What with all this talk of homosexuality

[MissileMan]

In fact, the only reason the marital relationship is recognized by the government is because of its the best and healthiest way to raise children. What benefits would recognizing same sex marriage give society? Absolutely nothing.

You said this before and you're still wrong. The government's involvement in marriage is financial and legal. They get to collect license fees. The government also establishes the legal parameters of the relationship.

The government sanctions single parent households every day. What else would you call the financial assistance given to welfare moms?

As for the benefit to society, as you like to talk about the spread of disease by homosexuals, there is a possibility that gay marriage will get a number of them to "settle" down resulting in a decrease in the number of new STD cases. I would consider that a benefit to society.

 

[mattskramer]

Write your guy's name and list whatever you want to leave him on a piece of paper, before two witnesses, and have it notarized.

Would the same have to apply to heterosexual married couples? Let us then establish that everyone must have a will. Don’t you realize that you are missing the parallel? The same way to access benefits and face responsibilities that heterosexuals married face should be allowed to homosexual couples.

 

[no1tovote4]

Would the same have to apply to heterosexual married couples? Let us then establish that everyone must have a will. Don’t you realize that you are missing the parallel? The same way to access benefits and face responsibilities that heterosexuals married face should be allowed to homosexual couples.

Sounds good to me. Marriage shouldn't be dealt with by the government at all. All legal sanctions should be called exactly that. "Legal Unions". Marriage is a fundamentally religious subject and should be left to them per the 1st Amendment.

 

[mattskramer]

What benefits would recognizing same sex marriage give society? Absolutely nothing.

First of all, I disagree with your implied premise that we should only legalize things that benefit society. There are many legal activities that have practically no benefit to society and may even be detrimental to society. Having said that, I hope to draw your attention to 2 web sites that might argue my point better than I could myself.

http://online.logcabin.org/issues/the_case_for_civil_marriage_equality.html

Civil marriage equality will benefit society by encouraging stable relationships, strengthening the institution of marriage, and providing important protection for gay and lesbian families.

What an excellent web site article. Its points are simply stated.

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/g...pecial/oregonian/gaymarriage/040320_mark.html

It presents similar points but with a personal edge.

 

[no1tovote4]

How is it going anyway Matt?

 

[liberalogic]

First of all, I disagree with your implied premise that we should only legalize things that benefit society. There are many legal activities that have practically no benefit to society and may even be detrimental to society. Having said that, I hope to draw your attention to 2 web sites that might argue my point better than I could myself.

http://online.logcabin.org/issues/the_case_for_civil_marriage_equality.html

Civil marriage equality will benefit society by encouraging stable relationships, strengthening the institution of marriage, and providing important protection for gay and lesbian families.

What an excellent web site article. Its points are simply stated.

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/g...pecial/oregonian/gaymarriage/040320_mark.html

It presents similar points but with a personal edge.

Excellent links. It boggles my mind that this issue has to even be debated, but deep religious values and their intersections with public policy are the root cause. It's funny though, I love how the President says that we need to "protect the sanctity of marriage." I don't see what the hell we're protecting when divorce rates are hovering around 50%.

 

[mattskramer]

How is it going anyway Matt?

All things considered, I’m okay. Thanks. Physically and health-wise, I’m excellent for my age group. Emotionally, I’m calm, cool, and collect but still enjoying life fairly well.

Religiously, I’m still agnostic but starting to believe more and more that there is a God but I’m still far from able to honestly claim to be a Christian in any form. Still, I’m not willing to claim that any of the basic theistic religious tenants are false. I’m just not that deeply interested in theology or wanting to “find” the answers for myself.

Politically, I don’t like labels. I simply don’t believe in all of the planks of any particular political party or even a particular political ideology. If you had to label me I think that I’m an independent moderate moderate who leans perhaps a little but to the left. Yet, I still have views that might get me figuratively kicked out of even a moderate Democrat organization.

Socially, I’m comfortable with the relationship that my wife and I share (and I believe that she is happy with me.) I’m happy to have some very close friends, several friendly neighbors, associates, and acquaintances.

Mentally, I’m only slightly above average (according to my latest IQ test (if you believe in the validity of such things)) I still learning what I need to learn in order to keep pace with my career demands and even try to stay ahead of the curve. I’m fairly sharp according to my friends.

