Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what is the legitimate government interest in banning gay couples from contracting civil marriages? What harm does it prevent? What harm is caused to The People by gay couples exercising the civil rights that come with civil marriage contracts? Perhaps you could give some specific examples of harm from Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, D.C. and the Coquille and Suquamish Indian tribes.
We don't write laws based upon the simplistic notion of "what will it hurt".
Let's just allow to college roommates to claim married, for the tax breaks and benefits.
Why not just allow teenagers going steady to be called "married"?
What restrictions do you think should be placed on state endorsed marriages??? At some point, even the gay marriage crowd will decide on who can and cannot get married, just as long as they are included in the approved column.
So what restriction do you think states can make, for those people who seek to be married??
No one is stopping gays from getting married!!! They are free to do so.
You can print up a pilot's license too, and call yourself jet pilot or an astronaut, just don't expect me to endorse them for you.
What does my endorsing a gay marriage confer on gays?
What is it you gay couples absolutely need to have, that they do not already have? Hospital visitation rights? A paragraph in the local newspaper declaring they are married?
We'd like to be treated equally under the law.
My best friend from college is gay married to a Czech national. He'd love to get Lukas a spousal immigration visa so they can live together in the US - he's denied that right because he's gay.
If I marry a military member here in New York, I'd like to be able to shop at the base commissary and PX like the spouse of a straight military member can. I'd be denied that right based on my sexuality.
If I join the military as a married gay man, I'd love to get increased pay in the form of a married-member housing allowance like any straight married military member will. I won't though. I'd get paid less than my straight counterpart simply because I'm gay.
I'm sure every married gay person in Iowa would like to reveive social security survivor benefits should his or her spouse die like a married straight would - but they won't. They are denied that right because of their sexuality.
We don't write laws based upon the simplistic notion of "what will it hurt".
Let's just allow to college roommates to claim married, for the tax breaks and benefits.
Why not just allow teenagers going steady to be called "married"?
What restrictions do you think should be placed on state endorsed marriages??? At some point, even the gay marriage crowd will decide on who can and cannot get married, just as long as they are included in the approved column.
So what restriction do you think states can make, for those people who seek to be married??
So straight people never get married for reasons not 100% above board?
Because unless said teenagers were 18 or over they can't consent to a marriage.
Any couple of the age of consent that is not a close blood relation should be allowed to be married. I don't understand why there is so much opposition to this idea.
No one is stopping gays from getting married!!! They are free to do so.
You're right. I suppose you prefer a world where gay men marry straight women, and lebians marry straight men?
You going to suggest YOUR straight son or daughter marry a gay person?
If not, your argument is ABSURD on its face.
Will you and others STOP advancing arguments that were relegated to the dustbins of history years ago back when the debate on who should be allowed to marry whom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
You can print up a pilot's license too, and call yourself jet pilot or an astronaut, just don't expect me to endorse them for you.
Nobody gives a damn whether you "endorse" anything. Just as interracial couples give or gave a damn whether you approve of their relationships. This is about equal treatment under the LAW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
What does my endorsing a gay marriage confer on gays?
See above. Until you change your name to "government of the United States," your personal prejudices matter not one iota.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
What is it you gay couples absolutely need to have, that they do not already have? Hospital visitation rights? A paragraph in the local newspaper declaring they are married?
Are you dense? Or just willfully ignorant? Newsflash: The name in the paper thing, THAT already happens, whether technically legal or not. Hospital visitation can be arranged in other channels. However, there are over ONE THOUSAND AUTOMATIC benefits to marriage that can not simply be contracted for (or are impossible to contract for).
Plus, ya know, that whole "liberty" thing that you and others seem so dead set against.
We don't write laws based upon the simplistic notion of "what will it hurt".
Let's just allow to college roommates to claim married, for the tax breaks and benefits.
Why not just allow teenagers going steady to be called "married"?
What restrictions do you think should be placed on state endorsed marriages??? At some point, even the gay marriage crowd will decide on who can and cannot get married, just as long as they are included in the approved column.
So what restriction do you think states can make, for those people who seek to be married??
Actually we do in a sense. Like any Constitutional right, the 14th Amendment is not absolute. Laws can discriminate without violating the 14th Amendment. The legal test asks if the discrimination serves a legitimate government interest - legitimate government interest being defined as preventing a substantive harm to the people (for instance, we can discriminate against the blind when it comes to driving laws).
Even the anti-gay marriage side, when defending gay marriage bans in court, does not argue the silly notion that gays are not currently being discriminated against under the laws. They acknowledge the discrimination and then argue that it's good, correct, and constitutional since allowing gay marriage is harmful. They tend to fail miserably at convincing judges of that position.
