What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[Ame®icano]

society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....

in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....

Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).

Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".

.

traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?

At first, in my opinion, marriage is possible in between man and a woman, only. Everything else can be called any name except the marriage.

If anyone, especially government get involved in changing of definition of marriage today, what prevents them from changing it again in the future when some other interest groups calls for it?

 

[Ame®icano]

It's one thing to assert western christianity influenced the morality of people like Locke and Jefferson, though Jefferson's views on marriage were questionable on morality grounds, but it's quite another thing to assert American marriage laws exist to apply Jewish (and the reformed don't really follow those) or Jesus out of context quites to civil law.

so as a people we are supposed to just dump the very core beliefs that have contributed so much to the success of the Western world.....just because some minority wants us to approve of their sodomy....?

Isn't tolerance one of the core American virtues? How could we build such a great nation with people from all over the world and not have some tolerance for our differences? Not acceptance, but simple tolerance. You're Chinese, but that doesn't give me the right to refuse you service in my store. You're Black, but that doesn't make it right for me to burn a cross on your front yard. You're Irish, but that doesn't mean I can fire you for that.

Tolerance. A virtue lost on Conservatives when marriage equality is proposed.

Just quick question... was there any tolerance for polygamy?

 

[Ame®icano]

Why do gay couples want to get married? For the same reasons straight couples want to get married.


It's not rocket science.

I think problem is definition itself. Gays wants their unions to be called marriage. Straight don't wanna accept it cause for straight its not the same. Not a rocket science.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For two sick fucked up males to be able to stick each others cock in each others asshole and receive benefits?

 

[Grandma]

Sooo...you think heterosexual couples don't engage in anal or oral sex?

You have much to learn.

 

[bodecea]

For two sick fucked up males to be able to stick each others cock in each others asshole and receive benefits?

^ Another "straight" person who talks more about gay sex than gays do.

 

[Ame®icano]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

Why do heterosexual people who never want to have children get married?

Answer that one, and you have what you are looking for.

^^^^that.

We want to marry for all the EXACT same reasons the ST8s do.

Reasons?
Name at least two.

 

[Ame®icano]

To a point, yes. However, we live in a country today that produces (I believe) 40,000 new, liberal trained lawyers each year. Whose to say that, just like Gay Marriage, lawyers, at some point, don't decide to litigate say, minor children being allowed to marry? In many states to this day, a 16 year old is allowed to marry. Will you be intolerant towards these people? Don't THEY have the right to happiness also? Or is it merely gay couples that the laws should be changed to accommodate?

You seem to forget that to the vast majority of straight people in this world view gay as a perversion and, in several countries results in an immediate death sentence. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

The "slippery slope" thing is the logical progression of things. Again, Gay was (and in some places still is) considered a killing offense. Now, in America, we are doing the PC thing to accomodate. Who can say what will be the next "accommodation" in 20-30 years????

I really don’t buy that, Randall. You’re comparing apples with organges (an act where no one’s rights are infringed vs one where someone’s rights are infringed).

America is known for allowing it’s citizens to do what they want – whether it comes to speech, self expression – so long as it’s not infringing on another individual’s rights. This is one of the foundations of our great country. People aren’t afraid to wear anti-gov’t t-shirts in the same way Iranians are.

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

So, with that said, not sure how you can take that argument and somehow have that be set as the precedent for allowing future relationships to occur in the future where one of the individual's rights are infringed and exploited (ie an adult marrying a little girl, ect). You know what I mean?

In order for this to happen, we have to somehow go from (1) gay marriage equality to (2) a society where people are allowed to infringe on the rights of others and exploit children, ect. There’s no logical connection I can come up with.


.

Excellent point. Our society was founded on the concept of individual rights. Just dont forget that government is not society although government is trying to act like it is. For instance, tax breaks are used to create certain social behavior and that is contradictory to whole idea of this country. Instead of collecting taxes in neutral manner to generate revenue for running constitutional government services, taxes are used to redistribute wealth or to promote certain behavior that is "good for society".

