Homosexual Marriage

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim Once the argument goes out of the realm of rights, my opinion is null and void. My primary issue lies with constitutional law and its ramifications; not with societal justice and prosperity.

Fair enough. Do you agree that the government does not actually grant the right to marry, as that is a religious institution? I'm not arguing with this, I want to make sure we have our terms straight. Am I mistaken when I refer to the government's action as recognizing and subsidizing marriage, rather than creating it?

[Night]

[quote=Marilyn Monroe;394737][quote=CoffeeSaint;394351

So you're saying the majority of kids are sexually active with multiple partners. This is really kinda sad.[/quote]
Sad. Not the majority, but a large minority

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Dating may be an area thing. I don't know, but I never heard of a lot of dating when I was growing up in HS. There were some kids who went together, but dating just wasn't that common.

lol, I think it has been glorified by TV so now everyone does it, but it's quite enjoyable.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe A lot of gays are quite personable, so I think they may have less problems socially than you are speaking of. I think heteros have more problems. There's more pressure to be good-looking, or tough, whatever the "in" thing is.

No no no no no! Gays are VERY VERY much more pressured to lookgood, trust me, I know from experience.

You'll never get a boy friend if you're ugly, unless you're extremely lucky.

Less-then-good-looking straight people get hook ups all the time.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I kinda figured kids wouldn't be. Kids are really mean. From my own experience when you get mocked a lot it teaches you to be witty, or funny. Something good can come from it. Course there will be tears, but adolescents do a lot of crying anyway because it's such a hard time.:(

Agreed.

[Night]

Quote by: texasdave Homosexuals can have children God's way, by having sex with someone of the opposite sex. They should not be allowed to adopt. I used to hang around many gay people when I was in my sinning days. They do recruit. They publicly deny it but they privately admit it. I have witnessed it many times. I have heard homosexuals say, " How do you know you won't like it until you try it?" That has been said to me when I was in my 20"s numerous times. They actively recruit. In the gay community it is considered a badge of honor to " get a straight guy"

That is not physiologically possible, to turn someone gay. If you're not gay, you're not gay. Just like you said, you weren't even tempted. So, according to your logic tied to a little scientific facts, gays can't "recruit".

Sadly, the last part is something some gay guys brag about lol, but it never happens.

Quote by: texasdave Maryjane, I have never had a homosexual experience. I have never even been tempted in that direction. Although when I was younger in the 80's gays were starting to come out of the closet and I was certainly given ample opportunity if I'd wanted to try homosexuality. Like your sons I waited tables and bartended. There are a lot of gays in the service industry. There really is some truth to the stereotypes of gay hairdressers and florists.LOL Many of my friends were gay men and lesbians. I have dated several bi-sexual women. Even lived with one for a year. But many of my friends from that time are dead now. Drug abuse, AIDS, Hepatitis, liver disease from alcohol. One from suicide. They call them "gay" but most of my homosexual friends were not happy. And not because their behavior was not acceptable but because they just could not make most of their relationships work.

From first hand experience, I am in a gay relationship at the moment, and we're much happier then most of my straight peers in relationships. We've been seeing eachothers for a little under 2 years, and we plan to get married, whether it be government recognized or not.

[Jack]

Do you agree that the government does not actually grant the right to marry, as that is a religious institution?

Granted, I'm no expert on the act of marriage, so please bear with my ignorance.
If marriage is not controlled at least in part by the government, why can couples be married by a justice of the peace?

[texasdave]

Marriage is indeed a religious institution but the governing authorities have the power to regulate it for the collective benefit of society. Heterosexual marriage has a collective benefit, children. Homosexual marriage has no collective benefit to society.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=Night;394807][quote=Marilyn Monroe;394737]

lol, I think it has been glorified by TV so now everyone does it, but it's quite enjoyable.

I didn't enjoy kids when I was one of them. I think dating in groups where the parents know where you are and what you are doing is ok, but singular dating exclusively is going to lead to sex.

No no no no no! Gays are VERY VERY much more pressured to lookgood, trust me, I know from experience.

This is a good thing in a way. Makes you stand out and be noticed for style.

You'll never get a boy friend if you're ugly, unless you're extremely lucky.

Could this be a shyness thing. I don't want to brag, but I was pretty nice-looking in HS and lots of guys really, really liked me, but no dates. I was at a loss. I didn't think I'd ever get asked out.:(

Less-then-good-looking straight people get hook ups all the time.

