NationStates Jolt Archive

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?

most people on NS don't mind gay marriage, and about god, you are assuming he is a "nice" "fair-minded" god, he already admitted that he is a jealous, vengeful god. Maybe he just hates homosexuals.

I think the vast majority of people don't really give a rats ass if gays get married.

You bastard! Do you know what you've done?!

You bastard! Do you know what you've done?!

Drag up the whole gay marriage debate again?

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?

Umm. No.

God isn't really all that accepting. He'll let you live your life the way you want it, but at the end, if you haven't squared up, then you get an eternity of agonizing punishment.


So, I'd say no.

I think the vast majority of people don't really give a rats ass if gays get married.

Sadly, that's not the way it is in most of the US.

I wish that we would just allow for freedom of contract and association, and allow people to have whatever legal relationship they want with each other free of force and fraud. Polygamist, homosexual, whatever. And don't tell religions what to do, either- let them have freedom of contract and association as well. Just have the government step out of the way, is all I want in this issue.

Drag up the whole gay marriage debate again?

That too.

Sadly, that's not the way it is in most of the US.

Seriously, I mean comon not everyone is into Politics like we are, most of them are too busy finding out who's Hotdog has been in Paris mouth to worry about this.

Seriously, I mean comon not everyone is into Politics like we are, most of them are too busy finding out who's Hotdog has been in Paris mouth to worry about this.

LOL. Yea I guess, but that didn't stop them from voting against it where I live. :(

I wish that we would just allow for freedom of contract and association, and allow people to have whatever legal relationship they want with each other free of force and fraud. Polygamist, homosexual, whatever. And don't tell religions what to do, either- let them have freedom of contract and association as well. Just have the government step out of the way, is all I want in this issue.

couldn't have said it better myself, this ideology is known as Mind-your-own-damn-business-ism

Wow... I'm surprised no one posted that pic of "Jeeze, not this shit again" yet.

Wow... I'm surprised no one posted that pic of "Jeeze, not this shit again" yet.

There should be stickies of different topics, and have the oldest posts get cycled out after 48 hours, or something. Put those posts in an archive, maybe. I don't know.

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

There should be stickies of different topics, and have the oldest posts get cycled out after 48 hours, or something. Put those posts in an archive, maybe. I don't know.

one post and everyone just links to it. :p

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?

Follow the $$$$$$. The powers that be don't want to pay the cost and they recruit the neo-pharisees with emotion to carry the ball.

Business would have to offer family insurance. Social Security would have to pay survivor benefits, etc.

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

Wait, are you a lesbian?

Sadly, that's not the way it is in most of the US.It is getting better though. The polls are pretty unanimous--the younger the age group, the more accepting they are of same sex relationships and marriage. It's just a matter of time, which is why the wingnuts are constantly shitting themselves over it.

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.


Because not calling it marriage is still insulting them. It might be tounge-in-cheek, but it still is insulting them by saying that they can't get married but, say, Rush Limbaugh can, even though in all probability they are better qualified for it then he is.

And your analogy is bad, because assuming that both of you are straight(obviously), calling you a gay couple would be inaccurate.
If two gay people were married(which is legal in some countries, so don't say it's not), then they could be called a "married couple".
Incidentally, they are every bit as married as you and your wife are, and again, the term probably fits them better then it does some straight people.

Marriage is the kind of thing everyone ought to be allowed to try once--get it out of your system and then move on and be happy with the rest of your life. ;)

I'm against gay marriage on simple grounds not routed in religion.

Let me ask you this? What is the true purpose of marriage? Why do some other creatures of the Animal kingdom develop a family structure?

The reason is simple. Marriage exists to create a more ideal environment for pro-creation and the development of offspring. In any same sex marriage, you won't have procreation. It's as simple as that.

Now, I wouldn't mind giving homosexuals the same legal standing as married couples.

The reason is simple. Marriage exists to create a more ideal environment for pro-creation and the development of offspring.

That may be its evolutionary origin. That does not mean we should define it strictly according to that function.

In any same sex marriage, you won't have procreation. It's as simple as that.

So do you think that people who are infertile should also be denied the capability to marry?

And you are aware that same-sex couples are capable of adopting?

Now, I wouldn't mind giving homosexuals the same legal standing as married couples.
Oh how gracious of you. :rolleyes:

I'm against gay marriage on simple grounds not routed in religion.

Let me ask you this? What is the true purpose of marriage? Why do some other creatures of the Animal kingdom develop a family structure?

The reason is simple. Marriage exists to create a more ideal environment for pro-creation and the development of offspring. In any same sex marriage, you won't have procreation. It's as simple as that.

Now, I wouldn't mind giving homosexuals the same legal standing as married couples.

No, marriage is not for procreation.
We didn't even have any kind of legal marriage structure till humans began to escape evolution.
Not to mention, of course, that in a lot of opposite-sex marriages you won't have procreation either.

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

I'm finding this interesting: why is this specifically the definition of marriage? If two people can get married, and the state calls them married, then presumably they are married, correct? Thus, at least in those states, marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman. In most of the world, marriage is defined as a man and multiple women anyway, so your definition is a minority one.

This is yet another example of Republicans having a holier-than-thou attitude and telling people what they can and can't do with their lives (as opposed to Democrats, who have a holier-than-thou attitude and tell people what they can and can't do with their money).

Personally, I, being heterosexual, don't fraternize with very many homosexuals. I don't have anything against them personally, but I feel uncomfortable among them because I worry that I can't relate to them as well as I can heterosexuals. I have also been hit on on numerous occasions by members of the same sex, which is also uncomfortable.

But I digress. The point is this--I am not them, which means that I have exactly zero authority to tell them what to do with their lives. You can say what marriage means to you--you can say it means between a man and a woman, or that it means the perpetuation of the human race, or you can say that it only exists for the income tax deduction--but that's what it means to you. That's not what it means to someone else. Let homosexuals marry each other if they want; you don't have to. Let individual denominations of religion decide what they will and will not deem marriage, because marriage is not the realm of government. And if you think that homosexuals are awful people on the sole basis of homosexuality (slightly bigoted if you ask me, but you're entitled to your opinion), don't associate with them.

That's what makes free societies like the United States so great--the ability to choose to do almost anything you want. The only things you can't do are to harm or damage someone else or their property, to force them to do something they are unwilling to do, or to prevent others from doing what they want to do.

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." --French Declaration of the Rights of Man, Article 4

This is yet another example of Republicans having a holier-than-thou attitude and telling people what they can and can't do with their lives (as opposed to Democrats, who have a holier-than-thou attitude and tell people what they can and can't do with their money).

Personally, I, being heterosexual, don't fraternize with very many homosexuals. I don't have anything against them personally, but I feel uncomfortable among them because I worry that I can't relate to them as well as I can heterosexuals. I have also been hit on on numerous occasions by members of the same sex, which is also uncomfortable.

But I digress. The point is this--I am not them, which means that I have exactly zero authority to tell them what to do with their lives. You can say what marriage means to you--you can say it means between a man and a woman, or that it means the perpetuation of the human race, or you can say that it only exists for the income tax deduction--but that's what it means to you. That's not what it means to someone else. Let homosexuals marry each other if they want; you don't have to. Let individual denominations of religion decide what they will and will not deem marriage, because marriage is not the realm of government. And if you think that homosexuals are awful people on the sole basis of homosexuality (slightly bigoted if you ask me, but you're entitled to your opinion), don't associate with them.

That's what makes free societies like the United States so great--the ability to choose to do almost anything you want. The only things you can't do are to harm or damage someone else or their property, to force them to do something they are unwilling to do, or to prevent others from doing what they want to do.

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." --French Declaration of the Rights of Man, Article 4

So would you have government step completely out of marriage? No marriage liscences, etc? That's what a lot of people on NS think is the right course.

Marriage is a legal contract.
Don't believe me?
Just anyone who has been divorced.


Now if religion wants to make some sort of claim that same sex marriage destroys the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, I would have to call foul.

Why?
Britney Spears comes to mind.
Elizabeth Taylor.
How about all the people in their own church who are having affairs?
And they have the audacity do claim same sex marriage ruins the "sanctity of opposite sex marriage?

Seems to me that opposite sex marriages are ruining that sanctity.

If same sex marriage undermines your opposite sex marriage, then I say
your marriage isn't worth much to begin with.

Let me ask you this? What is the true purpose of marriage? Why do some other creatures of the Animal kingdom develop a family structure?

The reason is simple. Marriage exists to create a more ideal environment for pro-creation and the development of offspring. In any same sex marriage, you won't have procreation. It's as simple as that.

If you truly believe that, you must be against the current two-person unions and embrace group marriages with a dominant male/female structure. Just like most animals in their herds.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage and I don't really understand how anyone can. How does two guys or two girls getting married affect you? Answer is rather simple...it doesn't. People are always so wrapped up in their own lives that they don't care about anyone else so why start caring about the two guys or girls that wanna get married?

I'm against gay marriage on simple grounds not routed in religion.

Let me ask you this? What is the true purpose of marriage? Why do some other creatures of the Animal kingdom develop a family structure?

The reason is simple. Marriage exists to create a more ideal environment for pro-creation and the development of offspring. In any same sex marriage, you won't have procreation. It's as simple as that.

a) The primary feature of humanity that makes us unique is our consciousness and ability to reason, and thus to rise above animal instincts and adhere to certain structures, systems, or patterns out of rational self-interest, rather than purely by hardwired urges. The animal kingdom has evolved self-awareness - and that means that the Darwinian has become the Lamarckian, that blind evolution has been or will be replaced by goal-directed teleological progress. We no longer have a certain social structure purely because it helps us procreate - we only care about that if we feel like it, and are equally likely or capable of having other motives in marriage.

b) Considering modern advances in biotechnology, I would not bank on the statement that same-sex couples cannot have biological children remaining true for very much longer at all.

Now, I wouldn't mind giving homosexuals the same legal standing as married couples.

Then you've given them marriage rights. People seem to fail to understand that all marriage is, in the eyes of the law, is a legal contract between two individuals that entails certain rights and responsibilities for all involved. It is fundamentally no different from the charter of a corporation. The socioreligious semantic baggage associated with the word has nothing to do with its legal definition, and is rightfully the province of families, churches, and communities.

I think the vast majority of people don't really give a rats ass if gays get married.

No not really. Gay marriage was a nice wedge issue deployed by Rove in the last election. Very effective I might add.

Let me ask you this? What is the true purpose of marriage? Why do some other creatures of the Animal kingdom develop a family structure?


Ummm...for the same reason many creatures of the animal kingdom develop a family structure that consists of same sex partners. Longterm same sex partnerships are not exclusivly a human invention. The purpose of marrage is to bring two (or sometimes more) adults into a stable longterm relationship. It is to the benifit of society be it straight or gay, with or without children.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

In any same sex marriage, you won't have procreation. It's as simple as that.

Being gay didn't meke me sterile. I can still procreate. And quite a few gay families do just that. A great many same sex couple are now raising children (it's being called the "gayby boom"). I've considerd it myself. Just because a same sex couple can't produce a child without outside assistance (the same is true of more than a few straight couples as well) doesn't meant they can't create and raise one at all.

Ummm...for the same reason many creatures of the animal kingdom develop a family structure that consists of same sex partners. Longterm same sex partnerships are not exclusivly a human invention. The purpose of marrage is to bring two (or sometimes more) adults into a stable longterm relationship. It is to the benifit of society be it straight or gay, with or without children.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html



Being gay didn't meke me sterile. I can still procreate. And quite a few gay families do just that. A great many same sex couple are now raising children (it's being called the "gayby boom"). I've considerd it myself. Just because a same sex couple can't produce a child without outside assistance (the same is true of more than a few straight couples as well) doesn't meant they can't create and raise one at all.


Not to mention that there are plenty of spares around. *nod* :)

*GROANS*

ARGH! Do you have any idea how many of these *^&$ING posts I've seen?
If you're going to do a gay-post, say you're AGAIST gay marrige, so I can watch a fight. I don't care to see other NS'ers nodding in approval. BOR-ING!

Put it this way, I care not if they legalize gay-marrige, however, I will leave the country if they do, as I'll know it'll have gone to the dogs. Even the Greeks, the just about the gayest culture ever, didn't legalize it.

And please, I already know 9/10ths of you folks disagree so save your breath. You can't be a champion of human rights if you have so many backers.

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

Pricisely.

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?

I know two couples who have since been married. And what difference does itmake to my life...none? And its obviously what they wanted to do, so I have nothing against it!

What do I find slightly odd...although they've probably done it to remain a little understated. Is that the two men I know who have been married, haven't changed names, haven't exchanged rings and I feel it has lost some of its value for them.

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?
It's gay.
No cause they don't.
Nope.
Yes.

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

Seperate but equal, what a well thought out plan!

"And your analogy is bad, because assuming that both of you are straight(obviously), calling you a gay couple would be inaccurate."

Not any more inaccurate than calling a gay couple married.

Marriage is a legal contract and if you looked into the legal history of marriage you would find about 80% of the laws revolve around the children of those married. Gay people cannot have children other than through adoption, therefore they cannot be married. Very simple.

Gays are asses because they don't want just the rights, they want the name too. Why? Because they are extreme. I like being called right wing because I want to give gays all the rights of a married couple except the name. Idiots

Its insulting, only to married couples having to look around at a couple of guys saying their married. Um, go into your little room, have your gay sex, and see if you can have a child, ever. You can't. While many married couple can't or won't the main gyst of marriage, and about 80% (very conservative estimate) of marriages prior to this century were for legal rights of their children. If they weren't there wouldn't have been a reason for people to get married in the first place.

Gay extremists.

I'm going to be a black gay jew from now on. Not because I am any of those things, but because I want the names to be changed to reflect me, because I'm an extremist asshole.

Not to mention that there are plenty of spares around. *nod* :)

The reason for marriage is for legal rghts, not stable relationships, they had slaves for that when these legal issues first came about.

Your children would fall under adoption laws and therefore you don't need the label of marriage.

I'm starting to think that what Judge Napolitano said on Brian and the Judge might be the best way to go. What he said is this should not be a national issue. Marriage laws are relegated to the States not the Federal Government. If a majority of the people in a State, say Massachusetts, want gay marriage then so be it. However, if a majority of the people in a State, say Georgia, don't want gay marriage then so be it. If someone in a State doesn't like what a majority of the people vote on and feel very strongly about it, they have the freedom to move to a state that agrees with their view.

That sounds reasonable to me and may settle the whole issue.

Its insulting, only to married couples having to look around at a couple of guys saying their married. Um, go into your little room, have your gay sex, and see if you can have a child, ever. You can't. While many married couple can't or won't the main gyst of marriage, and about 80% (very conservative estimate) of marriages prior to this century were for legal rights of their children. If they weren't there wouldn't have been a reason for people to get married in the first place.

Intruiging. So I assume you are all in favour of polygamy in the form of group marriages, in which it is easy to produce lots of children ?

Seperate but equal, what a well thought out plan!

There's no need for sarcasm! It worked out so well in the past!

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

So a diferent religion or even churches veiw of what constitutes mariage is non-valid?

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

When a man tells the police that he has committed a crime, don't call it a confession. It is not. Confession is only when you tell your sins to a priest. How dare the government use the word in a different way than a specific religion?

The definitions of civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same. Civil marriage refers to a set of rights and responsibilities associated with a contract between two people. At the moment, the people who can get this contract is restricted. The only way to give homosexual couples the same rights is to offer them acess to the same contract - civil marriage.

I'm against gay marriage on simple grounds not routed in religion.

This statement is logically incompatible with the ending of your post.

Let me ask you this? What is the true purpose of marriage?

Legally? If we look at the over 1000 rights and responsibilities associated with it, it would appear that the purpose is to provide legal protection to two people who choose to live their lives as a single entity and to protect those they deal with as such.

Why do some other creatures of the Animal kingdom develop a family structure?

There are all sorts of possible reasons, depending ont he species we are talking about. Note, of course, that even homosexual animals form family structures - and raise offspring.

The reason is simple. Marriage exists to create a more ideal environment for pro-creation and the development of offspring. In any same sex marriage, you won't have procreation. It's as simple as that.

Really? How strange then that many same-sex couples have children and raise them together.

Meanwhile, it is quite clear from the laws governing marriage that children are not the primary focus of the legal institution. They are largely a side-note to all of the rights and responsibilities encoded in a marriage license. Not to mention that infertile couples can marry, as can older, post-menopausal couples. In some states, a man can marry a woman who is biologically male and vice versa.

Now, I wouldn't mind giving homosexuals the same legal standing as married couples.

That would mean allowing them to get married, my dear.

Put it this way, I care not if they legalize gay-marrige, however, I will leave the country if they do, as I'll know it'll have gone to the dogs.

If you live in my country, I'd say good riddance.


Not any more inaccurate than calling a gay couple married.

Legally, marriage refers to a contract that confers certain rights and responsibilities upon a couple who chooses to live as a single legal entity. Two peopel of the same sex who make that choice are just as married as two people of the opposite sex.

Marriage is a legal contract and if you looked into the legal history of marriage you would find about 80% of the laws revolve around the children of those married.

Wow, you don't have even the first clue what you are talking about, do you? Only a tiny percentage of the laws surrounding marriage have anything at all to do with children. Most of them deal with finances - who owns what, who owes what debts, what taxes are owed, etc. Children are largely a side note - and are treated much like property in marriage law.

Gay people cannot have children other than through adoption,

Homosexuals are not sterile, my dear.

therefore they cannot be married. Very simple.

So should straight people be tested for infertility and sign a contract promising that they will procreate before being legally married? Should we deny marriage to the elderly?

Gays are asses because they don't want just the rights, they want the name too.

It is legally impossible to confer all of the legal rights of marriage under a different name, unless we are going to rewrite essentially the entire legal code and renegotiate quite a few treaties.

I'm starting to think that what Judge Napolitano said on Brian and the Judge might be the best way to go. What he said is this should not be a national issue. Marriage laws are relegated to the States not the Federal Government. If a majority of the people in a State, say Massachusetts, want gay marriage then so be it. However, if a majority of the people in a State, say Georgia, don't want gay marriage then so be it. If someone in a State doesn't like what a majority of the people vote on and feel very strongly about it, they have the freedom to move to a state that agrees with their view.

That sounds reasonable to me and may settle the whole issue.

And I assume the same thing goes for all minority groups? If the majority of voters in GA want to ban interracial marriage, that should be ok? If the majority want to ban blacks from getting married at all, that should be ok? If the majority want to ban Muslims from getting married, that should be ok?

There is a reason we have a Constitution.

Marriage is the kind of thing everyone ought to be allowed to try once--get it out of your system and then move on and be happy with the rest of your life. ;)

little bit of bitterness still there, friend?;)

I just can't see why I shouldn't be able to marry the one I love. Dempublicents1 has pretty much beaten the cr** out of any anti-gay marriage argument.

Simply put, why are people against gay marriage? It's this attitude, which seems to fit so many.

You have to get married. You have to have kids, they have to be your own, and they have to be the same color and religion as you. That person whom you marry has to be the same color and religion as you, although there's some wiggle room as far as religion goes.

If you get divorced, it's a personal tragedy, but if someone else gets divorced, it's because the guy was screwing the babysitter or the woman ran up $20,000 in credit card debt from buying shoes. Or both. For you, a divorce may be beneficial; for anyone else, it just exposes them to strange men and evil women, neither of whom want to do anything to your kids besides molest them or ship them to boarding schools in Tajikistan.

If you marry outside your race, be prepared for your kids to be beaten up at school while the principal and teachers just stand by and do nothing. And if you adopt, heaven forbid the other kids find out, because the same thing happens when they do. And God help your kids if their parents are gay. They won't usually get the bad-natured "Hey! Your mom's a lesbian!" like I got in school (OK, they were right, but it's none of their business...yes, my mom's gay, but it's frankly none of your business either. And guess what, citizens of NS? I am living proof that gay parents don't always raise gay kids. My brother and I are both heterosexual. So there goes your eleventeenth-best argument against gay parents. But I digress.)

Oh yeah, where was I? Oh, right, if you stay single, you're either a loser or a nerd. If you stay single and you're a teacher...let's see. If you're a woman, you're screwing your male students, unless you're a gym teacher, in which case you're screwing your female students. And if you're a man, you're a child molestor. If you adopt, you're too much of a weenie to have your own kids, and people should pity and ridicule you. If you marry outside your race, you might have to get used to burning crosses acting as lawn ornaments. And if you have kids and you're a gay couple, bad, bad things will happen to your kids unless you're good at hiding under the radar, and even then, bad, bad things might happen. I was lucky. Many others are not.

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?

Let's answer the original question for a change. I can see two more or less valid arguments against gay marriage:


Religious approach (for those of you who care about such things):

You should remember that in the time when the Bible was written, the customs concerning marriage were very different from the customs we have now. In biblical sense marriage equals sex and vice versa. So if a gay couple gets married, it means to God that they're about to have sex, and that is strictly forbidden in the bible. Why this is so is irrelevant, because according to the Christian religion, it's the God's will. The bible does encourage people to love each other, but since when love automatically implies sex? When Jesus said "Love thy neighbour", I don't think he meant "fuck anything that moves".

(Please note that the Bible doesn't forbid homosexuality or gay love, just the act of gay sex. Furthermore, that only applies to men; lesbians are never mentioned.)


Then there's the cultural approach:

I'm sure virtually everyone agrees, that what two adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is nobody else's business. After all, nobody is seriously trying to make homosexuality illegal anymore. However, marriage's meaning is to make a relationship official, so when a gay couple gets married, they take their stuff out of their bedroom and bring it out into the open for everyone to see. This is unacceptable simply because of the fact that it is against the current moral beliefs of the culture we live in. Yes, in a democratic society it does in fact matter what other people think. I'm pretty sure the culture will soon change its opinion on the matter, and if it does, it will do so in its own good time. Trying to force a change in the culture will result in nothing but forums filled with pointless arguing.

Simply put, why are people against gay marriage? It's this attitude, which seems to fit so many.

You have to get married. You have to have kids, they have to be your own, and they have to be the same color and religion as you. That person whom you marry has to be the same color and religion as you, although there's some wiggle room as far as religion goes.
Er... what?

If you get divorced, it's a personal tragedy, but if someone else gets divorced, it's because the guy was screwing the babysitter or the woman ran up $20,000 in credit card debt from buying shoes. Or both. For you, a divorce may be beneficial; for anyone else, it just exposes them to strange men and evil women, neither of whom want to do anything to your kids besides molest them or ship them to boarding schools in Tajikistan.
...or you could just, y'know, not remarry.

