| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
 Posted: Feb 08, 2012 7:09 am Post subject: Interesting Prop 8 Discussion... |
 |
|
A friend of mine posted something about Prop 8 and the appeals court decision yesterday and a bit of a discussion came about. I thought it was interesting enough to share a few quotes from it. Curious to hear your opinions and discussion on the points...
| Quote: | | The real problem here is judicial review. Due to a case call Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary can declare laws unconstitutional. Many argue that this is a check an balance on the legislature but 1. that was not the intent of the founders... 2. There are plenty of checks and balances in the legislative branch as it is (i.e. two houses, presidential veto, constitutional amendment process) 3. who checks the judiciary? how are we a representative gov if a panel of 9 appointed, not elected, justices can make decisions that replace the will of the people as represented in Congress. |
| Quote: | | Is it a constitutional right being denied? |
An interesting article that was posted for reference...
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf
| Quote: | No constitutional right is violated here. "Fact is, homosexuals have the same rights [under the equal protection clause] today as heterosexuals. T...he law does not allow either of them to marry someone of the same gender. It allows all of them to marry someone of the opposite gender. What can be more equal than that?"
A gay man can get married. Just as a Father of a daughter he loves romantically can get married or two cousins who are in love with each other can get married. They can get married just as a man and 3 women who believe in polygamy can get married. They just can't marry each other.
Like the article I referenced states, if Phil and I want to be friends...the government has no interest in us going down and registering our friendship. Why is that? Why is it that if Betty and Tom want to live together as a romantically involved couple and have children we are all of a sudden interested? To the point that some states institute common law marriage laws demonstrating a preference to have that relationship recognized as a marriage.
There is an endless laundry list of reasons why the state is interested in Tom and Betty's relationship. Procreation of children is probably close to the number one reason. A society can't survive without procreation. A society is served best when those children are raised by their parents. And if the marriage dissolves, the state has an interest in placing a domestic support obligation on the parents so that the child does not become a ward of the state (meaning that everyone else has to help pay for the kid).
When discussing so-called gay marriage...the question is not what is wrong with it, but what is right with it. What value is there from it to society? What redeeming quality is there from two men that take care of each other? Heck, Phil and I could do that as straight men.
There are 3 parties to a marriage contract...the couple in love and the State or society. Basica contract law: In order to have a valid contract, one element is called "consideration." Something of value in trade for something else of value. So, we know what gays want from society. They want to be able to publicly declare their love for one another. Sweet really. Do they need marriage to do that? No. So there must be something else of value they are after. They want all the benefits of a married couple that a state offers a man and woman in a marriage. Benefits that societies provide so as to promote marriage, procreation and families (This is the value given from the state to the married couple). But what does a gay couple have to give to the state? Nothing. They can't procreate. In fact, one could argue that 2 men who choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex act against the interest of society since neither man will procreate, and possibly keep two women from fulfilling their role in society as mothers.
If I haven't convinced you, you really have to ask yourself...what does society get out of a straight marriage that they would encourage it? Why do they give tax breaks to married couples? Why would don't they care if Phil and I decide to be friends? What does the society get (in the form of consideration) out of gay marriage? |
| Quote: | If one is for gay marriage, I think you have to then answer why we are against incest, marriage of minors, polygamy (but not outlaw extra-marital affairs), beastiality, and any other forms of relationships. If the argument is that we shoul...d not deny 2 people who love each other from marrying, then what right does the state have to deny any other marriage?
If marriage is simply about two people that love each other...why do we need marriage at all? Why does the state care? And like I said above, it cares about all the fruits that come from a marriage from a man and a woman AND wants to have a say in what happens to the children, the property and the welfare of the spouses in the event that marriages dissolves. |
I commented regarding the fact that there is usually reference to paraphilias regarding the other aspects he mentions other than homosexulaity. I also said let's get government out of the marriage issue all together. For legal purposes we can have civil unions. Reserve marriage as a religious entity and decision. Why is our government intent on legislating morality?
An additional response...
Who says homosexuality is not a paraphilia? Until recently, it was on the list. If you think about it, what sex (the copulation of sexual organs) is there in homosexuality?
| Quote: | I don't understand the argument of getting government out of... marriage. The fact is that of all the needless things government does...marriage is a legitimate role for the government to be involved in...on the State level of course and not the federal level except to ban gay marriage.
Churches WERE the government 100s of years ago. Or at least, co-sovereigns with authority over family law matters. That isn't the case today, and I'm not sure how that would work. And like I said there is a legitimate interest for the government (society) to be involved in marriages.
