Gay Marriage

[CaptainCornhole]

What's you opinion on it? For it or against it I wanna hear your arguments.

As for me, personally I'm on the fence on this issue.

[Camarohusky]

I am all for it. I have no business dictating what others do in their home, so long as it doesn't harm others outside of it. (and no offense is not a harm)

On a separate note. How do we distinguish polygamy from gay marriage? It's easy to distinguish the other slippry slope head-up-your-ass comparisons like incest, pedophilia, and bestiality, but what about polygamy?

Are there any arguments as to why polygamy shouldn't be allowed? AI don't care to hear any morality arguments. Those arguments are weak and have no place in our government.

[djack]

I personally would rather marriage be removed from the government, including all benefits, and be returned to the purview of religion (this is where gay rights activists will go nuts and stop reading to call me an idiot troll but read on for why if you're actually interested in discussing the issue). The only reason marriage is currently controlled by the government is because until relatively recently all governments were theologies. There was a line of who had what power but really the church controlled the government as well as the people of the nation and could choose to intervene in any subject. Then Henry VIII mucked things up by creating his own church and giving the government control over the church of the state. Before this marriage was a religious ceremony that bound people together in body and soul (not just in Christian Europe but in every nation at every time marriage was more than just physical and often involved people being reunited in the afterlife with their spouses) with the church having the last say so in who could or could not get married/divorced and state officials only being allowed to hold ceremonies for convenience and because the people believed in the divine right of kings. If, after this were done, a "civil union" status was set up for legal unions I don't care if not I still don't care.

At 5/10/12 12:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I am all for it. I have no business dictating what others do in their home, so long as it doesn't harm others outside of it. (and no offense is not a harm)

On a separate note. How do we distinguish polygamy from gay marriage? It's easy to distinguish the other slippry slope head-up-your-ass comparisons like incest, pedophilia, and bestiality, but what about polygamy?

Are there any arguments as to why polygamy shouldn't be allowed? I don't care to hear any morality arguments. Those arguments are weak and have no place in our government.

Population control. The average family has 2.3 children, if a man has the same number of children with each wife in a polygamous home that any other man has in a monogamous home the population grows too quickly.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/10/12 02:18 PM, djack wrote: I personally would rather marriage be removed from the government, including all benefits, and be returned to the purview of religion

Fine and all, but what about familial rights? How we define those if the government stays out of marriage?

Population control. The average family has 2.3 children, if a man has the same number of children with each wife in a polygamous home that any other man has in a monogamous home the population grows too quickly.

Then should we outlaw Mormonism or latinos? What about the Duggers (the owners of a clear mania)? Should we throw all of them in jail?

[djack]

At 5/10/12 02:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/10/12 02:18 PM, djack wrote: I personally would rather marriage be removed from the government, including all benefits, and be returned to the purview of religion

Fine and all, but what about familial rights? How we define those if the government stays out of marriage?

Most of those can be handled with a small amount of paperwork such as inheritance issues or including dependents in company provided insurance, the rest can be made just as simple with a small amendment to their respective laws. Compared to other topics of discussion in this forum this is a relatively simple thing to accomplish.

Population control. The average family has 2.3 children, if a man has the same number of children with each wife in a polygamous home that any other man has in a monogamous home the population grows too quickly.

Then should we outlaw Mormonism or latinos? What about the Duggers (the owners of a clear mania)? Should we throw all of them in jail?

There isn't a law that limits the number of children born but eventually there will have to be. There's a finite amount of space and even with the U.S. ability to produce significantly more food than it already does there is a limit to that as well. Until replicators and terraforming are a scientific reality our ability to reproduce will have to be restricted to a level that the planet can handle. And duggers should get psychiatric help for their mania.

[Th-e]

The word "marriage" should be defined to refer to a man and a woman.

Nothing wrong with civil unions, though.

If the gays want a fancy word for their unions, they should make up their own. After all, America seems to be the best country when it comes to inventing words that eventually end up in dictionaries.

I really don't have anything more to say on this.

[RacistBassist]

At 5/10/12 02:18 PM, djack wrote: I personally would rather marriage be removed from the government, including all benefits, and be returned to the purview of religion (this is where gay rights activists will go nuts and stop reading to call me an idiot troll but read on for why if you're actually interested in discussing the issue).

