Same-gender marriage questions

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Society. It does not really matter who you choose, but if the end result is less marriage and less families, it will doom our society. I know this is off track but much of Europe will most likely be Muslim in the near future just due to the higher birth rates of the recent Muslim immigrants. I am sorry, but I think their society will be denigrated.

If it is, it will only be because at that point, the majority of the population in those countries will then be religious conservatives overly concerned about stupid crap like gays getting married.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,253
Media
213
Likes
32,166
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
DC, so polygamy is OK and if there were gay marriage you would want one law to cover everyone, correct? Is there a limit to the number of "spouses"? So consenting adults include brother and sister? I know I am taking this to the n' level but what would be the rule? Would we protect the gene pool or not? Obviously if you are gay it doesn't matter, but for hetro's it does.

If a law like this passes, within 5 years there will be a internet stunt to marry 1,000 gay guys over the internet at one time. Marriage will be made a farce in a very short time.

I believe this to be one of the goals.
Excuse me but same -sex marriage has been the law of the land in Massachusetts for over three years. At first, a clear majority of massachusetts citizens who were polled were against the supreme judicial court decision that allowed same sex marriage. It is precisely becaues marriage was "not made a farce", that over the years opposition waned and the same poll taken today shows that the Majority of Massachusetts residents are in favor of gay marriage. It's a case of realizing that the sky didn't fall, chaos did not ensue..etc
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male


If a law like this passes, within 5 years there will be a internet stunt to marry 1,000 gay guys over the internet at one time. Marriage will be made a farce in a very short time.

Drive-thru wedding chapels in Las Vegas; or the marriage history of Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich; or conservative leaders forced into hetero marriages even while secretly seeking out gay affairs because that's what their constituents or congregations expect haven't already done this? Claiming that gay marriage will make marriage any more of a farce than it already has become is both a) patently absurd, and b) a glaring spotlight on the fact that you are selectively choosing what does or does not constitute an affront to marriage based on your own personal non-objective biases.

1000 gay men being married via internet would do absolutely nothing to affect how you or your wife or anybody else chooses to treat marriage if they still believe it to be a sacred and important institution. If gay marriage were 100% legal and equal in every state there would still be those who treat marriage with disrespect and those who feel it is an important and sacred thing, exactly as there is today. Nothing in your world would change, except some of your neighbors might be happier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rexcasual

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I have nothing against gay marriages, marriages are about a partnership not about someone's sexuality, but I think marriage overall is too easy, people can jump into it without viewing it as a lasting commitment, there should be legal stages you have to enter into before you can enter into a full blown marriage.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
186
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
DC. I was wondering what actual benefits married straight people have that gay couples who are partnered are denied. Here is what I came up with. Most deal with survivorship.

1. Inheritance rights and Estate Tax. A husband can leave all his worldly posessions and money to his wife including real estate without the wife having to pay tax. (Gay couples have no such tax break and often are forced out of their home when one partner dies.)

2. Property tax. A property is not reassessed after a spouse dies. No increase in taxes for a straight married survivor.

3. Income tax - I am not sure if married couples filing jointly save much more than if they file seperately. This does not seem like a huge benefit. Can anyone give some information here?

4. Health benefits - This is a huge inequality if your company or workplace does not recognize domestic partners.

5. Pensions- Some recognize domestic partners, some don't. The tax burden of IRA's and 401Ks is steep for a surviving gay partner compared to NO tax burden for married straight spouse.

6. Home, Auto, Life Insurance - there are probably lower rates for married straight couples than domestic partners but I am not sure.

7. Hospital Visitation during Emergencies- This can also be worked out by drawing up some legal papers. But if you don't have them you don't have the right to see your partner in the hospital since you are not considered 'family'

8. Adopting Children - Gay couples each with their own children often need to adopt each other's childrens to prevent the break up of a family if one partner dies. The court can legally take a child away to a foster home as the other partner is legally considered a stranger. This is not the case in straight marriages and step children.

9. Divorce - married couples have the financial protection of community property and a court proceeding if they get an unamicable divorce. Gays are SOL.

