Gay Marriage? (federal, vote, female, Texas)

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by person

I added a line already in anticipation of your line.

Beg pardon? I don't understand.

[person]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Beg pardon? I don't understand.

Reprint for you.
Regardless, the point was, even if you think it is just gays disliking it, but if you can't say how it will destroy your own marriage, it just isn't a good enough reason to stop others from marrying.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by person

Reprint for you.
Regardless, the point was, even if you think it is just gays disliking it, but if you can't say how it will destroy your own marriage, it just isn't a good enough reason to stop others from marrying.

I am not intersted in stopping anyone from marrying, as long as they are doing so according to the definition of marrage at it exists and has always heretofore existed: the union of a man and a woman. The "destruction of my own marriage" does not enter into the equation.

I am not opposed to alternative legal arrangements, however, and have previously made that point clear.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Oh, I can think of plenty of reasons (see my posts below). I am taking gay marriage advocates' arguments a logical conclusion: if "opposite-sex-only" marriages are an arbitrary construct, isn't "couples-only" equally arbitrary? Or is there a cultural and sociological rationale to defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

Actually, no, there is more of a governmental practicality reason to restrict marriage to two people only:

1) Tax consequences

2) Assignment of the collateral rights of marriage to ONE person, to avoid competing, multiple interests of many spouses (Collateral rights = inheritance, healthcare surrogacy and decision-making, social security benefits, etc. etc.).



But yes, there IS a "cultural" rationale for defining marriage as the union between ONE person and another person.... and it's basically called religion. Multiple spouses is highly prevalent in "pre-history" and several "primitive" tribes today. I mean, whose bucking nature here, when the social norm of more "natural" peoples is ployandry?

[citigirl]

[quote]

Originally Posted by boiseguy

but i'm sure they have paperwork on file.. or they aren't officially married by law.. national law... the law of their god is a different law of our nation. law of a nation provides and extends those rights to ALL its citizens.. allowing them to build a life with whoever they love...and having it recognized for tax purposes, and benefits etc.. god doesn't have to sanction my marriage if I ever get to marry who I love.. and I'm ok with that.. but if I pay taxes and can be sent off to war in a draft, then I better have those rights extended to me as well.. even if the person I fell in love with does not have a vagina to shoot out kids..

There are people that love more then one woman/man, first cousins, minors, their mother/father, they also cannot get married. Some couplings are damaging to society but don't bother yourself with any consideration for what is best for society.



[quote=boiseguy;1388341]well thats fair enough, but you can't make gay people go away.. what are you going to tell your kids when they meet a gay person.. or better yet becomes friends with someone who has a gay parent? will you demonize them to pass on your trusty values to your child? I think making things Norm is long gone, anyone is anyone who has homosexuals as co-workers, neighbours, friends, relatives... there's just no getting around the issue.. if thats what you're trying to avoid. And what will you tell your son or daughter if they come to you one day in confidence.. to say they're gay. My parents shared many of these beliefs you have.. and they didn't think in a million years they would be confronted with the issue.. so close to home..[/QUOTE]

There are all kinds of people that live lives you may advise your children about but you also teach a child to not be hateful to anyone. If you had a child would you encourage them to befriend a hooker, drug addict, a gang banger or a member of Nambla?


[quote=GregW;1388501]The concept of marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to have and raise children. It requires both to have sex with each other and to be financially responsible for raising the kids to self-sufficiency. The children are expected to take care of the parents as the parents become unable to provide for themselves.

On this basis marriage has no connection to love or desire or anything but increasing the population. Most governments have seen this as a necessity or at least as a “good thing”. Most religions do as well. Even in societies with population densities over the environments carry capacity think unlimited procreation a good thing. This is not necessarily so. Just look at places that have way too many people to feed, house and care for all of them.

Now married homosexuals (gays) do not add to the population pressure and do not divert any of their economic activity into taking care of children. Other than that, they are pretty much the same as everybody else. What they are going to do as they age and become infirm is left to them and their ability to pay for care instead of extract it from their children as payment for raising the kids.

