# How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 30, 2012)

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.


----------



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.



People seeking same-marriage would likely disagree with you wholeheartedly.

But regardless, that isn't the question.  The question is what is the benefit to infringing upon a same-sex couple's pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> 
> So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.


I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval.  It's something the government needs to get out of altogether.  It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Si modo said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> ...



Sure. But the government *is* involved. I recognize that you don't want it to be, but it is.

Since it is, is there any reason that same-sex marriages should be discriminated against?


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

"Marriage" as recognized by the law for the purpose of home ownership, power of attorney, etc, and "marriage" from a religious standpoint are two totally different things.

I think gays should get the same rights and protections under the law that hetero-sexual couples do... while any religious establishment retains the right to refuse marrying gays in the name of their own religion if they so choose.  Asking anything more or less of either side is just being overbearing, IMO.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> "Marriage" as recognized by the law for the purpose of home ownership, power of attorney, etc, and "marriage" from a religious standpoint are two totally different things.
> 
> I think gays should get the same rights and protections under the law that hetero-sexual couples do... while any religious establishment retains the right to refuse marrying gays in the name of their own religion if they so choose.  Asking anything more or less of either side is just being overbearing, IMO.



There has never been talk of anyone forcing religions that don't support same-sex marriage to perform them.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Seeing as the constitution does not discriminate against gender, sexuality or race I don't see how anyone can make a case that 2 people of the same sex should not be allowed to be married and have that opinion enforced by the Government. 

It's pure corruption based on bigotry, plain and simple.

As for the case that there needs to be a benefit to society, where did that come from? Should we outlaw smoking, or eating sugar because there is no benefit to society? Where is this rule being handed down from, the constitution?


----------



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

Si modo said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> ...



I find nothing material in your philosophical viewpoint with which to take issue, except that it doesn't pass pragmatic muster.  You see, the government is already involved, and deeply.  As long as there is a mechanism in place that allows two consenting adults to participate in a government sponsored institution offering financial and lawful benefits, any two consenting adults ought to qualify... unless of course there is a strong societal benefit to restricting it.  So again, what is the benefit?


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > "Marriage" as recognized by the law for the purpose of home ownership, power of attorney, etc, and "marriage" from a religious standpoint are two totally different things.
> ...



Well the term "gay marriage" is thrown around a whole lot.  It's hard to tell exactly who's talking about what when they refer to "marriage."


----------



## Ariux (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> There has never been talk of anyone forcing religions that don't support same-sex marriage to perform them.



There are now many laws that force religious people and people of morality to take part in same-sex activities.   This is the purpose of having the government recognize same-sex marriage, to have the government force everyone to take part in or support same-sex marriages.

Churches have been forced to open up their property to same-sex weddings.  Church members have been forced to provide personal services in same-sex weddings.  How nice that a minister hasn't yet been forced to perform a same sex wedding.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 30, 2012)

Marriage is a religious institution and civil unions a government-based institution.  I see no reason to harm someone economically in one group or the other.  Religion should have the right to define what marriage is within their denomination.


----------



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> As for the case that there needs to be a benefit to society, where did that come from? Should we outlaw smoking, or eating sugar because there is no benefit to society? Where is this rule being handed down from, the constitution?



That came from me, as it is my strongly held opinion that infringing upon an individual's pursuit of happiness needs to be justified, at least if I'm going to support it anyway.  For example, laws against murder might infringe upon a psychopath's pursuit of happiness, but the benefit to society of outlawing murder is worth it to me.  So what is the benefit of banning same-sex marriage?


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


I thought my views were clear on that.    Techincally, the only type of marriages the government is involved in are civil unions, except for their recognition fo the authority of religious persons on granting civil unions.  The latter would be easy enough for the government to stop doing.

But, getting into details, marriage is a religious ceremony and the government cannot tell churches what marriages they can or cannot do.

Anyone can have a civil union, on the other hand.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Therein lies the reason for MANY of our problems. 
The founders tasked our government with very few and well defined responsibilities. The greatest of which is ensuring the constitutional rights of the people remain intact. Otherwise, the intent was to allow the people to govern themselves. 

I have absolutely no problem with the states who BY REFERENDUM have decided to recognize gay unions. I do have an issue with states like Iowa where the decision was made by a handful of judges, most of whom btw became unemployed shortly thereafter. 

My biggest issue with the whole gay marriage thing is the insistence of the LGBT lobby to accept nothing less than "marriage". There was a time when all the push was for civil unions but just as the opposition started to wane we got this full court press for "marriage" and nothing less. 

Seems pretty unreasonable to me considering the arguments gay advocates make regarding matters of estate and circumstances regarding "immediate family".


----------



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

Fact:

When my wife and I got married, we filled out an application for a MARRIAGE license, we did not fill out an application for a CIVIL UNION license.  I'm not sure where people got the crazy notion that the government calls them a civil union and not a marriage.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


None that I see in banning it.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > As for the case that there needs to be a benefit to society, where did that come from? Should we outlaw smoking, or eating sugar because there is no benefit to society? Where is this rule being handed down from, the constitution?
> ...



LOL, my bad I somehow read what you wrote as asking How does gay marriage benefit society, not how does banning gay marriage help society.

I agree with you then.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.



More women for me.


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > There is no major benefit of *same sex* marriage.
> ...



Women marrying women = more women for you?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Ooops, fuck.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 30, 2012)

The question in the OP is the wrong question.  The question should be:

How does society benefit from the government recognizing same-sex marriages.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 30, 2012)

Ariux said:


> The question in the OP is the wrong question.  The question should be:
> 
> How does society benefit from the government recognizing same-sex marriages.



No.  Further, government has no rights not granted by the people and should be constrained, insofar as is possible, from trampling the rights of the citizens.  So, government would need to make a strong case that there was a benefit to denying rights in order to continue to do so (i.e., denying felon voting rights).  I do not believe that this benefit exists, and even if a small benefit existed, it would not outweigh the great evil of denying civil liberties.

Denial of same sex marriage rights will go down in 5 years, if not sooner.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 30, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > The question in the OP is the wrong question.  The question should be:
> ...



The liberal con is insist this is about homosexual rights, when it's really about expansion of government to deny the rights of people of morality.  This fact makes your whole argument about the government trampling rights hypocritical.  You want to force churches to hand their property over to homosexual couples wanting to get married.  You want to force church members to perform personal services at same-sex weddings.  These things are already happening in parts of America. 

What force is there in "banning same-sex marriage"?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

Where this is love, there is God, in my humble opinion.  Banning universal marriage in unacceptable to me.



manifold said:


> When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> 
> So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 30, 2012)

Ariux said:


> The liberal con is insist this is about homosexual rights, when it's really about expansion of government to deny the rights of people of morality.  This fact makes your whole argument about the government trampling rights hypocritical.  You want to force churches to hand their property over to homosexual couples wanting to get married.  You want to force church members to perform personal services at same-sex weddings.  These things are already happening in parts of America.
> 
> What force is there in "banning same-sex marriage"?



What rights of people of morality would be denied by legalizing same-sex marriage?

No one is proposing that churches be required to marry anyone they don't want to marry.  

Please, tell us where these things are happening.  Links, prease.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

Anyone can practice their form of morality in a church that does not recognize homosexuality or universal marriage.

The government cannot interfere with religious marriages.

The government can insist that religious marriages that want to be recognized with all the civil perqs of traditional marriage be registered with the state.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 30, 2012)

Si modo said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> ...





The government gives benefits to the surviving partner of a heterosexual marriage but not a same-sex marriage.

The government allows the foreign spouse in a hetersexual marriage to apply for a green card based on that relationship, but not the foreign spouse in a same-sex marriage.

The gov't is already involved, and is discriminating.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 30, 2012)

Si modo said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




So green cards and survivor benefits should go to the spouses in civil unions?


Edit to note that I'm replying as I read along.  My apologies if you have already answered this.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 30, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > The liberal con is insist this is about homosexual rights, when it's really about expansion of government to deny the rights of people of morality.  This fact makes your whole argument about the government trampling rights hypocritical.  You want to force churches to hand their property over to homosexual couples wanting to get married.  You want to force church members to perform personal services at same-sex weddings.  These things are already happening in parts of America.
> ...



1) Check the news, or Google.
2) Why do you need a link?  Why don't you take a position on whether it should or should not be happening?


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 30, 2012)

Society benefits from having legal protections AND religion.  Blurring the two is not progress.


----------



## blackhawk (Jul 30, 2012)

Same sex marriage is and always will be a non issue with me I just don't care either way.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.
> ...



Not to mention their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

A google search reveals no such efforts, Ariux.  Fail.



