Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name I don't think that's a true statement. But even so, it's voluntary. I don't believe businesses should be forced to recognize homosexual marriages, but that's what would happen.

They are not forced to do so. It is good business. You see they get to hire who they want to and like it or not there are some very talented people who happen to be gay. And of course corporations use their benefits as an incentive to come to work for them so it makes very good business sense to use the same incentives to attract talented people whether they are gay or not.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name While I agree that incest should remain illegal for the reasons you outline, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Who are you to say that a mere medical reason is enough to discriminate against someone else? After all, you support homosexuality and gay marriage - isn't there some medical evidence suggesting that homosexual relationships aren't the healthiest lifestyle choice?

They are no more healthy or unhealthy than any other life style choice. It is not as if we all don't die. Besides since when is it the governments business to decide how we should live our lives? I don't smoke but I think if you want to then do it. I don't drink but if you want to then do it responsibly. I do overeat and have the figure to show for it but I am a big boy (in more ways than one) and it was my choice and so I live with the consequences. I do not blame society for my choices especially when I support the core American value called freedom. The government is not here to baby sit us, it is here to protect our freedom. But that means free to fail as well as free to succeed.

And can't the problems of incest be resolved in the same way that sexual problems with homosexuality are dealt with - by practicing "safe sex?"

All sex must be done responsibly. That is not a gay or a hetero issue. It is a human issue.

Finally, what about homosexual incest? There is no chance of a child being produced in that respect, so where is the danger. Shouldn't incestuous gay couples be allowed to marry?

No, because incestuous hetero sex is illegal. Equal treatment under the law you know. Now if they changed the law to read that sterile incestuous couples could have sex then it would be fine.

Starboy

[IGX]

Quote by: Starboy I have wondered the same thing. But in point of fact people already form life long relationships without getting married. Some couples feel that getting married is a good way to destroy a perfectly good life long relationship. And of course the issue is not about getting married because gays already get married and there is no law that can stop that. What they are not allowed to get is government recognition of their life long commitment. That for some strange reason the government is not willing (but is able) to recognize the life long commitment of a gay couple but will do it for a hetero couple only. It is unconstitutional. It is as unconstitutional as not giving the same treatment to women as men or blacks as whites. Starboy

A point that seems to have been missed in this thread: When any couple applies for a marriage license they are asking *permission* from government for the privilege to "marry". They are in essence waiving their *right* in favor of a gov't privilege. They are also allowing gov't jurisdiction over their relationship and future children.

How many couples have had their children confiscated due to unproven claims of abuse. That could conceivably happen to a gay couple who adopt children also.

It just seems that people are opening the door to the possibility of a ton of grief. I prefer keeping as much control over my own life as possible.

[/quote]I am amazed that anyone that was for American values would have a problem with government recognition of gay marriages. But the answer is simple. The Christians have somehow managed to get people to believe that Christian values are American values. As if the principle of religious freedom would be something advocated by Jesus. Go figure.[/quote]

Good points.

[Starboy]

Quote by: IGX A point that seems to have been missed in this thread: When any couple applies for a marriage license they are asking *permission* from government for the privilege to "marry". They are in essence waiving their *right* in favor of a gov't privilege. They are also allowing gov't jurisdiction over their relationship and future children.

I think this point is moot since the government will still intercede no matter what it recognizes as the status of the family.

How many couples have had their children confiscated due to unproven claims of abuse. That could conceivably happen to a gay couple who adopt children also.

The government doesn't care if they are married or not.

It just seems that people are opening the door to the possibility of a ton of grief. I prefer keeping as much control over my own life as possible.

The government already is there. Whether you are married or not. But marriage aside, I agree. The government has run amok. It has far more power and authority then it should in all areas of our lives.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Savant As you can see, theres no need for me to retort to your point, because you never honestly addressed mine.

Quote by: Savant This is about a people being prevented from creating new families and having them recognized by the community because of the ideologies of a larger group of people.

