Same-sex marriage ban wins OK

[mrhnau]

If you create an amendment to that saying that gays can also marry, then you are giving them SPECIAL rights that are contradictory to the present law. It would be the same as saying that a person has the right to marry their dog.

they are just seeking a rewording of the law, from my understanding.

as opposed to beastiality, a more reasonable arguement would be child marriages and polygamy, as referenced in the thread I just provided. It starts on the first page, around post #10

MrH

 

[Gin-Gin]

Y'know, if you let the public vote on what's "right" we'd still have slavery, women might still not be able to vote, and you can bet your *** that non-whites would not have to worry about going to school with whites.

It will take lawmakers with balls to force true equality in the US. Thank goddess other nations such as Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa do understand the discriminatory nature of such close minded bans. Maybe someday, the US will truly be a nation of equal rights. Civil-marriages entail a wide range of entitlements, including social security, health insurance, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (e.g. by drawing up contracts), many cannot; thus same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.

I look at it this way. If you don't want to marry someone the same gender as you, don't. You aren't forced to. But let those who do want to make the commitment do so, and enjoy the same protection opposite gender commitments do. Laws concerning cross-race and cross-religion unions have been struck down, sometimes forcibly. It's only a matter of time.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :asian:

 

[OUMoose]

I think you are misunderstanding it then. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The most common legal definition being:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage."

If you create an amendment to that saying that gays can also marry, then you are giving them SPECIAL rights that are contradictory to the present law. It would be the same as saying that a person has the right to marry their dog.

That's a gross exaggeration in my opinion. So the law says one thing. Fine.
Why couldn't it say something like:

"A contract made in the due form of law, by which two consenting adults reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives. By the term of a concenting adult are meant, not only are they of the legal age of consent in the state in which they have residency, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage."

I mean for pete's sake, they're still talking about "Freemen and freewomen" in regards to slavery!!! Yikes!

So I'm guessing you got that definition from the 'lectric law library (since the typos even match), who's impressive quote on their front page reads "If you're one of those annoying, impatient types who thinks you're smart enough to skip my vitally important, erudite, intelligent elucidations without destroying everything you hold dear, you can get right to business with Some of Our Hottest topics:". Looks like credible and impartial source to me.

From Encylopedia Britannica: Online:
"Though the church regards marriage as a sacred, indissoluble union, modern western European and U.S. marriage law treat it as a civil transaction. Marriage law allows only monogamous unions; partners must be above a certain age and not within prohibited degrees of blood relationship; and they must be free to marry and give consent to the marriage."

That sounds a little more reasonable. So what's the problem? Only 2 people, check. Age restriction, check. Inbreeding restriction, check. Lawfully allowed to marry, check. Consent, check. So why can't someone put this into legalese and pass it?

 

[DngrRuss]

There is a difference between religous marriage and legal marriage. The religous right is well versed at blurring the line between the two.

I could not get married in a legally binding sense without a license from the government. All the issues regarding social security, insurance, decision-making, inheritence, etc. are dependant on that legal government document. It is simply not right, or American, to deny any right or legal status to any citizen of this country.

Just because the majority may not like the idea of two men kissing- and let's face it, that's what it is- does not give them the power to deny them any rights whatsoever. This is not an issue that should be decided by vote. As stated previously, issues like slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, etc. would probably have a much different outcome if left to public opinion. I don't want a bunch of zealotous, homophobic, religous-oriented people making decisions for me.

As for the fear that this will lead to legalizing bestiality, pedophelia, and the like- even to the status of marriage- we all know this is a red herring and just swcare tactics. However, when it comes to poligamy, I do not have a problem with 3 or more people entering into a legal agreement with each other. It is ok for businesses to do so, why not individuals? It doesn't affect me or my marriage one bit. But I am also a believer in termination dates on marriage certificates- like any contract.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Marginal]

Talking as a conservative here, I could care less what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom. However, I have a real problem giving gays SPECIAL rights to marriage. Homosexuals are a well funded SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP just like the NRA, PETA, and any other group that CHOOSES to act in a particular way.

Yeah. I'm pretty tired of Focus on the Family too. Silly special interest groups.