^This.

When I say it though, I'm called asexual or a troll.

[djack]

At 5/10/12 04:42 PM, Th-e wrote: If the gays want a fancy word for their unions, they should make up their own. After all, America seems to be the best country when it comes to inventing words that eventually end up in dictionaries.

I don't know, we didn't come up with muggle and meatspace was an international effort (sadly both of these words really are in the dictionary). We can't even claim "ain't" as our own because it largely comes from the southern mixture of English and Spanish refined by the laziness of slave owners.

[All-American-Badass]

I'm personally against gay marriage, however I think marriage licenses are stupid. why do you need to governments permission to get married regardless of orientation? If you want to get married to who or whatever find someone who will willingly perform weddings for you and your mate, since we're getting rid of married as a legal status give everyone civil unions in place of that. That way marriage can actually be a right like it was before the government required you to get a license to do so.

[Cercan]

At 5/10/12 04:42 PM, Th-e wrote: The word "marriage" should be defined to refer to a man and a woman.

Nothing wrong with civil unions, though.

If the gays want a fancy word for their unions, they should make up their own. After all, America seems to be the best country when it comes to inventing words that eventually end up in dictionaries.

Civil unions and marriages are not equal. Also civil unions are not recognized in every sate, as marriages are. Example: You get married at 16 in Texas, it is recognized by all states regardless of their required marriage age.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/10/12 04:42 PM, Th-e wrote: The word "marriage" should be defined to refer to a man and a woman.
Nothing wrong with civil unions, though.

Ahh, the good ol' separate but equal. Nothing bad can come from that, right? I mean, we might as well call all theisms "religion" except for Christianity, we'll call that fuck-face-ass-licking-shit-hole-idiocy. No inequality whatsoever. Hyperbole aside, calling Christianity somthing as benign as "civil theism" implies that Christianity is not equal and inherently on a level below others.

At 5/10/12 06:15 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: why do you need to governments permission to get married regardless of orientation?

You don't. You need the government to recognize that marriage to get marriage benefits. You can call yourself married to anything. You can even be religiously married to anything. The government will not give you the benefits that come with marriage unless it recognizes it.

[RacistBassist]

At 5/10/12 07:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Ahh, the good ol' separate but equal. Nothing bad can come from that, right? I mean, we might as well call all theisms "religion" except for Christianity, we'll call that fuck-face-ass-licking-shit-hole-idiocy. No inequality whatsoever. Hyperbole aside, calling Christianity somthing as benign as "civil theism" implies that Christianity is not equal and inherently on a level below others.

I disagree about this being an issue of separate but equal. Marriage is, and has almost always been, a religious thing. I see no problem with making civil unions or domestic partnerships, or what have you, replace marriage and have marriage no longer be a legal term.

You don't. You need the government to recognize that marriage to get marriage benefits. You can call yourself married to anything. You can even be religiously married to anything. The government will not give you the benefits that come with marriage unless it recognizes it.

And that's why marriage should be recognized as a form of civil unions, but not have marriages be the go to legal term

[adrshepard]

I've never quite understood why this is so incredibly important to gay people. The legal and economic benefits (and disadvantages) of marriage don't seem so substantial to merit a national controversy.
Looking at this list, marriage looks to be a mixed bag at the legal and economic level. The only real downside of not being married that would apply to most is the inability to be counted on your partner's health insurance.

So I really don't get why there's so much fuss. I don't exactly buy the notion that the people who've developed their own subculture really give a damn if they can't be a part of the same recognized social institution as everyone else.

[Dawnslayer]

I can't find any basis for why the term "marriage" should be limited to religious use. It's nowhere to be found in the etymology of the word (Latin maritus, derived from mas, meaning "man"), and history seems to indicate the practice of marriage predates all modern religions, if not religion itself. Nor does it appear to have been exclusively a religious power in ancient times, in some cases recognized simply as the mutual consent of the persons involved, without the need for any external sanction. (The Wikipedia article on the subject seems to be reliably cited.) Thus as far as I'm concerned religion has no claim to the word or its meaning, and ought not be granted that power by law or society.

