Gay Marriage - Discussion

[telcoman]

INSERTED BY HASH:

This is the place for all discussion on the topic of Gay Marriage, civil unions, and the like. Along that vein, Telco has started the discussion via the posting of the following article.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...olumn

If you are opposed to same sex marrage don't have one

Telcoman

[HashiriyaS14]

I changed your title.

You can't just post up an article as a justification for a new thread.

If you want to debate the issue of gay marriage, be prepared to offer some original thoughts and ideas.

I originally locked this, but then I changed my mind, as I think we COULD use a single thread devoted to the issue, as it's a hot-button.

I'll let everyone else post up their thoughts before I start posting mine.

[telcoman]

I changed your title.

You can't just post up an article as a justification for a new thread.

If you want to debate the issue of gay marriage, be prepared to offer some original thoughts and ideas.

I originally locked this, but then I changed my mind, as I think we COULD use a single thread devoted to the issue, as it's a hot-button.

I'll let everyone else post up their thoughts before I start posting mine.

Yes it is a hot topic.

Why advocate legislation or impose personal views on everyone else when it doesn't affect you?

If gays are willing to adopt unwanted children and raise them in a loving environment, what is wrong with that?

In addition, gays are generally DINC's (dual income no kids) that have a lot of discretionary income.

A few examples

In New York they have renovated neighborhoods such as Greenwich Village and the East Village. In New Jersey they have begun renovating Asbury Park along the Jersey shore.

[wingFeather]

Why advocate legislation or impose personal views on everyone else when it doesn't affect you?

Exactly. There is no need to create MORE government to legalize gay marriage. If two men or women want to live together, it is their decision & shouldn't be part of the government. They should not get the same legal benefits as married couples.

[telcoman]

Exactly. There is no need to create MORE government to legalize gay marriage. If two men or women want to live together, it is their decision & shouldn't be part of the government. They should not get the same legal benefits as married couples.

Why not?

[Jesda]

I'm opposed to all government-sanctioned marriages. Let people sign their own living contracts and have their little ceremonies if they want. The only reason the government ever got involved was to promote good hygiene.

Otherwise, the gay marriage issue is so far down at the bottom of my list of "care" items that I can't be bugged to say much else.

[wingFeather]

Why not?

Dear Hilter,

We need less government telling us what to do with our private lives.

Sincerely,The Free

[The Wicker Man]

already mentioned hitler this early in the thread...

[wingFeather]

Do you happen to post from the same IP as another NICO political forum poster?

[The Wicker Man]

What would you say if I told you, yes. Would that make your day?

[HashiriyaS14]

They should not get the same legal benefits as married couples.

See, and I don't understand why not. (in my OPINION, as is all of the following)

There's no compelling reason to refuse them said benefits, and it doesn't create any real additional "government". It just puts a new group of people under the umbrella of an existing law.

The gay marriage debate isn't one about more government versus less government. It is a debate about individual liberties. Why refuse this group their individual liberties while at the same time you campaign for the liberty to carry and bear firearms? You're either FOR the limiting of individual liberties or you're against it. It doesn't make any sense to say that you support the ability to carry an MP5 to a bar but against the ability to have an abortion or marry if you're gay.

Additionally, to go on the record, as law, as saying that marriage between a "man and a woman" is okay creates a HUGE legal boondogle. It effectively separates citizens as men and women, indicating that either men or women, or perhaps certain types of pairings between men and women, can be given different sets of rights. This is a legal nightmare.

The law should read "marriage is between two legal residents or citizens" and nothing more. Just like "all citizens should have the right to vote", rather than saying men can and then adding women in an amendment later (which creates the possible legal loophole wherein transgenders could be denied the right to vote)

An individual should not be referred to via gender or race in the law EVER, only by legal status (i.e. resident or citizen). To do otherwise creates all kinds of potential issues.

As I am NOT in favor of creating more potential issues, I would just be in favor of just saying "citizens and legal residents may marry one another".

[mtcookson]

I don't care if they get together and get benefits, that's their choice... but I do care about calling it marriage. I've always felt and believed marriage to be a religious institution so would rather them just call it a union. On that same note, being a religious institution is also why I absolutely hate that the government has its hands in it... I don't want some stupid license and have to spend money (tax) to the government to get married when I'm supposed to be getting married under God... I'm not getting married under the state. Stupid.

The only reason the government ever got involved was to promote good hygiene.

And money...

[HashiriyaS14]

I don't care if they get together and get benefits, that's their choice... but I do care about calling it marriage. I've always felt and believed marriage to be a religious institution so would rather them just call it a union. On that same note, being a religious institution is also why I absolutely hate that the government has its hands in it... I don't want some stupid license and have to spend money (tax) to the government to get married when I'm supposed to be getting married under God... I'm not getting married under the state. Stupid.

Yeah, the religious aspect is the tricky part. If it's a religious thing, then the government should have ZERO influence in deciding what it's called or, for that matter, defining the term "marriage".

The Unitarians (or whoever) probably consider a sheep and a cat "marriage". Anything can be a religion, and despite what the right says, you *cannot* assume any kind of Christian "standard" when making laws because much of the nation isn't Christian.