If you marry outside your race, be prepared for your kids to be beaten up at school while the principal and teachers just stand by and do nothing. And if you adopt, heaven forbid the other kids find out, because the same thing happens when they do. And God help your kids if their parents are gay. They won't usually get the bad-natured "Hey! Your mom's a lesbian!" like I got in school (OK, they were right, but it's none of their business...yes, my mom's gay, but it's frankly none of your business either. And guess what, citizens of NS? I am living proof that gay parents don't always raise gay kids. My brother and I are both heterosexual. So there goes your eleventeenth-best argument against gay parents. But I digress.)
Er... what? How would the kids at school find out about any of that in the first place? Are you yelling it from the rooftops?

Oh yeah, where was I? Oh, right, if you stay single, you're either a loser or a nerd. If you stay single and you're a teacher...let's see. If you're a woman, you're screwing your male students, unless you're a gym teacher, in which case you're screwing your female students. And if you're a man, you're a child molestor. If you adopt, you're too much of a weenie to have your own kids, and people should pity and ridicule you.
Come again? All adult singles are molesters, losers, and lesbians? That's news to me...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Then there's the cultural approach:

I'm sure virtually everyone agrees, that what two adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is nobody else's business. After all, nobody is seriously trying to make homosexuality illegal anymore. However, marriage's meaning is to make a relationship official, so when a gay couple gets married, they take their stuff out of their bedroom and bring it out into the open for everyone to see. This is unacceptable simply because of the fact that it is against the current moral beliefs of the culture we live in. Yes, in a democratic society it does in fact matter what other people think. I'm pretty sure the culture will soon change its opinion on the matter, and if it does, it will do so in its own good time. Trying to force a change in the culture will result in nothing but forums filled with pointless arguing.

But how do you change a culture's point of view by _always_ keeping the alternative private, quiet, and unpublicised? Things need to be brought out in public if ever the culture is going to change.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

*nod*
These things happen.

But how do you change a culture's point of view by _always_ keeping the alternative private, quiet, and unpublicised? Things need to be brought out in public if ever the culture is going to change.

Personally I wouldn't mind if the culture stayed the way it is, at least concerning this particular issue. But anyway, that wasn't my point. I meant that it's a bad idea to force legislations for which the culture isn't ready. Just keep having gay characters in sitcoms until the majority of people actually want gays to be able to marry. That's how you change culture.

Personally I wouldn't mind if the culture stayed the way it is, at least concerning this particular issue. But anyway, that wasn't my point. I meant that it's a bad idea to force legislations for which the culture isn't ready. Just keep having gay characters in sitcoms until the majority of people actually want gays to be able to marry. That's how you change culture.

I think if we had waited until the culture was ready to allow blacks to vote in the USA, they still would be waiting to be granted this basic civil right.

There is no vaild reason not to give basic human rights to gay regarding marriage (and yes, marriage is in fact a human right)

Er... what?

Maybe the bit about religion's not as enforced these days, but there are still plenty of people who are asshole-ish about interracial marriage. And the sad thing is that most people who are like that are colossal hypocrites about it.

...or you could just, y'know, not remarry.

That's kind of my point. My fiancee's mother didn't remarry for seven years after her first husband died because she would not date. She didn't date because she didn't want her daughter exposed to "strange men." It's unfortunate that it comes to that, though.

Er... what? How would the kids at school find out about any of that in the first place? Are you yelling it from the rooftops?

People have their ways. They have their ways...and if I knew what those ways were, I would have beaten them to the punch.

Come again? All adult singles are molesters, losers, and lesbians? That's news to me...

It's news to me too, but it's perception. The entire post was a sarcastic rant; that seems to have been lost on you. I don't believe any of this; I don't believe that all single people are losers, child molesters, or hate the entire opposite sex. I also don't believe that it's wrong to marry outside of one's race. I do believe, however, that school administrators don't do enough to curb bullying, and kids look for any excuse to commit it.

Personally I wouldn't mind if the culture stayed the way it is, at least concerning this particular issue. But anyway, that wasn't my point. I meant that it's a bad idea to force legislations for which the culture isn't ready. Just keep having gay characters in sitcoms until the majority of people actually want gays to be able to marry. That's how you change culture.

I don't think it is. You change culture a bit at a time, I agree - but that can include doing 'premature' moves to publicise, promote, bring to the attention, establish a talking point, etc etc., whatever you want to call it, another point of view. You can't always do the safe, dull thing.

Look at the idea of black civil rights - technically, blacks had the right to vote in the latter 19th C, but how long was it before this was de facto as well as a de jure cultural change? This time it's the other way round - there are de facto gay marriages already, now there's pressure to make this a de jure change as well :)

edit - apologies to Cabra West at the bottom of the previous page - I came up with this e.g. myself, honest, check the posting times! :D

Maybe the bit about religion's not as enforced these days, but there are still plenty of people who are asshole-ish about interracial marriage. And the sad thing is that most people who are like that are colossal hypocrites about it.
Hmm, yeah, I know what you mean. But, at some of the schools that I've gone to, if someone was fucked with because of their mixed race, the person dealing out the abuse would probably get jumped...
It's news to me too, but it's perception. The entire post was a sarcastic rant; that seems to have been lost on you.
It sort of was... *feels dumb*
I don't believe any of this; I don't believe that all single people are losers, child molesters, or hate the entire opposite sex. I also don't believe that it's wrong to marry outside of one's race. I do believe, however, that school administrators don't do enough to curb bullying, and kids look for any excuse to commit it.
There's very little bullying at my school, not because of the admin, but because everyone tends to travel in packs. In my experience, by high school, kids won't need the faculty to take care of them, they'll do it for themselves. I guess kids with LGBT parents, or parents of different races or religions wouldn't have many friends to take care of them, though...

edit - apologies to Cabra West at the bottom of the previous page - I came up with this e.g. myself, honest, check the posting times! :D

No problem. :D
Obvious points like that have a tendency to occur to most thinking people at once.

I think if we had waited until the culture was ready to allow blacks to vote in the USA, they still would be waiting to be granted this basic civil right.

There is no vaild reason not to give basic human rights to gay regarding marriage (and yes, marriage is in fact a human right)

Hmm... Since I don't know the details of how and when blacks got the right to vote in America, I'm not going to argue about that. I'm pretty sure it would have come around pretty soon after WW2 anyway, though. The Holocaust kind of jump-started the human rights movements in my opinion.

Anyway, if the culture simply doesn't approve of gay marriage, that is a valid reason to forbid them. If you say that marriage is a human right, fine. But if it's defined as something between a man and a woman... well, gays could still marry, just not each other. ;)

I don't think it is. You change culture a bit at a time, I agree - but that can include doing 'premature' moves to publicise, promote, bring to the attention, establish a talking point, etc etc., whatever you want to call it, another point of view. You can't always do the safe, dull thing.


Yes, that's exactly what I meant with the gays in sitcoms thing.

There's pressure for allowing gay marriages, I admit. But notice that there's also pressure to forbid them. Since we're talking about a democratic society, isn't it right to take all sides of the matter into consideration? I'm sure all of the gaybashers are not doing their thing just piss everyone off.

Hmm... Since I don't know the details of how and when blacks got the right to vote in America, I'm not going to argue about that. I'm pretty sure it would have come around pretty soon after WW2 anyway, though. The Holocaust kind of jump-started the human rights movements in my opinion.

Anyway, if the culture simply doesn't approve of gay marriage, that is a valid reason to forbid them. If you say that marriage is a human right, fine. But if it's defined as something between a man and a woman... well, gays could still marry, just not each other. ;)

After WW II??? :eek:

Oh, boy... that's WAY of the mark. Blacks, or rather black men, were given the right to vote in 1870 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And, no. The fact that culture disapproves of a minority being given the same rights is no ground whatsoever to withhold that right from the minority.
Look at another thread in the forum right now, concerning itself with female circumcision. Society agrees with the practice, but it is still against human rights.
Would you agree with female children being mutilated for the rest of their lives, based on the fact that the society they live in wants them to be without genitals?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant with the gays in sitcoms thing.

There's pressure for allowing gay marriages, I admit. But notice that there's also pressure to forbid them. Since we're talking about a democratic society, isn't it right to take all sides of the matter into consideration? I'm sure all of the gaybashers are not doing their thing just piss everyone off.

Minority rights are never decided on the basis of the opinion of the majority. It's a government's responsibility to protect minorities and their rights, against the majority of their voters if needed.

There's very little bullying at my school, not because of the admin, but because everyone tends to travel in packs. In my experience, by high school, kids won't need the faculty to take care of them, they'll do it for themselves. I guess kids with LGBT parents, or parents of different races or religions wouldn't have many friends to take care of them, though...

Not all schools have bullying, or bullying problems if there is bullying. Some administrators take care of bullying situations. To those who handle bullying situations fairly and expediently, we should have all the respect in the world for them. However, we cannot accept as anything resembling an assurance that such situations will be handled. The most infamous of this is Columbine High School. A group of outcasts was bullied relentlessly, even by teachers, and traveling in packs did them no help. (Granted, neither did their self-identity as the Trench Coat Mafia, and neither did their worship of Adolf Hitler and their adherence to white supremacy.) Those of us in the U.S. know the end result of this - two members came into school on Hitler's birthday in 1999, carried semiautomatic rifles or something (I forget what firearms they used, but I know that almost a thousand rounds of ammo were fired) and, when the dust settled, 15 people were dead. One teacher and 12 students were murdered by their classmates, who had been planning this for some time, and the vengeful students took their own lives at the end of it all.

I don't justify the actions of Columbine. I don't know anyone who does. At the same time, though, the survivors of Columbine who were perpetrators of the abuse cannot be absolved, either. They were guilty of their wrongdoings, but they didn't deserve Columbine. It's the same deal as those who act as though 9/11 was deserved because the U.S.'s foreign policy is shitty. I'll give it to them that U.S. foreign policy is not always intelligent and can be downright assholish. That doesn't mean that 3,000 of their civilians deserve to be blown up in firestorms.

These things happen, though, and we have seen the horrifying consequences. I am reminded of an episode of one of the Law and Order offshoots in which an 8-year-old girl is harassed relentlessly at a Catholic elementary school because her mom is gay. The students, in particular one, are hardcore anti-gay people, even arguing that gay people should be executed. The girl's hair is cut off by that one student, an 8-year-old boy, and she is told something to the effect that "now she looks like a lesbian." The girl snapped and took a pair of scissors and stabbed the boy with them; the boy was a paraplegic. I don't care what he said to her or did to her; that is not warranted. However, that boy should have been dealt with by the administration for cutting off her hair, and I think she had her doubts that they would. When students have no hope that aggressors will be dealt with, they take the law into their own hands, and that's when Columbines take place.

After WW II??? :eek:

Oh, boy... that's WAY of the mark. Blacks, or rather black men, were given the right to vote in 1870 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that I think they got it after WW2. I meant that in any case they would have gotten it then.

And, no. The fact that culture disapproves of a minority being given the same rights is no ground whatsoever to withhold that right from the minority.
Look at another thread in the forum right now, concerning itself with female circumcision. Society agrees with the practice, but it is still against human rights.
Would you agree with female children being mutilated for the rest of their lives, based on the fact that the society they live in wants them to be without genitals?

Of course I don't approve of female circumcision or any kind of circumcision for that matter, but on the other hand, I'm not going to go over there and tell those people how they should live. I'm not a part of their society, and I have no effect on their lives just as well as they have no effect on mine. Therefore it's none of my business to do anything about it, and it's arguable whether even other nations are allowed to interfere.

Would you agree that a society is allowed to have no say whatsoever on the lives of its members, even if their lives break moral codes that have been determined by the society? That would include a case, in which a person wants to perform circumcisions on girls for whatever reasons.

I'm sure that many, if not most, of those girls agree to be circumcised. True, they may have been preprogrammed to their desires and beliefs by their society, but seriously, haven't we all?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant with the gays in sitcoms thing.

There's pressure for allowing gay marriages, I admit. But notice that there's also pressure to forbid them. Since we're talking about a democratic society, isn't it right to take all sides of the matter into consideration? I'm sure all of the gaybashers are not doing their thing just piss everyone off.

lol, gays in sitcoms is just one strand of the debate though, isn't it? One single source of friction doesn't change society, changes like that are multifaceted, occuring on many levels simultaneously, including legal and legislative moves.

Look at Scotland's move to devolved government from london; you saw separatist movements from the 1930s, a strong independence party from the 1970s, the first plebiscite for devolution in the late 1970s which failed, and the second in the late 1990s which succeeded. Similarly, gay marriage might not get on the statute books at the first time of asking, but as the debate continues and society continues to change in favour of allowing it, it will eventually.

It's right that there should be debate, yes, I couldn't agree more. But in a don't you agree the state has to work for the good of all its citizens, not just one section of it, in a democracy?

Of course I don't approve of female circumcision or any kind of circumcision for that matter, but on the other hand, I'm not going to go over there and tell those people how they should live. I'm not a part of their society, and I have no effect on their lives just as well as they have no effect on mine. Therefore it's none of my business to do anything about it, and it's arguable whether even other nations are allowed to interfere.

Would you agree that a society is allowed to have no say whatsoever on the lives of its members, even if their lives break moral codes that have been determined by the society? That would include a case, in which a person wants to perform circumcisions on girls for whatever reasons.

I'm sure that many, if not most, of those girls agree to be circumcised. True, they may have been preprogrammed to their desires and beliefs by their society, but seriously, haven't we all?

I've got the feeling that you don't really know what femal circumcision entails... we are not talking removal of a little bit of skin with little to no further effect on the lives of the girls. We are talking about removal of all primary external sex organs, and consequent stiching up of the area, leaving a small hole for urinating. We are talking about women who have to be cut open in a very literal sense before they can have any form of intercourse. We are talking about women who will never be able to experience any form of sexual feelings, let alone orgasm. And that's not even mentioning the high mortality rate of the procedure, or the consequent dangers of childbirth.
The girls are pre-pubescent when their genitals are being cut off. I sincerely doubt that they agree... they accept it because they have no other choice.

And yes, it is the responsibility of the international community to make sure that this tradition gets discredited as the criminal act that it is, gets outlawed, prosecuted and eventually rooted out.

But that's actually for another thread.

My point is, there are situations and circumstances that are generally unacceptable and inexcusable.
Denying gays fundamental rights is one of those situations.

Minority rights are never decided on the basis of the opinion of the majority. It's a government's responsibility to protect minorities and their rights, against the majority of their voters if needed.

It's a government's responsibility to do the willing of the majority of voters. As far as I know, that's the definition of democracy. (Yes, I know, western democracies aren't really democracies...) The government's responsibility depends entirely on the government in question.

It's rather annoying when people come up with stuff and arbitrarily declare it "a basic human right". Yes, marriage has been an important custom in practically all cultures in history, and could thus be considered a human right. But gay marriage has been such in only a few, so there's no historical precedent or cultural reason to give it the name of a basic human right.

It's a government's responsibility to do the willing of the majority of voters. As far as I know, that's the definition of democracy. (Yes, I know, western democracies aren't really democracies...) The government's responsibility depends entirely on the government in question.

If that were the case, Muslims in Germany would now be forced to wear some sign identifying them as Muslims right now, as 80% of the population are in favour of such legislation. Do you agree that that is what the government should decree, then?

You're quite right, western democracies aren't democracies in the sense of the word. They do have the obligation to protect minorities...

...Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove....

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm


It's rather annoying when people come up with stuff and arbitrarily declare it "a basic human right". Yes, marriage has been an important custom in practically all cultures in history, and could thus be considered a human right. But gay marriage has been such in only a few, so there's no historical precedent or cultural reason to give it the name of a basic human right.

I didn't come up with that...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) was drafted in 1948 and signed by most members of the UN General Assembly. Marriage is quoted as basic human right :

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Please note how it doesn't say anywhere that the two partners have to be of opposite sex.

*snip*

My point is, there are situations and circumstances that are generally unacceptable and inexcusable.
Denying gays fundamental rights is one of those situations.


I know very well what female circumcision is, and like I said, I don't personally approve of it. Not much of a surprise.

My point is, that there is a line between what is a fundamental right, and what will just make you say, "dude, WTF!?" Would you let a man marry an another man? A goat? A five-year-old girl? His own mother? A dead corpse? A urinal in a public bathroom? Everything cannot and should not be tolerated. A line must be drawn somewhere, and I don't see why you, the gay community, the liberal party or even me would be best suited for that task. The only one with the authority to do that is the society as a whole.

I know very well what female circumcision is, and like I said, I don't personally approve of it. Not much of a surprise.

My point is, that there is a line between what is a fundamental right, and what will just make you say, "dude, WTF!?" Would you let a man marry an another man? A goat? A five-year-old girl? His own mother? A dead corpse? A urinal in a public bathroom? Everything cannot and should not be tolerated. A line must be drawn somewhere, and I don't see why you, the gay community, the liberal party or even me would be best suited for that task. The only one with the authority to do that is the society as a whole.

Ever heard the phrase "consenting adults"?

If that were the case, Muslims in Germany would now be forced to wear some sign identifying them as Muslims right now, as 80% of the population are in favour of such legislation. Do you agree that that is what the government should decree, then?

Yes, if the people want that, especially when they're so inanimous, that's what the government should decree. I'm not sure whether it would be good or bad, but it's the will of the people.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm

I could go on arguing how that is just a principle that the government has chosen to follow, but I doubt it would be productive to the main argument. So meh, I'll agree for now.

Please note how it doesn't say anywhere that the two partners have to be of opposite sex.

It does say "men and women", which could be interpreted either way. I just don't think the founders of UN would be too happy about your way of shamelessly exploiting the loopholes in their most beloved documents to further your agenda. In any case, the interpretation will be the job of the government. Wouldn't you agree, if the government decided that the declaration does in fact say that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Ever heard the phrase "consenting adults"?

But that only excludes the girl and the urinal.:p

I know very well what female circumcision is, and like I said, I don't personally approve of it. Not much of a surprise.

My point is, that there is a line between what is a fundamental right, and what will just make you say, "dude, WTF!?" Would you let a man marry an another man? A goat? A five-year-old girl? His own mother? A dead corpse? A urinal in a public bathroom? Everything cannot and should not be tolerated. A line must be drawn somewhere, and I don't see why you, the gay community, the liberal party or even me would be best suited for that task. The only one with the authority to do that is the society as a whole.

Sure, the line is adult humans can only marry other adult humans. The sex of those humans doesn't matter.

Yes, if the people want that, especially when they're so inanimous, that's what the government should decree. I'm not sure whether it would be good or bad, but it's the will of the people.


It would be unconstitutional.


It does say "men and women", which could be interpreted either way. I just don't think the founders of UN would be too happy about your way of shamelessly exploiting the loopholes in their most beloved documents to further your agenda. In any case, the interpretation will be the job of the government. Wouldn't you agree, if the government decided that the declaration does in fact say that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Shameless? I think if they had wanted a clear wording,they would have use clear wording. As it is, they are trying to guarantee men and women the right to marry. Regardless of what sex their partner is, or how many partners they choose to marry.
It does, however, clearly state "men and women", implying that in order to marry, you have to be an adult.

But that only excludes the girl and the urinal.:p

And the goat, I believe...

Edit : And the corpse.

Sure, the line is adult humans can only marry other adult humans. The sex of those humans doesn't matter.

And if most of the people want to draw a more exclusive line, so that adult humans can only marry other adult humans of the opposite sex? Why is your opinion better than theirs?

Sure, the line is adult humans can only marry other adult humans. The sex of those humans doesn't matter.

And if most of the people want to draw a more exclusive line, so that adult humans can only marry other adult humans of the opposite sex? Why is your opinion better than theirs?

Don't say "because they want to take away gays' rights." You're trying to take away the rights of zoophiliacs.

And if most of the people want to draw a more exclusive line, so that adult humans can only marry other adult humans of the opposite sex? Why is your opinion better than theirs?

Marriage between blacks and white in the USA was only allowed in 1967, against the majority's will. Would you argue this was wrong, too?

It's a human right for every man and every woman to marry. Whoever they choose. Neither corpses nor goats nor urinals nor children have this right.
It's not about whose opinion is better. It's about ending discrimination of a minority.

Don't say "because they want to take away gays' rights." You're trying to take away the rights of zoophiliacs.

Can the goat give legal consent?
Can the urinal give legal consent?
Can the corpse give legal consent?
Can a child give legal consent?


You seem to assume that marriage only takes one person saying "I do". It takes at least two.

It would be unconstitutional.

Are you sure the German constitution has a clause that prevents it? Never mind, I'm too busy to look it up right now, so I'll just take your word and leave it at that.

Shameless? I think if they had wanted a clear wording,they would have use clear wording.

Either that, or they couldn't even think that gay marriage would gain so much popularity so soon, and thus it didn't cross their minds to add a phrase "but no gays!"

As it is, they are trying to guarantee men and women the right to marry. Regardless of what sex their partner is, or how many partners they choose to marry.
It does, however, clearly state "men and women", implying that in order to marry, you have to be an adult.

So you wouldn't have a problem, if George W. Bush had fifty women in a harem?


P.S. Adult goats are adults too, and silence is a sign of consent.;)

So you wouldn't have a problem, if George W. Bush had fifty women in a harem?

No, why should I?
I personally hate the thought of him actually reproducing, but that's hardly a basis for legislation.


P.S. Adult goats are adults too, and silence is a sign of consent.;)

A goat cannot give legal consent. A goat is not an adult person in the eyes of the law, otherwise it would have to pay taxes.

And if most of the people want to draw a more exclusive line, so that adult humans can only marry other adult humans of the opposite sex? Why is your opinion better than theirs?

Don't say "because they want to take away gays' rights." You're trying to take away the rights of zoophiliacs.

Adult humans are fully able of making their own decisions. If they and other adult humans wish to marry I don't see the problem with that. Animals don't count because marriage is a partnership and you can't exactly have an equal partnership with a goat. Not to mention the goat can't consent to anything.

So you wouldn't have a problem, if George W. Bush had fifty women in a harem?


As long as they are 50 women who consent to be part of his harem what buisness is it of mine or yours? Laura might have a thing or two to say about it . ..

P.S. Adult goats are adults too, and silence is a sign of consent.;)

Adult goats can not give consent because they are goats and are not capable of giving consent any more than your table is.

Marriage between blacks and white in the USA was only allowed in 1967, against the majority's will. Would you argue this was wrong, too?

I'm too biased to answer that question, because I oppose interracial marriages anyway. You know the answer from my previous posts.

It's a human right for every man and every woman to marry. Whoever they choose. Neither corpses nor goats nor urinals nor children have this right.