10. Housing laws- Gay couples can be legally discriminated against when choosing housing in most places in America.

11 Denial of Social Security survivor benefits.

That is all I can think of off the top of my head. If anyone can elaborate or add to this list or provide a link it would be fantastic. People should know exactly how we are treated as second class citizens and why we are asking for equality. And us gays should know what we are fighting for.

Although some states have inplemented laws to mitigate the differences like Domestic Partner laws in California they are by no means recognized throughout the US. That means that your rights as a Domestic Partner end at the state border. Many gay couples I know have worked out elaborate living trusts and adoption papers to protect themselves from current probate laws. Something that married straight couples don't need to think about.
 

davidjh7

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
2,607
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
283
Location
seattle
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I hate to put it this way,but all evidence from human history, and I have yet to find a single exception, noble ideals aside:

Humans, unless motivated by a personal self interest otherwise (and this includes "feeling good by doing good" motivations as self interest), are naturally selfish, mean bigoted creatures, who find every possible justification to abuse their fellow man for personal gain This is a very negative view of humanity, and humanity has done some incredibly noble things---but I have yet to find one example of nobility that wasn't ultimately motivated by self interest. I would love to be proven wrong on this...

Now, why am I making this point? Because it is the underlying reason for opposition to gay marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman has a number of well documented and established benefits, legal, financial, and social. If those benefits did not exist, then it is unlikely people would have ever established the institution of marriage. Why? , because getting married automatically restricts some previously held personal freedoms, and because human society, to support the biological need of procreation for self preservation, established social moors and values and privileges on people to encourage the procreation, care, and development of future generations.
These moors developed into religious dogma over time, infusing the institution with a magical quality which elevated those int the institution above those not in the institution, thus encouraging more people to participate. Eventually, the religious dogma became infused in the laws, and propagated the cycle and benefit of marriage, so that people would be willing to give up the personal freedoms that marriage removes.

These are SPECIAL rights, legally, applied to ONE class of people. By the US constitution, this violates the 14th amendment as written. Legal and political scholars know this, which is why those who have a vested interest in keeping these special rights, special, maintaining the status quo, are working so actively to change the constitution, and fighting so actively from keeping this from the Supreme court of the US--they don't want the Supreme court to have to find a way around the equal protection clause, because that change can be used as precedent in OTHER cases where they could potentially lose rights and power.

It is MUCH easier to change the constitution to apply selective prejudice against a singe group, to maintain privilege. And if you don't think this would happen, you need to check your US history, especially the various Supreme court decisions over the years--it has happened many times, and the Supreme court routinely reverses decisions based on what is politically popular at the given moment.

Civil unions are a case of "separate but equal", and we have MANY examples in our history that prove that the rights and laws are NEVER applied equally. It comes down to motivated self interest in keeping one group less than you, so that you are more powerful and privileged. Jim Crow, are you listening? Why don't straight people admit that they just want to be bigots and keep their special privileges? Simple--people want to believe they are actually better than they actually are, and thus they have to justify their bigotry and selfishness and hatred with some dogma that makes their vile SEEM to be noble and properly motivated. "Oh, faggots shouldn;t be allowed to marry, ebcause they are UNNATURAL and GOD HATES FAGS and therefore are NOT real people and citizens and therefore don't deserve the right to marry or have homes or even LIVE--- if I had my way about it---it's just the good CHRISTIAN way of looking at it, can't you see that?" Same basic things were said, and justified, of every oppressed group in history. You want to try and justify thinking and believing and acting like Hitler, go ahead. You aren't fooling anybody who isn't also trying to justify their actions.


Would changing the wording to gender, and civil union, and all that, make it more palatable? Probably--it promotes the attitude that "THEY are different, and therefore, not as good or worthy as I am..", and will help keep separate but equal "God damned BETTER keep your faggoty ass separate and definitely NOT equal to my superior NORMAL HEALTHY GOD LOVES ONLY THE GOOD CHRISTIAN STRAIGHT MAN self...". You can all try and justify yourselves as better and more noble than you are, but face it---we are still pretty much monkeys in the trees throwing shit at each other....
 

Male Bonding etc

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
920
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
Southwest USA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
A lively and for the most part intelligent discussion.

NIC, I get frustrated with your posts once in a while, but you seem to be in good form here. I'd give you rep points, but you already have more than three times as many as me... and, yes, I'm that competitive... and more to the point, in that kind of mood tonight.