If we still have individual rights, and I could say that we don't, really... since government is forcing us to enter into contracts against my free will, or forcing me to associate with people I don't chose to, or controlling education, healthcare, social programs I have to pay in... you name it... if we still have individual rights, I wouldn't be concerned if some group call their relationship a marriage.

The troubling part is all that power given to our fascistic government to decide about every aspect of our life all in the name of the constitutionality.

 

[Ame®icano]

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

"Infringe" on is a bad choice of words here. Gays decide gay marriage = straight marriage, then they demand government recognition and benefits. It's not infringing on rights that's the issue here, it's demanding recognition and benefits (tax treatment, ...) that's the issue. If gays can demand recognition and benefits, then why can't other groups do it?

Personally I don't see why ANYONE needs government to validate their relationship. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to gays arguing that this is a pretty good indication that marriage is not a universal definition, so let's get government out of the marriage business. That would be an extremely valid point. Saying that demanding recognition and benefits doesn't infringe on rights actually isn't if you think about it.

Exactly my point. Marriage is not universal definition. Gays are asking, or rather demanding definition change from marriage is between man and a woman to marriage is in between two people. That term is so wide and covers so many different permutations. For gays it's all about "equality", right? If so, what about equality for every other group or anyone else who wants to exercise their individual rights?

 

[Ame®icano]

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

"Infringe" on is a bad choice of words here. Gays decide gay marriage = straight marriage, then they demand government recognition and benefits. It's not infringing on rights that's the issue here, it's demanding recognition and benefits (tax treatment, ...) that's the issue. If gays can demand recognition and benefits, then why can't other groups do it?

Personally I don't see why ANYONE needs government to validate their relationship. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to gays arguing that this is a pretty good indication that marriage is not a universal definition, so let's get government out of the marriage business. That would be an extremely valid point. Saying that demanding recognition and benefits doesn't infringe on rights actually isn't if you think about it.

My point was focusing largely around how society validates relationships. We validate a gay relationship (or at very least accept it) because it’s two consenting adults. On the flipside, we don’t accept a pedophilia relationship because it’s one adult and an underdeveloped child. My “rights infringing” comment in that instance was simply with regards to the relationship itself, just want to clarify.

I think I asked Randall this (and he agreed to an extent), but what other “groups” would be asking for marriage equality other than gays? I can see polygamists, but that’s about it. Adults/children doesn’t fly because of the inherent exploitation of the child, and Adult/animal doesn’t fly because of the inherent exploitation of the animal.

What else is there? Adults/aliens? Adults/toasters? (lol, I’m not mocking you or anything just trying to be funny)

I’m all for the gov’t getting out of marriage and simply issuing civil unions, equally, to both gay and straight couples. I think gov’t involvement is necessary for the obvious asset transfer/sharing reasons, ect, ect.


.

OK, you're against pedophilia. Clear case, nobody is questioning that (at least not yet).
Now, whats your opinion of legalizing relationship of parent and adult child?
For obvious asset transfer/sharing reasons...

Just asking.

 

[Ame®icano]

America is known for allowing it’s citizens to do what they want

Do you not see the difference between:

1) Me and my guy are in our own home engaging in a relationship which we desire between consenting adults and it's none of your freaking business, go away

2) I want to be left alone, which means government must validate my relationship, provide me with , tax breaks, ...

One of those meets the standard of allowing citizens to do what they want, the other doesn't. Doing what you want does not come with it the right do demand things of others.

Yes, I see your point, and now we’re diving into a more meaty part of the argument.

I believe there exists two types of couples – gay and straight – and which group you fall under personally is something out of the individual’s control. We are born one way or another. Therefore, in my view those two types of couples should be treated equally under the law.

When it comes to two consenting adults who are in love and want to build a life around each other, I do not believe it is fair (or necessary) for the government to discriminate and say that only opposite-sex couples deserve to have the right to waive an estate tax, or deserve to have the right to access one another’s medical bills, or deserve to have the right get on one another’s insurance.

Either the gov’t quits giving benefits to just the straight couples, or the gov’t extends the benefit to gay couples.

.

First of all, how did state get into institution of marriage? And where does state have right to define that definition of marriage is?