[AZhitman]

I think in our last [epically long] thread about this, we kinda decided it was more an issue of semantics than anything else.

Civil unions appeared to have the exact same legal rights as marriages, yet the fight continued in pursuit of the word "marriage".

When we get to that level of semantics, the next thing we'll have to contend with is a legal maelstrom incited by a subset of people who feel they're too restricted by the labels "male" and "female"... after all, those are too ambiguous for a sliver of the population.

[wingFeather]

in my OPINION

And in my opinon, backed up by thousands of years of history... MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman.

Also, do you deny that males & females currently have different sets of legals rights? Your post makes it seem so.

[HashiriyaS14]

And in my opinon, backed up by thousands of years of history... MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman.

That's great, it's perfectly fine that you think that. The problem is that things change. What changed here is that, while homosexuality has existed since the dawn of humanity, homosexuals are just now beginning to assert their rights in this country. It has always been there, it just used to be under the rug. Now it's public, it's a decently large group of citizens, and they're finally asserting that they should have certain rights.

Women being denied any opportunities in government is backed up by thousands of years of history too, but society marches on. This is just the next big thing.

One of my biggest disagreements with the GOP has been their increasing dependency on the small contingent of Americans that would like to see a return to 1950's America. This will never occur as the makeup of American society has changed, and yet people still elect officials who either explicitly or implicitly promise it. It's a false promise, it's not executable, leaving aside whether it's a good idea or not. Concentrate less on silly impossible crusades and more on the things that elected officials should really be promising, like schools and jobs.

If the GOP would stop clinging to this, they could refresh some of their viability and appeal to mainstream Americans who live in the here and now. It would be a huge help to the survival of the party long-term. You can't base your viability in 2008 on your negative reaction to 1960's counterculture, it isn't relevant anymore. What happened happened, America changed. Live in the now.

Also, do you deny that males & females currently have different sets of legals rights? Your post makes it seem so.

Well, technically, insomuch as I am aware, they do NOT currently have different "legals rights". They have generally equal rights, although my point is that in regards to how it is presented, letter-of-the-law, there are a number of potential holes that would allow for some serious problems should a legislative body or Supreme Court ever decide to get creative.

It is inherently dangerous to be referring to people in the law as groups in society, as the lines are rarely drawn very clearly. It is far easier and less trouble-prone to refer to them via their legal status, which is 100% objective and defined.

[wingFeather]

The problem is that things change.

Yes, that is a problem!

Change can be good or bad. This IMHO would be a bad change.

If we make more government for these people, then we need to make more goevernment for other lifestyles, too. It's not fair to descriminate against many wives, marriage to animals (since you brought up Unitarians), etc...

Not to mention the negatives against traditional marriages. This would encourage a higher divorce rate and reduce the morality of the country to a new low not pioneered since Clinton was in office cheating on his wife.

[Jimefam]

The gay marriage debate isn't one about more government versus less government. It is a debate about individual liberties. Why refuse this group their individual liberties while at the same time you campaign for the liberty to carry and bear firearms? You're either FOR the limiting of individual liberties or you're against it. It doesn't make any sense to say that you support the ability to carry an MP5 to a bar but against the ability to have an abortion or marry if you're gay.

You are right that it's not a issue about the size of government but it is also not an issue of individual liberties. It should be but it is not. What this debate boils down to is religion and unfortunately we know the rules of this board so I will try to walk a fine line here. For many people in this country homosexuality is against their religion and therefore viewed as immoral. There is a portion of these people that seek to impose their moral standards on the rest of us. They do not want to see it become legal for no other reason that it conflicts with their view of what is moral. They are willing to accept people of the same sex being together because that battle has already been lost but want it keep underground and in the shadows as much as possible, that way it appears more "sinful".

[HashiriyaS14]

Yes, that is a problem!

Change can be good or bad. This IMHO would be a bad change.

If we make more government for these people, then we need to make more goevernment for other lifestyles, too. It's not fair to descriminate against many wives, marriage to animals (since you brought up Unitarians), etc...

Not to mention the negatives against traditional marriages. This would encourage a higher divorce rate and reduce the morality of the country to a new low not pioneered since Clinton was in office cheating on his wife.

Well, I will agree that change can be good or bad.

I disagree that this would be "making more government". If you can demonstrate that it creates an increased obligation for taxpayers or more bureaucracy, please do so, but I don't see it.

I am of the mind that polygamy should be legal, as it doesn't hurt anyone so long as it's among adults that are OF LEGAL AGE (looks at Utah, lol).

As for animals, they obviously aren't legal citizens or residents, they don't have SSN's, and so they quite obviously can't get "married".

I realize that, when debating whether people should be able to marry animals, it sounds ridiculous to say "well, the animals aren't residents or citizens" rather than say "people shouldn't be able to do it because it's f**king retarded", but we're talking letter-of-the-law here. When you're defining the legality of acts under the law, you need to approach it with this level of detail rather than making it into some kind of vague moral issue. Think like a lawyer.