Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Non-religious Reasons To Oppose Same Sex Marriage  
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2270 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4081 times:

It occurred to me that most of the reasons against same sex marriage are based on religious views with people often quoting the bible. Are there any/many reasons why people are against same sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion?

Thanks for your (civilised) replies.


Fortune favours the brave
166 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5574 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4046 times:

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose, but as a gay man I'd run a mile from any man who asked me to marry him . . .   

User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Quoting bristolflyer (Thread starter):
It occurred to me that most of the reasons against same sex marriage are based on religious views with people often quoting the bible.

I find this to be the ultimate fallacy of this line of reasoning. Those that are so strongly outspoken about same sex marriage often ignore other aspects of the Bible. Leviticus 18 and 20 and Deuteronomy all contain so called verse about how same sex marriage is sin, but yet other passages are often ignored. (See Deuteronomy 12–26.)

Deuteronomy 14 (New International Version):
These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep ... camel, the rabbit or the hyrax.

Lamb? Venison? Anyone?

Quoting bristolflyer (Thread starter):
Are there any/many reasons why people are against same sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion?

I think those that do prefer traditional marriage on non-religious grounds are just those who are uncomfortable with the idea of two same sex partners cohabiting. It's a change thing, I think.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4004 times:

Here are a few:

1) The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

Regardless of the sensibility of this philosophy, the fact remains that the government is in the marriage business, and as long as it is, equal protection under the law demands that gays be allowed to marry as well. So this argument doesn't really work.

2) The tax benefits that married couples get in essence punish single people, so we shouldn't be extending them to gays as well.

Likewise, one can't deny a certain segment of the population the same rights others have just because others feel slighted by it. So this doesn't work either.

3) Allowing gays to marry would represent an economic hit to the country, as more people would be eligible for reduced taxes by virtue of being married.

And while this may be true, that's the cost of doing business in a country where we have equal protection.

So none of these really work. But then again, there really is no justification to ban gay marriage at all.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5961 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Some people just don't like the idea of two people of the same sex getting married even if they don't care about religion.

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 2):
Lamb? Venison? Anyone

Good stuff!

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 1):
I'd run a mile from any man who asked me to marry him .

I avoid women that want to get married.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3986 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 4):

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 2):
Lamb? Venison? Anyone

Good stuff!

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 1):
I'd run a mile from any man who asked me to marry him .

I avoid women that want to get married.

I probably haven't had lamb in a while, but venison is great.

Also, you don't really hear people get up in arms about man and woman that live together for a long time (maybe even marry) but have to kids? I'd like to see a protest: "Married? No children? SINNER!"   



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1777 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

I know a few non-religious people that aren't a fan of gays altogether just because they don't like the idea of a man having sex with a man. They find it "gross". But I should note that these people have never been outspoken about gay marriage, so I'm not sure if that counts towards the original question or not.

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 2):
Lamb? Venison? Anyone?

Yes please! I had some fantastic lamb lollipop hors d'oeuvres at a networking event last week and have been craving ever since.

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
3) Allowing gays to marry would represent an economic hit to the country, as more people would be eligible for reduced taxes by virtue of being married.

And while this may be true, that's the cost of doing business in a country where we have equal protection.

Interestingly enough, the marriage business would actually go a long way to counteract the hit suffered by the tax reductions. Weddings are a massive expense. When same-sex marriage was legalized in the state of Washington last year, many in British Columbia were quite worried about the wedding industry there since quite a large portion of their business was based on gay couples crossing into Canada to get married.

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 5):
I'd like to see a protest: "Married? No children? SINNER!"

And god help the ones who have kids before getting married!!!   



Flying refined.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3954 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 1):
as a gay man I'd run a mile from any man who asked me to marry him

You and me both! I don't have anything against it if two guys want to exchange vows for whatever reason, but you won't ever find me doing it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3909 times:

Gay people know from their own experience that different people can have fundamentally different preferences, simply by growing up being gay in a straight-dominted world.

But some straight are ignorant of that fact and adhere to the illusion that absolutely all people had to feel exactly alike and that variations could not exist.

This leads to the bizarre theory that gay people were "really" straight, but for some inexplicable reason acted against that presumed straight nature of theirs.

Despite the overwhelming implausibility of that false explanation, especially organized religions mostly stuck to it nevertheless.

This just gets more and more difficult with gay people no longer being mysteriously exotic objects of people's wild imaginations but increasingly just ordinary relatives, friends, neighbours and co-workers.

It's just a fact: Different people can and do in fact have different inclinations, and only acting against the one one actually happens to have would be "unnatural".

Discrimination advocates are simply ignoring a crucial bit of information and are constructing whole ideologies from that false idea.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 5943 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The ones I´ve heard:

1) Sex is for procreation, gays can´t procreate, therefore gay marriage is abnormal.

2) Sex between two people of the same gender is just gross.

3) It´s unnatural (no explanation given).

4) Gays are an embarrassement to all the straights. Now they have the gall to WANT to be married?

5) Gays are sexual predators, therefore can´t be near children, teenagers, or any other straight person for that matter.

6) Gay marriage will mean the destruction of the human race (A lot of people subscribe very openly to this line of thought. They can´t explain why, funnily enough)



MGGS
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18683 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

As has been pointed out. When you strip religion away, you are left with the honest answer:

"I think gays are icky and I don't like them."

You'd be amazed at the things that have been defended or opposed using religion. Slavery, denial of anesthesia to women in labor (even for C-sections), interracial marriage, women's suffrage, etc. etc. etc.


User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

Then you need to allow the Polygamists to legally have more than one wife.

You have to allow people to marry their pets if that is what THEY want.

You need to provide for divorce in all cases which apparently has not happened in the states that have legalized the gay marriages already.

Everything that has happened is all knee jerk reactions to "rights" of individuals without being properly thought out by those that write the laws.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
Then you need to allow the Polygamists to legally have more than one wife.

Black and Whites have been able to marry for decades; and Polygamist marriage has not happened yet. What makes you think that Gay Marriage would cause it?

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
You have to allow people to marry their pets if that is what THEY want.

Can your pets talk to make decisions? How would you know that you pet want to get married?

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):

You need to provide for divorce in all cases which apparently has not happened in the states that have legalized the gay marriages already.

What does this mean?

[Edited 2013-03-26 08:38:32]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3857 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 9):
1) Sex is for procreation, gays can´t procreate, therefore gay marriage is abnormal.

I'd say this is solely a religious argument. Genesis 1:28



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3845 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
Then you need to allow the Polygamists to legally have more than one wife.

No, you don't. Marriage between two people is a completely different concept from marriage between multiple people.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
You have to allow people to marry their pets if that is what THEY want.

No, you don't. Marriage is between two consenting adults. A pet is not, and cannot be, a consenting adult.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1777 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
Then you need to allow the Polygamists to legally have more than one wife.

But that IS a religious argument, which is not the point of this thread.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
You need to provide for divorce in all cases which apparently has not happened in the states that have legalized the gay marriages already.

What?

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 13):
I'd say this is solely a religious argument. Genesis 1:28

I have to disagree with you that it's solely a religious argument. I've heard people approach it with an exclusively biological mindset who believe that life only exists to multiply itself, and since gays can't procreate and grow the population, it is unnatural.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3829 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
When you strip religion away, you are left with the honest answer:

"I think gays are icky and I don't like them."

There's also the contingent out there who believe that since gays and lesbians can't procreate, they must recruit straights. Many fear homosexuals solely on the basis of their belief that they are a recruitment target for sexual acts they have no desire to perform. Simply not desiring something doesn't make it "icky".



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3814 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):
There's also the contingent out there who believe that since gays and lesbians can't procreate, they must recruit straights. Many fear homosexuals solely on the basis of their belief that they are a recruitment target for sexual acts they have no desire to perform. Simply not desiring something doesn't make it "icky".

Was that why that gay guy was hitting on me? And here I thought I was attractive. Dang.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 17):
Was that why that gay guy was hitting on me?

There are people out there who believe that recruitment is a core principle of «The Gay Agenda».



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2032 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
and Polygamist marriage has not happened yet. What makes you think that Gay Marriage would cause it?

I doubt we'll see Polygamy legalized in the West. The link to sexual and psychological abuse has been well established by authorities in the US and Canada, and successfully proven in court.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3798 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 6):
I know a few non-religious people that aren't a fan of gays altogether just because they don't like the idea of a man having sex with a man.

I don't like the idea of a woman having sex with a woman. But, as long as I don't have to see it, I don't care.

Amazingly, people who think male/male sex is disgusting also think that female/female sex is just fine. That one makes my head hurt.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
Amazingly, people who think male/male sex is disgusting also think that female/female sex is just fine. That one makes my head hurt.

When you think of it in terms of recruitment, it makes perfect sense. If the women tried to recruit the men into having sex with them, it would simply be 'the more the merrier'.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10360 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

My basic opinion is that people should be left alone with what they think is their sexual way unless it means harm to anyone. No hatred here against homosexuals.

But: the idea of marriage and the underlying sense of it is to tie man and woman closer together to produce kids.
Gays cant produce kids (well, technically they can of cause) and therefore do nothing to guarantee that the human race exists any longer. Therefore I am against marriage of same sex couples. Why should law and society support something that is widely believed to be a genetic defect without any positive aspect for the future of mankind?

That said, I anyway do think that only marriages that produce kids should be allowed to enjoy tax reductions in the long term. Marriages not producing kids for whatever reason should loose at least part of their their fiscal benefits after 15 years or so. Marriage shouldnt be allowed to be perverted into a tax-evasion model because that is only discriminating singles.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

President François Hollande is applying his platform promise of "marriage for all" currently, while himself not believing in marriage and asking for countries he visits to accommodate his partner.

This to say that just because it doesn't concern you doesn't mean you are legitimate in opposing it.

Now, the right-wing opposition is against it, but officially not for religious reasons, because invoking religion would backfire. Last time it happened was in 1997 when deputy Christine Boutin, a devout catholic, brandished her bible in the National Assembly, she was booed and expelled and it demonstrated the conservatism of the right (conservatism being an insult similar to "liberal" in the US). She was against civil pacts aimed at gays but open for all, now she says those pacts are good and enough, marriage is only for a man and a woman. She even said that LGBT can marry, just do it with someone of the opposite sex !

Arguments are that "it's not natural" and that "children should have a father and a mother". Of course marriage itself is not natural but as long as they appear to do their jobs of opponents, who cares ? There is also the argument that children with two mothers/fathers will be victimized. Then they ask for a referendum. But they didn't do any when in power, even when 3 millions people were protesting in the streets.

I'm already jubilating at the thought of seeing them all admit, in 3-4 years, that they were wrong and now support the law.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18683 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):
Many fear homosexuals solely on the basis of their belief that they are a recruitment target for sexual acts they have no desire to perform. Simply not desiring something doesn't make it "icky".

If you *fear* me based on the idea that I might convince or "recruit" you to do something that you genuinely don't want to do, then you must think what I do is pretty "icky."

If you were actually confident that nothing I could say or do would convince you to turn gay, you wouldn't have such a fear.

So I lump that argument in with general animus.


User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9395 posts, RR: 27
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3898 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
Then you need to allow the Polygamists to legally have more than one wife.

Have at it, I say!

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):

You have to allow people to marry their pets if that is what THEY want.

If you and your dog BOTH consent to getting married, I don't have a problem with that. Of course, your dog is not considered an adult, so....

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
You need to provide for divorce in all cases which apparently has not happened in the states that have legalized the gay marriages already.

I don't understand this one. Is divorce illegal in some states?

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
Everything that has happened is all knee jerk reactions to "rights" of individuals without being properly thought out by those that write the laws.

Based on that argument, marriage should have never been legal in the first place.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
Amazingly, people who think male/male sex is disgusting also think that female/female sex is just fine. That one makes my head hurt.

It's not amazing. There's probably some genetic reason for it somewhere along the line. But probably, it's the fact that I'm not attracted whatsoever to a naked male body, but I am to a naked female body.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
then you must think what I do is pretty "icky."

Do you not have sex with women because you have neither any erotic or romantic attraction to them, or is it because you think women are "icky"? For me, it's the former, not the latter.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

Quoting na (Reply 22):
But: the idea of marriage and the underlying sense of it is to tie man and woman closer together to produce kids.
Gays cant produce kids (well, technically they can of cause) and therefore do nothing to guarantee that the human race exists any longer. Therefore I am against marriage of same sex couples. Why should law and society support something that is widely believed to be a genetic defect without any positive aspect for the future of mankind?

I'd say having less than two kids is actually helping humanity, in the current situation. But LGBT marrying often see marriage as a way to start a family, including kids, obtained one way or another (my preference would be 2 men and 2 women having children "together", but that's not always possible), so your fear is unjustified.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

There's actually no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all. Absolutely no reason.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 28):
There's actually no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all.

