I can understand why you'd like that to be true, but the courts don't agree.

Actually, the federal courts do agree with Trav - racial discrimination is examined much more rigorously than discrimination based on sexuality. The reasoning is has to do with the fact that race is an "immutable characteristic" and sexuality is not, i.e. apples and oranges, as Trav said.

I definitely think the definition of marriage is being broadened to a degree where marriage has become less respected, which I don't think is a good thing for society.

This seems like another step toward turning marriage into nothing more than a business partnership. Personally, I find that a little sad. Moreover, I think marriage performs a viable function in society - by lessening it's value, society is worse off.
_____________________-

Your a great poster Leper

I definitely think the definition of marriage is being broadened to a degree where marriage has become less respected, which I don't think is a good thing for society.

I would think that a divorce rate of over 50% would be the cause, not gays. :)


This seems like another step toward turning marriage into nothing more than a business partnership.

For most of human history, that's exactly what it was. How will gays being allowed to marry help turn it more into a business partnership?


Personally, I find that a little sad. Moreover, I think marriage performs a viable function in society - by lessening it's value, society is worse off.

Can you explain how allowing gays to participate will lessen its value? Do you assume gays marry for different reasons than straight people?

Mike McConnell of radio station WLW 700 THE BIG ONE
who does the morning edition and Bill Cunningham does
the afternoon,Said today that this whole Gay Marriage bidness
is being rebel roused by a small % of Gays.Just those with an
agenda.That most Gays have no interest in getting married.
Because there is a downside to Marriage for Gay's.

This seems like another step toward turning marriage into nothing more than a business partnership. Personally, I find that a little sad. Moreover, I think marriage performs a viable function in society - by lessening it's value, society is worse off.

I don't really understand this point. Marriage has always been a business partnership.

Actually, the federal courts do agree with Trav - racial discrimination is examined much more rigorously than discrimination based on sexuality. The reasoning is has to do with the fact that race is an "immutable characteristic" and sexuality is not, i.e. apples and oranges, as Trav said.

Trav said"

"And enough with the interracial marriage comparison, it is way out of whack."

My response:

"I can understand why you'd like that to be true, but the courts don't agree."

My evidence...the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling:

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.''

"The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.''

Your "immutable characteristic" statement notwithstanding, the court recognized that laws banning gay marriage are discriminatory.

Trav said"

"And enough with the interracial marriage comparison, it is way out of whack."

My response:

"I can understand why you'd like that to be true, but the courts don't agree."

My evidence...the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling:

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.''

"The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.''

Your "immutable characteristic" statement notwithstanding, the court recognized that laws banning gay marriage are discriminatory.

I said "federal courts." Massachusetts courts have obviously sided with you, as have Californian courts - and I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure those decisions are based on state statutes/constitutions, not federal statutes.

As it stands, 48 state court systems and the federal court systems don't recognize a right to gay marriage. That is hardly a state of affairs that justifies a statement like "the courts don't agree [with Trav]."

On the other hand, all states and federal courts recognize the right to interracial marriage. As such, it seems rather obvious that "the courts" are using a different analysis for homosexual marriage and interracial marriage.

I don't really understand this point. Marriage has always been a business partnership.

Among other things, yes. My concern is that it will be reduced to primarily a business partnership.

I said "federal courts."

Yes, you did...I didn't.


On the other hand, all states and federal courts recognize the right to interracial marriage. As such, it seems rather obvious that the court systems are using a different analysis for homosexual marriage and interracial marriage.

Sure, and there was a time when all states didn't recognize the right to interracial marriage, and the courts (state courts) sided with them. Things change. :)

Sure, and there was a time when all states didn't recognize the right to interracial marriage, and the courts (state courts) sided with them. Things change. :)

2 out of 50 states. I wouldn't be surprised if some states follow suit, but I wouldn't hold my breath for widespread legalization of gay marriage.

In the meantime, statements like "the courts don't agree [with Trav]" are, at best, highly dubious. At worst, they're downright disingenuous.

Mike McConnell of radio station WLW 700 THE BIG ONE
who does the morning edition and Bill Cunningham does
the afternoon,Said today that this whole Gay Marriage bidness
is being rebel roused by a small % of Gays.Just those with an
agenda.That most Gays have no interest in getting married.
Because there is a downside to Marriage for Gay's. Well he is ignorant on the subject. I don't buy that at all. The whole 'gay agenda" is just a made up scare tactic by right-wing nuts. Your smart enough not to buy into that bs!

Well he is ignorant on the subject. I don't buy that at all. The whole 'gay agenda" is just a made up scare tactic by right-wing nuts. Your smart enough not to buy into that bs!

McConell prides himself on always winning a debate.He's very
good.I doubt he,all of a sudden just winged it and made that
prediction up.There's probably somethin to it.
I'm just guessing but,with Marriage even Gays will have to
forfeit their net worth in the event of a breakup {divorce}
So,only those Gays who are Life partners will wanna sign the dotted
line.

McConell prides himself on always winning a debate.He's very
good.I doubt he,all of a sudden just winged it and made that
prediction up.There's probably somethin to it.
I'm just guessing but,with Marriage even Gays will have to
forfeit their net worth in the event of a breakup {divorce}
So,only those Gays who are Life partners will wanna sign the dotted
line. A right-wing talk show host with pride. You've got to be kidding me right?

Sorry, VP. I just noticed you responded to me twice and I only responded to your second response...

I would think that a divorce rate of over 50% would be the cause, not gays. :)

I didn't say it was "the cause" I said it was a reason for it to be less respected. I don't think the "50% divorce rate" (I would challenge this number but that's besides the point) is a good thing either but that's a different topic.

For most of human history, that's exactly what it was.

For most of human history, people died prematurely - I don't see how this statement justifies a reversion to some past state of affairs.

How will gays being allowed to marry help turn it more into a business partnership?