Ariux said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...


----------



## Gem (Jul 30, 2012)

I have no "fear" of homosexuality or same-sex marriage.  But I am concerned as to what the precedent of changing the legal definition of marriage would bring to the United States as time progressed.

Most obviously, once gay marriage has been legalized - the denial of other types of marriage between consenting adults will become all but impossible to argue against.  Once we have, as a nation, stated that marriage is not the legal union of a man and a woman, but rather, the legal union of two consenting adults....there is NO argument for why it can't be a legal union between three, four, etc. consenting adults that will hold up in court.

Now, maybe thats fine.  Maybe nothing bad will come of allowing six people from "marrying," but it is a conversation we should probably have now, that we aren't having.  In fact, many gay-marriage supporters act OFFENDED when the idea is mentioned.  This is either naivete or a willful blindness because they don't want to admit that their changing the definition of marriage will open the door to further changes down the road...changes that will only be easier because of their work.

With that problem comes other problems - how do we identify legal parents when a marriage might consist of six people?  How do businesses handle the healthcare of families of these types?  What happens to assets, children, visitation rights, spousal support, etc. when these families "divorce?"  

Again...these problems might not be the end of the US as we know it.  They might not even happen.  But shouldn't we at least discuss where redefining marriage might lead?

Then there is the question of discrimination...and many here have said "It won't happen."  But it IS happening.  Denmark is forcing its churches to perform gay marriages.  And a wedding photographer in New Mexico lost a law suit when she was sued for refusing to photograph gay marriage ceremonies.

Once we legally recognize something...we are going to have to address whether someone's civil rights are being violated if they are then "denied access" to that "right."  These cases WILL become common...and our courts WILL have to address whether or not a church has the right to deny someone something that the United States says they are legally allowed to have.  You may feel that churches should have the right to deny a gay couple the ability to marry at their church...but given the fact that other nations are already dealing with this very issue...and given the fact that we are already seeing discrimination cases in our own nation...shouldn't we at least discuss it?

Sadly...I think one of the biggest hindrances to REALLY addressing gay marriage and if it should be legalized is the gay marriage supporters labeling anyone who questions the wisdom of such a decision as a homophobic bigot...effectively stifling any intelligent debate and potentially causing us to make a decision without fully considering the consequences.

I am not against gay marriage - I'm not necessarily for it yet either.  I have numerous homosexual friends whose weddings I would be honored to attend.  But first, I want to have a thorough, calm, and well-reasoned debate as to whether it is the right decision for our nation - and how we are going to deal with the issues that legalizing gay marriage would bring.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

Marriage has responsibilities along with perquisites.  Whether two or six people, the responsibilities will be apportioned by law, as they are now for two parents.

Gem's point should not be dismissed but neither should we believe her concerns cannot be addressed by our leges and our courts.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 30, 2012)

> Therein lies the reason for MANY of our problems.
> The founders tasked our government with very few and well defined responsibilities. The greatest of which is ensuring the constitutional rights of the people remain intact. Otherwise, the intent was to allow the people to govern themselves.


Within the context of Constitutional case law, and the rule of law in general. 



> I have absolutely no problem with the states who BY REFERENDUM have decided to recognize gay unions. I do have an issue with states like Iowa where the decision was made by a handful of judges, most of whom btw became unemployed shortly thereafter.



A state disallowing a class of persons access to its laws is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. See e.g. _Romer v. Evans_. 



> My biggest issue with the whole gay marriage thing is the insistence of the LGBT lobby to accept nothing less than "marriage". There was a time when all the push was for civil unions but just as the opposition started to wane we got this full court press for "marriage" and nothing less.



As mandated by the Constitution. 



> Seems pretty unreasonable to me considering the arguments gay advocates make regarding matters of estate and circumstances regarding "immediate family".


Wishing to realize ones Constitutional rights is hardly unreasonable.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Ironically, the CWA (Concerned Women of America) have taken the position that if gay marriage is legalized, women will leave their husbands in droves to marry each other.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



really cant blame them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

What a blessing for many men who will be free to find the right woman (or man).





bodecea said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 30, 2012)

Ariux said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



You made the claim that churches were already being forced to marry gays.  Back it up.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 31, 2012)

JS, this is clean debate zone, but not an honesty zone. Too bad.  On other hand, if we all had to be honest, there would be no debate, because there would be no liberals here.

These same-sex marriage laws are typically passed along with anti-discrimination laws.  If you were even modestly familiar with this issue, you'd already know this.  And, if you were had even modest skills with Google, you'd have no trouble finding victims of these anti-discrimination laws. E.g. Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Lost Lawsuit

Again, this is the point of government recognition of same-sex marriage, to force people of morality to support and take part in homosexual activities.

A government violation of a right is characterized by the use of government force, or threat thereof.  The only people having their rights violated in any state of the union are people of morality, not homosexuals. 



JakeStarkey said:


> A google search reveals no such efforts, Ariux.  Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ariux (Jul 31, 2012)

Column: Penn State case bad, but church sex abuse worse

This is one of the fruits of our society's celebration of homosexuality, boys being molested by homosexuals.  Cheers to the Boy Scouts for resisting opening up the Scouts as a meat market to homosexuals (which would be very costly to the Scouts, in addition to the boys).


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

We cannot allow gay people to be married, because then people will just pretend to gay so they can get married and get money from the government!
Your kids will want to be gay to see what it feels like, and no one wants a homo for a kid.
And why stop at marriage? We all know that gay marriage will lead to multiple marriages, its just how these things work! And don't forget the pedophiles, they will want to marry children because they are in love and to deny them equal rights is discrimination!!!!!!!!!

Have I forgotten any retarded homophobic argument here?


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

manifold said:


> When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> 
> So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.



So I presume you also feel that there should be no ban against multiple marriage, underage marriage, marriage between siblings, etc?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> ...



Bans against multiple marriages, yes. Bans on underage marriage, and no ban on sibling marriages, but no children can come of the relationship.


----------



## JFK_USA (Jul 31, 2012)

Churches can do want they want but for the church to prevent the government from recognizing two people who want to make a commitment goes against what Thomas Jefferson said. Separation of Church and State.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Jul 31, 2012)

Gem said:


> I have no "fear" of homosexuality or same-sex marriage.  But I am concerned as to what the precedent of changing the legal definition of marriage would bring to the United States as time progressed.
> 
> Most obviously, once gay marriage has been legalized - the denial of other types of marriage between consenting adults will become all but impossible to argue against.  Once we have, as a nation, stated that marriage is not the legal union of a man and a woman, but rather, the legal union of two consenting adults....there is NO argument for why it can't be a legal union between three, four, etc. consenting adults that will hold up in court.
> 
> ...



If I said, "If we allow felons to work at McDonalds the next thing you know they'll be controlling the country!!" What would you think?

By chance, would you think that's a bit silly? Maybe...a bit of a leap?

The above is, essentially," the shoe on other foot."

 You generalize and assume, you've compared the legitimacy of a union between two lovers to that of an orgy. Are you really surprised homosexuals get offended?

A conversation can be had about redefining marriage without comparing gay marriage to a 6-person "lovefest"


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

JFK_USA said:


> Churches can do want they want but for the church to prevent the government from recognizing two people who want to make a commitment goes against what Thomas Jefferson said. Separation of Church and State.





That is complete nonsense. This has nothing to do with religion, and everything with the fact that marriage is a union between man and wife, as a foundation of society.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 31, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> > Churches can do want they want but for the church to prevent the government from recognizing two people who want to make a commitment goes against what Thomas Jefferson said. Separation of Church and State.
> ...



That assertion no longer holds water.


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...



You're just too narrow-minded and provincial to realize that it does.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



So the marriages of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian are somehow valuable?


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



It is not because some people make a mockery of marriage that we should dump the whole concept and destroy one of the foundations of society.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Explain how marriage is a foundation of society with the divorce rate the way it is.


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



It is still the basic building block of society and of how human society perpetuates itself.

Why do you want to dump marriage and destroy it?

Lots of school are pretty miserable. Should we abolish education?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 31, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Nobody wants to dump marriage. I should be able to marry Noomi, just as you can. You should be able to marry Mani, just like I can. People who love within their own gender are being denied equal rights under the law.


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You are writing complete nonsense. Noomi at least is honest enough to admit that she finds marriage nonsense and useless and wants to dump it.

You just want to destroy it because it doesn't fit in your narrow-minded agenda.


----------



## manifold (Jul 31, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> ...



you presume incorrectly


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 31, 2012)

You are right, your dishonesty is apparent.  The case is discrimination by the individual in business, Ariux, and you were clearly referring to discrimination by the state.  If you were in private business serving the public, you cannot discriminate based on certain protections passed by We the People.  Take your dishonesty elsewhere.