But now the human rights declaration backfires on you. It says that men and women can marry, but it doesn't say that corpses, goats or urinals cannot. Closely scrutinizing the text, you see that they can, it's just not one of their basic rights.

It's not about whose opinion is better. It's about ending discrimination of a minority.

It's neither. It's about passing a law that the majority doesn't want, which I believe to be just as unconstitutional as discriminating minorities is.

Can the goat give legal consent?
Can the urinal give legal consent?
Can the corpse give legal consent?
Can a child give legal consent?


You seem to assume that marriage only takes one person saying "I do". It takes at least two.

Marriage is initially defined as something to be between a man and a woman (at least in the western culture). You have redefined it to include couples of same sex, so why can't I redefine it too? It wasn't a long ago when in Ethiopia (I think) a man was caught having sex with a goat (or similar), and was subsequently forced to marry it.

Now you'll say that it doesn't matter, because it's not how things are done here in the west. Well, neither are gay marriages.

i don't think many people really care all that much about it...but yes...everyone deserves an equal right...

But now the human rights declaration backfires on you. It says that men and women can marry, but it doesn't say that corpses, goats or urinals cannot. Closely scrutinizing the text, you see that they can, it's just not one of their basic rights.


As soon as you find a urinal that can actually conset to marry someone, let me know.
Legal consent of all parties is the main condition of marriage.


It's neither. It's about passing a law that the majority doesn't want, which I believe to be just as unconstitutional as discriminating minorities is.

So if the majority wants to discriminate against a minority, that's ok? If the majority decided that blacks ought to be slaves again, that would be ok? If the majority decided that the punishment for burping in church should be stoning, that would be ok? If the majority decides that harvesting organs from street children is acceptable, that would be ok?

We don't live in pure democracies for exactly that reason : It's mob rule. It needs boundaries and limits on what the majority can and cannot decide. And minority laws can not, ever, be decided by majority vote.

a guy had to marry a goat? wow...that is interesting...man in the US made people marry whatever they screwed...there would be a lot of poligimy in the US...

Marriage is initially defined as something to be between a man and a woman (at least in the western culture). You have redefined it to include couples of same sex, so why can't I redefine it too? It wasn't a long ago when in Ethiopia (I think) a man was caught having sex with a goat (or similar), and was subsequently forced to marry it.

Now you'll say that it doesn't matter, because it's not how things are done here in the west. Well, neither are gay marriages.

Marriage is, in essence, a legal contract between two or more people. That's how marriage is defined in our legal systems.
In order to enter into a legal contract, you must be a legal person, i.e. of age and human.

If you want to change the entire concept of a legal contract, go ahead.

a guy had to marry a goat? wow...that is interesting...man in the US made people marry whatever they screwed...there would be a lot of poligimy in the US...


I heard about that... a pretty down to earth decision by the local mullah. :D

Adult humans are fully able of making their own decisions. If they and other adult humans wish to marry I don't see the problem with that. Animals don't count because marriage is a partnership and you can't exactly have an equal partnership with a goat. Not to mention the goat can't consent to anything.

Where does it say that in order to be married, you have to have an equal partnership? Wouldn't that kind of prevent marriages where one has a greatly higher income than the other, or where one's IQ is 50 points higher than that of the other? Or just marriages where the other always submits to the other's will?

probably the main factor of why the USA hasn't made gay marriage legal or whatever is because the USA was founded on mainly conservative christian values...and many conservative christian people object to gay anything, espcially marriage...or at least that is my insight on the matter...

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because that would ruin our wonderful divorce rate record.

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because that would ruin our wonderful divorce rate record.

haha...i find that amusing...

Marriage is, in essence, a legal contract between two or more people. That's how marriage is defined in our legal systems.
In order to enter into a legal contract, you must be a legal person, i.e. of age and human.

If you want to change the entire concept of a legal contract, go ahead.

I think marriage is currently defined to be between one man and one woman. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate now, because gay marriages would already be legal.

I'm not interested in marrying goats or urinals. The whole reason I brought them up is that even though people are willing to change legislation so that gays could marry, they're not willing to change it so that animal-lovers and urinal-lovers could marry the objects of their desire. This seems hypocritical, to say the least.

I'm not interested in marrying goats or urinals. The whole reason I brought them up is that even though people are willing to change legislation so that gays could marry, they're not willing to change it so that animal-lovers and urinal-lovers could marry the objects of their desire. This seems hypocritical, to say the least.


you mean you actually have heard of people who want to marry urinals o_O
i've heard of people who have intercourse with animals...which is interesting to hear about...but hey...whatever float their boats...i was just stunned to hear about people who want to marry urinals...cause i think or urinals as pretty nasty and dirty...

I think marriage is currently defined to be between one man and one woman. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate now, because gay marriages would already be legal.

I'm not interested in marrying goats or urinals. The whole reason I brought them up is that even though people are willing to change legislation so that gays could marry, they're not willing to change it so that animal-lovers and urinal-lovers could marry the objects of their desire. This seems hypocritical, to say the least.

I wonder what the Bible would have to say about marriage between urinals.... :D

you mean you actually have heard of people who want to marry urinals o_O
i've heard of people who have intercourse with animals...which is interesting to hear about...but hey...whatever float their boats...i was just stunned to hear about people who want to marry urinals...cause i think or urinals as pretty nasty and dirty...

Hey, you never know what kinds of wierdoes you meet. Here's a tip: It's always the guy who seems the most normal. :)

Hey, you never know what kinds of wierdoes you meet. Here's a tip: It's always the guy who seems the most normal. :)


haha...what is sad is it is basically true :p

I think marriage is currently defined to be between one man and one woman. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate now, because gay marriages would already be legal.

I'm not interested in marrying goats or urinals. The whole reason I brought them up is that even though people are willing to change legislation so that gays could marry, they're not willing to change it so that animal-lovers and urinal-lovers could marry the objects of their desire. This seems hypocritical, to say the least.

Which part about "marriage is a legal contract" didn't you understand? It currently is a legal contract that is limited to :

- persons of opposite sex
- two persons
- people under the jurisdiction of whatever country the contract is signed in (you cannot marry someone who is illegally in the country)

These are some of the conditions that have to be met in order for this specific contract to be legal.

Generally, all legal contracts need to meet the following conditions :

* Form - In some cases, certain formalities (that is, writing) must be observed.
* Capacity - The parties must be legally capable of entering into a contract.
* Consent - The agreement must have been entered into freely. Consent may be vitiated by duress or undue influence.
* Legality - The purpose of the agreement must not be illegal or contrary to public policy.

Personally, I've got no moral problems with people marrying animals or objets. But in order for them to do so, we would have to reverse the entire system on which our general contracts are based.

I wonder what the Bible would have to say about marriage between urinals.... :D

"And verily God blessed the union between the two ivory recepticles, for though they are simple, they contain the great evil of mankind." Pslam 5B

Every time the gay marriage discussion comes up, the Bible is mentioned. The extremists always say that the Bible condemns it whereas the liberals are okay with it. But what about urinal marriage? Would it be protected or condemned by the Constitution? What would the Bible have to say about it? The world may never know until the topic actually comes up... 0.o

So if the majority wants to discriminate against a minority, that's ok? If the majority decided that blacks ought to be slaves again, that would be ok? If the majority decided that the punishment for burping in church should be stoning, that would be ok? If the majority decides that harvesting organs from street children is acceptable, that would be ok?

We don't live in pure democracies for exactly that reason : It's mob rule. It needs boundaries and limits on what the majority can and cannot decide. And minority laws can not, ever, be decided by majority vote.

Heh. I think denying marriage is far away from enslaving an ethnic group. So is marking them with a badge. Anyway, I don't mean we should accept everything, like slavery or female circumcision (I think I said so earlier). But the difference, big as it is, is only a matter of degree, and someone needs to draw the line. If it's not the people, then who? And who guarantees that that person/party is correct, and on what basis?

I draw the line before gay marriage, you draw it after it. I suppose the reason I keep ranting here is to wait for you to admit that both of our opinions are equally subjective.

"And verily God blessed the union between the two ivory recepticles, for though they are simple, they contain the great evil of mankind." Pslam 5B

:D

But if they contain the great evil of mankind, wouldn't God condemn the union between them, so they couldn't make MORE urinals?

Every time the gay marriage discussion comes up, the Bible is mentioned. The extremists always say that the Bible condemns it whereas the liberals are okay with it. But what about urinal marriage? Would it be protected or condemned by the Constitution? What would the Bible have to say about it? The world may never know until the topic actually comes up... 0.o

Oh, I smell a new thread.... and it smells like Harpic.

Oh, I smell a new thread.... and it smells like Harpic.

I'm thinking about making one... but what is Harpic?

Heh. I think denying marriage is far away from enslaving an ethnic group. So is marking them with a badge. Anyway, I don't mean we should accept everything, like slavery or female circumcision (I think I said so earlier). But the difference, big as it is, is only a matter of degree, and someone needs to draw the line. If it's not the people, then who? And who guarantees that that person/party is correct, and on what basis?

I draw the line before gay marriage, you draw it after it. I suppose the reason I keep ranting here is to wait for you to admit that both of our opinions are equally subjective.

I draw the line at "same rights to everyone". Pretty simple, really, and hopefully as fair to all as possible.
Opinions have a way of being subjective. I base mine on the idea that if you want to be treated fair, treat everybody fair. What do you base yours on?

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

WOW!! I can't believe other people think this way too.. I'm openly bisexual and I have libertarian tendencies with my political beliefs but I have to agree with your statement. Like you, I believe that marriage in all aspects was created for a man and a woman... relationships between two of the same gender isn't really bad just not called marriage. If gay marriage would be allowed then we should also let people marry books, sofas, animals, computers and chocolates... T_T which just ruins the meaning of marriage.

Which part about "marriage is a legal contract" didn't you understand? It currently is a legal contract that is limited to :

- persons of opposite sex
- two persons
- people under the jurisdiction of whatever country the contract is signed in (you cannot marry someone who is illegally in the country)

These are some of the conditions that have to be met in order for this specific contract to be legal.

Generally, all legal contracts need to meet the following conditions :

* Form - In some cases, certain formalities (that is, writing) must be observed.
* Capacity - The parties must be legally capable of entering into a contract.
* Consent - The agreement must have been entered into freely. Consent may be vitiated by duress or undue influence.
* Legality - The purpose of the agreement must not be illegal or contrary to public policy.

Personally, I've got no moral problems with people marrying animals or objets. But in order for them to do so, we would have to reverse the entire system on which our general contracts are based.

We wouldn't have to reverse the system, just marriage. I'm sure even that wouldn't be necessary; contracts can be verified by guardians, other authorized people, or, in the case of goats and urinals, their owners. But I'm sure that varies greatly between countries.

I'm thinking about making one... but what is Harpic?

http://www.visit4info.com/static/advertiser_pages/HarpicRange.cfm?return_page=com_r.cfm :D

Oh boy, what a subject for my 10 000 post

http://www.visit4info.com/static/advertiser_pages/HarpicRange.cfm?return_page=com_r.cfm :D

Oh boy, what a subject for my 10 000 post

*sniff sniff* Nope, doesn't smell liek it to me. Smells more like microwaveable stroganoff and Crunch bars. *shrug*

We wouldn't have to reverse the system, just marriage. I'm sure even that wouldn't be necessary; contracts can be verified by guardians, other authorized people, or, in the case of goats and urinals, their owners. But I'm sure that varies greatly between countries.

Guardians and owners have limited rights to enter legal contracts on behalf of their charges or possesions. No guardian has the right to enter a contract like marriage for his/her charge, very much like they can't sign them up for 10 years of military service.
The same applies to owners of urinals and other objects of desire...

I draw the line at "same rights to everyone". Pretty simple, really, and hopefully as fair to all as possible.
Opinions have a way of being subjective. I base mine on the idea that if you want to be treated fair, treat everybody fair. What do you base yours on?

OK. The fairness principle is a good one, and I also base my opinions largely on it. However, I'm also greatly influenced by tradition and Christian morals (although I consider myself theistic agnostic).

OK. The fairness principle is a good one, and I also base my opinions largely on it. However, I'm also greatly influenced by tradition and Christian morals (although I consider myself theistic agnostic).

So... if you perceive an issue as unfair, but in line with Christian tradition and morals, you'd take the Christian side? Interesting.

Guardians and owners have limited rights to enter legal contracts on behalf of their charges or possesions. No guardian has the right to enter a contract like marriage for his/her charge, very much like they can't sign them up for 10 years of military service.
The same applies to owners of urinals and other objects of desire...

Anyway, what I meant was that making the necessary changes for people to be able to marry whatever they want, only requires some tweaking of the laws, not a complete overhaul of everything. I don't think it would be too much to ask for owners to have complete power over unconscious objects (assuming animals don't have consciousness).

So... if you perceive an issue as unfair, but in line with Christian tradition and morals, you'd take the Christian side? Interesting.

Not as a rule. My opinions are influenced by Christianity, but I don't consult the Bible for decisions, and I certainly don't care what priests or other religious figures say. In cases like that I just use my gut feeling, which is partly rooted in my Christian upbringing.

Anyway, what I meant was that making the necessary changes for people to be able to marry whatever they want, only requires some tweaking of the laws, not a complete overhaul of everything. I don't think it would be too much to ask for owners to have complete power over unconscious objects (assuming animals don't have consciousness).

Considering that we are in the process of setting up legislation granting certain rights to pets and animals, that might get reallt tricky legally.

And "ownership brings responsibility", another fixture of Westrn legislation. Just because you own something does not automatically give you the right to do with it whatever you want.

Not as a rule. My opinions are influenced by Christianity, but I don't consult the Bible for decisions, and I certainly don't care what priests or other religious figures say. In cases like that I just use my gut feeling, which is partly rooted in my Christian upbringing.

Are you saying is that you oppose to an outdated law being changed in order to give equal rights to all people based on your own gut feeling?

Considering that we are in the process of setting up legislation granting certain rights to pets and animals, that might get reallt tricky legally.

Yeah, that is one of the dumbest things I've heard for a long time, and I hope things won't actually come to that. But that's a topic for a different thread.

And "ownership brings responsibility", another fixture of Westrn legislation. Just because you own something does not automatically give you the right to do with it whatever you want.

Of course there are limitations in cases where "doing whatever you want" could harm others, or otherwise be counterproductive to the community, but other than that, Western legislation very much gives one the right to decide the fate of their own belongings. I don't see how giving my stuff up for marriage might hurt anyone (as long as they are careful with the sharp edges during honeymoon).

many ppl here on NS have nothing against it.

Yeah, that is one of the dumbest things I've heard for a long time, and I hope things won't actually come to that. But that's a topic for a different thread.


I wouldn't say so... legislation like this is in place in the EU, you can't mistreat animals in any way you like any more. You do have certain responsibilities to see to it that your animals are not subject to unnecessary cruelty.

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

the meanings of words often change. Gay 50 years ago meant happy, now it means homosexual. So what makes the word marriage any different? Why is marriage specifically between a man and a woman, where is the empirical evidence for this? If theres none then its a concept and concepts are subject to change.

Well many Christians have issue with it b/c of the Sodom and Gmorrah (that spelled right?) story. However it is one example of Christian hypocrisy (I'm a Christian so this saddens me), b/c divorce is also forbidden (many, many times actually). As to the issue of name which has been raised earlier, I think that they should simply make a term that gives gays the same rights as straight couples (hospital visits, etc.). This will be the concession that gay people make (as they are the minority after all).

Are you saying is that you oppose to an outdated law being changed in order to give equal rights to all people based on your own gut feeling?

Not quite so simple. My gut feeling, upbringing, cultural preprogramming, and everything else that affects my opinions, convince me that the sight of people getting gay in public sickens me. Privately they can do whatever they want, even get married as far as I care. The problem for me is that whatever gives gays more social status, increases the amount of gays I'm forced to see making out in parks, walking hand in hand in the malls and that sort of things.

This is a case where I care about my personal wellbeing more than fairness. Like I said earlier, it's entirely subjective.

Not only should gays be allowed to marry, the goverment should not have a say so in Who gets married, Where they marry, or in What manner they get married. It is none of the goverments buisness. All taxes should be individual. Period.

I wouldn't say so... legislation like this is in place in the EU, you can't mistreat animals in any way you like any more. You do have certain responsibilities to see to it that your animals are not subject to unnecessary cruelty.

Oooh right, that's good. I thought you were talking about those more radical plans, that nearly resemble human rights. (Sorry, can't remember more accurately, and can't find a link.)

Not only should gays be allowed to marry, the goverment should not have a say so in Who gets married, Where they marry, or in What manner they get married. It is none of the goverments buisness. All taxes should be individual. Period.

What if a man would liek to marry a urinal?

Not quite so simple. My gut feeling, upbringing, cultural preprogramming, and everything else that affects my opinions, convince me that the sight of people getting gay in public sickens me. Privately they can do whatever they want, even get married as far as I care. The problem for me is that whatever gives gays more social status, increases the amount of gays I'm forced to see making out in parks, walking hand in hand in the malls and that sort of things.

This is a case where I care about my personal wellbeing more than fairness. Like I said earlier, it's entirely subjective.

So what you're saying is I should lobby my congress being to make it against the law for you to post . . .

So what you're saying is I should lobby my congress being to make it against the law for you to post . . .

Go ahead. It will never pass; Cabra West is here to back me up.:D

No, marriage is not for procreation.
We didn't even have any kind of legal marriage structure till humans began to escape evolution.
Not to mention, of course, that in a lot of opposite-sex marriages you won't have procreation either.

I always find this argument to be particularly uninformed. Barring the evolution fallacy, "legal marriage structure" is a concept unique to man in that it is "legal." In every other animal society, it is the union of a male and a female of species that creates offspring (procreation), and there is no example of purposeful and exclusive homosexuality outside of humanity. So a male-female union (marriage) is thus designed for procreation, and any other definition is a bastardization of the word and an acute display of ignorance with regard to natural orders, that is, habits and behaviors of and belonging to nature as whole.

What if a man would liek to marry a urinal?

A urinal is not a living entity, and thus any such marriage would be not a marriage at all but merely setting the stage for a very pathetic and unsatisfactory sex life and, I daresay, life in general.

and there is no example of purposeful and exclusive homosexuality outside of humanity.

What a ridiculuous statement. Homosexual mating behavior ahs been observed in numerous species. "Exclusive?" Yes. "Purposeful?" I'm sure this is to be the saving grace of your argument, but procreation is not the sole purpose of mating behavior. Here are a few examples of homosexual mating behavior in non-human species.

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/18/gay.vulture.parents/index.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm

So a male-female union (marriage) is thus designed for procreation, and any other definition is a bastardization of the word and an acute display of ignorance with regard to natural orders, that is, habits and behaviors of and belonging to nature as whole.

Oh yes, our institutions are SO respectful and beholden to that which is natural. Are you having someone transcribe your post from interpretive dance, or are you typing on an unnatural computer?

Our social systems transcend nature, and homosexual couples are in those systems. Thusly, they ought to be acknowledged and accounted for in terms of rights and priviledges being provided. Oh, and make sure to tell your grandmother that the post-menopausal old girl is bastardizing the definition of marriage with her shrivelled old ovaries.

Anyway, if the culture simply doesn't approve of gay marriage, that is a valid reason to forbid them. If you say that marriage is a human right, fine. But if it's defined as something between a man and a woman... well, gays could still marry, just not each other. ;)

Just like, when anti-miscegenation laws were in place, blacks and whites could both marry, just not each other...

Of course, those laws were (rightfully) thrown out as being in violation of the US Constitution.

WOW!! I can't believe other people think this way too.. I'm openly bisexual and I have libertarian tendencies with my political beliefs but I have to agree with your statement. Like you, I believe that marriage in all aspects was created for a man and a woman... relationships between two of the same gender isn't really bad just not called marriage. If gay marriage would be allowed then we should also let people marry books, sofas, animals, computers and chocolates... T_T which just ruins the meaning of marriage.

You really think that allowing two consenting adults to enter into a legal contract regardless of their sexual orientation is the same thing as changing the entirety of contract law so that objects and animals can enter contracts?

Are you aware that youer EXACT same argument was made when anti-miscegenation laws were being fought?

So I had a fairly long post replying to the rest of the nonsense, but it got lost. Of course, you guys know who you are, so here's a synopsis:

1) Marriage is all about children.

Bullshit. Anyone who has so much as glanced at the legal code relating to marriage knows that it is bullshit. Marriage, from a legal sense, is all about finances and decision making. It is all about who owns what, who owes whom money, what taxes are owed, so on. Children are a side-note, and when they are mentioned, it is only in issues of custody and the application of benefits when non-biological parents are involved (something that, strangely enough, would more often be applicable to homosexual couples than heterosexual ones).

2) Homosexuality doesn't occur exclusively or "purposefully" in the animal kingdom.

Again, bullshit. Exclusive homosexuals are not common in the animal kingdom (or in human beings for that matter), but do occur. They do raise offspring together. In birds, there is often a completely different mating dance when a male is seeking to attract a male mate, rather than a female one. In animals that form pair-bonds, offspring raised by male homosexual pairs often have better chances of survival than those raised by opposite-sex or female-female couples. There are numerous examples of homosexuality, bisexuality, and even a few examples of transsexuality within the animal kingdom. Any claim that it is purely a human thing is purely bullshit.

3) "I think my personal hangups with human beings actually living their lives should dictate what they can and cannot do."

Whatever. I don't put much stock in bigots and a certain person in this thread out and out admitted that his opposition to granting equal rights to homosexuals is a matter of bigotry.

4) "Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else. They just can't marry each other."

This argument was done when people were battling anti-miscegenation laws. Then, it was, "Blacks and whites *do* have the same right to marry. They can each marry a member of their own race." Interestingly enough, that argument was found to be full of shit. Go figure.

5) Homosexuals can't have children.

?????? Did someone tell you that homosexuality makes a person sterile?

6) OMFG! Redefining marriage! Now you'll have to let people marry their Barry White tapes!

This is the most idiotic argument of all, and, once again, displays a complete lack of understanding as to what legal marriage actually is. It is logically impossible to apply marriage law to inanimate objects or animals. Neither own property. Neither owe taxes or owe money to third parties. Neither can act as next-of-kin or make medical decisions for their spouses. Neither collect pensions. Neither could testify in court. Neither can sign contracts and provide consent in the first place, and thus cannot enter into them. And so on....

On top of that, the definition of marriage has been redefined numerous times over the years. Originally, it was essentially a way for ownership of a woman to be transferred from her father to her new husband. Later, it was the only way a woman could own property and have a way to live. Eventually, it became, "a man and a woman of the same social class and ethnic background." Then it got reduced to just the same ethnic background. And so on...