A) By broadening the definition of marriage to include two men, I think you're going to find more guys using marriage to create a business relationship during which they receive a tax break, plus I suspect there are many other conceivable ways to exploit the marriage system for unintended purposes. Does it happen now between men and women? Occasionally, but I suspect guys will be much more likely to use such a business oppurtunity.

B) By broadening the definition of marriage to include a relationship which a third of the population abhores, that population will have less respect for "marriage" (i.e. it's no longer a "sacred" institution) and will be more likely to exploit marriage for unintended purposes.

Can you explain how allowing gays to participate will lessen its value?

By including a group of people who many regard as deviant, suffering from a psychological disorder, or just plain sinful, you're associating marriage with activity that many people don't want to be associated with on a personal level. I believe that reduces the value of marriage.

It's kindof like forcing a woman's club to allow men to participate - that changes the nature of the club, and probably lessens its value to its members.

Do you assume gays marry for different reasons than straight people?

I assume gays don't marry to reproduce.

I assume gays don't marry to reproduce.
you win, thread over.

I didn't say it was "the cause" I said it was a reason for it to be less respected. I don't think the "50% divorce rate" (I would challenge this number but that's besides the point) is a good thing either but that's a different topic.

I meant the cause of the decline in the respect for marriage that you referred, but you're right, divorce is a symptom as well as a cause of the decline in respect.


For most of human history, people died prematurely - I don't see how this statement justifies a reversion to some past state of affairs.

I was merely pointing out that society's attitudes about marriage are not immutable.


A) By broadening the definition of marriage to include two men, I think you're going to find more guys using marriage to create a business relationship during which they receive a tax break, plus I suspect there are many other conceivable ways to exploit the marriage system for unintended purposes. Does it happen now between men and women? Occasionally, but I suspect guys will be much more likely to use such a business oppurtunity.

How awful of those gays to avail themselves of the same rights and opportunities as the rest of the country. Currently, do you think a husband and wife using whatever tax breaks they may be able to get as business partners (if any), is "exploiting" the system?


B) By broadening the definition of marriage to include a relationship which a third of the population abhores, that population will have less respect for "marriage" (i.e. it's no longer a "sacred" institution) and will be more likely to exploit marriage for unintended purposes.

Wow. I'm not sure I can be polite here.

Your statement serves only to remind me of the statement made by the Virginia judge who convicted Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving of violating the law for being married.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

No doubt at least a third of the population agreed with the judge insofar as they abhorred the idea of interracial marriage, yet the judge couldn't have been more wrong.

Who's to say your marriage, or any other marriage is "sacred"? Perhaps you, perhaps your clergyman, but the answer certainly isn't the law, at least not in this country.


By including a group of people who many regard as deviant, suffering from a psychological disorder, or just plain sinful, you're associating marriage with activity that many people don't want to be associated with on a personal level. I believe that reduces the value of marriage.

Homosexuality is no sexual deviance in a legal sense, gays are not suffering from a psychological disorder, at least according to reputable professional psychiatrists, and if you don't wish to be associated personally with gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. :)


It's kindof like forcing a woman's club to allow men to participate - that changes the nature of the club, and probably lessens its value to its members.

A fine argument if you were discussing a club.


I assume gays don't marry to reproduce.

Some do, most don't, but I can assure you that the vast majority of people who married for reasons other than reproduction aren't gay. The elderly, the infertile, and those that just choose not to have children, for instance.

How awful of those gays to avail themselves of the same rights and opportunities as the rest of the country.

Actually, the rights of homosexuals have always been the same as the rest of the country - they had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. What they want here is a special exception made to the traditional definition of marriage to accomodate their questionable lifestyle.

Currently, do you think a husband and wife using whatever tax breaks they may be able to get as business partners (if any), is "exploiting" the system?

If that's the sole reason for the marriage, yes.


Wow. I'm not sure I can be polite here.

Well, yes, it's a personal issue - maybe your difficulty controlling yourself will help you understand why many people are upset that their traditional idea of marriage is being redefined and thrown-out by ultra-liberal lawmakers.

Your statement serves only to remind me of the statement made by the Virginia judge who convicted Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving of violating the law for being married.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

No doubt at least a third of the population agreed with the judge insofar as they abhorred the idea of interracial marriage, yet the judge couldn't have been more wrong.

That is a lovely argument if you're talking about an issue of racial discrimination. But discrimination against homosexuality is not comparable to discrimination against race - it's more comparable to discrimination versus polygamists or incestuous relationships.

Who's to say your marriage, or any other marriage is "sacred"? Perhaps you, perhaps your clergyman, but the answer certainly isn't the law, at least not in this country.

I think you underestimate the power of the law.

Homosexuality is no sexual deviance in a legal sense, gays are not suffering from a psychological disorder, at least according to reputable professional psychiatrists, and if you don't wish to be associated personally with gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. :)

Those claims, even if true, don't change the fact that you're lessening the value of marriage - the reality is that a large part of the population regards homosexuality in a negative way and you're trying to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.

A fine argument if you were discussing a club.


Like a club, marriage's value derives from its exclusivity. By including homosexuals, you're reducing that value. You could completely remove the value of marriage if you made marriage all-inclusive by allowing someone to marry a lamppost, to use a former example.

Some do, most don't, but I can assure you that the vast majority of people who married for reasons other than reproduction aren't gay. The elderly, the infertile, and those that just choose not to have children, for instance.

I agree that a few heterosexuals marry for purposes excluding reproduction.

Let me ask you this - what do you think the purpose of marriage is in our society? Why do you think we have laws that apply only to married couples?

Actually, the rights of homosexuals have always been the same as the rest of the country - they had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Come on Leper, you're a lawyer, you can do better than that. The Supreme Court has heard that argument and rejected it. Equal application of the law is not germane to the issue of discrimination. I can cite you some case law if you'd like.


What they want here is a special exception made to the traditional definition of marriage to accomodate their questionable lifestyle.

Whose "traditional definition", yours? Can you give me the legal definition of "questionable"?


