Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support same-sex marriage?
Yes, Democrat 62 29.11%
No, Democrat 4 1.88%
Yes, Republican 19 8.92%
No, Republican 26 12.21%
Yes, Independent/ 3rd Party 67 31.46%
No, Independent/ 3rd Party 35 16.43%
Voters: 213. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2014, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,097,852 times
Reputation: 7875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Yes. Who was allowed to vote had to be redefined as well as who could own and who was/was not property. Likewise, marriage must now be redefined. We have to decide what the purpose of marriage is and once we do that, we will know who we should legally recognize as married.

Right now, marriage is one man and one woman because men and women together can have children and children need to be protected. Women also need to be protected because they are the ones who get pregnant, give birth and take leaves (though more men are taking leaves and that is great. When it becomes just as common for a man to take paternity leave as it is a woman to take maternity leave, we should start to see gender discrimination reduce) which impacts her ability to support herself and her children.

We have to ask ourselves what the new purpose of marriage will be. Is it still to address the gender issues of men and women? (gays don't have this issue) Is it still to protect children born of the union, especially those born unintentionally? (gays are not going to find themselves trapped into parenthood because of an accidental pregnancy) If gay marriage needs to be allowed, then marriage needs to be redefined. I don't see a legal reason for marriage beyond addressing the gender wage gap between mothers and fathers and insuring that children born of the union are supported. Two adopting parents are agreeing to the adoption. It is quite possible for birth parents to become parents without intending to. Right now, if a child is born to a married couple, that child is the legal responsibility of both parties even if it turns out later that the husband is not the father. The child is protected. The husband is not but our society expects adults to pony up and care for children whether it's fair or unfair as we consider a child left without support the most unfair of all situations because the child never asked to be born.

The issues marriage addresses really center around heterosexual couples having children and how having children impacts the lives of mothers and fathers differently. Many women need a lifetime partner who can support them because they spent their younger years pregnant (women in general are discriminated against by employers simply because they are female and might have kids and take leaves/quit), on leave and raising children and not building a career and it's too late for them to start one (hence marriage of women past the child bearing age).

With DNA tests and women gaining ground on the gender wage gap, it probably is time to revisit marriage and decide if this is still something the government should be involved in. Religious marriage is something different and serves its religious purpose but that has nothing to do with legal marriage. Legal marriage addresses legal issues. We need to decide what legal issues marriage addresses today since the ones marriage was put on the books to address are becoming less and less of an issue. Especially so since marriage is falling out of favor altogether. Perhaps it is time to have a different set of laws to protect children. I'm not sure what we do with the gender wage gap but making men take paternity leave would be a great start. When men start taking leaves, it won't be just women discriminated against because they most likely will have children but that is a different debate.

We need to decide what issues that the government should be involved in are addressed by marriage. When we figure that out, we'll know whether or not we should, legally, recognize marriage and who should be married. Given that so many choose not to marry, I'm thinking that marriage no longer addresses issues people care about.
Quite a long winded response that doesn't really say anything against gay marriage. Also, it is just a legal contract, it has nothing to do with producing children. Also, marriage isn't some sort of umbrella to protect women and children, it is a legal union between two people.

Also in divorce, it isn't always the woman who gets the children if children are even involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2014, 12:03 PM
 
9,091 posts, read 19,180,214 times
Reputation: 6967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
We have to decide what the purpose of marriage is and once we do that, we will know who we should legally recognize as married.
Again - we know exactly how the marriage license interacts with our current laws, the rights confered, etc. While you try to figure out some arbitrary "purpose" people are being negatively impacted because they can't sign a contract based simply on gender. This is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Right now, marriage is one man and one woman because men and women together can have children and children need to be protected. Women also need to be protected because they are the ones who get pregnant, give birth and take leaves (though more men are taking leaves and that is great. When it becomes just as common for a man to take paternity leave as it is a woman to take maternity leave, we should start to see gender discrimination reduce) which impacts her ability to support herself and her children.

This is simply false. In 1980 the percentages of married couples without children as a percentage of total households and the percentag of married couples with children flattened out. Since then it's continued to shift where for the past 10-15 years as a percentage of total households those without children far outpaces those with.

