Gay marriage

[Hedshaker]

How are they exactly the same? Because they involve two people?

Is marriage between two cousins the same?
Is marriage between two minors the same?

These may be the same if your only definition of marriage is the joining of two people in love - but the state is not concerned with love primarily.

There are good reasons for not extending all the same benefits to all people. Native Americans receive different tax benefits than I do.

There are reasons why foreign born American citizens are not allowed to be president of the US - and this isn't about denying them rights. A foreign born person is the "same" as a natural born citizen - but not in regards to governmental regulations.

I said under the law. That doesn't include minors and close relatives. Folks who wish to legally marry, including same sex couples, now have the same right as you to do so.

It has nothing to do with what Native Americans get in tax benefits or who can become president. It's about the rights of same sex couples to marry, that's all. Gay couples now have the same rights as any one else and it ain't going a way any time soon so give the griping a rest and just get used to it.

 

[glassjester]

I said under the law. That doesn't include minors and close relatives.

But what if they're in love?

 

[Hedshaker]

But what if they're in love?

Take it up with the law makers.

 

[Town Heretic]

The government should not be primarily concerned with giving its citizens what makes them happy.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of...stuff."

That more along the lines you'd prefer? But you see my point. Government is concerned with a number of things, including our happiness.

I don't know why you need governmental recognition in order to have a more stable relationship.

It's the way people are built. We like symbols. A contract is a symbol of our intent, like a ring and a ceremony.

If you want to spend the rest of your life with someone then do it because you want to, not because the government smiles upon the relationship.

It's not because the government smiles upon it. It's because people want that symbol (and the benefits conferred by it, including recognition of the union).

Even if the government never offered homosexual unions the same recognitions as heterosexual unions - that never should have stopped homosexuals from having a ceremony and pledging their unending love to each other. They could call it marriage if they want, but that doesn't mean the government should promote these unions to the same level that they should promote heterosexual unions.

Why shouldn't the secular government recognize (which is a bit different than the word you chose) the union between two of its citizens, capable of entering into the contract and subject to its terms?

Heterosexual marriages are the only unions inherently capable of producing children - by nature.

Which would be relevant if we required fertility or intent to have children as a prerequisite to marriage. We don't even have a question on the application about it.

 

[1Way1Truth1Life]

"If God doesn't judge America, He will need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!" - Ruth Graham

Romans 1

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Hah! No doubt!

 

[Aaron the Tall]

It's the way people are built. We like symbols. A contract is a symbol of our intent, like a ring and a ceremony.


It's not because the government smiles upon it. It's because people want that symbol (and the benefits conferred by it, including recognition of the union).

I don't even know where my marriage license is - but I do know where my ring is.

For thousands of years, people got married without any legal certificates. I think it is an overstated case to say people need or want a certificate.

Even if the government said I couldn't marry the person I love, I would still have a ceremony and commit my love to them.

Why shouldn't the secular government recognize (which is a bit different than the word you chose) the union between two of its citizens, capable of entering into the contract and subject to its terms?

Government can do 3 things. 1.) Punish behavior 2.) Promote behavior 3.) Ignore behavior

When you offer special benefits to a particular relationship you are promoting that relationship. Heterosexual marriages should rightly be promoted above and beyond homosexual marriage because they perform a role in society that homosexual marriage cannot.

Homosexual unions are not punishable - but they need not be promoted equally, because they are not equal - by nature.

Which would be relevant if we required fertility or intent to have children as a prerequisite to marriage. We don't even have a question on the application about it.

Heterosexual marriages normally produce children and are the only union that can by nature produce children. This is why they should be promoted and protected beyond any other union two people can have. Whether or not a heterosexual couple actually participates in bearing children (by choice or despite their choice) is not the issue. We can't regulate intent.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I said under the law. That doesn't include minors and close relatives. Folks who wish to legally marry, including same sex couples, now have the same right as you to do so.

So, is your basic premise that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage BECAUSE they are the same under the law?

Or is your premise that they are the same under the law BECAUSE they are the same by nature?

Obviously same sex couples now have the right to legally marry - but that says nothing about WHY they should be allowed to legally marry.

If you insist they are the same by nature simply because they involve 2 people who love each other, then you have no grounds to deny marriage between minors or close relatives who might equally love each other.

Like I said - love is not the issue. There are good reasons for promoting one type of relationship above others.

And the Native American or foreign born citizen examples are just to highlight that there already exist good reasons for treating different people differently under the law. That's not unfair - that's not unjust.

 

[gcthomas]

If you insist they are the same by nature simply because they involve 2 people who love each other, then you have no grounds to deny marriage between minors or close relatives who might equally love each other.

Minors cannot make legally binding contracts, so that bars them from marrying as it does from making other contracts.

Close relatives are another issue. Here, adoptive siblings are forbidden to marry, so it is not a genetic relatedness issue, but a social 'yuk' factor AFAIK. I don't know the formal reason for banning these.

 

[Hedshaker]

So, is your basic premise that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage BECAUSE they are the same under the law?

Or is your premise that they are the same under the law BECAUSE they are the same by nature?

Obviously same sex couples now have the right to legally marry - but that says nothing about WHY they should be allowed to legally marry.

If you insist they are the same by nature simply because they involve 2 people who love each other, then you have no grounds to deny marriage between minors or close relatives who might equally love each other.

Like I said - love is not the issue. There are good reasons for promoting one type of relationship above others.

And the Native American or foreign born citizen examples are just to highlight that there already exist good reasons for treating different people differently under the law. That's not unfair - that's not unjust.