If that's the sole reason for the marriage, yes.

How would you determine that?


Well, yes, it's a personal issue - maybe your difficulty controlling yourself will help you understand why many people are upset that their traditional idea of marriage is being redefined and thrown-out by ultra-liberal lawmakers.

Perhaps I should have been impolite after all. :)


That is a lovely argument if you're talking about an issue of racial discrimination. But discrimination against homosexuality is not comparable to discrimination against race - it's more comparable to discrimination versus polygamists or incestuous relationships.

Yet oddly, all of your arguments were once used by those who opposed interracial marriage.


I think you underestimate the power of the law.

Not at all, but we're not discussing the law's power, we're discussing justice.


Those claims, even if true, don't change the fact that you're lessening the value of marriage - the reality is that a large part of the population regards homosexuality in a negative way and you're trying to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.

You are now equating a completely subjective opinion with "reality".


Like a club, marriage's value derives from its exclusivity.

I can't see how...can you explain how the institution of marriage benefits by excluding gays? I would think that marriage, as an institution would be stronger with more people participating in it. Like a club being stronger with more members.


By including homosexuals, you're reducing that value.

So you believe homosexuals are of lesser value than heterosexuals?


You could completely remove the value of marriage if you made marriage all-inclusive by allowing someone to marry a lamppost, to use a former example.

I would agree, but we're not talking about lampposts, are we?


I agree that a few heterosexuals marry for purposes excluding reproduction.

Kinda hard to dispute.


Let me ask you this - what do you think the purpose of marriage is in our society?

To provide a foundation for families.


Why do you think we have laws that apply only to married couples?

To promote marriage so families have a foundation.

Given the above, wouldn't society benefit from more marriages, rather than fewer?

Come on Leper, you're a lawyer, you can do better than that. The Supreme Court has heard that argument and rejected it. Equal application of the law is not germane to the issue of discrimination. I can cite you some case law if you'd like.

I don't come to argue allforums to make legal arguments - believe it or not, my legal writing and arguments are far different from my allforums writing and arguments. With that said, I'm unfamiliar with the case you refer to and would be happy and curious to read your citation - just understand that I don't always agree with the Supreme Court's decisions.

Whose "traditional definition", yours?

Society's. You do, of course, realize that in the past few centuries, our society's definition of marriage did not include homosexuals? We really wouldn't be talking about this issue otherwise.

Can you give me the legal definition of "questionable"?

You don't know the definition of questionable? Or are you mistaking me for having my lawyer hat on again?



How would you determine that?

Beyond an admission, I really don't know how you would - that's why it would be pointless to try to legislate on the issue.



Perhaps I should have been impolite after all. :)"?

Nah, I would disappointed to see that side of you VP! Besides, it would make it difficult for two guys with such different philosophies exchange perspectives - believe it or not, as much as we disagree, I find my exchanges with you to be helpful in refining my own thoughts and philosophies.

Yet oddly, all of your arguments were once used by those who opposed interracial marriage.

As are they used to outlaw polygamy and incest.

Not at all, but we're not discussing the law's power, we're discussing justice.

Maybe you're discussing justice - I'm talking about what's good for society.

You are now equating a completely subjective opinion with "reality". [QUOTE]

You don't think it's realistic to believe a large portion of the population regards homosexuality in a negative way?

Here's an article which claims a 2007 survey shows that only 57% of the population considers homosexuality an "acceptable lifestyle."

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_prev.html

Still too subjective for your taste?

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]I can't see how...can you explain how the institution of marriage benefits by excluding gays? I would think that marriage, as an institution would be stronger with more people participating in it. Like a club being stronger with more members.

That's called taking an analogy beyond its applicable scope.

So you believe homosexuals are of lesser value than heterosexuals?


For the purposes of marriage (e.g. providing a foundation for families), yes.

I would agree, but we're not talking about lampposts, are we?

No, the point was that marriage loses value when you broaden it's scope.

To provide a foundation for families.

I pretty much agree.

A) Do you think homosexual couples marry for the purpose of founding families as often as heterosexual couples?

B) All other things being equal, do you think homosexuals make as good a foundation for families as heterosexuals? Assuming you do, why?

To promote marriage so families have a foundation.

Ok, I agree.


Given the above, wouldn't society benefit from more marriages, rather than fewer?

I think the quality of marriages is more important than the quantity of marriages.

You could completely remove the value of marriage if you made marriage all-inclusive by allowing someone to marry a lamppost, to use a former example.

Hey, I switched over to blow up dolls! Get your facts straight! (no pun intended)

Maybe you're discussing justice - I'm talking about what's good for society.I think justice is good for society. :)

I think justice is good for society. :)

And I tink " Marriage " is good for society.
Lets not tamper with it just to satiate a few ignobles.

I don't come to argue allforums to make legal arguments - believe it or not, my legal writing and arguments are far different from my allforums writing and arguments. With that said, I'm unfamiliar with the case you refer to and would be happy and curious to read your citation - just understand that I don't always agree with the Supreme Court's decisions.

Two cases which deal with the "equal application" argument:

Mclaughlin v. Florida

agree.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=379&invol=184

Loving v. Virginia

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

In both cases, the court ruled that it wasn't enough that the law was applied evenly, the law also had to be examined to see if it was discriminatory.


Society's. You do, of course, realize that in the past few centuries, our society's definition of marriage did not include homosexuals? We really wouldn't be talking about this issue otherwise.

Society's attitudes change.


You don't know the definition of questionable? Or are you mistaking me for having my lawyer hat on again?

I hate to sound repetitive, but we are talking about the law.


Nah, I would disappointed to see that side of you VP! Besides, it would make it difficult for two guys with such different philosophies exchange perspectives - believe it or not, as much as we disagree, I find my exchanges with you to be helpful in refining my own thoughts and philosophies.

Thank you, Leper. I enjoy our chats as well.


As are they used to outlaw polygamy and incest.

You may have a point, but there are other arguments that may apply as well in those cases.


