Homosexual Marriages

[peregrine]

Let me say again, homosexuals can get married now and they will always be able to. They can love each other and be responsible for each other just fine without government recognition.

they won't be able to if that amendment gets passed, correct?

And, no offence, but I think you're just flat out wrong about being able to be responsible for each other without government recognition. Do you have any idea of all the forms and paperwork and guidelines and bylaws and protocols and the lightyears of red tape that's involved with seemingly EVERYTHING? Having that little certificate saying "we're a legally married couple" goes a long way when it comes to making decisions on your partner's behalf. Actually, it's quite impossible to do so without it to my knowledge. I think power of attorney can only extend ot family members or legal guardians.... not sure about that though.

[alextrebek]

Gay people deserve all the benefits straight people can have. And don't bring up the raising a kid bullshit. I'm 50785% certain that Gay people are as good at raising a child, which they could adopt. We need more people to adopt. There are too many kids without homes. I say more adoption. Giving gay people the benefits may encourage them to adopt. Hell, it should encourage everyone to adopt. While I realize that homeless children is more than slightly off-topic, I simply mentioned it to demonstrate that good things can come out of gay marriage with benefits. IMO, saying 2 people of the same sex can't marry is like saying 2 people raised in different states can't marry; you know why? Because being from a different state doesn't make you bad, just like being gay!

[peregrine]

I think there's pearls of wisdom in alex's post... but you kinda have to dig for em. ; )

[GuidoHunter]

Quote:
Let me say again, homosexuals can get married now and they will always be able to. They can love each other and be responsible for each other just fine without government recognition.

they won't be able to if that amendment gets passed, correct?

They will be able to marry just as they can now, unless you're strictly talking about the Justice of the Peace marriages. The government can't touch the churches, so gay people can still marry in a church, but if the amendment gets passed, they won't be able to get a certificate from the government signifying that the state recognizes their marriage. JP's are representatives of the state; you vote them into office.

I think we may have misunderstood each other on the responsibility issue. I was taking "being responsible for one another" to mean taking care of and loving each other, such as a husband and wife do when raising a family. I meant nothing legal about it. You raise a good point with all the problems that recognition could solve, I think it would create even more at the same time.

@perfect fat: I didn't get anything that was remotely anti-gay-adoption out of Chardish's post. Also, do you consider me a bigot because I completely agree with Chardish? I'm interested to hear your answer...

@alextrebek: There are many gay people who could be excellent parents, and I have no problem with gay adoptions because that can be, and is, quite regulated by the adoption companies themselves and won't get out of hand. Adoption's great, and you don't need a marriage certificate to do it. Benefits for child-rearing could be extended to "couples who adopt", and not necessarily "married people", if that would suffice.
Also, of course being gay doesn't make you bad, but just because you're not doing something wrong doesn't mean you should be given the same legal rights as certain others.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

[User6773]

If you start changing the definition of marriage, who knows where it'll stop.

Allow gay marriage, and by 2100 polygamy, beastiality and incest will be legally recognized relationships.

[Chrissi]

chardish, that's bullshit.... those are not extensions of the same thing, they're entirely different. That's not how it'll end up. That has nothing to do with this. That only works in some cases. Not this one. Gay people are just the opposite of straight people, they haven't done anything wrong... it's still two PEOPLE who LOVE each other very much... and can't make kids with defects (in the case of incest that you were speaking of).

alextrebek is a very wise man. Listen to his words.

[alainbryden]

I wan't to marry my horse....

but Chardish is right, you can't change the definition of a marriage. Besides, the gays can call themselves married if they want, but it can't be recognised by the governement. Legal marriage is recognised as male-female only by governement because legal marriage has financial benefits for the couple. The governement gives tax cuts or something for married couples. The whole point of that is a government inscentive for people to become legally attatched and become more likely tio have kids. That's really old but that's the original purpose. It would be wated money to offer the same financial plans for gay married couples, and thus, their marriages cannot be treated equally by law. Video in philosophy class this year. If the facts are screwwed up, meh.

[hitokiri_diesel]

You need to stop reading my mind. It makes me self-conscious. Seriously, I was about to post a topic identical to this. Weird.

