Gay Marriage

[PLAYER57832]

But it does not affect me personally nor does the government force my church to marry gay couples...so it doesn't bother me.

Who is claiming that churches would be forced to marry anyone? This whole assertion is a scare tactic to try to convince people not to accept gay marriage. There is no truth to it!

That being said I do believe that gay couples should be afforded all the same rights as a heterosexual common law couple ie: benefits, next of kin, pension.

I agree, to a point, but then we get into that whole "seperate but equal" issue. [/quote]

Also...not believing in gay marriage does not make one homophobic.

Absolutely true!

Whether gay marriages are accepted in a church is a completely religious issue, but whether the state honors a gay marriage is a civil/practical matter.

[thegreekdog]

First off player, thank you for posting like an adult in response to my post. I try to ignore the ridiculous "flames" (yes, I typed it) of others, and they really don't bother me. What does bother me is that it's hard for anyone to get their points across when they people they are addressing have an already-formed opinion of me. It's pretty ignorant.

Anyway...

Your point about the constitution being framed by society is only partially correct. People certain are blinded by thier own views. However, what people knew then and what we know now is just plain different.

This is another issue - should the Constitution be interpreted by the views of society (in the form of the Supreme Court)? I won't get into that because it's not the issue of this thread, per se. But, I agree, the knowledge is different now than it was then. Does it still excuse the racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance of our forefathers? If, 100 years from know, our descendants have different knowledge, would they excuse our racism, homophobia, or religious intolerance?

Polygamy, on the other hand, is still differant. Now, personally, if it involves consenting ADULTS, and I would even say that the age of consent might be older for non-traditional marriages, but if everyone agrees and they have the ability to provide well for every child, etc. then maybe. Its not that differant from the guy who sleeps with 15 women, except that he perhaps has more legal responsibility. The problem is that when Polygamy is really practiced, that only happened at first. Then it becomes "we don't have enough adult women, let's take girls" , etc.

I'm not trying to throw stones here, but you are making arguments against polygamy based upon evidence that could be applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

(1) Consenting adults problem - If all marriages need to be between consenting adults, the problem is solved. A 28 year old man cannot marry a 12 year old girl because it's not between consenting adults. Assuming polygamy were legal, a 28 year old man could not marry two 12 year old girls because it's not between consenting adults. Legalizing polygamy does not change the laws regarding consenting adults.
(2) Providing well for every child - We have no law saying that people cannot have children or be married if they do or do not have a certain income. How is it different if two heterosexuals marry and have 3 children they cannot provide for? How is it different if two homosexuals mary and have 3 children they cannot provide for?

[Snorri1234]

(1) Consenting adults problem - If all marriages need to be between consenting adults, the problem is solved. A 28 year old man cannot marry a 12 year old girl because it's not between consenting adults. Assuming polygamy were legal, a 28 year old man could not marry two 12 year old girls because it's not between consenting adults. Legalizing polygamy does not change the laws regarding consenting adults.

Uh yeah dude, that's what she said.


Anyway, I've always considered this line of argument completely ridiculous.

[thegreekdog]

(1) Consenting adults problem - If all marriages need to be between consenting adults, the problem is solved. A 28 year old man cannot marry a 12 year old girl because it's not between consenting adults. Assuming polygamy were legal, a 28 year old man could not marry two 12 year old girls because it's not between consenting adults. Legalizing polygamy does not change the laws regarding consenting adults.

Uh yeah dude, that's what she said.


Anyway, I've always considered this line of argument completely ridiculous.

Why is that?

[Snorri1234]

Because it nearly always supposes that polygamy is bad and that there will be a need to make it legal. Nobody cares about the issue so why discuss it?

[thegreekdog]

Because it nearly always supposes that polygamy is bad and that there will be a need to make it legal. Nobody cares about the issue so why discuss it?

I don't think I understand you reasoning.

What supposes that polygamy is bad? Society? Didn't most of society supposed that homosexuality was bad? Don't a lot of people in society suppose that homosexuality is bad now? Didn't most of society supposed that premarital sex was bad?

Wouldn't people who want to be polygamists care? Don't people who practice certain religions (i.e. conservative Mormons) care?

But, I guess you don't care. So we don't have to talk about it anymore.

[keiths31]

But it does not affect me personally nor does the government force my church to marry gay couples...so it doesn't bother me.

Who is claiming that churches would be forced to marry anyone? This whole assertion is a scare tactic to try to convince people not to accept gay marriage. There is no truth to it!

I can't speak for Americans, but up in Canada this isn't an issue. Churches are free to marry who they want. Some Protestant churches have performed gay marriage...but they were not forced to.

[Snorri1234]

What supposes that polygamy is bad? Society? Didn't most of society supposed that homosexuality was bad? Don't a lot of people in society suppose that homosexuality is bad now? Didn't most of society supposed that premarital sex was bad?