I had to skip a lot of what DC and All4Show were throwing at each other. Sorry guys, just wasn't in the mood...

...and David,thanks for editing in some breaks... I may be able to focus thoughtfully now... Yes, better... thanks

Okay, not my normal diplomatic self, but there it is. Oh, and yeah, to the point of this thread. Let's do what's fair and constitutional for ALL members of this society. Let's save the questions regarding multiple spouses and siblings marrying for when there is a significant enough number of them desiring marriage to consider it. In the meantime, let's do extend equal rights to those in committed relationships who happen to be of the same gender... Oh, hmmm... I seem to be speaking at cross purposes... One can't really say "ALL" and then turn right around and exclude siblings and multiple spouses... Shit! I don't have an answer... Princess? Somebody? How DO we fairly address that question?
 

davidjh7

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
2,607
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
283
Location
seattle
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I will edit my post to be more readable, and I apologize for not doing it before I posted. I was worried that with the way this system sometimes crashes, that I would lose it.:tongue:

I hope my edit makes it more readable, if not, please let me know and I will edit further, before my edit time runs out.
 

B_InDepth

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Posts
328
Media
0
Likes
42
Points
103
Location
around
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
my reasoning is that we are allready in a financial crisis in america... american stronghold companies like Gm, Ford, Bycyrus, General Electric are all in a pinch and are having difficulties paying out benifits... and our govt is 6 trillion dollars in debt. extend marraige rights it will mean more people will be qualified for govt and company benifits without actually earning them... so im not per say against gay people... let them do as they want... but i am for my pocketbook... and being self employed and uninsured it absolutely inflames me to see how some employees and there families abuse the system also how welfare and other govt HELP programs are also being abused... so its sad that we have to deny rights from people but as i see it it a necessary evil... i am denied certain rights that poor people get from the government and yet i cant afford health insurance on my own. i also believe that govt tax breaks were originally created with the idea that they were for a married couple for the reason that they would raise children to add to our society... and Most gay couples dont have children... which leads into my last point which people get pissed off about but hey its how i feel and how thw statistics point... i believe children should be raised by a father and a mother whenever possible... there are many important emotional, logical, moral, physical, mental, and charcter traits taught to a child by each parent... reflect upon nature
 

davidjh7

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
2,607
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
283
Location
seattle
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
You know, I can accept this from you, simply because you are not trying to justify a prejudicial position by anything other than motivated self interest. You are showing honesty and self awareness that many others lack.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Humans, unless motivated by a personal self interest otherwise (and this includes "feeling good by doing good" motivations as self interest), are naturally selfish, mean bigoted creatures, who find every possible justification to abuse their fellow man for personal gain

If you logic this way (and I see your point and even concede that you are right), EVERY human action is done in self-interest. While interesting philosophically I've come to decide this doesn't have much application in the real world. It is reasonable to try and attach value to human action, divorced from the inescapable self-serving nature of all of it.

Thinking too much leads to a complete breakdown of everything, as everything loses its meaning. There's a reason why many of the brightest people in the world are "unmotivated" homebodies.
 

Male Bonding etc

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
920
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
Southwest USA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
i believe children should be raised by a father and a mother whenever possible... there are many important emotional, logical, moral, physical, mental, and charcter traits taught to a child by each parent... reflect upon nature
At a basic level I have to agree with that statement... HOWEVER, there are plenty of hetero couples doing a pretty shitty job of raising their kids... and they don't always stay couples... Oh, take BS and KFed for example, would you want to be a child from that hetero union?

So, our world is far from perfect. If loving parents can provide a stable home for their children, I'm going to count those factors (love, stability, shelter) as more important than the gender distribution.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't quite buy david's Hobbesian assertion that humans are necessarily selfish and mean sprited but I do believe that few, very few, things are done without some sort of underlying self serving motive, nefarious or benign.
 

davidjh7

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
2,607
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
283
Location
seattle
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
If you logic this way (and I see your point and even concede that you are right), EVERY human action is done in self-interest. While interesting philosophically I've come to decide this doesn't have much application in the real world. It is reasonable to try and attach value to human action, divorced from the inescapable self-serving nature of all of it.