Your real problem is that the state will not let your discriminate based on race.  Politely, step off, fellow.



Ariux said:


> JS, this is clean debate zone, but not an honesty zone. Too bad.  On other hand, if we all had to be honest, there would be no debate, because there would be no liberals here.
> 
> These same-sex marriage laws are typically passed along with anti-discrimination laws.  If you were even modestly familiar with this issue, you'd already know this.  And, if you were had even modest skills with Google, you'd have no trouble finding victims of these anti-discrimination laws. E.g. Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Lost Lawsuit
> 
> ...


----------



## Si modo (Jul 31, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


Absolutely.  ALL the benefits, and the legal problems, associated with marriage should go to civil unions (or marriage - whatever one wants to call it doesn't matter to me).

A good start to getting a better separation of chruch and state in the matter of marriage, is to require ALL couples who want to have a legally recognized marriage/union, to go to the magistrate/justice of the peace/whatever for a civil marriage.  Everyone.

If you want a church wedding, great.  But without that civil union/marriage, you are not legally married.

I have never liked this default agent of the state being a church person, when it comes to marriage.  Never.  It's just constitutionally wrong, IMO.


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

The government recognized institution of marriage has very little resemblance to holy matrimony. There are similarities,  but fundamentally two separate concepts. 
The same is true for Same gender and opposite gender couples. Not to say that either is better or worse than the other, but the inability to comprehend the difference is only proof of how "sex education" has failed to communicate some very basic information.
Regardless of how anyone feels about pro-creation it directly effects the lives of every living,  breathing,  human being on the planet,  and not something that can be swept under a rug. After all, there is a reason why we want young pregnant women to get married and it's not because we like to go to parties, lol. Us old fashioned folks call it "doing the right thing". Which translates as, we believe it's right for a man to be responsible for his family as opposed to burdening the welfare system.  We believe that a child needs two parents to be a healthy,  well adjusted citizen.  We believe that a child has a right to a name that be identified with a medical history or ancestry,  ( That info you put on medical forms and college applications). So we encourage this behavior by having them sign a legally bond document known as a marriage certificate.
However,  same gender couples also deserve the same rights under the law. But with same gender couples there is a different set of needs and requirements. Like the "aids confidentiality Act" enacted through ACLU and the LGBT to fight discrimination.  A very real, very basic need when there are teens committing suicide and the high susceptibility among gay men. This is good thing........for same gender couples.  But blood test for an opposite gender couple could at least create awareness and possible prevention of disease,  disability,  and death to a pregnant woman and/or her children.  Equally important issues,  but very different.
And here another example: Two sisters, both divorced, both have children.  They pool their money together to buy a house.  They live there for 20 years and raise their children together.  They have the same concerns as any other same gender couple.  If one dies, the will loose her home because she will have to sell it pay the taxes.
If we allow those related to marry we intentionally subject children to deformities and disabilities if its an opposite gender couple.  But if they are not allowed to marry, then they face discrimination.
So here is the answer.  Civil partnerships should be as unique to the specific needs and right of same gender couples as marriage is to opposite gender couples.  Obviously you can expect to get the same results in a few years an institution like marriage that has been around for centuries.  But I believe that if LGBT people spent as much time,  effort and money to advocate for the amendments or rights they need instead of pissing in my yard..........


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 31, 2012)

The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.



Actually they legally don't except in a few states. And even that was not by popular vote.  And we are talking about rights that could be established through civil partnerships with less effort or cost. Even if you harden your heart to the epidemic of unwed pregnant women,  the elimination of blood testing to save lives, and discrimination of related same gender couples,  how would justify the special rights for couples as opposed to single parents?


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 31, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.



They have a right to cohibatate and a civil union.  Religious groups have the right to define a marriage.  The OP implies, incorrectly, that the ban is somehow a reversal of past practice.  History shows marriage has always been between a man and a woman.


----------



## manifold (Jul 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.
> ...



The OP implies no such thing.

The author of the OP cannot be held responsible for erroneous inferences subsequently drawn.


----------



## tjvh (Jul 31, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.



I guess that would depend upon how one defines the word *marriage*.


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.





No they don't. That's a perversion of marriage.


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

manifold said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Then I guess *Edited. Not Allowed Here.*


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.
> ...



And in some places they have a right to Civil Marriage.



saveliberty said:


> Religious groups have the right to define a marriage.



True, for Religious Marriage.  Some religious groups define Religious Marriage as only valid between members of different sexes.  Other religious groups define Religious Marriage as valid between consenting adults.




saveliberty said:


> The OP implies, incorrectly, that the ban is somehow a reversal of past practice.  History shows marriage has always been between a man and a woman.



No, actually history shows that "marriage" has been between a man and one or more women.  As a matter of fact there are places today where that is in fact still legal and religious groups which condone it.

Now, there are places where same-sex couples can enter into a legal Civil Marriage, an entity distinct and different then a Religious Marriage.



>>>>


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples.  I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs. Even if it's just the name "civil partnership" that is offensive I see no reason why it cannot be changed. It would be illegal to intentionally offend a minority group. I just don't understand why it has to marriage?  You know it creates contention,  you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples,  and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.


----------



## Borillar (Jul 31, 2012)

Ariux said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > There has never been talk of anyone forcing religions that don't support same-sex marriage to perform them.
> ...



Can you please provide a link? How, where, and when have churches or individuals been forced to do anything in regard to same sex weddings?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples.  I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs.



Take two couples:

Same-sex: law abiding, consenting, infertile, US Citizen, Tax paying, adult.

Different: law abiding, consenting, infertile, US Citizen, Tax paying, adult.​
One couple is allowed to Civilly Marry, one couple is not (in most places).  What "unique" needs apply to one that doesn't apply to the other?




hwyangel said:


> ...  you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples,



No it doesn't.  Joan and Jane down the street getting Civilly Married has no impact on the Civil/Religous Marriage of me and my wife.



hwyangel said:


> and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.



Actually polls show that statement is shifting for a Majority (or at least a plurality) supporting equal treatment under Civil Law for same-sex couples.  Them demographics are changing, so you should be wary of claiming justifications simply based on "majority" opinion.  That position isn't going to last.  As a matter of fact in two states with ballot questions (Washington and Maine) this year, there is a very good shot that one or both will pass Same-sex Civil Marriage based on a referendum.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 31, 2012)

Borillar said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...




No Church has been forced to perform a same-sex wedding.  Just as no Church has been forced to perform interracial weddings, interfaith weddings, or a wedding where one (or both) of the participants were divorced against the dogma of that Church.

The case that is often used when a "source" is asked for is the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersy.  They are not a "Church". 



There have been multiple cases where individual private businesses have run afoul of state anti-discrimination statutes (commonly called "Public Accommodation Law").  But that is an argument against big government Public Accommodation laws intruding in private business and not a fundamental problem with Same-sex Civil Marriage.



>>>>


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples.  I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs.
> ...





 Same-sex: law abiding,consenting, infertile,US Citizen,Taxpaying,adult. ( kin)

Opposite: law abiding, consenting, fertile, US citizen, taxpaying, adult. (Kin)


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

@ WorldWatcher

Two sisters,  both divorced,  both with kids.
They pool their money together to buy a house.
They live there and raise their children together for 20 years.
If one dies the other will have to sell the house to pay the taxes.
What reason is their to prevent them from getting married?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> Same-sex: law abiding,consenting, infertile,US Citizen,Taxpaying,adult. ( kin)
> 
> Opposite: law abiding, consenting, fertile, US citizen, taxpaying, adult. (Kin)





hwyangel said:


> @ WorldWatcher
> 
> Two sisters,  both divorced,  both with kids.
> They pool their money together to buy a house.
> ...




Deflection.

You said that same-sex couples that are not allowed to Civilly Marry have "unique" needs, I asked specifically what those needs were to different-sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry - and you deflect to, supposedly, incest.


Your second post closely resembles my real-life sisters who later in life moved back into the house we were raised in and raised our niece after issues with her mother (the nieces) made her unfit to raise her.  To tell the truth, I would have had no problem with my heterosexual sisters being allowed to Civilly Marry in recognition of the (true, non-traditional) family they created to raise my niece.



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 31, 2012)

Yup, it sure did when women got the vote, and when blacks got civil rights.

