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.
My feeling is that we need to get government 100% out of the marriage business all together. Let marriage be a social and/or religious institution. Anybody can marry anybody.
Things like wills, medical decisions, etc should be done with the proper paperwork which is simple, cheap and easy today.
As far as benefits, let employers determine how they want to handle those and citizens vote on how they want their governments to handle those. If an employer wants to extend benefits to multiples partners, so be it. If they want to extend benefits only to partners that are raising children or taking care of a family member, ok. If they don't want to extend benefits to partners at all, it's their right to pass up many potentially good applicants.
As a taxpayer, I'd vote to extend benefits to a single partner that is either taking care of children under 13, a primary care giver for a disabled immediate family member or is themselves disabled and that there must be proof the partner is cohabiting. There would also have to be severe penalties, including jail time, for fraud. I shouldn't be forced to foot the bill for benefits ti a spouse or partner that CHOOSES not to work.
I'm just curious, for those who DON'T support gay marriage, what is your reason for being against it? I would like to go ahead and add three stipulations first so we can try and insure that there's a chance for logical debate.
We shall assume that you:
1. Don't use religion as an excuse, as America allows you to practice whatever religion you wish, or lack there of.
2. Are a happily heterosexual male/female with no desire for the same sex.
3. You are happily married yourself.
By Assuming those 3 things, you are limiting the debate.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is an attempt to redefine the word and I believe that is to try to make the unacceptable to the majority more palatable. If we make it about "who we love" and "consenting adults", then we should not limit it to just 2 because it is very possible to love more than one person. I believe that civil unions between 2 or more people should be allowed but, it will never be a "marriage" without 2 consenting adults, one male and one female. Call a homosexual union whatever you want but it will never be a marriage. I know, all the polls are saying that people don't oppose homosexual marriage but we all know that polls say what the person paying for the polls want them to say.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is an attempt to redefine the word and I believe that is to try to make the unacceptable to the majority more palatable. If we make it about "who we love" and "consenting adults", then we should not limit it to just 2 because it is very possible to love more than one person. I believe that civil unions between 2 or more people should be allowed but, it will never be a "marriage" without 2 consenting adults, one male and one female. Call a homosexual union whatever you want but it will never be a marriage. I know, all the polls are saying that people don't oppose homosexual marriage but we all know that polls say what the person paying for the polls want them to say.
Right. And how did that work last time we had a Presidential election? Remember how all those polls showing President Obama winning reelection were 'skewed' because of the weird idea that a good business model for a professional polling company is to produce bad data...
Speaking of how people actually vote at the ballot box, how have votes on same-sex marriage gone recently? The last time any states votes on the issue was in November of 2012, when Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington voted on the issue. The residents of Minnesota voted against codifying it's then-statutory ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution. The residents of the other three states all voted to repeal their same-sex marriage bans. All, of course, which jibes with the polls that you claim - without actually presenting anything to back up your assertion - are not accurate.
The definition of civil marriage is, by definition, whatever civil law states it is. You, of course, are free to pretend otherwise. Then everyone is happy. Gays can get married, those of us who wish to see gays having the right to get married are happy, and those of you who don't want gays to get married can pretend they're not really married...
*if you allow for gay marriage it will open the floodgates for other alternative marriages (i.e. polygamist etc.)
It is a valid argument. While gays to have the right to get married in certain states, it does open the flood gates in the future for alternative marriages like polygamy, incest, and so on. There biggest defense will be "If gays are allowed to get married than why can't we".
I'm against marriage period. If you want to make a legal commitment to your significant other, then everyone should have a civil union. If you want to get married, go to your place of worship and do it.
These arguments are blatantly untrue, and the attempts to justify them are absurd.
If marriage should be limited only to the purpose of procreation, than we should inspect the reproductive organs prior to issuing a marriage license. If a veteran returns and lost vital parts while fighting for his country, we will have to inform him that he has no right to the woman he is engaged and she will be promised to someone else. Now that, that is ****ing stupid. But that immediately follows from making marriage consist solely of procreation. Unlike ideas such as "if we allow gay marriage, we must allow people to screw sheep" which does not logically follow.
There is a huge difference between the implications of one exact policy, and the fanatical ravings about hypothetical doom coming from a few. They do not create a logical path towards sheep ****ing. They just say that it must follow. However, there is a logical IMMEDIATE connection that between forced procreation and denying marriage to veterans that are incapable of reproduction.
Most of the arguments against gay marriage were trotted out in opposition to interracial marriage a mere fifty years ago. Bigotry is not new.
Has anyone opposing gay marriage ever turned up the heat in their homes? If they have adjusted the thermometer, say from 65 to 68 when they wake up, they should know the house can be warmed to 68 without turning into a giant inferno that consumes everyone they love. Assuming that changing the temperature from 65 to 68 would open the flood gates to temperatures of 500,000 is stupid, yet that same logical failure is regularly present in arguments against gay marriage.
No, I'm not gay. My views come from intelligence, rather than blindly demanding that some religion be followed by people who are not members of it.
It is a valid argument. While gays to have the right to get married in certain states, it does open the flood gates in the future for alternative marriages like polygamy, incest, and so on. There biggest defense will be "If gays are allowed to get married than why can't we".
It is NOT a valid argument. This is like saying "If I can shoot at a shooting range, why can't I shoot at a neighbor?"
Your argument against it is that "If we allow this thing which I can not prove is wrong, some other person in the future will use it to argue for something else, and even though their argument is non sequitur, we can not allow them to make such an argument"
Let me rephrase your absurd argument.
We can not allow gwillyfromphilly to eat food, because it will open up the flood gates to cannabalism. There (their) biggest defense will be "If gwilly is allowed to eat whatever he wants, then why can't we."
Do you see the logical failure here? This is the exact same argument. It isn't good enough to stop you from eating lunch, but you would accept it at a reason to stop gay people from getting married.
I don't know if it is because your religion has roots in bigotry, or because you just find gay people "icky", or if it is because you actually believed that argument since you had never stopped to exam it. By showing you the flaw in it, I have removed one of the three options from the table.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is an attempt to redefine the word and I believe that is to try to make the unacceptable to the majority more palatable. If we make it about "who we love" and "consenting adults", then we should not limit it to just 2 because it is very possible to love more than one person. I believe that civil unions between 2 or more people should be allowed but, it will never be a "marriage" without 2 consenting adults, one male and one female. Call a homosexual union whatever you want but it will never be a marriage. I know, all the polls are saying that people don't oppose homosexual marriage but we all know that polls say what the person paying for the polls want them to say.
Well, too late. I'm gay, and I'm married. It says so on my marriage certificate
My personal thought is that people who are against gay marriage just don't like gay people. They'll use any illogical or religious excuse they can find to back up their dislike of gay people.
People aren't being paid to participate in polls. Younger generations have little issue with homosexuality, have gay friends, and overwhelmingly support SS marriage. It'll soon be the "law of the land" in all states, so those who dislike it will just have to get over it. Or ignore it.
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.