[Iron-Hampster]

the only legitimate reason gay people want the title of marriage for is to get all the legal benefits of being married, in reality there shouldn't be any benefits. In reality, separation of church and state acts BOTH ways contrary to popular belief. If the church don't wanna marry you, find another church or just settle with being together. Should the state out right ban gay marriage, or legalize it? NEITHER! Marriage is a matter of the church and not of the state. State involvement in a religious ceremony is hilariously misplaced and neither the road of theocracy or forced political correctness is the answer.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/10/12 10:36 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Marriage is a matter of the church and not of the state.

My marriage is completely void of religion. It is a purely state construct.

This whole "marriage is for religions only" fallacy serves to have a larger effect in destroying the tradition of marriage than gays do.

[Sense-Offender]

Nobody should give a shit. Let them do what the fuck they want.

[LordJaric]

At 5/10/12 07:46 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I disagree about this being an issue of separate but equal. Marriage is, and has almost always been, a religious thing. I see no problem with making civil unions or domestic partnerships, or what have you, replace marriage and have marriage no longer be a legal term.

Marriage has not always been a religious thing. I believe I recall it marriage being used to form alliances between peoples before it was used in religion, even after religion got involved it was still used as such. Today people can have marriage ceremonies outside of religion. I know that there are or were (canâEUTMt remember who they were) cultures that have/had men marry other men, and that didnâEUTMt even involve sexual relations.

[LordJaric]

This article blows the whole "marriage has always been traditionally between man and woman" out of the water.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 5/10/12 12:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I am all for it. I have no business dictating what others do in their home, so long as it doesn't harm others outside of it. (and no offense is not a harm)

Not allowing gay marraige has nothing to do with dictating what people do in their own homes. Marriage is a legal institution, which is currently not extended to same-sex couples. It does not in any way stop people from doing what they want in their own homes.

Are there any arguments as to why polygamy shouldn't be allowed? AI don't care to hear any morality arguments. Those arguments are weak and have no place in our government.

Why should be abolish slavery? I don't care to hear any morality arguments. Those arguments are weak and have no place in our government.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/11/12 01:30 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Not allowing gay marraige has nothing to do with dictating what people do in their own homes. Marriage is a legal institution, which is currently not extended to same-sex couples. It does not in any way stop people from doing what they want in their own homes.

But it is. It's merely about two consenting adulty choosing to consumate their relationship. Recognizing that relationship does nothing to effect anyone outside of that home, and does no harm to anyone indise of the home.

Speaking of homes, gay couple can't own a home the same way married couples can.

Why should be abolish slavery? I don't care to hear any morality arguments. Those arguments are weak and have no place in our government.

How's about slavery infringes upon the rights of another?

I love it when so called libertarians show their true colors.

[bismuthfeldspar]

Ideally there should be no laws governing marriage, any agreements to share income should be done through a private bank with all fees and legal procedures done at the expense of those involved as is normal in a free market.

You hear gays complaining about not having the same rights as heterosexual couples but what about the unmarried? When are they going to be able to force others to pay for their arbitrary hamfisted legal quagmires?

All this nonsense about gay marriage wouldn't matter then, you can have a ceremony, tell people you are married and sign up for a marriage business agreement, no one will stop you, just under no circumstances are you to force others to pay for it.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/11/12 11:30 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Ideally there should be no laws governing marriage, any agreements to share income should be done through a private bank with all fees and legal procedures done at the expense of those involved as is normal in a free market.

legal marriage is so intertwined in many different aspects of our law that removing it will have a HUGE effect on the institution of marriage.

You hear gays complaining about not having the same rights as heterosexual couples but what about the unmarried? When are they going to be able to force others to pay for their arbitrary hamfisted legal quagmires?

First off, not getting married is a choice. Being barred from marriage altogether is not a choice.

Second, three words: common law marriage.

All this nonsense about gay marriage wouldn't matter then, you can have a ceremony, tell people you are married and sign up for a marriage business agreement, no one will stop you, just under no circumstances are you to force others to pay for it.

Again, I think it's hilarious that people are willing to beat up marriage with a baseball bat in order to keep gays from having it because the gays will "ruin the sanctity of marriage". Hypocritical bunch?

[bismuthfeldspar]

At 5/11/12 11:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote: legal marriage is so intertwined in many different aspects of our law that removing it will have a HUGE effect on the institution of marriage.

