Homosexual Marriage

[Locutus]

Personaly i don't get the Gay thing, I am not homophobic or anything but It is not something I personnaly consider all that natural. having said that we are all different so I guess it is a persons right to be with or marry who they choose.
i certainly leave people to there own preferences at least.
it does make me a little uncomfortable though

[Merlov01]

How is it difficult to understand someone is romantically and sexually attracted to someone?

[Dirty Name]

I guess it is a persons right to be with or marry who they choose.

Oh really? And where is this "right" enumerated in the constitution? Funny thing is, I suppose they already have that "right." But everyone doesn't have the "right" to marry whomever they choose AND collect benefits.

It's no different from excluding employed people from collecting jobless benefits. They don't meet the criteria to qualify for benefits, but they aren't being discriminated against. So the question becomes, on what ILLEGAL BASIS are homosexuals being discriminated against when the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriage?

This subject matter isn't as simple as declaring how you feel about the issue. It requires people to THINK about it.

[Dirty Name]

How is it difficult to understand someone is romantically and sexually attracted to someone?

How difficult is it to understand that such attraction is NOT what qualifies people for legal recognition of their marriage? This seems to be the fundamental stumbling block for everyone on the pro-same-sex marriage side of the equation. No one is preventing such relationships from forming, yet that's what gays want you to believe.

To the contrary, gays are legally allowed to stand in any church that will let them, and one man can even wear a lovely wedding dress (or a lesbian can even wear a tuxedo), and they can proclaim their commitment to one another in a "marriage." THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL.

What they cannot do is collect the benefits of their so-called "marriage" because they failed to form an opposite-gender pair (which is the sole criterion used in determining if they qualify - nobody gives a rip if they are gay or not).

So all you people who come in here and post your opinion that gays should be allowed to be married...well, guess what? They already can be. But it's a whole different discussion if you want to say two people of the same sex should be considered legally equal to an opposite sex couple.

I'll debate that subject with anyone - starting with the fact that COUPLES aren't granted equality in the same way that individuals are. So it's perfectly OK to treat couples differently from a legal perspective, as long as you are subjecting them to a form of discrimination that is not illegal.

Last time I checked, there was no protected class of people called a "same-sex gender pair," and again, that is the ONLY factor used to discriminate. Whether or not a couple happens to be gay is irrelevant, I've proven concept on these boards, and I'm happy to do it again if someone doesn't understand it.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name How difficult is it to understand that such attraction is NOT what qualifies people for legal recognition of their marriage? This seems to be the fundamental stumbling block for everyone on the pro-same-sex marriage side of the equation. No one is preventing such relationships from forming, yet that's what gays want you to believe. To the contrary, gays are legally allowed to stand in any church that will let them, and one man can even wear a lovely wedding dress (or a lesbian can even wear a tuxedo), and they can proclaim their commitment to one another in a "marriage." THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL. What they cannot do is collect the benefits of their so-called "marriage" because they failed to form an opposite-gender pair (which is the sole criterion used in determining if they qualify - nobody gives a rip if they are gay or not). So all you people who come in here and post your opinion that gays should be allowed to be married...well, guess what? They already can be. But it's a whole different discussion if you want to say two people of the same sex should be considered legally equal to an opposite sex couple. I'll debate that subject with anyone - starting with the fact that COUPLES aren't granted equality in the same way that individuals are. So it's perfectly OK to treat couples differently from a legal perspective, as long as you are subjecting them to a form of discrimination that is not illegal. Last time I checked, there was no protected class of people called a "same-sex gender pair," and again, that is the ONLY factor used to discriminate. Whether or not a couple happens to be gay is irrelevant, I've proven concept on these boards, and I'm happy to do it again if someone doesn't understand it.

I understand it. I would differ with you slightly in that many churches will not perform gay marriages; this is a symptom, a side effect of a culture that sets homosexuals apart as "different." That is discrimination, however you want to look at it.

