Gay Marriage

[Autumn]

Frankly I've never understood the legal argument against polygamy. It looks like a system that is often abused, yes, from what little I know, and clearly an expression of a patriarchal society. And it would give the IRS some extra work to figure out. But fundamentally I don't see why it necessarily needs to be illegal. So that seems a natural element to include on the slippery slope. Maybe there's some good argument about it, I've never really read much on the issue. It's funny that the argument about marriage needing to be based on Christian values doesn't get applied to Mormons.

[Draft Dodger]

to preserve the sanctity of marriage, I believe that all marriages should be conducted by an Elvis impersonator

[JediKooter]

If this shit wasn't happening: Former Child Bride 'Escapes' FLDS Community With Children - Yahoo! News I really don't see what the problem is with polygamy. If a man thinks he's man enough to handle multiple wives, have at it. Same if a woman thinks she can handle multiple husbands. Just don't bitch about getting nagged all the time by your 5 wives or complain that your 5 husbands don't leave the toilet seat down.

[SteveMax58]

Voted yes because all people deserve the same rights (or punishments as it were).

I almost voted no simply because I think all marriages should be technically classified as Civil Unions and given the same rights & benefits but not called marriages as that has religious connotation. And the more we can keep separate religion & state the better off we are.

My only reason for voting yes is because I look at the poll "as it stands today".

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I had a dream once that I was dating a woman who was beautiful and wealthy. She then informed me that while she loved me, she had someone else in her life who was very interested in meeting me. She introduced me to her wife, who was even hotter. They wanted to marry me so they could have a man in their lives.

I was really pissed when I woke up from that dream.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Marriage = no.

Civil union/domestic partnership w/ all legal rights granted to married couples = yes.

I used to say that but then I realized. WTF does wording matter?

A marriage is a marriage. Let them get married if they choose. If Westboro Baptist doesn't see them as married (or *insert church here* feels the same way) that is their right but as far as the law is concerned they are married and that is what counts to them (I doubt that any gay couple gives a crap if certain religious groups don't 'recognize' their marriage; hell, the catholic church doesn't recognize my wife's marriage to the point where they wouldn't let her take communion at her own mother's funeral because a female methodist minister married us; we say screw them).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Are we really throwing up our hands about a "word"? Who cares what the relationship is called so long as same sex and opposite sex couples are provided the same rights and opportunities by the government.

Well you are the one throwing your hands up over a word. It matters to you for some reason.

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

The First Amendment also provides religious entities rights too and those rights need to be respected along with the rights of gay men and women.

Nothing about gay marriage restricts the rights of religious entities. If you are religious, don't marry someone of the same sex.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I almost voted no simply because I think all marriages should be technically classified as Civil Unions and given the same rights & benefits but not called marriages as that has religious connotation. And the more we can keep separate religion & state the better off we are.

Marriage really isn't a religious thing. It was historically used as a way of determining inheritance, maintaining lineage, and what individual rights a person had. Religion didn't enter the picture till much farther down the road.

Marriage as part of religion is a recent tradition. It was originally used for many of the same reasons the government uses it today. A set of right and benefits for individuals. I'm fine with religions want to hold their own ceremonies and do their own things (as long as it's legal). But it really has nothing to do with the government and those groups trying to take ownership of it are revising history.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

hell, the catholic church doesn't recognize my wife's marriage to the point where they wouldn't let her take communion at her own mother's funeral because a female methodist minister married us; we say screw them).

See this is the issue I have with churches. How the hell do the know, let alone care how she got married? Is there some person there with a clipboard checking off names and telling people what they can and can't do. I went to a catholic church for a couple years in my early twenties and if I had walked up to take communion no one would have known whether or not I was baptized or not in the religion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by finketr

Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

Health insurance is a pass through cost that the employee ultimately pays for. It is part of their salary. This is no different than telling an employee that they are not allowed to spend their paycheck on soft drinks or fast food. The Church in your example is not paying for anything.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred,

This argument ignores the quite obvious fact that there is a large portion of the population that isn't religious who hold the term marriage sacred as well. Religious folk aren't the only ones who believe certain terms of statuses are sacred. Sometimes are just so powerfully embedded within a culture that they attain a level of sacredness.