Politicians change the law 9 times before breakfast and it has a huge effect, causing recessions and massive government spending. The difference is this time it would be final, they would end government intervention in matters of marriage and then won't have to do anything else.

First off, not getting married is a choice. Being barred from marriage altogether is not a choice.

So if you're a burn victim you have to marry a mexican who wants a green card to get the same medicaid benefits as a married burn victim. Is being unmarried a crime to begin with? Is it some huge social ill that justifies discrimination on par with jim crow?

Second, three words: common law marriage.

Can I choose to not have to pay for all this?

Again, I think it's hilarious that people are willing to beat up marriage with a baseball bat in order to keep gays from having it because the gays will "ruin the sanctity of marriage". Hypocritical bunch?

If they wanted equality they would be fighting for the tax exemptions, benefits and special laws of marriage to be available to everyone including the unmarried, not just themselves, as such they are not fighting for their rights, they are fighting for privileges.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/11/12 12:32 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: The difference is this time it would be final, they would end government intervention in matters of marriage and then won't have to do anything else.

So you would trash the institution of marriage just to keep some from having it?

So if you're a burn victim you have to marry a mexican who wants a green card to get the same medicaid benefits as a married burn victim. Is being unmarried a crime to begin with? Is it some huge social ill that justifies discrimination on par with jim crow?

What does gaming the system have to do with anything?

How are marriage benefits discrimination?

Can I choose to not have to pay for all this?

Grow up? Really, how much stuff out there would people pay taxes for if they could choose? How many vital services would be lost because people are selfish and near-sighted?

That's a piss poor argument for choosing to grant one group the privilage of getting married while holding it from another group.

If they wanted equality they would be fighting for the tax exemptions, benefits and special laws of marriage to be available to everyone including the unmarried, not just themselves, as such they are not fighting for their rights, they are fighting for privileges.

Do you even know what benefits are given out to married couples? I don't think you do.

Can somebody give me a real argument here? This scorched earth stuff is a bullshit cop out. People who are too pussy to let gays get amrried or admit that they have no legitimate reason to deny them marriage.

[paganmist]

I support gay marriage 100%, and I think it should be called "marriage" just like heterosexual marriage is. The only arguments against gay marriage are all the equivalent of, "I want to keep this special thing that's only for me and not let these other people have it," and that's just not a good enough reason when you're a part of an egalitarian society.

* Marriage is secular. Religious folks think they own marriage, but it's always been a business arrangement first and foremost. If you're religious, you should be allowed to create your own religious ceremony to add on top of your secular business arrangement, but don't try to force everyone else to follow your religious rules.

* Marriage keeps changing. This idea that marriage "has always been between a man and a woman" is just false. Marriage throughout history has changed depending on the cultural, the trends, or the most popular religion at the time. Gay marriage has existed since before Christianity, even.

* Marriage has changed here in the United States before. Once upon a time, blacks couldn't marry whites, and people argued that's "how it's always been." Our society decided that was wrong, and we changed the rules. So in the United States, we've established precedence that if the rules about marriage are wrong and discriminatory, we are allowed - no, we're EXPECTED - to change them in our continual quest to form a more perfect union where everyone is equal.

* Gays are human beings and deserve equal life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - and marriage is one of the happiest experiences members of our society can participate in. Even if you personally hate the idea of marriage, there is no denying that in our society, marriage is viewed as one of those Big Events that defines a person's life in a joyful way. Blocking people from being able to experience one of these "big events" for no reason other than "We heteros want to keep this for ourselves" is just EVIL. Yes, I said EVIL.

* Gays are citizens who pay taxes - not only are they entitled to equal and fair treatment by their birthright, they're entitled because they pay money as well. When the government subsidizes married couples by giving them tax breaks/credits, etc., those subsidies are coming out of gay pockets as well as straight. How screwed up is it that gays must pay taxes to benefit straight married couples who gladly take the tax break/tax credit from them, then turn around and try to block them from receiving those benefits?

I'm not gay, but I'm engaged to get married to someone I've been dating/living with for six years and am certain I'll be spending the rest of my life with. It's exciting and amazing and scary and if someone decided to deny me the chance to experience this because my boyfriend and I are different races, I'd be devastated.

