Gay Marriage

[mgb]

Gay marriage was just given the green light for legislation in Canada. As such the radio is chocked full of opinions on the matter and it would be interesting to see what the consensus is on the site and why people think the way they do.

[SheepDog]

It doesn't harm me.

[Sackanaka]

At the very least, they should be allowed the legal benefits of marriage shouldn't they?

[Jezebel]

I'm all for gay marriage and full marital rights, but I think there are people against it for more than religious reasons.

[Strephonade]

Why not?

[Edmond Zedo]

Civil union yes; Marriage no. As far as I'm concerned, it's an issue of semantics, not politics.

[HeyBooU]

The best argument against gay marriage was the fact that they cannot have children so they do not deserve tax benefits of marriage. Well this argument is crap because there are many couple who choose not to have children.

From what I noticed many politicians are supporting the civil unions instead of marriages because civil unions are not recognized by the federal government but only by that state that issues the union. Big cop out to me. My problem is the fact that I hear a lot of talk of marriage always being a "sacred insitution" and even an agreement with God. It is definitly not sacred since over half of marriages end in divorce.

That was mostly rambaling and I know it probably doesn't make senses but my final point is that I really do think people do not like gay marriage simply because they are ignorant fools. More proof of the world being full of idiots.

[HeyBooU]

Civil union yes; Marriage no. As far as I'm concerned, it's an issue of semantics, not politics.
Could you explain?

[anarchist]

here's my take...the more the number of gay marriages,the better...pretty good solution to the problem of over population...

[booyalab]

Civil union yes; Marriage no. As far as I'm concerned, it's an issue of semantics, not politics.

damn you, I was talking with mgbradsh on msn before he made this thread and that was precisely my interpretation of the issue. *feels unoriginal*

[mgb]

So what is the difference between marriage and civil unions? Aren't marriages be sanctioned by the state? Is this allowing gay civil unions just a cop out? Is that really going to solve anything or just delay the debate a bit?

[booyalab]

oh well I can elaborate.....marriage should be taken out of the jurisdiction of the government and civil unions should be established for anyone and their cow/tree/human soul mate who wants to get legal benefits for being in a relationship with them. Marriage, if desired, should then be established by a person's personal religious institution so it can be seen as sacred in the eyes of that congregation.

[mgb]

here's my take...the more the number of gay marriages,the better...pretty good solution to the problem of over population...

That is silly. Gay women can still have babies, its not like there is no way to do it.

[Edmond Zedo]

Civil union as I know it is modeled on marriage precisely when it comes to the law. You end up with a partner instead of a husband/wife.

[Edmond Zedo]

That is silly. Gay women can still have babies, its not like there is no way to do it.

But it isn't as fun, and there's usually not an "Oh shit." said in weeks ahead.

[mgb]

Civil union as I know it is modeled on marriage precisely when it comes to the law. You end up with a partner instead of a husband/wife.

But it's just a way around marriage. Pretty soon people will figure out that marriage=civil union and you are back to where it started.

[mgb]

In Canada the Supreme Court said that the government could legislate marriage but at the same time churches could not be forced to perform gay marriages so it would have to be marriage in front of a judge.

[HeyBooU]

Civil unions are only recognized by that state that issued it. If you have a civil union in one state it is not recognized in another. Since only one state in the entire union recognizes civil unions, it make the whole thing not work. Marriages are recognized throughout the union.

I did agree with marriage being only a religious affiliation and that the government should not have anything to do with it. But that would screw over the gay marriage amendment, haha.

Edit: Ha, I said union a lot in that first paragraph.

[Edmond Zedo]

But it's just a way around marriage. Pretty soon people will figure out that marriage=civil union and you are back to where it started.

That's fine with me. Like I said, I'm for civil unions. I'm against two guys having the legal status of "marriage," and being each others' "husbands." It changes the definitions.

[indie]

I don't believe sexual orientation is a "choice" . . . if a gay/lesbian couple is truly in love, they should be allowed to be that way, legally, without a social stigma. Besides, isn't one of the religious sayings "Judge not lest ye be judged," right? Why judge them? Once upon a time people were offended by seeing a bi-racial couple together. Homosexuality really isn't any different from that, IMO. I have no problem w/the gays or lesbians, I say let them be.