Quote by: Dirty Name What gay couples want is to be perceived as "equal" to heterosexual couples - but the "equality" argument falls short, especially when it is learned that gays believe they are equal to heterosexual marriages, but other forms of marriage such as incest and polygamy are not considered "equal."

What part of my response didn't you read?

Or, more politely, I don't understand what part of your original post that you claim I failed to address. I think you may have assumed I took your quote out of context because I didn't paste it into my response in it's entirety. However, upon reading my response, one can clearly see that I did in fact address the desire of homosexual couples to be treated equally, or, as you put it, "having them recognized" (as equals).

[Dirty Name]

It most certainly is.

(regarding the statement that most corporations already offer life partner benefits)...

Belverron, do you (or anyone) have a source for this? I'm just curious. I've already said it's not actually relevant in my opinion, because they are doing so voluntarily, which is fine by me. I know many major corporations offer such benefits, but to claim that a majority of companies do so seems dubious at best. But again, I'm just making an educated guess and you could be right on this.

[Dirty Name]

You just want to construct baby-making machines.

I've denounced this interpretation of my argument so many times that I'm beginning to believe that you don't even undestand the basic premise...and so I will repeat myself again:

The compelling government interest in promoting traditional heterosexual marriage is NOT, repeat NOT procreation and propagation of society into perpetuity, although that is an undeniable component. Rather, the compelling government interest is to promote the best possible social and legal environment for raising the children that we already acknowledge will be brought into this world through natural and unavoidable interaction between the vast majority of humankind.

It goes without saying that the most logical and practical social and legal environment is created through a partnership between a child's biological parents.

THAT is the core of my argument.

[Dirty Name]

As if the principle of religious freedom would be something advocated by Jesus. Go figure.

Off topic, but just a quick note that most people who believe in Jesus also believe he (i.e. God) gave us free will. Thus, Jesus does advocate religious freedom. He doesn't want us to worship him because we are forced to do so, he wants us to choose to do so.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Off topic, but just a quick note that most people who believe in Jesus also believe he (i.e. God) gave us free will. Thus, Jesus does advocate religious freedom. He doesn't want us to worship him because we are forced to do so, he wants us to choose to do so.

Oh sure. Believe in me or go to hell. Such freedom. You would have a point if everyone were going to heaven no matter what. But for the vast majority of Christians that is not what they think and it is not what they are taught according to Jesus.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

You would have a point if gays were not allowed to marry each other. However they are allowed. What they can't get is government recognition of that marriage. Gays get married all the time and of course gays make life long commitments to each other all the time and no one is locked up for it. But incest is illegal whether you are married or not. And of course polygamy is also illegal, it is called bigamy. These people go to jail whether they have government recognition or not. But gays do not go to jail for making life long commitments. That is because it is not illegal. But it is unconstitutional for the government to treat hetero couples differently from gay couples when what both are doing is legal and it is the same thing.

Your above quotes are absolutely wrong.

First, it is not illegal for a father to have sexual intercourse with his own adult daughter, or for two brothers to have sexual relations, any more than it was illegal for two unrelated men to sodomize one another. I believe the Brown case from Texas changed all of that saying that such relations were "private" and the government had no jurisdiction over what occurs in the bedroom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even so, the law varies from state to state, so your blanket statement would still be utterly false.

Second, two brothers or a father and adult aged daughter have just as much legal right to participate in a made up "wedding ceremony" as two homosexuals do. There is NO DIFFERENCE, and there certainly isn't any law against two brothers going to a church and promising to "love and support one another, in sickness and in health, 'till death do they part."

Third, it is not illegal for a man to have a wedding ceremony with 25 women if he so choses.

What IS illegal, however, is if that same man tries to file the legal paperwork and claim all of those 25 marriages are legitimate.

So now do I have a point? Yeah, I do.

