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.
Marriage is social institution that is used to promote monogamy, procreation and a stable family unit. Do I agree that every marriage represents this definition, no.
Do I think it needs to be further diluted by society, no.
So, let me see if I understand what you are saying.
On the one hand, you believe that marriage is an institution to promote the three stated social attributes of monogomy, procreation and a stable family. Yet, you know and admit that not every marriage represents those attributes. But, you are willing to let straight couples cross that line but not gay couples. Am I correct? If so, that's nothing but discrimination.
Let's get this straight here folks (no pun intended)...
Legal marriage does not require procreation.
Legal marriage neither requires having children nor are those who have children required by law to be married.
Frankly, Legal marriage doesn't even require monogomy if you want to be a stickler. Legally, marriage is a contract between two adults that affords rights and responsibilities to its two members. And....it does not require a blessing by a church. Conversely, just a blessing by a church does not a legal marriage make. A legal marriage must have a marriage certificate from a local government agency.
Only when those who would deny gay couples the legal right to get married attempt to apply their same requirements to heterosexual couples will the discrimination in this issue be truly evident. But, that's not going to happen. They would rather emotionally control the conversation with legally irrelevent talking points.
A homosexual couple or lesbian couple can promote monogamy, procreation, and stable family.
Unlike in the news this past year all we heard about is people having affairs.
I ordinarily stay out of debates like this but I just have a simple question...who is caused harm by letting same-sex couples have the same rights as opposite-sex couples? To whom does it put any adversity upon in any way, shape or form to make this legal? Without an answer to that question then...yes...if you are strongly opposed to gay marriage you really have no solid argument and whatever fervor you have in the argument against it can really only be explained as bigotry. It's as simple as that. The only reason you don't want to let somebody else marry who they chose is because YOU find it distasteful. If you use the argument "the bible states..." then I'd have to stop you right there and remind you that we have a separation of church and state in this country and what "the bible states" has no place in current American lawmaking. I'm not anti-christian at all and attend church fairly regularly myself. But I don't expect what is believed by my church or anyone else's body of worship to dictate what rights other people can or cannot have if they are not harming anybody. Done and done.
So, let me see if I understand what you are saying.
On the one hand, you believe that marriage is an institution to promote the three stated social attributes of monogomy, procreation and a stable family. Yet, you know and admit that not every marriage represents those attributes. But, you are willing to let straight couples cross that line but not gay couples. Am I correct? If so, that's nothing but discrimination.
Let's get this straight here folks (no pun intended)...
Legal marriage does not require procreation.
Legal marriage neither requires having children nor are those who have children required by law to be married.
Frankly, Legal marriage doesn't even require monogomy if you want to be a stickler. Legally, marriage is a contract between two adults that affords rights and responsibilities to its two members. And....it does not require a blessing by a church. Conversely, just a blessing by a church does not a legal marriage make. A legal marriage must have a marriage certificate from a local government agency.
Only when those who would deny gay couples the legal right to get married attempt to apply their same requirements to heterosexual couples will the discrimination in this issue be truly evident. But, that's not going to happen. They would rather emotionally control the conversation with legally irrelevent talking points.
Thanx for your post rnc2mbfl. It certainly made me thing about my position and perhaps changed it a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl
Only when those who would deny gay couples the legal right to get married attempt to apply their same requirements to heterosexual couples will the discrimination in this issue be truly evident. But, that's not going to happen.
I don't quite follow you here, are you saying I am not going to be monogamous, procreate or have stable family? I also didn't say they were requirements, I said I believe it is intent of marriage to promote them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl
They would rather emotionally control the conversation with legally irrelevent talking points.
I wouldn't say my initial post was emotional or even legally based. But I would say it's based in reason. It's evident to me that our views of marriage are different, to me it seems you view it as a set of legal rights to for example to inherit the married partners possessions after death, make legal decisions, in their regard ect. To me it means what I have previous stated in my last post.
So based on your view of marriage I will agree the gay community should be afforded those same rights. But I believe that is the wrong view of marriage.
Last edited by SunnyKayak; 01-27-2010 at 02:25 PM..
419 you need to stop quoting entire posts and putting one line at the end which says you agree, just give people rep if you like their posts.
Thanx for your post rnc2mbfl. It certainly made me thing about my position and perhaps changed it a bit.
I don't quite follow you here, are you saying I am not going to be monogamous, procreate or have stable family? I also didn't say they were requirements, I said I believe it is intent of marriage to promote them.
I wouldn't say my initial post was emotional or even legally based. But I would say it's based in reason. It's evident to me that our views of marriage are different, to me it seems you view it as a set of legal rights to for example to inherit the married partners possessions after death, make legal decisions, in their regard ect. To me it means what I have previous stated in my last post.
So based on your view of marriage I will agree the gay community should be afforded those same rights. But I believe that is the wrong view of marriage.
Hi Zinner,
I apologize if my last post insinuated that you, personally, were trying to control the conversation with emotion. What I meant was that the national push to squash marriage equality uses emotional talking points that are legally irrelevent.
I agree that different people have different views of marriage. For many it is a religiously based union intended for procreation. That I don't doubt or argue. Yet others see it differently. Some marriages are not bound by religious ceremony. Others are not intended to include procreation. Yet others are primarily based on companionship as evident by marriages of the elderly who lost their original spouses. Other marriages are preformed for immigration purposes or to gain insurance or benefits. Though that's an abuse of its intention, it's allowed under the law. There are probably an infinite amount of interpretations within the current laws. The common thread is that all of them are based on the legal definition of marriage. So, by law, a religious marriage is a subset of a legal marriage, not vice versa.
I think your position is typical of many Americans. Many people agree that gay couples should be afforded many rights that are, essentially, legally associated with marriage yet they oppose gays having the right to marry. That said, most of the constitutional amendments being passed in state after state are written to expressly prevent those rights from being given to gay couples. This is where the emotional connection of the word marriage comes into play. Most of these amendments are pushed through by tugging at emotions tied to children, religion, etc. and not to the real legal aspects of marriage. Socially conservative think tanks and/or religious institutions push for these amendments based mainly on their religious interpretation of marriage. I don't think that most Americans are aware of the potentially far reaching negative impact that they make on gay couples when they pass these marriage amendments.
Most of the legal activity around this issue has been around how to prevent marriage rights. Any activity to expand marriage rights or the individual rights associated with it tends to fuel even more activity to prevent or curtail the rights of gay couples. This happens because every piece of forward progress on the part of gay couples is perceived (somehow) as a threat to the family, American society, etc.
I think the discussion that needs to happen is the one about how to give legal rights to gay couples instead of how to take them away or prevent them. Legally, marriage is the easiest way to give rights to gay couples but it's obvious that the word "marriage" is too hot of a word.
In some countries, the religious ceremony is separated from the legal ceremony. Perhaps this is what we need to do in the US in order to clearly separate religious intrepretation from legal rights?
When's the last time they got anything right in DC?
It's not fair to automatically associate what happens at the local level in DC with the representation of all the other States that D.C hosts within its boundaries.
It's not fair to automatically associate what happens at the local level in DC with the representation of all the other States that D.C hosts within its boundaries.
Well D.C. is the only city in American that would elect a crack addict as mayor so their track record is no better.
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.