[booyalab]

Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution because most people think it still is. Therefore there should be a different institution established by the government with corresponding legal benefits and rights. A civil union will only turn into what 'marriage' is viewed as, if our government turns into a theocracy.

[Jezebel]

oh well I can elaborate.....marriage should be taken out of the jurisdiction of the government and civil unions should be established for anyone and their cow/tree/human soul mate who wants to get legal benefits for being in a relationship with them. Marriage, if desired, should then be established by a person's personal religious institution so it can be seen as sacred in the eyes of that congregation.

So atheists can't get married either? Whatever. I don't care what it's called, and if they want to come up with some name other than 'marriage' that is fine with me, but I want the full rights of a religious couple who got married, and couples who are only united by civil union do not get those full rights.

[Sackanaka]

Was the term marriage always one of religious connotation? Or was it monopolized along the way?
If you put the situation in another context... how's this: I really really want to play video games, since I am outcasted by all my friends who own them, and have done nothing wrong legally against the video game industry or society in general. However, Company Alpha was founded by a vehemently anti-Japanese WWII veteran or something, and so established the company to be strictly Caucasian-employees only. And for some reason the majority of the nation loves Co. A; they supposedly have good values and have proven themselves to be a longlasting power. Over the past few decades Co. A became the world's largest company in the world with pretty much a monopoly over all commercially sold video games in the market. My options are limited: don't play video games, move to another country, or make my own video games in the shadows.

I know that was a pretty lame analogy but I would be pissed if someone denied me the basic rights given to the great majority of my country, only for the sole reason of something I didn't really choose in the first place.

[booyalab]

So athiests can't get married either? Whatever. I don't care what it's called, and if they want to come up with some name other than 'marriage' that is fine with me, but I want the full rights of a religious couple who got married, and couples who are only united by civil union do not get those full rights.

Um, they wouldn't want to since it's a religious institution. Unless they want to make up their own definition of it to fit what they believe a union between a person and another person is. What I made obvious in my statement is that the civil unions established for anyone who wants a relationship would have all of the legal benefits that are currently connected to marriage.

[booyalab]

Was the term marriage always one of religious connotation? Or was it monopolized along the way?
If you put the situation in another context... how's this: I really really want to play video games, since I am outcasted by all my friends who own them, and have done nothing wrong legally against the video game industry or society in general. However, Company Alpha was founded by a vehemently anti-Japanese WWII veteran or something, and so established the company to be strictly Caucasian-employees only. Over the past few decades Co. A became the world's largest company in the world with pretty much a monopoly over all commercially sold video games in the market. My options are limited: don't play video games, move to another country, or make my own video games in the shadows.

I know that was a pretty lame analogy but I would be pissed if someone denied me the basic rights given to the great majority of my country, only for the sole reason of something I didn't really choose in the first place.

Marriage as we know it in our protestant-based society is a religious institution. Marriage is in the Bible, the Bible is older than the constitution, therefore it should be a religious institution separate from the authority of our government.

[Edmond Zedo]

So athiests can't get married either? Whatever. I don't care what it's called, and if they want to come up with some name other than 'marriage' that is fine with me, but I want the full rights of a religious couple who got married, and couples who are only united by civil union do not get those full rights.

But men and women "feet together".

"It doesn't make seeance! It doesn't make seeance! If wookies don't live on Endor, you must aquit!" --SP

[Vagabond]

(Haven't we taked about this before..?)
Semantics is the last thing that is important, in my opinion. Church and state should seperate their rights and their functions- whatever... so, if according to a religion it is wrong for gay people to get married, no one should force that church to perform a religious marriage.

According to the state though, all civiliants have equal rights and obligations, right? If marriage serves only the purpose of making babies, then people that are not physically able to reproduce, should not be allowed to get married. Bleh... that's not accurate though, thank god. If civil unions were exactly the same with marriages under the law, then I wouldn't oppose going with that, as it would be obviously just a temporary middle-ground term to sweeten the pill to those that oppose gay marriage and most likely the differenciation between gay civil unions and gay marriage would not last long. People are incredibly adaptable, even though we don't always realise it. However, HeyBooU said that a civil union is only recognised by the state that issued it, right? So, if I get married to the opposite sex, I benefit from certain legal rights etc everywhere, but if I get a civil union with the same sex, I only get those rights within that state. So, why is it not obvious that this way we are allowing less rights to a certain group of civiliants, distinguishing them by their sexual behaviours/choices/whatever? Why is that not discrimination?