This is called settling. You have to realize where you are in the line-up and go for those that are more suited to you.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave Marriage is indeed a religious institution but the governing authorities have the power to regulate it for the collective benefit of society. Heterosexual marriage has a collective benefit, children. Homosexual marriage has no collective benefit to society.

So government does not grant the right to marry, it accepts and recognizes some marriages while denying others, but that denial does not dissolve the marriage. As I thought.

The government regulation of marriage does not impact the production of children, never has, and never will. If you're arguing that the government's recognition and subsidization of marriage improves the chances that children will become good citizens, I would like to see your evidence.


Isherwood, I see a justice of the peace marriage as providing a service for atheists/non-denominational people who do not have a religious figure to perform it for them. If government controlled marriage, then religious people would have to get married twice: in front of the priest, and in front of the judge. Right?

[Night]

Quote by: texasdave Marriage is indeed a religious institution but the governing authorities have the power to regulate it for the collective benefit of society. Heterosexual marriage has a collective benefit, children. Homosexual marriage has no collective benefit to society.

Since the average homosexual marriage has no children, they have no benefit to society?

Well, what if I told you that 50% of all straight marriages never produce children either? Should their marriages be banned too?

Why can't we be married and enjoy life as much as the normal person can?

"Governing Authorities" seem to regulate things based upon what the conservative religious wackos tend to think in this country, that is why we are falling behind the rest of the world.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Fair enough. Do you agree that the government does not actually grant the right to marry, as that is a religious institution? I'm not arguing with this, I want to make sure we have our terms straight. Am I mistaken when I refer to the government's action as recognizing and subsidizing marriage, rather than creating it?

Traditionally, the right to marry has been solely the states' domain. The states decide how they regulate marriage and how protect it.
States' rights, however, are completely broken, in the ineffectual sense. Federal rights are bah-ROken, in the over-dominating sense.
The boundaries of state and federal domains have essentially dissapeared. So yes, marriage rights are a federal issue, just like anything else nowadays...

Marriage is ingrained in society past the ideas of religion. It is not a religious institution in the sense that the government must not have anything to do with it. Besides, separation of church and state does not supercede majority rule (with minority rights, of course...).

I'm not sure as to the semantics of recognizing versus creating. There's definitely a distinction, but I find it unimportant.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim Traditionally, the right to marry has been solely the states' domain. The states decide how they regulate marriage and how protect it. States' rights, however, are completely broken, in the ineffectual sense. Federal rights are bah-ROken, in the over-dominating sense. The boundaries of state and federal domains have essentially dissapeared. So yes, marriage rights are a federal issue, just like anything else nowadays...

No, I think traditionally marriage has been within the domain of religion. Is there a reason that the state should be concerned with it?

Quote by: Fangrim Marriage is ingrained in society past the ideas of religion. It is not a religious institution in the sense that the government must not have anything to do with it. Besides, separation of church and state does not supercede majority rule (with minority rights, of course...). I'm not sure as to the semantics of recognizing versus creating. There's definitely a distinction, but I find it unimportant.

I agree that the institution of marriage has gone past religion, but if that was the original source, then the government should not be seen as the arbiter of basic marriage rights, as they do not originate with the government.

The distinction is that the government, if it does not create the state of marriage but only recognizes a certain couple as being married, does not grant the right to marry. If that is the case, then the argument goes outside of the realm of rights and constitutional law. That is hardly unimportant.

[Night]

When I get older and find someone, would it be legal for me to take legal action against the state for preventing me to marry the person (man) I love, for blocking my civil rights?

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave Marriage is indeed a religious institution but the governing authorities have the power to regulate it for the collective benefit of society. Heterosexual marriage has a collective benefit, children. Homosexual marriage has no collective benefit to society.

The benefits are socio-cultural :rolleyes:

Just because they can't have kids, that doesn't mean they can't contribute to society.

If your definition of 'contribution' of a marriage couple is the ability to shoot out a kid every few years, then you have a very 2-dimensional view of what a healthy society should be like. And it should be one where two lovers, be they hetero or not, be allowed to marry as partners for life.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint No, I think traditionally marriage has been within the domain of religion. Is there a reason that the state should be concerned with it?

