Same sex marriage

[Pandora]

A slippery slope to what? Everyone turning gay? People forgetting how to have heterosexual sex and the population running out? Please enlighten me as to how society can go down the pan because of this being legalised...



Thanks for that bizzare history of abortion.



What other groups are being excluded? Why can't just gays have marriage allowed?



I'm sure many gays feel the same way and don't want heterosexual socities rules on marriage forced onto them. They don't want YOU telling them what marriage is and what it isnt - they just want to get married.

You are welcome for the history on abortion in the USA

I have no idea what the history is in your country
But that is the history here and yes it is bizarre.

Polygamists have no rights where marriage is concerned either. Nor do any other offshoot of it. One man 10 wives, or two wives one husband or two men and a goat for all I care. What ever trips someone’s trigger should be as legal as any other. If they are going to change the laws then make no laws period. Anyone or anything can marry anyone or anything any time any place for any reason. That should stop the argument from ever coming up again.

I have no desire to tell anyone but my own children what I think is
Right or moral, and I have no desire to hear or have it fed to my children what someone else considers right or moral.

Its funny how you twisted just about everything I said

by the way I never said and NOTHING in my post indicated that I felt gay marriage would turn people gay. That was pretty crappy of you to insinuate I felt that way

 

[9sublime]

I didn't insinuate that you did think allowing gay marriage could turn people gay - I was simply asking what slippery slope could come about from it, and listed a few hilarious examples. You still have failed to answer the question - what slippery slope?

However, I do agree with you. If consenting adults wish to enter into a polygamous relationship, let them.

 

[Pandora]

I didn't insinuate that you did think allowing gay marriage could turn people gay - I was simply asking what slippery slope could come about from it, and listed a few hilarious examples. You still have failed to answer the question - what slippery slope?

However, I do agree with you. If consenting adults wish to enter into a polygamous relationship, let them.

It was these questions directed at me

"A slippery slope to what? Everyone turning gay? People forgetting how to have heterosexual sex and the population running out? "


that made me feel you were insinuating I felt allowing homosexual marriage could turn people homosexual. I didnt realize it was a joke. I dont know you well enough to know when you are joking. Sorry.

Slippery slope would be ok'ing homosexual marriage two men or two women. It cant end there, new protests for moromons who still practice polygamy and if that is ok'ed it wont stop there. Some woman with something to prove wants 3 husbands (not same as polygamy) then you never know if anyone saw woody allen's movie (everything you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask) there could be some sheep lover out there. Who am I to judge.

so if they change the laws to

anyone can marry anyone or group or anything, any time, any place for any reason. Then that would solve the problem for all time.

I would back a law like that and the stupid argument would be over

 

[SW85]

Well then let gays get on with doing what they want and stop complaning about it!!

They already can, and no one's saying they can't.

All that's being said is that "what they want" is not, by definition, marriage.

 

[n0spam4me]

What the STATE provides, to either gay or straight couples is a CONTRACT an agreement that certain rules will be enforced as to the rights of the individuals in said relationship and what to do with property in the event either one of them dies.

My take on the subject is that the STATE would be better off calling it CIVIL UNION for ANY couple and if any given couple wants to use the word MARRIAGE, so be it and nobody can stop them.

---- EOR ---- (end of rant)

 

[Pandora]

What the STATE provides, to either gay or straight couples is a CONTRACT an agreement that certain rules will be enforced as to the rights of the individuals in said relationship and what to do with property in the event either one of them dies.

My take on the subject is that the STATE would be better off calling it CIVIL UNION for ANY couple and if any given couple wants to use the word MARRIAGE, so be it and nobody can stop them.

---- EOR ---- (end of rant)

What is best doesn’t matter to these people, they are relentless. What they want is the word marriage so we should just let them have it. but in the process make it as meaningless of an act as possible by making it possible for anyone or anything to marry in groups or singles any one or any thing any time any place any where for any reason.

But also, take all tax breaks away. Take everything about it that makes it meaningful away. Then no one will want to do it and eventually we can stop hearing about it

People who believe in marriage can go back to what they did before the IRS got involved, take their bibles and parents to their pastor get married and the pastor signs in their bible that he performed the wedding, the parents sign as witnesses in that same bible and that’s all they really need.

ANY ONE who needs the state to validate their relationship I feel sorry for.

 

[SW85]

What the STATE provides, to either gay or straight couples is a CONTRACT an agreement that certain rules will be enforced as to the rights of the individuals in said relationship and what to do with property in the event either one of them dies.

Uh, no. These things are intrinsic to the nature of marriage but are not the fundamental purpose of it. Moreover, while marriages are contractual in nature they are not literally "contracts," hence the distinction between contract law and marriage law.

If a gay man wants to arrange for the disposition of his property after his death he already has a recourse available to him -- contract law (i.e., writing a will). He can enter into whatever contracts he likes with his partner and they are ALREADY LEGALLY BINDING. He can even call them marriages if he wants to and no one can or will stop him. But this notion that your property enters some kind of legal no-man's-land upon your death unless you're married is a uniquely dishonest fantasy.