Btw - marriage being sacred would work as an argument, if we were discussing religious marriage. Every church have their own rules and standards, no doubt about that. I am not quite sure I understand the idea of a 'sacred' legal status though.

[booyalab]

(Haven't we taked about this before..?)
I am not quite sure I understand the idea of a 'sacred' legal status though.

This is why marriage (the religious definition) shouldn't be under the authority of the government.

[Jezebel]

Um, they wouldn't want to since it's a religious institution. Unless they want to make up their own definition of it to fit what they believe a union between a person and another person is. What I made obvious in my statement is that the civil unions established for anyone who wants a relationship would have all of the legal benefits that are currently connected to marriage.
that wasn't clarified in the quoted text.

[Vagabond]

This is why marriage (the religious definition) shouldn't be under the authority of the government. Yeah, I definitely agree.

[Edmond Zedo]

Marriage as we know it in our protestant-based society is a religious institution. Marriage is in the Bible, the Bible is older than the constitution, therefore it should be a religious institution separate from the authority of our government.

With respect, marriage has been founded in many cultures under many authorities over thousands of years.

I believe it should be under government regulation (If anything is), because of the legal benefits it provides. Say your husband/wife dies, leaves no will, but marriage is not recognized by law. You could be out a house. And I do believe that civil unions should have the same benefits as marriage.

[Serotonin]

Maybe we should ask the gay community what it is they want exactly. Asking the church to bless them is probably a fruitless effort, but that's something the church needs to work out, not the state. In terms of equal fiscal and legal arrangements, and the right to call your partner a "spouse", I don't see why people should object to that.

[Edmond Zedo]

In terms of equal fiscal and legal arrangements, and the right to call your partner a "spouse", I don't see why people should object to that.

I do! I do! I believe "Spousal Proxy (Male_ Female_)" would be much more appropriate.

[Lucas]

With respect, marriage has been founded in many cultures under many authorities over thousands of years.


Marriage is almost a cultural universal. But it is difficult to lump them all into one category because they are all grounded in, and locked into their own cultural context of what that means.

Marriage, a social bond between two or more people sanctioned by society, exists in most cultures throughout history. Marriage as we know it is a purely western concept.

[Serotonin]

I do! I do! I believe "Spousal Proxy (Male_ Female_)" would be much more appropriate.

Why? Appropriate for you or appropriate for them?
*imagines being introduced to married gay couple at a party*
"....and this is my spousal proxy Julian.....". Sounds a bit too p.c.

[mgb]

Civil Unions are for gays. Don't you risk the "seperate but equal" stigma? Isn't that a form of discrimination, exactly what is trying to be avoided? I remember seperate but equal not working out too well...

[mgb]

And aren't states indeed legislating gay marriage by not letting them happen in any form?

[Clara]

So atheists can't get married either?
Not in church :whistle: funny, some might think, that there are people who don't want their deepest beliefs used as a fashion/style detail... And changing to "something completely different:" there are also a lot of people who are offended by something as significant as their sexuality, referred to as "lifestyle." :whistle: (no, there's no point, just two thoughts)

To make another sideways hop: when I was looking for what I could find to illuminate INTP a bit, I read an explanation of the difference between F and T, which said whether you respond to "what do you think" or "what do you feel" ... about gay marriage - I thought, "What!?!" because I can actually give my two, separate, processes for these (not the same!) questions... Okay, they meet up, at the conclusion, and they each have bits of the other in them...
(BTW, the F one is shorter, but can be expounded, for emotional oomph :) )

[Edmond Zedo]

Why? Appropriate for you or appropriate for them?
*imagines being introduced to married gay couple at a party*
"....and this is my spousal proxy Julian.....". Sounds a bit too p.c.

I think it sounds very witty and "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, knowatamean, knowatamean." Very 21st century, if you will.