You really think that allowing two consenting adults to enter into a legal contract regardless of their sexual orientation is the same thing as changing the entirety of contract law so that objects and animals can enter contracts?

Are you aware that youer EXACT same argument was made when anti-miscegenation laws were being fought?
It's not at all similar to the the anti-miscegenation laws being repealed, nor are the arguments the same. If we are looking for an analogy for the anti-miscegenation laws, we could use professional baseball as an accurate and timely example.

There were two different leagues at one time, with all whites in one league and all African Americans in the other. And the best players from both leagues never faced off against each other and weren't able to play in the same stadiums against each other, and baseball was not all that it could be for the fans, who had to watch two leagues to see all the best players. Finally, one day, all that ended and all the baseball players from both leagues were able to play in the best fields on the best teams against the best players, regardless of color or creed of the player, and the league was improved, and the fans were rewarded by combining the two leagues of baseball players into one league featuring the best of both worlds.

That was what the anti-miscegenation laws in marriage were like.

But now, today, the examples those people were talking about, same-sex marriage, is NOT like the baseball leagues before, they play a different type of ball game. In fact, they aren't even playing with baseballs at all, they're playing soccer and they want the baseball community to accept them into the MLB association as one of their own and change all their rules to accommodate them as well. But if the MLB association does that, and changes all the rules to allow both soccer teams and baseball teams in the same league the entire system as we know it fails to exist anymore, they won’t even be playing baseball anymore. Then, if we do force the MLB groups to accept soccer teams what will we do about the football teams next (polygamist) and the basketball players (bestiality) and the bowling teams (whatever it they might represent) that want to be allowed in the major league baseball association next?

Hell, we won't even have any baseball teams in the league anymore if this keeps up.

THATS the analogy they are trying to convey. The anti-miscegenation analogy you used is not applicable to this situation anymore because the new teams aren't playing the same game like they were during the miscegenation era...

It's not at all similar to the the misogynist laws being repealed, nor are the arguments the same. If we are looking for an analogy for the misogynist laws, we could use professional baseball as an accurate and timely example.

First of all, it's miscegenation, not misogyny. Those are two very different words.

Second of all, from a legal standpoint, your analogy makes no sense. The "ballgame" truly is exactly the same. Two people who choose to live as a single legal entity (and that is what legal marriage entails) will need the same protections regardless of their sexual orientation. Being gay doesn't suddenly mean that you don't need your spouse - the closest person to you - to be your next-of-kin. It doesn't change the fact that you end up merging your finances with your spouse, and work to build a life together that belongs not to one of you, but to both of you. It doesn't change the fact that any child one of you is raising is being raised by both of you, and thus needs the protections associated with that. When it comes right down to it, the only difference between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one that could possibly affect the law is that one is an instance of two people of the opposite sex and one is an instance of two people of the same sex. Interestingly enough, discrimination based on sex usually needs more backing in the law than, "We just like it that way."

And, yes, the arguments are exactly the same. When anti-miscegenation laws were repealed, people were yelling, "OH NOES! NOW WE HAVE TO LET PEOPLE MARRY THEIR VACUUMS AND CATS!" People continued to state that blacks and whites did have equal rights to marry - members of their same race. And so on. The idiocy is exactly the same - and is just as clearly based in bigotry.

So I had a fairly long post replying to the rest of the nonsense, but it got lost. Of course, you guys know who you are, so here's a synopsis:

1) Marriage is all about children.

Bullshit. Anyone who has so much as glanced at the legal code relating to marriage knows that it is bullshit. Marriage, from a legal sense, is all about finances and decision making. It is all about who owns what, who owes whom money, what taxes are owed, so on. Children are a side-note, and when they are mentioned, it is only in issues of custody and the application of benefits when non-biological parents are involved (something that, strangely enough, would more often be applicable to homosexual couples than heterosexual ones).
...


You should read some more divorce rulings, the kind with children involved. Most judges rule in favor of what's best for the children during a divorce (as well they should), damn what the adults wanted or agreed to as far as agreements about property go... Your analyses reveals a lack of up-to-date knowledge of that field.

Sweet Jesus. Time to let this poor old beaten-to-death-then-raised-as-a-zombie-then-beaten-to-death-again-horse rest already.

I'm always baffled by how much time and energy morons are ready to invest in order to try to stop others from living their life as they see fit. Get a grip, learn to live and let live.

Canada has gay marriage and nobody died. Just do the same and fucking get over it.

One: Blacks/White marriage is irrelevant to the topic. Don't bring it up. It's a stupid way to try and earn points in favor of the 'for' argument. (earlier in topic, and I always come across it)

Civil Unions are always available, since marriage is a religious institution, and an institution of the church, which believes homosexuality is an abomination.

Homosexuality is an abomination, not the person. Everyone has their cross to bear; everyone has their one major problem they need to deal with. God still loves and still wishes for homosexuals to be His children, and so I have nothing against people who are gay.

I do, however, wish they do not use my, or anyone else's denomination, religion's institution to unite themselves. Even if they are Christian, a Christian joining should not be used for something it cannot accept. So again, I say, Civil Unions.

I wish the sanctity of marriage be preserved and kept to man and woman. That is all.

You should read some more divorce rulings, the kind with children involved. Most judges rule in favor of what's best for the children during a divorce (as well they should), damn what the adults wanted or agreed to as far as agreements about property go... Your analyses reveals a lack of up-to-date knowledge of that field.

And this in any way has anything to with what I said....how? Way to completely go off on a tangent.

Children are involved in divorce proceedings because of custody issues. They are focussed upon because they are actual human beings, and it's much harder to split a human being up into neat little boxes.

None of this changes the incredibly clear fact that the vast majority of law having to do with marriages - the legal rights and responsibilities associated with a marriage license - have absolutely nothing to do with children.

First of all, it's miscegenation, not misogyny. Those are two very different words.
....

Right you are, fixed. Thanks.

One: Blacks/White marriage is irrelevant to the topic. Don't bring it up. It's a stupid way to try and earn points in favor of the 'for' argument. (earlier in topic, and I always come across it)

Civil Unions are always available, since marriage is a religious institution, and an institution of the church, which believes homosexuality is an abomination.

Homosexuality is an abomination, not the person. Everyone has their cross to bear; everyone has their one major problem they need to deal with. God still loves and still wishes for homosexuals to be His children, and so I have nothing against people who are gay.

I do, however, wish they do not use my, or anyone else's denomination, religion's institution to unite themselves. Even if they are Christian, a Christian joining should not be used for something it cannot accept. So again, I say, Civil Unions.

I wish the sanctity of marriage be preserved and kept to man and woman. That is all.


Er, don't countless religions out there have their own "marriage" systems? What would make an inclusive one less valuable than an exclusive one?

One: Blacks/White marriage is irrelevant to the topic. Don't bring it up. It's a stupid way to try and earn points in favor of the 'for' argument.

Suppose I said we should send homosexuals to their own schools and keep them out of our "straight" schools. Would it not then be prudent to bring up Brown v. Board of education?

It isn't irrelevant, because it is all bigotry. It's just bigotry against a new group.

Civil Unions are always available, since marriage is a religious institution, and an institution of the church, which believes homosexuality is an abomination.

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Try again.

I do, however, wish they do not use my, or anyone else's denomination, religion's institution to unite themselves.

First of all, the discussion on LEGAL marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with your church. Your church would not be forced to perform marriages for homosexuals. Hell, your church could decide that it would only marry blonde people born on a Tuesday, and it would have that right.

Second of all, how dare you try and regulate the religions of other people? If a religion or religious denomination chooses to offer marriage to homosexuals, that is none of your business. If you don't like it, then you won't be a member of that religion.

One: Blacks/White marriage is irrelevant to the topic. Don't bring it up. It's a stupid way to try and earn points in favor of the 'for' argument. (earlier in topic, and I always come across it)

Civil Unions are always available, since marriage is a religious institution, and an institution of the church, which believes homosexuality is an abomination.

Homosexuality is an abomination, not the person. Everyone has their cross to bear; everyone has their one major problem they need to deal with. God still loves and still wishes for homosexuals to be His children, and so I have nothing against people who are gay.

I do, however, wish they do not use my, or anyone else's denomination, religion's institution to unite themselves. Even if they are Christian, a Christian joining should not be used for something it cannot accept. So again, I say, Civil Unions.

I wish the sanctity of marriage be preserved and kept to man and woman. That is all.

Bigotry is the worst of all abominations. Besides:

1) Luckily for everyone, you're neither the pope nor the leader of whatever denomination you're a part of. So you don't make the rules.

2) There are denominations out there who do want to bless and perform same-sex marriages. If your Church doesn't want to perform them, fine. Don't try to tell other Churches what they can and cannot do, though.

3) Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion. A legal marriage takes place at a city hall or tribunal, before a judge, civil servant, or whoever gets a license to perform the ceremony. Look up Canada's laws on the matter.

And this in any way has anything to with what I said....how? Way to completely go off on a tangent.

Children are involved in divorce proceedings because of custody issues. They are focussed upon because they are actual human beings, and it's much harder to split a human being up into neat little boxes.

None of this changes the incredibly clear fact that the vast majority of law having to do with marriages - the legal rights and responsibilities associated with a marriage license - have absolutely nothing to do with children.

Children are involved in divorce proceeding because their parents were 'married' Children are not protected or their rights are not watched out for by the courts if the parents are NOT married and simply separate. IF that happens and one parent wants to force help from the other adult involved, they will have to seek the help of various government bodies and lawyers and courts to get what they need, again, the children are left out in the cold as one adult sues another adult.

The Marriage laws now protect the children as well as the adults. Marriage laws ARE about children. Simply try to end a marriage that has children involved to see suddenly that the children have protections because their parents were married and compare that to a child that had parents that were not married.

Marriage laws MUST be about children or else they loose their reason for invention in the first place.... The stuff you were talking about, property rights and division of property, THAT was the by-product of marriage laws involving children, not the vice-versa as you stated it. The protection of children's rights aspect of marriage laws was not the accidental by-product of marriage laws.

What a ridiculuous statement. Homosexual mating behavior ahs been observed in numerous species. "Exclusive?" Yes. "Purposeful?" I'm sure this is to be the saving grace of your argument, but procreation is not the sole purpose of mating behavior. Here are a few examples of homosexual mating behavior in non-human species.

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/18/gay.vulture.parents/index.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm



Oh yes, our institutions are SO respectful and beholden to that which is natural. Are you having someone transcribe your post from interpretive dance, or are you typing on an unnatural computer?

Our social systems transcend nature, and homosexual couples are in those systems. Thusly, they ought to be acknowledged and accounted for in terms of rights and priviledges being provided. Oh, and make sure to tell your grandmother that the post-menopausal old girl is bastardizing the definition of marriage with her shrivelled old ovaries.


The first part of your argument makes sense, bravo, you have succeeded in proving yourself to be somewhat coherent. The second part does so much to detract from your perceived intelligence that its really ridiculous. But sometimes children need a little direction, and I'm more than willing to help with that, particularly when considering your argument is derived from a completely selective interpretation that is utterly ignorant of any larger meaning. But I digress. Although I did find that bit about interpretive dance amusing. Strange that you mention that, because I actually am typing on an unnatural computer--if by unnatural you mean to suggest that it is composed of component parts constructed and made use of by human ingenuity found only outside of nature (the ultimate result being something alien and unnatural). Our social systems are, quite simply, the result of, directed by, bound by, and founded upon natural orders--our impulses, our instinct, our communal interaction hardly transcend natural orders. But wait, so does this mean that homosexuality is within the natural order? As the first and coherent part of your post suggests, yes. But the second part suggests that no, we transcend natural order and as homosexuality falls under this transcendence, it is therefore not natural. So which is it? Should they only be accounted for because of the rights and privileges because it is not natural and can only be protected within unnatural transcendent social systems, or are they within the natural order of things and can (and should) be treated as "natural" human beings with a natural condition?

And my grandmother's shrivelled old ovaries have obviously fulfilled the purpose of marriage. I'm enjoying a debate with you right now, so what on Earth do her ovaries have anything to do with bastardizing the word marriage? She is married to a man and--what's that word--oh yes, procreated. Interesting, no?

So I had a fairly long post replying to the rest of the nonsense, but it got lost. Of course, you guys know who you are, so here's a synopsis:

1) Marriage is all about children.

Bullshit. Anyone who has so much as glanced at the legal code relating to marriage knows that it is bullshit. Marriage, from a legal sense, is all about finances and decision making. It is all about who owns what, who owes whom money, what taxes are owed, so on. Children are a side-note, and when they are mentioned, it is only in issues of custody and the application of benefits when non-biological parents are involved (something that, strangely enough, would more often be applicable to homosexual couples than heterosexual ones).

2) Homosexuality doesn't occur exclusively or "purposefully" in the animal kingdom.

Again, bullshit. Exclusive homosexuals are not common in the animal kingdom (or in human beings for that matter), but do occur. They do raise offspring together. In birds, there is often a completely different mating dance when a male is seeking to attract a male mate, rather than a female one. In animals that form pair-bonds, offspring raised by male homosexual pairs often have better chances of survival than those raised by opposite-sex or female-female couples. There are numerous examples of homosexuality, bisexuality, and even a few examples of transsexuality within the animal kingdom. Any claim that it is purely a human thing is purely bullshit.

3) "I think my personal hangups with human beings actually living their lives should dictate what they can and cannot do."

Whatever. I don't put much stock in bigots and a certain person in this thread out and out admitted that his opposition to granting equal rights to homosexuals is a matter of bigotry.

4) "Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else. They just can't marry each other."

This argument was done when people were battling anti-miscegenation laws. Then, it was, "Blacks and whites *do* have the same right to marry. They can each marry a member of their own race." Interestingly enough, that argument was found to be full of shit. Go figure.

5) Homosexuals can't have children.

?????? Did someone tell you that homosexuality makes a person sterile?

6) OMFG! Redefining marriage! Now you'll have to let people marry their Barry White tapes!

This is the most idiotic argument of all, and, once again, displays a complete lack of understanding as to what legal marriage actually is. It is logically impossible to apply marriage law to inanimate objects or animals. Neither own property. Neither owe taxes or owe money to third parties. Neither can act as next-of-kin or make medical decisions for their spouses. Neither collect pensions. Neither could testify in court. Neither can sign contracts and provide consent in the first place, and thus cannot enter into them. And so on....

On top of that, the definition of marriage has been redefined numerous times over the years. Originally, it was essentially a way for ownership of a woman to be transferred from her father to her new husband. Later, it was the only way a woman could own property and have a way to live. Eventually, it became, "a man and a woman of the same social class and ethnic background." Then it got reduced to just the same ethnic background. And so on...

The point here being, of course, that a man may not have sex with a man and produce biological children resulting of the joining of the sex cells of each (and only the two cells), as biologically speaking it requires one egg and one sperm to create a child. There is thus no biological way for a homosexual couple to have biological children of and only of the joining of their respective sex cells.

Note same for woman and woman.

Children are involved in divorce proceeding because their parents were 'married' Children are not protected or their rights are not watched out for by the courts if the parents are NOT married and simply separate. IF that happens and one parent wants to force help from the other adult involved, they will have to seek the help of various government bodies and lawyers and courts to get what they need, again, the children are left out in the cold as one adult sues another adult.

Actually, children are only really brought into a divorce at all if the parents are not agreed on what to do about custody (or one parent is clearly incapable of providing for the child). Most divorces never go to court or get more than a cursory glance from a judge because the two people separating have already agreed on the issues involved - including custody.

Thus, a divorce proceeding is equally likely to go to court over custody issues as a simple separation. It will only happen if the parents themselves are not agreed on the issue, and wish to fight over it or if one of the parents is clearly incapable of taking care of the child, and the child must then be given over to the other parent.

The Marriage laws now protect the children as well as the adults. Marriage laws ARE about children. Simply try to end a marriage that has children involved to see suddenly that the children have protections because their parents were married and compare that to a child that had parents that were not married.

The marriage laws don't affect child custody or parental responsibility for a child unless one of the members of the couple is not a biological parent (other than the fact that any child born within a marriage is legally assumed to be the biological offspring of both, unless another parent is listed). The minute a child is born, both biological parents are equally legally responsible for that child. If another person (ie. a spouse of one of the parents) wishes to carry that responsibility in lieu of one of the biological parents, they must be married. When it comes right down to it, there are no legal protections afforded to children specifically by marriage laws. Custody issues are affected by marriage law, but the protections afforded to children and the responsibilities of legal guardians are not.

When it comes right down to it, marriage laws provide extra protection to children in a very limited sense - the situation in which one member of the couple is not the child's biological parent, but is still raising that child. Without being a biological parent (or being listed as one on the birth certificate), the only way for a non-biological parent to become legally responsible for a child is for both biological parents to completely lose custody or for the non-biological parent to marry someone already legally responsible for the child and then adopt that child. Interestingly enough, as I already pointed out, this is much more likely to happen in a homosexual couple, as any child being raised in such a couple could be the biological offspring of only one of the parents.

Marriage laws MUST be about children or else they loose their reason for invention in the first place....

Hardly. First of all, if this were true, we wouldn't let any infertile person or elderly person beyond menopause marry. They would be outside the purpose of the laws.

Second of all, the reason is, quite simply, property. The government has a vested interest in keeping track of property.

The stuff you were talking about, property rights and division of property, THAT was the by-product of marriage laws involving children, not the vice-versa as you stated it. The protection of children's rights aspect of marriage laws was not the accidental by-product of marriage laws.

Really? How so. I'd like to see the convoluted explanation you come up with for why the government needs to ensure that an elderly man whose wife dies gets her pension and this is somehow "all about the children." I'd like to see you explain why, in order to protect the children, a person's spouse must be their own next-of-kin, and not simply the child's. I'd like to see you explain how the joint ownership of all assets is somehow a necessity based on children. And I'd like to see you do this in light of the fact that not all married couples even have children, or have any intention of doing so.

The point here being, of course, that a man may not have sex with a man and produce biological children resulting of the joining of the sex cells of each (and only the two cells), as biologically speaking it requires one egg and one sperm to create a child. There is thus no biological way for a homosexual couple to have biological children of and only of the joining of their respective sex cells.

Note same for woman and woman.

....which is irrelevant to the debate. Homosexuals can and do have children. They can and do raise them together. Even if the completely ridiculous argument that marriage law is based around children were true, any marriage law that excluded homosexual couples would also exclude these children.

Suppose I said we should send homosexuals to their own schools and keep them out of our "straight" schools. Would it not then be prudent to bring up Brown v. Board of education?

It isn't irrelevant, because it is all bigotry. It's just bigotry against a new group.


Exactly, you can't use "coloreds" in politics anymore so homosexuals are the replacement.

Actually, children are only really brought into a divorce at all if the parents are not agreed on what to do about custody (or one parent is clearly incapable of providing for the child). Most divorces never go to court or get more than a cursory glance from a judge because the two people separating have already agreed on the issues involved - including custody. ...

Everything you said after that part was based on the same flawed understanding of what happens in a divorce court. And because it starts on a flawed assumption it's conclusions are entirely erroneous.

You are 100% completely wrong about what a judge looks at in regards to a divorce agreement involving children. If the two parents agreed (for example) to do something harmful or detrimental to the child’s condition (such as one parent wanting to forever get rid of the other parent and says, no liability, they owe me nothing, I will take care of the child’s need forever and they don’t have to pay anything or help raise the child etc.,) then the judge will likely NOT agree to the divorce agreement and force them to go back and do it again OR judge on their own accord, what they think is best for the child.

The judge’s job is to look after the concerns of the child’s rights, and absolving one adult of all financial and emotional responsibility of a child is NOT in the child’s best interest. The child might not agree to relieve one of their parents of financial obligation simply because their other parent doesn’t want to ever see or hear from them again. The judge’s job is to watch over the children’s rights and the obligations that the divorcing parents agree to MUST meet the needs of the children or else the judge will never sign them. You stating that they get nothing but a cursory glance is utter hogwash. It is primary importance.

The point here being, of course, that a man may not have sex with a man and produce biological children resulting of the joining of the sex cells of each (and only the two cells), as biologically speaking it requires one egg and one sperm to create a child. There is thus no biological way for a homosexual couple to have biological children of and only of the joining of their respective sex cells.

Note same for woman and woman.

What about a gay man impregnating a lesbian so the lesbian couple can have a child?

What about people that are steril? Should we deny them marriage since they can't conceive a child?

At best you have an obtuse argument.

Everything you said after that part was based on the same flawed understanding of what happens in a divorce court. And because it starts on a flawed assumption it's conclusions are entirely erroneous.
*snip*

I am assuming you are talking about the US.

The courts are far from perfect as you suggest.

Almost all rulings will place the children with the mother. Even in cases where it could be shown the father would be the better parent.

I have been in two divorse cases and have observed those of relatives(the families seem to like marriage and divorse. My old man has done it 5 times. :rolleyes: )

I am assuming you are talking about the US.

The courts are far from perfect as you suggest.

Almost all rulings will place the children with the mother. Even in cases where it could be shown the father would be the better parent.

I have been in two divorse cases and have observed those of relatives(the families seem to like marriage and divorse. My old man has done it 5 times. :rolleyes: )

Oh I didn't mean to imply that they do it 'right,' I mean to argue what the intent is and the reason for the existence of those laws.

Everything you said after that part was based on the same flawed understanding of what happens in a divorce court. And because it starts on a flawed assumption it's conclusions are entirely erroneous.

Actually, it appears as if you are the one who is talking out of his ass, considering pretty much this entire post is nothing but a strawman argument.

You are 100% completely wrong about what a judge looks at in regards to a divorce agreement involving children. If the two parents agreed (for example) to do something harmful or detrimental to the child’s condition (such as one parent wanting to forever get rid of the other parent and says, no liability, they owe me nothing, I will take care of the child’s need forever and they don’t have to pay anything or help raise the child etc.,) then the judge will likely NOT agree to the divorce agreement and force them to go back and do it again OR judge on their own accord, what they think is best for the child.

First of all, I never said that a divorce court judge would allow something detrimental to the child. Nice strawman argument you have there.

Interestingly enough, the same thing will happen if unmarried biological parents try and make the same agreement. If a state requires child support (and many states do), neither a married and now divorced biological parent nor an unmarried and now separated biological parent can do this (legally anyways). Neither married, nor unmarried biological parents can give up legal rights and responsibilities to the child. Even if never married, the only way one parent can give up said rights is for (a) both parents to give the child up for adoption or (b) the parent wishing to retain custody to marry someone and have them adopt the child.

The judge’s job is to look after the concerns of the child’s rights,

That is part of the judge's job, yes. Any time that custody issues are being decided, whether it is through divorce or something else, the judge must look after the concerns of the child.