Long story short, it's plain wrong to deny citizens the right to marry for arbitrary, selfish reasons, which are the only reasons that anyone ever has to block gay marriage - arbitrary, selfish, EVIL reasons.

[adrshepard]

At 5/11/12 12:19 AM, LordJaric wrote: This article blows the whole "marriage has always been traditionally between man and woman" out of the water.

Yeah, if you consider the practices of some obscure Indian and African tribes to have any bearing on what has been been done in Western civilization for the past 1000+ years.
I have no doubt you could cite the example of certain African and Native American peoples if I were to say that cannibalism has always been an abhorent and despicable practice.
Hell, you could even reference the Spartans to argue that killing babies is okay so long as they are undesirable. Or pedophillia, for that matter.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/11/12 07:24 PM, adrshepard wrote: Yeah, if you consider the practices of some obscure Indian and African tribes to have any bearing on what has been been done in Western civilization for the past 1000+ years.

I guess the enlightenment never happened. We'll take all of the Western tradition adr likes, but ignore that which adr doesn't like. You know, like a little thing called "equality".

[adrshepard]

At 5/11/12 04:42 PM, paganmist wrote: * Marriage is secular. Religious folks think they own marriage, but it's always been a business arrangement first and foremost.

What are you talking about? At the very least, the two concepts have been intertwined as far back as Roman times and probably earlier. A purely secular elopement, I'd bet (I'm no expert) is a very recent invention.

* Marriage has changed here in the United States before. Once upon a time, blacks couldn't marry whites, and people argued that's "how it's always been."

No, blacks COULD marry whites, it was just never done. Social attitudes change over time and the concept of what is "acceptable" is entirely subjective. You're mistaking cultural norms for some sort of continuous, progressive march towards some absolute and pure ideal. What you call "acceptable" is still even now scorned by a small segment of the population. They're only wrong in the sense that you and the majority believe them to be wrong. In most cases, that's good enough, but when the majority isn't on your side or it's evenly split, well, who knows?

* Gays are human beings and deserve equal life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - and marriage is one of the happiest experiences members of our society can participate in. Even if you personally hate the idea of marriage, there is no denying that in our society, marriage is viewed as one of those Big Events that defines a person's life in a joyful way.

That happiness derives from the love a couple, homo or hetero, share with each other and not from some official recognition of the relationship, or from legal or economic effects. If the government were to abstain from any involvement or recognition of marriage, would the couples be less happy together?

* Gays are citizens who pay taxes - not only are they entitled to equal and fair treatment by their birthright, they're entitled because they pay money as well. When the government subsidizes married couples by giving them tax breaks/credits, etc., those subsidies are coming out of gay pockets as well as straight. How screwed up is it that gays must pay taxes to benefit straight married couples who gladly take the tax break/tax credit from them, then turn around and try to block them from receiving those benefits?

By your logic, marriage has become an entitlement. After all, single people pay taxes, too. Why discriminate against those who can't find the right man or woman in their lives? Who's going to arrange the marriage that I deserve?

I'm not gay, but I'm engaged to get married to someone I've been dating/living with for six years and am certain I'll be spending the rest of my life with. It's exciting and amazing and scary and if someone decided to deny me the chance to experience this because my boyfriend and I are different races, I'd be devastated.

Listen to what you are saying: if other people didn't call our relationship "marriage," and if we didn't experience certain advantages (and disadvantages!) from our union, we couldn't be happy together.

The controversy has nothing to do with love or happiness, and I'd wager not so much about material consequences, but more so about perceived slights against a group of people that have learned to be hypersensitive.

[orangebomb]

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but with that said, I also support the right of certain churches not accepting to marry a gay/lesbian couple on the accounts of their religious freedom. {Never said that they had a good reason why, but on a technical level, it falls under the 1st Amendment.} Of course, there are always other options out there, considering that I view marriage as a contract by the state first and to a church/religious order second, so it's not like marriage can't be done in a traditional fashion nowadays.

Let's be honest here, if there are people out there who can marry, oh let's say, a farm animal or an anime/VG character {waifu} and people don't bat an eyelash, much less give a damn, then logically, I can't see why 2 gay/lesbian people should get married if they so choose.