into slippery slope assumptions, by gaining broad agreement in regard to abuse. There are some obvious areas - violence occasioning physical injury, rape, exploitation (eg. prostitution or military slavery) and neglect.

Fine tuning beyond these basics would not seem possible, but any reduction in these abuses will result in a higher functioning and happier next generation.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Uummm, you are aware that there is a situation called: single straight moms, they're actually pretty common, right? No dad involved whether intentional or not. Happens at the current time pretty frequently, civilization seems to be handling it OK. What's the difference?

There are drunk drivers too. Married men like Sandusky that has sex with young boys. And lesbian women that have sex with underage teenage girls. The famous Vagina Monologue originally celebrated an adult lesbian woman sexually mentoring (or some like to use the word "grooming" or sexual assault of a child) a girl character that was set at the age of what... 13 or 14 years-old I think. (Americans in the audience routinely applauded this too--but then a growing number of complaints came in and the character's age in the play was raised to 18 or something.)

So, you can point out wrongs in this world all over the place. You can point out flawed monogamous marriages too if you want to make polygamy legal.

Nice try newby. A simpleton might fall for your substituting illegal analogies (DUI, Sandusky and statutory) to try to discredit the legit one I brought up, namely single straight motherhood in pointing out the illogic of your complaint about lesbians being able to get pregnant.

[Lagayscienza]

What precisely do opponents see as harmful to anyone else about two lesbians marrying? How does it affect heterosexuals for example? I just don't understand the opposition to it. Everyone can carry on as before - all that changes is that more people can get married. It seems to me to be unnecessarily discriminatory to restrict marriage too heterosexual couples only. And slippery slope arguments about people wanting to marry their dog etc are just too implausible and silly to merit discussion.

[Obvious Leo]

What precisely do opponents see as harmful to anyone else about two lesbians marrying? How does it affect heterosexuals for example? I just don't understand the opposition to it

The opponents will argue that homosexual marriage threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage. I'd be interested to see some statistics on how many heterosexual marriages have collapsed as a consequence of homosexual marriage compared with some other causal factor, such as low-doc mortgages, for instance, or substance abuse, or domestic violence, or.......

Regards Leo

[Lagayscienza]

I think that's right, Leo - factors like those you mention are the real threats to marriages and it seems to me that those who oppose two lesbians marrying do so impulsively for other psychological reasons such as disgust which are often reinforced by religious doctrines instilled in people from childhood. In other words it's a gut reaction without reference to reason/rationality and this reaction is rationalized post hoc with all sorts of other confabulated concerns.

[Supine]

I agree. The reductio ad absurdum concern raised by Supine points out the dangers of a regulatory approach but it's clear you are not advocating pressuring regular people but reducing the most damaging child abuse and neglect. Nonetheless, people will always be concerned about where the lines are drawn.

I'm all for reducing child abuse. But then what some don't consider abuse I do and what some do consider abuse I don't. Beating a child, burning a child, refusing to feed a child. All of these are clearly wrong things--and already against the law. Short of a new eugenics program how does one suggest a government can predict what person will 10 or 20 years later snap and throw hot grease on a child?

It's a good point that "abuse" is a subjective term. It's also true, as you say, that laws tend to be subject to scope creep.

However, I think we can easily avoid falling into slippery slope assumptions, by gaining broad agreement in regard to abuse. There are some obvious areas - violence occasioning physical injury, rape, exploitation (eg. prostitution or military slavery) and neglect.

Fine tuning beyond these basics would not seem possible, but any reduction in these abuses will result in a higher functioning and happier next generation.

There is a popular youtube philosopher vlogger that has said that if we could end child abuse we would end virtually most of our violent crimes (when said generations become adults).

I'm am persuaded that that is probably true.

But I can't see how city, state, and/or federal governments can make accurate prediction as to who will abuse a child. Surely, if the city, state, and federal governments can perform exceptionally well at that task then they can turn every U.S. city into tiny paradises. Perhaps Home Land Security should be given expanded powers and the Federal Government increase all its spying efforts on U.S. citizens. Suspend due process. Go through mail. Listen on phone calls. Search homes with out warrants.

An old Black-American woman that marched in the Civil Rights Movement and is part of the Korean War generation possibly. She told me (I grew up with her grandson) that she knows--does not "think"--Americans are meaner toward one another today than they were towards each other when she was young even during Jim Crow segregation.

Having been a child in the 1970s and '80s I would say Americans on whole seem more evil towards one another than when I was a kid. There are some exceptions. They are kinder towards LGBTQ peopl, which is good. And those whites younger than my generations seem to get along more with blacks and other non-whites. That was much less so when I was young.

