Why is endorsing gay marriage/civil unions bad?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Legal does not mean it's right.
The Bible teaches what is right or wrong, not the government.

Legal does not mean it's right? You don't say....

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

I agree.

And I believe the state has the right to restrict marriage.

Others here apparently do not.

For what reasons do you believe the state can/should restrict marriage?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by jfrog

For what reasons do you believe the state can/should restrict marriage?

Overall - because society has a compelling need for future generations.
Which are produced by families of men and women.
That is not the only reason, but the most valid one in my opinion.
Also:
1. Age of Consent - with governmental laws any one of any age could marry.
So you could have a 5 year old marrying a 40 year old.
2. Incest - this results in birth defects and has been viewed as taboo, because of this, for centuries.
3. Multiple partner marriages - Western Civilization has viewed this, negatively, for a long time.
4. Same-sex marriage - same as #3.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Overall - because society has a compelling need for future generations.
Which are produced by families of men and women.
That is not the only reason, but the most valid one in my opinion.
Also:
1. Age of Consent - with governmental laws any one of any age could marry.
So you could have a 5 year old marrying a 40 year old.
2. Incest - this results in birth defects and has been viewed as taboo, because of this, for centuries.
3. Multiple partner marriages - Western Civilization has viewed this, negatively, for a long time.
4. Same-sex marriage - same as #3.

I can fit 1 and 2 in with your reason for a compelling need for future generations. I don't see how allowing 3 or 4 to be legal harms the need for future generations at all? Care to elaborate?

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing...165741476.html

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I can fit 1 and 2 in with your reason for a compelling need for future generations. I don't see how allowing 3 or 4 to be legal harms the need for future generations at all? Care to elaborate?

Good! My point is that 1 & 2 can also be argued against from a rational viewpoint!
Let's say that we allow Multiple partner and same sex marriages and make them legal.
The next battle will be either the age of consent and/or incest.
In most European countries, the age of consent is 16, currently.
The argument against lowering the age of consent to a lower age, could be won by any bright, intelligent 12-15 year old. Why should they be prohibited from legally engaging in consensual activity, if they can demonstrate that they understand the consequences and results of such behavior.
After all, society used to discriminate against multiple partner and same sex couples.
And believe it or not the UN is on the children's side in this argument.

The main argument against incest is a higher chance of birth defects. This argument is very easily nullified by our ability to now check for birth defects in the womb and repair or abort the fetus. Also, society places no obligation on those couples who are more likely to have a "defective" child, due to their genetic makeup, so why put a taboo on incest? After all aren't we consenting adults?

The law of unintended consequences will always have a say in any change that is made. And I am sure there are circumstances that I have not even thought about that would change, as well.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

No, it's not. If it was about what God says is right or wrong, then homosexuality would be illegal. Oh, and so would adultery, fornication, viewing porn on a computer--maybe even telling dirty jokes. Let's start throwing people in jail for all of the above. And while we're slippery sloping, if you even THINK about having sex with a woman who isn't your wife, then go turn yourself in to the local police station--as a matter of principle.

And envy. Make that illegal, too.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Timmy

And envy. Make that illegal, too.

Yes, and also dishonoring your parents. No more bratty behavior!!!

...I guess I need to consider a name change.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Good! My point is that 1 & 2 can also be argued against from a rational viewpoint!
Let's say that we allow Multiple partner and same sex marriages and make them legal.
The next battle will be either the age of consent and/or incest.
In most European countries, the age of consent is 16, currently.
The argument against lowering the age of consent to a lower age, could be won by any bright, intelligent 12-15 year old. Why should they be prohibited from legally engaging in consensual activity, if they can demonstrate that they understand the consequences and results of such behavior.
After all, society used to discriminate against multiple partner and same sex couples.
And believe it or not the UN is on the children's side in this argument.

The main argument against incest is a higher chance of birth defects. This argument is very easily nullified by our ability to now check for birth defects in the womb and repair or abort the fetus. Also, society places no obligation on those couples who are more likely to have a "defective" child, due to their genetic makeup, so why put a taboo on incest? After all aren't we consenting adults?

The law of unintended consequences will always have a say in any change that is made. And I am sure there are circumstances that I have not even thought about that would change, as well.

For the age of consent for marriage the point is that there is a reasonable age of consent for marriage. It don't have to be 16 and I certainly don't mind certain exceptions to that age being granted on a case by case basis. However, the age must be a reasonable one, for example no 5 year olds, and also the exceptions granted must deal in part with the maturity level of the one seeking the exception and the reason as to why he or she is seeking such an exception. So who does having an age of consent protect? It protects the child from his/her actions of wanting a marriage and/or the parents actions from pushing them into a marriage at a young age. Therefore age of consent for marriage has to do with protecting children.

Laws against incest are about protecting us against those who are close to us from pursuing us sexually. The argument against incest is and never has really been due to the possibility of birth defects. That being said, I dont mind seeing certain exceptions to this rule against incest being made, for example two people that were related and fell in love but had no idea they were kin till near the wedding date. To further comment, kin pursing kin is closer to a teacher or professor pursing a student. Kin are supposed to be family and as such they have a unique purpose and they should not use that role to try and get in our pants.

So who exactly are laws against SSM and MPM protecting? Until you can answer that question don't even try to use the slippery slope argument that allowing them is going to allow the age of consent for marriage law to be done away or allow incest laws to be repealed.

[Sam]

My wife and I got married February 28, 1958. At that time the legal age was 21 for both men and women and a blood test was required.

I was 20 and Pat was 16 (I'm 3.5 years older than she). We both needed parental consent.
My parents lived in Wisconsin and they had to go before a judge (15 miles away at the county seat) to sign their consent paper and return it to Hamilton County Ohio where the wedding was to take place.