Religion and government were fused with the first colonies of the Americas, and with that fusion came state-arbitrated marriage. There's no reason the state should be concerned with it any more than there is a reason the state should help us live prosperously or happily in any other manner. That's just what the state does.
I'm open to the idea of the state abandoning marriage rights, though.

I agree that the institution of marriage has gone past religion, but if that was the original source, then the government should not be seen as the arbiter of basic marriage rights, as they do not originate with the government.

That makes as much sense as saying the government should not be seen as the arbiter of the right to life because they did not give us life; our parents did.
Our Declaration says that our rights were conferred by our creator. They are then protected, arbitered, and regulated by the government.

The distinction is that the government, if it does not create the state of marriage but only recognizes a certain couple as being married, does not grant the right to marry. If that is the case, then the argument goes outside of the realm of rights and constitutional law. That is hardly unimportant.

The government recognizes the right to marry. What it does with that recognition is up to it and the people.
This is certainly a matter of constitutional law because gay "rights" constitute a fundamental redefinition of the right to marriage.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim Religion and government were fused with the first colonies of the Americas, and with that fusion came state-arbitrated marriage. There's no reason the state should be concerned with it any more than there is a reason the state should help us live prosperously or happily in any other manner. That's just what the state does. I'm open to the idea of the state abandoning marriage rights, though.

If it's just something the state does, why on Earth would you be defending it? This hardly seems to be the vital socio-cultural institution it has been made out to be -- especially if you are open to abandoning state-recognized marriage altogether. Tell me, why aren't you arguing for that, as a logical solution that would resolve the entire issue while satisfying the desire for equal treatment under the law? What do we gain by keeping marriage as a government sanctioned and exclusive club?

Quote by: Fangrim That makes as much sense as saying the government should not be seen as the arbiter of the right to life because they did not give us life; our parents did.

And that's true: the government does not grant the right to life. They do not decide who lives or does not live. They can decide to take the right to life away, but it does not come from them. So I can understand government taking a hand in divorce, let's say -- the capital punishment of marriage -- but perhaps government shouldn't be the one to say who can or cannot get married.

Quote by: Fangrim Our Declaration says that our rights were conferred by our creator. They are then protected, arbitered, and regulated by the government. The government recognizes the right to marry. What it does with that recognition is up to it and the people. This is certainly a matter of constitutional law because gay "rights" constitute a fundamental redefinition of the right to marriage.

And there's the problem again. There are two possibilities, as I see it: the right to marriage has been seen as a fundamental right, equivalent to our right to free speech, our right to bear arms, and so on and so forth; it has been regulated and protected by the government pursuant to the government's stated goal of protecting every man's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is the case, then I can follow and even agree with your argument that redefining the right to marry would be a corruption of our constitutional rights.

If, on the other hand, marriage rights are not a fundamental right, do not originate with the government but are only regulated by it, and if they are not part of the government's goals, then there is nothing particularly sacred and immutable about them. If, in addition, marriage rights have been fundamentally defined and redefined to include or disqualify certain groups, then there is precedent for doing so again.

If, as you say, the government's control of marriage is up to the people, then the people should be allowed to change it. If the right to marriage has been changed in the past, then it can be changed again. And if the whole thing is fairly unimportant, then there is no reason why we should ignore the wishes of a large segment of our population.

So: tell me again, why we should not redefine this ephemeral and mutable right to include homosexuals.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint If it's just something the state does, why on Earth would you be defending it? This hardly seems to be the vital socio-cultural institution it has been made out to be -- especially if you are open to abandoning state-recognized marriage altogether. Tell me, why aren't you arguing for that, as a logical solution that would resolve the entire issue while satisfying the desire for equal treatment under the law? What do we gain by keeping marriage as a government sanctioned and exclusive club?

We keep familes as the state-recognized unit of society.
With the decline of marriages comes the decline of the Western nuclear family, and, by extension, the decline of society, since our society is based on families.

I don't argue for the dissolution of state-arbitrated marriages because it sets a ridiculous precedent: that as soon as a minority wants a right to be redefined, the right is instead dissolved to be "fair" for everyone.

And there's the problem again. There are two possibilities, as I see it: the right to marriage has been seen as a fundamental right, equivalent to our right to free speech, our right to bear arms, and so on and so forth; it has been regulated and protected by the government pursuant to the government's stated goal of protecting every man's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is the case, then I can follow and even agree with your argument that redefining the right to marry would be a corruption of our constitutional rights.