Ironically one of the major side effects of gay marriage is the reduction in sodomy. Like most married straight the frequency of sex decreases with familiarity and age. Thus encouraging gay marriage will reduce “sinning”. That may just be a “good thing”.[/QUOTE]

Gay life is a one generational life and will never have to consider the future for their children or their grandchildren and just because a few gays have children that does not change the fact that while most hetrosexuals look to their future generations, gays have no reason too.

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Do they have spousal rights under social security?

We will soon see if they have spousal rights, but I don't know yet.


[quote]

Originally Posted by GottaHerdOn

You're eyes have been corupted by the conversative right that has put our country 60 years behind everywhere else... Look at Canada, much smaller, but a much better place to live. Because they don't have as much conservative things messing everything up. If our country had more liberals and moderates we would be MUCH MUCH better off

Having lived in Canada I did not think it was better than America at all. They seemed to be obessed with jealosy of the States and EVERYTHING is more expensive and taxes are VERY high. I go there every year to see my brother and was just there this month. (by the way Grand Forks, BC is BEAUTIFUL!)


[quote]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Marriage is the union of one man and one women.

If we alter that definition, and call the union of two men or two women a "marriage", how can we forbid the further expansion of the term to encompass the marriage of one man and three women, or one woman and four men, or a man and a hula hoop, or a woman and her chihuahua, or the New York Yankees and their attorneys?

Change is incremental, remember?

You are correct unless those that are crying discrimination are OK with discriminating against others that come to the table with some other bizzar combination and demand marriage rights.

Someone said a hula hoop or chihuahua cannot consent but what is to stop them demanding laws change on consent to accomidate their "loves". The queen of mean just left her dog 12 million, maybe that dog provided more then companionship.


[quote]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

If you can't think of good reasons why it shouldn't be limited to two people, maybe we SHOULD expand the definition. Who cares, really? What's in it for you?

...and there you go. That is why we must fight against gay marriage.

[quote]

Originally Posted by person

I don't get it how changing the definition can somehow destroy straight couples lives and their rights. you still get to keep those rights but the only difference is others would have the same rights too.

It would change society. Just look past your own wishes and what you think is best for you and look at society as a whole and try to invision the possible harm to futher generations.

[quote]

Originally Posted by jobezee1

Maybe a little off topic, but does anyone else notice how many GAY Republicans there are lately? You just had the Senator from Idaho, last year was Mark Foley and that bigwig evangelical (Ted something). You've got cross dressing Rudy Giuliani. I mean seriously, a lot of these so-called Republicans need to come out of the closet.

How better to destroy the Republican Party then to infiltrate and cause scandals. Log Cabin Republicans "to further the gay agenda"

[person]

Originally Posted by citigirl

It would change society. Just look past your own wishes and what you think is best for you and look at society as a whole and try to invision the possible harm to futher generations."

It will change society for the better good, we are better from the past with women rights, civil rights. Just look at all the crap we had to crawl out of from the past. I envision the possible harm to future generations if we don't continue to improve. If past generations had a view like yours where we don't change for the better, we would still have segregation and women still can't vote.

[citigirl]

The Log Cabin Republicans are there to further gay rights thus their slogan "to further the gay agenda". That does not sound like they have the interest of other people in mind, only gays.

[Willys]

I take 'marraige' to be something related to a religious conception. Should a couple get a 'marraige' license, then have a 'marraige' officiated in judges chambers, can that judge be an athiest? Would it really be a 'marriage'?

I'd prefer to see something like a 'civil union' which allows a couple to assume responsibility for each other where applicable. Such as home ownership, grave illness, property possession at death, etc. Let the couple (whatever mix of sex) go before a judge to affirm their commitment and be done with it. A legal proposition.

If you want a 'marraige', go talk to your pope.

[texanborn]

I've thought it over and I guess Gays should be allowed to get married.....Why shouldn't they suffer with the rest of us.....

[SepiaZelda]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Marriage is the union of one man and one women.

If we alter that definition, and call the union of two men or two women a "marriage", how can we forbid the further expansion of the term to encompass the marriage of one man and three women, or one woman and four men, or a man and a hula hoop, or a woman and her chihuahua, or the New York Yankees and their attorneys?

Change is incremental, remember?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is nothing in the original contention that indicates that what you have stated will happen. If you're talking about an ethical situation that affects consenting adults it is ridiculous to try and compare it to things and beings that cannot consent and do not possess civil rights.