Maybe you're discussing justice - I'm talking about what's good for society.

I'm not sure I see much difference. :)


You don't think it's realistic to believe a large portion of the population regards homosexuality in a negative way?

Not at all. I'm saying that we shouldn't pass laws based on the fact that "a large portion of the population regards "X" in a negative way".


Here's an article which claims a 2007 survey shows that only 57% of the population considers homosexuality an "acceptable lifestyle."

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_prev.html

Still too subjective for your taste?

Yep. Entirely.


I pretty much agree.

A) Do you think homosexual couples marry for the purpose of founding families as often as heterosexual couples?

Certainly not, there's no comparison. Far more heterosexual couples marry. I also think the number isn't terribly relevant since marriage and having children are separate issues. :)


B) All other things being equal, do you think homosexuals make as good a foundation for families as heterosexuals? Assuming you do, why?

Sure, because I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't be good parents, and because I know gay people who have children and they are as good at parenting as anyone else.


I think the quality of marriages is more important than the quantity of marriages.

Don't you think it's rather presumptuous of you to judge the quality of someone else's marriage?

[QUOTE=Leper]I don't come to argue allforums to make legal arguments - believe it or not, my legal writing and arguments are far different from my allforums writing and arguments. With that said, I'm unfamiliar with the case you refer to and would be happy and curious to read your citation - just understand that I don't always agree with the Supreme Court's decisions.

Two cases which deal with the "equal application" argument:

Mclaughlin v. Florida

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=379&invol=184

Loving v. Virginia

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

In both cases, the court ruled that it wasn't enough that the law was applied evenly, the law also had to be examined to see if it was discriminatory.



Society's. You do, of course, realize that in the past few centuries, our society's definition of marriage did not include homosexuals? We really wouldn't be talking about this issue otherwise.



You don't know the definition of questionable? Or are you mistaking me for having my lawyer hat on again?





Beyond an admission, I really don't know how you would - that's why it would be pointless to try to legislate on the issue.





Nah, I would disappointed to see that side of you VP! Besides, it would make it difficult for two guys with such different philosophies exchange perspectives - believe it or not, as much as we disagree, I find my exchanges with you to be helpful in refining my own thoughts and philosophies.



As are they used to outlaw polygamy and incest.



Maybe you're discussing justice - I'm talking about what's good for society.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]You are now equating a completely subjective opinion with "reality".

If yer implying that since Society has popularized the notion of Gay
Marriage then it's a given.Why fight going with the flow.
Then again,Know thy History.As in Witch hunts during the Salem
Witch trials.Or the Spanish Inquisition or even the beheading of
Sir Thomas More.

Far more heterosexual couples marry. I also think the number isn't terribly relevant since marriage and having children are separate issues.

Some argue that this is the entire purpose of marriage.

Some argue that this is the entire purpose of marriage.
But that argument ignores all forms of childless couples, including those where one or both spouses are sterile (for either voluntary or involuntary reasons), sexless, or just plain don't want kids. It also ignores gay couples who do have kids.

It also ignores gay couples who do have kids.

Which is a good point, because such children are just as deserving of having a legally recognized family structure as children of heterosexual parents.

But that argument ignores all forms of childless couples, including those where one or both spouses are sterile (for either voluntary or involuntary reasons), sexless, or just plain don't want kids. It also ignores gay couples who do have kids.

You forgot the ones that have the kids, but not the marriage. :)

But that argument ignores all forms of childless couples, including those where one or both spouses are sterile (for either voluntary or involuntary reasons), sexless, or just plain don't want kids. It also ignores gay couples who do have kids.
show me a gay couple that has kids together, and i'll show you a couple that can already get married.

Here we go again talking about a small % of the population. How many households adopt? I can't find it. And they say ~10% of the popluation is gay. And then there is another % of the population that wants to marry blow-up dolls, dogs, cats and lamps.

We are in an era where marriage is already dying. More and more young women and men are moving away from marriage because of messy divorces. Hundreds of thousands of moms/dads choose to split households, with a mom raising a child alone. The father is oftentimes not involved and I think you can attribute a TON of discipline problems to the failure of marriage.

And now to top it off, our society wants to make it a vogue thing to do in the gay society? "Marriage is for gays" will be the growing perception among young adults. I think you'll find that even more young people will move away from marriage as a result.

I do not think that making marriage less attractive by cheapening the definition is a good thing for our society.

I think "Marriage is for Everyone" would be the real message. The issue is that there are loving, well adjusted couples seeking to build a family structure, but that structure is denied validity by the law and they are unable to attain their equal rights.

The argument that "Gay marriage would cheapen a sacred institution" is demonstrably false, as the nature of marriage has changed drastically from when it's first conception. Even so, that is more of a theological debate as opposed to a legal one.

So, aside from this vague notion of "sanctity," why should gays be denied their rights? Because if this is your only strong argument, you're stomping on thin ice.

A) By broadening the definition of marriage to include two men, I think you're going to find more guys using marriage to create a business relationship during which they receive a tax break, plus I suspect there are many other conceivable ways to exploit the marriage system for unintended purposes. Does it happen now between men and women? Occasionally, but I suspect guys will be much more likely to use such a business oppurtunity.

Yes, because there is nothing that 2 straight guys would like to do more than marry each other.


By including a group of people who many regard as deviant, suffering from a psychological disorder, or just plain sinful, you're associating marriage with activity that many people don't want to be associated with on a personal level. I believe that reduces the value of marriage.

It's kindof like forcing a woman's club to allow men to participate - that changes the nature of the club, and probably lessens its value to its members.

Well, the gov't isn't allowed to have "women's clubs"...private organizations can, but not the gov't. If you don't want others to marry because it affects your view of marriage...get over it. Making a law because you are offended is very PC.

I assume gays don't marry to reproduce.

Some do. They can reproduce, or adopt, or marry to be married to the person they love. Insane idea, isn't it?

