Gay Marriage thread

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Vudak
Well, I don't know if what I'm about to say could be viewed as looking at it dispassionately, but, in my opinion, what I'd like to achieve by legalizing gay marriage is simply to ensure that yet another group of Americans are allowed the pursuit of happiness.  It's just one of those things I believe every American is entitled to.  And being told, "sorry fella, you can't marry who you love" kinda kills that pursuit.

I'd agree with you that if gays were ok with coming up with an alternative term to their domestic contract, things would be great.  However, I can also see how many would not want to do this on the basis that "seperate but equal" can't be equal.  And, given the two options here, I'm going to have to side with them.

So what if I love a sheep, or I love 10 woman, or I love an inanimate object, or I love a 10 year old......are you saying that it is my RIGHT to persue who I love and the state should let me marry?

(don't assume I'm linking anything either....if you give one minority group it's "right" you have to give them all.  What yard stick do you use to draw the line?)

I laugh at the assumption that this is a civil rights issue and that anyone who disagrees with it must be a homophobe/bigot/intolerent.

I bring this up in every single one of these threads and it seems the usually players don't like the "slippery slope" argument.  What if NAMBLA was just as organized and had the lobbiests to overturn the statutory laws in order for them to persue their "happienes"?   My points are valid because of the gay marriage "issue" many poligemist groups are now lobbying to overturn poligemy laws because it interupts their "happieness"

You can ASSUME what  you want to about me but I say all of this while at the same time supporting any kind of laws that recognize a "civil union" of any two consenting adults gay or strait.

[BluKitty]

no gunslinger it's just not worth arugureing because it's logical flaws are obvious..... if you were objective at all

Animals can't sign marrige contracts

Children can't legaly marry in the U.S.

So your argurement is poligemy?
Sounds like a diffrent arguement too me......  Not sure what this has to do with the issue.  Mormon's are allowed to marry, like anyone else.... but only once  (unless they divorce)....I don't have problem with poligemy really, as long as it's truely a 3-way union... and not some guy haveing a wife in 2 cities, or a girl haveing two husbands.

Your trying to disallow a group, the rights eveyone else has..... just like this country did with Blacks....the U.S. needs a good outgroup, "Americans" seem lost without one.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by mora
Marriage should defintely be abolished when it comes to law and goverment. It would stop the crying from both sides.

Unfortunately, it would create a lot of problems as well. Think about serious medical problems and decision authority, ownership of assets when someone dies, etc.

Marriage makes it simpler. Your spouse can make medical decisions for you in cases where it's impossible to communicate your wishes. The spouse can also take care of your assets after you die.

Of course, we could just leave decisions like this to the state, but I don't think we want to go there.


As for taxes and other benefits, I don't think they're should be any. The government should not have got into the business of promoting marriage. Outside of that, there are some pretty good reasons to have a "legal" partner in your life regardless of the sex.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
So what if I love a sheep, or I love 10 woman, or I love an inanimate object, or I love a 10 year old......are you saying that it is my RIGHT to persue who I love and the state should let me marry?

(don't assume I'm linking anything either....if you give one minority group it's "right" you have to give them all.  What yard stick do you use to draw the line?)

I laugh at the assumption that this is a civil rights issue and that anyone who disagrees with it must be a homophobe/bigot/intolerent.

I bring this up in every single one of these threads and it seems the usually players don't like the "slippery slope" argument.  What if NAMBLA was just as organized and had the lobbiests to overturn the statutory laws in order for them to persue their "happienes"?   My points are valid because of the gay marriage "issue" many poligemist groups are now lobbying to overturn poligemy laws because it interupts their "happieness"

You can ASSUME what  you want to about me but I say all of this while at the same time supporting any kind of laws that recognize a "civil union" of any two consenting adults gay or strait.

See BluKitty's response for my views.  The argument that you should be able to marry a sheep or a child is a ridiculous smokescreen and you know it.  Your point on polygamy does have some merit, however.

And as to my views on polygamy, BluKitty also pretty fairly summed them up.  Still, I feel that we should concentrate on giving two gays the right to marry before we worry about three

Also, I wouldn't say that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage must be a homophobe/bigot/intolerant.  I would say that this thread has shown that many are (and I'm not lumping you into this category, by any means).  It's perfectly fine if you just have a conflicting opinion for respectable reasons (I'll grant there are some).

Edit - One more thing - That this is a civil rights issue is certainly not an assumption.

[BUG_EAF322]

If someone is gay thats his problem/joy/whatever
if he wants to  mary who am i to forbid that, do i have to pay ??

realy some almost react like midle aged muslims.
im thaught so im not allowed to make my own opinion.

well that's the way to go on progress

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by BluKitty
no gunslinger it's just not worth arugureing because it's logical flaws are obvious..... if you were objective at all

Everything you said could also be said about Gay Marriage with complete objectivity

Animals can't sign marrige contracts

Two people of the same sex cannot sign a marriage contract

Children can't legaly marry in the U.S.

Two people of the same sex cannot legally marry.