Marriage has legal ramifications. The state needs to be involved to legitimize a marriage simply by default, to give the union legal standing.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3910 times:

Quoting na (Reply 22):
Gays cant produce kids (well, technically they can of cause) and therefore do nothing to guarantee that the human race exists any longer. Therefore I am against marriage of same sex couples.

May I assume that you are also against the marriage of elderly couples or heterosexual couples that cannot, for one reason or another, have children?

Quoting na (Reply 22):
Why should law and society support something that is widely believed to be a genetic defect without any positive aspect for the future of mankind?

Is it widely believed to be a genetic defect, though? I certainly don't believe it to be a defect - it's a trait, nothing more. A defect is something that adversely affects your ability to live your life - I doubt there'd be very many gay people who would say that being gay adversely affects their ability to live their lives. Except perhaps the discrimination it brings to them, but that's the fault of others, not themselves.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 22):
But: the idea of marriage and the underlying sense of it is to tie man and woman closer together to produce kids.
Gays cant produce kids (well, technically they can of cause) and therefore do nothing to guarantee that the human race exists any longer. Therefore I am against marriage of same sex couples. Why should law and society support something that is widely believed to be a genetic defect without any positive aspect for the future of mankind?

OK fine - so are you OK with Civil Unions? or just 2 guys living together for their entire life. In neither of these cases would children be produced.

Should there be a law demanding reproduction from everyone?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 22):
Why should law and society support something that is widely believed to be a genetic defect without any positive aspect for the future of mankind?

You are German huh -.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting na (Reply 22):
But: the idea of marriage and the underlying sense of it is to tie man and woman closer together to produce kids.

It is for some, yes.

Quoting na (Reply 22):
Gays cant produce kids (well, technically they can of cause) and therefore do nothing to guarantee that the human race exists any longer. Therefore I am against marriage of same sex couples. Why should law and society support something that is widely believed to be a genetic defect without any positive aspect for the future of mankind?

Widely believed by whom exactly? The only people I've ever heard spout off such ridiculousness is a few people in the American far-right (see legitimate rape, Tea Party, etc.).

This line of logic completely ignores the innate good humans can do for society without fathering/mothering children. By this line of logic, a Catholic priest has no "positive aspect to the future of mankind" because he "cannot" father children (not to mention celibate clergy in other faiths).

For instance I have a married couple in my family with no children. I would argue they have done very much to create a "positive aspect for the future of mankind" by creating a positive, welcoming household, helping with us kids (both my siblings/cousins), working, paying taxes, meeting people and making their lives better. Does it matter whether this is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple? I think not.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3886 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 29):
Marriage has legal ramifications. The state needs to be involved to legitimize a marriage simply by default, to give the union legal standing.

It really doesn't. All a marriage is is a contract, the state only needs to know if it's breached.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3871 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):
All a marriage is is a contract, the state only needs to know if it's breached.

The state must first acknowledge what types of contracts are legal, before ruling on if there's a breach to the contract. There cannot be a breach to a contract which isn't enforceable.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 28):
There's actually no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all. Absolutely no reason.

The reason is social engineering.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):
The state must first acknowledge what types of contracts are legal, before ruling on if there's a breach to the contract. There cannot be a breach to a contract which isn't enforceable.

I've signed a lot of contracts recently without the state getting involved.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37):
I've signed a lot of contracts recently without the state getting involved.

So what? If the state wasn't there prior to back their validity in law, you probably wouldn't find the other party willing to sign the contract with you. For instance, if oral contracts weren't valid in your jurisdiction, you'd find few who would willingly enter into an oral contract with you for much of any value, if any.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3855 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38):
So what? If the state wasn't there prior to back their validity in law, you probably wouldn't find the other party willing to sign the contract with you. For instance, if oral contracts weren't valid in your jurisdiction, you'd find few who would willingly enter into an oral contract with you for much of any value, if any.

That's ok, the state i live in accepts written contracts.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37):
I've signed a lot of contracts recently without the state getting involved.
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 39):
the state i live in accepts written contracts.

So the state was involved then. Glad that's clear to you now.  



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 40):
So the state was involved then. Glad that's clear to you now.


Ok, but my point was the state needn't be involved in marriage, i didn't say the state shouldn't be involved in enforcing contracts.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6633 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3825 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 4):
Some people just don't like the idea of two people of the same sex getting married even if they don't care about religion.

Bingo, that's pretty much my objection in a nutshell, I couldn't give a crap about religion, I have no problem with gay people, I just don't like the idea of same sex marriages, that's it.

It's also a door opener, if you allow same sex then you should also allow plural marriage, yet we don't like that one do we?

Quoting TheCol (Reply 19):
I doubt we'll see Polygamy legalized in the West.

In countries like the US people have freedom of religion, in some religions polygamy is practised, so I bet one day the idea of plural marriage will be challenged.

In the US polygamy got a bad rap due to crazy old Mormons marrying teenagers.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 41):
i didn't say the state shouldn't be involved in enforcing contracts.

Roll back several posts to the marriage is a contract bit.

Now let's return to Non-religious Reasons To Oppose Same Sex Marriage instead of RomeoBravo Learns About Law.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3798 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42):
, I just don't like the idea of same sex marriages, that's it.

But why? Verbalize it.. State clearly - why this is. This is your chance.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42):
It's also a door opener, if you allow same sex then you should also allow plural marriage, yet we don't like that one do we?

Was interracial marriage a "door opener"?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42):
o I bet one day the idea of plural marriage will be challenged.

That is fine. That is a completely different fight than the one that is going on now. When its time for it to be decided, then we can discuss it.

The slippery slope argument has always been bogus,.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42):
In the US polygamy got a bad rap due to crazy old Mormons marrying teenagers.

So you think polygamy is a good thing?



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9395 posts, RR: 27
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 29):
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 28):
There's actually no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all.

Marriage has legal ramifications. The state needs to be involved to legitimize a marriage simply by default, to give the union legal standing.

I think the point is that there's no reason for marriages to be legislated and recorded by the state. There's no reason to file for a marriage license, etc., and have it recognized as anything beyond a contract. I certainly don't file a copy with my local government of every contract I sign. That doesn't mean they're not enforceable.

If two people want to sign a contract between them, then go for it. They don't need state sanction to do so. The way I see it, there's no reason that a contract between two people would be unenforceable, whether they're male-female, male-male, or female-female, EXCEPT for the fact that the state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

But hey, I'm not a lawyer.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 45):
I think the point is that there's no reason for marriages to be legislated and recorded by the state

How else would the state know that you are eligible for marriage benefits?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 5):
"Married? No children? SINNER!"

How many Justices on the Supreme Court are married and have children?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 6):

I know a few non-religious people that aren't a fan of gays altogether just because they don't like the idea of a man having sex with a man. They find it "gross".

Yet when it comes to two women having sex some of those same people will ask "Can I watch?" "I'll pay"

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 28):


There's actually no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all. Absolutely no reason.

There are many reasons for the government to be involved in marriage - starting with the reality that some people (gay or straight) want to have a civil ceremony when they get married - not a church ceremony.

There is also a need to have core laws on marriage as there are non-religious issues to be addressed. Start with the rights of a spouse in various medical situations, from visiting to when to accept a medical recommendation to "pull the plug". My wife has those rights for me (as I have for her) and I want those legal rights to be available to her. Should a gay person have fewer rights? It is the responsibility of the government to ensure they do,

BTW, the government also needs to have established the infrastructure for divorce of gay couples, just like they have for straight marriage.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 31):
Should there be a law demanding reproduction from everyone?

There you go - if marriage is only to generate more babies then let's require that every married couple have 2 or 3.

That does make life difficult for those who cannot have children for one medical condition or another - should they be allowed to get married?

I see little difference in today's arguments against equal rights for gays as I saw half a century ago in those arguments against people of color having equal rights. Or a century ago when women didn't have the equal rights when it came to voting.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2032 posts, RR: 6
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42):
so I bet one day the idea of plural marriage will be challenged.

It was already challenged in Canada and upheld. If they appeal, the current laws will likely be upheld again. The RCMP and Crown Counsel have been on a crusade against the Polygamist community in BC for over a decade.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3747 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):
There's also the contingent out there who believe that since gays and lesbians can't procreate, they must recruit straights. Many fear homosexuals solely on the basis of their belief that they are a recruitment target for sexual acts they have no desire to perform.

People who believe that they could somehow be "converted" to homosexuality have a lot to explain to themselves; perhaps that they are, in fact, bisexual to some degree. But instead of facing the truth, so many of them try to get out of that conundrum by demonising that part of their psyche, and by extension everything else that doesn't conform to the heterosexual norm. It's incomprehensible.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
Roll back several posts to the marriage is a contract bit.

Now let's return to Non-religious Reasons To Oppose Same Sex Marriage instead of RomeoBravo Learns About Law.

Sadly at this stage i had forgotten just how much you pine to prove me wrong at all costs, as such i was not choosing my words as carefully as i should have done.

There's no need for the state to specify that this contract is a marriage and this contract isn't a marriage. It just needs to enforce what is on the contract.

For example i might "marry" a women and sign a contract that might say...

We share incomes
We inherit each other's possessions on death
If evidence can prove that there is sexual activity between either party and a 3rd party then the above is void and the consequence are X, Y, Z.

At no point does the above say anything about whether we are married are not, indeed the same contract could be signed with my sister or brother or my best friend.

At this point 2 people could consider themselves married, however for the full spiritual experience 2 (or more) people might want to go to a religious body and have the above agreement sanctioned or registered under the eyes of god/allah etc. And the religious body may specify their own conditions in the agreement, or they may deny the request because they don't tolerate gay marriages or polygamy etc. They may even be able to arbitrate disputes.

At no point above has the state got involved in marriage.

[Edited 2013-03-26 11:48:01]

User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

The legal machinations of divorce here in Washington applies EQUALLY to ALL marriages....it was never an issue...even when all there was was Domestic Partnerships.....


Next!!



Carpe Pices
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3666 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 49):
But instead of facing the truth, so many of them try to get out of that conundrum by demonising that part of their psyche, and by extension everything else that doesn't conform to the heterosexual norm. It's incomprehensible.

At the link below is an outline for how these folks think.

I am Homophobic (and you should be too!)

Quote:
The Illuminati are replacing heterosexual norms with gay norms in order to undermine the gender identity of 98% of the population. So far, society has been blind to this insidious attack which ranges from relentless psychological warfare in the mass media, to "grooming" in public schools, to actual physical overtures.

Illuminati = Secret conspirators.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 50):
Sadly at this stage i had forgotten just how much you pine to prove me wrong at all costs, as such i was not choosing my words as carefully as i should have done.

LOL, when all else fails, haul out the persecution card.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
No, you don't. Marriage between two people is a completely different concept from marriage between multiple people
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 15):
But that IS a religious argument, which is not the point of this thread


I am not a Mormon but suppose I am in love with two different women, they love me, and we want to get married. We are all consenting adults and are all aware of the situation of me being married to each of them and are OK with it. Shouldn't it be my right to marry them?

This could also be taken if one man loves tow other men and wants to marry both with the same circumstances as above, or three women. What is to say that those situations cannot happen??


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 53):
What is to say that those situations cannot happen??

Easy: Interracial Marriage.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 45):
I think the point is that there's no reason for marriages to be legislated and recorded by the state. There's no reason to file for a marriage license, etc., and have it recognized as anything beyond a contract. I certainly don't file a copy with my local government of every contract I sign. That doesn't mean they're not enforceable.

If two people want to sign a contract between them, then go for it. They don't need state sanction to do so. The way I see it, there's no reason that a contract between two people would be unenforceable, whether they're male-female, male-male, or female-female, EXCEPT for the fact that the state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

But hey, I'm not a lawyer.

Is having sex a contract ? Don't states/gov in the US go after men who fathered children even if they didn't agree to it ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3410 posts, RR: 6
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Apart from the religious reasons, in my belief, same sex marriage will of course facilitate children adoption and/or artificial insemination... and then i believe it is hard/unhealthy for a child to grow with parents of the same sex. I mean it's out of the laws of mother nature !

User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 54):
Easy: Interracial Marriage


What does interracial have to do with it?? These people can be of any race! They want to marry more that one person and religion has noting to do with it. Why can't someone be married to more than one person at the same time if they want to??


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6633 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 44):

Was interracial marriage a "door opener"?

I've got no problem with interracial marriage either, provided it's male female.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 44):

So you think polygamy is a good thing?

I don't have any opinion for or against it.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 44):

That is fine. That is a completely different fight than the one that is going on now. When its time for it to be decided, then we can discuss it.

But it's not really, it's an alternative form of marriage just like gay marriage, there's also no reason why it couldn't be a gay plural marriage either.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 53):

I am not a Mormon but suppose I am in love with two different women, they love me, and we want to get married.

If you're going to allow gay marriage I can't see any problem with situation as above.