Yes exactly. People always bring up "But what about polygamy?" when discussing gaymarriage, and to them I say well...what about it? It's brougth up virtually every time to support some slippery slope-argument which is ridiculous in itself, and fails because it's an utter irrelevant thing.

Wouldn't people who want to be polygamists care? Don't people who practice certain religions (i.e. conservative Mormons) care?

Perhaps, but they aren't actually bringing it up. There is no debate about it. There are no protesters outside of the white house or anywhere else screaming about how much they want to marry more women. It's such a non-issue that I fail to see why it's being discussed here.

But, I guess you don't care. So we don't have to talk about it anymore.

Nobody cares about it. It only ever gets brought up as part of some flawed argument of a religious nutjob or troll. There is no point to it.

[captain.crazy]

But it does not affect me personally nor does the government force my church to marry gay couples...so it doesn't bother me.

Who is claiming that churches would be forced to marry anyone? This whole assertion is a scare tactic to try to convince people not to accept gay marriage. There is no truth to it!

I can't speak for Americans, but up in Canada this isn't an issue. Churches are free to marry who they want. Some Protestant churches have performed gay marriage...but they were not forced to.

In all honesty, I don't think that the church has such a big part in this as does the state. States issue the marriage license / certificate or what ever it is in your state. from that, comes the benefits such as power of attorney, legal guardianship of children involved, decision making in time of medical emergency, etc. You get the idea. This is less about "marriage" (surely gay people can find a church that they are welcomed into and be "married" in the eyes of God if the church will but perform the ceremony) and more about the legality of the civil union. Heterosexual people are united under a civil contract, which states would be responsible for allowing as per their constitutions. If gays would let go of the term of marriage, and get onto the term of civil union, there would be much less controversy over the issue.

[InkL0sed]

But it does not affect me personally nor does the government force my church to marry gay couples...so it doesn't bother me.

Who is claiming that churches would be forced to marry anyone? This whole assertion is a scare tactic to try to convince people not to accept gay marriage. There is no truth to it!

I can't speak for Americans, but up in Canada this isn't an issue. Churches are free to marry who they want. Some Protestant churches have performed gay marriage...but they were not forced to.

In all honesty, I don't think that the church has such a big part in this as does the state. States issue the marriage license / certificate or what ever it is in your state. from that, comes the benefits such as power of attorney, legal guardianship of children involved, decision making in time of medical emergency, etc. You get the idea. This is less about "marriage" (surely gay people can find a church that they are welcomed into and be "married" in the eyes of God if the church will but perform the ceremony) and more about the legality of the civil union. Heterosexual people are united under a civil contract, which states would be responsible for allowing as per their constitutions. If gays would let go of the term of marriage, and get onto the term of civil union, there would be much less controversy over the issue.

It's not about gays letting go of the term - marriage is a legal term. The government marries heterosexual couples; it doesn't unify them.

[captain.crazy]

But it does not affect me personally nor does the government force my church to marry gay couples...so it doesn't bother me.

Who is claiming that churches would be forced to marry anyone? This whole assertion is a scare tactic to try to convince people not to accept gay marriage. There is no truth to it!

I can't speak for Americans, but up in Canada this isn't an issue. Churches are free to marry who they want. Some Protestant churches have performed gay marriage...but they were not forced to.

In all honesty, I don't think that the church has such a big part in this as does the state. States issue the marriage license / certificate or what ever it is in your state. from that, comes the benefits such as power of attorney, legal guardianship of children involved, decision making in time of medical emergency, etc. You get the idea. This is less about "marriage" (surely gay people can find a church that they are welcomed into and be "married" in the eyes of God if the church will but perform the ceremony) and more about the legality of the civil union. Heterosexual people are united under a civil contract, which states would be responsible for allowing as per their constitutions. If gays would let go of the term of marriage, and get onto the term of civil union, there would be much less controversy over the issue.

It's not about gays letting go of the term - marriage is a legal term. The government marries heterosexual couples; it doesn't unify them.

What I am saying is that the terminology needs to be changed. Lets cop a fucking compromise for once and move on to the next problem. Gays can get married by what ever church, just like breeders, and the term marriage license is changed for the term certificate of civil union.

[InkL0sed]

I actually think that's the best solution, but it won't happen.

[captain.crazy]

I actually think that's the best solution, but it won't happen.

thats funny. You just agreed to my solution, even though, to my recollection, you have been counter point to everything that I have said on this forum. I think that if you and I can agree, then this is the only solution that can get passed. Talk about it with people you know on both sides of the political coin, but be respectful in the dialog, and you can change minds, I am convinced.

Or we can just shoot each other while we still have guns!

[jay_a2j]

Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

Sorry, Jay but you are WAY off base there. That Baptist minister can refuse to marry anyone. He can refuse because they don't belong to his church or because he just does not believe the two people should be married. In a few cases, he may face censor from his church, but not the state.