 

[PLC1]

What is best doesn’t matter to these people, they are relentless. What they want is the word marriage so we should just let them have it. but in the process make it as meaningless of an act as possible by making it possible for anyone or anything to marry in groups or singles any one or any thing any time any place any where for any reason.

But also, take all tax breaks away. Take everything about it that makes it meaningful away. Then no one will want to do it and eventually we can stop hearing about it

People who believe in marriage can go back to what they did before the IRS got involved, take their bibles and parents to their pastor get married and the pastor signs in their bible that he performed the wedding, the parents sign as witnesses in that same bible and that’s all they really need.

ANY ONE who needs the state to validate their relationship I feel sorry for.

That does make a lot of sense, except for one thing: Everyone needs the state to validate their relationship for the obvious legal benefits of a marriage sanctioned by the state.

Now, if it were possible to first set up a legal contract, giving any two people the same rights as married couples, then take their Bibles, parents, and friends to a pastor (or take their Quran or Talmud, for that matter) and have a ceremony, throw rice, and make a few toasts, then you would have a point. Just get the state out of the business of marriage completely.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I have held a belief about all of this since the beginning of this controversy that lies outside of the left or right view. I believe marriage is sacrament of the church and that only the churches should be able to marry people (includes Jewish temples, Islamic mosques, etc.) and that the government should have no say so whatsoever in who churches marry - meaning no church should be forced to marry any couple that cannot be married under the tenets of their faith.

The government should only govern the legal relationship that grants legal rights and conveys legal responsibilities to couples. All couples - heterosexual or homosexual - should have to get a domestic partnership license to have the legal rights and responsibilities currently afforded to married couples and the government should have to abide by all civil rights legislation in issuing such licenses.

This would settle the whole matter and would protect the church from the state and the state from the church.

 

[PLC1]

I have held a belief about all of this since the beginning of this controversy that lies outside of the left or right view. I believe marriage is sacrament of the church and that only the churches should be able to marry people (includes Jewish temples, Islamic mosques, etc.) and that the government should have no say so whatsoever in who churches marry - meaning no church should be forced to marry any couple that cannot be married under the tenets of their faith.

The government should only govern the legal relationship that grants legal rights and conveys legal responsibilities to couples. All couples - heterosexual or homosexual - should have to get a domestic partnership license to have the legal rights and responsibilities currently afforded to married couples and the government should have to abide by all civil rights legislation in issuing such licenses.

This would settle the whole matter and would protect the church from the state and the state from the church.

And that's exactly how it should be in a nation that believes in separation of church and state.

We still do believe in that separation, don't we?

Or, has it become another part of the Constitution that is inconvenient and counter to some people's views on the way things ought to be?

 

[top gun]

I agree!! I don't care about gay dudes, as long as they don't try hitting on me...

However, the opposition commercials are saying this:


I don't need a freaking school to teach my kids to be gay....

I agree that any person od age that wants to be married in a legal committed relationship should be allowed to legally do so. This issue is as much about fairness as it pertains to married benefits as it does the love angle.

And the whole... guess what... fear tactic... that the Conservatives always try to use is ridiculous. They don't teach about marriage in school.

They have gay marriage in other states and there's no problem at all... unless you're just plain homophobic. It's not like gay people in live in relationships disappear if you don't let them get a piece of paper that says "married".

 

[Pandora]

That does make a lot of sense, except for one thing: Everyone needs the state to validate their relationship for the obvious legal benefits of a marriage sanctioned by the state.

Now, if it were possible to first set up a legal contract, giving any two people the same rights as married couples, then take their Bibles, parents, and friends to a pastor (or take their Quran or Talmud, for that matter) and have a ceremony, throw rice, and make a few toasts, then you would have a point. Just get the state out of the business of marriage completely.

Anyone, homosexual people included can have documents made up to say what they want to happen if they die or what ever other kind of document you want.

Being married doesn’t mean that that much really. My state can take a person’s assets if there is no will even if there is a spouse. Wills are important no matter who you are.

But if we took the government out of it and gave no special anything for married as apposed to unmarried.

 

[SW85]

The government should only govern the legal relationship that grants legal rights and conveys legal responsibilities to couples.

That's already the extent of their role. As I said, two gay men can form a contract and call it a marriage, even hold a ceremony, and no one can stop them.

As for the legal rights and responsibilities of couples, can you name even one besides the raising of children?

 

[PLC1]

That's already the extent of their role. As I said, two gay men can form a contract and call it a marriage, even hold a ceremony, and no one can stop them.

As for the legal rights and responsibilities of couples, can you name even one besides the raising of children?

Here are a few:

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

bullet veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

 

[Libsmasher]

I said it before, and I'll say it again, states shouldn't be involved in marriage, nor should they grant privileges to married people not available to others. The real motivation of homosexuals in this is their on-going attempt to force people to view them as normal. Just as homosexuals have the right to engage in their sexual activities, others have the right to view them any way they please.