Anyways, I do have a bit of religious bias as far as homosexual marriages go, but looking at this from a purely Political standpoint, homosexual marriages are not going to do anything good for America. Look at Rome, for example. They also grew out from under a larger monarchy, which was also a major world power at the time. When they came to fruition, they were the most affluent nation in the world. Hell, they were surrounded by barbarians! As they continued to exist, they loosened their moral bond, and ended up sacked by the same-said barbarians. Granted, there are differences, but I think we should learn from this. Giving equal rights does not mean that we have to avoid what is better for the moral basis of America

[dontcareaboutmyid]

I agee that there should be limits on what can be done and what not but you can't amend something like that.

interfering with marraige gets very close to tampering religion, something we're all protected under in the first amendment rights.

If something like an amendment restricting marrage rights is let through because a couple of homo's want toget married whats to say that the freedom of press isn't next? or freedom of speech? I would have to think that dealing with things on a case by case basis would have to be the best thing.

someone above provided an example of an adult marrying a 12 year old. If the parents consent and she wants to there nothing wrong with it in the eye's that matter.

If someone wants to marry their dog (And I'm just playing devil's advocate here) and someone wants to marry them they'd be married. But then it'd just be that guy and the dog. You have to think a little logically here. if someone were to marry their dog they'd be thought of as pretty strange correct? That person would have to decide if marrying is accually worth not having anyone else. But i garantee there are slim to nil on people that would marry a man and a dog.

To chardish, Insest is already recognized, its called alabama and other sothern states. (no offence to alabama and the souther states b the way)

in some religions, polygamy (three or more person marraige right?) is perfectly acceptable and recognized.

i have yet to accually hear cases of beastiality, but i'd wager there are some. I just won't accually go looking for them. If you're going to amend something, amend that beastiality and marraige to animals is wrong.

[Anonymous]

WTF?!

Here's my view on homosexual marriages. Why at all should anyone give a s*%$ about it? They're g*%. Yeah, so what. I'm straight and no one cares right? So why should our government have a whole contraversy on this at all? If they want to get married then let them. They aren't harming anyone!

That's okay though. I know how this all got started. The g*% rights parades! That's why everyone is getting thier a*% in a bunch about it. Because we're scared that they might over run the country with
neon pink shirts and paint everything purple with upsidedown triangles and rainbows on it right?

For a little bit of reference here.......NO.......NO THEY WON'T..........

I'm not accusing anyone here of this at all, except for the government.
"A holy matrimony between a man and a woman." That's what marriage is right? Just don't check the other guys pants that's all. If they love eashother, then that's all you need. Let them be together. That's like someone else saying to you that YOU can't marry the one that YOU love and care for.

So maybe George W. Bush should think on this for a while.

[Cyborg_Mermaid]

If you start changing the definition of marriage, who knows where it'll stop.

Allow #$* marriage, and by 2100 polygamy, beastiality and incest will be legally recognized relationships.

Grr...you stole my arguement. But yeah, I totally agree on that. Things need to be more Black/White when it comes to politics and especially on the topic of marriage. The concept should be recognized along traditional lines because tampering with the idea of a life union between two people has a high risk of people thinking that homosexual marriage is an offense to their beliefs or practices, beliefs which in themselves are a very defining part of society. So if homosexual marriage is endorsed by the government there's too much risk of unrest, more than usual I mean.

The economy will love homosexual marriage because of more joint taxes, but the people who are active in their religious practice will hate it.

[LateralusAngel]

The only reason there's a national debate going on about gay marriage as it is is because of the fact that most Americans are your average straight couple family, our government being run by an, arguably, zealous leader who wants "good Christian values" in every American home.
Straight couples produce more children, which makes us spend more money, essentially whihc makes us spend more taxes, and in time those children pay taxes and have more children to pay more taxes. It's kind of backwards considering Americans are taught to be accepting of all people despite race, sexuality, etc., etc.

Not an argument really just a thought...straight couples mean more tax dollars...think about it. Money is power!

[User6773]

If something like an amendment restricting marrage rights is let through because a couple of homo's want toget married whats to say that the freedom of press isn't next? or freedom of speech? I would have to think that dealing with things on a case by case basis would have to be the best thing.

First of all, freedom of speech and the press have already been compromised somewhat, namely through the works of the Supreme Court.

But see, you miss my point. My point is that once you say that the definition of something is changeable, you can't then say it can never be changed again. If we make the mistake of saying that marriage is whatever we want to be, who knows what it will change into. And as I said, it could conceivably be expanded to include polygamy, incest, and beastiality as "marriages".

And you can't say that will never happen, because the slippery slope theory suggests it might.