Maybe you can do better. I'll ask you again: How does allowing gay people access to civil marriage laws cause harm? Maybe warm up with an easy one. How does allowing pedophiles to marry children cause harm? (I'd image your answer for that one will mirror mine, and will address the question you asked of me: "What restrictions do you think should be placed on state endorsed marriages?").
By your arguments infertile women or women past childbearing age should be unable to marry.
Marriage is not about procreation. It's about love and commitment.
Oh, give me a break!
So we give people tax breaks and create thousands of state and local taxpayer funded programs and benefits for people, to ensure they love each other????
Can you not love or commit to a person without a public endorsement???
But this is the crux of it, dumbing down marriage so its only about personal emotions and sex. This as specious an argument as a bible-thumper claiming we must ban gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
I have family in the military and the repeal of don't ask don't tell has had no adverse effect on morale. Any able body American that wants to serve his/her country should be able to do so without having to hide who they are.
While there are no laws banning gays from adopting (as that would be against the law) it is FAR harder for them to do so.
Why do you care what they do behind closed doors? Because you clearly do.
I served in the military for 22 years, and you cannot maintain order and discipline if you allow the two genders to cohabitate. Your family member may not be in a position of command. It's common sense, you would not allow men and women to live and shower together and not expect their to be problems. That's all I'll say, cuz i do not want to drift off topic.
So we give people tax breaks and create thousands of state and local taxpayer funded programs and benefits for people, to ensure they love each other????
Can you not love or commit to a person without a public endorsement???
But this is the crux of it, dumbing down marriage so its only about personal emotions and sex. This as specious an argument as a bible-thumper claiming we must ban gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin.
I served in the military for 22 years, and you cannot maintain order and discipline if you allow the two genders to cohabitate. Your family member may not be in a position of command. It's common sense, you would not allow men and women to live and shower together and not expect their to be problems. That's all I'll say, cuz i do not want to drift off topic.
So it's now about the additional tax burden gay marriage would create? That's kind of grasping. So gays couples are not entitled to the same benefits as straight couples? Don't you see that as prejudicial? What taxpayer funded programs would gay marriage create that are not in existence now?
I have family members in the Navy in command positions and one is a special forces team leader in the Army. And they all support the continued repeal of don't ask don't tell. And don't ask don't tell is not about the cohabitation of genders.
Good grief! The ONLY reason we have marriage is because of procreation, otherwise we never would have progressed beyond "going steady".
Here's the problem with this:
Social concepts evolve.
Marriage, as a social concept, has evolved past "because of procreation".
Marriage, as a govermental concept, cares not if you have babies. As it is not a prerequisite to get married, and you don't get married with the promise to have babies.
Therefore, yet again, the entire argument of 'MARRIAGE IS FOR PROCREATION" is irrelevant to the government who cares not if you have babies or want to have babies, completely subjective towards those who grasp onto tradition like it's their lifeline, and therefore, completely stupid and should never be taken into consideration.
Actually we do in a sense. Like any Constitutional right, the 14th Amendment is not absolute. Laws can discriminate without violating the 14th Amendment. The legal test asks if the discrimination serves a legitimate government interest - legitimate government interest being defined as preventing a substantive harm to the people (for instance, we can discriminate against the blind when it comes to driving laws).
So we are back to the silly "what will it hurt" argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Even the anti-gay marriage side, when defending gay marriage bans in court, does not argue the silly notion that gays are not currently being discriminated against under the laws. They acknowledge the discrimination and then argue that it's good, correct, and constitutional since allowing gay marriage is harmful. They tend to fail miserably at convincing judges of that position.
If marriage is an adopted institution by governments, because of the fact that the parents of children should raise them as the future generation of citizens, then they can make allowances and restrictions to meet those ends. Acknowledging that the union of a man and a woman creates children is a fact, so men and women qualify to participate in marriage. It is not discrimination to exclude two men, since they cannot make babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Maybe you can do better. I'll ask you again: How does allowing gay people access to civil marriage laws cause harm? Maybe warm up with an easy one. How does allowing pedophiles to marry children cause harm? (I'd image your answer for that one will mirror mine, and will address the question you asked of me: "What restrictions do you think should be placed on state endorsed marriages?").
I refuse to argue on the silly notion of "what will it hurt". Pilot's licenses are for people who can meet the requirements for a license to fly planes, not for blind people.
Things like marriage are promoted by governments for the benefits they provide, not because of "what will it hurt". We do not expend time money and effort into anything, unless their a reason to do it, you argue that we should do something, with an apathetic shrug of, "what will it hurt".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