I would like to argue the law. Not its facts; I'm sure you have the facts precisely correct; but its worht, its value. Can you explain why the law as it stands, denying benefits to same sex coules, should not be changed? What detrimental effect would that have on society? If there is none, I would suggest we should change it, so that we may be an inclusive society, rather than an exclusive society; as we were meant to be.
For instance, you say that "romantic and sexual attraction" is not the basis for a legally recognized marriage. If it isn't, what is? Please don't tell me that the law states it must be opposite sex; I agree with that. My question is, why do we have that law, and more importantly, why do we want to keep it?

[lili462]

Let me ask a question: So when you go an marry someone are you marrying them because they are of the opposite sex or because you love them?

[Dirty Name]

I understand it. I would differ with you slightly in that many churches will not perform gay marriages; this is a symptom, a side effect of a culture that sets homosexuals apart as "different." That is discrimination, however you want to look at it.

The Church's refusal to allow gay weddings within their four walls is NOT "a symptom of a culture that sets homosexuals apart as different" - it's the direct result of homosexuals violating basic Biblical doctrine. While I certainly can't argue that it's discrimination, I would argue all day long that it's not illegal discrimination. It's no different from the local Elk Club refusing to allow people to use their facilities for activities they don't condone.

I would like to argue the law. Not its facts; I'm sure you have the facts precisely correct; but its worht, its value. Can you explain why the law as it stands, denying benefits to same sex coules, should not be changed?

If you agree that everyone is treated fairly, what is left to discuss? That is the key question here. You already have agreed that no illegal discrimination exists. You now seem to be advocating that we change the rules just because some people don't like the outcome even though the rules were applied equally to everyone.

So, if you want to have this discussion, why don't you start by telling me if you believe that same-sex couples can be considered the literal equivalent of an opposite sex couple in the eyes of the state, keeping in mind both the benefits and burdens that each entity represents. Are those benefits and burdens to the state generally equal? If so, you might have a case. If not, then I see no reason to change the rules as they currently exist.

[Dirty Name]

Let me ask a question: So when you go an marry someone are you marrying them because they are of the opposite sex or because you love them?

I think the answer here, in 95% or more cases, is both. But I don't think your question is relevant here. Legal recognition of marriages has NOTHING to do with love whatsoever. The state can neither craft a legal definition of love nor could they enforce it. The state is only concerned about whether or not any sexual union between two people has the potential to produce offspring. Legal recognition of marriage is about codifying a sexual relationship for the purpose of protecting and promoting a family unit so that the state receives maximum benefit and minimal burden from that sexual union.

That is it and nothing more. I realize my gay rights opponents refuse to accept this because doing so totally undermines their own position, but that's how it is, and that's why states like Texas and Ohio and elsewhere continue to pass one man/one woman marriage laws with overwhelming majorities - because our country was founded and built on the structure of the traditional family unit.

[Davinia]

If I am not mistaken those eleven states that voted no to homsexuality where one of the first 11 colonies (which were Puritans) in the United States, very religious and old time oriented. That would be one of the reasons why they voted "no" to this. I personally think that people should do whatever they want with their lives and do as they please.

I also think that Miami (specially) in South Beach they are very liberal in flaunting their homosexuality. For heaven sakes they have their own little hangout place by Pembroke ( I think).

Live and let Live. I'll say.

[Davinia]

My friends have become homos lately. I dont care and quite frankly take them how they are. Should that be considered a flaw? Perhaps. I really dont know. It intrigues me though how they become gay. Research has shown that it could be genetic and innate. But sometimes I think that their enviroment also plays a role. Their relationship with other people whether they are good or bad. Sometimes it maybe curiosity. Whatever it is, its a very intriguing think yet I always ask them and all they say is..."I feel comfortable around her/him and it just happens." I simply shrug and I'm left more puzzled than before.

I dont care but I ask for them not to tell me their "real" personal things. It too much for me to handle.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Davinia I dont care but I ask for them not to tell me their "real" personal things. It too much for me to handle.

One would hope you reciprocate and avoid describing you own "real" personal things as well.