[Edmond Zedo]

Civil Unions are for gays. Don't you risk the "seperate but equal" stigma? Isn't that a form of discrimination, exactly what is trying to be avoided? I remember seperate but equal not working out too well...

I'm going straight to the "How old are you" thread to discover this confusion, shortly. But I digress.

Well I wasn't around in the fifties like you were, but this isn't separate but equal. Gay marriage is like black whiteness by technical definition, so I suppose an oxymoron. Why do the gays want to get married in the traditional sense? Are they all crazy? ARE ALL GAY PEOPLE CRAZY? Jesus Christmas.

[mgb]

I'm going straight to the "How old are you" thread to discover this confusion, shortly. But I digress.

Well I wasn't around in the fifties like you were, but this isn't separate but equal. Gay marriage is like black whiteness by technical definition, so I suppose an oxymoron. Why do the gays want to get married in the traditional sense? Are they all crazy? ARE ALL GAY PEOPLE CRAZY? Jesus Christmas.

Yeah, you got me, I was around in the 50's...or I don't walk around with blinders on and I can read. What is the traditional sense of marriage? A man and a woman, two kids, two story house, retriever, and a white picket fence. Does that even exist anymore? "Family" and "marriage" have become dynamic institutions, your definitions (or lack of) don't reflect modern society, to protect the world from having two "husbands" they become a couple. What the hell is the difference? And if there isn't one then why isn't marriage good enough for everyone?

[jimkopelli]

Ok... time now for a Heinlein plug.

Read "I Will Fear No Evil" in which this is covered, and also "Time Enough For Love" in the quote sections.

[Edmond Zedo]

Yeah, you got me. A man and a woman have become dynamic institutions to protect the world from hell? And if there isn't one then why isn't everyone?

Huh?

[SheepDog]

Huh?
You, sir, are a smarty pants. ;)

[mgb]

Huh?

Figures a misquote and Huh? are the best you can come up with.

[Edmond Zedo]

u are the best.

Thanx bro. You don't need to encode your affection.

[Boneca]

I never quite understood why this issue is so hotly debated.
Even if I was religious, why would my marriage be affected by the fact that two gays can marry? I don't get it. Then again, I don't get why gay people would want to marry in church either. If God doesn't like gays, why do they like him?

[cloakable]

I really could not care less about gay marriage. If a gay couple want to get married, more power to them.

[SheepDog]

God loves homosexuals.

[Ckyzxr]

This is one of the most ridiculous issues in recent history. We will look back and shake our heads someday in the not-to-distant future. In fact, I will begin now. ::shake:: ::shake::

[SheepDog]

This is one of the most ridiculous issues in recent history. We will look back and shake our heads someday in the not-to-distant future. In fact, I will begin now. ::shake:: ::shake::
I couldn't agree more.

What's sad to me is that it divides people, and that it distracts people from much more serious and much more real issues.

[mgb]

It really hasn't divided the board which is interesting...maybe I framed the question wrong (oops)...I think its fun to watch the furor over it in the real world. I do sympathize for gays unable to marry but I think the issue is symptomatic of bigger problems.

[SheepDog]

It really hasn't divided the board which is interesting...maybe I framed the question wrong (oops)...
For the most part, on this board we tend to discuss rather than argue. By that I mean that to discuss is to enhance understanding, whereas arguing is just about trying to prove that one's own views are 'right' and all opposing views are 'wrong'.


I think its fun to watch the furor over it in the real world. I do sympathize for gays unable to marry but I think the issue is symptomatic of bigger problems.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's fun to watch. I agree that it's symptomatic of bigger problems. I fear that the arguments are making things worse, not better.

[mgb]

For the most part, on this board we tend to discuss rather than argue. By that I mean that to discuss is to enhance understanding, whereas arguing is just about trying to prove that one's own views are 'right' and all opposing views are 'wrong'.

I was just looking at the poll results, no one voted against it even though the polling is relatively anonymous.



Unfortunately, I don't think it's fun to watch. I agree that it's symptomatic of bigger problems. I fear that the arguments are making things worse, not better.

For sure they are making things worse. There is some entertainment factor though. When someone like Falwell gets up and starts talking you just have to laugh. The scary part is when people listen, that's the not funny part.