We have a muslim family in our neighbourhood, 1 male, 2 females and 3 kids, all refugees, so even though plural marriage is illegal in Norway this family are legally married to each other, the govt accepted the marriage situation when they gave them asylum. That's the slippery slope if you can accept a refugee family in plural marriage you shouldn't discriminate against locals wanting to do the same.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 57):
What does interracial have to do with it?? These people can be of any race! They want to marry more that one person and religion has noting to do with it.

If you let black people marry white people what is next?

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 57):
Why can't someone be married to more than one person at the same time if they want to??

That is not the question that the supreme court is answering is it? The question has always been the definition of marriage should be between TWO consenting adults.

Count with me: One, Two. Not three, not four, not five hundred.

If the issue of polygamy makes it to the SC, THEN we can have this argument - till then you argument is null



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3597 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 58):
But it's not really, it's an alternative form of marriage just like gay marriage, there's also no reason why it couldn't be a gay plural marriage either.

Interracial marriage was once defined as "alternative marriage" once.

It may be similar argument, but that is NOT what the SC is debating now - is it? It may be in the future? Maybe. When that happens you can oppose it on its owns merits.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3590 times:

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 56):
I mean it's out of the laws of mother nature !

How exactly is it so? A child needs love and support, the latter including food, shelter and so on. If a homosexual couple can provide those, they're fit to raise a child - that's no more against the laws of mother nature than a widowed father raising a child whose mother died during birth.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3587 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 56):
I mean it's out of the laws of mother nature !

"Mother Nature" is OK with Gays..

Every spring for six years Gentoo penguins Inca and Rayas have lovingly built a nest together, only to find that no eggs arrive to fill it. It doesn't seem to have dawned on the couple that both of them are male.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...couple-given-egg-of-their-own.html



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3554 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 61):
If a homosexual couple can provide those, they're fit to raise a child

I believe it is preferable for a child to have a Mother and Father.

That means in the case of adoption there should be a preference towards firstly a suitable heterosexual couple. Then single parents or homosexual couples if there are still children that need adopting.

I don't believe single parents or homosexual couples should be allowed to clone or artificially inseminate or whatever the procedures are these days to have a child.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3548 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
I believe it is preferable for a child to have a Mother and Father.

Should single parents gets their children taken from them and given to a heterosexual couple?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3544 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 64):
Should single parents gets their children taken from them and given to a heterosexual couple?

No. That's a ridiculous suggestion.


User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3410 posts, RR: 6
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3531 times:

It's my proper belief and i think there has even been studies around that. A child need parental care from both mother and father; mother at the early age then father... with differences whether the child is a girl or a boy. It has to do with the psychological balance. I remember having watched a French film in which a boy was mistreated and mocked up by his classmates because his parents were two females or two males, i don't remember well... then here start the difficulties. Even if you are tolerant and comprehensive... the others won't let things go and then it's better to keep things as they should be, or as they better could be...

For the homosexuals themselves... they are free and responsible of their choice, orientation, belief, deeds... anyway !


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3526 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
I believe it is preferable for a child to have a Mother and Father.

That means in the case of adoption there should be a preference towards firstly a suitable heterosexual couple. Then single parents or homosexual couples if there are still children that need adopting.

So you think that a belief of yours should keep others from adopting children - not their inability to provide for them or some other true shortcoming, but your belief. How nice.  

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 66):
I remember having watched a French film in which a boy was mistreated and mocked up by his classmates because his parents were two females or two males, i don't remember well...

I'm sorry, but the problem in such a case is the social norm of heterosexuality. If people are too closed-minded to even consider that a child might grow up healthily without the "traditional" set of parents, that's one thing... speaks against foster parents, for instance. But if they decide to become abusive about it, it really does say a lot more about them than about the child in question and his family.

[Edited 2013-03-26 13:24:41]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 64):

No. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

Why? You would obviously use the "law" to ensure children have a mother and father. That just a logical step in the same direction.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
That means in the case of adoption there should be a preference towards firstly a suitable heterosexual couple. Then single parents or homosexual couples if there are still children that need adopting.

.

Why even risk a single child to be placed with single parents and homosexuals? Are you crazy? Mother and Father for all children. No questions asked, no exceptions.



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9395 posts, RR: 27
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3522 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 46):
How else would the state know that you are eligible for marriage benefits?

Well, if the state were removed from the whole marriage thing, there would be no marriage benifits.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55):
Is having sex a contract ? Don't states/gov in the US go after men who fathered children even if they didn't agree to it ?

If you have consensual sex with someone, I think you're by default agreeing to deal with the results.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 57):
Why can't someone be married to more than one person at the same time if they want to??
Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 53):
What is to say that those situations cannot happen??

Nothing, far as I'm concerned. Let it happen! I do not care one bit if you want to get married to two women, or two men, or a man and a woman, as long as everyone consents.

But I already said that, to no response....



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3521 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42):
Bingo, that's pretty much my objection in a nutshell, I couldn't give a crap about religion, I have no problem with gay people, I just don't like the idea of same sex marriages, that's it.

I have no problem with stupid people. I just have a problem with them reproducing, and that's it...
I also don't have a problem with fat people. I just have a problem looking at them and letting them get married and make more fat children that my tax dollars will have to go toward their inevitable metabolic syndrome, and that's it.
I also don't have a problem with descendents of European colonists running the show in New Zealand. I just don't like the idea of the way they treated the native people and don't believe they should be allowed to reproduce, and that's it.
I could go one for hours with further examples of ridiculous logic for imposing my opinions on others...

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
How many Justices on the Supreme Court are married and have children?

All but Sotomayor and Kagan. Sotomayor is divorced. Kagan's sexual preference has been oft-discussed.

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 56):
and then i believe it is hard/unhealthy for a child to grow with parents of the same sex. I mean it's out of the laws of mother nature !

She told you this herself? What if I were to tell you that there are quite a few studies RE: children of same sex couples and they show that they are more likely to come from a loving home (where they are wanted and not at times just a coital byproduct), more likely to do better in school (because they have two loving and supportive parents in the home), and have the same social adjustment as children raised in heterosexual homes. They also fare much better on the whole than single-parent households.

RE: polygamy, I find it ironic and comical that the same mindset is present: "I don't like it, therefore it shouldn't be." My contempt for humanity's "my way is the only way" is rising by the day. And I do not like feeling that way. Just leave people the hell alone and run your house the way you see fit. This country was founded upon "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." I boggles my mind that people somehow believe what happens in another's house as they privately exercise their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness will ruin their life. In reality people are simply pig-headed and childish.

“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.” ~ John Adams


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3503 times:

My there really seems to be a poor standard of verbal reasoning here.

Quoting aloges (Reply 67):
So you think that a belief of yours should keep others from adopting children - not their inability to provide for them or some other true shortcoming, but your belief. How nice.

Actually i didn't preclude adoption. Just specified that couples who are able to provide a male and female role model in most cases should be preferred to those that are unable.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 68):
Why? You would obviously use the "law" to ensure children have a mother and father.

I'm afraid such a conclusion is false.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 71):

I'm afraid such a conclusion is false.

So how would your "plan" be executed and enforced?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
That means in the case of adoption there should be a preference towards firstly a suitable heterosexual couple. Then single parents or homosexual couples if there are still children that need adopting



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1529 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3487 times:

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 66):
Even if you are tolerant and comprehensive... the others won't let things go and then it's better to keep things as they should be, or as they better could be...

You could argue the same thing for women's voting rights, interracial marriage, etc.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3481 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 71):
Actually i didn't preclude adoption. Just specified that couples who are able to provide a male and female role model in most cases should be preferred to those that are unable.

You did specify that you want singles and homosexual couples to be kept from adopting children until heterosexual couples have had "their turns". That's what I criticised.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3457 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 74):
You did specify that you want singles and homosexual couples to be kept from adopting children until heterosexual couples have had "their turns". That's what I criticised.

I specified it's preferable for a child to have a mother and father actually. I'm not sure where you got the quote ""their turns"" from. I would never use such a flippant term to describe such a serous commitment.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5429 posts, RR: 6
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3445 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):
Then you need to allow the Polygamists to legally have more than one wife.

As long as the legal issues with consent are worked out, it's really no big deal. You're not stopping behaviors you don't agree with from happening just because the state doesn't sponsor it.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):

You have to allow people to marry their pets if that is what THEY want.

Really?

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 11):


You need to provide for divorce in all cases which apparently has not happened in the states that have legalized the gay marriages already.

Not that hard to do.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 19):

I doubt we'll see Polygamy legalized in the West. The link to sexual and psychological abuse has been well established by authorities in the US and Canada, and successfully proven in court.

The same thing was said about homosexuality in the 1950s. Remember, sodomy was a crime in 14 states until 2003.

Quoting na (Reply 22):
widely believed to be a genetic defect

Except it's not.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
I believe it is preferable for a child to have a Mother and Father.

And there are still people that believe you can choose to be gay. Like them, you are ignorant of the facts.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6633 posts, RR: 3
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3448 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 70):
I also don't have a problem with descendents of European colonists running the show in New Zealand. I just don't like the idea of the way they treated the native people and don't believe they should be allowed to reproduce, and that's it.

Showing your ignorance of NZ here, the natives have all the same rights and privileges (and more) as anyone else living in NZ, they always have had, they have never been second class citizens, they've always had the right to vote, they have always had representation in parliament, I could go on and on all day long. But this has nothing to do with gay marriage.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3429 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 76):
And there are still people that believe you can choose to be gay. Like them, you are ignorant of the facts.

So there are facts that state it is not preferable to have a Mother and Father?

Sorry but i'm going to have to see a source for that because i find that conclusion absolutely staggering.

That facts of my own life experience state that not having a father isn't good and is in fact very upsetting. But what do i know, i'm obviously just an ignoramus.

[Edited 2013-03-26 14:23:42]

User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3414 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 53):
I am not a Mormon

Being a Mormon is neither here nor there. The Church of Latter Day Saints has long since denounced polygamy (and excommunicated those practicing polygamy if memory serves).



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 5250 posts, RR: 8
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3413 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 75):
I specified it's preferable for a child to have a mother and father actually.

From where do you get this? Is it just "common knowledge" or specific factual proof? And did you account for living status, income, location, neighborhood, etc? There are many things that are "preferable" in a child's life, which ones are you putting emphasis on and why and how are you enforcing those?

Edited to add:

I am not saying that not having a "a mom and a dad" is a preferable and ideal situation. I have a mom and a dad, but I had a mom and a dad divorce, and a mom alone, and then a mom and a step dad, and a dad and a step mom, and.... you get the idea. With that said, I suspect that stability, resources, and loving caring people (or parent and community) is probably the most preferable situation. I think there are even studies supporting this.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-03-26 14:56:11]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1540 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3366 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 28):
There's actually no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all. Absolutely no reason.

There are numerous reasons why the state needs to know.
Next of kin is changed so the requirements in situations such as switching off life support. This needs to be as standardised so that it isn't overly burdensome for professionals dealing with them. It is a very common occurrence so it makes sense to standardise the process, imagine if you had to negotiate a contract with the government when you passed your driving test, it would be a farce. Children need legal guardian status in the case of step parents. The state may change tax laws in favour of marriage (which I'm pretty sure you'll hate) as it has been shown to increase the productivity, wealth and happiness of people who are married so it actually helps the economy overall to marginally incentivise marriage.

I'm sure if you want to draw up your own contact then you can but don't expect the legal protections and incentives like being able to have your spouse turn off your life support or even be allowed to ride in an ambulance with you. You won't benefit from lower insurance either.

Having a standardised legal contract allows standardised processes to take advantage of the economies of scale and make things better for the vast majority.

Sometimes it's good to go with principles but as sometimes you just have to admit that logic is better Romeo.

Fred


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 56):
in my belief, same sex marriage will of course facilitate children adoption and/or artificial insemination

That ship has sailed. As it is, in the 2000 U.S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home. That was 13 years ago, I'm sure the numbers are higher now.

A certain percentage of gay households will always have minor children in them, whether the couple is married or not. This is often because some people haven't come to terms with their homosexuality until after they've tried married life and have had children.

There are no reports or studies I'm aware of which have come to the conclusion that children from households headed by same sex couples are any better or worse off than children from households headed by heterosexual couples or single parents. If you are in possession of any peer-reviewed articles which claim differently, please share them.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1540 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
So there are facts that state it is not preferable to have a Mother and Father?

Sorry but i'm going to have to see a source for that because i find that conclusion absolutely staggering.

not having facts to support one line of thinking does not mean that the opposite is true no matter how much you might not like it, thats how science works.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
i'm obviously just an ignoramus.

  

Fred


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 76):
And there are still people that believe you can choose to be gay. Like them, you are ignorant of the facts.

So there are facts that state it is not preferable to have a Mother and Father?

Sorry but i'm going to have to see a source for that because i find that conclusion absolutely staggering.

