Should Gay Marriage be a Universial Right?

Since the United Kingdom is going to end Civil Unions and make Marriage between 2 people of the same gender legal. I was wondering if it should be applied everywhere. I think it should but then I am a stinking libertarian who thinks a lot of stuff should be legal/decriminalised and I am a great believer in equality.

Either marriage needs to be non-biased in terms of gender/sexuality or it needs to not exist at all. There are plenty would would prefer the latter; for reasons I can't quite confirm logically I have a sweet spot for the former.

No justification whatsoever for restricting it to heterosexuals.

Well...

An argument for "marriage is man + women": marriage is a social construct, defined as whatever we want, and if the majority says it's a guy and a girl together, then, that's what it is.

An argument against that: the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads as such, in Section 1:

Which I personally interpret to mean that no US citizen may be discriminated against by the law for race, gender, creed, or faith. I think that "LBGT" would fall under creed (or possibly gender), and so that means that the law cannot discriminate against homosexuals simply for being homosexual—i.e. only heterosexuals can marry.

I think, supporting the latter argument, that the Constitution interpretation is valid, which would override the meta-ethics of democracy as one cannot go against the social contract.

I wouldn't mind a "marriage amendment" to the Constitution that simply defined marriage as "a legal union between two people, which may be gone into or ended at any time after the age of adulthood" though...

No. Next question?

Care to give reasoning in a way that manages not to be homophobic bigotry, Rottweiler? I'm genuinely unaware of any serious arguments against it that aren't either that, or actually against the concept of marriage itself (which is not the same thing at all)

edited 17th Sep '11 1:55:32 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

Edit: Care to elaborate to why you agree?

edited 17th Sep '11 1:57:25 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Yes. Next question?

I've heard someone say that there are two sides to almost every issue that can be logically upheld. He went on to stipulate that the subject of gay rights is not one of those. People who wish to suppress gay marriage only do so to appease a millenia-old book or to satiate their own bigotry.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:02:51 PM by KitsuneInferno

^

Not necessarily. Now, just to get it out of the way, I'm a supporter of gay marriage.

However, there are people out there who legitimately believe that homosexuality is wrong. They aren't crazy for believing that, it's a belief, on the same level of objectivity as "Swiss cheese is horrible and nobody should ever produce it."

Is that an extreme position to take on swiss cheese? Yeah. But it isn't necessarily invalid, it's someone who really dislikes swiss cheese and doesn't think time should be wasted making it in the first place. Some people, however, think swiss cheese is absolutely awesome, and wish they saw more types of swiss cheese everywhere.

My point is, it's not automatically bigotry for people to state they are against gay marriage. I'll admit that gays kind of hit the whole uncanny valley aspect for me(and I've lived with a gay roomate for two years, don't see it stopping anytime soon) but I wouldn't restrict their right to marry, because I respect their rights.

I don't think its natural, and I think it will always be in the uncanny valley for me, I just learned to put my own personal feelings aside to think about how many people it would make happy as opposed to just myself. Everybody has the right to their opinion, so long as they aren't spewing hatred while they do it. If the overwhelming majority of a population felt that homosexual marriages were wrong, then I say they deserve the right to keep it illegal in their communities.

On a more practical level, I think that you shouldn't get any sort of tax benefits until you actually have a child. Marriage should be purely symbolic, lest it be tainted by being used as a means to get something out of society. When you bring a child into your family? Let the tax breaks and other benefits take effect appropriately, that's what they are there for, after all.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:11:10 PM by Barkey

Yes it should be. If I approach it from a bit of a utilitarian side then it should be because the societal benefits of supporting a bond between two people who are committed enough to each other far outweighs the amount of lost children resulting from the same action. Which are minimal because it would mainly result from bisexuals choosing same-sex partners instead of opposite-sex partners because of this. (I'd also totally legalise gay adoption based on the classical loving family is better than an orphanage argument.)

So why not? It does not harm anybody and makes two persons probably more happy.

ETA: However I also understand that some people think it is unnatural and it is in the uncanny valley for them. (There are things people do with each other which really grosses me out, but I think it is in their right as long as both are consenting.) But if I approach from the rights side I feel that (in_this_case) the right of a couple to be happy outweighs the right of community not be grossed out.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:17:54 PM by Luxa

No.And here's my take on it before you throw daggers into my chest,I think marriage is between a man and a woman and before you say I think all heterosexual marriages are healthy some are defiantly sinful or just straight up jacked up.

Plus before you say this I will not keep gays from wanting to be with each other if that is what they want but I would give them civil unions just to keep things happy.

Plus I have more important issues to worry about.

Yeah I would like if it were. I can certainly survive without marrying my girlfriend, but it'd be nice to go through a Thai ceremony with her and then get a stupid piece of paper that binds our finances and lives together in a death grip of legal doom.

^^

Civil Union though.. That's a topic I take issue with.

Marriage versus Civil Union.. They are just words. All these Christians get offended at the word Marriage being used for gays, as if they have some sort of fucking ownership of the word.

Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shinto, and every other religion in the world recognizes the bond between two people as "marriage". Get your hands off a word that belongs to everybody. Marriage has been around long before Jesus, in both concept and wording.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:14:45 PM by Barkey

The issue of course is the legal rights that come with marriage. At the very least those need to be applicable to any kind of civil union or partnership.

Anyone who says otherwise is a bigot, plain and simple.

I agree with you greatly, Barkey.

Yeah that bugs the crap out of me. Marriage isn't something that Christians own and it isn't even something that religions in general own what with the whole concept of civil marriage. You can still have your own definitions and versions of marriage, but others have their own.

If we're going to keep this stupid term around at least make the benefits of civil unions EXACTLY the same legally.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:15:29 PM by Aondeug

I honestly can't think of a reason it shouldn't be. Well, I see political reasons why it isn't, but no moral reasons.

Seriously, Marriage is not a religious word. Atheists get married all the time, by priests no less!

Hell some of us religious people don't even have marriage as important part of our religion! OH HAY SECULAR MARRIAGE OF BUDDHISM. Though you still get blessed by monks it's not considered sacrament or something particularly important to being Buddhist.

No and I agree in theory. In practice however if people would tolerate civil unions with the same rights better than marriage, then so be it. And I think they do.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:22:00 PM by Luxa

That's because bigotry remains endemic, and that needs to be wiped the fuck out. Not encouraged or tolerated.

Wait, you said with the same rights. That's different.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:22:51 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

@Joyflower, Why do you think marriage should be between a man and a woman only?

Angel@"FACE PALM"

You guys are going to hate me.

Man and women were designed specifically to fit one another in reproductively.I also think that the influence of both a man and a woman is beneficial for children(I mean a sane man and a sane woman).If gays want to adopt I think they should adopt from secular organizations.

edited 17th Sep '11 2:27:40 PM by joyflower

I'm assuming you mean me Joyflower?

Either gays can have the same rights as non-gays (with or without the word "marriage", as long as the rights are effected upon whatever equivalent type of union is permissable) or the person claiming otherwise is bigoted. Really not seeing a way around that, as to do otherwise would be to discriminate which is what is happening now.

So? That' doesn't make homosexuality any more immoral just because they by nature aren't reproductively compatible, that implies every union requires offspring.