Psychologically, I’ve been feeling a little tiny bit of existential melancholy the past few weeks. It comes and goes. – Sort of a humanistic humdrum if you know what I mean. I think that this holiday weekend broke me out of it a little bit. It was probably due to boredom & monotony.

Anyway, thanks for asking.

 

[Gunny]

Would the same have to apply to heterosexual married couples? Let us then establish that everyone must have a will. Don’t you realize that you are missing the parallel? The same way to access benefits and face responsibilities that heterosexuals married face should be allowed to homosexual couples.

Still sharp as a tack, I see. Heterosexuals are no more free to just choose whoever they want as beneficiary/next of kin than homosexuals are, so the premise of THAT argument don't sell.

 

[mattskramer]

Still sharp as a tack, I see. Heterosexuals are no more free to just choose whoever they want as beneficiary/next of kin than homosexuals are, so the premise of THAT argument don't sell.

http://www.seniormag.com/legal/dying-intestate.htm
Married with no children: …Most states, however, give only one-third to one-half of the estate to the survivor. The remainder generally goes to the decedent's parent(s), if alive. If both parents are dead, many states split the remainder among the decedent's brothers and sisters.

http://www.willsandprobate.com/FAQ/who-gets-it.htm
In Texas, property is inherited as follows in the absence of a will…if you are married… … If you have no children, your spouse will inherit all of your community property.

A heterosexual person may write a will to designate a beneficiary. A homosexual may write a will to designate a beneficiary. Yet, the parallel ends when there is no will.

 

[GotZoom]

http://www.seniormag.com/legal/dying-intestate.htm
Married with no children: …Most states, however, give only one-third to one-half of the estate to the survivor. The remainder generally goes to the decedent's parent(s), if alive. If both parents are dead, many states split the remainder among the decedent's brothers and sisters.

http://www.willsandprobate.com/FAQ/who-gets-it.htm
In Texas, property is inherited as follows in the absence of a will…if you are married… … If you have no children, your spouse will inherit all of your community property.

A heterosexual person may write a will to designate a beneficiary. A homosexual may write a will to designate a beneficiary. Yet, the parallel ends when there is no will.

Regardless of your sexuality or marital status, not having a will is just stupid.

I'm even surprised people still have wills. Simply establish an estate. There aren't any taxes and you can appoint anyone as the executor.

 

[sitarro]

but here is the question of the day: Why should we have to hire a lawyer just to entitle us to the sam beneifts when the government could give them to us.

Come on cs, I am sure if you pull out that little alternative yellow pages you will find many ways to get the legal shit done for free and you won't get stuck in a marriage. Haven't you heard, 50% end in divorce! Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell have done very well without the piece of paper.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sounds good to me. Marriage shouldn't be dealt with by the government at all. All legal sanctions should be called exactly that. "Legal Unions". Marriage is a fundamentally religious subject and should be left to them per the 1st Amendment.

If we do that, then relationships can be created and destroyed with just a legal decree or a contractual business agreement. This is exactly what the radical Left and the communist pushers want. Traditional families as we know them will be completely destroyed. A child could lose a father/his patriarchal set of relatives and get a new set with just the stroke of a pen....to hell with the biological family relationships.

 

[jillian]

If we do that, then relationships can be created and destroyed with just a legal decree or a contractual business agreement. This is exactly what the radical Left and the communist pushers want. Traditional families as we know them will be completely destroyed. A child could lose a father/his patriarchal set of relatives and get a new set with just the stroke of a pen....to hell with the biological family relationships.

Relationships are already created and destroyed with just a legal decree. When people are given their vows it is "by the power vested in [the clergy] by the State". Not the other way around. Divorces, too.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Relationships are already created and destroyed with just a legal decree. When people are given their vows it is "by the power vested in [the clergy] by the State". Not the other way around. Divorces, too.

You are missing the point. We still recognize biological families and relationships. That is why we want only one man and one woman for marriage.

 

[jillian]

You are missing the point. We still recognize biological families and relationships. That is why we want only one man and one woman for marriage.

No. I'm not missing the point. "Marriage" is a designation granted by the government, not by religious orders. Religious ritual would have no legal effect but for being sanctioned by the State.