Also, there are a high number of same gender couples raising children - the numbers really aren't that far askew from opposite gender couples

However, the family impact is much larger because many states do not provide the same family protections that you are advocating as being the purpose of marriage to these families

For example, Mississippi has over 25% of their same gender couples with children. In the 2010 census the number percentage of husband/wife households with children was 42%. The number without was 58%. Looking at all households the number of households that had a husband/wife with children was just 20%.
Metro Areas with Highest Percentages of Same-Sex Couples Raising Children Are in States with Constitutional Bans on Marriage | Williams Institute

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/b...c2010br-14.pdf

It's abundantly clear that marriage and children do not have to go together, that many of the protections, rights, etc in the law have nothing to do with children or gender and that same gender couples with children are greatly impacted by not being able to sign a marriage contract


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
we consider a child left without support the most unfair of all situations because the child never asked to be born.
So you're comfortable with all the gay couples with children having situations where the children have no support - after all, they never asked to be children in a same gender household that can't get equal access to the law

You do realize you are arguing against your own position, don't you?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post

The issues marriage addresses really center around heterosexual couples having children and how having children impacts the lives of mothers and fathers differently. Many women need a lifetime partner who can support them because they spent their younger years pregnant (women in general are discriminated against by employers simply because they are female and might have kids and take leaves/quit), on leave and raising children and not building a career and it's too late for them to start one (hence marriage of women past the child bearing age).
That is one of those crazy things about marriage contracts. They provide rights and resolution. A divorce proceeding will judge just how much sacrifice someone has made and what they could be owned. Sometimes this works in favor of a dad who stayed home and was Mr. Mom.

There is FMLA protections for a pregnant woman. FMLA also extends to other family situations - unless your family has the same gender at the front, then they are denied FMLA protections for their family because they can't sign a piece of paper due to their gender.

Give same gender couples the same rights & recourses as any other family & couple because believe it or not their circumstances aren't all that much different.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
it probably is time to revisit marriage and decide if this is still something the government should be involved in.
I'd be fine with this, but the bottom line is that the government is involved in it right now. There is an impact right now and people are being adversely impacted right now.

Even if you feel that there should be no civil marriage between any parties, it doesn't support a position where you would exclude it from certain parties while granting it to others.

If it's there then it should be equal access and protection. A debate about if it should be there does nothing to change that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 12:11 PM
 
9,091 posts, read 19,180,214 times
Reputation: 6967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Because it's not discrimination to not legally recognize a marriage between two men or two women when marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman any more than it's discrimination to not allow me to use the men's rest room because I don't have a penis.
You're not really good at this crafting arguments thing, are you?

First and foremost, it's only new legislation that is going through that is trying to shoehorn the man/women definition into a civil context and it's starting to get widely defeated when tested. It's just a matter of time before this change is shot down completely.

Second - comparing what restroom you can use based on gender and what contract you can legally sign based on gender is just nuts.

It would be more like saying that you couldn't get a permit to add on an addition to your house because you don't have a penis. The state feels that only men should make such decisions and apply for such permits so you are SOL.

We are talking about contracts and contract law here - that's it.

I yet to hear a single good reason come out of your mouth about why you would deny a consenting adult the ability to sign a legal contract with another consenting adult with the rejection based solely on their gender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Homosexual couples also are not dealing with a gender wage gap resulting from the fact that only women give birth which leaves mothers less capable of supporting their children than fathers and less capable of supporting themselves into their old age (much better for my generation but we still have a generation of women who paid a heavy price because they could have become mothers.).
Actually, many are. However, they don't have access to the courts to determine the resolutions that a recognized married couple would

Not to mention that the majority of married households do not have children

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Is legal marriage simply archaic? Given the number of couples who never marry, I'm starting to think it is.?
It's completely irrelevant what you think about if it's archaic. Bottom line is it's present and the current denial of equal access is flatly discriminatory.

You can advocate for blowing the whole thing up, but that doesn't justify advocating not letting certain people get access while it still exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 12:17 PM
 
1,507 posts, read 1,970,134 times
Reputation: 819
This is exactly why I know that to fight gay marriage is a fools errand. What the heck does it matter what two people do? If they want to marry they have every right and it does little to nothing to affect my life or marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 01:21 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,660,678 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxondale351 View Post
This is exactly why I know that to fight gay marriage is a fools errand. What the heck does it matter what two people do? If they want to marry they have every right and it does little to nothing to affect my life or marriage.
Because evangelicals and other conservatives don't like people doing the "gay" thing. It BURNS them to know that strangers somewhere are doing something they don't like. They're extremely scared people.