That facts of my own life experience state that not having a father isn't good and is in fact very upsetting. But what do i know, i'm obviously just an ignoramus.

You may not have had a father, but had you had two dads or two moms, you may have ended up with that "father figure" you feel you missed out on. The fact that you didn't have an a good parenting situation is no reason to deny others from having that chance.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5429 posts, RR: 6
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
So there are facts that state it is not preferable to have a Mother and Father?

The fact is there are no studies that show having one male and one female parent is any better or worse than having two female or two male parents.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):

Sorry but i'm going to have to see a source for that because i find that conclusion absolutely staggering.

.... says the guy who won't post his own sources and instead relies on:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
That facts of my own life experience



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

I believe that we need to recognize we will get through this issue and at that point we will look back at it just like we do with the "challenging changes" we "endured" when women were given the vote, or when people of color were given equal rights.

The 19th Amendment (giving women the right to vote) was ratified by Tennessee in 1920, making it the law of the land. Since that was only 93 years ago it is very probable that there are women living today who were born in the US at a time when women were not allowed to vote.

But there have been states that held back:

Quote:


Nearly twenty years later Maryland ratified the amendment in 1941. After another ten years, in 1952, Virginia ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, followed by Alabama in 1953. After another 16 years Florida and South Carolina passed the necessary votes to ratify in 1969, followed two years later by Georgia and Louisiana in 1971.

Mississippi did not ratify the Nineteenth Amendment until 1984, sixty four years after the law was enacted nationally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's..._in_the_United_States#cite_note-73

That puts Maryland around the start of WW II

Virginia ratified it the year Ike was elected President

Alabama was 21 years ahead of Mississippi, ratifying it in 1953

Florida & South Carolina ratified it the year I was married (1969)
Georgia & Louisiana waited until 1971.

And Mississippi came in last (no surprise there) in 1984.

Anyone over 30 was alive when Mississippi FINALLY ratified an Amendment allowing women the vote.

Less than 30 years since Mississippi ratified the 19th Amendment allowing women the vote - that makes it pretty obvious that it is going to take time for all states to accept gay marriage.

And then look at how long it has taken people of color to be "equal"

We certainly don't need to have the attacks on gays like we saw in Alabama when the police let the dogs on people demonstrating for equal rights.

The only question today will be the number of Justices on the USSC who have the Mississippi attitude of being 64 years behind the country.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
The only question today will be the number of Justices on the USSC who have the Mississippi attitude of being 64 years behind the country.

What's interesting about the current vote is that the USSC has to come up with a solid legal argument why same sex marriage is unconstitutional or pick out flaws in the federal court decision which they may use to set that court's decision aside. If the USSC decides that they have no place to make a decision, and dismisses the case before them, then the federal court decision striking down Calif. Prop. 8 stands.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1777 posts, RR: 10
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

My oh my, I believe this is the third time I've shared this video since becoming an A-net member. I think Mr. Wahls sums up the argument quite eloquently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 56):
Apart from the religious reasons, in my belief, same sex marriage will of course facilitate children adoption and/or artificial insemination... and then i believe it is hard/unhealthy for a child to grow with parents of the same sex.

What exactly is so terrible about facilitating adoption? I'd rather have kids be adopted by a loving gay couple than have them move from foster home to foster home until they're kicked out when they turn 18.

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 66):
It's my proper belief and i think there has even been studies around that. A child need parental care from both mother and father; mother at the early age then father... with differences whether the child is a girl or a boy. It has to do with the psychological balance. I remember having watched a French film in which a boy was mistreated and mocked up by his classmates because his parents were two females or two males, i don't remember well... then here start the difficulties. Even if you are tolerant and comprehensive... the others won't let things go and then it's better to keep things as they should be, or as they better could be...

Are you able to provide a credible source for these studies?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
So there are facts that state it is not preferable to have a Mother and Father?

Sorry but i'm going to have to see a source for that because i find that conclusion absolutely staggering.

Can you provide a source that concludes in the affirmative of your argument? That a mother and a father is significantly better than a gay couple?



Flying refined.
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 75):
I'm not sure where you got the quote ""their turns"" from.

It wasn't a quote, otherwise it would have been in one of

Quote:
these.

Anyway, I got the gist of your statement from this:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
That means in the case of adoption there should be a preference towards firstly a suitable heterosexual couple. Then single parents or homosexual couples if there are still children that need adopting.

Limiting singles and homosexuals to the "leftovers" that still need adopting after the "normal people" have chosen is pretty flippant in its own right, wouldn'tchouagree?  



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

About polygamy personally I believe love is possible at more than two, however that's usually not what you see in religiously based polygamy (polyandry exists but is pretty rare, and has similar faults). What you see is one man loving several women who love him, there is nothing between the women, sometimes they even hate each other and were not expecting their husband to be polygamous (common when the religion is Islam). I don't think the state should encourage that. I don't think it can really do anything about it, just recognize a pair as a married couple and that's it. I wonder if polygamists will try to take advantage of the law and marry the second and third wives together to get another benefit ? I just thought about that possibility.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 81):
Having a standardised legal contract allows standardised processes to take advantage of the economies of scale and make things better for the vast majority.

Yeah and that also helps for the enforcing part, going after child support. I doubt it would work as a private enterprise going after parents not supporting their children.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3010 posts, RR: 9
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

As a gay rabbi, and a member of the Central Conference of Reform Rabbis - who as a group has supported gay marriage for years - I am proud to be part of the religious left.


14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1169 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3217 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):
The fact is there are no studies that show having one male and one female parent is any better or worse than having two female or two male parents.

Here's an example of a study which shows the exact opposite.

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf

Sexual orientation was found not to have any significant effect on child development. Parenting approaches, parental stress and the quality of couple's relationship did.

The whole "you need a mother and a father" thing originated with single parents, and it does have some merit (though it is not a predictor of an individual's ability to raise a well-adjusted child); it is definitely harder to justify though when applied to same-sex couples.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
That means in the case of adoption there should be a preference towards firstly a suitable heterosexual couple. Then single parents or homosexual couples if there are still children that need adopting.

Might be a moot point. Sadly I think there's no shortage of children who need a good home.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
I am not saying that not having a "a mom and a dad" is a preferable and ideal situation. I have a mom and a dad, but I had a mom and a dad divorce, and a mom alone, and then a mom and a step dad, and a dad and a step mom, and.... you get the idea. With that said, I suspect that stability, resources, and loving caring people (or parent and community) is probably the most preferable situation. I think there are even studies supporting this.

It sounds like we agree to an extent. I don't know what the exact formula is but i think it should play a considerable part. A mother and father figure are both important for a well rounded development and a more confident child IMO. I am very grateful to my mother for bringing me up alone, however there's just some things a mother can't teach or instill in a son, and vice versa.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 81):

What is the point in responding to your flood of attacks towards me? You will just ignore any of my replies that are too challenging for you, and instead make childish insults.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):
The fact is there are no studies that show having one male and one female parent is any better or worse than having two female or two male parents.

Please note that my reasoning was never about the number of parents, but the lack of a certain gender.
The suggestion that have 2 parents of the same sex has no different results to mixed gender implies the sheer effort involved in raising a child singularly could be the culprit (or a traumatic breakup). Or that one of the parents in a same sex parenthood takes on a "male" or "female" role.

I don't buy that myself and i also found this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 (not fully read or convinced of partiality yet) however...

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):
.... says the guy who won't post his own sources and instead relies on:

I have only ever claimed that it is (A) my belief, and (B) it is based on personal experience.

I don't see what is so wrong about that.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 92):
Might be a moot point. Sadly I think there's no shortage of children who need a good home.

Agreed

Quoting aloges (Reply 89):
Limiting singles and homosexuals to the "leftovers" that still need adopting after the "normal people"

You simply haven't got my point i'm afraid and like some left-wing version of the daily mail you are again fabricating quotes. I would not refer to anyone as leftovers nor suggest gays were not normal people - Going to have to accuse you of fulfilling Godwin's Law there.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3158 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):
You simply haven't got my point i'm afraid and like some left-wing version of the daily mail you are again fabricating quotes.

Too funny.  Someone else said it before:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 52):
LOL, when all else fails, haul out the persecution card.

Once again, when I do quote you, you will see it appear in one of those boxes that say "Quoting RomeoBravo" - as intended by the operators of this forum. My inverted commas denote words that I use to illustrate a viewpoint which I do not share - yours, in this case.

Anyway, you did say that you want heterosexual couples to have priority over singles and homosexual couples, did you not? If you don't see how a remark like

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
if there are still children that need adopting

is demeaning towards those very children, I really cannot help you. Sorry.

[Edited 2013-03-26 18:39:12]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1169 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):
I don't buy that myself and i also found this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 (not fully read or convinced of partiality yet) however...

That is one of those studies that looks convincing but is actually worthless. Most of the children with "same-sex parents" the author studies are actually children of opposite sex parents whose relationship failed, and they subsequently split and had one or more same sex relationships. The study does not examine whether the children in question ever lived with the parent while they were in that same sex relationship. It's utter, utter crap.

Unsurprisingly the study was funded by an anti-gay think tank, a member of which also was on the board of the Social Science Research journal in which it was published. After an audit it was found that the peer review process at this journal was seriously flawed because the reviewers had ties to the author. The auditor described the methodology of the paper as "bullshit".

[Edited 2013-03-26 18:50:56]

[Edited 2013-03-26 18:52:04]


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Non-religious reasons to oppose same sex marriage. That's what the discussion is supposed to be about ?

First of all, I think the OP got a little mixed up when he (assuming the OP is male; I have no way of knowing) named the thread; let me explain; if you don't want to discuss religion, then you really don't want to discuss "marriage" either, because that's where the word "marriage" came from in the first place. The OP says;

quote=bristolflyer,reply=0]It occurred to me that most of the reasons against same sex marriage are based on religious views with people often quoting the bible.[/quote]

I don't know the OP, and I'm not familiar enough with his username to know how he thinks about "things in general", but in starting this thread, and giving it the name he did, he's really starting a discussion about two separate issues; gay people being married, and religion. To really get to the root of this, one needs to "go back"........way, way, back; there's a great song about that; actually, it started out with one song, but it was so..........so.........funny ? anyway, it did so well that the group who made it, ( "The Jimmy Castor Bunch" ) made a second song that was even better; The first song was "Caveman", and the sequel was "The Bertha Butt Boogie"; if you haven't heard these two songs, all I can say is......you don't know what you're missing !!!

Anyway.....moving right along here.......if you go back far enough, there were NO people; ( probably no "opinions", no "politics", no "religion", no computers, jet planes, lottery tickets, hackers, apple pie, etc., etc, etc ). But some where along the line there were "people"; most scholars think it all started in Africa someplace; but they didn't stay in Africa; they wandered "all over", and by this time, they had started living in caves; ( hey.....beats the hell out of sleeping under a tree!)

I'm not too sure about their "living arrangements", but I assume the men were living with the women, because they kept growing in numbers; ( cloning and artificial this and that not being available yet ) Finally, after a loooooong time, somebody started "religion"; then the "religion" became "a whole bunch ofr religions"; that's where things started going haywire, because everyone thinks he's "right", and everyone else is "wrong"; Now, I don't have any iron clad, proof positive figures on all of this, but I suppose somewhere along the line, the troglodyte (or caveman) living in one cave with his "woman" ( or women ), hapened to notice that a couple of cavemen in a cave on the other side of the mountain didn't have any "women". Somehow, I doubt if anyone was worried about who had what at the time, as the big problem being at the time, was getting something to eat, without being "eaten".

Eventually, everyone became "civilized", started living in ........tents, huts, houses, igloos, condos, low-income housing, you name it; and finally religion starts setting "rules to live by", one of which was, people who live together and have "children" have to get "married"; here's the really sticky part; right now, 2013, no one knows for sure how many "cavemen" were "straight", and how many were "gay"; what science is sure of is, there have always been a much larger % of straight people, as compared to "gay" people; I hear people arguing all the time about what the % is, but I'm not "going there". It really isn't important to the current discussion.

Today, 2013, I hear many people who say, quote; "religion sucks; who needs it; not me"; that's one very common viewpoint; but I must tell you, if that's your viewpoint, it puts you into a VERY small "minority"; in reading all 78 replies to the OP's original question, all I've heard so far is a whole bunch of different "opinions", but so far, I have yet to see anyone come up with a "better idea" that has a 2% chance of "working". Sure, you have every right to state "your opinion", and if it agrees with enough other people's opinion, you might even win an election. it's a funny thing about people's opinions; they seldom last very long.........usually not even as long as the people that have them. Just like everyone else, I have a lot of opinions too; some of mine haven't needed changing for a long time; I even remember what my opinion was on 12-7-41; (I was only 9 years old at the time, but I still had an opinion ); I remember the next 5 years like it was yesterday; but my opinion didn't change; my opinion was, first we're gonna kill Hitler's butt, then we're gonna do the same thing to Tojo; and it all happened; things got a lot better for a while, then we had to all of a sudden go to N. Korea for a few years; I was looking to get "drafted", so me and my buddy, "Wee Willie Perkins" joined the Navy. He ended up on the a/c carrier, "Phillipine Sea" so close to the coast of N. Korea that the "gooks" got a few hits on his ship with shore batteries, and I ended up spending much of the next 4 years riding my new Harley all over the east coast, from Boston all the way to Key West. I did change my opinion about a few things after I got back to "civilian life".