Suit yourself and gripe away then for what good it will do you. Same sex marriage is here to stay whether you like it or not and future generations will look back and wonder, what was people thinking back then, not allowing minorities the same rights as everyone else, in the same way we wonder how right thinking people could engage in slavery or employ young children as chimney sweeps etc.

In Britain the law is looking into honour crimes against the person, arranged marriage and female genital mutilation. And believe me, there are people who don't like it one bit.

It's all relative to changing times and peoples perception.

 

[TracerBullet]

Well this is an interesting day when a federal government passes a law that the majority didn’t want.

Not true. The Supreme court ruled that laws baring same sex marriage were unconstitutional.

On this historic day I ponder what Jesus would say about this gay-marriage law. First I think he would say that he didn’t come to make America a theocracy so don’t try to make it one. But I firmly believe he would say something along these lines, “I’ll love you despite what you choose to do or who you love. But don’t call a union a marriage that I and my Father don’t call marriage.” This law doesn’t change the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. You can call a gay relationship a civil union that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage. It just isn’t. Now if you’re an atheist this law is irrational since gay marriage does nothing for society. It doesn’t bring children into the world to bring about the upward evolution of humanity. Now there are going to be people who will say to those who disagree with this law that you’re ‘homophobic.’ If that’s the case in also 'suicidalphobic’ since I disagree with suicide. Do you see the illogical mindset of people who say 'because you disagree with this you’re homophobic’? So, the moral of this whole long post is be like Jesus, love everyone and accept them with grace, but don’t call it marriage.

Other than homophobia why would anyone refuse to call a marriage a marriage?

 

[resodko]

Other than homophobia why would anyone refuse to call a marriage a marriage?

would you refuse to call a polygamist's marriage a marriage?

how about a father marrying his daughter?

a man marrying his sister?

 

[TracerBullet]

What basic right are you talking about? The right to love each other and live a life committed to each other?

That right has never been denied.

People can love whoever they want. Being a homosexual is not against the law.

The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships. The government isn't interested in love.

Equality isn't special.

The only reason the government started giving recognition to heterosexual governments is because they are a fundamental building block of society. They are the only relationship inherently capable of producing the next generation of people - and they are best equipped to raise that next generation of people.

That is your opinion but it is not supported by the facts.

 

[TracerBullet]

Many of the regulations of marriage in the US go back to English Common Law. When Common Law was in force, nobody needed a marriage licence from the state.

Government got involved because marriages were viewed as a type of "small business" entity where the "fruits" of that business were children.

Obviously there were other issues related to these "small businesses" that the state wanted to regulate - such as inheritance or property.

However, most issues related to inheritance or property could be regulated between two parties through other legal contracts.

The government takes special note though when children are involved. For example, a wealthy widow could leave all her inheritance to the pool boy instead of her offspring - even if the government doesn't see this as the best way for her to conduct business.

Children, on the other hand, are regarded in a sense as property of the state. The state can take children from a biological parent if the parent offends state demands. The state is interested above all in the welfare of its future citizens, and the regulation of marriage is a way to ensure the best possible environment for rearing children.

Is the state not interested in the millions of children of same sex couples?

 

[TracerBullet]

How are they exactly the same? Because they involve two people?

other than your prejudice how are they different?

There are good reasons for not extending all the same benefits to all people.

and what good reason is there to deny a minority equal rights and equal protection under the law?

 

[resodko]

and what good reason is there to deny a minority equal rights and equal protection under the law?

spoken like a true supporter of pedophilia! :thumb:

 

[TracerBullet]

I don't even know where my marriage license is - but I do know where my ring is.

For thousands of years, people got married without any legal certificates. I think it is an overstated case to say people need or want a certificate.

Even if the government said I couldn't marry the person I love, I would still have a ceremony and commit my love to them.

why should the government discriminate?

Government can do 3 things. 1.) Punish behavior 2.) Promote behavior 3.) Ignore behavior

When you offer special benefits to a particular relationship you are promoting that relationship. Heterosexual marriages should rightly be promoted above and beyond homosexual marriage because they perform a role in society that homosexual marriage cannot.

Homosexual unions are not punishable - but they need not be promoted equally, because they are not equal - by nature.

by this standard only fertile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry as only they can reproduce.

Heterosexual marriages normally produce children and are the only union that can by nature produce children. This is why they should be promoted and protected beyond any other union two people can have. Whether or not a heterosexual couple actually participates in bearing children (by choice or despite their choice) is not the issue. We can't regulate intent.

So you only want the position you are presenting her to be applied to the minority that you want to discriminate against. :thumb:

 

[quip]

Heterosexual marriages are the only unions inherently capable of producing children - by nature..... the government should be concerned with promoting these unions above any other friend or uncle or neighbor or sexual or acquaintance relationships.

Yet, you claimed this: "The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships."

Which is it?

 

[gcthomas]

Yet, you claimed this: "The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships."

Which is it?

Hoist by his own petard.

:Shimei:

 

[quip]

Hoist by his own petard.

:Shimei:

Well, we'll see whether he chooses to recant or special plead.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Yet, you claimed this: "The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships."

Which is it?

You missed my point.

It is good that the government gives special recognition to certain relationships. I was asking if the person ever considered why they would. I wasn't saying the government shouldn't give special recognition.

It is not a basic fundamental right that the government give special recognition to every type of relationship in the US.

Where are the people upset that there isn't special recognition given to good heterosexual friends? Or to neighbors? Or to niece and aunt?

Government recognition is NOT a right of all relationships.