Furthermore, there are quite a growing number of the population that has a religious belief, holds the term marriage sacred, and believes that it is Godly to extend that right (or sacrament) to homosexuals.

And finally, in the 1950s there was a large portion of the population that had a religious belief that marriage is sacred and people of different races marrying was not part of that sacredness. We going to make laws to assuage them? I'm glad we finally decided that wasn't an option.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred, and that to use it as a legal term to define a union they believe is a sin goes against their belief.

And nothing is stopping them from keeping marriage as something sacred in their religion. They are not required to attend a same-sex wedding, or hold them in their places of worship. Something being "sacred" to a segment of the population does not allow for discrimination against the rest. Wine is sacred in certain religions, should it be banned from the rest of us? That's sort of the same theory.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well you are the one throwing your hands up over a word. It matters to you for some reason.

Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

Nothing about gay marriage restricts the rights of religious entities. If you are religious, don't marry someone of the same sex.

You know that, and I know that but do they know that?

[Izulde]

The 6 No votes don't surprise me in the least.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

I have no problem with that myself .... IF the government then stops giving special treatment to people who are 'married' and require them to also have civil government ceremonies to get their tax breaks etc.

Essentially reducing marriage to a religious only ceremony with no significance outside of that (after all the tax situation etc. which marriage has presently is a lack of separation of church and state etc.).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

You know that, and I know that but do they know that?

If it's about religion, why are they not upset when Atheists get married at the courthouse? Why is there not an equal push to force them to call their marriage a civil union? I guess I just feel the marriage is a religious term is a copout for them. If this was truly about preserving their tradition, they should be equally appalled if an Atheist is considered married.

Marriage isn't a religious term either. And I don't think a group of people of any belief should be able to come together, take ownership of something that others have used long before, and claim they are the only ones who can have it. To me this is like a religion claiming that wine is part of their religion and that no one should be able to have it unless they are religious.

Ultimately I don't care what it's called as long as everyone is the same in the government's eyes. If they want to call everyone's marriage a civil union, so be it. And religious groups can do what they want in their own private ceremonies. And that doesn't just go for same-sex marriages, it goes for all types of marriage. I feel this isn't much different than demanding that interracial marriages be called civil unions because marriage is a white thing.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If it's about religion, why are they not upset when Atheists get married at the courthouse? Why is there not an equal push to force them to call their marriage a civil union? I guess I just feel the marriage is a religious term is a copout for them. If this was truly about preserving their tradition, they should be equally appalled if an Atheist is considered married.

People using organized religion to support their own personal bias or for nefarious motive is not a new or different idea. Organized religion itself isn't bad, but like guns, people can use it to do that things in the name of bigotry.

Marriage isn't a religious term either. And I don't think a group of people of any belief should be able to come together, take ownership of something that others have used long before, and claim they are the only ones who can have it. To me this is like a religion claiming that wine is part of their religion and that no one should be able to have it unless they are religious.

Ultimately I don't care what it's called as long as everyone is the same in the government's eyes. If they want to call everyone's marriage a civil union, so be it. And religious groups can do what they want in their own private ceremonies. And that doesn't just go for same-sex marriages, it goes for all types of marriage. I feel this isn't much different than demanding that interracial marriages be called civil unions because marriage is a white thing.

FWIW, the government should label all "marriages" as civil unions to get out of this quandary all together. Give all couples the same label and the same benefits. Like it or not, a significant amount of the populous identify marriage as a religious term, so why not skip the debate and start fresh with something new that applies to all couples?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

FWIW, the government should label all "marriages" as civil unions to get out of this quandary all together. Give all couples the same label and the same benefits. Like it or not, a significant amount of the populous identify marriage as a religious term, so why not skip the debate and start fresh with something new that applies to all couples?