Some of the replies have been, well, "reasonable", a few have been "humorous", and one in particular really boggled my mind; unfortunately I can't point it out, cause I have to watch what I say.

Now that I know what the first 78 people think, and they all know what I think, where does all of that leave us ? Probably, right back where we started at. I can say that because I've learned, just because you "think" something, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):
I have only ever claimed that it is (A) my belief

Based on what, exactly?

This is the center of the topic of this thread.

If your "belief" is based on ancient religious prejudice, then that has lost standing long ago.

If it is based on you yourself not being gay and feeling that marrying someone of your own gender "feels wrong" for yourself, then that limits the applicability of your belief exactly to only yourself again – there is no basis to force your own personal preferences onto anyone else (as valid as they may be for yourself).

What you or I feel when looking at others is generally irrelevant or at least subordinate to how people themselves feel about their own life situation.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):
and (B) it is based on personal experience.

What experience with gay parents and/or married gay couples do you personally have? I seem to have missed that part in your previous posts.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):
Quoting aloges (Reply 89):
Limiting singles and homosexuals to the "leftovers" that still need adopting after the "normal people"

You simply haven't got my point i'm afraid and like some left-wing version of the daily mail you are again fabricating quotes. I would not refer to anyone as leftovers nor suggest gays were not normal people - Going to have to accuse you of fulfilling Godwin's Law there.

There is zero applicability of Godwin's Law here.

It is interesting, however, how horrified you seem to be when the ugly but unfortunately inevitable consequences of your desire for discrimination are brought to your attention.

Advocates for discrimination of other people often have a problem stomaching the actual results of their desires directly face to face.

One has to wonder why that is.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 96):
First of all, I think the OP got a little mixed up when he (assuming the OP is male; I have no way of knowing) named the thread; let me explain; if you don't want to discuss religion, then you really don't want to discuss "marriage" either, because that's where the word "marriage" came from in the first place.

No, marriage has always existed beyond and outside of religions. Religions have just co-opted it and often attempted to control it.

Marriage is the act of choosing to become relatives with all the societal consequences this causes (inheritance, legal co-responsibility etc.).

Adoption is pretty much the only other act of making a deliberate choice about familial links, which are generally genetic otherwise.

There is no inherent need for religion in the concept of marriage. People may just again choose to involve religion in their marriage – or not. Non-religious people and atheists marry just as much as religious people do.

[Edited 2013-03-26 18:59:50]

User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 96):
I don't know the OP, and I'm not familiar enough with his username to know how he thinks about "things in general",

Happy to enlighten you (yes, my profile needs updating)...late 30s married heterosexual male living in the US.

The reason I started the thread was that almost all of the argument I ever hear against same sex marriage is based on the religious beliefs of the person doing the talking. I wanted to explore this a little. Almost 100 replies and it keeps coming back to religion. I guess what I'm disappointed in is is that there are people that have feelings about same sex marriage that are based on their religious beliefs and that they feel that others should also abide by their beliefs. What benefit is it to them that 2 guys or 2 girls who love each other are denied the same rights as heterosexuals have?

My summary so far...if we remove religion from the argument then we're left with very little reason to deny someone the right to marry another person.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 97):
It is interesting, however, how horrified you seem to be when the ugly but unfortunately inevitable consequences of your desire for discrimination are brought to your attention.

I wonder how this "preference" might actually work.

Suppose there is a five-year-old whose parents have become the victims of a violent crime, died in a car crash or simply disappeared. The child is severely traumatised by the experience and, worse yet, there are no relatives in any position to support him/her. The only constant left in the life of the child is the area where (s)he has grown up so far, possibly including a nursery or preschool and the social life that comes with those. Inevitably, adoption becomes an issue.

Under the RomeoBravo set of rules, the child would sooner be adopted by a heterosexual couple at the other end of the country than by a homosexual one in the same town. (S)He would sooner lose whatever comfort the known surroundings might have to offer, lose his/her friends and as a result lose an even bigger part of his/her childhood than be given a chance to remain close to home. That's far too much loss and far too much focus on what the adoptive parents shouldn't be, as opposed to how and where the child should live.

Conclusion: let other factors decide.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
So there are facts that state it is not preferable to have a Mother and Father?

Sorry but i'm going to have to see a source for that because i find that conclusion absolutely staggering.

You are assuming a "normal, happy marriage" which is often not the case. Substance abuse in the home, violence or any other problem in a traditional marriage can cause significant problems for the children. As can an over 50% divorce rate of traditional two sex marriages.

What is preferable is to have two parents in a loving (or at least stable) relationship that can provide a stable environment for children. If that couple can provide the some financial strength then that is all the better.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3800 posts, RR: 28
Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3078 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 6):
And god help the ones who have kids before getting married!!!

No need for god to help anyone who has kids before getting married, that is what government is for - provide massive amounts of it. That is why over 50% of kids are born out of wedlock. Sure has worked wonders for the inner cities, too.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 102, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 28):
There's actually no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all. Absolutely no reason.
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37):
I've signed a lot of contracts recently without the state getting involved.

So, according to you, a five year old can sign a contract. A five year old can be issued a credit card. A five year old can recieve a drivers lisence.

There are two parts to marriage: the legal part and the religious part.

If two people simply enter a church and has the minister perform a ceremony, they do not get any benefits put forth by the state. However, if they go to a court and sign a paper, they DO get benefits put forth by the state. That is the difference.

RomeoBravo, your profile says you are from the UK. In the United States, married couples, on a federal level, get to take advantage of a lower tax rate. Currently, those married couples are only male/female couples who have signed a piece of paper issued by one of the fifty states. Also, if a male/female couple has a medical issue outside their home state, one can speak for the other because of that state-issued piece of paper. If that same couple simply went to a house of worship and performed a ceremony without signing that piece of state-issued paper, none of that would matter.

My partner and I live in California. We have been together 6 1/2 years. If we wanted the same benefits hetero couples have, one of us would have to have a surgery. If we hire a lawyer to write out the same things afforded to hetero couples, it could cost thousands of dollars and may still not be recognized in some states. But, for only $200 or so, a hetero couple can walk into the court house, sign a paper, then, six months later, have that paper delcared null and void. It happens all the time. But, my six year commitment is bringing down society? Because I want to have the option to sign a piece of paper?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6996 posts, RR: 9
Reply 103, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

It won't affect my life much. If a gay couple wants to get married let them get married. I do think the SCOTUS has to make a decision on this though because right now state law decides marriage making it a state issue SCOTUS can change that. Not saying marriage should be a federal issue but same sex/gay rights should be.

It's funny I have a law professor who is gay and he told the class he does not care at all about gay marriage because the last thing he ever wants to do is get married. I see it as the same way gay marriage won't affect my life so if they want to get married let them.

Now the bigger personal problem for me is the massive amount of people on Facebook changing their profile picture or having statuses about marriage equality. Talk about monkey see monkey do. 85% of my Facebook friends had no idea this case was coming in front of the supreme court 72 hours ago and couldn't name three justices and now they are all constitutional scholars and activist.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 104, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3026 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 103):
85% of my Facebook friends had no idea this case was coming in front of the supreme court 72 hours ago and couldn't name three justices and now they are all constitutional scholars and activist.

Sounds like other issues....



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 105, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 97):
What experience with gay parents and/or married gay couples do you personally have? I seem to have missed that part in your previous posts.

Again i have never ever claimed this is anything to do with the sexual orientation of the parents. Merely there is a lack of *insert Gender* role model.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 97):
There is zero applicability of Godwin's Law here.

It is interesting, however, how horrified you seem to be when the ugly but unfortunately inevitable consequences of your desire for discrimination are brought to your attention.

I'm afraid there is, he is trying to imply that somewhere i suggested gays were not "normal people", or that excess children that need adopting are "leftovers". There is already an excess of children needing adoption, how on earth am i meant to refer to them? Is there any way of refering to them without suggesting that they are sub-human? Or is it un-PC to even acknowledge their existence now? How can we possibly have a debate if we can't even refer to them.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 102):
United States, married couples, on a federal level, get to take advantage of a lower tax rate.

Again the state should not be involved in marriage, that involves bribing people to get married for reasons other than love, which is a disgusting policy when you think about it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 102):
My partner and I live in California. We have been together 6 1/2 years. If we wanted the same benefits hetero couples have, one of us would have to have a surgery. If we hire a lawyer to write out the same things afforded to hetero couples, it could cost thousands of dollars and may still not be recognized in some states. But, for only $200 or so, a hetero couple can walk into the court house, sign a paper, then, six months later, have that paper delcared null and void. It happens all the time. But, my six year commitment is bringing down society? Because I want to have the option to sign a piece of paper?

I agree that is unfair and i believe you should be able to sign any contract you like with your partner. Not sure why you are coming at me with this, i am on your side.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 106, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 105):
I'm afraid there is

Do you even know what Godwin's law states?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 105):
How can we possibly have a debate if we can't even refer to them.

You could start by avoiding terms like

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 105):
excess children

because they show that you think of those children as statistics, not as individuals.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10360 posts, RR: 11
Reply 107, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
May I assume that you are also against the marriage of elderly couples or heterosexual couples that cannot, for one reason or another, have children?

No. I am only against sanctioned partnerships which are mainly contracted beause its about saving tax. As said thats discriminating singles.

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
A defect is something that adversely affects your ability to live your life -

A genetic defect mustnt mean that. I understand it as a variation of the norm.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 31):
OK fine - so are you OK with Civil Unions? or just 2 guys living together for their entire life. In neither of these cases would children be produced.

I am fine with that. As long it doenst have any tax benefits.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 31):
Should there be a law demanding reproduction from everyone?

Certainly not. I was married for 10 years and nature denied us to have kids.

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 33):
It is for some, yes.

For the vast majority, yes.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 32):
ou are German huh -.

So what? Its not meant in a way you seem to imply.

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 33):
For instance I have a married couple in my family with no children. I would argue they have done very much to create a "positive aspect for the future of mankind" by creating a positive, welcoming household, helping with us kids (both my siblings/cousins), working, paying taxes, meeting people and making their lives better. Does it matter whether this is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple? I think not.

See above. Maybe I did not make clear enough that I referred to Marriage as an institution to save taxes. Currently marriage means you save tax. I am of the opinion that this should only apply to families in the longterm. Again, its discriminating singles if couples without children are being subsidized by the state through lower taxes when they already save money by paying one rent? Its unfair. Of all people gays should know that.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 108, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2849 times:

I've been wondering why this is such a big issue. Here in Oz, homosexual couples are free to live together, and I'm sure it's the same in the USA. But suddenly there's this emphasis on some sort of 'marriage.'

Quoting seb146 (Reply 102):
My partner and I live in California. We have been together 6 1/2 years. If we wanted the same benefits hetero couples have, one of us would have to have a surgery. If we hire a lawyer to write out the same things afforded to hetero couples, it could cost thousands of dollars and may still not be recognized in some states.

seb146, why would you and your partner want "the same benefits hetero couples have'? Presumably you'd still both be able to work, you wouldn't need the tax allowances etc. that married couples receive if they decide to have kids? And secondly, what do you mean by 'a surgery'? Some sort of castration or something?

Don't have any objection to gay couples saying that they're married if they wish to. But, given that it will inevitably remain a 'one to one' relationship, I can't see any logical reason (or practical need) why the rest of society should bother to give it any legal effect?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 109, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2841 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 107):
Certainly not. I was married for 10 years and nature denied us to have kids

Then your marriage should have been revoked. Plain and simple. By your own words:

Quoting na (Reply 22):
But: the idea of marriage and the underlying sense of it is to tie man and woman closer together to produce kids.

No kids, no "Marriage"



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 110, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

Quoting na (Reply 107):
Currently marriage means you save tax.

That is not an argument than can be used against same-sex marriage in Australia. Here you don't automatically receive any tax offsets or allowances simply because you are married. You may be able to claim a tax offset (formerly called rebate) if you have a " dependent" spouse. Your spouse includes another person (whether of the same sex or opposite sex) who:
+ you were in a relationship with that was registered under a prescribed state or territory law, or
+ although not legally married to you, lived with you on a genuine domestic basis in a relationship as a couple (de facto).

There are restriction s that include meeting the income tests and that:
+ you maintained your spouse, and
+ you and your spouse were Australian residents

For taxpayers who support children, whether as single persons or as part of a "couple", there may be entitlements to various family income supplements and so forth. Again these are not determined by the marital status of the person claiming but on the needs of the child and income tests. These benefits include Family Tax benefits, child care rebates for working parents and the baby bonus.