Even court cases cite marriage as a fundamental right and a building block for society. I'm with the first possibility.
That does not necessitate that all people be able to se that right in the manner that they want to, of course, or that they should redefine it to what they want to.

If, on the other hand, marriage rights are not a fundamental right, do not originate with the government but are only regulated by it, and if they are not part of the government's goals, then there is nothing particularly sacred and immutable about them. If, in addition, marriage rights have been fundamentally defined and redefined to include or disqualify certain groups, then there is precedent for doing so again.

The right to marriage has not been redefined, and there is no precedent for redefining it except by 1) the right to privacy, and 2) states' rights/federal powers.
Both are bastardizations of their respective rights categories.
The right to marry has never been redefined in the United States. It has only been reapplied, and regulated, much like the right to vote.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=CoffeeSaint;395915]

So: tell me again, why we should not redefine this ephemeral and mutable right to include homosexuals.

Mainly what I'm seeing in this discussion is the "fairness" issue. Has anybody here reared kids? Very expensive and an enormous amount of energy goes into it. It's a money pit pretty much till the parents die. It never ends. Kids always need help, either financially, or emotionally.

So let's say 50% of gays would have kids through some artificial means, which seems unlikely because of the expense, but let's say it's 50%. 90% of straights have kids. It's always optional for gays, not always optional for straights when they are fertile. This seems unfair to straights to let sterile couples have the same benefits that fertile couples have. Don't forget grandchildren also come into play for anybody with kids. The money pit is huge for people with kids, and grandkids. Not so for people who can choose when they have the finances and so forth. It is different. Some unfairness is going to be involved in it no matter how you look at it. It's whether enough people care about the unfairness or not.

Unfairness is in the eyes of the beholder.:)

[againstthewind]

Quote by: Mulkaccino Also if your argument for the oposition against gay marraige is religously based, do you believe Atheist, Agnostics, and non-Christians should not be allowed to marry?

We are not debating atheists, agnostics and non-Christians being allowed to marry! There is no gender barriers in this case, and blacks being able to marry is an unfit comparison because you are talking about man and woman not same sex couples

[texasdave]

Homosexuals as INDIVIDUALS can and do benefit society but homosexual relationships do not. Marriage is a legal and/or religious recognition of a relationship. There is a reason behind recognizing heterosexual relationships. Those are the only unions that produce children. Since children are essential to the survival of our species and by natural extension, society, it is in society's best interest to protect and promote the relationships that produce such a critical byproduct. Society just takes on an additional legal burden by accepting homosexual marriage with no offsetting benefit. It isn't cost effective, so to speak. And it is not necessary. Society is not harmed in the slightest by denying homosexual marriage and society does not benefit one iota by legalizing it. Logically, there is no reason for gay marriage. Those who support it do so strictly from an emotionally immature stance.

[Hmm]

Quote by: texasdave Homosexuals as INDIVIDUALS can and do benefit society but homosexual relationships do not. Marriage is a legal and/or religious recognition of a relationship. There is a reason behind recognizing heterosexual relationships. Those are the only unions that produce children. Since children are essential to the survival of our species and by natural extension, society, it is in society's best interest to protect and promote the relationships that produce such a critical byproduct. Society just takes on an additional legal burden by accepting homosexual marriage with no offsetting benefit. It isn't cost effective, so to speak. And it is not necessary. Society is not harmed in the slightest by denying homosexual marriage and society does not benefit one iota by legalizing it.

If you are going to continue to preach the idea that the law recognizes heterosexual relationships strictly because heterosexual couples can produce children, then answer this question:

Why then does the law recognize heterosexual couples which can not or do not wish to have children?

Also, homosexual couples could equally affect society in a positive manner as heterosexual couples do by adopting children, could they not?

Logically, there is no reason for gay marriage. Those who support it do so strictly from an emotionally immature stance.

Hilarious. So since you can't logically support your argument, those who disagree with your argument are "emotionally immature?"

[texasdave]

Hmm,
My last post was pure logic. Yours had a logical question followed by the emotional drivel I referred to in my post. The reason the government does not restrict marriage to those who only intend to have children or who are biologically capable, is twofold, First, the government does not discriminate between equal relationships. Since the vast majority of heterosexual relationships can produce children the government would be foolish to attempt to read people's futures don't you think?
Secondly, the government is already bogged down with regulations and enforcement issues. And besides, the government is trying to ENCOURAGE child rearing not demand it.