And all the good things of those facts will occur again when the universal marriage war is over and same sex has won.



hwyangel said:


> I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples.  I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs. Even if it's just the name "civil partnership" that is offensive I see no reason why it cannot be changed. It would be illegal to intentionally offend a minority group. I just don't understand why it has to marriage?  You know it creates contention,  you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples,  and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> The government recognized institution of marriage has very little resemblance to holy matrimony. There are similarities,  but fundamentally two separate concepts.
> The same is true for Same gender and opposite gender couples. Not to say that either is better or worse than the other, but the inability to comprehend the difference is only proof of how "sex education" has failed to communicate some very basic information.


I'll go along with the 1st part of this - civil marriage is a legal definition of the actual contract where fundamental marriage is a church sacrament. They are, and should be, fundamentally different - especially in light of the fact that not many religions will define the legal ramifications of divorce. Some religions actually deal with that by expressly prohibiting divorce entirely - which raises even MORE questions.

Sex for procreation is only 1 small part of the act of marriage. I think it takes higher priority as well since one may have a child without marriage, but one doesn't need marriage to make a baby. Looking at the (Christian) scripture which discusses marriage in detail, procreation is a minor aspect. Love and respect for one another are the stars. 



hwyangel said:


> Regardless of how anyone feels about pro-creation it directly effects the lives of every living,  breathing,  human being on the planet,  and not something that can be swept under a rug. After all, there is a reason why we want young pregnant women to get married and it's not because we like to go to parties, lol. Us old fashioned folks call it "doing the right thing". Which translates as, we believe it's right for a man to be responsible for his family as opposed to burdening the welfare system.  We believe that a child needs two parents to be a healthy,  well adjusted citizen.  We believe that a child has a right to a name that be identified with a medical history or ancestry,  ( That info you put on medical forms and college applications). So we encourage this behavior by having them sign a legally bond document known as a marriage certificate.



I'm not sure I'm tracking this properly. Women have gotten pregnant with and without the "benefit" of marriage since forever. We "did the right thing" and married because that was expected behavior at the time, not that marriage was the correct option at the time. In some cases, marriage was actually the exact WORSE option. There was a period before that where women simply went "away" for a few months.

A child's name isn't as important today as it used to be. We don't care so much about our lineage today since we don't derive any special recognition as you'd find in Europe. 

And finally, there are studies which argue the point that children fare better/worse/the same in hetero- versus homosexual relationships. It all depends on who you read and whether there's an axe to grind. Maybe children actually DO become "well adjusted" in a 2 adult family, but there are plenty of single moms and dads. Limiting options arbitrarily doesn't seem like the right way to go.



hwyangel said:


> However,  same gender couples also deserve the same rights under the law. But with same gender couples there is a different set of needs and requirements. Like the "aids confidentiality Act" enacted through ACLU and the LGBT to fight discrimination.  A very real, very basic need when there are teens committing suicide and the high susceptibility among gay men. This is good thing........for same gender couples.  But blood test for an opposite gender couple could at least create awareness and possible prevention of disease,  disability,  and death to a pregnant woman and/or her children.  Equally important issues,  but very different.
> And here another example: Two sisters, both divorced, both have children.  They pool their money together to buy a house.  They live there for 20 years and raise their children together.  They have the same concerns as any other same gender couple.  If one dies, the will loose her home because she will have to sell it pay the taxes.



Again, I'm failing to see the logic - and, to be honest, can't verify your claim that privacy legislation was enacted to prevent discrimination. There are quite a few privacy laws which supercede even marriage. Privacy laws make it necessary to be explicit about who should know YOUR affairs. I guess even married couples like to have a few secrets. 

Let's go on with another example:
A man and a woman lived together without marrying (let's just say they simply saw no reason to be "traditional") for 40 years. During that time, they raise 4 kids. They lived in a very committed and loving family until he suddenly died at the age of 68. Since they considered themselves married in every respect - except religiously, what's the difference? 



hwyangel said:


> If we allow those related to marry we intentionally subject children to deformities and disabilities if its an opposite gender couple.  But if they are not allowed to marry, then they face discrimination.
> So here is the answer.  Civil partnerships should be as unique to the specific needs and right of same gender couples as marriage is to opposite gender couples.  Obviously you can expect to get the same results in a few years an institution like marriage that has been around for centuries.  But I believe that if LGBT people spent as much time,  effort and money to advocate for the amendments or rights they need instead of pissing in my yard..........



I fail to see where a special case needs to applied to any committed, loving, long-term relationship. From a civil aspect, it becomes simple contract law defining benefits, responsibilities, and penalties - all of which are already established. If a church would agree to marry a couple (or even a couple dozen), then that's a spiritual blessing and carries importance that's relevant only to the partners involved. 

I really don't see the protection of individual choice as pissing in anyone's yard. In fact, restricting someone's choice is more like pissing in THEIR yard, don't you think?


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > Same-sex: law abiding,consenting, infertile,US Citizen,Taxpaying,adult. ( kin)
> ...



The point is that fertility changes everything.  The sisters are no different than any other same gender couple. But if two sisters can marry then would it "fair" to discriminate against a brother and a sister? Even knowing that the reason for prohibiting kin from marriage is because of the consequences it poses to children? Or would in instead be "fair"  to discriminate against all  kin couples?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > hwyangel said:
> ...




Fertility doesn't change anything.  No state in the union requires a fertility test to enter into Civil Marriage.

Civil Marriage between consenting adults based on gender is the issue.  (You realize that there are no laws that prevent two homosexuals from Civil Marriage, they are all based on gender.)

Please explain where fertility matters anywhere as it pertains to consenting non-related adults which is the issue at hand.


>>>>


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > The government recognized institution of marriage has very little resemblance to holy matrimony. There are similarities,  but fundamentally two separate concepts.
> ...




UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

 The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.


.... A child of tender years shall not,save in exceptional circumstances,be separated from his mother....

... The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents...

 The child shall in all circumstances be among the first to receive protection and relief.


(Childrens rights are not a matter of opinion )


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

And pro-creation effects every living,  breathing,  human being on the planet regardless of you feel about it. It's not because people are against you, it's just a fact of life.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 31, 2012)

A child's right will be protected in same sex as heterosexual marriages.


----------



## Gem (Jul 31, 2012)

Its Just Me I Think Wrote:


> If I said, "If we allow felons to work at McDonalds the next thing you know they'll be controlling the country!!" What would you think?
> 
> By chance, would you think that's a bit silly? Maybe...a bit of a leap?



I would ask where you were coming from with such a suggestion.  What precedent would you be pointing to in order to make your point?  Is there a right that allowing felons to work at McDonald's gives them that they could then use to somehow "control the country?"  And what exactly does "controlling the country" mean?  If a felon who paid his debt to society began working at a McDonald's and, through hard and honest work, became an important, powerful person in the world - where would the harm be in that?  I don't see one...but obviously you do?



> The above is, essentially," the shoe on other foot."


No, the above is a silly non-relevant example because you are either being obtuse on purpose, or have no clue how legal precedent works.



> You generalize and assume, you've compared the legitimacy of a union between two lovers to that of an orgy. Are you really surprised homosexuals get offended?



Where did I say "an orgy?"  And who are YOU to say that three lovers' committed relationship is somehow LESS WORTHY than the committed relationship of two people?  I'm offended that you would somehow imply that there is something inherently sordid and ugly about any relationship that involves more than two people.  Very close-minded of you, don't you think?  After all...it wasn't so long ago that people said the very thing about relationships between two men or two women...it was "abhorrent, immoral, wrong."  Yet, now we understand that as long as the two adults are consenting...as long as they approve of their relationship than it IS valid and SHOULD BE recognized...and yet here you come...with your prejudices...saying that somehow just because someone chooses to love more than one person with all their heart that they aren't entitled to the same rights and benefits as people in two-person relationships.  Sad.


> A conversation can be had about redefining marriage without comparing gay marriage to a 6-person "lovefest"



I think all your post has shown, is that you have some serious issues against people choosing to be in consenting, committed relationships if YOU don't like the way those relationships look.  And that...makes you no better than anyone who opposes gay marriage because they don't like homosexuality.

I never stated ANYTHING negative about gay marriage, or people in polygamous marriages (as long as all involved as consenting adults).  It was you who used words with negative connotations, "orgy," "lovefest."  

I am the one trying to have a serious debate about the long-term ramifications of redefining marriage based on a solid understanding of how legal precedent is used in these matters.  Personally, I think you would have had a FAR STRONGER POINT, if you had said - "And what would the negative consequences of allowing multiple consenting adults marry be to our society?"  I'm not sure there necessarily would be one...which is why I am not necessarily against gay marriage OR polygamous marriage.

 You, on the other hand, seem to be allowing your prejudices to cloud your argument.