Also, don't you know? It's the "downfall of society!" They've been warning us about the downfall for at least 50 years. They have a track record of accuracy approaching that of the Mayans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,466,787 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Quite a long winded response that doesn't really say anything against gay marriage. Also, it is just a legal contract, it has nothing to do with producing children. Also, marriage isn't some sort of umbrella to protect women and children, it is a legal union between two people.

Also in divorce, it isn't always the woman who gets the children if children are even involved.
The rules are changing and that's good in many cases but that means that what marriage is is changing as well. We're in the process of change now. The women of my MIL's generation needed marriage to be cared for and so their children were cared for. Mine is split. I'm not convinced my daughters will be better off by marrying.

We have to answer the question of what the legal purpose of marriage is before we can decide if marriage itself is an antiquated concept (legally) or if it's time to allow anyone who wants to marry and marry however many someone's they wish to marry. Maybe this just isn't something the government should be regulating at all. If everyone can marry anyone, what purpose does marriage serve legally? I can see how in the past it protected women and children but that's no longer the purpose of marriage, what is the purpose of marriage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 06:36 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,354,108 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Born gay or not, this really isn't a religious issue because we have separation of church and state. The question is what is marriage and what purpose does it serve for society? Once we answer that question, we'll know whether we should allow gay and plural marriage (if we're redefining marriage, I assume it will be redefined to allow any type of marriage the particular people involved want so I'm including polygamy).

We haven't answered the question of that marriage is today. Marriage was invented to make sure women (our daughters) and their children were cared for in a day and age when women and children were considered property and women had no control over their biology and as a result very limited ability to earn a living. If this is still the purpose of marriage than we do not need to change marriage law. If we come up with a new purpose for marriage, then we will redefine marriage, legally, in accordance with the new purpose. However, religion won't enter into the picture because this is not a religious decision. The question we need to answer is what is the purpose of marriage. When we answer that, we'll have our answer as to whether we should allow gay marriage and polygamy.
13 Facts on the History of Marriage | LiveScience
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Florida
33,509 posts, read 18,076,105 times
Reputation: 15498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
Because evangelicals and other conservatives don't like people doing the "gay" thing. It BURNS them to know that strangers somewhere are doing something they don't like. They're extremely scared people.

Also, don't you know? It's the "downfall of society!" They've been warning us about the downfall for at least 50 years. They have a track record of accuracy approaching that of the Mayans.
The gay lifestyle is filled with heart ache, sickness, drugs, promiscuity , so why promote it? That is what the gays are doing..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 06:46 PM
 
1,214 posts, read 1,691,047 times
Reputation: 626
No, I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. The term marriage should not be broken to allow for anything else.

I do support civil unions with full benefits for gay couples however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 07:00 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,354,108 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Yes, and the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman so marriage has to be redefined to include gay marriage. If I didn't need redefining, we'd already have gay marriage.
Then why did so many States have to amend their Constitutions / Marriage Acts to redefine that marriage is "only between one man and one woman" or and/or excluded same-sex marriages/unions from being legally recognized?

eg:

1975: Two men from Phoenix, Arizona, were granted a marriage license by a county clerk on January 7. The Arizona Supreme Court, citing the Bible, voided and revoked the marriage license. The state legislature passed a bill specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

1975: Clela Rorex, county clerk of Boulder County, Colorado, allowed six same-sex couples to wed after receiving an advisory opinion from the district attorney's office indicating that the state's laws did not explicitly prohibit it.[14] A law was quickly enacted to prohibit same-sex marriages.

1973: On November 9, 1973, the Kentucky Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that members of the same sex do not have a right to marry, even though the law of Kentucky at the time did not specifically define it as between a man and a woman

2012: A state constitutional amendment was voted into effect on May 8, 2012, banning same-sex unions and defining marriage between a man and a woman as the only valid "domestic legal union" in the state.[1][2] Before passage, state law had already restricted marriage to a man and woman in statute §51‑1.2.[3] The constitutional amendment bans not only same-sex marriage but civil unions.

Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by Ceist; 01-07-2014 at 07:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:34 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top