[GuidoHunter]

Man, it's times like these when I regret making such a long post; obviously a few people didn't read the entire thing, so my points get lost, and I have to restate...sigh...
Anyway, maybe if I just type this in all caps, bold, and underlined, people are more likely to see it:

GAY PEOPLE CAN AND ALWAYS WILL BE ABLE TO MARRY, LOVE EACH OTHER, AND LIVE TOGETHER! HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE TO LEGALLY RECOGNIZE SUCH MARRIAGES!

Now that that's out of the way, lemme get to my rebuttals:

@dontcare: Like I said earlier, taking these issues on a case by case basis is nothing but a trap. If you allow some forms of marriage and not others, people will yell discrimination and find themselves lawyers who will appeal to the right judges and get the laws changed to avoid discrimination. What's the ONLY way to prevent that? A constitutional amendment.

The government interfering with marriage IN NO WAY tampers with religion; there's a nice "separation of church and state" clause in the constitution. There's religious marriage, and there's state marriage. The government can mess with state marriage, because all it is is legal recognition and the doling out of marriage certificates, but the government can't do anything with churches and what they do.
Freedom of press and freedom of speech aren't going to get out of hand whatever the outcome of this issue; that argument's irrelevant.

Regarding the twelve year old comment, yes, she can with consent, but if the laws get too bent out of shape, they might be able to get married without consent, and that could cause many problems.

Your example of the man and his dog is a bit off. Sure, if someone (not a Justice of the Peace, but rather some church) wanted to marry a man and his dog, then there is no problem with that. They can do that now, but they just won't get legal recognition as a married couple. However, if the man and his dog had EQUAL rights as a man and his wife, I betcha a lot of people would marry their dogs for those benefits. And nobody's gonna make an amendment to the constitution saying bestiality is wrong.

@Guest: Our points were COMPLETELY lost on you. If you want to make an argument, read what was written before you, first. I'm not even going to go into the stupid arguments that you made.

@Chrissi: No, they aren't completely different things. Read our previous posts to find out how they'd be connected in a bad scenario

@alain: Well put.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

[peregrine]

multiple points here, let me first address the first ammendment issue:

the first ammendment grants some of our most basic rights and freedoms, namely the freedom of religion for this matter. As Guido has valiantly and repeatedly pointed out, there are religious marriages and then there are legal marriages that the government uses for their laws. It seems to me that if you were married religiously, the government failing to recognize it would be a breach in your freedom of religion. I'm sorry, I can't really explain why, but really seems that way to me.

next:
Let me see if I understand this right... the two main problems with homosexual marriages are: slippery slope stuff, and civil unrest because of values.

addressing the slippery slope stuff: seems the problem is with this, that homosexual marriages would open the door for other unorthodox unions to be granted legal recognition. Honestly, I don't see how this is something woth preventing. Let's take the most extreme case: beastiagamy (-gamy is the suffix regarding marriage, beastiality is the wrong word, technically) Hell, I'll even take it further, people trying to get married to inanimate objects. Let's consider the benefits of marriage: legal power concerning your partner, tax breaks / economic benefits. Concerning legal power, if the partner is incapable of communicating their wishes to humans, then we really can't do anything for them, now can we? I highly doubt Lassie could convice a doctor to draw up a DNR request for somebody. I think this would essentially take care of all situations of pairings between humans and animals, rocks, computers (non-AI comps, hell I'd even say if somebody wanted to get married to sentient AI program... go for it). Secondly, the money involved. It seems like the object of this incentive is to provide a better setting for a child-rearing family. So make it that way. Remove the tax break from marriages in general, and apply them to families with children, adopted or biological. I feel these two simple solutions would allow all sorts of marriages but stil preserve the interests that people are arguing for. Marriage is a mutual consent of trust... can the government really dictate to us who we can personally trust?

Now comes the issue of civil disorder: People would get unruly because these things go against "accepted values" and traditions. I'm not denying it would, but consider the truth behind the maxim "the only constant is change" our values will and must change to adapt to new times and scenarios if America is going to truly proclaim to be as free and liberated as it does. And isn't there already unrest about this issue? It's an unavoildable consequence of conflict, and it won't go away no matter which side comes out on top.

I know the "laws" concerning benefits of marriages that I made are rather simplistic and imperfect... they're very rough, it's the concept that's important.

Also, if you think of any other negative impacts of homosexual marriages or benefits of marriage (just nothing about intrinsic value or holiness, I'd just repeat what I said earlier about things being special when you mean them to, regardless of what the other precedents are) I'll be more than happy to try to work out a suitable compromise which allows for such unions, but still retains the values people are trying to preserve. Just please make the listed qualities somewhat obvious.