Of course, this is certainly not the entirety of the judge's job. If it were, divorces that do not involve child custody would never end up in court, nor would they need to be signed off on by a judge.

Interestingly enough, a judge is not likely to sign off on a divorce in which no children are involved, but one person gets all of the assets that are currently jointly owned by both of them. This is true even in the case of a prenuptial agreement.

You stating that they get nothing but a cursory glance is utter hogwash. It is primary importance.

I said that most divorces get nothing more than a cursory glance, and this is true. The judge generally doesn't look over every little detail in a divorce which has been agreed upon by both applicants. He will look for anything major (like something that would be detrimental to a child, or to either of the applicants). Luckily, most divorces don't have any of these issues.

What about a gay man impregnating a lesbian so the lesbian couple can have a child?

What about people that are steril? Should we deny them marriage since they can't conceive a child?

At best you have an obtuse argument.

Unless the two parents are married then the child will not have any automatic protections in place by the government to watch over them or to assist them in safe-guarding their rights against future bad decisions on the part of their parents. Meaning, unless someone sues someone the courts specifically for the child, the court will never be able to look out for the rights of the child simply because the parents were not married.

Marriage laws make all the difference when it comes to the point of view of a under-age child getting shafted by adults who make emotional decisions and make them badly (badly for the sake of the child's future financial and emotional situation anyway).

Oh I didn't mean to imply that they do it 'right,' I mean to argue what the intent is and the reason for the existence of those laws.

And yet you have failed to show how the vast majority of marriage laws affect children in any way.

I find it interesting that we are discussing marriage law, and the only thing you can bring up is divorce. Even with that, you are completely ignoring the bulk of what goes on in divorce proceedings, choosing to focus (in a nice feat of circular logic) completely on those portions of the proceedings that involve children.

Interestingly enough, the same thing will happen if unmarried biological parents try and make the same agreement. If a state requires child support (and many states do), neither a married and now divorced biological parent nor an unmarried and now separated biological parent can do this (legally anyways). Neither married, nor unmarried biological parents can give up legal rights and responsibilities to the child. Even if never married, the only way one parent can give up said rights is for (a) both parents to give the child up for adoption or (b) the parent wishing to retain custody to marry someone and have them adopt the child.

No. Unless the parent with the child is requesting public assistance of some kind, WIC or welfare or housing assistance etc., then the government agencies will not be involved and the government will NOT go after the other parent in the interest of the child, ever.

It will not happen. The government, via the courts etc., will never, ever, address the issue of the rights of the child unless someone specifically sues in the interest of the child and brings it before the court. There is nothing automatic about a child's case being brought before a court simply because they were born, UNLESS their parents were married and choose to separate or divorce (and then the automatic protections of the child's rights via the courts, then can come into play). Marriage laws protect children. Marriage laws wouldn't even need to exist if it was for the interest of the children.


That is part of the judge's job, yes. Any time that custody issues are being decided, whether it is through divorce or something else, the judge must look after the concerns of the child.

Glad to see that you finally agree and state so here.

I have in front of me a 30 page document listing the majority of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage in Massachusetts (the first such list I could find).

A little over two pages deal with issues involving children. Interestingly enough, as I already pointed out, these have to do with custody issues - who does and does not have (or can and cannot gain) custody of the child, and what that entails. That is one section.

The other nine sections all deal with finances, contracts, and issues associated with next-of-kinship. But I suppose that, somehow, 20-some pages of text is somehow just a "by-product" of the other 2 pages.

No. Unless the parent with the child is requesting public assistance of some kind, WIC or welfare or housing assistance etc., then the government agencies will not be involved and the government will NOT go after the other parent in the interest of the child, ever.

Unless the custodial parent, after a divorce, requests public assistance of some kind or reports the non-custodial parent's lapses, the government agencies will not be involved and the government will NOT go after the other parent in the interest of the child.

What is your point?

It will not happen. The government, via the courts etc., will never, ever, address the issue of the rights of the child unless someone specifically sues in the interest of the child and brings it before the court.

This is true whether marriage is involved or not. What is your point? Do you think that people are somehow more physically boud to action by a divorce decree than by the laws already in place regarding child custody?

Marriage laws protect children. Marriage laws wouldn't even need to exist if it was for the interest of the children.

You keep saying this, and continue avoiding the very real fact that the vast majority of marriage law has nothing whatsoever to do with children. You ignore the very real fact that many, many married couples do not have children, and either have never had them or those children have grown up, and yet those people still need the very real protections afforded by marriage law.

You aren't even talking about marriage law - you are talking about divorce, which is the dissolution of a marriage, not a marriage itself.

Glad to see that you finally agree and state so here.

I never said anything to the contrary.

And yet you have failed to show how the vast majority of marriage laws affect children in any way.

I find it interesting that we are discussing marriage law, and the only thing you can bring up is divorce. Even with that, you are completely ignoring the bulk of what goes on in divorce proceedings, choosing to focus (in a nice feat of circular logic) completely on those portions of the proceedings that involve children.

The ending of a marriage shows what a marriage was. The divorce shows what is important in the eyes of the law and the reasons for the laws existence. Judges have to implement the intent of the law-makers. And with that in mind, we again CAN see plainly, that children in a divorce have rights, children without married parents to not have the same protections as the married parent children. Marriage is about children and historically, even when women were more like property than citizens, the laws about marriage and divorce were designed to protect the rights of the children and the parent raising the children... Without marriage laws, those people left or abandoned by parents that chose to leave their families, would have been left out in the cold and the courts would not have been able to assist them as easily. Marriage laws and divorce laws were designed to help the courts FORCE even bad parents to meet at least a financial obligation towards their children, this was for the sake of the children, it is clearly evident.

The ending of a marriage shows what a marriage was.

And the ending of a marriage involves much, much, much more than issues of child custody (as does the marriage itself), despite your attempts to ignore that.

And with that in mind, we again CAN see plainly, that children in a divorce have rights, children without married parents to not have the same protections as the married parent children.

Actually looking at the law demonstrates that children without married parents only have less protections than those who are married if the parents are not both biological parents. You are talking about the fact that divorce forces the issue before the court. However, there is nothing in the law that grants children of married or divorced parents any more rights than those of parents who are unmarried.

Your argument is like saying, "People who get in car accidents have more rights to insurance than people who don't, because no one will go after a car insurance company for not paying if it isn't brought before the courts."

Marriage is about children and historically, even when women were more like property than citizens, the laws about marriage and divorce were designed to protect the rights of the children and the parent raising the children... Without marriage laws, those people left or abandoned by parents that chose to leave their families, would have been left out in the cold and the courts would not have been able to assist them as easily. Marriage laws and divorce laws were designed to help the courts FORCE even bad parents to meet at least a financial obligation towards their children, this was for the sake of the children, it is clearly evident.

Bla bla bla. Are you going to address actual marriage law, or just keep blathering nonsense? If children were the focus of marriage, then the majority of marriage law would be related to children. Infertile couples would be unable to marry. Couples whose children are now adults would have their marriage rights annulled, as they would no longer need them.

If children were the focus of marriage, then the majority of marriage law would concern children. It does not.

Unless the custodial parent, after a divorce, requests public assistance of some kind or reports the non-custodial parent's lapses, the government agencies will not be involved and the government will NOT go after the other parent in the interest of the child.

What is your point?

Yes they were involved, they were involved in designing the divorce agreement and child custody and child support agreement AT the divorce.

As to lapses of child support payments after the court determinations, That's why many states have implimented child support payments being made to the government directly instead of the parent directly, they are correcting those lapses. In the interest of the child they will immediately know if a parent neglects their court appointed duty.


This is true whether marriage is involved or not. What is your point? Do you think that people are somehow more physically boud to action by a divorce decree than by the laws already in place regarding child custody?

There is no child custody agreement unless someone went to court. Without a marriage, there is no automatic, built in, design of the government that allows the courts the ability and opportunity to watch over the rights of the children. Divorce and marriage laws DO that for the children. Outside of marriage, the courts have far less opportunity to watch over the rights of children when their parents make bad decisions or are incapable of working in cooperation to raise the child...


You keep saying this, and continue avoiding the very real fact that the vast majority of marriage law has nothing whatsoever to do with children. You ignore the very real fact that many, many married couples do not have children, and either have never had them or those children have grown up, and yet those people still need the very real protections afforded by marriage law.

Adults can use marriage and divorce laws to assist them. However, it is assumed that adults can watch over their own affairs and can procure litigation when another adult wrongs them. Children are not in that situation, it is assumed that they are at the whim of another person (their parent or parents) and that the courts can assist them directly to protect them from the bad decisions of even their own parent if need be. But that is assisted by marriage laws. Without marriage laws, children are far less protected and the courts have far less options in intervening on their behalf.

You aren't even talking about marriage law - you are talking about divorce, which is the dissolution of a marriage, not a marriage itself.

You can't talk what it means about a light being turned on in a room unless you understand what it means when the light is turned off. You want to evaluate what job the light is doing while it is on, turn it off and watch the affects. If you want to see what marriage laws have, go watch a divorce court and watch the affects.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about gay marriage. It has no impact on my life, and I'm not going to go out of my way to change the laws. Now, don't get me wrong, in '04 I was one of the three straight people in Ohio who voted against the Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban. I thought that, not only was it unjust, it was very poorly designed, and could easily include a straight couple who did not get a marriage license. It also screwed some major firms benefits packages straight to hell, and it drives potential talent from Ohio.

[/rant]

Let's look at a partial list of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, shall we?

Property Ownership Protections Married spouses have the right to own
real estate as tenants by the entirety, a form of ownership which provides maximum protection to the couple against creditors, and allows the automatic descent of the property to the surviving spouse without going through probate. G.L. c. 184, § 7.

Ability to Transfer Property Spouses have an unlimited ability to make
gifts and transfer property to each other while alive (and at death) without tax
consequences. 26 U.S.C. §§ 1041, 2523.

Responsibility for Debts Spouses are generally jointly or severally liable
for the debts of the other incurred for necessaries (food, clothing, housing, medical care)
furnished to either spouse or their family. G.L. c. 209, § 1.

Joint and Survivor Annuity for Surviving Spouse Under many pension
plans (especially defined benefit plans), a worker has the option to select a “joint and survivor annuity.”

Ability to Roll Over Spouse’s IRA or 401(k) Plan

Control Over the Deceased Spouse’s Estate

Right to Inherit Without a Will

Tax Benefit of Unlimited Marital Deduction

Right to Waive the Will and Take a Life Estate

Protections for the Family In Transition Period After Death

Continuation of Insurance A surviving spouse may continue to receive
insurance coverage under a deceased spouse health insurance plan for up to 36 months.

Transfer of Motor Vehicles A “pleasure vehicle” (e.g., car or other
vehicle) owned by a married person is presumed to have been owned jointly with his or her spouse so that the interest of the decedent passes automatically to the surviving spouse unless stated otherwise in a will. G.L. c. 90D, § 15A.

Spouse’s Right to Collect Monies Owed to and Property of Deceased
Spouse

Bank Accounts After a spouse’s death, a bank or credit union may pay
the balance of monies in an account to the surviving spouse or next-of-kin in certain circumstances. G.L. c. 167D, § 33(banks); G.L. c.171, § 42 (credit unions).

Stock Registration A surviving spouse may register stock in his or her
own name which had been owned individually by the spouse after the spouse’s death if at least 30 days have passed and amounts do not exceed statutory limit. G.L. c. 196, § 9.

Insurance Payments A surviving spouse or heir-at-law (next-of-kin, i.e.,
blood relatives) may collect payments from an insurance company owed to the deceased person’s estate which are $10,000 or less as long as 60 days have passed, unless the estate itself makes a claim. G.L. c. 175, § 187E.

Salary Protection for Family A surviving spouse of a firefighter, police
officer or corrections officer killed in the performance of duty shall be paid annually the maximum salary the deceased employee could have received. G.L. c. 32, § 100.

Line of Duty Benefits for Family A one-time award of $100,000 in “line
of duty” benefits shall be paid to a surviving spouse (or certain family members) of a deceased firefighter, public prosecutor, police officer or corrections officer. G.L. c. 32, §100A.

Spousal Allowances Widows or widowers of disabled, retired employees
are entitled to annual allowance of $6,000. G.L. c. 32, § 101.

State Pension Protections for Surviving Spouse Where Worker Died
Before Retirement The Massachusetts state plan provides that a “Member Survivor Allowance” of two-thirds of the employee’s pension amount shall be available to surviving spouses. G.L. c. 32, § 12(2)(c), (d)

Spouse Presumed to Be Dependent If Employee Injured The workers’
compensation program protects the interest of a spouse by conclusively presuming he or she was wholly dependent for support upon an injured employee. G.L. c.152, § 35A.

Spouses Entitled to Protection from Abuse The laws concerning abuse
and domestic violence allow spouses or ex-spouses to seek protection from abuse based solely on the circumstances of the case. G.L. c. 209A, §1

Spouse’s Increased Social Security Payments

Social Security Death Benefit

Nursing Home Issues
Generally, state and federal law provide protections to married couples when one is institutionalized – for example, in a nursing home – and the other continues to live in the community. The goal of the law is to preserve the couple’s resources and income so that the community-based spouse may meet his or her living expenses and the assets of the institutionalized spouse are available to pay for his or her care.


Here I am, 15 pages in, and the only mention of children has been in financial issues that say, "Spouses or children.."

...Your argument is like saying, "People who get in car accidents have more rights to insurance than people who don't, because no one will go after a car insurance company for not paying if it isn't brought before the courts."


No it's not. It's like two children in different car's driven by their own drunk parents. One is found by the police and arrested and the children are given their day in court. The other, was not so fortunate, by being denied their day in court, they continue to be driven by drunken parents.

...
Bla bla bla. Are you going to address actual marriage law, or just keep blathering nonsense? If children were the focus of marriage, then the majority of marriage law would be related to children. Infertile couples would be unable to marry. Couples whose children are now adults would have their marriage rights annulled, as they would no longer need them.

The only accurate part of that statement was the end of it. Historically, when divorce required a reason, being found infertile WAS a reason your spouse could use to divorce you. The rest of it is nonsense.

The field is plowed for the sake of the crop, the weeds in it may benefits from the plowing, but their benefit was not the farmers intent. If marriage laws affect people who get married outside of child rearing it is a side affect, a tail-coating of those couples on a system designed for something else.

...If children were the focus of marriage, then the majority of marriage law would concern children. It does not.


It is about property, but only so far (historically speaking) as children and women were also considered property at one time)... I do not defend that era, only you keep bringing it up via the property aspects of marriage laws. You fail to understand WHY the government body had to regard the issue of property in a marriage and dissolving marriage to begin with. It was about producing and creating progeny.

Yes they were involved, they were involved in designing the divorce agreement and child custody and child support agreement AT the divorce.

...which follows the exact same law associated with child custody when no divorce occurs.

As to lapses of child support payments after the court determinations, That's why many states have implimented child support payments being made to the government directly instead of the parent directly, they are correcting those lapses. In the interest of the child they will immediately know if a parent neglects their court appointed duty.

This happens only after a parent has already lapsed, and the other parent has brought this to the attention of the government.

There is no child custody agreement unless someone went to court.

No, there is only child custody in general. Without an agreement, both biological parents are assumed to have full rights and responsibilities concerning the child.

Without a marriage, there is no automatic, built in, design of the government that allows the courts the ability and opportunity to watch over the rights of the children. Divorce and marriage laws DO that for the children. Outside of marriage, the courts have far less opportunity to watch over the rights of children when their parents make bad decisions or are incapable of working in cooperation to raise the child...

Even in your own argument, the only time the court looks closely at the rights of a child is when someone brings that issue before court in the form of a divorce.

Once again, your argument says nothing about acutal rights or laws. It simply states that the issue of child custody will be brought up in court when any legal proceedings affecting child custody are carried out. That's pretty much a no-brainer, and does not in any way support your argument that marriage as a whole is meant to protect children.

Adults can use marriage and divorce laws to assist them. However, it is assumed that adults can watch over their own affairs and can procure litigation when another adult wrongs them.

Of course, because unmarried adults are considered legally separate, even if they have merged their assets, litigation can do nothing for them in these situations. Thus, we have laws that do protect them (and any creditors they may owe). Even though a married couple generally jointly owns most (or all) of their belongings, only in a married couple is a person whose spouse dies protected from losing much of their belongings.

Without marriage laws, children are far less protected and the courts have far less options in intervening on their behalf.

This is patently untrue. The courts have the exact same power to intervene regardless. At best, if a divorce occurs, it is more likely to bring any problems to the attention of the courts. If it doesn't, the child of a married couple is no more likely to receive scrutiny from the courts than that of an unmarried couple.

Your argument is essentially, "People who have leaks in their pipes have better plumbing, because a plumber is more likely to look at their pipes."

You can't talk what it means about a light being turned on in a room unless you understand what it means when the light is turned off. You want to evaluate what job the light is doing while it is on, turn it off and watch the affects. If you want to see what marriage laws have, go watch a divorce court and watch the affects.

And the affects involve much, much, much, much more than child custody issues.

The only accurate part of that statement was the end of it. Historically, when divorce required a reason, being found infertile WAS a reason your spouse could use to divorce you. The rest of it is nonsense.

Really? Tell me, why don't we stop all marriage benefits to couples once their children have grown up? I'd really like an explanation, since children are supposed to be the sole purpose of marriage and all that. There should be absolutely no reason that an elderly couple would need to be married, according to your logic.

It is about property, but only so far (historically speaking) as children and women were also considered property at one time)... I do not defend that era, only you keep bringing it up via the property aspects of marriage laws. You fail to understand WHY the government body had to regard the issue of property in a marriage and dissolving marriage to begin with. It was about producing and creating progeny.

If that were true, I would expect it to be reflected in current marriage law. it is not. The vast majority of marriage law has nothing to do with children. Quite a bit of it actually has to do with the elderly, whose children have most likely grown up and moved on (if they had any at all). Much of it has to do with issues that will occur with or without children involved. Some of it involves things like spousal immunity - that a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in court. Much of it involves next-of-kinship, involving only the two people getting married.

...which follows the exact same law associated with child custody when no divorce occurs.

Child custody cases without a divorce? When does that occur?


...



It's like I said before, it ONLY happens when someone sues someone in court OR a government agency forces it to court. The court only gets the opportunity to watch out for the children WHEN they are brought to the court. Marriage and Divorce laws ensures that this happens for children that have marriad parents. Children of people who are not married do not have the same benefit, the court is not given the opportunity to watch over them until another adults takes up the case of the children and brings it to them.

I don't care if two homos get married, but I have to put my foot down when 3 people wan't to get married. When 3 people wanna get married it's not even marriage anymore. I don't see why it's such a big fuss anyways, it's just marriage, it's highly overrated.

Testimonial Privileges Spouses have the right to share information,
thoughts and ideas with each other without having to worry that someone will make them testify about those conversations in a civil or criminal legal proceeding. G.L. c.233, § 20(1)

Spouse Can’t Be Charged as Accessory to Crime A spouse has an
automatic defense against a criminal charge of being an accessory after the fact for harboring, concealing, or assisting a spouse before or after the spouse committed a felony. G.L. c. 274, § 4.

Equitable Property Division Divorce provides an orderly and equitable
sorting out of property and assets acquired during the marriage, no matter who “earned” them or whose name they are in. This includes pensions, 401(k) plans, business partnerships and other assets. G.L. c. 208, § 34.

Transfer Without Tax Consequences As a general rule, ex-spouses can
transfer property at divorce without tax consequences in order to achieve a fair balance of assets. See e.g. 26 U.S.C. §1041.

Continuation in Spouse’s Health Plan After Divorce After a divorce,
the ex-spouse still has access to economic protections, including the ability to continue in ex-spouse’s health insurance plan. See e.g. G.L. c. 175, § 110I.

Joint Filing The law of tax is another area in which the married couple is
treated as an economic unit.

Taxation of Benefits When an employer provides benefits to an
employee and his or her family, those benefits are not taxable to the employee, even though they are a form of compensation. 26 U.S.C. §106.

Tax Exemptions For people of limited means, Massachusetts law allows
a small exemption in property taxes on a family’s home after a spouse dies. G.L. c. 59, §5, cl. (17), (17C), (17D).

Bereavement Leave In most workplaces, bereavement leave is only
available if the employee is related by blood or marriage to the deceased.

Wrongful Death The wrongful death law provides that when someone
negligently or recklessly causes another’s death, then that person shall be liable for compensatory and punitive damages. The first person entitled to compensation as a result of a wrongful death is the surviving spouse. G.L. c. 229, § 1.

Loss of Consortium A spouse may sue for loss of consortium, i.e. loss
of the spouse’s companionship, when his or her spouse is injured through another’s negligence.

Hospital Visitation A spouse has an automatic preference for hospital
visitation and access to intensive care for his or her spouse.

Medical Decision-Making A spouse or family member has automatic
preference for making medical decisions for a disabled or incompetent spouse, absent contrary written directions from the spouse in a health care proxy. See e.g. Shine v. Vega, 429 Mass. 456, 466 (1999).

Control of Deceased Spouse’s Body

Burial in Family Cemetery A spouse has the right to be buried in a
family cemetery or in any burial lot owned by a deceased spouse. G.L. c. 114, §§ 29- 33

Anatomical Gift Decision-Making A spouse has the right to make
anatomical gifts for a deceased spouse if the deceased spouse has not already expressed his or her wishes about doing so. G.L. c. 113, § 8

General Obligations On Spouses to Disclose Relationships and Avoid
Self-Dealing

Jurors Jurors are required to disclose that they are married as well as the
spouse’s business and the name and address of spouse’s employer G.L. c. 234, § 4.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about gay marriage. It has no impact on my life, and I'm not going to go out of my way to change the laws. Now, don't get me wrong, in '04 I was one of the three straight people in Ohio who voted against the Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban. I thought that, not only was it unjust, it was very poorly designed, and could easily include a straight couple who did not get a marriage license. It also screwed some major firms benefits packages straight to hell, and it drives potential talent from Ohio.

[/rant]

Although I am obligated by my patriotic duty to hate Ohio I agree with you completely and was in a similar situation. I voted against Michigan's gay marriage ban, which wasn't so poorly designed. I like to think the fact that we were the first democracy to ban the death penalty makes up for it, but I don't know.

Child custody cases without a divorce? When does that occur?

All the time, actually. A biological parent isn't paying any type of child support and the custodial parent wishes them to - goes to court. The court will most likely award child support (since the proper parent here is fairly clear). Paternity cases. Cases in which one biological parent seeks physical custody of a child they feel is not being taken care of by the other parent.