There is no quandary. It seems that you want to adopt the term marriage for only religious ceremonies, but that's not up to you or your religion or the "significant amount of the populous". My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

[OldGiants]

I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.

[digamma]

Ok I will play on your terms:

1. Increased government revenue for additional marriage licenses.

2. Increased sales tax revenue for wedding expenses.

3. Stimulation of local economies (many small businesses) with increased number of weddings.

4. Increased revenue for divorce related court fees.

5. Divorce lawyers have more work, as do marriage counselors, etc.

Just a few benefits off the top of my head. These in addition to the intangible benefits or indirect benefits (increased productivity because of a happier home life).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

If that is purely the case though why do married couples get treated differently for tax purposes even if they don't have kids? ... the same thing with regards to if one of them was in the military and killed in action, how is their partner treated afterwards etc.

This is about equality and treating people fairly - I don't think they're asking for any more than that.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.

What do you get out of an unknown man-woman getting married?
What is the public benefit of allowing straight marriages?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Marriage really isn't a religious thing. It was historically used as a way of determining inheritance, maintaining lineage, and what individual rights a person had. Religion didn't enter the picture till much farther down the road.

Marriage as part of religion is a recent tradition. It was originally used for many of the same reasons the government uses it today. A set of right and benefits for individuals. I'm fine with religions want to hold their own ceremonies and do their own things (as long as it's legal). But it really has nothing to do with the government and those groups trying to take ownership of it are revising history.

Understood on the origination of marriage as a concept but its taken on a completely different definition in US vernacular. Once vernacular has morphed the definition it isn't easy to get back to the original definition & sometimes its just as well to use a new term thats less associative.

No different than a lot of words that are not considered appropriate such as the word retarded being applied to a person that is mentally handicapped.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by digamma

Ok I will play on your terms:

1. Increased government revenue for additional marriage licenses.

2. Increased sales tax revenue for wedding expenses.

3. Stimulation of local economies (many small businesses) with increased number of weddings.

4. Increased revenue for divorce related court fees.

5. Divorce lawyers have more work, as do marriage counselors, etc.

Just a few benefits off the top of my head. These in addition to the intangible benefits or indirect benefits (increased productivity because of a happier home life).

And those are just the financial benefits. There are intangible benefits such as the increased happiness of those individuals who now can get married and feel as they are treated equally.

An interesting thing to do is to actually read the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education. It doesn't have much to do with the fact that blacks would get facilities that were less equal than the whites, and more to do with the fact that seperationism made blacks feel like an inferior race and denied them equal protection in the manifestation of their being second class citizens. This is not much different.

[BrianD]

Going back to the polygamy part of this discussion, I seriously wonder if we won't have that legal discussion back on the table in our lifetimes. We are at a point where a family with children almost needs two working parents, but having a parent that stays home with the kids also has benefits. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually go the route of having two working parents and a third staying at home with the kids.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

There is no quandary. It seems that you want to adopt the term marriage for only religious ceremonies, but that's not up to you or your religion or the "significant amount of the populous". My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

Thank you, this is the same exact point I was attempting to make earlier, but worded much better.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

I'm in the same situation, but my take on the "invalid" comment would be completely different. The State tells me that my marriage is valid, so anyone who tries to tell me their God doesn't consider it valid would only receive pity from me. In fact, I would prefer that people who have this view tell me so. I can put them on the list of people who are too small-minded to be worth my time and move on.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them.

How can you say it isn't truth? They are being denied the same rights as fellow Americans because of their sexual orientation.

Was segrigation not truth? Women voting? Prohibition?

I don't see how you can make a statement like that, makes no sense to me.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How can you say it isn't truth? They are being denied the same rights as fellow Americans because of their sexual orientation.