[Dirty Name]

Live and let Live. I'll say.

That statement is meaningless in this debate. Nobody is preventing gay people from "getting married" or living together with a life partner. The debate here is about whether or not same sex couples should be elevated to equal status with opposite sex couples so that each can receive the exact same benefits.

I have already illustrated that there is no illegal discrimination involved when denying benefits to same-sex couples - because philosophical equality for couples doesn't exist in our constitution or founding documents in the same way that it exists for individuals.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on same-sex couples to show that they are in fact literally equal in terms of benefit and burden to the state if they want the law to be changed so that all same sex unions are treated the same as opposite sex unions.

I know many people want to say, "Of course they are literally equal! Our Founding Fathers established that "all men are created equal" way back in 1776! Why shouldn't they be treated equally?"

My answer, as always, is that the Founding Fathers were talking about INDIVIDUAL, INALIENABLE RIGHTS. They were not talking about how the law applies to COUPLES. Every INDIVIDUAL has the EXACT SAME RIGHT to marriage as their fellow citizens, and nobody here, in over 211 pages of discourse, has every shown how individuals are illegally discriminated against when same sex couples are denied marriage benefits.

Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, it's not an equal rights issue, but it IS a question about whether same sex couples should in fact be viewed by the state as EQUAL to opposite sex couples.

When you consider the obvious biological ramifications, the answer is clearly NO.

[Dirty Name]

If I am not mistaken those eleven states that voted no to homsexuality where one of the first 11 colonies (which were Puritans) in the United States, very religious and old time oriented. That would be one of the reasons why they voted "no" to this. I personally think that people should do whatever they want with their lives and do as they please.

a) Texas was not one of the first "eleven" colonies.
b) Ohio was not one of the first "eleven" colonies.
c) There were 13 original colonies.
d) Your theory about Puritans would have made me snort milk out my nose were I drinking any.
e) Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it's deeply, deeply flawed.

[shield772]

Same sex couples should be recognized under local, state, and federal laws. The founding documents of this country definatley say we have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. This is the legal justification for granting them the same degree of recognition as opposite sex couples.

[lili462]

Quote by: Dirty Name I think the answer here, in 95% or more cases, is both. But I don't think your question is relevant here. Legal recognition of marriages has NOTHING to do with love whatsoever. The state can neither craft a legal definition of love nor could they enforce it. The state is only concerned about whether or not any sexual union between two people has the potential to produce offspring. Legal recognition of marriage is about codifying a sexual relationship for the purpose of protecting and promoting a family unit so that the state receives maximum benefit and minimal burden from that sexual union. That is it and nothing more. I realize my gay rights opponents refuse to accept this because doing so totally undermines their own position, but that's how it is, and that's why states like Texas and Ohio and elsewhere continue to pass one man/one woman marriage laws with overwhelming majorities - because our country was founded and built on the structure of the traditional family unit.

ok, anyways. My big thing is i dont see how two people of the same sex getting married would have an effect on everyone else. If marriage was such a sacred thing then why do we allow people to get divorced. the vows say "in sickness and health, till death do us part"...they dont say "in sickness and health, till death do us part..or until i dont want to be with you anymore" dont even try to say that its not relevant. One of your arguments is that gay marriage breaks the sanctity of traditional marriage, well so does divorce.

[Dirty Name]

One of your arguments is that gay marriage breaks the sanctity of traditional marriage, well so does divorce.

So what? Divorce has NOTHING to do with this discussion. But I'm in total agreement with you that marriage in this country faces many challenges, and no-fault divorce is one of those things.

My big thing is i dont see how two people of the same sex getting married would have an effect on everyone else.

OK, great. So you agree that there is no LEGAL reason why gay marriage should be legalized. Instead, you wish to make the case that there are no significant social ramifications in legalizing same-sex marriage?

Tell me, how would even begin to define a legally recognized marital union in a way that makes some kind of sense and doesn't discriminate against people for an illegal reason? Where do you draw the line in terms of the sorts of unions that could potentially be legalized? Or do you draw a line somewhere?