So while steps have been made to provide for greater equality of treatment in taxation matters, there are still those who oppose same-sex marriage. If the tax advantages aren't there, what is the real objection that people may have in allowing others to determine how to live their own lives?


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 111, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 108):
y would you and your partner want "the same benefits hetero couples have'? Presumably you'd still both be able to work, you wouldn't need the tax allowances etc. that married couples receive if they decide to have kids? And secondly, what do you mean by 'a surgery'? Some sort of castration or something?

Castration? That's the best you can come up with? That's low. I have family in Montana. If we were to go visit them and one of us had a brain anuryzm or were hit by a bus, as the law stands now, we would have little to no say in any treatment. However, if my cousin and her husband from Montana come here and the same thing happened to one of them here, one would be able to speak for the other. That would be the main benefit. Tax credits is a side issue, for me.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 108):
given that it will inevitably remain a 'one to one' relationship, I can't see any logical reason (or practical need) why the rest of society should bother to give it any legal effect?

Spread that out over all society. Why give any benefits to hetero couples?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 105):
Again the state should not be involved in marriage, that involves bribing people to get married for reasons other than love, which is a disgusting policy when you think about it.

So, ban it all? None of your posts sound like you are "on our side".



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Quoting na (Reply 107):
For the vast majority, yes.

See: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement.

Quoting na (Reply 107):
Maybe I did not make clear enough that I referred to Marriage as an institution to save taxes.

If the only reason one is in a marriage is to save on taxes, then perhaps they should be prosecuted for fraud.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 113, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 109):
No kids, no "Marriage"

So would that mean "Kids, No Divorce"?

The BS comments related to kids in these arguments are pretty worthless because we supposedly have a separation of Church & State.

There is change going on related to gay marriage. I believe that after the right to gay marriage has been established we will look back and see it as a simple right for our citizens, just like Women Voting and People of Color not having to sit on the back of the bus.

And when we look back on this Court action we will be far clearer in evaluating the morality of the Justices based on how they vote.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 114, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 112):

If the only reason one is in a marriage is to save on taxes, then perhaps they should be prosecuted for fraud.

His marriage was a fraud. He had no children.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 115, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 50):
At no point above has the state got involved in marriage.

There is implicit state involvement in any contract, however, because ultimately the state will be the enforcement mechanism. The fact that there is no contract filed with the state doesn't change that.

Quoting na (Reply 107):
A genetic defect mustnt mean that. I understand it as a variation of the norm.

Terminology aside, let's say that a woman has, as a result of a genetic condition, an inability to have children. By your logic, why should law and society support that defect that has no positive aspect for the future of mankind? Yet you would apparently be fine with that person getting married. There's a logical disconnect between those positions.

Quoting na (Reply 107):
I am of the opinion that this should only apply to families in the longterm. Again, its discriminating singles if couples without children are being subsidized by the state through lower taxes when they already save money by paying one rent?

Yet you're not opposed to elderly couples getting married, even though they can't have children and are being subsidized by the state through lower taxes? Why should gay couples be any different from them?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 111):
So, ban it all? None of your posts sound like you are "on our side".

Who said anything about banning marriage? I am saying take the state out of marriage. Let people or religions define it as they want.

Quoting Mir (Reply 115):
The fact that there is no contract filed with the state doesn't change that.

The state hasn't defined what is and isn't marriage thus it is not involved in marriage. It might at some point enforce a contract that is related to a marriage, that is a different thing.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 117, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2640 times:

Quoting na (Reply 107):
See above. Maybe I did not make clear enough that I referred to Marriage as an institution to save taxes. Currently marriage means you save tax. I am of the opinion that this should only apply to families in the longterm. Again, its discriminating singles if couples without children are being subsidized by the state through lower taxes when they already save money by paying one rent? Its unfair. Of all people gays should know that.

Well if it's all about paying less taxes then people could get married for that reason and not actually live together, or is that prohibited ? If not, then why don't we see this happening ? Maybe because marriage has far broader implications, like having to care for the other for life ?

Aside from that, as I said, it's social engineering. It has been determined that marriage brings benefits to society, for many reasons not all related to having children (2 people supporting each other through tough times, for example, is less work for social workers).



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 118, posted (1 year 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 116):
The state hasn't defined what is and isn't marriage thus it is not involved in marriage.

Technically speaking, perhaps. But if the state is enforcing a contract that the people involved consider to be a marriage contract, then for all intents and purposes the state is getting involved in marriage.

But we're losing sight of the topic here: regardless of whether you think the state should be involved in marriage or not (and if you don't that's a perfectly reasonable position), the fact is that as it stands now, the state IS involved in marriage, and thus there can be no justification for denying the benefits to a certain segment of the population only just because you don't believe that the population in general should get them.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 116):
or religions define it as they want.

Religions are already able to define marriage how they want and therefor perform marriage ceremonies of their choosing. The only people that say otherwise are fear mongerers on the anti-marriage equality side.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (1 year 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2577 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 118):
But if the state is enforcing a contract that the people involved consider to be a marriage contract, then for all intents and purposes the state is getting involved in marriage.

No, sorry, i can see where you're coming from, but the state has only got involved in contract enforcement. It is blind to the reasoning behind that contract or to the emotional consequences for the people involved. It's just going to enforce property rights should there be a breach or mutual termination of that contract. It hasn't defined what marriage is nor has it declared somebody married or divorced. People might consider the legitimacy of their marriage to rest on that contract, but that is their perception and not the state's.

Realistically i would think many people will look to their religious body to ratify their marriage and give it legitimacy, sanction a divorce or even arbitrate a dispute.

Of course i agree that people shouldn't be exempt from any tax benefits due to their sexuality or whatever (though again i don't believe there should be tax benefits for being married). Within the context of the present setup do i think gay couples should be allowed to an official title of being married? Probably, but I would be 10 times happier to leave it to people or religions to define what marriage is. Obviously some religions are completely against gay marriage, and I believe they should have the right to be, even though i personally think that's daft (but then again i think all religion is daft (and 90% of the state too)).


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24632 posts, RR: 86
Reply 121, posted (1 year 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 108):
I've been wondering why this is such a big issue. Here in Oz, homosexual couples are free to live together, and I'm sure it's the same in the USA. But suddenly there's this emphasis on some sort of 'marriage.'

Did you not want to get married when you were young?

I didn't, and (presumably) would not have wanted to if I were straight, but I have always thought I am unusual in that regard.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-27 16:26:05]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 122, posted (1 year 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2558 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 116):
I am saying take the state out of marriage. Let people or religions define it as they want.

That will get rid of the tax breaks and who can see whom in the hospital and survivor's benefits and wills. This fight for marriage equality is more about a word. It is about legal definition.

What I would like to see is keeping the same laws afforded married couples, extending those laws to ALL consenting adults (only two at a time, like it is now) and changing the name of those contracts to "partnership agreements" and letting all religions have the word "marriage". That way, people can get married but not have to sign the governmet issued contract and vice-versa. It's a win-win!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 123, posted (1 year 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 121):
Did you not want to get married when you were young?

I didn't, and (presumably) would not have wanted to if I were straight, but I have always thought I am unusual in that regard.

No, I didn't want to at all, mariner, I was happy just 'playing the field' in my spare time; if anything I was scared of the whole idea of marriage.   But then I was lucky enough literally to 'meet the right girl,' we 'clicked,' and we got married and ended up with three kids.

I don't therefore think you're at all unusual?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24632 posts, RR: 86
Reply 124, posted (1 year 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 123):
But then I was lucky enough literally to 'meet the right girl,' we 'clicked,' and we got married and ended up with three kids.

The point is that you did get married, there was no barrier to you dong so. But why should you be able to do that and others not?

If a bloke meets the right bloke - or a sheila meets the right sheila - why should they not be able to get married?

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 125, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 96):
First of all, I think the OP got a little mixed up when he (assuming the OP is male; I have no way of knowing) named the thread; let me explain; if you don't want to discuss religion, then you really don't want to discuss "marriage" either, because that's where the word "marriage" came from in the first place.
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 105):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 97):
What experience with gay parents and/or married gay couples do you personally have? I seem to have missed that part in your previous posts.

Again i have never ever claimed this is anything to do with the sexual orientation of the parents. Merely there is a lack of *insert Gender* role model.

The idea of fixed gender roles is mostly fictional – and where it is a sad reality, it is enforced by authoritarian regimes or cultures which is about as far removed from being desirable as it gets.

Actual parents are always individuals first and foremost. And the differences between different sets of parents can be fundamental, completely regardless of genders.

Whether both parents being of different genders or of the same gender has any impact on childrens' wellbeing has been investigated and it has been found that it doesn't.

There are plenty of people who feel their parents to be lacking in some respects, which is an individual issue, not a matter of genders.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 105):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 97):
There is zero applicability of Godwin's Law here.

It is interesting, however, how horrified you seem to be when the ugly but unfortunately inevitable consequences of your desire for discrimination are brought to your attention.

I'm afraid there is, he is trying to imply that somewhere i suggested gays were not "normal people", or that excess children that need adopting are "leftovers". There is already an excess of children needing adoption, how on earth am i meant to refer to them? Is there any way of refering to them without suggesting that they are sub-human? Or is it un-PC to even acknowledge their existence now? How can we possibly have a debate if we can't even refer to them.

You have just proven that you have no idea what Godwin's Law even says. Please don't throw in references to things you don't actually know about.

Quoting na (Reply 107):
Maybe I did not make clear enough that I referred to Marriage as an institution to save taxes. Currently marriage means you save tax. I am of the opinion that this should only apply to families in the longterm. Again, its discriminating singles if couples without children are being subsidized by the state through lower taxes when they already save money by paying one rent? Its unfair. Of all people gays should know that.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 108):
I've been wondering why this is such a big issue. Here in Oz, homosexual couples are free to live together, and I'm sure it's the same in the USA. But suddenly there's this emphasis on some sort of 'marriage.'

There seem to be major misunderstandings going around.

Marriage is not simply a tax-saving device or a single-purpose offspring-breeding matter.

It is first and foremost a deliberate act of turning two former strangers with no familial ties into relatives.

This has very practical consequences regarding medical care, inheritance, children (including adoption), various third-party contractual issues and a lot more.

One concrete situation resulting from the lack of same-sex marriage is that even estranged relatives of one's partner can legally completely override a partnership of many years. Another is the selective denial of spousal benefits under many circumstances.

Actually being married gives legal standing where it matters, among other things.

It also simply ends a status of second-class citizenship which still exists in many countries (including Germany – even though the differences have already diminished substantially (including federally acknowledged civil partnerships) and the Constitutional Court is expected to end the remaining discriminations).

It is convenient to demand that nothing should ever change if you're not the one who's actually subject to discrimination. But that is exactly where civilizational progress matters: An actually free and just society requires that nobody is unduly discriminated against.

Not even two decades before I was born, gay people were outright murdered by the state just for being who they were. And still within my lifetime there was harsh persecution and criminalization of innocent people based on the same ancient prejudices that have persisted for millenia. But at least in many countries there has been a huge advancement of human rights since then. Despite all the setbacks so far and still to come, that there is already full equality in some countries (with more about to follow) is a fantastic sign of progress for human civilization.

Many if not most in the younger generations already have a hard time understanding what the reasoning for the previous discriminations even was – beyond a certain point, arguments for continued discrimination tend to age fast – and badly.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 126, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2469 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 116):
The state hasn't defined what is and isn't marriage thus it is not involved in marriage.

In Australia marriage is defined in law by the Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004. That amendment inserted a definition into s5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (the Act) that reads:
“Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Government under John Howard specifically to prevent same-sex marriage.

Not only does the law prevent same-sex marriage from occurring in Australia but also states that such marriages solemnised overseas will have no affect here:
"Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."

The Marriage Act 1961 also deals with the age at which people may marry. This was originally set at 18 for males and 16 for females, but was subsequently amended by the Sex Discrimination Amendment Act 1991 which set the marriageable age for females at 18. In exceptional circumstances people under the age of 18 but over the age of 16 may seek a court order approving their marriage.

Further, the Act states that a current purported marriage is void if:
+ the parties are already married (polygamy is not lawful).
+ the parties are in a prohibited relationship: direct descendants or siblings, including adopted (by law) relationships.
+ the marriage was not solemnized by an authorised celebrant.
+ there is no consent (due to duress, fraud, mistake as to identity, mistake as to nature of ceremony, mental incapacity, or below marriageable age.

The Act also provides for who may solemnise a marriage and the form of marriage, setting out the wording required depending on who is performing the ceremony. Three types of celebrants are allowed: ministers of religion, State and Territory officers, and (civil) marriage celebrants.

So, at least in Australia, the state has quite clearly defined marriage. Divorce is covered by separate legislation as it is not assumed in the Act that people who wish to marry will wish to separate.  