It so happens that within the US, the state has agreed to recognize the religious ceremony of marriage as a civil marriage. However, the only right is to a civil marriage, not a religious one.

If there is a law stating that same sex couple can marry, you know as well as I, the above scenario will be commonplace. The government is forcing it's will on the Church. (or any faith that is opposed to gay marriage)

Believing if a couple should get married is one thing. Denying them their "civil right" based on discrimination (cause that's what it would boil down too) is another. If the couple can prove they were discriminated against, there is a lawsuit or even criminal charges. What would happen if a gay man was denied a job because of his sexual orientation? Or a restaurant refused to serve him? I'm sure the discrimination laws with regard to race, religion, sex, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION would apply.

NEWFLASH Jay, there already are laws allowing Hindues, Moslems, Buddhists and the simply a-religious to marry. Baptist ministers can and DO refuse to marry those individuals!

[sailorseal]

The only solution is to allow them to marry and hang all of those in Congress who oppose on charges of corruption

[captain.crazy]

The only solution is to allow them to marry and hang all of those in Congress who oppose on charges of corruption

except, as in the case of California, it was the constituents that opposed. It was put to a vote. If you want it, you have to compromise on the issue... But if you could hang all the congress men and women that opposed the gay agenda, would you use pink rope or a rainbow lanyard?

[jay_a2j]

Believing if a couple should get married is one thing. Denying them their "civil right" based on discrimination (cause that's what it would boil down too) is another. If the couple can prove they were discriminated against, there is a lawsuit or even criminal charges. What would happen if a gay man was denied a job because of his sexual orientation? Or a restaurant refused to serve him? I'm sure the discrimination laws with regard to race, religion, sex, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION would apply.

Fixed.

[sailorseal]

this might make you cry, no joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-awVQkTeVE

[captain.crazy]

this might make you cry, no joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-awVQkTeVE

sorry, no tears... I got a little turned on when some of the hot young lesbians kissed though. That was cool.

The thing that gets me is that what I described is exactly the same thing, only termed differently. Are you sure you won't compromise?

[sailorseal]

this might make you cry, no joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-awVQkTeVE

sorry, no tears... I got a little turned on when some of the hot young lesbians kissed though. That was cool.

The thing that gets me is that what I described is exactly the same thing, only termed differently. Are you sure you won't compromise?

Firstly I am not gay.
Secondly there will be no compromise, the battle is over, gay marriage will be legalized just give it time
Civil Rights Era 2.0


and you disgust me for that "turned on" comment, you should be ashamed of yourself

[Snorri1234]

Believing if a couple should get married is one thing. Denying them their "civil right" based on discrimination (cause that's what it would boil down too) is another. If the couple can prove they were discriminated against, there is a lawsuit or even criminal charges. What would happen if a gay man was denied a job because of his sexual orientation? Or a restaurant refused to serve him? I'm sure the discrimination laws with regard to race, religion, sex, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION would apply.

Fixed.

What did you fix?

[captain.crazy]

this might make you cry, no joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-awVQkTeVE

sorry, no tears... I got a little turned on when some of the hot young lesbians kissed though. That was cool.

The thing that gets me is that what I described is exactly the same thing, only termed differently. Are you sure you won't compromise?

Firstly I am not gay.
Secondly there will be no compromise, the battle is over, gay marriage will be legalized just give it time
Civil Rights Era 2.0


and you disgust me for that "turned on" comment, you should be ashamed of yourself

Sorry you were offended... but I am just being honest. Are you telling me that women kissing women isn't appealing to you?

Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

[PLAYER57832]

Believing if a couple should get married is one thing. Denying them their "civil right" based on discrimination (cause that's what it would boil down too) is another. If the couple can prove they were discriminated against, there is a lawsuit or even criminal charges. What would happen if a gay man was denied a job because of his sexual orientation? Or a restaurant refused to serve him? I'm sure the discrimination laws with regard to race, religion, sex, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION would apply.

Fixed.

Uh.. not fixed in the original post (please do so.. thanks)

But to take up the point. This is a non-issue for several reasons.

A church offers marriage as an option NO one is forced to marry anyone else, except the Justice of the peace .. and they are a public servant.

As for the civil rights issues, those laws are already on the books in most cases. You cannot and SHOULD NOT refuse anyone service simply because they are homosexual.

Refusing someone a job is more touchy. People have been fired as teachers, etc for being homosexual and, yes, I say that is plain wrong! No, I would not object to someone who happened to be homosexual teaching my kids as long as they were a good teacher. And, for the most part teachers marital status is not a subject for students anyway. Teachers co-habitat and that is not advertised, either.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

How is allowing homosexuals to marry forcing anyone?

[mandyb]

I think all women should strive to be lesbians - it would make life a great deal simpler.