Civil Unions? What would be the point? Why would we need them? Most of what a couple would want to accomplish they can do without it (i.e. contract law and non-probate transfers of property). What would society get out of it? Why spend any money, time or resources on them? And if gays want to visit each other in the hospital...why not?
I would love to ask a founder what he thought about "legislating morality." The fact is they DID legislate morality. I think they would find the question silly really. Their are consequences when a society fails to legislate morality. I am not of the view that our forefathers were old fashion fuddy duddies who didn't really get it. I think they did get it...and that we will see and are seeing the results of the loosening of our social norms. I know it isn't hip to say but truth is truth...there has been no good fruit from the sexual revolution (just one of many rebellions against morality). Sodomy was illegal in many states up until a 2000ish supreme court decision. Let me add that the liberal Supreme Court had to find the "right to privacy" in the penumbra of the Constitution. What happen to reading a legal document (what the Constitution is) for what it says and not for what it doesn't say.
And even more perplexing is that when you talk about "morality," the question isn't whether you legislate morality, but whose morality to make law. In Germany, you can have a naked lady on a billboard but it is immoral and illegal to have a copy of Mein Kampf. Al Gore calls global warming a "moral issue." Thus we can conclude that any other view on global warming would be immoral and we should make laws on g/w on its moral basis...or rather the morality of it. To a liberal, to be promiscuous is a almost a virtue, but to ban a woman from aborting the baby created from that promiscuity is immoral.
A gun is immoral to some. To others, prayer anywhere in society is immoral. And even speaking ill of homosexuality is becoming a hate crime due to its immoral nature. |
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
E.J.
Ladies Man
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 7597
City: Mogadishu
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi-jack on -
I liked you a lot more, before you started the political propaganda barrage on wakeboarder.com.
Hi-jack off - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
LOL EJ...I just like having discussions.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
OMFG again with the bestiality, polygamy and other BULLF*CKINGSH!T arguments. Hello!!! Mutual consent - minors and animals cannot consent! DUHH DERRRR. And I don't have a problem with polygamous marriages. If women are dumb enough to want to share one dude, whatevs. Not my problem.
The morons from the Prop h8te campaign don't even realize that by standing on the wrong side of history, and defending their POS opinions, they are about to blow the doors WIDE open on the subject, and force legalization from a federal level. That's right bigots, you f*cked yourselves and now "fags" are going to get "marriage" licenses across the entire US of freaking A.
They now have 2 choices: begin a campaign to remove the word "marriage" from the law books, or they can dump more money into this losing effort and shoot themselves directly in the foot in the process.
In all honesty, I think they've passed the point of no return now anyway. The precedent is being set right now, which lays the groundwork for lawsuits to overturn bigoted marriage laws across the land. I don't think the h8te idiots even realize how badly they are damaging their cause.
And for the record, a Constitutional right is being violated. It's called EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. As long as the term marriage is defined under the law, and there is a class that is excluded from being married, you have a situation where one class is being denied that equal protection. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who does not see that is a f*cking idiot of the highest proportion. Any lawyer arguing for the h8ters should be immediately disbarred for being galactically stupid.
So anyhow, go home, bigots. You are on the wrong side of history.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have a problem with polygamy, as long as it is between consenting adults. The problem is, it is often not. It often involves young girls who are not of the age of consent, and this is not cool at all.
The whole argument Okie posted above about equality already being in place because a gay man can get married... only it must be to a woman... doesn't hold water because the rights that are in question are more about things like hospital visitation, power to make legal decisions, adoption, and other legal things like that.
And calling it a "civil union" will solve the above issue, but it won't solve the other facet of this issue, which is the facade of "separate but equal."
The quites Okie posted were so full of misguided vitriol that I don't know where to really start. I'll just randomly pick one line and talk about it. Here goes..
| Quote: | | When discussing so-called gay marriage...the question is not what is wrong with it, but what is right with it. What value is there from it to society? What redeeming quality is there from two men that take care of each other? |
What redeeming... oh for f's sake.. Seriously? What redeeming quality is there in creating a stable household? What redeeming quality is there in people agreeing to dedicate their lives to their common good? In raising children, in building wealth, in participating openly in society... you know, all the same things that hetero marriage is good for.
I honestly can't believe that they still make these people. I thought this model was retired years ago.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontrider
Ladies Man
Joined: 30 Jul 2003
Posts: 16491
City: Russia
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If gays want to get married I say go for... let those poor bastards suffer like the rest of us! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
hells yea, ontrider. I think that the quickest way to end gay sex is to encourage them all to get married.
AHHAHAHAHA!
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 8:46 am Post subject: Re: Interesting Prop 8 Discussion... |
|
|
Subtle troll is subtle. 