----------



## logical4u (Jul 31, 2012)

manifold said:


> When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> 
> So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.



You are changing the definition of a word that is the foundation of civilized society.  
You are changing the foundation of society from rock solid "family" to a liquid "family unit" (that can have interchangeable people, reducing the value of "people").
You are teaching children that adults have no concept of the obvious (two of the same sex = two of the opposite sex), therefore if adults will deceive on something, so obvious, why wouldn't they be deceptive about everything else?
You are teaching children that one sex has more value than the other sex, not where two people of the opposite sex can work together to become better people (hard to do with two of the same sex, the simiarities don't confront the senses the same way).
You are teaching children that if you don't find a suitable mate, settle for a substitute.
You are teaching children that children are not as important as adults "sex life/lie".

When children are raised with questionable values, they are "more" likely NOT to be "pillars of society", and to get into more trouble, than children that are raised in a loving home with their "biological parents.  I am not saying children cannot be raised in other circumstances or even that "biological parents are always perfect, just that in a perfect world, it is a better situation to carry society "forward".  

We know that.  We can see that.  We can prove that.  What is wrong with saying that?  What is wrong with teaching that?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> And pro-creation effects every living,  breathing,  human being on the planet regardless of you feel about it. It's not because people are against you, it's just a fact of life.



First, can you like to the Civil Marriage law of any state that:

(a) Requires procreation as part of Civil Marriage, or 

(b) Requires that participants prove that they are fertile?


Second, you do realize that being homosexual does not mean that the individual is infertile? Right.  There are a large number of homosexual couples that have children in the same manner as other couples that are infertile together, i.e. surrogacy, IVF, or adoption.


>>>>


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> A child's right will be protected in same sex as heterosexual marriages.




Step parenting is a parent that steps in where a parent is missing.  Usually an exception to the rule rather than the goal. Step parenting does not establish or eliminate the responsibility of support from the "missing" parent unless that "missing" parent is dead. And how does eliminating blood testing (according to the ACLU and LGBT its a discrimination,  hence the "aids confidentiality Act" ) for genetic diseases or sexually transmitted infections good for the pregnant mother or her children? 

 TITLE 77: PUBLIC HEALTH CHAPTER I: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SUBCHAPTER k: COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CONTROL AND IMMUNIZATIONS PART 697 HIV/AIDS CONFIDENTIALITY AND TESTING CODE SECTION 697.150 MARRIAGE LICENSE TESTING REQUIREMENTS (REPEALED)


----------



## Peach (Jul 31, 2012)

There is no benefit in the denial of marriage to gay Americans.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples.  I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs. Even if it's just the name "civil partnership" that is offensive I see no reason why it cannot be changed. It would be illegal to intentionally offend a minority group. I just don't understand why it has to marriage?  You know it creates contention,  you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples,  and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.



That a citizen exercising his Constitutional rights (in this case the right to equal protection of the law) might offend or upset other citizens is not a legitimate rationale for the state to deny those rights to the citizen.


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

Many pregnant women may not get STD tests: MedlinePlus

" Many pregnant women may not get STD tests"

 pregnant women have tests for certain sexually transmitted diseases, many may not be getting them


 "As our study shows, there's a significant gap between the recommendations and actual practice," said Dr. Jay M. Lieberman, who is medical director for infectious diseases at Quest Diagnostics Inc. and worked on the study.

" Exactly why some pregnant women are not tested as recommended is unclear"


----------



## Peach (Jul 31, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, it sure did when women got the vote, and when blacks got civil rights.
> 
> And all the good things of those facts will occur again when the universal marriage war is over and same sex has won.
> 
> ...



The same mindset opposed suffrage for women, and civil rights for Americans of African descent.


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples.  I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs. Even if it's just the name "civil partnership" that is offensive I see no reason why it cannot be changed. It would be illegal to intentionally offend a minority group. I just don't understand why it has to marriage?  You know it creates contention,  you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples,  and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.
> ...



No is saying that anyone should be denied rights. The argument is that instead of pursuing civil partnerships for added amendments or changes why attack marriage?


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

Peach said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, it sure did when women got the vote, and when blacks got civil rights.
> ...



Women have rights like maturity leave, and priority for custody that specific to their needs. But their still not allowed in mens public restrooms or mens only clubs.


----------



## Peach (Jul 31, 2012)

Women in the US did not have the right to vote, except in a few states, until the the 20th century. And there was vigorous opposition to the 19th amendment.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 31, 2012)

I would argue that this is an irrelavant question as no one is attempting to ban same-sex marriage. Marriage is a covenant made between a man and a woman (And often with God). There can no more be a same sex marriage as there can be circular square or a feathered mammal. 

The political question being examined is whether the government should recognize same sex unions as marriages sanctioned by the state. Nothing is stopping anyone from entering into a same sex union or even calling it whatever they want, despite it being an oxymoron to call it marriage.

Look at the polygamists. The lack of government recognition doesn't stop them from entering into private covenants and calling it marriage. They, for the most part, aren't going around trying to force people to recognize their marriages. They largely ignore what others have to say and do what they choose to do.

Nothing is stopping homosexual couples from making covenants with one another. Nothing is stopping them from calling their relationship whatever they want. The issue at hand is should the population be forced to recognize and redefine marriage because a small minority wants us to. The answer is no.

The only reason government recognizes traditional marriage is because it serves public policy to do so. and the public policy is the perpetuation and raising of future generations of citizens. If it weren't for that, there would be no reason for government to recognize traditional marriage. In fact, I think there is a strong argument for government getting out of the marriage business. I don't buy the argument, but the argument is there.

I work in the juvenile justice system. I see the affects of the breakdown of the traditional family everyday. Children need both their mother and their father married whenever possible. They need to see how families should behave and should treat one another so they can do the same. The breakdown of the traditional family, which homosexual unions is only a small part of, is leading to a destruction of the culture that has lead the advancement of our society for thousands of years.

People need to make choices. Do we choose to continue to let our culture slide to the lowest common denominator, or should we make a choice to lift our culture to higher ground? Do we choose to give into weakness and treat marriage as a joke or do we get married to our first spouse and stay married. Do we honor the commitments we make even when times are tough or do we run at the first sight of trouble? Do we let our natural urges control us or do we control them?

Yes, im alittle off topic at this point. But I dont think we can address this issue without looking at the bigger cultural battle going on in the hearts and minds of the people, especially our children.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 31, 2012)

Peach said:


> Women in the US did not have the right to vote, except in a few states, until the the 20th century. And there was vigorous opposition to the 19th amendment.



Not entirely true. Women were allowed to vote in the US around the time of the Revolution. Unfortunately, women "chose the wrong party" so those in control shortly afterwards decided to pass a law keeping them from voting.

And the western states all allowed women voters back in the 19th century. Wyoming, Utah, Montana, etc. In fact, it was the Federal Government that banned women from voting in Utah when they realized they were voting in favor of polygamy instead of against it.

Just letting you know


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> Women have rights like maturity leave, and priority for custody that specific to their needs. But their still not allowed in mens public restrooms or mens only clubs.



Trust me, they dont want to be allowed in mens restrooms, though im not really sure there is a law against them being there.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 31, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



A seperate but equal legal definition has been tried in the past. It failed. Miserably.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

manifold said:


> When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> 
> So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.


No.

The first rule of government is that when it interferes, it is wrong.

You, and government, have no right at all to invade the privacy of any citizen in this country.  What any citizen decides to do in the privacy of their own home, with the consent of other adults, simply put, is beyond the authority of government.

The problem with liberals, and some conservatives, is that they think they have the right to write law that will limit or describe the conduct of the citizens of this country.

This is contrary to the entire concept of freedom; specifically, freedom from government tyranny.

A conservative should promote ONLY those laws that rescind the laws that infringe upon the freedom of the citizens of this country.

We have a freedom of Religion.  We do NOT have a freedom from religion.  But religion does not have the power to dictate the individual actions and morality of the citizens.

Freedom is a bitch because it never gives us everything we want.  But it always gives us everything we deserve.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 31, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> ...



Just to clarify, then youre FOR same sex marriage?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


No.

I am for the elimination of marriage as described by government.

I have never needed government to tell Me I am married to My wife and with regard to legal issues, I think that a social contract will suffice in place of an alleged marriage license.

You want to be married, go to see your preacher.

You want rights to your partnership, go see a lawyer.

Oh, to answer your question...

I have never been against gay marriage...I oppose government involvement in the private lives of the citizens.

I simply do not have a dog in this fight as I am not against homosexuality.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> No is saying that anyone should be denied rights. The argument is that instead of pursuing civil partnerships for added amendments or changes why attack marriage?