As it turns out, there isn't a child custody situation involved in divorce that cannot or does not occur without divorce. Issues of joint custody still come up. Parents still sue for custody. Parents still fail to support their children and are taken to court for it.

It's like I said before, it ONLY happens when someone sues someone in court OR a government agency forces it to court.

Once again, this is a no-brainer. Something only gains court attention when some sort of legal proceeding is carried out. Divorce is simply one of the possible legal proceedings that can bring children to the attention of the courts.

The court only gets the opportunity to watch out for the children WHEN they are brought to the court. Marriage and Divorce laws ensures that this happens for children that have marriad parents. Children of people who are not married do not have the same benefit, the court is not given the opportunity to watch over them until another adults takes up the case of the children and brings it to them.

How do marriage laws ensure this? What if the couple never divorces? How exactly do marriage laws force children before the court?

And, since you keep utterly avoiding the issue, if children are the main focus of marriage and divorce, what's with all the other (much more numerous) issues? Did people just feel like throwing laws into the mix?

Your argument is like me saying, "My biology book has a chapter on sexual reproduction. We spent a couple of weeks out of the semester on nothing but that chapter. Obviously, biology is all about sexual reproduction."

Although I am obligated by my patriotic duty to hate Ohio I agree with you completely and was in a similar situation. I voted against Michigan's gay marriage ban, which wasn't so poorly designed. I like to think the fact that we were the first democracy to ban the death penalty makes up for it, but I don't know.

LOL, did you ever look at GA's idiotic ban? First of all, the legislature intentionally attempted to defraud the voters by including only one of the effects of the amendment on the ballot. The vast majority of what the law did was not included in the language of the ballot. Second of all, the amendment essentially blocks any domestic partnership laws (which could apply to any unmarried couple).

i dont care and you shouldnt if 2 men are getting married. reasons why some people care are because their lifes are boring and need some critizising to put a spice in their lives. some people do it for the church. if your not a priest then leave the job of "condeming" them to hell. or maybe becuase of their ancestors teachings. its time to be somenone new not your ansestors. they lived a life of their own and you should be able to have your own life not theirs. i disagree with the law of no gay marrige simply because its not fair. imagine they made a law against heterosexual marrige. would you be happy? would you like to resieve insults all you life for loving a woman? being "condemend" in hell for loving a woman? the final question is: if their situation is put in your shoes how would you feel and react to this?

this question, in my opinion, should be implemented to many civil rights laws.
(sorry for my spelling)

the final question is: if their situation is put in your shoes how would you feel and react to this?

this question, in my opinion, should be implemented to many civil rights laws.
(sorry for my spelling)

Indeed. If people truly sat down and asked themselves this question, much of the hate and bigotry in the world would disappear.

And, deep down, most of them know the answer, which is why they try so hard to focus on why other people aren't actually like them, and thus don't deserve that consideration.

I always find this argument to be particularly uninformed. Barring the evolution fallacy, "legal marriage structure" is a concept unique to man in that it is "legal." In every other animal society, it is the union of a male and a female of species that creates offspring (procreation), and there is no example of purposeful and exclusive homosexuality outside of humanity. So a male-female union (marriage) is thus designed for procreation, and any other definition is a bastardization of the word and an acute display of ignorance with regard to natural orders, that is, habits and behaviors of and belonging to nature as whole.

No purposeful homosexual behaviour in animals? What rock have you been living under? Here's a short list of animals with documents homosexual or transsexual behaviour for you :

Mammals

* African Buffalo
* African Elephant
* Agile Wallaby
* Amazon River Dolphin (Boto)
* American Bison
* Aperea
* Asian Elephant
* Asiatic Mouflon
* Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
* Australian Sea Lion
* Barasingha
* Barbary Sheep
* Beluga
* Bharal
* Bighorn Sheep
* Black Bear
* Blackbuck
* Black-footed Rock Wallaby
* Black-tailed Deer
* Bonnet Macaque
* Bonobo
* Bottlenose Dolphin
* Bowhead Whale
* Bridled Dolphin
* Brown Bear
* Brown Capuchin
* Brown Long-eared Bat
* Brown Rat
* Caribou
* Cat (domestic)
* Cattle (domestic)
* Cheetah
* Collared Peccary
* Commerson's Dolphin
* Common Brushtail Possum
* Common Chimpanzee
* Common Dolphin
* Common Marmoset
* Common Pipistrelle
* Common Raccoon
* Common Tree Shrew
* Cotton-top Tamarin
* Crab-eating Macaque
* Crested Black Macaque
* Cui
* Dall's Sheep
* Daubenton's Bat
* Dog (domestic)
* Doria's Tree Kangaroo
* Dugong
* Dwarf Cavy
* Dwarf Mongoose
* Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
* Eastern Gray Kangaroo
* Elk
* Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)
* European Bison
* Fallow Deer
* False Killer Whale
* Fat-tailed Dunnart
* Fin Whale
* Fox
* Gelada Baboon
* Giraffe
* Goat (Domestic)
* Golden Monkey
* Gorilla
* Grant's Gazelle
* Gray-headed Flying Fox
* Gray Seal
* Gray Squirrel
* Gray Whale
* Gray Wolf
* Grizzly Bear
* Guinea Pig (Domestic)
* Hamadryas Baboon
* Hamster (Domestic)
* Hanuman Langur
* Harbor Porpoise
* Harbor Seal
* Himalayan Tahr
* Hoary Marmot
* Horse (domestic)
* Human
* Indian Fruit Bat
* Indian Muntjac
* Indian Rhinoceros
* Japanese Macaque
* Javelina
* Kangaroo Rat
* Killer Whale
* Koala
* Kob
* Larga Seal
* Least Chipmunk
* Lechwe
* Lesser Bushbaby
* Lion
* Lion-tailed Macaque
* Lion Tamarin
* Little Brown Bat
* Livingstone's Fruit Bat
* Long-eared Hedgehog
* Long-footed Tree Shrew
* Markhor
* Marten
* Matschie's Tree Kangaroo
* Mohol Galago
* Moor Macaque
* Moose
* Mountain Goat
* Mountain Tree Shrew
* Mountain Zebra
* Mouse (domestic)
* Moustached Tamarin
* Mule Deer
* Musk-ox
* Natterer's Bat
* New Zealand Sea Lion
* Nilgiri Langur
* Noctule
* North American Porcupine
* Northern Elephant Seal
* Northern Fur Seal
* Northern Quoll
* Olympic Marmot
* Orangutan
* Orca
* Pacific Striped Dolphin
* Patas Monkey
* Pere David's Deer
* Pig (Domestic)
* Pig-tailed Macaque
* Plains Zebra
* Polar Bear
* Pretty-faced Wallaby
* Proboscis Monkey
* Pronghorn
* Przewalski's Horse
* Puku
* Quokka
* Rabbit
* Raccoon Dog
* Red Deer
* Red Fox
* Red Kangaroo
* Red-necked Wallaby
* Red Squirrel
* Reeves's Muntjac
* Reindeer
* Rhesus Macaque
* Right Whale
* Rock Cavy
* Rodrigues Fruit Bat
* Roe Deer
* Rufous Bettong
* Rufous-naped Tamarin
* Rufous Rat Kangaroo
* Saddle-back Tamarin
* Savanna Baboon
* Sea Otter
* Serotine Bat
* Sheep (Domestic)
* Siamang
* Sika Deer
* Slender Tree Shrew
* Sooty Mangabey
* Sperm Whale
* Spinifex Hopping Mouse
* Spinner Dolphin
* Spotted Hyena
* Spotted Seal
* Squirrel Monkey
* Striped Dolphin
* Stuart's Marsupial Mouse
* Stumptail Macaque
* Swamp Deer
* Swamp Wallaby
* Takhi
* Talapoin
* Tammar Wallaby
* Tasmanian Devil
* Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo
* Thinhorn Sheep
* Thomson's Gazelle
* Tiger
* Tonkean Macaque
* Tucuxi
* Urial
* Vampire Bat
* Verreaux's Sifaka
* Vervet
* Vicuna
* Walrus
* Wapiti
* Warthog
* Waterbuck
* Water Buffalo
* Weeper Capuchin
* Western Gray Kangaroo
* West Indian Manatee
* Whiptail Wallaby
* White-faced Capuchin
* White-fronted Capuchin
* White-handed Gibbon
* White-lipped Peccary
* White-tailed Deer
* Wild Cavy
* Wild Goat
* Wisent
* Yello-footed Rock Wallaby
* Yellow-toothed Cavy

Birds

* Acorn Woodpecker
* Adelie Penguin
* Anna's Hummingbird
* Australian Shelduck
* Aztec Parakeet
* Bangalese Finch (Domestic)
* Bank Swallow
* Barn Owl
* Bicolored Antbird
* Black-billed Magpie
* Black-crowned Night Heron
* Black-headed Gull
* Black-rumped Flameback
* Black Stilt
* Black Swan
* Black-winged Stilt
* Blue-backed Manakin
* Blue-bellied Roller
* Blue Tit
* Blue-winged Teal
* Brown-headed Cowbird
* Budgerigar (Domestic)
* Buff-breasted Sandpiper
* Calfbird
* California Gull
* Canada Goose
* Canary-winged Parakeet
* Caspian Tern
* Cattle Egret
* Chaffinch
* Chicken (Domestic)
* Chiloe Wigeon
* Cliff Swallow
* Common Gull
* Common Murre
* Common Shelduck
* Crane spp.
* Dusky Moorhen
* Eastern Bluebird
* Egyptian Goose
* Elegant Parrot
* Emu
* European Jay
* European Shag
* Flamingo
* Galah
* Gentoo Penguin
* Golden Bishop Bird
* Golden Plover
* Gray-breasted Jay
* Gray-capped Social Weaver
* Gray Heron
* Grayling
* Great Cormorant
* Greater Bird of Paradise
* Greater Rhea
* Green Sandpiper
* Greenshank
* Greylag Goose
* Griffon Vulture
* Guianan Cock-of-the-Rock
* Guillemot
* Herring Gull
* Hoary-headed Grebe
* Hooded Warbler
* House Sparrow
* Humboldt Penguin
* Ivory Gull
* Jackdaw
* Kestrel
* King Penguin
* Kittiwake
* Laughing Gull
* Laysan Albatross
* Least Darter
* Lesser Flamingo
* Lesser Scaup Duck
* Little Blue Heron
* Little Egret
* Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbird
* Mallard
* Masked Lovebird
* Mealy Amazon Parrot
* Mew Gull
* Mexican Jay
* Musk Duck
* Mute Swan
* Ocellated Antbird
* Ocher-bellied Flycatcher
* Orange Bishop Bird
* Orange-footed Parakeet
* Ornate Lorikeet
* Ostrich
* Oystercatcher
* Peach-faced Lovebird
* Pied Flycatcher
* Pied Kingfisher
* Pigeon (Domestic)
* Powerful Owl
* Purple Swamphen
* Raggiana's Bird of Paradise
* Raven
* Razorbill
* Red-backed Shrike
* Red Bishop Bird
* Red-faced Lovebird
* Redshank
* Red-shouldered Widowbird
* Regent Bowerbird
* Ring-billed Gull
* Ring Dove
* Rock Dove
* Roseate Cockatoo
* Roseate Tern
* Rose-ringed Parakeet
* Ruff
* Ruffed Grouse
* Sage Grouse
* San Blas Jay
* Sand Martin
* Satin Bowerbird
* Scarlet Ibis
* Scottish Crossbill
* Senegal Parrot
* Sharp-tailed Sparrow
* Silver Gull
* Silvery Grebe
* Snow Goose
* Steller's Sea Eagle
* Superb Lyrebird
* Swallow-tailed Manakin
* Tasmanian Native Hen
* Tree Swallow
* Trumpeter Swan
* Turkey (Domestic)
* Victoria's Riflebird
* Wattled Starling
* Western Gull
* White-fronted Amazon Parrot
* White Stork
* Wood Duck
* Yellow-backed (Chattering) Lorikeet
* Yellow-rumped Cacique
* Zebra Finch (Domestic)

Fish

* Amazon molly
* Blackstripe Topminnow
* Bluegill Sunfish
* Char
* European Bitterling
* Green swordtail
* Guiana leaffish
* Hammerhead
* Houting Whitefish
* Jewel Fish
* Mouthbreeding Fish sp.
* Salmon spp.
* Southern platyfish
* Ten-spined stickleback
* Three-spined stickleback

Other vertebrates

* Anole sp.
* Appalachian Woodland Salamander
* Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.
* Black-spotted Frog
* Broad-headed Skink
* Checkered Whiptail Lizard
* Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard
* Common Ameiva
* Common Garter Snake
* Cuban Green Anole
* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard
* Desert Tortoise
* Fence Lizard
* Five-lined Skink
* Gopher (Pine) Snake
* Green Anole
* Inagua Curlytail Lizard
* Jamaican Giant Anole
* Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Largehead Anole
* Mountain Dusky Salamander
* Mourning Gecko
* Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Red Diamond Rattlesnake
* Red-tailed Skink
* Side-blotched Lizard
* Speckled Rattlesnake
* Tengger Desert Toad
* Water Moccasin
* Western Rattlesnake
* Western Banded Gecko
* Whiptail Lizard spp.
* Wood Turtle

Insects and other invertebrates

* Acanthocephalan Worms
* Alfalfa Weevil
* Bean Weevil sp.
* Bedbug and other Bug spp.
* Blister Beetle spp.
* Blowfly
* Box Crab
* Broadwinged Damselfly sp.
* Cabbage (Small) White
* Checkerspot Butterfly
* Clubtail Dragonfly spp.
* Cockroach spp.
* Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.
* Creeping Water Bug sp.
* Digger Bee
* Dragonfly spp.
* Eastern Giant Ichneumon
* Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer
* Field Cricket sp.
* Fruit Fly spp.
* Glasswing Butterfly
* Grape Berry Moth
* Grape Borer
* Green Lacewing
* Harvest Spider sp.
* Hawaiian Orb-Weaver
* Hen Flea
* House Fly
* Ichneumon Wasp sp.
* Incirrate Octopus spp.
* Japanese Scarab Beetle
* Jumping Spider sp.
* Larch Bud Moth
* Large Milkweed Bug
* Large White
* Long-legged Fly spp.
* Mazarine Blue
* Mediterranean Fruit Fly
* Mexican White
* Midge sp.
* Migratory Locust
* Mite sp.
* Monarch Butterfly
* Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.
* Parsnip Leaf Miner
* Pomace Fly
* Prea
* Queen Butterfly
* Red Ant sp.
* Red Flour Beetle
* Reindeer Warble Fly
* Rosechafer
* Rove Beetle spp.
* Scarab Beetle, Melolonthine
* Screwworm Fly
* Silkworm Moth
* Sociable Weaver
* Southeastern Blueberry Bee
* Southern Green Stink Bug
* Southern Masked Chafer
* Southern One-Year Canegrub
* Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.
* Spruce Budworm Moth
* Stable Fly sp.
* Stag Beetle spp.
* Tsetse Fly
* Water Boatman Bug
* Water Strider spp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

One: Blacks/White marriage is irrelevant to the topic. Don't bring it up. It's a stupid way to try and earn points in favor of the 'for' argument. (earlier in topic, and I always come across it)

Civil Unions are always available, since marriage is a religious institution, and an institution of the church, which believes homosexuality is an abomination.

Homosexuality is an abomination, not the person. Everyone has their cross to bear; everyone has their one major problem they need to deal with. God still loves and still wishes for homosexuals to be His children, and so I have nothing against people who are gay.

I do, however, wish they do not use my, or anyone else's denomination, religion's institution to unite themselves. Even if they are Christian, a Christian joining should not be used for something it cannot accept. So again, I say, Civil Unions.

I wish the sanctity of marriage be preserved and kept to man and woman. That is all.


Marriage is not a religious institution. No marriage that is performed only as a religious ceremony is legal or official. Marriage is a legal contract between two people who choose to live their live together. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The point here being, of course, that a man may not have sex with a man and produce biological children resulting of the joining of the sex cells of each (and only the two cells), as biologically speaking it requires one egg and one sperm to create a child. There is thus no biological way for a homosexual couple to have biological children of and only of the joining of their respective sex cells.

Note same for woman and woman.

Ah, yes. That's the reason why everybody who's trying to get married needs to undergo a test proving that they are fertile and sign an agreement that they will not take any contraception any more, or else they won't get permission to get married, right? :rolleyes:

Unless the two parents are married then the child will not have any automatic protections in place by the government to watch over them or to assist them in safe-guarding their rights against future bad decisions on the part of their parents. Meaning, unless someone sues someone the courts specifically for the child, the court will never be able to look out for the rights of the child simply because the parents were not married.

Marriage laws make all the difference when it comes to the point of view of a under-age child getting shafted by adults who make emotional decisions and make them badly (badly for the sake of the child's future financial and emotional situation anyway).

Are you actually saying that if you have children as a married couple, the courts will drop in with you once a week to check that the child is ok?
They don't. And children with single parents have the exact same rights and legal protection as those with married parents.
And there are custody procedures for children born to unmarried couples.

It is about property, but only so far (historically speaking) as children and women were also considered property at one time)... I do not defend that era, only you keep bringing it up via the property aspects of marriage laws. You fail to understand WHY the government body had to regard the issue of property in a marriage and dissolving marriage to begin with. It was about producing and creating progeny.

Are you really arguing that we should never change a law because it might contradict it's historic meaning? History tends to be the past, we are talking about the needs of society and minorities in the present. Why would we let someone who is long dead dictate how to live our lives?

There should be nothing stopping newcomers from discussing a topic. If a topic has been done, that's swell for the oldtimers who were here, but what of the newbs? Reviving long-dead threads is bad... so what should they do?

Anyways,
For the anti-gay marriage crowd, I think they look at it this way: gay marriage doesn't hurt them directly, but there are many within the gay rights bunch who are anti-god, who either believe in polygamy or are against monogamy or both, etc... Losing one battle means they're getting closer to losing the war (which they are losing, of course, as they should). This is why arguing "We're not hurting you or anyone" doesn't affect them.

Give em a few years (decades in the US) and much shall change.

The first part of your argument makes sense, bravo, you have succeeded in proving yourself to be somewhat coherent. The second part does so much to detract from your perceived intelligence that its really ridiculous. But sometimes children need a little direction, and I'm more than willing to help with that, particularly when considering your argument is derived from a completely selective interpretation that is utterly ignorant of any larger meaning. But I digress. Although I did find that bit about interpretive dance amusing. Strange that you mention that, because I actually am typing on an unnatural computer--if by unnatural you mean to suggest that it is composed of component parts constructed and made use of by human ingenuity found only outside of nature (the ultimate result being something alien and unnatural). Our social systems are, quite simply, the result of, directed by, bound by, and founded upon natural orders--our impulses, our instinct, our communal interaction hardly transcend natural orders. But wait, so does this mean that homosexuality is within the natural order? As the first and coherent part of your post suggests, yes. But the second part suggests that no, we transcend natural order and as homosexuality falls under this transcendence, it is therefore not natural. So which is it? Should they only be accounted for because of the rights and privileges because it is not natural and can only be protected within unnatural transcendent social systems, or are they within the natural order of things and can (and should) be treated as "natural" human beings with a natural condition?

And my grandmother's shrivelled old ovaries have obviously fulfilled the purpose of marriage. I'm enjoying a debate with you right now, so what on Earth do her ovaries have anything to do with bastardizing the word marriage? She is married to a man and--what's that word--oh yes, procreated. Interesting, no?

Indeed, you do sound much like an adult...in a Charlie Brown cartoon. There is much "Wa-wa-wa-wa" here, but very little in the way of an actual argument, which is quite understandable given the lack of actual comprehension which obviously preceded it. Allow me to guide you.

Let's first get straight just who brought up the idea that what is part of the "natural order" (as ill-informed as your understanding of it may have been) is of any importance - that would be you. I rebutted this assertion in two ways, showing such behavior DOES exist in nature, then ending on the point that we're pretty much above nature, anyway. What you missed was that I did NOT say homosexuality was one way we transcended. Quite the contrary, in the I proved the opposite in the very same post. The conclusion is that even if you were right about homosexuality being unnatural, which you were not, it would not matter anyway.

As for your grandmother, when the old girl went through menopause, she lost the ability to produce children, so following your logic she continues her marriage as some kind of sick parody of the institution. Marriage is not appropriate for an infertile couple, right?

I've yet to see an argument against gay marriage that is more than a shell game. It's about nature, then it's about children, then it's about tradition, then it's about the law...let's face it, it's really about an exclusive club and a set of priviledges which can be denied to unfavorable persons.

Good morning. I see that the debate has continued nicely, although a bit sidetrackedly, while I was asleep.

I'll just answer the parts here that have been directed at me.

3) "I think my personal hangups with human beings actually living their lives should dictate what they can and cannot do."

Whatever. I don't put much stock in bigots and a certain person in this thread out and out admitted that his opposition to granting equal rights to homosexuals is a matter of bigotry.

Yes, well, on an individual level, what you put stock in is just as irrelevant as my opinions, isn't it? Passing a law that allows gay marriage will make some people happy, but it will also make a lot of people unhappy, and you can't just dismiss all differing opinions by yelling "OMG BIGOT!1!!1!" Most of these people are just normal people with strong moral or other convictions that gayu marriage is wrong for one reason or other. Why do their opinions matter less than the opinions of gays? Is it because they are "bigots" and therefore always automatically wrong and evil?

And I never said my convictions should dictate the lives of others. I said in an earlier post that they can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't bother me with it. Seeing gay people in public does bother me, and so does their attempts to change our culture so that it'll give them more prominence in it.

Anyway, they are just a minor nuisance and I don't really care enough either way to actually do anything about it, so meh. The reason I posted here in the first place was that the original poster asked for reasons to forbid gay marriage, and I gave him some.

4) "Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else. They just can't marry each other."

This argument was done when people were battling anti-miscegenation laws. Then, it was, "Blacks and whites *do* have the same right to marry. They can each marry a member of their own race." Interestingly enough, that argument was found to be full of shit. Go figure.

Currently marriage is between a man and a woman. To change it, you'd have to change marriage laws, which is redefinition by definition. Which brings me to the last point...


6) OMFG! Redefining marriage! Now you'll have to let people marry their Barry White tapes!

This is the most idiotic argument of all, and, once again, displays a complete lack of understanding as to what legal marriage actually is. It is logically impossible to apply marriage law to inanimate objects or animals. Neither own property. Neither owe taxes or owe money to third parties. Neither can act as next-of-kin or make medical decisions for their spouses. Neither collect pensions. Neither could testify in court. Neither can sign contracts and provide consent in the first place, and thus cannot enter into them. And so on....