[Dirty Name]

Oh sure. Believe in me or go to hell. Such freedom. You would have a point if everyone were going to heaven no matter what. But for the vast majority of Christians that is not what they think and it is not what they are taught according to Jesus. Starboy

This is a fascinating topic to me. Start a new thread and I'll join it.

[IGX]

Quote by: Starboy I think this point is moot since the government will still intercede no matter what it recognizes as the status of the family.

Not quite.

Making a challenge to "jurisdiction" in court is much easier when the accused hasn't already waived his rights by applying for a privilege. Of course, most citizens probably would not consider this an option. But, it still exists, and is winnable.

Also, by not applying for a marriage license you consciously deny government's presumed position as an *external authority*. This could have a more profound meaning in future generations.

[Starboy]

Quote by: IGX Not quite. Making a challenge to "jurisdiction" in court is much easier when the accused hasn't already waived his rights by applying for a privilege. Of course, most citizens probably would not consider this an option. But, it still exists, and is winnable. Also, by not applying for a marriage license you consciously deny government's presumed position as an *external authority*. This could have a more profound meaning in future generations.

I lack the legal knowledge to asses your claims but I am not saying you are wrong, only that I am ignorant. In any case it still doesn't change the unconstitutionality of not allowing gays to marry.

Starboy

[Savant]

Quote by: Dirty Name What part of my response didn't you read? Or, more politely, I don't understand what part of your original post that you claim I failed to address. I think you may have assumed I took your quote out of context because I didn't paste it into my response in it's entirety. However, upon reading my response, one can clearly see that I did in fact address the desire of homosexual couples to be treated equally, or, as you put it, "having them recognized" (as equals).

Heh, and then to misquote yourself to get out of it. Now that's staying the course! Woot! Here is what you said I said and what you said in response:

This is about a people being prevented from creating new families

Hogwash. Gays are free to create whatever bizarre family structure they want.

I will grant you that you did post more than just the misleading quote. I'll also say that if the butchering of one of my posts creates a friendly environment for the terribly underused word "hogwash", I approve whole heartedly.

As far as the equality of relationships / marriages/ families goes, there is no posible method of measurement so any argument based on it is little more than anecdotal. While there is a social motive to be considered equal, I do think that the push for equal rights to marriage has more to do with having the rights and priviledges of a legaly recognized family.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Family Research Council Article The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that denying a same-sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of racial discrimination. The court found: "In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

I challenge anyone here to make the case for discrimination against gays as it applies to legal recognition of marriage.

Bonus points: Make your case while still excluding polygamy and incest.

[Dirty Name]

I'll also say that if the butchering of one of my posts creates a friendly environment for the terribly underused word "hogwash", I approve whole heartedly.

At least your sense of humor is still intact after I so brutally defiled your original post by taking it out of context.

[Savant]

Quote by: **edited** The court found: "In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon sex and one based upon the fundamental difference in race."

Too easy, just turn the tables.

[belverron]

Quote by: "Judge strikes down ban on same-sex marriage" "No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,'' Kramer wrote in a decision that relied on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution. He cited as precedent another groundbreaking ruling, the state Supreme Court's 1948 decision striking down California's law against interracial marriage.

Funny how not all judges agree with one another.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NG8VBPILS1.DTL

[Dirty Name]

Funny how not all judges agree with one another.

Are you going to make the case, or just point out flawed rulings based on flawed logic? There is ZERO similarity between interracial marriage and gay marriage, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Too easy, just turn the tables.

I think you misunderstand the definition of the word "fundamental." The judge points out that sex (or more correctly, gender) is a fundamental element of marriage, while race never could be.

Will someone please explain to me what "right" gays are denied, that others are granted? Any argument based on equality is fundamentally flawed because it makes a false assumption in the first place - that heterosexuals have the fundamental right to marry the person they "love" (or are sexually attracted to), while gays are denied this "right."

Too bad heterosexuals don't have this "right" either.

[belverron]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...91&ItemID=8208