So your argurement is poligemy?
Sounds like a diffrent arguement too me......  Not sure what this has to do with the issue.  Mormon's are allowed to marry, like anyone else.... but only once  (unless they divorce)....I don't have problem with poligemy really, as long as it's truely a 3-way union... and not some guy haveing a wife in 2 cities, or a girl haveing two husbands.

Your trying to disallow a group, the rights eveyone else has..... just like this country did with Blacks....the U.S. needs a good outgroup, "Americans" seem lost without one.

Gay's are allowed to marry just like everyone else....they just only get to marry the opposite sex.  

I'm not disallowing anyone their rights.....they have those rights.  Under current rules gays are allowed to marry anyone they wish as long as they are of the opposite gender.

[Shuckins]

I confess to being a lemming, Curval.  

But there is more than one set of political and social lemmings on these bbs...and to a certain extent we all belong to one.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, I won't stand in the way...but I will speak out against the attempts to portray it as "normal," and I will not " be pressured into "approving" of it.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Vudak
See BluKitty's response for my views.  The argument that you should be able to marry a sheep or a child is a ridiculous smokescreen and you know it.  Your point on polygamy does have some merit, however.

And as to my views on polygamy, BluKitty also pretty fairly summed them up.  Still, I feel that we should concentrate on giving two gays the right to marry before we worry about three

Also, I wouldn't say that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage must be a homophobe/bigot/intolerant.  I would say that this thread has shown that many are (and I'm not lumping you into this category, by any means).  It's perfectly fine if you just have a conflicting opinion for respectable reasons (I'll grant there are some).

Edit - One more thing - That this is a civil rights issue is certainly not an assumption.

Thanks for your response.  Mine is based on an assumption that you think this is a civil rights issue.

I have yet to have anyone explain to me what civil rights are being broken.  What discrimination is happening here?

Two people of the opposite gender reguardless of race, creed, color,  religion, or sexual orientation can legally enter into a marriage contract.  No one is denying anyone their civil rights.  

Now if you redefine this and allow gays to marry why wouldn't you HAVE to let other groups (even as sick as they are) in based on the same argument?

No one is denying a RIGHT they are denying a WANT.  Gays want to be like strait people and marry somone.  The problem is that's not what a marriage is and gay people arent strait.  Therefore this isn't a civil rights issue.  

Again I base my opinion on the premis that I beleive some type of "civil union" would be entirly appropraite.

[Vudak]

No, that's not being objective.  Show me a dog that can pick up a pen and sign its name, then say "i do" and maybe you'd have some "objectivity."

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thanks for your response.  Mine is based on an assumption that you think this is a civil rights issue.

I have yet to have anyone explain to me what civil rights are being broken.  What discrimination is happening here?

Two people of the opposite gender reguardless of race, creed, color,  religion, or sexual orientation can legally enter into a marriage contract.  No one is denying anyone their civil rights.  

Now if you redefine this and allow gays to marry why wouldn't you HAVE to let other groups (even as sick as they are) in based on the same argument?

No one is denying a RIGHT they are denying a WANT.  Gays want to be like strait people and marry somone.  The problem is that's not what a marriage is and gay people arent strait.  Therefore this isn't a civil rights issue.  

Again I base my opinion on the premis that I beleive some type of "civil union" would be entirly appropraite.

I'm looking at it from a Constitutional view, albeit a different interpretation of the Constitution than others have.

If all men are created equal, then a gay man is my equal.  I, as a heterosexual, have every right to marry the person I love.  In my case, this will be a woman.  If he is my equal, a gay man also has every right to marry the person he loves, in his case, that would be a man.

In my view, his right to equality, and his very defintion of being my equal, is trampled on by not being allowed to marry the person he loves.

Therefore, I see this as a civil rights issue under the thought that seperate but equal (civil union vs. marriage) is not equal.  

Perhaps a way to solve this issue is to simply throw out the term "marriage" for everyone and just have "civil unions" for everyone.  I don't really care which way we go, but I do insist the same term be applied to everyone.

Gonna be a scary, scary world when I'm 80 and my grandkids think I'm a conservative old fart, huh?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Vudak
I'm looking at it from a Constitutional view, albeit a different interpretation of the Constitution than others have.

If all men are created equal, then a gay man is my equal.  I, as a heterosexual, have every right to marry the person I love.  In my case, this will be a woman.  If he is my equal, a gay man also has every right to marry the person he loves, in his case, that would be a man.

In my view, his right to equality, and his very defintion of being my equal, is trampled on by not being allowed to marry the person he loves.

Therefore, I see this as a civil rights issue under the thought that seperate but equal (civil union vs. marriage) is not equal.  

Perhaps a way to solve this issue is to simply throw out the term "marriage" for everyone and just have "civil unions" for everyone.  I don't really care which way we go, but I do insist the same term be applied to everyone.

Gonna be a scary, scary world when I'm 80 and my grandkids think I'm a conservative old fart, huh?

I never once saw the word "love" on a marriage liscense.  Not once.  BUT based on your standards all men being equal what's to stop a sicko from wanting to marry a kid.......The answer is the law.  But, if he/she LOVES the kid then arent we denying this as a right?  I know it's a stretch but all things being equal it would be.  So where does that leave us?  A person marrying a minor is illegal because it is immoral and unethical.  