[Edited 2013-03-27 20:11:43]

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 127, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 126):
In Australia marriage is defined in law by the Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004. That amendment inserted a definition into s5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (the Act) that reads:
“Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Government under John Howard specifically to prevent same-sex marriage.

Not only does the law prevent same-sex marriage from occurring in Australia but also states that such marriages solemnised overseas will have no affect here:
"Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."

Wow. Blatant bigotry poured into rigid law to explicitly enshrine discrimination.

Just as sick as the reactionaries elsewhere.   


User currently offlineAirAfreak From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I find, to have this to be even an issue in the year 2013, is quite embarrassing as a member of the human race. Our own beloved household pets will love anyone unconditionally, so as an "evolved" (???) species, you deserve to be shot if this is an issue for you.

Let's just go back to segregation, internment camps, and sexism. We have passed MOST (not all) of these issues and we (as human beings) cannot even deal with the topic of marriage (as a whole) ?????

In the meanwhile, I will continue my life here in the USA as a second-class citizen for being gay. I am not considered an "equal," however I am "less-than", since my heterosexual peers have priority/privilege for the freedom to marry without conditions (i.e. Certain restrictions apply. Offer is valid only in Maine, Massachusetts, offer may be void at any time subject to government approval, etc.).

Furthermore, I pay state and federal taxes which in turn goes toward education, road improvement, State Disability Insurance, etc... and I cannot even marry the man I love in my home state.

Seriously in 2013???? Really???!!!!



Do you lead an Intercontinental life?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 129, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

128 replies and the only non-religious reason is procreation. That means people who choose not to have children or people who can not medically have children can not be married.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24632 posts, RR: 86
Reply 130, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirAfreak (Reply 128):
Seriously in 2013???? Really???!!!!

Hopefully, it will soon be corrected in New Zealand - hopefully - but I agree with you.

I pay taxes as a single man, but I make almost no call on the state's revenues. I have private medical insurance, I don't claim any kind of pension or disability and I don't (obviously) use schools.

My taxes help to support/subsidize all those people who do use state revenues. I accept this, I don't mind doing it - except when people try to impose their view of how I should live on me.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1828 posts, RR: 2
Reply 131, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2415 times:

I wish the government would have never gotten involved in a God-given gift of marriage, but I understand why they did. There's an economic benefit to the family unit, and the tax breaks are an incentive/reward for that.

So, even though it's pretty unreasonable to demand a God-less reason for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, there is the economic side of things to go on. There would need to be studies done to see if gay couples foster a next generation as well as a married couple. Since it's a fairly recent phenomenon, I don't know if we could have an answer yet. I personally doubt it will, since it rebels against God, but let's see the results.

No matter what, the "discrimination" angle to allowing marriage is bogus. As a single person I don't have the opportunity for tax breaks that a married person receives. If ending discrimination was truly the desire, the goal would be to eliminate the legal benefits of traditional marriage. But no, instead we have a selfish group that's only caring about rights for themselves and no one else. People aren't treated "equal" because their actions aren't equal. We never have and never will be "equal". We are different and reap the results of it.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 125):
Whether both parents being of different genders or of the same gender has any impact on childrens' wellbeing has been investigated and it has been found that it doesn't.

Do we have these studies available? Because I know one thing about my upbringing. I wouldn't be who I am if I didn't have both a male and female parent. So, it may come down to what "well-being" means. That's too subjective.


User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 132, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 131):
Do we have these studies available? Because I know one thing about my upbringing. I wouldn't be who I am if I didn't have both a male and female parent. So, it may come down to what "well-being" means. That's too subjective.

Yes, we do. The American Psychological Association has filed a brief saying that not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Source

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 131):
even though it's pretty unreasonable to demand a God-less reason for keeping marriage between a man and a woman

How is that unreasonable? Not everyone believes in God, and to think that your religion is a legitimate excuse to deny a loving couple the opportunity to marry, something that would not affect your life in any way, is laughable. You can't go forcing your religion on people.



[Edited 2013-03-27 23:25:35]

User currently offlineAirAfreak From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mariner (Reply 130):

I wish you the best of luck for you and for your friends in New Zealand that share our plight... I am still in shock that in the State of California, I cannot marry. We can smoke all the weed/marijuana/ganja we want, however, we cannot marry. I'm single as well, however, it would be nice to have the option.

Bon Voyage,

AirAfreak



Do you lead an Intercontinental life?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 134, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 131):
I know one thing about my upbringing

And, because of my upbringing, I have two hetero brothers and me. The gay one. Our mom was the active parent and our dad was not around. He lived with us, but he did nothing to teach us. Yet, I have two hetero brothers. Goes against what the "Christian" right loves to point out: that a dominate mother in the family produces gays. Except there are three siblings in my family and I am the only gay. Considering a "dominate" (not that we would call her that) mother.

Every family is different. Some parents who have a minister as a father have gay children. Gay parents raise hetero children. It says nothing about anything.

Let me ask you: when did you choose to be heterosexual? When did you fill out that questionare and pledge to be hetero your whole life? I never got a form to fill out to choose to be gay. I never sent anything in. I am sick of these people telling me I chose to be gay. I want to know when that choice was made. Because I sure as hell didn't get to decide!

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 131):
have a selfish group that's only caring about rights for themselves and no one else. People aren't treated "equal" because their actions aren't equal. We never have and never will be "equal". We are different and reap the results of it.

So, people like my partner and I (6 1/2 years together) should NOT have the same benefit as Newt Gingrich or Britney Spears or Kim Kardashian? If Newt Gingrich's wife to whom he is currently married (Number 3 IIRC) is run over by a bus and her family were not around but he was, he could speak for her. On the other hand, if I were run over by a bus, the hospital would have to wait for my mom to show up before they could do anything. I love my mom, but how is that fair? How is that just? How is that right?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAirAfreak From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 134):

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN! If I was given a questionnaire at birth and had the choice, I would choose to be gay because I fall into the stereotype of dressing well, physically fit, etc... lol!!!!!!

Very well said!

Let's hope California has a shot at marriage!!!

Bon Voyage,

AirAfreak



Do you lead an Intercontinental life?
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 136, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 131):
I wish the government would have never gotten involved in a God-given gift of marriage, but I understand why they did. There's an economic benefit to the family unit, and the tax breaks are an incentive/reward for that.

First, if you assert that marriage is "God-given" then it is up to you to prove that to be the case. Second, if marriage is God-given, why do those who accept the gift need an "incentive/reward"? Isn't that an insult to the alleged God who is giving something already? Isn't demanding something extra also an action that "rebels against God"?

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 131):
But no, instead we have a selfish group that's only caring about rights for themselves and no one else.

We have a vocal group that wants the same rights enjoyed by others who enter into a lasting relationship. That doesn't mean that gay people only care "for themselves". You will find gay people (not all of whom wish to marry but do want the right to choose) in all walks of life who make valuable contributions to society and who literally care for others, looking after disabled relatives, baby-sitting for family members who have children, volunteering their time (and money) working with various charities and support groups. Not all gay people are simply hedonists looking for a tax-break any more than heterosexual men marry because they can't cook.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24632 posts, RR: 86
Reply 137, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirAfreak (Reply 133):
I wish you the best of luck for you and for your friends in New Zealand that share our plight.

Hopefully, for you too - soon.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides (June?), it will be a watershed moment. I think they will avoid doing anything earth shattering, such as mandating for marriage equality - it isn't within the scope of these two quite narrow cases.

Nor do I think it is likely they will mandate against gay marriage in its entirety, they aren't being asked to do that, either.

As Chief Justice Roberts said today, they are deeply aware of the changing public/political opinion, and when Bill O'Reilly says, as he did yesterday, that the homosexuals have the compelling argument and that he has no problem with gay marriage and, on the same day, Rush Limbaugh says he doesn't care about Prop 8 and that someday there is going to be gay marriage nationwide, you know a tide has turned mightily.

The crucial decision is DOMA. I doubt they'll strike it down in its entirety, but it is tough to see how they can avoid finding for the plaintiff. The woman has provably been wronged (even the IRS agrees) in ways that directly affect the state/Federal balance which is so dear to Justice Kennedy's (swing vote) heart.

So they may strike down elements of DOMA or maybe just pass the buck back to the Executive branch. Roberts and Kennedy both pretty much said they that they don't understand why the President hasn't acted without their help.

So my hope is that the Justices do as little as possible, because that would be a huge win.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-28 01:31:17]


aeternum nauta
User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13254 posts, RR: 62
Reply 138, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 116):
take the state out of marriage. Let people or religions define it as they want.

  

Enact laws so that going forward, any and all civil ceremonies uniting two people are "civil unions" under the law, carrying the same legal weight as what had been previously known as "marriage."

By doing this, religions can still perform their own faith-centric "marriage ceremonies" if they wish, without denying the same rights under the law that any other two consenting adults would be afforded outside these religions.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 139, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 131):
Because I know one thing about my upbringing. I wouldn't be who I am if I didn't have both a male and female parent.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't be as successful, which is what's really important.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3840 posts, RR: 14
Reply 140, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

To prevent them from going through a bitter divorce?   

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 141, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 122):
What I would like to see is keeping the same laws afforded married couples, extending those laws to ALL consenting adults (only two at a time, like it is now) and changing the name of those contracts to "partnership agreements" and letting all religions have the word "marriage". That way, people can get married but not have to sign the governmet issued contract and vice-versa. It's a win-win!

Well some people like the word marriage and don't see it as a religiously connoted word. In France we have a civil marriage (mariage civil) performed by the mayor, it's a ceremony but really not religious (in fact it was created during the revolution to get the church out of marriage !). There is also a civil baptism (although that one is rarely practiced).

Furthermore, it is illegal to get married religiously if you're not married civilly first (often done the same day). Marriage is seen as a contract not between two people, but between two people and the state/society.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 125):
The idea of fixed gender roles is mostly fictional – and where it is a sad reality, it is enforced by authoritarian regimes or cultures which is about as far removed from being desirable as it gets.

In fact even in those there are men passing as women and vice versa.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 125):
Actual parents are always individuals first and foremost. And the differences between different sets of parents can be fundamental, completely regardless of genders.

Whether both parents being of different genders or of the same gender has any impact on childrens' wellbeing has been investigated and it has been found that it doesn't.

There is a lot of role playing going on. Men can be nurturing and women can "wear the pants", but people conform to what was put in their head all their life and force themselves to not do what the other gender is supposed to do.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 131):
But no, instead we have a selfish group that's only caring about rights for themselves and no one else.

You're talking about those making laws banning marriage for LGBT, right ? Or is that selfless ?

"Marriage for all" is in the parliamentary shuttle currently, here, voted by the national assembly, amended by the senate, going back to the assembly. You may have seen images of a strong protest in Paris last Sunday, but the law should pass without trouble. In fact the protest is "radicalizing" as a Tea Party type movement, some are even declaring that this is the "French spring" and that president Hollande should quit. In doing so they'll probably lose some of the support they get, while also strengthening the parliament willingness to push through the law. As the right wing used to say when they were in power, "the street doesn't govern".



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 142, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 141):
Marriage is seen as a contract not between two people, but between two people and the state/society.

That is what a lot of people are trying to work for here.

One "non-religious" argument I have heard that really bothers me is: how do I explain to my kids two men living together? More than likely, the kids don't care because they are too young to grasp the concept. What I find interesting is those same uptight people are so over-the-top with worry about this but have no problem with letting their kids see a woman who has six kids by five different men or a hetero person going on his/her sixth divorce. "Gay marriage", some say, "will bring the downfall of society!" I think that has already happened.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 143, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 142):
One "non-religious" argument I have heard that really bothers me is: how do I explain to my kids two men living together?

But that argument does not get solved by banning gay marriage. Men will still live with men and women will still live with women.

Unless you ban "people of the same sex living together" - the argument about explain to kids why 2 guys live together will always be there.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24632 posts, RR: 86
Reply 144, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 142):
One "non-religious" argument I have heard that really bothers me is: how do I explain to my kids two men living together? More than likely, the kids don't care because they are too young to grasp the concept.

I'm not sure why it needs to be explained other than as the fact that it is. As you correctly point out, the child has no innate value judgements of its own, only what it is taught.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 142):
"Gay marriage", some say, "will bring the downfall of society!" I think that has already happened.

When people talk about "the downfall of society" I have no idea what they mean, except as a change from the world in which they grew up.

Society evolves and many people, as they grow older, become resistant to that unstoppable evolution.

When I was young, people used to say the embrace of homosexuality caused the downfall of the Roman Empire. As I grew older and began to think for myself, it seemed that "the downfall" of the Roman Empire exactly paralleled the growing embrace of Christianity.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 395 posts, RR: 4
Reply 145, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2178 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 6):
I know a few non-religious people that aren't a fan of gays altogether just because they don't like the idea of a man having sex with a man.