And what "we" want isn't particularly relevant, whether the "we" is you or me. And certainly each of us is entitled to our religious beliefs and should live by them. But those religious beliefs shouldn't hold any sway on government except insofar as they may inform our own conscience and our own actions.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. I'm not missing the point. "Marriage" is a designation granted by the government, not by religious orders. Religious ritual would have no legal effect but for being sanctioned by the State.

And what "we" want isn't particularly relevant, whether the "we" is you or me. And certainly each of us is entitled to our religious beliefs and should live by them. But those religious beliefs shouldn't hold any sway on government except insofar as they may inform our own conscience and our own actions.

You liberals always try to bring things around to the "religious argument" when you have nothing left to offer.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman traditionallly for eons and eons and has been sanctioned by societies and governments throughout the world as such. Marriage is not necessarily a religious matter.

What "we" want is relevant, if "we" means the majority of society....or do you not believe in our democratic form of government?

 

[liberalogic]

You liberals always try to bring things around to the "religious argument" when you have nothing left to offer.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman traditionallly for eons and eons and has been sanctioned by societies and governments throughout the world as such. Marriage is not necessarily a religious matter.

What "we" want is relevant, if "we" means the majority of society....or do you not believe in our democratic form of government?

The conservatives, though, to sway the issue from religion, rely on tradition as you just cited. But tradition doesn't make something right. Slavery was a tradition brought from overseas. Female inferiority was a tradition carried into the U.S. Both were etched into the fabric of western society for eons and eons. But despite them being traditional values, we've changed them.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, tradition is not a valid supporting argument.

And if it wasn't a religious issue for the right wing, then why does president Bush keep telling us that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage?" "Sanctity" refers to something that is holy, therefore his argument is based on religion.

No one's asking the church to wed gays, it's just a matter of legality and recognition by the STATE, not God.

 

[Gunny]

No. I'm not missing the point. "Marriage" is a designation granted by the government, not by religious orders. Religious ritual would have no legal effect but for being sanctioned by the State.

And what "we" want isn't particularly relevant, whether the "we" is you or me. And certainly each of us is entitled to our religious beliefs and should live by them. But those religious beliefs shouldn't hold any sway on government except insofar as they may inform our own conscience and our own actions.

R-i-i-i-ght. It damned sure IS about what "We, the People" want. This isn't the Soviet Union. If Western Society as a whole and its basic laws and morals reflect Judeo-Chrtistianity, you can't just dismiss them with a declaration and wave of the hand.

 

[sitarro]

The conservatives, though, to sway the issue from religion, rely on tradition as you just cited. But tradition doesn't make something right. Slavery was a tradition brought from overseas. Female inferiority was a tradition carried into the U.S. Both were etched into the fabric of western society for eons and eons. But despite them being traditional values, we've changed them.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, tradition is not a valid supporting argument.

And if it wasn't a religious issue for the right wing, then why does president Bush keep telling us that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage?" "Sanctity" refers to something that is holy, therefore his argument is based on religion.

No one's asking the church to wed gays, it's just a matter of legality and recognition by the STATE, not God.

First off logic, who are you to define what President Bush means by the word sanctity? Words don't have any meaning in todays world. Gay by definition in most "traditional" dictionaries means...."adj. 1. light-hearted, happy, full of fun 2. bright colored, dressed or decorated in bright colors".......... we all know that is passe....."3.(informal)homosexual, of homosexuals"...... that word has been redifined and the dictionaries have been rewritten because a special interest group coopted it. Very few use it for it's "traditional" top two meanings.

Let's see how far your "liberal logic"(an oxymoron if I have ever heard one!) will take you, hmmmm?

Would you say society should OK a brother and sister to wed? I know it's not "traditional" but Angelina and her brother really love each other and want to be able to visit each other in the hospital, they don't feel they should have to go to a lawyer to get property rights, and they are 2 consenting adults after all. They don't want children the "traditional" way for obvious reasons but they do want to have the right to adopt as many kids that they can afford. Why not, they would be great parents, better than some orphanage........right logic? In fact 3 sisters and 1 brother have decided to go against "tradition" and wed each other, why shouldn't society accept this? Who does society think it can deny 4 consenting adults the rights that everyone else has?

 

[Dr Grump]

What "we" want is relevant, if "we" means the majority of society....or do you not believe in our democratic form of government?

The United States is a republic not a democracy. The reason it is a republic is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Do you know how many times conservatives have given me that argument. Oh, the irony that it is now twisted the other way....