B) All other things being equal, do you think homosexuals make as good a foundation for families as heterosexuals? Assuming you do, why?

So you are in favor of allowing gay people who are already parents to marry each other? Good, glad we at least agree on that.

show me a gay couple that has kids together, and i'll show you a couple that can already get married.

So straight people can not marry if they didn't have kids together? Wow, now look who is trying to change the definition of marriage?

I think "Marriage is for Everyone" would be the real message.

Okay, no problem, let's make marriage FOR EVERYONE then, not just gays. Open it up to people that want to marry siblings, multiple spouses and inanimate objects. Seriously, why do gays want to redefine marriage just enough so that they're in the loop? That's the part that bothers me more than anything!!!!! Either leave marriage alone or make it just like you said, FOR EVERYONE.

The issue is that there are loving, well adjusted couples seeking to build a family structure, but that structure is denied validity by the law and they are unable to attain their equal rights.

Couples aren't the only ones building a family structure. Sometimes it's individuals, sometimes it's grandparents. Why do you want to ignore these people, but want to include gays?

So, aside from this vague notion of "sanctity," why should gays be denied their rights? Because if this is your only strong argument, you're stomping on thin ice.

I don't mind answer that either of two ways, gay advocates can choose as far as I'm concerned.

1) Keep marriage the same.
2) Allow marriage to be redefined until everyone who thinks they have the right to change the definition of marriage has done so.

What do you want?

How do we deny grandparents their rights?

And there are other arguments involved with expanding the definition of marriage. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of polygamy. As long as all of the parties involved are fine, why not?

While I don't agree with incest, I see no reason to keep siblings from marrying each other. It's only a social taboo.

Inanimate objects and animals...no go. Considering that marriage is a social contract, a critical part of a that is that each party must give consent. Animals and objects cannot do that. Otherwise, the only restrictions I really support are the laws against marrying minors, as that can cause severe psychological trauma to the child.

All in all, as long as there's no abuse, you should have the right to marry whoever you want. It's time that we start recognizing alternative family structures.

But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. If there is ever a strong movement to allow marriage between siblings, we'll have that debate then. The bottom line is that allowing gays to marry hurts no one and infringes on no one else's rights, so there's no reason to forbid it.

While we're going around changing things, why does marriage have to be a social contract? What's wrong with letting someone marry themselves? Lonely people probably need to feel married more than anyone else, and there you go excluding them. Marrying yourself would be hurting ~no one~.

And why does there have to be consent? Didn't we already cover that marriages were historically arranged? Besides, several species of animals mate for life. It's consensual. And I'm pretty sure if my dog could speak English, she would consent to marry me.

The bottom line is that allowing gays to marry hurts no one and infringes on no one else's rights, so there's no reason to forbid it.

If this truly is the bottom line, then quit drawing lines in the sand about who can and can't get married.

show me a gay couple that has kids together, and i'll show you a couple that can already get married.

So you believe that the only couples that should be allowed to marry are those that can procreate with each other?

Seriously, why do gays want to redefine marriage just enough so that they're in the loop? That's the part that bothers me more than anything!!!!!

Gays don't want to do that, you want to do that. Stop doing that, it's wrong. :)


Couples aren't the only ones building a family structure. Sometimes it's individuals, sometimes it's grandparents. Why do you want to ignore these people, but want to include gays?

Who's ignoring these people? Individuals can make families if they so desire, and aren't/weren't your grandparents married?


I don't mind answer that either of two ways, gay advocates can choose as far as I'm concerned.

1) Keep marriage the same.
2) Allow marriage to be redefined until everyone who thinks they have the right to change the definition of marriage has done so.

What do you want?

3) Allow consenting adults that are not otherwise violating the law to marry if they so desire.

Gays are committing no crime by having a sexual relationship, yet their marriage would be a crime. How is that just?

All the arguments against gay marriage in this thread boil down to a person's subjective feeling that gay relationships "are worth less", are "wrong", "deviant" etc. While these opinions are are valid in the sense that everyone's entitled to their opinion, it provides no legal basis for the government to deny gays the right to marry.

Gays don't want to do that, you want to do that. Stop doing that, it's wrong. :)



Who's ignoring these people? Individuals can make families if they so desire, and aren't/weren't your grandparents married?



3) Allow consenting adults that are not otherwise violating the law to marry if they so desire.

Gays are committing no crime by having a sexual relationship, yet their marriage would be a crime. How is that just?

All the arguments against gay marriage in this thread boil down to a person's subjective feeling that gay relationships "are worth less", are "wrong", "deviant" etc. While these opinions are are valid in the sense that everyone's entitled to their opinion, it provides no legal basis for the government to deny gays the right to marry.

Maybe THE easiest thing to do would be just change the definition
of words.Like what is a violation.There are Sodomy laws on the books.
Also change the definition of Sexually and also of Rape.
While we're at it,lets change the definition of Gay.
That's also what's goin on here.
It started with Clintonism's and Political Correctness.There's a definite
agenda in play here.
It has nothing to do with fairness ...BTW.
Gays have the same rights as any Non-married.There are discrimination
laws on the books.Society can't just willy-nilly decide that Gays are
the equivalent of immediate family members { as in Hospitalization
visitation rights }.

Maybe THE easiest thing to do would be just change the definition
of words.

No, the easiest thing to do would be to discuss gay marriage, not the "definition of words".


There are Sodomy laws on the books.

Highly doubtful that any of them are legally enforceable.


It has nothing to do with fairness ...BTW.

On the contray, that's the only issue.


Gays have the same rights as any Non-married.

Yep, and we'd like the same rights as the married if we so choose.


There are discrimination
laws on the books.

Yes there are, and that's what needs to be changed.


Society can't just willy-nilly decide that Gays are
the equivalent of immediate family members { as in Hospitalization
visitation rights }.

You have that backwards, (no surprise)...society shouldn't just "willy-nilly" decide that gays aren't the equivalent of straight people in any capacity, including marriage.