[MacGuffin]

This thread is gay!

;)

[officebum1978]

I don't believe sexual orientation is a "choice" . . . if a gay/lesbian couple is truly in love, they should be allowed to be that way, legally, without a social stigma. Besides, isn't one of the religious sayings "Judge not lest ye be judged," right? Why judge them? Once upon a time people were offended by seeing a bi-racial couple together. Homosexuality really isn't any different from that, IMO. I have no problem w/the gays or lesbians, I say let them be.

I agree just as we should accept and tolerate different personality types, cultures, races, religions! we should accept differen't sexual orientation. As long as people don't intentionally harm others we should be free to do as we please.

[Avengardh]

Religion has no place in politics.

But it hasn't been that way in many countries over the centuries.

I have no problem with it, at all.

[Lucas]

Religion has no place in politics.

I second that. We should make a bumper sticker:

INTPs for a secular America-World!

[Warrior413]

I second that. We should make a bumper sticker:

INTPs for a secular America-World!
I agree... the only problem would be actually bothering to make them. ;)

[INTrPosr]

Civil union yes; Marriage no. As far as I'm concerned, it's an issue of semantics, not politics.
Ditto!

[Avengardh]

I agree... the only problem would be actually bothering to make them. ;)
It could happen...:D

[jimkopelli]

Still no votes against... hmm. Not suprised, and as it should be... but that means we've got no argument potential here.

[Edmond Zedo]

Still no votes against... hmm. Not suprised, and as it should be... but that means we've got no argument potential here.
You silly, silly spin doctors. Did you see the "No" statement? I don't believe in god or gay "marriage," and must abstain.

[Robespierre]

The whole idea that state-sanctioned relationships involve any kind of right is wishful thinking. Do gays have a right to do as they please with their own property(their bodies, and so forth)? Yes of course. Do they have a right to get special favors from the state? Of course not. No one has a "right" to enforce their views of themselves, their relationships with others, or anything inbetween on other people.

[jimkopelli]

Biased poll, true. Even so...

[Biff_Loman]

Ok: why does the state even recognize marriage any more?

Yes, Edmond brought up the point of intestate succession: spouses dying without wills. This is fine and good, but can we come up with a *single valid* other reason?

Once upon a time, marriage was also useful for producing "legitimate" children. Um, more intestate succession business. Hmm.

The whole idea of blessing it with God's divine approval was just a tactic to get everyone on board. Sure, I think that typical humans have some sort of monogamous pairing instinct, as much as we frequently violate it. Without the incentive of property, though, there's no need to entrench it in law.

[howiec]

The whole idea that state-sanctioned relationships involve any kind of right is wishful thinking. Do gays have a right to do as they please with their own property(their bodies, and so forth)? Yes of course. Do they have a right to get special favors from the state? Of course not. No one has a "right" to enforce their views of themselves, their relationships with others, or anything inbetween on other people.

Okay, the label I choose for myself is gay, so therefore I am most certainly biased. I would like to point out a few things, however. Marriage, in the U.S., confers about 114 special rights (or "favors," if that's what you prefer to call them) on the couple. (I don't remember if that is the exact number. It's close. I could look it up, but that would require me to be productive.) No civil union confers an equal number of rights. Even if they did, the fact that a different term was necessary to describe it would be discrimnatory and would piss me off. So many people seem convinced that only "tradition" can save the world, but they forget that the traditions that were so good when they were once in use were new innovations, changes from what previously existed, and the fact that they were adjustments made to fit with the times is what made them so "great."

Yeah, I think I'll stop now while I at least seem to be coherent.

[Clara]

Okay, the label I choose for myself is gay, so therefore I am most certainly biased....That was coherent. And informative. And I can't understand how any part of this debate, revolving around same sex couples, wanting to marry yet blocked from doing so - can turn into: no one should want to.

Oh, and I'm biased, too. Everyone is. :D

[mgb]

Okay, the label I choose for myself is gay, so therefore I am most certainly biased. I would like to point out a few things, however. Marriage, in the U.S., confers about 114 special rights (or "favors," if that's what you prefer to call them) on the couple. (I don't remember if that is the exact number. It's close. I could look it up, but that would require me to be productive.) No civil union confers an equal number of rights. Even if they did, the fact that a different term was necessary to describe it would be discrimnatory and would piss me off. So many people seem convinced that only "tradition" can save the world, but they forget that the traditions that were so good when they were once in use were new innovations, changes from what previously existed, and the fact that they were adjustments made to fit with the times is what made them so "great."