The only people attacking marriage are the heterosexuals who have no respect for it.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> @ WorldWatcher
> 
> Two sisters,  both divorced,  both with kids.
> They pool their money together to buy a house.
> ...



They are not a same sex 'couple'. But there should be nothing to prevent them from being married, just as there should be nothing to prevent two straight, random strangers from getting married.

Marriage is already down the drain, so who cares if it gets fucked up a little more?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Noomi said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > No is saying that anyone should be denied rights. The argument is that instead of pursuing civil partnerships for added amendments or changes why attack marriage?
> ...


That is not true and you know it.  If you cannot make an argument without the hyperbole, then why even join in the discussion?

The understanding is that marriage has always meant one thing, and one thing only.  To try to redefine it is like trying to say that a cat is really just an overgrown muskrat.

In My opinion, its all a stupid argument because government is based strictly on laws, and marriage is based strictly on religion.

Since nether of them are compatible, neither of them should be valid.

You want rights that a marriage bestows upon a heterosexual couple, then you write up a contract.  You want rights as a heterosexual couple, then you write up a contract.

You want to be recognized before God as married, find a priest.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 31, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



So youre for the elimination of any legal benefits that go along with the legal term marriage?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...


Sometimes, I have a problem with this format.

I have stated, repeatedly, that a contract can bestow upon people the same rights as marriage. After all, when you distill it down, and as far as government is concerned, it is nothing more than just that.  A contract.

Marriage is a religious institution.  You want to be married, go find a man of God to marry you.

Otherwise, find a lawyer.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 31, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > hwyangel said:
> ...




Im sorry but marriage has meant many things over the centuries.

For some its a legal contract between two families, tribes or kingdoms. For some it was a right of passage and a means by which their way of life could continue. For some it is an expression of love and devotion. Some married simply out of duty or convienience.

What I find interesting is the difference between my grandparents and my parents.

My grandparents were arranged. Their parents decided that they wanted the two families to join so they promised their children would wed. My grandfather had only met my grandmother once before they married. They fell in love after they were married and stayed together for 61 years before my grandfather passed. 

My parents on the other hand married for love. They lasted only 18 and are both on their second marriage now. 

My wifes parents married for love as well. They divorced last year after 27 years.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 31, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



sorry to keep doing this...

so as long as the "marriage" is simply a legal contract and performed outside the church by a non clergyman, youre cool with same sex "marriage"?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...


I have already said as much.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives.  As long as they do not try to dictate or teach to My children or My grandchildren that what they do is natural, I could care less. 

In fact, I have a few dozen gay friends, and they all agree with My view on this...the real gays, not the activists, all just want to be left alone.

I support that.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 31, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...




Cool. Sorry about all that I just wanted to fully understand your stance on the subject. You and I agree.

When my wife and I married, we were turned away by two different churches. One because she was divorced and one because we were living together and they wouldnt marry people living in sin. So we rented this beautiful Victorian and got married there by a non denominational minister.

I say that if the government is calling the contract "marriage" then it should be open to all. BUT, the churches have a right to turn away ( without legal ramification ) anyone they feel are not living within their value system.

then its up to the individual couples to make other arrangements for the ceremony itself. 

After all, the contract itself doesnt require a ceremony just the signature of an someone with the proper credentials. 

Imagine the new business opportunities someone would have by performing the ceremonies for those turned away from the church...hmmmm....I may just have to get ordained!


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Yes, I think the entire area of marriage law could be expanded if the government went to strictly government contractual obligations of partnerships (dood, I should be a government writer!).  A person with a Doctorate of Jurisprudence in such an area would be rich overnight!

However, this is what I support.  Take the entire emotional content out of the argument by just taking out the entire concept of government supported marriage.


----------



## hwyangel (Jul 31, 2012)

Noomi said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > @ WorldWatcher
> ...



People care because it's the children who always suffer in the end. It's two entirely different concepts being put under one blanket and this is what creates contention.
On one hand (same) is the "aids confidentiality Act" that prevens discrimination against a minority group. On the other (opposite) is marital blood testing that prevents death, disability and diseases from being passed to pregnant women and children. 
On one hand (same) there is no justification to discriminate against someone who is related.  On the other (opposite) acknowledging a marriage by legalizing it between opposite gender couplesis intentionally cruel to children that may result from it.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

Isn't a custody battle cruel for children? Heterosexuals are more likely to go through a custody battle, yet they are still allowed to procreate, when it is clear that sometimes, they care only for themselves.


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 31, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> I would argue that this is an irrelavant question as no one is attempting to ban same-sex marriage. Marriage is a covenant made between a man and a woman (And often with God). There can no more be a same sex marriage as there can be circular square or a feathered mammal.
> 
> The political question being examined is whether the government should recognize same sex unions as marriages sanctioned by the state. Nothing is stopping anyone from entering into a same sex union or even calling it whatever they want, despite it being an oxymoron to call it marriage.
> 
> ...



Seriously?

I think you are dead wrong in everything you posted here.

North Carolina just allowed a referendum which specifically states that a civil union can only be between a man and a woman, and further stated that marriage is the only civil union recognized by the state. Sounds to me like a heavy handed attempt to stop same sex marriage, and they aren't the 1st state to word amendments to their constitution that way.

The Lutheran church as well as some Episcopal parishes recognize the validity of same sex marriages in the states where it is allowed, and actually lobby against the discriminatory laws - and so the square peg, round whole thing isn't a unified view. But, I won't argue theological philosophy as it's relevance is where the question actually lies.

Polygamy is flat out illegal - you go to jail for that. Your marriages are annulled. There are no property rights conveyed. No petitions for support. Legally, it's as though the unions never took place. The only thing that polygamy and same sex marriage has in common is that someone at some point in time considered their own morals to be superior, convinced enough people that it ought to be so, and began passing laws to enforce those morals. That doesn't make the practice correct, it only makes a voting majority.

Now we come to where the rubber hits the street - and I've really been waiting for this one. You make the statement "The issue at hand is should the population be forced to recognize and redefine marriage because a small minority wants us to". I would ask in return, if marriage is a respected covenant between two people who are committed to the life-long success of one another, what is being redefined exactly? And, what price would you be paying to be "forced to recognize" that level of commitment?

Functionally speaking, there doesn't seem to be any major difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual relationship even when kids are involved. Using children as a club to bash gay marriage is a total deflection. There has been no credible evidence to suggest that a traditional marriage is "better" for children - at least once you get past the Reverend's Sunday sermons on the topic. 

But you're final point tells me where your head is - Do we let our natural urges control us or do we control them? Number 1 - only bad things can happen when we make the attempt to control our natural urges; kidneys can burst, and Catholic priests get reassigned. But a homosexual is as much unable to change his/her orientation as a heterosexual would be.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 1, 2012)

Private association is not germane to this discussion.



hwyangel said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## hwyangel (Aug 1, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



I know what you mean, lol. Not all "gays" support same gender marriage.  I employ a really nice lesbian lady to take care of my adult autistic son. She and her partner are fine with collecting two separate child support checks,  while she works and partner gets a welfare check and stays home with their kids. Ever see an opposite gender couple do that?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 1, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




You mean an opposite gender couple remain unmarried so that the woman can draw welfare?


Ya, happens all the time.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 1, 2012)

Yes, I have seen example so unmarried with children opposite sex couples do that for the last forty years.  All the time.



hwyangel said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...


----------



## hwyangel (Aug 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare. 

 Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are  defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one  sex.


----------



## hwyangel (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Isn't a custody battle cruel for children? Heterosexuals are more likely to go through a custody battle, yet they are still allowed to procreate, when it is clear that sometimes, they care only for themselves.



Are you saying that all heterosexual couples are "cruel for children"? Or are you using the exception to throw the baby out with the bath water?  Because when I say that no same gender couple is without at least one step parent,  I do mean "all". And when I say that all same gender couples who advocate for same gender marriage for the changes to marriage that are harmful to children,  again I do mean "all".


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 1, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > hwyangel said:
> ...



Im sorry, you seem to have missed the point.  Let me explain.

1.  Under welfare laws, when two people are Civilly Married, the COMBINED income of both parties is used in determining eligibility for assistance.   If the parties are not married, then they are treated as individuals.  One person then has no income, they may be eligible for assistance.  On the other hand all the income of the other person would be counted towards eligibility  which means they are unlikely to qualify if they are working.  If that individual is working and not claiming it, say they are working under the table without reporting it to the IRS, then that is fraud and is against the law no matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual.