Well Bless yer heart.I see yer lost.But making great time.

And I'm not drawing lines in the sand. It is my opinion that any two (or more) consenting adults have the right to engage in a marriage contract and have their union recognized by the law, therefore receiving all of the rights therein. You're the one who wants to keep it exclusive to a select group of people.

My thoughts (for what they are worth)...

The "religious" aspect of marriage is between a man and a woman united in holy matrimony by a priest/pastor/rabbi/mullah/etc. The marriages that are performed by or under the auspices of government (Justices of the Peace, for example) are not "holy" matrimony... only a legal contract.

Under the eyes of the law, they are both legally equivalent. Therefore, it's only just to allow any two humans to enter into this "legal" agreement. Call it married, civil unioned, partnered, whatever... it's just a matter of semantics.

My thoughts (for what they are worth)...

The "religious" aspect of marriage is between a man and a woman united in holy matrimony by a priest/pastor/rabbi/mullah/etc. The marriages that are performed by or under the auspices of government (Justices of the Peace, for example) are not "holy" matrimony... only a legal contract.

Agreed, and well put.


Under the eyes of the law, they are both legally equivalent.

That is the goal.


Therefore, it's only just to allow any two humans to enter into this "legal" agreement. Call it married, civil unioned, partnered, whatever... it's just a matter of semantics.

Agreed, but I'll add that while I think it's unimportant what you call the arrangement, it's vitally important that the law has only one name for it regardless of whether the participants are gay or straight. Otherwise, it's not equal.

We are in an era where marriage is already dying. More and more young women and men are moving away from marriage because of messy divorces. Hundreds of thousands of moms/dads choose to split households, with a mom raising a child alone. The father is oftentimes not involved and I think you can attribute a TON of discipline problems to the failure of marriage.


Frankly, I think having an infusion of people who genuinely want to get married and are enthusiastic enough about it to pursue it so doggedly would probably help strengthen married, not weaken it further.

So you believe that the only couples that should be allowed to marry are those that can procreate with each other?
at least a snowball's chance in hell of it. and make that just should and strike the allowed. the only reason i think the government should have any say in the matter is because government benefits are at stake.

at least a snowball's chance in hell of it. and make that just should and strike the allowed.

So...you think they shouldn't marry? Hmm...it seems to me that most married couples, at least in your preferable world, wouldn't even find out until after they were married whether or not children were possible. Except of course, gays.


the only reason i think the government should have any say in the matter is because government benefits are at stake.

If it were up to you, what sort of laws/regulations would you impose?

I think justice is good for society. :)

Depends on your idea of justice - here, VP seems to think gays should be able to marry because it's the "just" thing to do (correct me if I'm wrong VP). I, on the other hand, don't think gays should be able to "marry" because I don't think it's good for society.

So...you think they shouldn't marry? Hmm...it seems to me that most married couples, at least in your preferable world, wouldn't even find out until after they were married whether or not children were possible. Except of course, gays.
thanks for reading my mind. don't quit you day job, your night club act isn't going anywhere.



If it were up to you, what sort of laws/regulations would you impose?
there would be no such thing as a marriage license.

Two cases which deal with the "equal application" argument:

Mclaughlin v. Florida

agree.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=379&invol=184

Loving v. Virginia

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

In both cases, the court ruled that it wasn't enough that the law was applied evenly, the law also had to be examined to see if it was discriminatory.

Both are cases about interracial marriage. I reject the comparison.

I hate to sound repetitive, but we are talking about the law.

I wasn't. My posting is about reducing the value of marriage. I also posted in regards to your stating that "the courts" recognize homosexuals' right to marry, which just plain isn't true.


Not at all. I'm saying that we shouldn't pass laws based on the fact that "a large portion of the population regards "X" in a negative way".

You were asking how homosexual marriage lessens the value of marriage overall. That was the issue I was responding to, not whether it should be legal or not.


Yep. Entirely.

I don't get this. Are you denying that a large portion of the population regards homosexual lifestyles in a negative light?

Certainly not, there's no comparison. Far more heterosexual couples marry. I also think the number isn't terribly relevant since marriage and having children are separate issues. :)

Sorry, I was unclear - I wasn't talking quantitatively. Allow me to clarify the question:

A) Proportionately-speaking, do you think homosexual couples marry for the purpose of founding families as often as heterosexual couples?


Sure, because I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't be good parents, and because I know gay people who have children and they are as good at parenting as anyone else.

You don't think the gender of the parents is important to the development of their children? E.g. Two dads is just as good as a mom and dad?

Don't you think it's rather presumptuous of you to judge the quality of someone else's marriage?

Of course not - if my daughter were getting married, you bet your ass I'll be judging the quality of her marriage. Likewise, but to a much lesser degree, I'm concerned about the quality of my community's marriages.

Most, if not all, laws originate from value judgments. One of the reasons polygamy is illegal is because we, as a society, don't think polygamous marriage is creates quality families.

We are in an era where marriage is already dying. More and more young women and men are moving away from marriage because of messy divorces. Hundreds of thousands of moms/dads choose to split households, with a mom raising a child alone. The father is oftentimes not involved and I think you can attribute a TON of discipline problems to the failure of marriage.

And now to top it off, our society wants to make it a vogue thing to do in the gay society? "Marriage is for gays" will be the growing perception among young adults. I think you'll find that even more young people will move away from marriage as a result.


I agree with this. I think one of the biggest problems facing our society is a movement away from the stable family with a mom and dad. This is the time-tested best method of raising healthy, disciplined children and citizens. Moving away from this ideal is doing our society harm, not good.

And I'm not drawing lines in the sand. It is my opinion that any two (or more) consenting adults have the right to engage in a marriage contract and have their union recognized by the law, therefore receiving all of the rights therein. You're the one who wants to keep it exclusive to a select group of people.

I grew up with the word " Marriage " also.
I didn't decide to have conflict with it's meaning OR application.
But I'll be damned if I'll allow some Pansy interest group go about
the business of changing an Institution { Marriage } just because
their Malcontent ingrates.