Yeah, I think I'll stop now while I at least seem to be coherent.


More gay conspiracy. Just kidding. I just think its hilarious (hence the obviously loaded question on the poll) that people think "marriage" is a "christian" institution. Didn't Abraham have a wife? Doesn't that mean that marriage as an institution pre-dates Judeo-Christian ideals? I know, it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, but God didn't give Adam any fishing buddies but we still assume that its ok for guys to hang out.

It does frustrate me to see people's rights withheld because of a belief structure. Simply put it's a tyrany of the minority and that is wrong.

[Robespierre]

Okay, the label I choose for myself is gay, so therefore I am most certainly biased. I would like to point out a few things, however. Marriage, in the U.S., confers about 114 special rights (or "favors," if that's what you prefer to call them) on the couple.

And this is a horrible injustice. I don't think that being married should grant anyone special favors from the state.


(I don't remember if that is the exact number. It's close. I could look it up, but that would require me to be productive.) No civil union confers an equal number of rights.

Not rights, favors. Rights exists as a result of our nature, and can neither be given nor revoked by agreements between people calling themselves the state, the church or anything else.


Even if they did, the fact that a different term was necessary to describe it would be discrimnatory and would piss me off.

You have a right to be pissed off. However, you do NOT have a right to avoid discrimination when dealing with others. They have the right of free association, just as you do. You don't have to associate with people who offend you, but you cannot force people who offend you to stop their offense so you can assocaite with them.

[melancholeric]

God loves homosexuals.
No he does not. (http://www.godhatesfags.com)

[Warrior413]

That's an anti-smoking site.

[MjrMarshmellows]

...

[melancholeric]

Apparently, certain fruits (http://www.godhatesfigs.com/) are not okay, either.

[MjrMarshmellows]

im never opening another link of yours...
That one led to porn...
Did one of those, lets open the real site... [five seconds later] PORN!!!

[melancholeric]

Porn? Where? Honestly, I've never seen any porn on either of those.

[Boneca]

im never opening another link of yours...
That one led to porn...
Did one of those, lets open the real site... [five seconds later] PORN!!!Huh? Sounds like your browser isn't feeling well.

[MonChat]

You have a right to be pissed off. However, you do NOT have a right to avoid discrimination when dealing with others. They have the right of free association, just as you do. You don't have to associate with people who offend you, but you cannot force people who offend you to stop their offense so you can assocaite with them.


interesting.. I'm really not sure I've ever heard this type of philosophy before..but it sounds interesting.. do you have a source of information that discusses the dilema of free association verses discrimination that I could read up on?



im never opening another link of yours...
That one led to porn...
Did one of those, lets open the real site... [five seconds later] PORN!!!

you may want to try mozilla.

http://www.mozilla.org

[howiec]

And this is a horrible injustice. I don't think that being married should grant anyone special favors from the state.




Not rights, favors. Rights exists as a result of our nature, and can neither be given nor revoked by agreements between people calling themselves the state, the church or anything else.



You have a right to be pissed off. However, you do NOT have a right to avoid discrimination when dealing with others. They have the right of free association, just as you do. You don't have to associate with people who offend you, but you cannot force people who offend you to stop their offense so you can assocaite with them.


Okay. Yes. Hmmm... I do not understand. I mean, I do, but the inherent contradictions confuse me.

Okay, so, basically it seems that you oppose a government which grants "favors" upon anyone. Well, what do you think the role of government should be? I would assume that you accept that governments are simply one of the ways in which societies organize themselves, and, thus, as a natural extension (or part) of a particular society, it would be only logical that, in any circumstance which even approaches the ideal, the government serves the interests of the society and all of the components which make it up.

You seem to be a believer in the existence of fundamentals beyond the subjective. So, you believe that individuals naturally have "rights" which can neither be given or taken by any authority. You would probably say that while people can believe that rights have been taken from them, they still have them and could exercise them if they so choose. That's all very well and good, I suppose, and I won't argue with that specifically.