So now we arent at rights anymore and we are back to morals.  It's not seperate if it is the same.  Gays can MARRY anyone of the opposite gender because that's what the law says a marriage is.  What gays want is to redefine the law to include same sex marriage.  


as far as the dog issue goes, sure maybe dogs can't speak human or sign their name with a pen.  I'd bet there's quite a few creatures in the ape family that know sign language and could make an X on a peice of paper.  I also know many fringe groups that say animals should have all the basic rights of humans.

Lets substitute the word GAY for Sicko and Sicko being an ape lover, pedifile, or somoen that wants to marry their sister/mother:

I'm looking at it from a Constitutional view, albeit a different interpretation of the Constitution than others have.

If all men are created equal, then a SICKO man is my equal.  I, as a heterosexual, have every right to marry the person I love.  In my case, this will be a woman.  If he is my equal, a SICKO man also has every right to marry the person (or ape)  he loves, in his case, that would be a man.(or ape)

In my view, his right to equality, and his very defintion of being my equal, is trampled on by not being allowed to marry the person he loves.

Logically and objectivly one could make the same arguments for other questionable groups.  The constitution doesn't garuntee love.  It does mention the PURSUIT of happiness but not happiness itself.  I don't see gays being denyed a right at all I see them being denyed a want that the law doesn't include by definition.

[Vudak]

Alright fair enough, but then again, a child in this country is not recognized by the law as being able to enter into a legal contract until they're [insert state's age here].  It is assumed (and yeah, I'm sure some kids are exceptions), that they cannot possibly understand the ramifications of the contract they're entering into.

An ape, though it could probably sign an X and use sign language, wouldn't, in my mind, be capable of truly understanding what it was doing, thus the contract would be invalid.  I understand what you're saying about the fringe groups though, and, who knows, maybe there is an ape out there who could - I'm doubting it.

Different states have different ages to enter a marriage contract, my cousin, for example, got pregnant and ran off with the loser to FL to get married at 15 .  

I could see how one might say "well then, isn't this seperate/not equal (marriage ages)", but I'd argue that regardless of where you live in the country, if you're heterosexual you're going to be allowed to get married eventually - gotta leave state's some say of there own, anyway.

In the end though, although I hear what you are saying about opening the flood gates, you have to consider, as others have pointed out, that blacks and whites couldn't marry each other at one point either.  When they were suddenly allowed to, all the groups you mentioned didn't swarm the gates (successfully), and I don't see that happening now.

It's something to think about, sure, but I just don't see it as happening.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Vudak
Alright fair enough, but then again, a child in this country is not recognized by the law as being able to enter into a legal contract until they're [insert state's age here].  It is assumed (and yeah, I'm sure some kids are exceptions), that they cannot possibly understand the ramifications of the contract they're entering into.

An ape, though it could probably sign an X and use sign language, wouldn't, in my mind, be capable of truly understanding what it was doing, thus the contract would be invalid.  I understand what you're saying about the fringe groups though, and, who knows, maybe there is an ape out there who could - I'm doubting it.

Different states have different ages to enter a marriage contract, my cousin, for example, got pregnant and ran off with the loser to FL to get married at 15 .  

I could see how one might say "well then, isn't this seperate/not equal (marriage ages)", but I'd argue that regardless of where you live in the country, if you're heterosexual you're going to be allowed to get married eventually - gotta leave state's some say of there own, anyway.

In the end though, although I hear what you are saying about opening the flood gates, you have to consider, as others have pointed out, that blacks and whites couldn't marry each other at one point either.  When they were suddenly allowed to, all the groups you mentioned didn't swarm the gates (successfully), and I don't see that happening now.

It's something to think about, sure, but I just don't see it as happening.

Good response but I have to counter.

I don't disagree with mixed race marriages but I think the point is invalid.  Those are in fact people being denied their right to marry.  A marriage being a union between a man and a woman.  I don't see the gay issue as having the same injustice.  They want a redefinition of the institution all together.  

I think the point you made about your cousin is valid.  I think that's not right but I also think if we allow gays to redefine marriage that is eventually what you will have (or be allowed) accross the board.  To me it's not about giving them equal access to the institution of marriage, we can give that to them by creating an institution that includes a union of sorts between same sexes (gay or strait).  It's about the redefinition that I fear will open the flood gates.

Either way got to go, thaks for the banter but my ribs are burning on the grill right now (the smoker broke)

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't disagree with mixed race marriages but I think the point is invalid.  Those are in fact people being denied their right to marry.  A marriage being a union between a man and a woman.  

And a few years ago most people would said: A marriage being a union between a man and a woman of the same race.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by eskimo2
And a few years ago most people would said: A marriage being a union between a man and a woman of the same race.

But none the less a marriage has allways been between a man and a woman.  

so I'll bite we change now for social action.....what will be the next social action?   Traditional roles arent allways a bad thing.....especially when they've worked for thousands of years.