My thoughts (for what they are worth)...

The "religious" aspect of marriage is between a man and a woman united in holy matrimony by a priest/pastor/rabbi/mullah/etc. The marriages that are performed by or under the auspices of government (Justices of the Peace, for example) are not "holy" matrimony... only a legal contract.

Under the eyes of the law, they are both legally equivalent. Therefore, it's only just to allow any two humans to enter into this "legal" agreement. Call it married, civil unioned, partnered, whatever... it's just a matter of semantics.

Then why exclude polygamists and incestuous relationships from marriage?

Frankly, I think having an infusion of people who genuinely want to get married and are enthusiastic enough about it to pursue it so doggedly would probably help strengthen married, not weaken it further.

Once again, why not allow polygamists to marry?

Once again, why not allow polygamists to marry?
because they don't have a lobby pushing for "acceptance".

thanks for reading my mind. don't quit you day job, your night club act isn't going anywhere.

Sorry, it's just so often you leave me guessing as to what you're trying to say.


there would be no such thing as a marriage license.

I could get behind that....no pun intended ;)

For the record, I think we should allow polygamists to marry. However, that's another subject.

And Vile's comparison to interracial marriage is appropriate. True, they are different, but they are still related, especially considering the arguments against both are remarkably similar. This is even to the point that it's nearly just substituting "Gay" for "interracial."

My thoughts (for what they are worth)...

The "religious" aspect of marriage is between a man and a woman united in holy matrimony by a priest/pastor/rabbi/mullah/etc. The marriages that are performed by or under the auspices of government (Justices of the Peace, for example) are not "holy" matrimony... only a legal contract.

Under the eyes of the law, they are both legally equivalent. Therefore, it's only just to allow any two humans to enter into this "legal" agreement. Call it married, civil unioned, partnered, whatever... it's just a matter of semantics.

Oh that's real intuitive.Have a Semantical argument and then
pick and choose the meaning of words.Why not just toss in some
Irony and a case of apples & oranges ta boot.
The definition of Marriage HAS to include the union between
a man and a woman.Nothing less will,will ever,Can,can ever,
Can done Will hunting ever no matter what Matt says.
I don't care how genius it sounds.

Sorry, it's just so often you leave me guessing as to what you're trying to say.



I could get behind that....no pun intended ;)
ask questions, get answers.

For the record, I think we should allow polygamists to marry. However, that's another subject.
they are allowed to marry, they aren't allowed a marriage license to more than one person.


if you want to start your own Manson Family, go for it. just don't be shocked when your employer discontinues paying for more than just the employees benifits.

Both are cases about interracial marriage. I reject the comparison.

So I've noticed.


I wasn't. My posting is about reducing the value of marriage. I also posted in regards to your stating that "the courts" recognize homosexuals' right to marry, which just plain isn't true.

Obviously most courts don't recognize "homosexual marriage", but most courts would recognize marriage to be a fundamental human right. That was my point.


I don't get this. Are you denying that a large portion of the population regards homosexual lifestyles in a negative light?

No, I am not denying that fact. As I said, I think that's irrelevant to the discussion. I know that you and many others think that being gay is "deviant", "distasteful", "abnormal", "wrong", "sinful", etc. Again, that's no basis on which to write the law.


Sorry, I was unclear - I wasn't talking quantitatively. Allow me to clarify the question:

A) Proportionately-speaking, do you think homosexual couples marry for the purpose of founding families as often as heterosexual couples?

I'd say lesbian couples would come close, but definitely not for the guys.


You don't think the gender of the parents is important to the development of their children? E.g. Two dads is just as good as a mom and dad?

I think it's more important that a child have a parent or parents, no matter the gender, rather than none at all. I think it bears pointing out that the children of gay couples wouldn't have parents at all otherwise, whether the child was adopted, or conceived by the gay couple.


Of course not - if my daughter were getting married, you bet your ass I'll be judging the quality of her marriage.

My sympathies to your daughter. :)


Likewise, but to a much lesser degree, I'm concerned about the quality of my community's marriages.

Likewise, but to a much lesser degree, my sympathies to your community. ;)


Most, if not all, laws originate from value judgments. One of the reasons polygamy is illegal is because we, as a society, don't think polygamous marriage is creates quality families.

And presumably you don't think gay people can have quality families either. Sad really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNPdZPSII0

ROTFLMAO!!

Sorry, I was unclear - I wasn't talking quantitatively. Allow me to clarify the question:

A) Proportionately-speaking, do you think homosexual couples marry for the purpose of founding families as often as heterosexual couples?


This is an irrelevant point, unless you are proposing a law that would ban people from marriage if they can't or don't want to have children.

This is an irrelevant point, unless you are proposing a law that would ban people from marriage if they can't or don't want to have children.
define "can't". improbable, or biologically impossible?

define "can't". improbable, or biologically impossible?

Does it make a difference? Say a woman who has no uterus wishes to marry.

Does it make a difference? Say a woman who has no uterus wishes to marry.
that would be improbable...her bearing childern, that is.

that would be improbable...her bearing childern, that is.
And just where would a fetus reside in this hypothetical woman lacking a uterus?

And just where would a fetus reside in this hypothetical woman lacking a uterus?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/364702/pregnancy_after_hysterectomy_can_i.html

I know that you and many others think that being gay is "deviant", "distasteful", "abnormal", "wrong", "sinful", etc.

I'm not sure how you know this about me. I'm not religious so I don't think anything is "sinful." And I wouldn't call homosexuality "wrong." I would agree with the other three adjectives however.

Again, that's no basis on which to write the law.

That's a bit ridiculous - most laws exist to stop deviant, distasteful, abnormal, wrong, or sinful behavior.

I'd say lesbian couples would come close, but definitely not for the guys.

Okay, we basically agree on this point then - gays don't marry to provide a foundation for families as often as heterosexual couples.