 

[mrhnau]

Yeah. I'm pretty tired of Focus on the Family too. Silly special interest groups.

What in the heck is special interest? is there an unspecial interest? everybody has some kind of interest. Just because they have an interest they get the label "special" interest? Is anything non-government special interest? Is anything you don't particularly like special interest? Is anything against your mood of the moment special interest?

I hate that phrase:rockets:

Sorry for the rant, I've got nothing against your dislike of FonF Marginal, just hate the phrase LOL. I don't hate their group, but thats irrelevant .

MrH

 

[Cryozombie]

Lemme ask everyone who is AGAINST Same Sex Marriage:

HOW Does it hurt YOU at all if two men or two women get married, and they are not you?

I'd love to see a valid answer to that. Bet 10 bucks I dont get one.

 

[Marginal]

Lemme ask everyone who is AGAINST Same Sex Marriage:

HOW Does it hurt YOU at all if two men or two women get married, and they are not you?

I'd love to see a valid answer to that. Bet 10 bucks I dont get one.

If the ladies are hot, that's two less hotties in the pool.

(Hey, it's just as valid a point as any I've seen offered so far....)

 

[OUMoose]

If the ladies are hot, that's two less hotties in the pool.

(Hey, it's just as valid a point as any I've seen offered so far....)

Yeah, but they're interested in each other, so the only thing hurt would be your pride, which I'm sure you could find some strapping lad to help ya with.

*ducks and runs away*

KIDDIN!!

*keeps running*

 

[mrhnau]

Lemme ask everyone who is AGAINST Same Sex Marriage:

HOW Does it hurt YOU at all if two men or two women get married, and they are not you?

I'd love to see a valid answer to that. Bet 10 bucks I dont get one.

Lets look at that question then.

How does it hurt YOU at all if one man murders another? How does it hurt YOU if one man steals from another? How does it hurt YOU if a man rapes a woman? how does it hurt YOU if some guy starts smoking crack.

Not trying to answer this question, simply pointing out that just because something does not -directly- affect you, that does not make it ok.

Lets ask more direct questions more closely related. how does it hurt you if polygamy is allowed? how about childred marriages/relationships?

I don't answer the question because I -personally- am not going to be harmed (at least that I can forsee). That does not make the action right or wrong though. We can try discussing how it might harm others if you want, but I'm not interested in how it directly affects me. keep your $10 ;-)

MrH

 

[Icewater]

So I'm guessing you got that definition from the 'lectric law library (since the typos even match), who's impressive quote on their front page reads "If you're one of those annoying, impatient types who thinks you're smart enough to skip my vitally important, erudite, intelligent elucidations without destroying everything you hold dear, you can get right to business with Some of Our Hottest topics:". Looks like credible and impartial source to me.

I checked a few others that came up on the google, but they all made the separation of man and woman so it fit my purpose.

From Encylopedia Britannica: Online:
"Though the church regards marriage as a sacred, indissoluble union, modern western European and U.S. marriage law treat it as a civil transaction. Marriage law allows only monogamous unions; partners must be above a certain age and not within prohibited degrees of blood relationship; and they must be free to marry and give consent to the marriage."

That sounds a little more reasonable. So what's the problem? Only 2 people, check. Age restriction, check. Inbreeding restriction, check. Lawfully allowed to marry, check. Consent, check. So why can't someone put this into legalese and pass it?

When did the church start making laws?

On a practical side it comes down to whether or not we should allow gays to have the same tax breaks and other benefits that a man/woman marriage entitles. The answer has to be no. If we let the gays do it, then why not college roomates, or brothers/sisters that are non-sexual but live together to help make ends meet?

 

[mrhnau]

here is an interesting question... every knows of common law marriages, right? I lived w/ a guy for 3 years. was my roomate. how would something like that be considered? are common law marriages all that common these days? I honestly don't know. do they get any legal considerations? Is there any confusion w/ someone being a roomate. How would same sex marriages change things?

Honest question, I don't know the answers... just asking.