_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jryoung
Ladies Man
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 7664
City: Man Jose
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Procreation of children is probably close to the number one reason. |
Infertile people should not be able to marry, those that discover they cannot have children after the fact should divorce....think of the children.
Let's reserve marriage for procreation of the Newt Gingriches, Kardashians, anyone on the Bachelor/ette, anyone on redneck wedding, a bridezilla show or other general dirtbag.
_________________
| Quote: | | You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world. |
- Steve Rinella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GnarShredd
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 2310
City: St Pete.
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can we just put this to bed? Not sure if Okie's being a troll or not.
Once the old fogies with sticks up their asses die off in government this is going to be a non-issue. It sucks that people who want to live their own free lives are being discriminated against now, but most anyone under 40 doesn't give a stuff and when they're in a position where they can make the call, all of this will be behind us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ohsix
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 6837
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMO, there are 2 potential solutions to all of this:
1. Get the gov't, at all levels, out of the marriage business.
2. Get the federal gov't out of the marriage business and let states decide.
I don't know why the gov't needs to endorse a marriage. If people want to be married, let them be married and whatever that means to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the responses so car...like I said I was curious...mainly with the points of the benefits of marriage on society and why government would want to support it. Something I don't recall us discussing before.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
eeven73, heard about that this morning. We know what the end result is gonna be for at least half of these couples, problem is restricting them from finding out on their own!
Maybe the h8ters are actually trying to protect the "gays" from themselves? 
ohsix, I'll take #1 x1,000,000,000 please.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10350972-poster-couple-for-gay-rights-in-california-is-divorcing |
GASP!
Why, these Hoh-mow-seks-yulls what be cavorting about like as if they was regular people!
Here, this is extremely important for you all to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-9G6SJVM3Y
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goofyboy
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Posts: 4463
City: Houston
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
The anti gay crowd is usually the same "anti government crowd." I love the hipocracy of the conservatives, Santorum, Romney, Newt, and thier supporters that say they want government out of our lives and then turn around and dictate who can and can't get married.
This is such a stuff issue. If two guys or two ladies want to get married, go for it. As Ont said, let them be happily/sadly married like the rest of us. Divorce lawyers will be really happy. They should be lobbying for this!
_________________
Work SUX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do the gays have their own lobbyists?
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
cameraboy, yes.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like I've said before, I like the idea of getting government out of it, too. Let everyone have the warm rights for whatever kind of union they want to have. I'm thinking that maybe the word marriage should be removed from society or reserved as a personal, religious thing. There is way too much diversity in what people define as marriage or want to change it to define that I just don't see where any agreement or compromise will ever take place.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Government CAN'T be "out of it," as the rights entitled by a marriage or civil union are legal rights that have to be acknowledged by the law, therefore by government.
Too much diversity in marr...... straight marriage and gay marriage is too much diversity? It's still two people.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ohsix
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 6837
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cameraboy wrote: | | Government CAN'T be "out of it," as the rights entitled by a marriage or civil union are legal rights that have to be acknowledged by the law, therefore by government. |
Why should there be legal rights for "married" people? Why not dating people? Engaged people? Best friends? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goofyboy
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Posts: 4463
City: Houston
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ohsix wrote: | | cameraboy wrote: | | Government CAN'T be "out of it," as the rights entitled by a marriage or civil union are legal rights that have to be acknowledged by the law, therefore by government. |
Why should there be legal rights for "married" people? Why not dating people? Engaged people? Best friends? |
good question. Civil unions would take care of all of that really quick. It would make it easier for couples that are not religious to get "hitched."
_________________
Work SUX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Why should there be legal rights for "married" people? Why not dating people? Engaged people? Best friends? |
Because getting "married" legally means that you have declared a joint legal household, I think.
| Quote: | | Civil unions would take care of all of that really quick. |
Yes, they could. And probably everyone would be down with that idea, except for the fact that it smacks of "separate but equal."
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cameraboy, civil unions have taken care of that. The "separate but equal" problem lies in the word "marriage" itself. It is a term that should be stricken from law and replaced with "civil union". If, in the eyes of the law, the only option was "civil union" we would not be having this discussion.
People can call their relationship whatever they like. So long as the law makes no distinction between a hetero or homo relationship, I'm good. Why that isn't being pushed for I have no facking idea. Too many idiot bible thumpers methinks.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is a term that should be stricken from law and replaced with "civil union". |
That's a lot of adjustment in the law just so some people can feel good about not letting "fags" get "married," imo.
sounds like the religious right taking their ball and going home.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cameraboy, it is a lot of adjustment. But sometimes things that are hard need to be done.
This is one of those defining moments in our nation's history. Right there with women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, and the Emancipation Proclamation. The hard work should be done because it is the right thing to do.