If the purpose of marriage is "to provide a foundation for families" and gays generally aren't marrying for the purpose of founding families, we are undermining the purpose of marriage by allowing gays to enjoy the benefits of marriage.


I think it bears pointing out that the children of gay couples wouldn't have parents at all otherwise, whether the child was adopted, or conceived by the gay couple.

Apparently, you haven't heard about the shortage of adoptable children in this country.

And presumably you don't think gay people can have quality families either. Sad really.

You presume wrong - I just think they're much less likely to have quality families, or families period, than heterosexual couples.

Does it make a difference? Say a woman who has no uterus wishes to marry.

That would require a full-blown medical examination, with uncertain results, everytime someone got married - that would be a hell of a lot more invasive than observing whether you're dealing with a gay couple or not.

That would require a full-blown medical examination, with uncertain results, everytime someone got married - that would be a hell of a lot more invasive than observing whether you're dealing with a gay couple or not.

Oh Butts that's a Gay's forte.Bein Invasive.
Ever go into a Porn Parlor Peep's.?
For a quickie ex.

Oh Butts that's a Gay's forte.Bein Invasive.
Ever go into a Porn Parlor Peep's.?
For a quickie ex.


eeww,no one wants to hear about you and Porn Parlors. :p

eeww,no one wants to hear about you and Porn Parlors. :p
thanks for putting that image in my head:(

I'm not sure how you know this about me. I'm not religious so I don't think anything is "sinful." And I wouldn't call homosexuality "wrong." I would agree with the other three adjectives however.

That's enough. You're still basing your decisions on subjective opinion


That's a bit ridiculous - most laws exist to stop deviant, distasteful, abnormal, wrong, or sinful behavior.

No, most laws exist to prevent harmful behavior.


If the purpose of marriage is "to provide a foundation for families" and gays generally aren't marrying for the purpose of founding families, we are undermining the purpose of marriage by allowing gays to enjoy the benefits of marriage.

That's a non sequitur.


Apparently, you haven't heard about the shortage of adoptable children in this country.

Indeed...so?


You presume wrong - I just think they're much less likely to have quality families, or families period, than heterosexual couples.

That's what I said...you value gay families less than straight ones...that's sad.

Once again, why not allow polygamists to marry?

I don't have any problem with that.

eeww,no one wants to hear about you and Porn Parlors. :p

Weld,I don't particularly wanna hear from you how you don't
wanna hear about me and the Peeps.
Plus,I dint say I engaged in that activity.
Just that I gots a purdy good overall notion of what goes on,
Is all.

I don't have any problem with that.

Neither do I...and I would think that you and Leper could make a buck or two on the custody battles that would ensue. :D

define "can't". improbable, or biologically impossible?

Either.

Okay, we basically agree on this point then - gays don't marry to provide a foundation for families as often as heterosexual couples.

If the purpose of marriage is "to provide a foundation for families" and gays generally aren't marrying for the purpose of founding families, we are undermining the purpose of marriage by allowing gays to enjoy the benefits of marriage.


Fine, then allow the gays who ARE marrying for the purpose of founding families to get married, and ban the heterosexual couples who are NOT marrying for that purpose. But to ban an entire group because in general they are less likely to form families???

Neither do I...and I would think that you and Leper could make a buck or two on the custody battles that would ensue. :D

Yeah, no kidding. And think of the nice complicated wills you could draw up. Oooo, and when someone gets in an accident, 10 wives could sue for loss of companionship.:banana: :banana: :banana:

Yeah, no kidding. And think of the nice complicated wills you could draw up. Oooo, and when someone gets in an accident, 10 wives could sue for loss of companionship.:banana: :banana: :banana:

And the father could get to see the kids every other, other, other, other, other, other, other, other, other, other weekend.

Why is the argument for polygamy always brought up with gay marriage?

Two people in love, regardless of gender, is not the same dynamic as polygamy.

Unfortunately, humans are weird. They think everyone should be/think/live/love EXACTLY like they do.

Who says founding families is the only purpose, or even the main purpose, for marriage? I thought people got married because they love each other and want to spend their lives together.

I believe the original purpose was more of a business transaction. Love had nothing to do with it.

I believe the original purpose was more of a business transaction. Love had nothing to do with it.

It's a legal arrangement for the distribution of assets for both the marital community and any children resulting therefrom.

Churches got involved, and co-opted the term "marriage."

My suggestion to them is they may preserve the term "spiritual unions" if they like, but marriage is open to any two consenting adults otherwise meeting the state's criteria.

Unfortunately (for some), such decisions are made by lawmakers... who, for the most part, are Believers. I'd say history proves it's actually more like 'Churches got involved' and now politicians are trying to redefine the term "marriage."

Which raises an interesting question. How many times has Obama refused to back gay-marriage proposals because they 'go against his religious beliefs?'

Anyone?

Oh, don't start me on Obama, the alleged "liberal."

It takes a lot of balls to be a racial minority and not understand the concept of "separate, but equal."

Add to that someone with a degree from Harvard Law, and ....

By the way, in order to "redefine" the word, there would have to be existing definitions. Not all states have them; hence, the Calif. State Supreme Court decision.

I believe the original purpose was more of a business transaction. Love had nothing to do with it.
I'm perfectly aware of that, thank you. :)

All the arguments against gay marriage in this thread boil down to a person's subjective feeling that gay relationships "are worth less", are "wrong", "deviant" etc.

Exactly.

Arguments like "gays marrying one another is worthless" .... "gays marrying one another is wrong" .... "gays marrying one another is deviant" ... are simply manifestations of superstitious beliefs.

People are of course free to be superstitious, but they are not (well, actually this society does it quite often, but it should NOT be doing it) free to enact laws based on those superstitions.

While these opinions are are valid in the sense that everyone's entitled to their opinion, it provides no legal basis for the government to deny gays the right to marry.

Well spoken. To me, that is the absolute bottom line of this disagreement.