Gay Marriages

[booneoli]

What are your thoughts on the heated debate.

[G. Adams]

There is no reason whatsoever for government to deny marriage to gay or lesbian couples. I don't like the idea of marriage in general, why do you have to register your love before god or government, but for legal reasons its important, and those same legal reasons make it important for homosexuals.

[cheesemage]

It is common sense to let them marry. Why not? Who does it hurt? Yes it offends some people because of their religion and morals, but in the eye of the government god should be considered dead, so there will be equality(God seems to have some funny ideas about freedom sometimes).

[Impenitent]

god is dead to the american government?

have you looked at your money lately?

and no, it was marx and marxist government who has no use for god...

read the declaration... every right in america comes from god...

civil unions are one thing, and that's great... but changing the definition of marriage will not fly...

I agree with Impenitent,

Civil unions are great! It lets gay people get the tax benefits and the recognition they deserve as people, but I think that it's the churches decision to go any further.

[Sodfather]

They may do whatever they want as long as it's not within a five-mile radius of me. Seriously.

[cheesemage]

I am saying as how it SHOULD be, not how it is. Quite a bit of difference there. All rights should not be considered god given, rather given on the basis of exsistence, now how exsistence is controlled nor how it come about.

If the Gays belong to a religion that doesn't look down upon, why shouldn't they be able to be married under it legally? Now if they want to get married under a religion that frowns upon Gays, well then they are just trying to start problems.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (cheesemage,)
I am saying as how it SHOULD be, not how it is. Quite a bit of difference there. All rights should not be considered god given, rather given on the basis of exsistence, now how exsistence is controlled nor how it come about.

If the Gays belong to a religion that doesn't look down upon, why shouldn't they be able to be married under it legally? Now if they want to get married under a religion that frowns upon Gays, well then they are just trying to start problems.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

but in america, all rights do come from the creator...

and granting rights on the basis of existence will never fly... the stronger will always take more...

they can and do get married under their religions, married in the eyes of the state is completely different...

[white rice]

In America, all rights come from the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, although symbolic, is just a piece of paper to get the King off their case.

People run the government and pass the laws. Therefore, people and their personal morals are the only means to change them.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
In America, all rights come from the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, although symbolic, is just a piece of paper to get the King off their case.

People run the government and pass the laws. Therefore, people and their personal morals are the only means to change them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I already hashed this out with fedfem in the thread called "basic evolution and basic nietzsche"

here's a link

http://www.volconvo.com/index.php?showtopic=307

[white rice]

I agree that the US was founded as a Christian nation and borrowed some Christian morals. A heathen rogue state at that period would've probably garnered more contempt that it already had. Yet there were concepts such as due process and the presumption of innocence that were borrowed from the British judicial system that doesn't appear God given but rather an extention of logical thought and reasoning.

The Constitution is a living document that has changed in interpretation and has been amended time after time. Slavery was acceptable in the Bible and many Americans had no problem against it dring that period. For a long time afterwards, giving equal rights to blacks in the north and south was an unorthodox position to many until the government stepped in and enforced it.

Do you think the seperation of Church and state stated in the First Amendment is an unalienable right given by the Creator? Back then, the intent was for people to freely practice their interpretation of a Judeo-Christian God. Now it protects groups like atheists, Satanists and Scientologists.

[Utah]

Ok... I'm a newb here ,but I'll throw in my change.

My opinion is who cares who gets married. Homosexuals are already living together and many have lived together as long as our parents, why not allow them the ability to receive the same benefits a married couple would receive and most of all, let them share in the marriage penalty tax?

In no way does a gay person getting married effect my ability to believe in God or change who I am as a person or alter what I believe.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
There is no reason whatsoever for government to deny marriage to gay or lesbian couples. I don't like the idea of marriage in general, why do you have to register your love before god or government, but for legal reasons its important, and those same legal reasons make it important for homosexuals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I knew I would find some agreement with the lefties on this one...
Agree with you on marriage - anyone should be able to do it: Marriage is simply a contract between two people (and perhaps their religion). The government has no business being involved with marriage - it should not be trying to endorse or restrict marriage in any way - it is a purely societal thing.

but - please explain why 'but for legal reasons its important'?

In the eyes of government, when two people get married, nothing has changed: they should still be treated just like any other person, single or not: taxed the same, have all the same laws and regulations applied, etc.

Give marriage back to religions and the people where it belongs! Why did we EVER let government have the power to give us 'permission' to get married? hogwash!!!!

a citizen for liberty,
michael

[G. Adams]

In law, it's important because if one dies before a will is written, because you need a next of kin. If your a gay or lesbian couple without a civil contract together, when you die your nearest relation will take the money instead of your partner.

Thats about it really.

[Leopard]

if the 'default' condition of your inheritance is to transfer to your next of kin, and this is known by you, AND you do not wish to alter this - then take some responsibility and write a will!

if this is the sole argument for having government involved in marriage....

[JustinGilmore]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
They may do whatever they want as long as it's not within a five-mile radius of me. Seriously.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
xenophobe

The simple fact is that gay couples deserve at bare minumum, a civil union. For instance, this would help them with much needed tax relief if they're living in poverty.

Saying that gays cannot marry, is like saying that blacks may not marry whites.

[harami]

Leopard said: "The government has no business being involved with marriage - it should not be trying to endorse or restrict marriage in any way - it is a purely societal thing."

A nice ideal. The ironical fact is that government and the courts micromanage marriage in incredible detail. For example, there are many kinds of rules on division of property upon breakup, including pensions. In addition, it is a trial lawyers and creative jurist paradise: Prenups are routinely violated, penalties and payments are often court decided, depending on how good your lawyer is or how creative the judge is.

It would be instructive to search the state and federal laws pertaining to marriage, and to have a lawyer buddy search the case law.

Perhaps the real question, in the light of the immense body of law and case law is: why in the world would gays (or anybody) want to subject themselves to this?

[JustinGilmore]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,)

Perhaps the real question, in the light of the immense body of law and case law is: why in the world would gays (or anybody) want to subject themselves to this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

We'll unfortunatly they do want marrage, which makes you wrong by default.

[harami]

Why does that make me wrong by default? Perhaps it shows that their push on this issue is a bit ill advised, as a practical matter.

[G. Adams]

Argh, grammar nazi in me bursting forth....

the word you were looking for was bigot, not xenophobe. A xenophobe is somebody afraid of foreignors, a bigot is someone who hates that which is different.

And why 'ironical'? It means EXACTLEY the same thing as ironic, so why oh why do people ever use that term?? It drives me nuts.

Back to the topic now...