So, I'm saying evil Americans being evil towards other Americans only creates more evil. Eventually even a nice kid becomes mean. And of course if they are reared in abusive homes they often become violent or mean too.

-- Updated February 25th, 2015, 10:46 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


There are drunk drivers too. Married men like Sandusky that has sex with young boys. And lesbian women that have sex with underage teenage girls. The famous Vagina Monologue originally celebrated an adult lesbian woman sexually mentoring (or some like to use the word "grooming" or sexual assault of a child) a girl character that was set at the age of what... 13 or 14 years-old I think. (Americans in the audience routinely applauded this too--but then a growing number of complaints came in and the character's age in the play was raised to 18 or something.)

So, you can point out wrongs in this world all over the place. You can point out flawed monogamous marriages too if you want to make polygamy legal.

Nice try newby. A simpleton might fall for your substituting illegal analogies (DUI, Sandusky and statutory) to try to discredit the legit one I brought up, namely single straight motherhood in pointing out the illogic of your complaint about lesbians being able to get pregnant.

I didn't know I was a newbie?

Drinking is not illegal but drinking and driving is or driving while drunk. Being sexually attracted to underage boys did prohibit Sandusky from being married. He was. He married a woman. (Something any gay man as well can do.)

I'm ethnically Black-American. Contrary to your earlier insinuation the high rate of single mothers in Black-America is not lauded as having been an exceptional blessing for the Black-American communities.

Prior to the 1960s the United States prisons were synonymous with white males and Black-Americans had some of the highest rates of marriage in the United States. Black children were more or less viewed as well behaved compared to their hooligan white counterparts. Today just about all of that is the reverse. And many in Black-America blame it on the statistics of something like 70% of the Black-American women giving birth to children being single women.

I'm sure the issue is more complex than it just being a matter of a black woman being single. Some raise children just fine as single mothers while others seem to be rather horrible as mothers period (irrespective of them being single). But I'm sure being non-married mothers is one variable in the social problem--at least to the scale the problem has reached.

[Supine]

What precisely do opponents see as harmful to anyone else about two lesbians marrying? How does it affect heterosexuals for example? I just don't understand the opposition to it. Everyone can carry on as before - all that changes is that more people can get married. It seems to me to be unnecessarily discriminatory to restrict marriage too heterosexual couples only. And slippery slope arguments about people wanting to marry their dog etc are just too implausible and silly to merit discussion.

The view is that less will remain married. Because the conception of marriage will be further deluded, eroded. I'm telling you the oppositions view. In a way I don't care much one way or another. And I'm not going to agree with Americans on marriage. During the 19th century the Catholic Church forewarned the white slave owners of the Spanish, French, and Portuguese colonies of the Americas that if they broke up the marriages and families of their black slaves they committed a grave sin and risked eternal damnation in hell.

So, consequently, at least from the sources I've read, you rarely had (or at least compared to the extent in the USA) slave owners selling wives and children of blacks--breaking up families.

But in the USA it was a massive undertaking. Marriage even among whites was viewed as nothing but a contract, and among blacks it was viewed as merely ceremonial and not even contractually binding. Slave owners frequently sold husbands and wives away from each other. Sold children away from their mothers and fathers. In the book The Half Has Never Been Told that I've been recently reading, in one case a white plantation woman recounts how her husband murdered the 1 year-old child of one of their black slave women. He put the child to work picking cotton, and when the child could not pick fast enough, he beat the 1 year-old child with a whip, and then to silence its cries, drowned it in water. Another enslaved black man recounting watching his wife sold away, then his sister, and eventually all 6 of his children, never to see them again. This selling of family members and spouses--through interstate trade--was massive as I said.

Slavery was horrendous as part of the secular United States Government's "torture based economy" (as the author of that book would put it). And it was horrendous as a torture based economy throughout the Spanish, French, and Portuguese colonies.

But the different conceptions of marriage in the USA from those Catholic regions in part led to the selling off of so many black spouses and families in the USA.

The Eastern Orthodox do not view the primary purpose of marriage as for the procreation of children like Catholics do.

The Eastern Orthodox view the primary purpose of marriage as mutual spiritual support for each others eternal salvation, proper sexual relations from that, and that marriage are to be open to producing children.

In simplest terms I've read an Orthodox statement in an essay put it more or less this way: if you're not ready to have children then you're not ready to marry.

In contemporary American culture the conception of marriage has zero to do with children.

I'm probably like the Eastern Orthodox view more than I like the Catholic view of marriage. Actually, I like that the bride and groom in Orthodox weddings each wear crowns during their wedding ceremonies--it appeals to my sense of romance.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/laure ... eral-court

People who suggest the government stay out of marriage seem ignorant of the primary legal purpose of marriage - to support the establishment of a family and the well- being of children. Obviously not all hetero couples have children but ALL children come by a father and mother (man and woman).