You claim that people have a right of free association. Apparently, if same-sex marriages were allowed, then the right of free association of those opposed to it would be violated. How? I can understand that you might say, given your views, that no government should single out people for any various reason and confer "favors" upon them. I can also understand you claiming that the "rights" of same-sex couples have not been violated. What I do not understand is why you are opposed to same sex marriage. You argue that you don't want to confer special favors upon anyone, and you even say that you think it is horrible that married male-female couples recieve special "favors." So, if "favors" are being conferred by the government anyway, how do you justify excluding same-sex couples from recieving the same "favors" that their opposite-sex counterparts are recieving? Or, if marriage conferred nor "favors" whatsoever but was just a title whose only purpose was to humour those who feel the need to engage in that particular tradition, would you still be opposed to same-sex marriage?

[Dengarm]

Marriage has been defined as a right. Here is an excerpt from the Loving vs Virginia ruling.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

[Edmond Zedo]

Marriage has been defined as a right.
Ok, I guess that means gay men can get married to women then, and gay women to men? So what. P.S. "Pursuit of happiness" don't mean shit. It's hokum.

[Robespierre]

Okay. Yes. Hmmm... I do not understand. I mean, I do, but the inherent contradictions confuse me.

Okay, so, basically it seems that you oppose a government which grants "favors" upon anyone. Well, what do you think the role of government should be? [/quote]

Coercive government has no role.


I would assume that you accept that governments are simply one of the ways in which societies organize themselves, and, thus, as a natural extension (or part) of a particular society, it would be only logical that, in any circumstance which even approaches the ideal, the government serves the interests of the society and all of the components which make it up.

Not at all. I laugh at the idea that a society can have one monolithic interest to be served. The idea of a "will of the people" or some such is absurd.


You seem to be a believer in the existence of fundamentals beyond the subjective. So, you believe that individuals naturally have "rights" which can neither be given or taken by any authority. You would probably say that while people can believe that rights have been taken from them, they still have them and could exercise them if they so choose. That's all very well and good, I suppose, and I won't argue with that specifically.

I would probably say what now? I don't get it.


You claim that people have a right of free association. Apparently, if same-sex marriages were allowed, then the right of free association of those opposed to it would be violated. How?

Not of those being married. Those who the government chooses to recognize as married receive the benefit of enforced recognition of their relationship. Everyone, married or otherwise, is forced by law to recognize each couple as married.


I can understand that you might say, given your views, that no government should single out people for any various reason and confer "favors" upon them. I can also understand you claiming that the "rights" of same-sex couples have not been violated. What I do not understand is why you are opposed to same sex marriage.

I never once said that I was.


You argue that you don't want to confer special favors upon anyone, and you even say that you think it is horrible that married male-female couples recieve special "favors." So, if "favors" are being conferred by the government anyway, how do you justify excluding same-sex couples from recieving the same "favors" that their opposite-sex counterparts are recieving?

I do not now nor have I ever justified exluding only one group from the special favors granted by government. I say the only just course of action is to eliminate the forced recognition of a religious and social institution for all parties. Let the individual people involved settle their own affairs.


Or, if marriage conferred nor "favors" whatsoever but was just a title whose only purpose was to humour those who feel the need to engage in that particular tradition, would you still be opposed to same-sex marriage?

As I said, I am not opposed to same sex marriage. I am opposed to government involvment of any kind.

[Dman]

As I said, I am not opposed to same sex marriage. I am opposed to government involvment of any kind.

Except when breaking up monopolies (heh-heh).

[Dengarm]

Just found this and though it pertinant. In Turner vs. Safley, the 1987 case in which the US Supreme Court decided that incarcerated prisoners have the right to marry, the Supreme Court said marriage had four attributes.

1. expression of emotional support and public commitment;
2. spiritual significance, and for some the exercise of a religious faith;
3. the expectation that for most, the marriage will be consummated; and
4. the receipt of tangible benefits, including government benefits and property rights.

Because prisoners, can enter into a marriage with these characteristics, the Court liftefd the ban on marriages of prison inmates.

Draw your own parallels, I'm tired.