On top of that, the definition of marriage has been redefined numerous times over the years. Originally, it was essentially a way for ownership of a woman to be transferred from her father to her new husband. Later, it was the only way a woman could own property and have a way to live. Eventually, it became, "a man and a woman of the same social class and ethnic background." Then it got reduced to just the same ethnic background. And so on...

If you're so willing to let gays marry, why shouldn't we allow everyone to marry anything they want? Since the main argument of everyone here seems to be equal rights for everyone, it seems hypocritical to me. What's so special about gays? It wouldn't be that the media has worked the past decades to give you a positive impression of gays, while leaving the (other) perverts unmentioned, would it? And please don't give me that crap about marriage being a legal contract that can only be entered by two consenting adults. You said it so yourself, marriage has already been redefined many times in history.

If you're so willing to let gays marry, why shouldn't we allow everyone to marry anything they want?

Gay people are people, not things. There is no point of comparison in this context between an adult, sentient human being able to give informed consent and an inanimate object or animal.

Many gay couples already have married lives, effectively, but still lack both the legal protection and some of the more subjective, personal feelings of fulfilment as a stable, loving couple that a marriage ceremony can bring - the state is still catching up with the culture.

* Whiptail Lizard spp.

Whiptail lizards are especially interesting, as homosexual interactions are the only interactions (as only one sex is present). And, those homosexual copulations actually do lead to offspring.


Yes, well, on an individual level, what you put stock in is just as irrelevant as my opinions, isn't it? Passing a law that allows gay marriage will make some people happy, but it will also make a lot of people unhappy, and you can't just dismiss all differing opinions by yelling "OMG BIGOT!1!!1!"

I can when those opinions truly are nothing but bigotry. If two people being in love makes you unhappy, that is your problem, and no one else's. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for you and your personal sexuality hang-ups.

Most of these people are just normal people with strong moral or other convictions that gayu marriage is wrong for one reason or other. Why do their opinions matter less than the opinions of gays? Is it because they are "bigots" and therefore always automatically wrong and evil?

Their opinion matters less because they are the only ones trying to force their opinion upon others. If a homosexual gets married, that forces nothing at all on you. No one is going to force you to marry a member of the same sex. However, by blocking equal protection for homosexual couples, you are forcing your opinion on them. It is logically no different from saying, "I hate black people. I think they're icky. Therefore, they shouldn't be able to marry because I might have to notice them.

And I never said my convictions should dictate the lives of others. I said in an earlier post that they can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't bother me with it. Seeing gay people in public does bother me, and so does their attempts to change our culture so that it'll give them more prominence in it.

They aren't trying to change your culture. They are trying to live your lives. Suggesting that they should alter their lives to keep you from having to see them on the street is ludicrous - and is dictating the lives of others.

Currently marriage is between a man and a woman. To change it, you'd have to change marriage laws, which is redefinition by definition. Which brings me to the last point...

Yes, and before anti-miscegenation laws were done away with, marriage was between a man and a woman of the same ethnic background. In order to change it, the marriage law had to be changed. What is your point?

If you're so willing to let gays marry, why shouldn't we allow everyone to marry anything they want?

Because, legally, marriage is a contract. Only those who can enter into contracts can possibly enter into a marriage. Only those who can enter into contracts can possibly have marriage law applied to them.

This is like asking, "We let blacks vote, why don't we let paper airplanes vote?" I think you can figure out the answer to that question.

Since the main argument of everyone here seems to be equal rights for everyone, it seems hypocritical to me.

And, if any consenting adult could marry any consenting addult, that would be equal rights for everyone. It would take the legal institution of marriage and apply it to all citizens equally.

You seem to think that marriage is an individual right, that *I* can get married somehow on my own. I cannot. It takes two willing partners to obtain a legal marriage, and the laws pertaining to marriage have no usage outside of that construct.

What's so special about gays?

They are human beings, just like the rest of us - and they are the only human beings I am aware of who are currently being denied the right to equal protection under marriage law.

And please don't give me that crap about marriage being a legal contract that can only be entered by two consenting adults.

It isn't crap. It is a fact.

You said it so yourself, marriage has already been redefined many times in history.

Redefining it in this way would just "redefine" marriage. It would redefine the entirety of contract law. It would redefine the legal status of objects/animals/etc. It would redefine the word citizen. It would redefine ownership. It would redefine debt. It would redefine custody. And so on....

Allowing homosexuals equal protection under marriage law does not change the laws themselves. It just opens it to those human beings who need its protection. Allowing a person to marry a cat would require a complete redefinition of all the legal issues associated with marriage, as none of them can currently be applied to a cat.

Yes, well, on an individual level, what you put stock in is just as irrelevant as my opinions, isn't it? Passing a law that allows gay marriage will make some people happy, but it will also make a lot of people unhappy,


Just like the civil rights laws did in Mississippi.

Just like the helmet laws did.....

It's not a valid reason.


and you can't just dismiss all differing opinions by yelling "OMG BIGOT!1!!1!" Most of these people are just normal people with strong moral or other convictions that gayu marriage is wrong for one reason or other.


Hmm one group trying to marginalize another. What does that sound like?


Why do their opinions matter less than the opinions of gays? Is it because they are "bigots" and therefore always automatically wrong and evil?


Bigotry is not wrong?


And I never said my convictions should dictate the lives of others. I said in an earlier post that they can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't bother me with it. Seeing gay people in public does bother me, and so does their attempts to change our culture so that it'll give them more prominence in it.


Ahhh so you wish they were back in the closet?

Culture is not absolute. It changes all the time.

Shall we abolish the civil rights laws because they changed culture. What about womens suffrage?


Anyway, they are just a minor nuisance and I don't really care enough either way to actually do anything about it, so meh.


Actually it does bother you:

Seeing gay people in public does bother me, and so does their attempts to change our culture so that it'll give them more prominence in it.




The reason I posted here in the first place was that the original poster asked for reasons to forbid gay marriage, and I gave him some.

Currently marriage is between a man and a woman. To change it, you'd have to change marriage laws, which is redefinition by definition. Which brings me to the last point...

Laws are not absolute.

Shall we return the laws that said blacks counted 2/3?


If you're so willing to let gays marry, why shouldn't we allow everyone to marry anything they want?


YEAAAA I CAN MARRY MY ST. BERNARD!

:rolleyes:

Every hear of something called the slippery slope argument?


Since the main argument of everyone here seems to be equal rights for everyone, it seems hypocritical to me. What's so special about gays?

The fact they can't claim marriage. The fact that if their life partner is in the hospital, they can't see them. The fact if they lived together for many years and one dies; the partner looses assets to the family that disowned the dead man(I have seen this).

You are right they are bastards and bitches for wanting the same things the rest of us have.


It wouldn't be that the media has worked the past decades to give you a positive impression of gays, while leaving the (other) perverts unmentioned, would it?


Oh oh the ebil liberal media is corrupting america again! *YAWN*

Yes you are right. You really don't care. :rolleyes:


And please don't give me that crap about marriage being a legal contract that can only be entered by two consenting adults. You said it so yourself, marriage has already been redefined many times in history.

:D

Just because you don't like it; doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sorry you lose.

Ah, yes. That's the reason why everybody who's trying to get married needs to undergo a test proving that they are fertile and sign an agreement that they will not take any contraception any more, or else they won't get permission to get married, right? :rolleyes:

The statement which you are trying to refute is a bilogical fact, not a social definiton. I am not speaking against homosexual marriage by stating the fact that two human beings of the same sex cannot exclusively create life. I never once made mention of or implicitly implied anything with regard to the capability (or inability, as it were) of heterosexual couples and any specific conditions which may exist that would prevent successful procreation. It was simply a matter of scientific fact, you argue it all day, but at the end men cannot produce children exclusively with other men, nor can women produce children exclusively with other women.

The statement which you are trying to refute is a bilogical fact, not a social definiton. I am not speaking against homosexual marriage by stating the fact that two human beings of the same sex cannot exclusively create life. I never once made mention of or implicitly implied anything with regard to the capability (or inability, as it were) of heterosexual couples and any specific conditions which may exist that would prevent successful procreation. It was simply a matter of scientific fact, you argue it all day, but at the end men cannot produce children exclusively with other men, nor can women produce children exclusively with other women.

Nobody said they could. I merely pointed out that the ability to procreate is currently no requirement for marriage.

I love the slippery slope argument. Its like southpark. it seems childish and stupid but is actually really funny on several levels.

Lets say that we did allow people to marry anything they wanted, who the hell would anyway? there is no group, other than gays, which wants the right to marry and is denied that right. There is no group wanting to marry their cats, or fridges, or trees, and even if a few nutjobs do want to do that, the cat/fridge/tree/whatever cant sign a marriage contract anyway. and even if it could it would in no way benefit either party as the benefits of marriage do not really affect animals and objects, only people, be they gay or straight.

The slippery slope argument was stupid when they wanted to stop black people marrying white people (or eachother for that matter), it was stupid when they wanted to stop women voting (maybe thats how bush keeps winning, hes got fridges and animals voting for him), infact it was stupid whenever it was used to oppose the civil rights movement.

Indeed, you do sound much like an adult...in a Charlie Brown cartoon. There is much "Wa-wa-wa-wa" here, but very little in the way of an actual argument, which is quite understandable given the lack of actual comprehension which obviously preceded it. Allow me to guide you.

Let's first get straight just who brought up the idea that what is part of the "natural order" (as ill-informed as your understanding of it may have been) is of any importance - that would be you. I rebutted this assertion in two ways, showing such behavior DOES exist in nature, then ending on the point that we're pretty much above nature, anyway. What you missed was that I did NOT say homosexuality was one way we transcended. Quite the contrary, in the I proved the opposite in the very same post. The conclusion is that even if you were right about homosexuality being unnatural, which you were not, it would not matter anyway.

As for your grandmother, when the old girl went through menopause, she lost the ability to produce children, so following your logic she continues her marriage as some kind of sick parody of the institution. Marriage is not appropriate for an infertile couple, right?

I've yet to see an argument against gay marriage that is more than a shell game. It's about nature, then it's about children, then it's about tradition, then it's about the law...let's face it, it's really about an exclusive club and a set of priviledges which can be denied to unfavorable persons.

Then I am an adult that is only ignored because his children refuse to listen. If you want to walk around with an ignorant view of life, that's fine, but let it be known that I tried to help you out. Okay, first let's clarify something: You explicitly stated that homsexual behavior occurs in nature, and then turned around and said that human homosexuality transcends nature and should be only dealt with on a social level. Which is of course a contradiction, and not a clarification as your revisionist interpretation seems to suggest. If clarification was your point, then try writing your thoughts down in such a way that what you mean is actually what you say, because in the real world, those are two very different things (and on Nationstates, interestingly enough). Now, let's discuss something else: Youor grandmother marries a man. She enters into sexual relations with that man. Your parent is born, who meets a member of the opposite sex and the process is repeated to get you. In both cases, the definition of marriage as a union between male and female for the purpose of procreation is fulfilled. The contract is lasting because it is a religious contract between the church (faith) that binds the two and thus is declared "til death do us part." So under all reasoning, it is not some sick parody but the fulfillment and continuation of a lasting contract. And no, marriage is appropriate for an infertile couple because they have the capability (ie, male and female sex organs and respective cells) necessary to create life, whether or not those organs are indeed operational. Homosexual couples do not possess both sets. And marriage has been exclusive since it was first conceived in the modern form by the church, a consecrated and permanent alliance of two people comprising the opposite sex.

Nobody said they could. I merely pointed out that the ability to procreate is currently no requirement for marriage.

Yes, okay, that is true. I agree with you there--sorry, I'm just getting caught up in all this onnline excitement and can respond hastily at times :).

well ya should've known that i would come back on a thread like this


I"m against gay marriage

Then I am an adult that is only ignored because his children refuse to listen. If you want to walk around with an ignorant view of life, that's fine, but let it be known that I tried to help you out. Okay, first let's clarify something: You explicitly stated that homsexual behavior occurs in nature, and then turned around and said that human homosexuality transcends nature and should be only dealt with on a social level.

Which is the next logical step. Humans are social animals, our nature is social in every aspect.

Now, let's discuss something else: Youor grandmother marries a man. She enters into sexual relations with that man. Your parent is born, who meets a member of the opposite sex and the process is repeated to get you. In both cases, the definition of marriage as a union between male and female for the purpose of procreation is fulfilled. The contract is lasting because it is a religious contract between the church (faith) that binds the two and thus is declared "til death do us part." So under all reasoning, it is not some sick parody but the fulfillment and continuation of a lasting contract.

First of all, marriage is not necessary to procreate. Marriage is neither religious nor is it about procreation.
My parents never had a religious marriage, and if they had, it wouldn't have been legal. The church plays no part in any marriage, unless both married partners choose to let it.
And marriage is even less about the christian religion. If it was, how could atheists ever get married? Or Buddhists? Or Muslims? Or Jews?

Keep religion out of marriage, it has nothing to do with it.


And no, marriage is appropriate for an infertile couple because they have the capability (ie, male and female sex organs and respective cells) necessary to create life, whether or not those organs are indeed operational. Homosexual couples do not possess both sets. And marriage has been exclusive since it was first conceived in the modern form by the church, a consecrated and permanent alliance of two people comprising the opposite sex.

So, in essence, marriage is not about procreation, or even the capability to procreate (which an unfertile couple doesn't have), but about having the correct pair of sexual organs? Why?

I can when those opinions truly are nothing but bigotry. If two people being in love makes you unhappy, that is your problem, and no one else's. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for you and your personal sexuality hang-ups.

With the same logic one could argue that if the current legislation makes marriage-enthusiastic gay people unhappy, it's their problem and no-one else's. Somebody will always be unhappy, no matter what.

They aren't trying to change your culture. They are trying to live your lives. Suggesting that they should alter their lives to keep you from having to see them on the street is ludicrous - and is dictating the lives of others.

No. Dictating their lives would require passing laws that force them out from the streets. I won't be bothered to do anything about them beyond giving angry looks, and they are free to ignore me. I still have the right to my own opinion, don't I?

And, if any consenting adult could marry any consenting addult, that would be equal rights for everyone. It would take the legal institution of marriage and apply it to all citizens equally.

No, it wouldn't be equal rights to those who are desperately in love with, say, a farm animal. They would still be able to marry, just not the object of their desire. I thought you said earlier that this kind of thinking has long since been found to be "full of shit".


Redefining it in this way would just "redefine" marriage. It would redefine the entirety of contract law. It would redefine the legal status of objects/animals/etc.

If marriage is redefined to not fall under contract law, there is no need to touch the contract law. I don't see any reason why the two couldn't be separate while still having a lot of similar elements. Actually I don't think there's no need for even that, but this has been discussed earlier in the thread already. Guardians and owners can ratify contracts to some degree.

That kind of thinking bothers me. You want to change the marriage laws so that they would include gay couples, but are vehemently against any other changes that might grant marriage rights to perverts of a less common type. True, the changes necessary would be bigger, but that's irrelevant. This is a conversation about rights, not legislation.

Culture is not absolute. It changes all the time.

Shall we abolish the civil rights laws because they changed culture. What about womens suffrage?

I never said I wanted to force the culture into stagnation, but I also don't want to force a change the culture isn't ready for. This is a case of such, as evidenced by the uproar of protests. Have such drastic changes never caused serious side-effects? If you want to change the culture, first you change the public opinion, and then the laws.



Actually it does bother you:

Yes, it does, I never said otherwise. What I said was that it doesn't bother me enough to make me do something about it. I'm not campaigning against gay marriage (no, not even here), I'm not beating up random gay people, I'm not actually trying to push them out of my sight. Therefore I tolerate them.

Oh oh the ebil liberal media is corrupting america again! *YAWN*

Yes you are right. You really don't care. :rolleyes:

I did mean that in a neutral sense, sorry for not being clear. Still, you can't deny that most people have mostly, if not solely, the media to thank for their positive image of gays.

No, it wouldn't be equal rights to those who are desperately in love with, say, a farm animal. They would still be able to marry, just not the object of their desire. I thought you said earlier that this kind of thinking has long since been found to be "full of shit".

You think a farm animal can be a consenting adult?

I tolerate them.



I can't really tolerate it

I can't really tolerate it

because...?

Not being nasty, it'd just be nice, help the debate, if you made a fuller post :)

because...?

Not being nasty, it'd just be nice, help the debate, if you made a fuller post :)cause I was raised by Homophobes and it rubbed off on me

cause I was raised by Homophobes and it rubbed off on me


Well, the GOOD news here is that you are aware of your prejudice, and so can be sure not to teach it to your kids.

Even if you can't find a way to get over it yourself, you can avoid passing it on, and that is something.

As the song from South Pacific goes "You've got to be taught to hate."

Which is the next logical step. Humans are social animals, our nature is social in every aspect.

I completely agree with you here. But the person to whom my comment was directed would tend to disagree, and I was merely highlighting their inconsistency.


First of all, marriage is not necessary to procreate. Marriage is neither religious nor is it about procreation.
My parents never had a religious marriage, and if they had, it wouldn't have been legal. The church plays no part in any marriage, unless both married partners choose to let it.
And marriage is even less about the christian religion. If it was, how could atheists ever get married? Or Buddhists? Or Muslims? Or Jews?

Keep religion out of marriage, it has nothing to do with it.

The institution of [Western] marriage was the result of a codified contract in the eyes of state, which upon its initial conception was essentially the church (I am using church here to include all Abrahamic faiths), as the two were quite inextricably intertwined and often synonomous. Currently, "marriage" has been expanded to include a larger base that has until recently been assumed to mean "between one man and one woman," and this stems from earlier designs and precedents established through Abrahamic tradition. But yes, "marriage" has become more neutral in its definition since the recent push for an ever more pronounced wall between church and state.

So, in essence, marriage is not about procreation, or even the capability to procreate (which an unfertile couple doesn't have), but about having the correct pair of sexual organs? Why?

Not at all. Because the purpose of marriage is procreation, it is necessary to establish that the correct pair of sexual organs would be required to facilitate and fulfill a true marriage; whether or not they serve their intended purpose or not is irrelevelant.

*Disclaimer: I am debating from a philosophical position. Thus I say marriage is intended for procreation; clearly, it has come to represent a much larger and state-based institution. Note that I am opposed to homosexual marriage from a personal and moral standpoint, but I do not believe the state as a neutral institution should act in opposition to it. Government serves the people. Homosexuals are people. Very nice people, I might add, and I do not have anything against them as people.

Not at all. Because the purpose of marriage is procreation, it is necessary to establish that the correct pair of sexual organs would be required to facilitate and fulfill a true marriage; whether or not they serve their intended purpose or not is irrelevelant.

I disagree with that logic. If one truly believes marriage is intended for reproduction, one should restrict marriage to people that have already reproduced. Sex before marriage should therefor be compulsory if you adhere to the "marriage is to procreate" view.

I disagree with that logic. If one truly believes marriage is intended for reproduction, one should restrict marriage to people that have already reproduced. Sex before marriage should therefor be compulsory if you adhere to the "marriage is to procreate" view.

And to get a divorce a couple would have to kill the child as that is what binds them. They get annoying at around the three year old mark, anyway.

And to get a divorce a couple would have to kill the child as that is what binds them. They get annoying at around the three year old mark, anyway.And get a divorce after either the female begins menopause or the man starts shooting blanks or can't perform anymore.

I disagree with that logic. If one truly believes marriage is intended for reproduction, one should restrict marriage to people that have already reproduced. Sex before marriage should therefor be compulsory if you adhere to the "marriage is to procreate" view.

Hmm...the point being that in order to reproduce, one should be in a state of marriage in order to procreate, and thus fulfill said purpose. Sterility can be ignored insofar as an effort can be made to reproduce; whether that effort is successful or not is irrelevant.

And get a divorce after either the female begins menopause or the man starts shooting blanks or can't perform anymore.

Old heterosexuals die alone and cold, discarded for their useless genitals. Forced to live among the homosexuals. Under the Earth.

the way i see it the whole issue is quite easy... if people want to get married in their religion then they can marry according to that religion's rules... as for civil ceremonies i think they are completly useless anyway... u might aswell abolish it... it would solve a lot of issues (like the police avoiding domestic violence, spouse dependance, inheritance etc.)

Hmm...the point being that in order to reproduce, one should be in a state of marriage in order to procreate, and thus fulfill said purpose. Sterility can be ignored insofar as an effort can be made to reproduce; whether that effort is successful or not is irrelevant.

Please explain why we should not simply make pregnancy a requirement for marriage ? It solves the whole "may be infertile" and "may not wish to have children" problem.

Hmm...the point being that in order to reproduce, one should be in a state of marriage in order to procreate, and thus fulfill said purpose. Sterility can be ignored insofar as an effort can be made to reproduce; whether that effort is successful or not is irrelevant.You can make the same argument for same-sex couples.

You can make the same argument for same-sex couples.

Not quite. No matter how hard yuou try, a man will not get pregnant through another man. There are no ovaries in the anus my friend.

Not quite. No matter how hard yuou try, a man will not get pregnant through another man. There are no ovaries in the anus my friend.
You said the effort was the important thing, not whether it would ever be successful.

Hmm...the point being that in order to reproduce, one should be in a state of marriage in order to procreate, and thus fulfill said purpose. Sterility can be ignored insofar as an effort can be made to reproduce; whether that effort is successful or not is irrelevant.

Marriage isn't just about procreation, though - your argument is moot.

I note the excessive care you've taken to avoid 'marriage is all about sex' - something obviously untrue - in favour of 'marriage is all about procreation', as homosexuals can do the first, but not the second. Or not through sex, anyway.

But if you _were_ right, if marriage was all about procreation, where does that leave the relationship between an infertility doctor and his patients? That relationship _is_ all about procreation, strenuous efforts are made on both sides to make a baby (or babies)... would it be a marriage under your logic?

The tortuous, contrived nature of these arguments suggests there is no good reason for denying gays the right to marry, beyond 'my religion forbids it' (which is a fair point in itself, but not relevant - we're not talking about religious ceremonies, but civil rights).

Then I am an adult that is only ignored because his children refuse to listen. If you want to walk around with an ignorant view of life, that's fine, but let it be known that I tried to help you out.

Wa-wa-wa-wa-wa...strut and puff your chest all you like, the way you preface your arguments so as to belittle your opposition before you actually say anything of value is extremely childish.

Okay, first let's clarify something: You explicitly stated that homsexual behavior occurs in nature, and then turned around and said that human homosexuality transcends nature and should be only dealt with on a social level.