2.  Therefore if two people (regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual) are in a valid legal Civil Marriage, they would not receive double the entitlements because the income of the working individual would be counted for the family unit.

Now, there are three variables that are impacted: One the State recognizes Civil Marriages between individuals regardless of gender, the state does not recognize Civil Marriages between individuals of the same gender, and the federal component.  In a  state where Civil Marriages are recognized, then the total income would be counted for the family unit.  In states where Civil Marriages are not recognized, those individuals are not Civilly Married.  The federal component means that DOMA says those individuals are not Civilly Married .

Your example is actually a point that supports recognition of Civil Marriage by same-sex couples because if they are in a Civil Marriage, the welfare fraud you describe would be illegal.



hwyangel said:


> Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are  defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one  sex.



I have no idea: (A) what classes of marriage you mention are, and (B) what three-party marriages have to do with TWO consenting adults being Civilly Married.  Last I checked, two does not equal 3-party.

Under the law there are no classifications of Civil Marriage placing any one over the other.  There is just Civil Marriage between consenting adults  in all cases (Man + Woman, Man+Man, and Woman + Woman)  they are equal under the law in the states where same-sex Civil Marriages are legal.



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 1, 2012)

You are deliberately missing the points.



hwyangel said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't a custody battle cruel for children? Heterosexuals are more likely to go through a custody battle, yet they are still allowed to procreate, when it is clear that sometimes, they care only for themselves.
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 1, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> Because when I say that no same gender couple is without at least one step parent,  I do mean "all".



Hwyangel, it appears that you don't understand what a "step parent" is.

Stepmother - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
STEPMOTHER: the wife of one's father when distinct from one's natural or legal mother
STEPFATHER: the husband of one's mother when distinct from one's natural or legal father  


A stepparent is the legal spouse of a child's parent, but who have not adopted the child.  Stepparents typically have no legal claim the the child.  Stepparents are distinct from both the natural mother/father and legal mother/father.

Once (or if) the individual actually adopts the child, they are no longer a "Stepparent" - they are now the legal mother or father of that child.


**********************************

Secondly, there are two situations:

1.  In all states, when a child is born within the framework of Civil Marriage, the individuals involved are automatically as a function of law the parents of the resulting child.  Whether they have a biological connection to that child or not.  If a different-sex, Civilly Married couple is infertile together - she gets a sperm donation and delivers a child - then the husband and wife are both the legal parents.  Neither is a "stepparent".  On the other hand if a same-sex, Civilly Married couple is infertile together - she gets a sperm donation and delivers a child - then the wives are both the legal parents.  Neither is a "stepparent".

2.  In addition, when couples adopt a child they become the parents of the child, they are not classified as "stepparents" because they don't have a biological relationship to the child.



>>>>


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2012)

Peach said:


> There is no benefit in the denial of marriage to gay Americans.



Do you have a model society that you are using for your statement?


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > hwyangel said:
> ...



Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > There is no benefit in the denial of marriage to gay Americans.
> ...



A model is not needed. Can you name any benefit to American society in which the denial of all legal rights and priviledges are extended to one group but not all groups of citizens?


----------



## tjvh (Aug 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of *marriage* is between a man and a woman.


----------



## rdean (Aug 1, 2012)

manifold said:


> When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> 
> So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.



It makes homophobes happy and then they can turn to a new target.  Blacks, Muslims, women, atheists, scientists, teachers, union members, Hispanics, the unemployed, the poor, children....

Reminds me of a certain political party.  But I won't name it because they get upset and feel they are being picked on.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > hwyangel said:
> ...



Or a more traditional definition of a Man and his wife and his wife and his wife and his wife.


----------



## rdean (Aug 1, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > hwyangel said:
> ...



mar·riage noun \&#712;mer-ij, &#712;ma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry  J. T. Shawcross>
 See marriage defined for English-language learners »
See marriage defined for kids »

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm sharing this information in a friendly way.  No insult is offered.  I'm sure you are really smart and already know how to use Google.  Consider it a "service" because you may be too busy to look it up yourself.  I hope it helps.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > hwyangel said:
> ...




I am going to answer this again...this time without the joke.

Some same traditional marriage is the LIFE LONG union of a man and woman.

With divorce rates at nearly 50%, the defintion of marriage has already been changed. The divorce rate proves that marriage has a "flexible" definition at best. But lets say we dont redefine our defintion but instead redefine our VIEW of the definition. 

Redefining our VIEW of marriage to include same sex couples is simply not that big of a deal.

How about The LIFE LONG union of two consenting adults?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.



Needless to say, unless one has engaged in a same-sex marriage, they really have no idea what they're talking about. 

This is the United States and we fight for equal rights for ALL Americans. Even those with whom we disagree.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 1, 2012)

An union of two consenting adults as marriage is a great definition.

Same sex couples should have the same trial and tribulation of traditionally married couples.

However, no one should think that somehow polygamy, polyandry, and polymory will somehow not be part of the issues involved with the redefinition of marriage.



Vidi said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Key word - "consenting"

Beyond that, its no one elses business. 

Never mind that "traditional" man/woman marriage has become a sad joke in our country. They demand "forever" marriage from same sex couples but can't deliver that themselves. 

If "traditional" marriage is what we're supposed to aspire to, it leaves a lot to desire. As soon as hetero-marriage is perfect, THEN they can make the rules for everyone else. Until then, they need to understand that same sex marriage is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.


----------



## masoric (Aug 1, 2012)

To me the issue is very simple... Individuals have rights.  Groups or "Society" at large do not have rights greater than the sum of their individual members.  For something to benefit society, it must benefit one or more individuals.  For something to hurt society, it must harm one or more individuals.

A gay marriage or a civil unions would benefit some individuals and would not harm any individuals.  If one wants to make an argument at a collectivist level, they must prove that gay marriage harms some individuals.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 1, 2012)

Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> An union of two consenting adults as marriage is a great definition.
> 
> Same sex couples should have the same trial and tribulation of traditionally married couples.
> *
> ...



Again, all that matters is whether or not the "union" is consensual.Whether is nutso Mittens or the monster, Jeff Warrens, all that really matters is if its a consensual union between ADULTS.

If so, its no one elses business.

Really. The R needs to stop meddling in other people's business.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 1, 2012)

luddly what your or I think does not matter.

Yes, multiple partner marriages will be an issue, whether you think they should or not.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.



Yabut, that's not the first law of "Christians".


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.



This is true, but why do so many Christians ignore this, and spend most of their time judging and condemning others?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 1, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > hwyangel said:
> ...




Actually "correct" is a misnomer, that may be your definition.  The legal definition under Civil Law is dependent on geography.  In some states your definition is the legal definition.  In other states (and some other countries) its two consenting, non-related adults.  In some other countries it is "a man" and "multiple women".


>>>>


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.
> ...



for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23 (New International Version)

We are all flawed human beings. Calling ourselves Christian does not instantly nor ever make us perfect. Do not judge the message by its messenger.


----------



## hwyangel (Aug 2, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > An union of two consenting adults as marriage is a great definition.
> ...




My point exactly. You can not come to any rational comparisons of same gender to opposite gender without completely disregarding pro-creation. Basically it's saying that young pregnant women getting married is unimportant,  that a child having two parents (regardless of whether it "works out") is unimportant,  and that child rights as according to  the United Nations  Convention on the Rights of the Child -is also unimportant.  But yet you expect the same sympathy toward your relationships and rights or we are called all sorts of names.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 2, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> You can not come to any rational comparisons of same gender to opposite gender without completely disregarding pro-creation.



I disagree, under our legal system's principle of equal treatment under the law embodied in the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution, comparisons for equal treatment under the law are made on like situated groups.  If a group feels that it is being wronged by the government, then under the 1st Amendment's grievance clause, an action can be brought against the government where the government then has a requirement to show a compelling government interest in the differentiation of actions.

In this case, like situated groups would be law abiding, non-related, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, infertile, adults in a same-sex relationship as compared to law abiding, non-related, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, infertile, adults in a different-sex relationship.  One group (in most states) is allowed Civil Marriage while the other group is denied Civil Marriage.  Even in the case where Same-sex Civil Marriage, the federal government then refuses (under DOMA) to recognize that Civil Marriage entered into under State Law.  An unprecedented step taken by the Federal government which for over 200 years had recognized as valid all Civil Marriages that were legal under State law.