Lesbian women can have artificial insemination (or as my niece did - have a wild fling or 2 get preg & hide it from dad) and thereby deny their child of their father. Elderly couples usually have no interest or capability of conceiving children. And I don't see elderly people fussing about special rights just for having "special" sexual substitutes.

Newme, I am sorry; I did not catch your answer to the question of the OP. Which option did you choose? 1, 2 or 3? If 3, please as asked in the OP explain what quality it is that you believe distinguishing between the two options.

***

Option 3 seems to me to be irrational nonsense that simply cannot be philosophically justified because I do not see one valid argument to legalize one but not the other. Needless to say, do we all agree that we want lesbian marriage to share the same legal status as elderly, interracial marriage, or is there anyone who disagrees? If there is anyone who disagrees, then what is your reason for denying one couple marriage but not the other? Remember, to be valid, it has to be a reason that only applies to one couple. For instance, you couldn't reasonably say "I don't want to let couple B get married because they cannot have children" because neither couple can have children. So, if you disagree that these couples shall share the same legal access to marriage, please name the relevant difference between Couple A and Couple B that warrants prohibiting one and not the other.

You mean in our current political and judicial climate? If the people of a state hate interracial marriage, isn't that enough to introduce legislation banning it?

If people are hatefully racist enough, is that reason enough to re-create racial slavery?

[Okisites]

• Couple A: Two 25-year-old lesbians who want to get married to each other.
• Couple B: An 80-year-old black woman and a 25-year-old white man who want to marry each other.

One of the following 3 options must be the case:

1. Both couples can get married, i.e. legalize both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
2. Neither couple can get married, i.e. prohibit both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
3. One can get married, but the other cannot, i.e. legalize one but not the other.

Option 3 seems to me to be irrational nonsense that simply cannot be philosophically justified because I do not see one valid argument to legalize one but not the other. Needless to say, do we all agree that we want lesbian marriage to share the same legal status as elderly, interracial marriage, or is there anyone who disagrees? If there is anyone who disagrees, then what is your reason for denying one couple marriage but not the other? Remember, to be valid, it has to be a reason that only applies to one couple. For instance, you couldn't reasonably say "I don't want to let couple B get married because they cannot have children" because neither couple can have children. So, if you disagree that these couples shall share the same legal access to marriage, please name the relevant difference between Couple A and Couple B that warrants prohibiting one and not the other.

I don’t think I can support any of the two cases i.e. of 25 year old lesbians and 80 year old black woman and 25 year old white man marriages. I will not support 80 year old black woman to marry 25 year old boy, not because it being elderly or interracial marriage but because of “Age difference”. Otherwise I support both interracial and elderly marriage as far as the age difference is at least not this much as given in hypothetical example. As per me, talking elderly marriage or interracial marriage in this particular example is futile; instead we should talk morality in this kind of marriages with such age difference. So my vote goes to option 2.

But technically I think I belong to option 3, to which OP termed as irrational nonsense, but I think this is better applicable for option 1, and reason for it initially is it seems that option 1 is supported by majority and majority cannot be rational and sensible. Majority is always irrational and nonsensical. Secondly IMO 2nd example is very confusing and irrational because it seems to be supportive to exploitation in the name of interracial and elderly, and seems to be an attempt of getting one condition in place i.e. inability to give births.

Coming to the point, I think there is huge difference between Interracial/elderly marriage and Gay/Lesbian marriage. As OP not enlisted what exactly are those arguments which are similar in legalizing both interracial/elderly and same sex marriage and left untold, I will simply go with my arguments which are different for both interracial/elderly and gay/lesbian marriage.

First of all I think it is necessary to understand that scientist yet not have the method of identifying gay/lesbian until the man/woman themselves declaring them to be gay/lesbian. Scientists supporting gay/lesbian sexuality only verify oneself as a gay/lesbian in reality, only after the person himself tells them of his/her gay/lesbian identity. Even scientists are not able to identify gay/lesbian among us, and on other hand man/woman can easily be identified by even a 5 year old child, all over the world, without exception, as men have penises and woman have vagina. It’s a big difference. I don’t think it would be a good idea at least for a judiciary to legalize gay/lesbian marriage only on the basis of words of mouth. I think it is better if scientists at least develop a technology to identify a gay/lesbian before anyone’s declarations to be so. I think people are stupid enough to believe the words of mouth and consider it to be legitimate and ruling out any other possible explanation that they may like to understand and know before making their judgment, when they are under influence of some strong emotions like love and humanity. It might be psychological disorder, social construct, common mentality that anybody can develop with least of confusing factor and influence. It can be anything. Therefore I think judiciary should be careful not to legalize anything on the basis of words of mouth, at least when it can be a psychological disorder too, and people should show more rationality. So this is the first difference between interracial/elderly and gay/lesbian people that one is readily recognized by even a child and other is not even recognized by scientists unless their own declaration to be of the different sexuality is made, and of which they don’t have any signs to prove.