The answers I have received to this same question over the past 200 pages of discourse is that people with your views ultimately arrive at the conclusion that legal recognition of any additional forms of marriage becomes problematic, and as a result, people seem to think that the federal government should just get out of the marriage business altogether.

What an absurd solution! Eradicate government recognition of a critical societal institution - and for WHAT? So gay people don't feel "different" because they don't qualify for benefits? Absurd!

[Dirty Name]

Same sex couples should be recognized under local, state, and federal laws. The founding documents of this country definatley say we have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. This is the legal justification for granting them the same degree of recognition as opposite sex couples.

OK, I'll play your game. Are there any restrictions you would place on marriage? Or do you believe in an anything goes philosophy?

[lili462]

I'm done debating over this topic right now. Apparently someone cant bring up a good point without it being knocked down or being termed as a game. which i though sheild brought up a very good point. This is how i see the outcome of same sex marriage: African Americans fought for equal right and won. Women fought for equal rights and won,and in the future when our government realizes that times are changing and its not the 1800's anymore, gay people will win over their rights to.

[zynner]

The state has no business being involved in any kind of marriage in the first place.

It's a personal ceremony and lifestyle having nothing to do with the state.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name The Church's refusal to allow gay weddings within their four walls is NOT "a symptom of a culture that sets homosexuals apart as different" - it's the direct result of homosexuals violating basic Biblical doctrine. While I certainly can't argue that it's discrimination, I would argue all day long that it's not illegal discrimination. It's no different from the local Elk Club refusing to allow people to use their facilities for activities they don't condone. If you agree that everyone is treated fairly, what is left to discuss? That is the key question here. You already have agreed that no illegal discrimination exists. You now seem to be advocating that we change the rules just because some people don't like the outcome even though the rules were applied equally to everyone. So, if you want to have this discussion, why don't you start by telling me if you believe that same-sex couples can be considered the literal equivalent of an opposite sex couple in the eyes of the state, keeping in mind both the benefits and burdens that each entity represents. Are those benefits and burdens to the state generally equal? If so, you might have a case. If not, then I see no reason to change the rules as they currently exist.

Yes, same-sex couples can be considered the literal equivalent of an opposite sex couple. Unless I have this mistaken, your main distinguishing point between same-sex and oposite-sex couples is that same-sex couples will, clearly, not have children within the marriage. Yes?

My wife and I got married in March of 2004. She had a partial hysterectomy in November of 2003, thanks to fibroid tumors. We had not intended to have any children at any rate, but that certainly took the element of chance out of it.

My marriage CANNOT produce children, there being no uterus present in either party. Yet it is a marriage, recognized and solemnized by the state, at a courthouse in San Diego County, by a judge and not a minister. I have the right to make emergency medical decisions for her; she is on my health insurance. If I die intestate, she gets all of my stuff.

So, do you have a different criteria for defining the state's basis for recognition of marriage? Or would you like to void my marriage? (I would recommend option A. I'm a mite touchy about my wife.) If there are no other criteria for defining a marriage than by children, I am far from the only instance of this situation; either you require that couples produce offspring, or you drop the issue; the potential to procreate is not a reasonable way to include or exclude individuals.

You asked me why the law should change? Because some people want it changed. I asked you: why should it stay? Our laws should not be changed on the whim of the public, no; but some of our laws are less, shall we say, influential or significant in our society than are others. The legal definition of marriage is one of those laws that does not make a whole lot of difference, in my opinion, to society; we all know perfectly well that people's religious views will dominate their own choices with their individual relationships; the legal definition of marriage will not change anyone's views on marrying or not, no matter what claptrap anyone spouts about the institution of marriage.

I don't know if you all have hit on the "civil union" solution; if you want to go that way, fine, but then everyone should have to get a civil union, since the state really shouldn't be recognizing a religious ceremony, anyway. But if you recognize marriages for one group of people that live together and share their lives, shouldn't you recognize the same union for anyone who does the same?