The laws pertaining to Civil Marriage in this country are silent on the couples fertility and/or the ability to procreate (which is one word BTW and not hyphenated).  So ya there is a logical argument that procreation is not a requirement of Civil Marriage.



hwyangel said:


> Basically it's saying that young pregnant women getting married is unimportant,



No it's not.



hwyangel said:


> that a child having two parents (regardless of whether it "works out") is unimportant,



Which is an argument in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage and Same-sex Adoption.  In states where those are illegal, the government is denying the child two parents because it prevents one member of the family unit of assuming that role of a parent (in a legal sense).  In all states, a child born into a situation where the parents are legally Civilly Married - the participants in that Civil Marriage are by default the parents of that child (independent of gender of the spouses).  When an adoption occurs, that individual becomes the parent of that child.

Such laws then prevent that family from having two parents.



hwyangel said:


> and that child rights as according to  the United Nations  Convention on the Rights of the Child -is also unimportant.



http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf

Above is the link to the UNCORC which you seem to hang your hat on.

There are numerous references throughout the document that refer to "parents", but not in one place does it refer to the gender of the parents.

If you are of the opinion that the UNCORC defines "parents" as (a) the egg/sperm donor, and/or (b) required to be of opposite genders - you are mistaken.  Parents and legal guardians, as used in this document is a gender neutral concept and is fixed by the applicable laws of the country.

BTW - did you know that the United States is not a signatory of the UNCORC?  My understanding is that the main opposition to the treaty comes from social conservatives that opposes the influence the treaty would have on United States sovereignty. 



hwyangel said:


> But yet you expect the same sympathy toward your relationships and rights or we are called all sorts of names.



I believe that all families should be treated equally under the law whether they be man + woman, man + man, woman + woman, man + woman + child(ren), man + man + child(ren), or woman + woman + child(ren).  (Just for clarification, when I say "+child(ren)" that means Parent/Child and NOT sex partner relationship.  I know most people would inherently recognize that from context, but someone would try to snip it out of context for an unintended meaning.)

Do you wish for equal treatment and respect under the law for all those family units (i.e. relationships) or do you want selected ones treated differently then other selected ones?

BTW - I can only speak for myself, but I don't get into name calling.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2012)

Hwyangel writes mistakenly, "You can not come to any rational comparisons of same gender to opposite gender without completely disregarding pro-creation."  This is a diversion that detracts from the issue of consenting adults.


----------



## hwyangel (Aug 2, 2012)

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance.
Convention on the Rights of the Child

 Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE  as well as after birth".

 In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a PRIMARY  consideration.

 pri·mar·y (pr m r , -m -r ) adj. Being or standing first in a list, series, or sequence.

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
Parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

 States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 2, 2012)

More hot lesbian sex?


----------



## hwyangel (Aug 2, 2012)

Children can have one or more parents, but they must have two biological parents.
Parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 both /b&#333;TH/Adjective: Used to refer to two people or things, regarded and identified together: "both his parents indulged him".

definition of both - Google Search


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 2, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance.
> Convention on the Rights of the Child
> 
> Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE  as well as after birth".
> ...




Which all has nothing do to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage as having children is not a requirement of Civil Marriage.  As a matter of fact infertile people are allowed to Civilly Marry everywhere in this country.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 2, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> Children can have one or more parents, but they must have two biological parents.
> Parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> ...




1.  Correct, a child has two biological parents (a sperm donor and an egg donor).  However that does not mean, from a legal perspective, that the sperm donor and/or the egg donor are in a legal sense the "parents" under the law.  "Parents" under civil law embodies those who have a legal responsibility for the child.  A couple that has a child born within a Civil Marriage are the Parents, it matters not if the parents are of the same gender or not.  When a child is adopted, the new adults become the parents of the child.

2.  Secondly the United States has not signed the UNCORC treaty.  Why you might ask?  Because social conservatives see them encroachment upon United States sovereignty.

3.  There is no requirement anywhere in the United States to be a parent to be able to enter into Civil Marriage or to even prove that you are fertile for that matter.  As a matter of fact people that know they are infertile are still allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>


----------



## oldernwiser (Aug 2, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > Children can have one or more parents, but they must have two biological parents.
> ...



As are those whose offspring would suffer immediate and usually fatal medical problems due to parental genetic issues.

In short, procreation is just not a topic of debate in a civil marriage. There is not that much consideration of procreation in ritualistic marriages either.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 3, 2012)

manifold said:


> When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> 
> So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.



I can't think of a one.  

I can think of why legalizing it would be good for society as a whole. 

Well, for one thing, we won't have people making themselves and others miserable by trying to be something they aren't.  

I've known a few people who were gay, who tried to pretend to be straight in order to placate their religious families or because it was what society expected them to do.  To no surprise, th ose marriages failed and in some cases, they lived along miserable for the rest of their lives, in others, they finally found happiness in gay relationships.  

But in the meantime, they made themselves, their partners and in some cases children fairly miserable in situations that never should have been to start with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 3, 2012)

Si modo said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole.  That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default.  When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle.  I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.
> ...



But once you've accepted that there is a 'contractual" need for marriage, that the government needs to be involved in, then why should it not be open to everyone?


----------



## hwyangel (Aug 3, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > Children can have one or more parents, but they must have two biological parents.
> ...



Opposite gender marriage is an exception while same gender changes the concept.

Im sure DOMA will be overturned eventually,  it has been predicted.  I have made several points from the aids epidemic to the single mothers. The importance I suppose can only be a matter of opinion. May God have mercy on us.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 3, 2012)

hwyangel said:


> Opposite gender marriage is an exception while same gender changes the concept.



If your concept is that Civil Marriage requires procreation to be valid, then I can understand how you feel that way.

If Civil Marriage is about procreation, then infertile different-sex couples that Civilly Marry are also an exception.

Previously in our history "voter" was equal to "Adult, Citizen, White, Landowning, Male".  Then "voter" evolved into "Adult, Citizen, White, Male".  Then "voter" evolved into "Citizen, Adult, Male".  Then women won the right to vote and "voter" became "Adult, Citizen".  Society treating people the same is not a bad thing. 

So what is the compelling governmental reason for discriminating based on gender between infertile different-sex couples and infertile same-sex couples?




hwyangel said:


> Im sure DOMA will be overturned eventually,  it has been predicted.



There are two sections to DOMA, one is the federal government usurping the power of the States under the 10th Amendment to define Civil Marriage (in other words the Federal government currently picks and chooses which valid legal Civil Marriages it honors).  The second section exempts States from recognizing legal Civil Marriages from other States based on gender.

The first part is likely to be "overturned" in the courts (well actually it already has, and the case is going to the SCOTUS).  The second provision is likely to eventually be repealed or amended.  Personally I think that will be a voluntary action by Congress.  Personally I have no problem with an amended version that exempts States from having to recognize ALL Civil Marriages from other States that do not conform with that States laws.  The difference is it would apply to same-sex marriages and different-sex marriages equally.




hwyangel said:


> I have made several points from the aids epidemic to the single mothers. The importance I suppose can only be a matter of opinion.



Yes, I've seen the diversionary posts which have nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage.

AIDS is not a disqualifying condition of Civil Marriage - for same-sex or different-sex couples.  Single mothers are irrelevant issue when it pertains to Same-sex Civil Marriage.  Unless of course it is viewed in the light that two lesbians who have a child and raise a child (either through sperm donation or adoption) are considered "single mothers" because they are not allowed to Civilly Marry in most States.  In that case it would reduce "single mothers" but allowing them to Civilly Marry.  Good Point.




hwyangel said:


> May God have mercy on us.




He does.


>>>>


----------



## onecut39 (Aug 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.



I don't think that is true.  Same sex marriage encourages long term, exclusive relationships and the lack of it encourages short term promiscuity and all the social and medical ramifications of that.

Then too it is simply the right thing to do, getting rid of an economic and social underclass cannot be a bad thing.

In the end it will be good for the souls of all us.  You know, equal treatment under the law and all that stuff we say we believe in.


----------



## onecut39 (Aug 3, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> hwyangel said:
> 
> 
> > Opposite gender marriage is an exception while same gender changes the concept.
> ...



We are an odd type of country.  How is it that we are supposed to be equal under the law and then allow states to discriminate on such a basic right as marriage?

Why should not a state be able to determine who is to be a slave and who not?  The concept is not as different as many would make it.


----------



## onecut39 (Aug 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> luddly what your or I think does not matter.
> 
> Yes, multiple partner marriages will be an issue, whether you think they should or not.



Anything can be an issue if people want to make it an issue.  I don't believe polygamy is constitutionally prohibited, as such it can be an issue.

So far in our history is has not, except for the fringe groups, and the notable exception of the Mormons, who gave it up at least officially.


----------



## onecut39 (Aug 3, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.




Oh I don't know about that.  There seem to be far too many who adhere to the principles of the Old Testament rather than the new.


----------