Secondly, interracial/elderly marriages do not mess with the definition of marriage but gay/lesbian marriage do. In today’s world, when people are more educated and rational especially those who are sitting on high position and involved in important decision regarding people as a whole, like a court is messing up with definition of marriage, is IMO really uneducated and irrational. The definition/meaning of marriage in relation to straights (Interracial/elderly as well) could be very different than that of gay/lesbian. One is about controlling the sexual emotion, have sex only after marriage and for a child, raising a child properly, giving children proper identity, supporting each other mutually for children as well as their own, while the other is about uncontrolled sexual emotion, not about the raising a child but about sex, don’t know whether it is even about supporting each other. So IMO both of these are similar looking two different things, so I think that educated and rational people, or at least judiciary, should classify them as different and make an arrangement for both by different names. Confusing one with other and changing the complete meaning is not what rational and logically sound are supposed to do. I think if judiciaries do this kind of thing then I would call it to be a severe encroachment of a word “Marriage” and it’s not rational.

To me it seems that gay/lesbian marriage pose lot of social threats that interracial/elderly marriages don’t. If I think that my children should not know about any such kind of sexuality which does not have any physical symbol to back it up and seems only be based on mind absolutely similar to my children’s mind, as they may get confused if they also belong to this kind of sexuality because few of factors they identify with these sexuality accidently come to their notice, then I will not be able fulfill my valid desire towards my children. Gay/lesbian extends the concept or idea of sexuality without any readily apparent sign or any physical difference, which I think could be dangerous for children to conceptualize and identify their own sexuality, which I think is a legitimate and rational concern because they really don’t have any physical difference than other man/woman. So while legalizing gay/lesbian marriage judiciary must take this into account that it is extending the meaning of sexuality, and not only that but also can create potential and hazardous confusion about individual’s sexuality. So it is serious issue. Interracial/elderly marriage do not have any such kind of threats towards society, concepts and individual’s sexual identity.

I can enlist probably many social threats on rational grounds that gay/lesbian poses but interracial/elderly do not, but will stop here, after all saying, opposition to interracial marriage is based on racial discrimination, elderly marriage based on narrow mindedness and dogma, but gay/lesbian marriage is based on some serious concerns stated above, though some do not find it easy enough to explain or express, but judiciary must take time understand, express and explain gay/lesbian marriage. Judiciary should not care about racial discrimination and dogma and narrow-mindedness to legalizing a kind of marriage, but must care about which reasonably posing threats.

From me, that’s the difference between legalizing interracial/elderly marriages, but not gay/lesbian marriages. If you are talking about some particular similar arguments given for both kind of marriages, then mention those specifically. Even if you do not give importance to above probably untold and never-mentioned arguments then also I think my arguments stands, at least for judiciary to recognizing and legalizing new kind of sexuality and marriage between them.

Thank you, Okisites.

[LuckyR]

Okisites, two questions:

Do you think as a general rule marriage should be basically legal for most theoretical cases except for rare special situations or should marriage be restricted to a very small number of possible couple types?

What exactly do you mean by "social threats"?

[Sy Borg]

Don't worry, Lucky. Okisites is devoutly religious and it's compulsory for them to discriminate against gays and make untrue claims about the supposed harm that would occur should those first class tax payers be treated as first class citizens.

As we agreed, any so-called "threat" of gay marriage pales in the face of genuine threats society faces, but if you take away discrimination against gays and women, how would they differentiate religious morality from that of humanism? It's not an intrinsic part of religion's branding. Basically, fiddling while Rome burns.

[Lagayscienza]

I can enlist probably many social threats on rational grounds that gay/lesbian poses but interracial/elderly do not, but will stop here, after all saying, opposition to interracial marriage is based on racial discrimination, elderly marriage based on narrow mindedness and dogma, but gay/lesbian marriage is based on some serious concerns stated above, though some do not find it easy enough to explain or express, but judiciary must take time understand, express and explain gay/lesbian marriage. Judiciary should not care about racial discrimination and dogma and narrow-mindedness to legalizing a kind of marriage, but must care about which reasonably posing threats.

Okisites, I don't see in your post even a single plausible threat that would be posed by two lesbians being permitted to marry. Anyone who was genuinely open to deciding the question rationally would not be swayed by what you have said. If they were so swayed they would, like you, have to have started from some sort of implicit moral absolute already in place which they then justify post hoc. In short they would not really be open to rational argument.