I don't like the idea of a woman having sex with a woman. But, as long as I don't have to see it, I don't care.

Amazingly, people who think male/male sex is disgusting also think that female/female sex is just fine. That one makes my head hurt.

Well said!!! So far, this thread is great! At my work, we have been chatting about this, and the "religious" issue is the dominant argument. MANY MANY times, people are affraid to voice their "true" personal opinions, and just rely on their up-bringing to make thier decisions for them.

And I completely agree, (was raised by a father that used 1 Bible verse for his "view" and would ignore every other verse around it...taking things way out of context and ruining the full message), if you want to use the Bible for your "case"... USE THE WHOLE BIBLE...and not just your 15 word verse.

I am a Christian man, and LOVE God, HOWEVER... We are given brains to make our own decisions, choices, etc (good or bad) to chose what we want for ourselvs and our lives... and people (aka religious and or political fanatics) try to push their views onto others, as if they are the "right" and everyone else is wrong.

Please let me chose what I deem is good for me and show a little respect that it's my life and my choice...I will live with decisions I make.

What's VERY confusing to me: The straight people that SCREAM "Sanctity of Marriage" in America... yet we are #6 highest divorce rate in the world... Kim Kardashian...Liz Taylor...Charles Burton... and the millions of others who have MULTIPLE straight marriages, and yet run away at a moment's notice of problems... so people that scream "Sanctity of Marriage"...you have a moot point anymore! Religious people are nearly as bad with the divorce rates... I actually KNOW several very religious couples on their third marriages... so... please tell me what "sanctity" is left that the straight people have not eviscerated already.

There's an e-Card that states: "Why not let the gays marry, I'd totally watch the sh*t out of Gay Divorce Court"! LOL

I very much appreciate that we as a whole are advancing in our views and understanding of things and life, but sadly we have enough people like the followers of the Westboro clan that have to scream their views and beliefs onto others and ruin people's lives.

Regards,
135Mech


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 146, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2162 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 144):
except as a change from the world in which they grew up.

Bingo. Most people are lousy historians with little to no perspective beyond what they're spoon-fed and many are also equally lazy and don't want to be forced to think beyond the bubble that is their world (until they themselves want something changed--neat how that works isn't it). In many cases they're taught that to question what they're taught is to risk damnation. Isn't that cute? Nevermind that very little to none of it is actually Biblical in origin. Doctrinal yes.


User currently onlineHOONS90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2945 posts, RR: 53
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2085 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Non-religious reasons to oppose same-sex marriage? I can't think of any rational ones at all.

On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons to support same-sex marriage, the most important of which is that equality means equality for everyone. End of story.

Come on America, it's 2013. I'm proud to live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal (sadly not the one in my profile).



The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 145):
(was raised by a father that used 1 Bible verse for his "view" and would ignore every other verse around it...taking things way out of context and ruining the full message),

My father used media to base his hatred upon. He saw the limp wristed, child molesting queers on 1960s and 1970s TV as his sole basis for hating gays. Even when his eldest son (me) came out. About a year before he died, his second (and most favorite) son had a boy. My father finally found his evil gay son never thought of molesting any child or had a limp wrist or any of the stereotypes. He finally "got it". It was near his death, but I am sure he would question his belief system if he were alive today.

My mom is the same. She understands the state contract is different that the church ceremony. The church I was raised in is pacifist. We are happy just gathering in a home or park or wherever to worship. I don't think they would perform a ceremony for me and my brosband (trying it out) if we asked. That's fine with me. Religion has nothing at all to do with legal status.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 395 posts, RR: 4
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1960 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 68):
Why even risk a single child to be placed with single parents and homosexuals? Are you crazy? Mother and Father for all children. No questions asked, no exceptions.

WOW... All I have to say to that is "WOW"... that is a very "simplistic" view of life. There are Millions of HORRID full couple parents and Millions of AWESOME single parents... It must have been nice to have two awesome parents to feel this way.

There are MANY cases like mine... taken away from an abusive horrendous hetero couple adopted into a hypocritical abusive hetero couple... so your point is very sad and "narrow-minded". I would LOVED to have had a good family of "whatever" type to be raised into...

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 71):
Actually i didn't preclude adoption. Just specified that couples who are able to provide a male and female role model in most cases should be preferred to those that are unable.

That's the basis of "preferntial" treatment and also narrow-minded... The right person or people should be able to raise children, and all to often anyone that can get laid end up having kids and those kids are miserable because of HORRIBLE parents due to "oops, I didn't wrap it"...

Regards,
135Mech

[Edited 2013-03-29 12:57:04]

[Edited 2013-03-29 13:05:33]

User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1938 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 53):
I am not a Mormon but suppose I am in love with two different women, they love me, and we want to get married. We are all consenting adults and are all aware of the situation of me being married to each of them and are OK with it. Shouldn't it be my right to marry them?

First of all, I really don't know how many Mormons there are in total, but as I understand it, the Church of Latter Day Saints officially "outlawed" polygamy, many, many years ago; so I think all attempts to associate the Mormons with polygamy is completely false.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55):
Is having sex a contract ? Don't states/gov in the US go after men who fathered children even if they didn't agree to it ?

Please show me were anyone has said anything about "having sex" being a "contract" ? BTW....while we're at it, what is you definition of a "contract" ? To answer the second half of your question......(not clear as to your "states/gov" terminology)
In the U.S. every state has it's own "gov".....each state has it's own legislature to make "state laws", and each state is represented in the U.S. Congress, which makes all of our "federal laws"; (which, IMO, is primarily where everything starts falling apart)
Men who father children "even though they didn't agree to it" ? Are you asking about those men who were dragged kicking and screaming by some "dominating female" and "forced" to "have sex" ? If that is really your question, I can assure you, it's such a "minor problem" as to be completely negligible, (in the broader scheme of things.) (More ofter than not, it's the female who is dragged kicking and screaming and "forced" to have sex.) BTW....we have a word for that; it's called RAPE; (and it IS a very big problem here, just as it is everywhere else.)

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 58):
I don't have any opinion for or against it.

It's easy not to have an opinion of something when it's not causing YOU any difficulties, but how about the people who are experiencing great difficulties because of it ? Here's just one example of what I'm referring to; as I already mentioned, the "COLDS" (Mormons) outlawed polygamy years and years ago; yet there are always going to be an occasional "nutjob" who, for one reason or another, are going to "keep right on, keeping on"; in the latest, (and by far, most publicised case), we have here in the U.S., one Warren Jeffs; Warren Jeffs "claims" that HE is ....."The Chosen One", the "Leader", and that he is automatically "married" to every female in the whole "commune", "group", (or what ever else YOU choose to call it  I choose to call it a whole bunch of simple-minded people, who are gullible enough to allow ONE charlatan, evil, pathetic moron (whose main purpose in life is to have sexual relations with every female he can get his hands on ), all in the name of "religion" (or course). Must have something to "legitimize" it, lest it be called exactly what it really really IS......RAPE.

You may choose not to have any "opinion" of this; I don't see it that way; I see it exactly as I described it; fortunately, the court system of most of our states agree with me, because Warren Jeffs is now locked up for the next 100 years or so. (which, IMO, is yet another completely needless "drain" on the hardworking taxpayers resources. ) ( in this case, a few dollars worth of rope could save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars) Of course, there will also always be a few who "feel sorry" for the perpetrator.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 69):
Well, if the state were removed from the whole marriage thing, there would be no marriage benifits.

??????????????????????? (not sure why I even picked this one)

Quoting Klaus (Reply 97):
No, marriage has always existed beyond and outside of religions. Religions have just co-opted it and often attempted to control it.

I almost always agree with Klaus on most things, but this is one thing where I must respectfully disagree; the very "idea" of two human beings becoming "contractually" joined together certainly is possible outside of "marriage", but the minute you associate that "togetherness" with the word "marriage".......you're right back into religion, AND.......if you happen think of yourself as an athiest, (not believing in any religion), I can see where you could have a problem with that; it's rather like the old argument, "which came first.......the chicken or the egg"? (has anyone EVER seen that one resolved to everyone's satisfaction?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 125):
This has very practical consequences regarding medical care, inheritance, children (including adoption), various third-party contractual issues and a lot more.

One concrete situation resulting from the lack of same-sex marriage is that even estranged relatives of one's partner can legally completely override a partnership of many years. Another is the selective denial of spousal benefits under many circumstances.

You may be surprised to hear that I have thought a lot about exactly those issues.
I not only agree with you on all of that, I'm also always amazed by your ability to verbalize such complex issues; ( but I STILL must disagree, there can be no "marriage" outside of some religion. (The very word "marriage" indicates a "belief" in something ! Now........to preclude all of those "bad consequences" you spoke of, we obviously need some sort of "legally binding" contract; you can call it anything you like; ( a "union", an "arrangement", etc etc etc ) all of which would confer just as much "legal standing", but would keep all of the "faithful" satisfied, and in so doing, would eliminate all of the fuss over the issue.

A lot of people responding to this thread keep saying "you don't need a "state" or a "government" to have a contract; to which I would ask, "what possible good is ANY "contract" going to be to anyone, if there is no one to "enforce" it ? (unless of course you're prepared to "enforce" all of your contracts like organized crime "enforces" their contracts; ( with a bullet between the eyes ) That would hardly be a practical solution for anyone who advocate "ordinary people" shouldn't have guns.

One thing a thread like this does do...........it indicates to anyone reading it just where everyone "stands" on the original issue the OP is attempting to "study".

It also indicates that many people have far more "opinions" than they have logical arguments to back them up; and it even indicates that a few people don't see any need to back up their opinions, assuming that anything THEY think, must be right.

Another thing a thread like this tends to do.........it indicates to me that there are many who would prefer the "Status Quo", simply to have something to argue about.

While everyone is baring their souls, I have a few questions I'd like to ask, but I'm completely out of time at the moment.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8023 posts, RR: 1
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

A few nights ago Bill O'Reilly said in a snippet that I heard from MSNBC that the opponents of gay marriage know that they are on the loosing side of the argument as they thump the Bible. His statement really ticked of fellow conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, the prior compared gays to pedophiles. Though I don't know where he really stands in the issue right now I know he vehemently opposed gay marriage in the past.

The few people that are not overtly religious notably Dr. Benjamin Carson a noted neurosurgeon comparing the interest of gays to the interests of NAMBLA and bestiality and pedophilia. Other people of the non overtly religious type like Rush have made similar comparisons.

I do not know of any kind of secular people who have supports an argument in modern time that gays should of marry. Conservative and atheist commentator S.E. Cupp has made the argument many times on The Cycle stating that gays should be allowed to marry, she even supports the notion that is a conservative principle to support gay matrimony as it brings stability to relationships and provides a more durable environment to raise children.

The religious crowd brings up the Bible and the not so religious crowd and others alike say "one man, one woman", 5,000 years of tradition, homosexual agenda, and say pedophile this and perversion that, they don't have a strong argument, and as the situation gets more desperate for them, the language will be meaner and ever more offensive. As time goes on, the fewer they will be.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 151):
A few nights ago Bill O'Reilly said in a snippet that I heard from MSNBC that the opponents of gay marriage know that they are on the loosing side of the argument as they thump the Bible.

I have seen this too. I wonder if he is near the end of his contract and has something bigger planned? I always thought he and Hannity would be hesitant but for the contractual part of marriage. Others like Limbaugh and Levin just want ratings. They probably just want to stay relivant and in the news.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24632 posts, RR: 86
Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 152):
I always thought he and Hannity would be hesitant but for the contractual part of marriage. Others like Limbaugh and Levin just want ratings.

But Rush Limbaugh has said that gay marriage is now "inevitable":

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...baugh-gay-marriage-now-inevitable/

Rush Limbaugh: Gay marriage now ‘inevitable’

Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has some words of defeat for traditionalists who are holding out hope in the Supreme Court to issue a clear-cut ruling on marriage as between a man and a woman: Let it go.

No matter what the Supreme Court does, legalization of same-sex marriage in this country is “inevitable,” he said, during his Thursday broadcast.

“The issue is lost,” he said. “I don’t care what the Supreme Court does. This is inevitable. And it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this.”


mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 152):
I have seen this too. I wonder if he is near the end of his contract and has something bigger planned? I always thought he and Hannity would be hesitant but for the contractual part of marriage. Others like Limbaugh and Levin just want ratings. They probably just want to stay relivant and in the news.

They're saving political face and doing their best to avoid political suicide. They are politicians first and foremost and form their principles later. Most likely the GOP leadership decided a while ago that they cannot hope to make this issue one of their talking points, catering to an extreme of their base, and have a prayer to win an election with public opinion swinging as quickly as it is. The same thing happened toward the end of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and 70s. They are appearing to inch by inch give a little ground, desensitizing this part of their constituency to the fact that same sex marriage is going to happen sooner or later.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11123 posts, RR: 15
Reply 155, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1753 times: