For or Against Gay Marriage

If you truly took the time to unferstand the issues, and the laws applicable to married couples, you would realize that many things would be expensive, such as the changing of paperwork, to print civil unions. You would also understand that there are issues such as child portability, life and death decisions that can be overidden by the family; when the partner knows best, inheritance, taxes, only to name a few.
 
No He was not, - but I was attempting to show how you too are guilty of the cafeteria Catholicism that you hate so much. Thats all.
 
Only becuase so one has sued yet.




Many legal experts, including those who wrote DOMA, beleive it is unconstitutional.

That is why so many people are puching for an amendment to the constitution.
 
I don't care. My position is not based upon my personal "feelings." My position is based upon the Constitution, my preference for smaller government and the "general welfare" aspects for the instances of when the government is to be involved in what it will and will not recognize/ promote in it's definition of "marriage."

As I have said numerous times now; "couples can still marry outside of government recognition." They can have their ceremonies, weddings, relationships etc. Privately or publically,... I don't really care. But when the government is charged with making laws for say imigration and naturalization, inheritance, property rights, divorce and such,... I want the government to "define" marriage as it sees fit to meet the most MINIMAL standarRAB for society. Generally speaking because humans are biologically "heterosexual" I believe the "one man one woman" nucleus is the most basic building block for the "general welfare" neeRAB of a society.



Not so. For example, the government offers benefits to those who are handicapped or veterans (bonus points in the postal exam for example) and to qualify for those benefits you must meet certain criteria.

The realm of "marriage" is not exempt from this reality. You just agreed yourself a few posts back the the Government has the right to draw the line. That means someone will be disappointed. It's inevitable but that doesn't show that anyone's rights were violated.

In as much as "marriage" is a right (I don't see it as an absolute right) all men and all women have an equal right to marry. But to receive government recognition of their marriage or (better put) the government "promoted" aspects of their marriage,... they must conform their relationship to fit the government's definition. The definition decided by the government in it's attempt to promote the "general welfare."

I believe the Supreme Court will rule along these lines that i have laid out CUNx,... If I'm wrong, feel free to bring these posts back up and tell me so.
 
Neither can I............I want to marry my sister but its not legal........Same as gay marriage.....




Only in your mind my friend, only in your mind.....
 
I have just finished reviewing the EEOC website, and several of the Anti-discrimination laws on the books - and cannot find where they reference white, christian, or male specifically, while there are specific references to most other races, religions, and specific references to women.

While I often see your reference to "black or white", and religion "pick one", on application forms or employmeent forms and the like - I do not see, or at least cannot find, reference to where the law specifies white, christian, or male - while it frequently specifies black, hispanic, arab (etc...), female, and even specific references to non-english accents and fluency (?!).

So I am talking about having to actually add the worRAB "white", "male", and "christian" to those lists...



Thanks, I think :) While don't disagree that christians, whites, and males >seem< to be protected groups by sheer political inertia, they are not technically 'protected groups'. Where individuals with disabilities, accents, non-white races, and religions other than christianity are SPECIFICALLY listed in the Anti-discrimination laws, those three groups are not (the 'sexual orientation' clause was added not to ensure heterosexual equality, but to make a somewhat vague gesture toward homosexual protection).

So I guess I am implying that we will need to take the laws we already have to ridiculous extremes to 'provide equality' to all, it is somewhat oxymoronic to legislate freedom. I always think that the statement "He governs best, whom governs least" is a fairly accurate phrase. We need to provide fewer laws that do well to encourage community, rather than more laws that engender classism by enforcing 'rights' for those 'defined by law'. It's a subtle but significant difference in the type of Rights one has in this country.

I think gays should have the Right to marry (this Right exists along side the Right to free speech and the pursuit of happiness, it is no greater than my Right to be left alone, and "walk on the other side of the street when we meet" so to speek.), whereas I do not think they should have the 'right' to marry (a legal right that specifies how I am to behave in relation to that status and violates my right to be left alone) - clear as mud isn't it?
 
Voice Of Reason said:
Um, no. Same sex marriages are not recognized in any other state but Massachusetts. I will not be arrested if I try to marry my same sex partner. However, if I attempt to marry my sister, I will be arrested.

HUGE difference.
Click to expand...
 
There are too many situations to ever make blanket statements like that - and every woman's life and circumstances are distinct. I know when I would - if it were a threat to my health or livlihood or the result of rape. I also have done all I can to mitigate ever having to face an unwanted pregnancy.

I still think the best way to address abortion is to address the main reasons why - which tend to be economic.
 
More like a granny smith in an orchard of golden delicious, but hey, my country lets me marry whichever sex I please so it's academic.
As you keep saying.
How does living with two daRAB constitute a less stable environment than a mother and a father? By simply being different? Moreover, I'm not sure I understand how such a situation is supposed to be confusing for the child. Also, how does the child's confusion constitute a less stable environment?
Okay, so you've made the claim that you don't think it's the best situation. And you seem to reason that this is so because being raised in a different kind of family would confuse a child.

It's nice that you've made an attempt at an actual explanation this time, but your explanation is question begging. Could you please elaborate?
 
Okey. Good to know I guess...




Okey. I don`t really expect anything but you to be civil.



When and where?



I didn`t miss the point. I just didn`t agree with it. Definitions are "screwed" up all the time.



I think the whole idea is overrated. Sure, there are some slight benefits when it comes to encourage stable relatinships when children are involved, but otherwise, I don`t really see the point.



Why?



Barbarians believed in many (stupid) things. I don`t see the point.



I don`t doubt one could use data in that way to save some time, but I can`t even imagine that this would incur any significant cost for society.




Both would be wifes, no? They are both considered girlfrienRAB, why would marriage change this way of using the terms?







Why can`t a widow mean a female who`s life partner has dies? I think I would call a lesbian girl who`s long-term girfriend has passed away a widow anyway...




That`s because english is rather screwed up when it comes to family relations :p

More seriously though, I can`t really comment as I don`t have an equivalent term in my own language.





I`m self-centered? I have a desire to "blend in"? Why do you assume I`m gay, and what does this whole tirade have anything to do with what I said?




Why is it silly? I could easily do away with the term marriage for myself. The word has no real meaning to me.



That`s a great argument why they should be allowed to do it. I don`t see why you (or anyone else) should have the right to know wether someone is gay or not.
 
Has there been a poll done? Where do you get this information?



Rights activists are not stopping gays from living their lives in peace and harmony. Those who seek to discriminate, teach shame, and take away rights, are the ones trying to prevent that.
 
Yes, but it doesn't matter.

I'm not utilizing my power of persuasion on this, just stating a fact, which can be true or false, and either can be accepted or rejected.
 
I think you are looking at this with a huge bias and if you don't know the difference there is no one that can tell you.........

The fact remains that the most ideal situation for a child growing up is with a mother not 2 fathers or 2 mothers...........
 
Denying rights to a mythical group that doesn't exist except in some activist judge's mind? I can live with that.


Is it a lie that making gay marriages legal automatically gives the new group rights to another's SS survivor benefits, eliminates inheritance tax on estates, forces corporations to either provide family healthcare for all or none? Which of these costs is false? I'd like to know since you seem to have all of the answers. :rolleyes:


Answer my arguments above and we'll continue the debate. Note that my argument is purely based on economics and I don't feel it's necessary to go into the immorality of the fiscal underpinnings. Legalizing gay marriage is simply an attempt to get something for nothing, regardless of the moral issues.
 
Back
Top