Thinking too much leads to a complete breakdown of everything, as everything loses its meaning. There's a reason why many of the brightest people in the world are "unmotivated" homebodies.

I actually totally agree with you---positive things done, even with less than noble reasons, as still positive things and have an inherent value. Positive things done by people, even if selfishly motivated ultimately, increase the value of that person to society.
You are also correct in that too much analysis leads to a breakdown of the very thing being analyzed. All ideas eventually reach a dead end. I guess I was trying to make a point about the ultimate source of the opposition---that it comes from a dark side of human nature, and to be countered, has to be fought at a very base level, and offer something in return for any real or perceived loss that changing a thought pattern causes.
 

B_InDepth

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Posts
328
Media
0
Likes
42
Points
103
Location
around
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
At a basic level I have to agree with that statement... HOWEVER, there are plenty of hetero couples doing a pretty shitty job of raising their kids... and they don't always stay couples... Oh, take BS and KFed for example, would you want to be a child from that hetero union?

So, our world is far from perfect. If loving parents can provide a stable home for their children, I'm going to count those factors (love, stability, shelter) as more important than the gender distribution.


fully agreed on the shitty hetero couples thing.. but i wasnt basing it on gender distribution i was basing it on the characteristics that are unique to males and females that are taught to a child... and it just seems like a too risky situation to start putting children in... do to the fact that there will always be steriotypes, bullies, and person questions... children need time to be kids... this would bring on much more stress to children... once again im not saying all... but it will to MANY and how can we say this is right or fair..
 

AquaEyes11010

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
787
Media
10
Likes
172
Points
263
Location
New Brunswick (New Jersey, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
What I find interesting in hearing/reading discourse from those who are against marriage between members of the same gender is the similarity of their arguments to those used only a few decades ago when the miscegnation laws were still on the books. Ultimately, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a contract. Any other connotations are religious or cultural in origin. To allow an unlimited number of contracts for some people (as long as there is a dissolution of the previous before initiating the following) and denying any to others is simply unacceptable. At the same time, knowing I have the possibility of being married in my future would make me feel even more pressure over my lack-of-relationship status. Hmmm...where were we?
:p
 

AquaEyes11010

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
787
Media
10
Likes
172
Points
263
Location
New Brunswick (New Jersey, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Oh, and about gays raising kids...well, how about this thought? I believe the average gay couple with kids make much better parents than the average hetero couple with kids, for one simple reason. Kids can just "happen" to hetero couples, often unplanned and undeserved. Gay couples have to go through steps to either conceive or adopt, which would weed out the "accidents" and allow for much more discussion and planning ahead of time.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Oi Male Bonding :) You can't allow siblings to marry not because of the oft quoted reason that they'll produce kids who glow in the dark but because of the social impact, a marriage of siblings which splits up also impacts on the larger family unit, thus having a knock on effect which carries over to the parents and other siblings, society is based on families therefore this can't be allowed because of that. A 'normal' marriage splits up and the husband's family can side with him, the wife's family can side with her, if siblings are married it would tear the whole family apart.

Polygamy can't be allowed simply because there aren't enough women to go around, if one guy has four wives that means there are three guys out there who have no wife. In any case, a guy can't handle one of us in bed never mind three or four :)
 

Male Bonding etc

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
920
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
Southwest USA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
In response to InDepth- Well, we are back to trying to structure ideal situations... not really doable... single parents can't provide both gender characteristics for their kids... and even some hetero couples don't seem to have that knack (one parent absent or virtually noninvolved); so, why suggest that same gender couples shouldn't have a shot?

And Princess- Thanks! I knew you'd bail me out!
 

AquaEyes11010

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
787
Media
10
Likes
172
Points
263
Location
New Brunswick (New Jersey, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
fully agreed on the shitty hetero couples thing.. but i wasnt basing it on gender distribution i was basing it on the characteristics that are unique to males and females that are taught to a child... and it just seems like a too risky situation to start putting children in... do to the fact that there will always be steriotypes, bullies, and person questions... children need time to be kids... this would bring on much more stress to children... once again im not saying all... but it will to MANY and how can we say this is right or fair..

Kids can always find some reason to tease other kids, but it's how this teasing is perceived and battled by the kids in question that will affect the result.