F*ck the bigots. If their religion calls for oppressing these people, f*ck their religion.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think changing legal terms needs to be done at all.
Just allow gay marriage.
Nobody really cares, other than homophobic right leaning people trying to mask their homophobia with clever, yet baseless, ideas that it somehow debases heterosexual marriage.
This is like allowing women to have a say about who they want in office. We'll count it the same, but we should call it "ballot casting" and eliminate "voting" from the law so that men don't feel bad.
How about we free the slaves, but we don't want them to be citizens. We'll call them.... "Nation Members," and we'll just strike the term "citizen" from all legal record. that way white people won't feel like their citizenship is devalued by letting all these blacks be citizens too.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cameraboy, I get that, but at it's core "marriage" is a religious term, so striking it would eliminate the issue without offending anyone.
Although I'm sure the religous nutjobs would still freak out. Mostly because they are too stupid to understand anything beyond what their "master" (the preacher) tells them.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pet575
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 3630
City: Kansas City, MO
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marriage and anti-gay are both in The Bible, so they are what should be followed. That is all.
[/thread]
_________________
| Wakebrad wrote: | | I honestly think it has to do with internet penetration... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GnarShredd
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 2310
City: St Pete.
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pet575, As long as I can still butt-ram a horse, I agree.
I shouldn't have to put this, but  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cameraboy wrote: | Government CAN'T be "out of it," as the rights entitled by a marriage or civil union are legal rights that have to be acknowledged by the law, therefore by government.
Too much diversity in marr...... straight marriage and gay marriage is too much diversity? It's still two people. |
In what people define as marriage. Go ask 6 religions how they define marriage and you will most likely get 6 answers. One common thread you will find is most of them will define it as between one man and one woman. My point is, let them define marriage how they want, independent of the government. Let the government define the legal aspects of a civil union so everyone has equal rights under the law. That solves the problem.
| chavez wrote: | | Although I'm sure the religous nutjobs would still freak out. |
I'm sure there is a portion of our society that would, but I'm sure they would be a minority. Most people I know would be perfectly fine with it...but most of those people are my age or close to it. Some people I know that are against it are in my parents age group or older and I agree with some of the earlier comments that the issue might not be as tense if they weren't a part of it.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ohsix wrote: | IMO, there are 2 potential solutions to all of this:
1. Get the gov't, at all levels, out of the marriage business.
2. Get the federal gov't out of the marriage business and let states decide.
I don't know why the gov't needs to endorse a marriage. If people want to be married, let them be married and whatever that means to them. |
It's pretty much a non-starter, because I can only imagine the reaction if millions of heterosexual couples were suddenly told that their (non-religious) marriage was no longer a "marriage" per se. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ohsix,I'm with you and that's always been my position.
I'm going to start collecting money to circulate a constitutional amendment banning government oversight of marraige straight gay. If people choose they can get a civil contract for the insurance and property right issues they can certainly do that. If they want to marry they can go to a church of their choosing. No need for terminology to get in the way of civil rights. Only problem is the religious types will oppose and so will the LGBT community.
_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Go ask 6 religions how they define marriage and you will most likely get 6 answers |
Hmmm... no. I don't buy it. I think that marriage across MOST religions is the commitment of two people as a recognized couple exclusive to each other.
Sure, you have fringe religions that allow polygamy, but you can find a religion for anything. Our society as a whole generally agrees on what marriage constitutes.
| Quote: | | My point is, let them define marriage how they want, independent of the government. Let the government define the legal aspects of a civil union so everyone has equal rights under the law. That solves the problem. |
In other words, if gays can have a legal marriage, then you would rather eliminate legal marriage altogether.
I get it. You're pouting, taking your ball, and going home.
You're the kid who would rather break his toy than share it.
What you also propose means that non-religious people (agnostics, atheists, deists, etc.) can't get married either.
Which is "destroying" marriage more... letting gays have a legal marriage, or banning atheists and agnostics and non religious people from marriage?
Shoot, microman beat me to the punch. I should read everything before I respond... posting it anyway.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Feb 08, 2012 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno...the general argument is about definition. Marriage is already defined and a union between a man and a woman, before "god". You're right that most religions agree it is the union of two people exclusively and those two are of the opposite sex. But, what is the full definition? Is is arranged or chosen by the individuals? Does it happen in a church or somewhere else? Is it before God, gods or no god at all? All different.
What if I had a large enough group that petitioned for the unfairness in the Super Bowl in its definition of MVP. What if they argued every player should receive a valuable player trophy? Why shouldn't we consider that? It wouldn't hurt anyone and everyone wins.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