No, I did no such thing - hit that little "BACK" button on your browser and try doing some reading, rather than just repeating the same nonsense until it becomes fact. It is not. Here I'll do it for you:

Our social systems transcend nature, and homosexual couples are in those systems. Thusly, they ought to be acknowledged and accounted for in terms of rights and priviledges being provided.

Read it as many times as you need to in order to make it sink in. I bolded the important part for you. As I said, I established first that same sex matings were indeed a part of nature, then noted that our society is not beholden to nature anyway. Homosexuals are in that society, so speaking of nature is not only ill-informed but unimportant.

Now, let's discuss something else: Youor grandmother marries a man. She enters into sexual relations with that man....The contract is lasting because it is a religious contract between the church (faith) that binds the two and thus is declared "til death do us part." So under all reasoning, it is not some sick parody but the fulfillment and continuation of a lasting contract.

We're discussing civil marriage, not religious marriage. I see you've already conceded to Cabra West that procreation is not a requirement of marriage of this sort, so now it's effort? Well, sorry, but no matter how hard she tries, a woman who is post-menopausal or has had her ovaries removed due to illness is not going to conceive. You're essentially arguing potential to reproduce is still potential regardless of impossibility. So, potential without potential...that sounds like incapability to me, and this silly shell game continues.

I would also contend that civil and religious marriage are not "inextricably intertwined." Since many people have non-religious marriages, it's obvious that someone has found a way to separate them.

And marriage has been exclusive since it was first conceived in the modern form by the church, a consecrated and permanent alliance of two people comprising the opposite sex.

"Exclusive" to what? Not that church marriage actually came first (or has any priviledge when considering the long history of marriage), but once again, we are discussing CIVIL marriage. What the church thinks is right has no bearing on our constantly-adapting system of laws (so take the religious shell off the table), and tradition for its own sake is not a valid argument.

The tortuous, contrived nature of these arguments suggests there is no good reason for denying gays the right to marry, beyond 'my religion forbids it' (which is a fair point in itself, but not relevant - we're not talking about religious ceremonies, but civil rights).

Exactly.

Nobody said they could. I merely pointed out that the ability to procreate is currently no requirement for marriage.

Nor is it a requirement in the animal kingdom to form pair-bonds, even lifelong ones.

With the same logic one could argue that if the current legislation makes marriage-enthusiastic gay people unhappy, it's their problem and no-one else's. Somebody will always be unhappy, no matter what.

Incorrect. By not being allowed to obtain marriage protections, homosexuals are currently being denied equal protection under the law. If homosexuals were treated equally under the law, you would pout, but would not be denied any rights, and would be treated the same under the law as they. The two are hardly the same.

No. Dictating their lives would require passing laws that force them out from the streets.

Or advocating denying them equal protection under the law, as you have done.

No, it wouldn't be equal rights to those who are desperately in love with, say, a farm animal.

Yes, it would. Once again, you ignore the fact that marriage is not something an individual can obtain. A marriage license is granted to two individuals, not to one.

If marriage is redefined to not fall under contract law, there is no need to touch the contract law.

If marriage were "redefined" that way, there would be no legal marriage at all.

That kind of thinking bothers me. You want to change the marriage laws so that they would include gay couples, but are vehemently against any other changes that might grant marriage rights to perverts of a less common type.

I haven't said anything about "perverts." If two consenting perverts want to get married, they absolutely have that right, and I wouldn't stand in their way.

I did mean that in a neutral sense, sorry for not being clear. Still, you can't deny that most people have mostly, if not solely, the media to thank for their positive image of gays.

I can. I have yet to meet a single person who has the media to thank for viewing homosexuals as actual human beings worthy of being treated as such. Usually, this comes from actually having a human trait known as empathy and maybe meeting a few homosexuals.


And get a divorce after either the female begins menopause or the man starts shooting blanks or can't perform anymore.

And we'd have to remove the vast majority of the laws surrounding marriage, as they have nothing at all to do with children. Any children a couple has had are grown up and out of the house by the time retirement benefits come into play, so there is absolutely no reason that a couple should ever be allowed to share retirement benefits or have them continue after the retired spouse dies.

the way i see it the whole issue is quite easy... if people want to get married in their religion then they can marry according to that religion's rules... as for civil ceremonies i think they are completly useless anyway... u might aswell abolish it... it would solve a lot of issues (like the police avoiding domestic violence, spouse dependance, inheritance etc.)[/B]

You don't have the first clue as to the protections included in a marriage license, do you? Did you know that, in some states, a case cannot be seen as domestic violence unless the couple is married? And how are you going to correct spousal dependence by not protecting the citizens who are dependent upon their spouse? Did you know that, without the inheritance rules surrounding marriage, many people would lose the life they have built if a spouse dies?


Not quite. No matter how hard yuou try, a man will not get pregnant through another man. There are no ovaries in the anus my friend.

And no matter how hard you try, and infertile woman will not get pregnant. No matter how hard you try, an infertile man will not impregnate a woman.

What couples who adopt? They are not procreating, but are raising offspring. Are they excluded?

What about those who marry after a child is born in another relationship? They are not procreating, but they are raising offspring.

What, exactly, about being married makes someone more likely to procreate? Does saying, "I do," somehow make the process more efficient?

Or is it actually child-rearing that you are so stuck on, rather than actual childbirth?

Well, the GOOD news here is that you are aware of your prejudice, and so can be sure not to teach it to your kids.

Even if you can't find a way to get over it yourself, you can avoid passing it on, and that is something.

As the song from South Pacific goes "You've got to be taught to hate."

what if my son and/or daughter turns out to be gay?

what if my son and/or daughter turns out to be gay?

Shrug it away and hug him/her telling him/her how much you love your children regardless of who they're attracted to.

One of the popular arguments against letting gays marry is that marriage is for procreation. The family unit should be Mom, Dad, and the kids, and that's it. Simply put, let's slippery-slope that to its logical conclusion.

The declaration is that marriage is for procreation. Naturally, marriage is also for the family. Therefore, people are indoctrinated from birth to get married and have children, and lots of them. The concept of an only child becomes a thing of the past. People finish school, get married, and start having babies right away. Families have four, five, six, hell, more than that many children. All of those children are similarly indoctrinated.

People are also indoctrinated that non-procreative sex is bad; whether or not there is a need to criminalize it remains to be seen. The idea is this - if a married couple has sex eight times, they should have eight children, and more if they get lucky and have twins. People are also indoctrinated to believe that any sex outside of marriage is bad; those who have sex before marriage are either thrown in prison or forced to get married, depending on if a pregnancy results.

The idea of being gay is unheard of; it's associated with being infertile or being unwilling to procreate. Those who choose not to get married are either drafted into the military or taken out and shot, whichever furthers the species more. The same is true for married couples who cannot or do not procreate; it is seen as a choice, and those who are not successful are simply not trying. And one final push is this - lives tend to end either at the barrel of a gun or in hard labor. People who can no longer procreate and whose children are grown and married are shipped off to labor camps. They are then worked to death. After all, if they aren't producing children, what use are they?

There you go. This has been your Gross Exaggeration for the Day. But if marriage is strictly for procreation and child-rearing, is this scenario all that bad?

Hmm...the point being that in order to reproduce, one should be in a state of marriage in order to procreate, and thus fulfill said purpose. Sterility can be ignored insofar as an effort can be made to reproduce; whether that effort is successful or not is irrelevant.
I love how easy it is for many people to casually slur so many wonderful families.

My aunt and uncle are biologically capable of reproduction, but instead have chosen not to have any biological children. Instead, they decided to adopt children. They never had any intention of "making an effort to reproduce," because they knew they wanted to adopt instead. According to people like Nonexistentland, they should have been barred from marriage.

My godmother and her partner have a family of four, with an adopted daughter and a daughter conceived through artificial insemination. They are, aparently, not worthy of marriage.

I, myself, appear to be unworthy of marriage, since I believe I am not parent material. Because I choose not to breed, I guess I'm supposed to be denied the right to enter a legal contract with my lifemate. I am to be denied all the legal rights that are available to those who enter this contract, despite the fact that my chosen childlessness will not in any way impact my ability to fulfill the requirements of said contract.

Forgive me if I seem a bit hot under the collar, but I am frankly disgusted by most of the people who presume to "defend" marriage. These wankers reduce marriage to nothing more than heterofucking and breeding. They insult countless families and countless couples, and they do so because of ignorant and incorrect assumptions about the nature of family. They idiotically insist on a "traditional" format for families which was invented less than two generations ago.

Fuck that noise. These idjits are no different than the idjits who opposed interracial marriage. Well, they may be a tad duller, since they seem totally unable to learn from the stupidities of that past era.

If they want marriage to be about fucking and breeding, let them come out and say it. But please let's quit with this bullshit about "sanctity" or "family values." Families aren't made by fucking, and if we really want to impart some sanctity to marriages then we should honor those values and those qualities which DO make a family.

One: Blacks/White marriage is irrelevant to the topic. Don't bring it up. It's a stupid way to try and earn points in favor of the 'for' argument. (earlier in topic, and I always come across it)

Civil Unions are always available, since marriage is a religious institution, and an institution of the church, which believes homosexuality is an abomination.


And my religion which beleives differently doesn't count?

And my religion which beleives differently doesn't count?
Yup. See, "religious freedom" refers to the freedom of homophobic religions to impose their belief systems upon everybody else. If your faith isn't homophobic, then you get the same "freedom" as the secularists and the pagans: the freedom to shut the fuck up and take it while the evangelicals spit in your face.

And my religion which beleives differently doesn't count?

Where does religion get into it?
No church has yet been forced to marry gays, and no church will be forced to do so.
Marriages performed only by a religious institution are invalid in most of the civilised world, you need a marriage performed by the state in order to *be* married.

Where does religion get into it?
No church has yet been forced to marry gays, and no church will be forced to do so.
Marriages performed only by a religious institution are invalid in most of the civilised world, you need a marriage performed by the state in order to *be* married.
I think Eris was getting at the previous poster's claim that gay marriage should not be legally available because "marriage is a religious institution, and an institution of the church, which believes homosexuality is an abomination."

The idea that modern marriage is a religious institution is bunk, of course, since marriage predates every living religion on Earth and our own form of marriage is radically different from the marriages originally observed in said religions.

However, if we set aside all that (for the sake of argument), we'd still be left with somebody claiming that the religious institution of marriage MUST be confined only to the form used by certain specific religions, to the exclusion of all the faiths which welcome gay unions. Which is bunk again.

If marriage is a "religious institution," and if the legal power of marriage really is founded in religious endorsement, then the Unitarians have as much right to officiate the legal marriages of gays as the Catholics have to deny those unions.

Yes, well, on an individual level, what you put stock in is just as irrelevant as my opinions, isn't it? Passing a law that allows gay marriage will make some people happy, but it will also make a lot of people unhappy, and you can't just dismiss all differing opinions by yelling "OMG BIGOT!1!!1!" Most of these people are just normal people with strong moral or other convictions that gayu marriage is wrong for one reason or other. Why do their opinions matter less than the opinions of gays? Is it because they are "bigots" and therefore always automatically wrong and evil?

If you don't want to be called a duck don't waddle and quack.

And I never said my convictions should dictate the lives of others. I said in an earlier post that they can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't bother me with it. Seeing gay people in public does bother me, and so does their attempts to change our culture so that it'll give them more prominence in it.

Reading the posts of bigots bothers me, what's your point?

Where does religion get into it?
No church has yet been forced to marry gays, and no church will be forced to do so.
Marriages performed only by a religious institution are invalid in most of the civilised world, you need a marriage performed by the state in order to *be* married.

You are working under the false assumption that those who "defend" marriage somehow are doing so in a misguided attempt to protect their religion or denomination's freedom to decide themselves who they want to marry. Or not marry.

The sad thruth is that they rather want to impose their bigoted, homophobic views upon everyone else. Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists, and Believers of other, less homophobic faiths should all accept that they, a minority of stupid bigot homophobes, have the divine mandate of defining for all of society what marriage is, and what it is not.


It's about bigotry, not freedom or values.

You are working under the false assumption that those who "defend" marriage somehow are doing so in a misguided attempt to protect their religion or denomination's freedom to decide themselves who they want to marry. Or not marry.

The sad thruth is that they rather want to impose their bigoted, anti-polygamist views upon everyone else. Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists, and Believers of other, less anti-polygamist faiths should all accept that they, a minority of stupid bigot anti-polygamists, have the divine mandate of defining for all of society what marriage is, and what it is not.

It's about bigotry, not freedom or values.

I think Eris was getting at the previous poster's claim that gay marriage should not be legally available because "marriage is a religious institution, and an institution of the church, which believes homosexuality is an abomination."

Thanks Bottle.

Yes, well, on an individual level, what you put stock in is just as irrelevant as my opinions, isn't it? Passing a law that allows gay marriage will make some people happy, but it will also make a lot of people unhappy, and you can't just dismiss all differing opinions by yelling "OMG BIGOT!1!!1!"

Legal equality isn't about "making people happy." There is no legally protected right to be happy. Every single move toward actual legal equality for all persons has made a shitload of people very very unhappy.

We hurt a lot of feelings when we abolished slavery. Man, there were some really bummed out plantation owners, I tell you what.

A whole lot of men were really fucking bummed when women were acknowledged as actual human beings rather than property. Boo hoo hoo, now we have to let GIRLS into the clubhouse!

And yes, a whole lot of homophobes are going to be really sad when gay citizens are recognized as equal under the law. It will happen, and probably within the next generation, and before you know it the homophobes will be relegated to the same dank corners of society as are currently inhabitted by the anti-miscegenationists of yesteryear.

The thing is, none of these hurt feelings mean a goddam thing, legally speaking. Nor should they.

Legal equality isn't about making blacks happy, or making women happy, or making gays happy. It's a fundamental fucking principle of our system of law. Inequality often makes a shitload of people very happy...so what?! Sorry, bigots, but your feelings are just not that important. If you need to have a good cry over the loss of your unearned legal perks, you go right ahead.


Most of these people are just normal people with strong moral or other convictions that gayu marriage is wrong for one reason or other. Why do their opinions matter less than the opinions of gays? Is it because they are "bigots" and therefore always automatically wrong and evil?
No, the personal feelings of bigots matter exactly as much as the personal feelings of gays...which is to say, they mean exactly dick when it comes to our system of law.

Gays shouldn't be granted legal equality because it would make them feel good. They should be recognized as the full and equal citizens that they are because that is how our system of law works. People you don't like get to be equal under the law. People who hold values you don't like get to be equal under the law. People who pray to the wrong God, or drink too much, or talk during movies all get to be equal under the law, no matter how strongly you disagree with them and their choices. Because your personal opinion of a person is totally fucking irrelevant.

You are working under the false assumption that those who "defend" marriage somehow are doing so in a misguided attempt to protect their religion or denomination's freedom to decide themselves who they want to marry. Or not marry.

The sad thruth is that they rather want to impose their bigoted, anti-polygamist views upon everyone else. Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists, and Believers of other, less anti-polygamist faiths should all accept that they, a minority of stupid bigot anti-polygamists, have the divine mandate of defining for all of society what marriage is, and what it is not.

It's about bigotry, not freedom or values.

Do you have a point? May people arguing in favor of gay marriage in this thread have ALSO argued in favor of polygamy (and polyandery) as long as it involves consenting adults (use of bold underline AND italics so that this part actualy penetrates the heads of those who are about to say "Oh noes! He's in favor of raping children!)

Thanks Bottle.
No prob. Glad that I interpretted your post correctly.

Gays shouldn't be granted legal equality because it would make them feel good. They should be recognized as the full and equal citizens that they are because that is how our system of law works. People you don't like get to be equal under the law. People who hold values you don't like get to be equal under the law. People who pray to the wrong God, or drink too much, or talk during movies all get to be equal under the law, no matter how strongly you disagree with them and their choices. Because your personal opinion of a person is totally fucking irrelevant.

Bottle, you're so annoyingly eloquent that I could fluffle you, except that would be undignified. ;)

I think we ought to have a public poll, 1. Gay people deserve all the rights of a citizen in whatever country they live in or 2. Gay people do not deserve all the rights of a citizen in whatever country they live in. Then we'll see where everyone stands.

It's interesting, too, that stand on denying gays rights because someone else might get upset. Isn't that a kind of Political Correctness, taken to the next step?

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

Yes, just like those goofball blacks wouldn't accept separate but equal either. Crazy people and their quests for equality.

I think the law should only recognize civil unions so that we can each leave our religious views on the matter to the religions. Marriage isn't defined by you. In matters of law, it's defined by law and the law states that we cannot discriminate on the basis of gender or sex. Sorry, but that's the law as much as antidiscrimination might upset you.

I'm against gay marriage on simple grounds not routed in religion.

Let me ask you this? What is the true purpose of marriage? Why do some other creatures of the Animal kingdom develop a family structure?

The reason is simple. Marriage exists to create a more ideal environment for pro-creation and the development of offspring. In any same sex marriage, you won't have procreation. It's as simple as that.

Now, I wouldn't mind giving homosexuals the same legal standing as married couples.

Again, this is ignorance of the animal kingdom. Some animals do form family structures with animals of the same gender.

The family structure of animals or humans for that matter are hardly homogenous. Some family structures have homosexual couples raising orphaned offspring. Some family structures include all of the adults of a community with no real interest in who should be raising whom.

Sexual relationships meaning little to the raising of children. Loving relationships mean much and history and biology define loving relationships as MUCH more than a man and a woman.

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?

because it offends their sensibilties
and
if my child sees 2 same sex people walking down the street, my child my become one of 'the gays'.

You'd think we, as people of the west would be a bit more grown-up about this by now.

everyone who says God either condones or disapproves of gay marriage - do you all know what God is thinking? please don't claim to know whether or not he approves because there is no way he told you personally whether or not it's right. i am sure he still loves homosexuals but who's to say whether gay marriage is "right"? if the gays want to get married, let them. for those of you who say it's wrong: well if it's so wrong why don't you leave it up to God to punish them - do not take it upon yourselves... unless you don't think God will be fair in his punishment. otherwise, let it be.

A gay couple should have equal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. It is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don't you call it gay union or gay compact? Leave marriage to the heterosexuals.

I don't see why you guys have to be so extreme about it. My wife and I don't go around calling ourselves a gay couple because we are not (though we are happy), don't go calling yourselves a married couple because you are not.

It seems gays are not willing to leave it at that but would want the same rights and the definition of the word to be changed. I find it funny in a day and age where people are making up new words all the time, the gays can't get around changing a word's definition rather than make up a new word.

You would think they would be more open minded about that sort of thing. Liberal extremism is funny that way.

Maybe because some of us are smart enough to realize separate never turns out to be equal. If the government has trouble including gay marriages under the definition of marriage they should get out of doing “marriages” and stick to civil unions to all

"And your analogy is bad, because assuming that both of you are straight(obviously), calling you a gay couple would be inaccurate."

Not any more inaccurate than calling a gay couple married.

Marriage is a legal contract and if you looked into the legal history of marriage you would find about 80% of the laws revolve around the children of those married. Gay people cannot have children other than through adoption, therefore they cannot be married. Very simple.

Gays are asses because they don't want just the rights, they want the name too. Why? Because they are extreme. I like being called right wing because I want to give gays all the rights of a married couple except the name. Idiots

Its insulting, only to married couples having to look around at a couple of guys saying their married. Um, go into your little room, have your gay sex, and see if you can have a child, ever. You can't. While many married couple can't or won't the main gyst of marriage, and about 80% (very conservative estimate) of marriages prior to this century were for legal rights of their children. If they weren't there wouldn't have been a reason for people to get married in the first place.

Gay extremists.

I'm going to be a black gay jew from now on. Not because I am any of those things, but because I want the names to be changed to reflect me, because I'm an extremist asshole.


I'm calling BS on your rant. 80% of the rights of marriage have to do with children? Prove it. Because as I understand it the majority of the rights regarding children exist with or without marriage due to maternity or paternity. What rights do married couples have regarding children that the unmarried do not?

Now, would you like me to start marking off the rights of marriage that are not related to children? For example, joint ownership of property which covers a large portion of marriage rights and priveleges. They exist with or without children and under basically the same rules as any other equal partnership. How about medical decision-making? Visitation? Taxation? That covers a bit more than 20% of marriage rights and priveleges in just a few categories that have no bearing on childrearing or are not affected by childlessness.

See, here I thought marriage was about love and about declaring a life-long relationship to another. Apparently, it's about sex. Thanks for your enlightened view on such a sacred practice.

Maybe because some of us are smart enough to realize separate never turns out to be equal. If the government has trouble including gay marriages under the definition of marriage they should get out of doing “marriages” and stick to civil unions to all

Personally, I don't get all the hang-up over the name. If a "civil union" were formed that had all the things now ascribed to civil marriage, how would it be different? How does changing the name somehow make it more or less religious?

Should we stop letting the police take signed "confessions" because confession is something you can only do by telling all your sins to a priest and having him give you penance and absolve you of them?

((not directed at you, UT, just as the sentiment in general))

Meanwhile, it is important to note that just changing the name to "civil union" rather than marriage would remove some of the rights associated with marriage. We currently have treaties with more than one country that involve recognizing marriages performed by those other countries, and having marriages performed in the US count in those other countries. Even if we passed a law that said, "Every time we refer to marriage in US law, we mean civil unions," or something of the like, the treaties could not be changed without renegotiation and consent of the country with which the treaty was signed. Thus, unless they signed a revision of sorts, they would be under no obligation to recognize "civil unions."

It's neither. It's about passing a law that the majority doesn't want, which I believe to be just as unconstitutional as discriminating minorities is.

Yet the US Constitution was specifically designed to allow laws to be passed even if the majority disapproved? It was specifically designed to protect rights against the majority? It was specifically explained by the author that this was their intent.

You're entitled to your opinion but it goes against history, law and common sense.

Anyway, what I meant was that making the necessary changes for people to be able to marry whatever they want, only requires some tweaking of the laws, not a complete overhaul of everything. I don't think it would be too much to ask for owners to have complete power over unconscious objects (assuming animals don't have consciousness).

Marriage is a legal contract. The associated rights have a purpose of making two PEOPLE into one legal entity. We are arguing for the ending of discrimination on the basis of sex as called for by the Constitution. This is the reason gay marriage is required under equal rights. The same reason marriage rights can't be discriminatory based on race.

You are arguing about things which A have no legal rights as a person and B cannot be discriminated against as a result of A and C could not possibly benefit from any of the rights associated with the marriage contract.

I realize you are trying to be silly, but come on, don't you have an argument based on logic and not silliness?

I realize you are trying to be silly, but come on, don't you have an argument based on logic and not silliness?
Are you kidding? A logical argument about this subject that defends the status quo doesn't exist.