Was segrigation not truth? Women voting? Prohibition?

I don't see how you can make a statement like that, makes no sense to me.

I would imagine he didn't mean "truth", he meant "Truth". Religious "Truth" doesn't always agree with the notion of human rights...sadly.

[larrymcg421]

We shouldn't be looking for a public benefit to allow rights. We should look for a public benefit if we want to deny rights. If there is no public benefit, then the right should be allowed.

[larrymcg421]

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot

What Norv said.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Izulde

The 6 No votes don't surprise me in the least.

Nope.

It seems the more likely someone is to say that the government can't infringe upon their rights, the more likely they are to want to deny other people rights that they freely enjoy.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot

1. No.
2. Not today.
3. It's not just about procreation.

I do understand the point you are trying to make though.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

3. It's not just about procreation.

because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?

No because having rights to visit your significant other as they lay in a coma after a near death accident and being legally allowed to provide for them and make legal decisions for them isn't allowed without a gov't stamp.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?

What's beautiful is polygamy is invalid with a gov't stamp, but if you don't make it official you can do anything you want with as many people as you want!

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

that's what living will's are for.

and it is for procreation. that's why it was incentivized in the u.s.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

It seems the more likely someone is to say that the government can't infringe upon their rights, the more likely they are to want to deny other people rights that they freely enjoy.

Bingo

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

that's what living will's are for.

and it is for procreation. that's why it was incentivized in the u.s.

Not everyone has the time, money, or understanding for a living will. And like I said I understand your point, I realize that procreation makes tax payers. But that isn't the only reason why people get married or want to get married.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

on the back of your license have, 'in result of my incapacitation please consult my baby mama. she's my on the regular ho.'

or some such. problem solved

[Crapshoot]

I'm shocked by this vote to some extent. I expected it to be pro-gay marriage, but 90%+ in favor.

[stevew]

I saw some polling the other day that was suggesting that like 70%ish of the people didn't think Roe v Wade should be overturned.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Not everyone has the time, money, or understanding for a living will. And like I said I understand your point, I realize that procreation makes tax payers. But that isn't the only reason why people get married or want to get married.

Exactly. Marriage is a one-stop-shop for your spouse to get a whole host of rights, in addition to a committed affirmation of one's love for the other person.

And if one thinks procreation isn't to be encouraged, I would point out the issues a lot of European countries are currently having with their birth rates being lower than their death rates and what that means for the financial health of the country.

[Subby]

Biggest landslide since Stacey Kiebler HoN?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Subby

Biggest landslide since Stacey Kiebler HoN?

It's currently beating her by 1%.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Understood on the origination of marriage as a concept but its taken on a completely different definition in US vernacular. Once vernacular has morphed the definition it isn't easy to get back to the original definition & sometimes its just as well to use a new term thats less associative.

No different than a lot of words that are not considered appropriate such as the word retarded being applied to a person that is mentally handicapped.

It's not illegal to use the word retarded though. If the definition of a word wants to change over time, that's fine, but it shouldn't be illegal to use for a segment of the population. Like I said earlier, I don't care what we call it for everyone, just as long as it's the same.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.

I'm white, I don't see why blacks should be able to use children as a deduction on their income tax forms. I mean it doesn't do anything for me since I'm white.

I'm also a male, there is nothing in it for me if women are allowed to vote. I've heard Asians make bad drivers so not sure how it benefits me to allow them to obtain a drivers license.

Civil rights aren't usually a "how does it benefit me?" proposition. If you're arguing that all marriage benefits are a waste and shouldn't be given, I understand. But saying that if things don't benefit me they shouldn't be given to others is no different than the examples I gave.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And if one thinks procreation isn't to be encouraged, I would point out the issues a lot of European countries are currently having with their birth rates being lower than their death rates and what that means for the financial health of the country.

we should ship over a contingent of girls from my hs class because they're shitting out kids by the bushel