Or what really is going to happen to religions if state change definition of marriage from man/woman to two adults? Is state is going to prosecute religious institutions for discrimination when they decide not to allow same sex marriages? Or they just gonna force them into doing it, or close them up when they refuse...

Second, you are limiting your version of marriage between two groups, straight or gays, who "love each other". Where does it say that love define marriage? Love is subjective and cannot be clearly defined, so ho do you legislate the law within a context that has unlimited meaning? Btw, why to stop on those two groups? I mean if is about equal rights, why to be soooo... restrictive? That's hypocritical.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).

Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".

.

traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?

At first, in my opinion, marriage is possible in between man and a woman, only. Everything else can be called any name except the marriage.

If anyone, especially government get involved in changing of definition of marriage today, what prevents them from changing it again in the future when some other interest groups calls for it?

You obviously don’t understand the issue.

Same-sex couples are citizens entitled to their equal protection rights, equal access to the law – including marriage law. Indeed, that right as always existed for same-sex couples since before the founding of the Republic, the issue is California’s illegal violation of those equal protection rights.

It has nothing to do with ‘changing’ marriage or ‘interest groups.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

so as a people we are supposed to just dump the very core beliefs that have contributed so much to the success of the Western world.....just because some minority wants us to approve of their sodomy....?

Isn't tolerance one of the core American virtues? How could we build such a great nation with people from all over the world and not have some tolerance for our differences? Not acceptance, but simple tolerance. You're Chinese, but that doesn't give me the right to refuse you service in my store. You're Black, but that doesn't make it right for me to burn a cross on your front yard. You're Irish, but that doesn't mean I can fire you for that.

Tolerance. A virtue lost on Conservatives when marriage equality is proposed.

Just quick question... was there any tolerance for polygamy?

If you understood the issue, you wouldn’t have asked this question.

 

[Seawytch]

Why do heterosexual people who never want to have children get married?

Answer that one, and you have what you are looking for.

^^^^that.

We want to marry for all the EXACT same reasons the ST8s do.

Reasons?
Name at least two.

Love and commitment.

 

[bodecea]

Why do heterosexual people who never want to have children get married?

Answer that one, and you have what you are looking for.

^^^^that.

We want to marry for all the EXACT same reasons the ST8s do.

Reasons?
Name at least two.

You don't know?

 

[kaz]

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

"Infringe" on is a bad choice of words here. Gays decide gay marriage = straight marriage, then they demand government recognition and benefits. It's not infringing on rights that's the issue here, it's demanding recognition and benefits (tax treatment, ...) that's the issue. If gays can demand recognition and benefits, then why can't other groups do it?

Personally I don't see why ANYONE needs government to validate their relationship. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to gays arguing that this is a pretty good indication that marriage is not a universal definition, so let's get government out of the marriage business. That would be an extremely valid point. Saying that demanding recognition and benefits doesn't infringe on rights actually isn't if you think about it.

Exactly my point. Marriage is not universal definition. Gays are asking, or rather demanding definition change from marriage is between man and a woman to marriage is in between two people. That term is so wide and covers so many different permutations. For gays it's all about "equality", right? If so, what about equality for every other group or anyone else who wants to exercise their individual rights?

If someone doesn't want to get married, they married "who they want" and they should get the same tax perks as straight couples.

 

[Ame®icano]

^^^^that.

We want to marry for all the EXACT same reasons the ST8s do.

Reasons?
Name at least two.

Love and commitment.

So, father wanna marry his adult son. There is love and commitment. Any reason under equal protection right that they couldn't get married?

 

[Ame®icano]

traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?

At first, in my opinion, marriage is possible in between man and a woman, only. Everything else can be called any name except the marriage.

If anyone, especially government get involved in changing of definition of marriage today, what prevents them from changing it again in the future when some other interest groups calls for it?

You obviously don’t understand the issue.

Same-sex couples are citizens entitled to their equal protection rights, equal access to the law – including marriage law. Indeed, that right as always existed for same-sex couples since before the founding of the Republic, the issue is California’s illegal violation of those equal protection rights.

It has nothing to do with ‘changing’ marriage or ‘interest groups.’

I don't understand and you do.... right.

Just explain to me, where does it say that California is in violation of those rights?