MrH

 

[Ping898]

Yeah, I don't completely agree with the argument, but I can see that side of it. The thing about your polygamy agrument is that there is not enough genetic material to create a baby in a homosexual marriage either, so that doesn't really apply, unless you believe that marriage only exists for procreation. But, if that's whast you believe, then you'd be against homosexual marriage, so I'm confused by your point. Were you on a bit of a rant maybe and I read into it too much?

It was really early in the morning and I wasn't feeling well and got slighty Rantish there Xequat. What I was ineffectively trying to get accross was that marriage in a civil sense has to do with money and kids when you get group it in it's highest forms and that is takes two people to make a kid so I think that legally, it should be two people to raise a kid or two people max who have main control of the kid, deciding schools/medical care/etc whether it is man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, just man or just woman doesn't matter, just that even in many religious cultures that allow polygamy (and this is purely my understanding of it) the ultimate athourity over a particular kid falls to one mom and dad even if a group of men or women help raise the kid. I am not being very eloquent here and am not sure if I am getting the main thrust of my arguement accross....

My main point is I hate that arguement that comes along with the rally against gay marriage, i.e. that if you allow two men/women to marry then suddenly anything will be allowed.

 

[Marginal]

Yeah, but they're interested in each other, so the only thing hurt would be your pride

Nothin' a dose of Vitamin Church wouldn't cure if only the suitable social pressures were put back in place.

 

[OUMoose]

When did the church start making laws?

On a practical side it comes down to whether or not we should allow gays to have the same tax breaks and other benefits that a man/woman marriage entitles. The answer has to be no. If we let the gays do it, then why not college roomates, or brothers/sisters that are non-sexual but live together to help make ends meet?

The church started making laws around the same time people started using the bible as a basis for "morality".

What benefits would a pair of college roomates get from entering into a civil union? They generally don't own the house they live in, there's no health insurance, no benefits. So why spend the time/effort in setting that up? I know lots of people who have helped their siblings out, and I highly doubt they would want this either.

And I'm still waiting for the response about how gay marriages promote beastialty...

 

[OUMoose]

here is an interesting question... every knows of common law marriages, right? I lived w/ a guy for 3 years. was my roomate. how would something like that be considered? are common law marriages all that common these days? I honestly don't know. do they get any legal considerations? Is there any confusion w/ someone being a roomate. How would same sex marriages change things?

Honest question, I don't know the answers... just asking.

MrH

I can't speak for others, but in Ohio, Common-Law marriage was abolished.

 

[Ping898]

When did the church start making laws?

On a practical side it comes down to whether or not we should allow gays to have the same tax breaks and other benefits that a man/woman marriage entitles. The answer has to be no. If we let the gays do it, then why not college roomates, or brothers/sisters that are non-sexual but live together to help make ends meet?

Who says you can't. I know of two different straight/gay combined men and women who have married, go about their own personal relationships, but have a civil marriage to get the benefits that goes with it. I have another friend who married her h.s. boyfriend to be able to get fincial aid for college cause then they wouldn't count her parents income when determing aid. She never lived with him or anything, still lived at home, but got the benefits that went with it.
I am not saying you should give the tax benefits to whomever wants it, but just because you don't want to give it to a brother/sister or two college roomates does not mean you should deny it to others. Besides I highly doubt those two college roommates have gone to city hall to get a "marriage" document.....

here is an interesting question... every knows of common law marriages, right? I lived w/ a guy for 3 years. was my roomate. how would something like that be considered? are common law marriages all that common these days? I honestly don't know. do they get any legal considerations? Is there any confusion w/ someone being a roomate. How would same sex marriages change things?

Honest question, I don't know the answers... just asking.

MrH

It actually depends on the state. I know one state passed a law (I think Virginia or W. V. last year) that basically killed any chance of gay marriage/civil unions and in the process denied people who were in common law marriages the same benefits they were getting.

 

[Marginal]

And I'm still waiting for the response about how gay marriages promote beastialty...

Just going by the rhetoric of a wacky pal of mine, "if you let one pervert through, all the perverts get through".

So... No actual reason exists.

 

[jfarnsworth]

The time has come. Legalize it.

I agree. Make people happy, be done with it. I could care less what 2 people do.

 

[ed-swckf]

Already been discussed ad infinitum

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27126

I read the thread, my statement stands.