Same Sex Marriage

[petite]

Oh, check how the hot gay grandparents!

Gay Dads Find Out They're Going to be Grandpas, Epic Awesomeness Ensues

 

[itsthepopei]

A lesbian couple, without outside interference, can't produce a child. So while they can produce children through sperm donation, that isn't what is going to happen with the majority of couples so the state feels there isn't enough of a benefit from a large enough percentage of couples to warrant the financial commitment. Where as the majority of heterosexual couples do produce children.

As for the laws you mentioned. All of those can be covered through the proper legal documentation. While I do agree, it is easier just to get it through something a simple as a marriage license, same sex couples aren't off limits. For instance, I am all of those things to my mother. It was just a matter of the proper paperwork.

so you can divorce your mom?

 

[B_Jingoist]

Working on the theory of marriage benefits being "gifted" to heterosexual couples due the desire to promote procreation and stable family units (and if not to promote, then to support)

The government have the following choices:

A - Removal of benefits for:

1. Couples with no children
2. Couples where one or more are suspected of child abuse/neglect
3. Couples where one or more are suspected of spousal abuse
4. Couples where there has been one or more acts of adultery
5. Couples where one or more suffer from some form of addiction
6. Couples facing extreme financial difficulties
7. Couples who face any number of other issues that would constitute an unstable family unit and/or environment.

B - Give benefits to:

1. Homosexual couples if they refuse to do all of the above (which they obviously won't, because that pretty much covers the majority of couples including themselves)

That would be ideal. However, most of the situations require a lot of medical testing, government intervention and mind reading. Which isn't worth the financial obligation and interference to weed out the small amount of marriages that fit into those categories.

My personal opinion is that the monetary benefits should be removed from marriage and they should be bestowed upon people that are legal guardians of children, regardless of relationship status.

I'll readily admit, the law isn't perfect. But no laws are.

 

[B_Jingoist]

so you can divorce your mom?

If by divorce you mean either one of us opts out of the contracts we have signed, than yes.

 

[petite]

Zach Wahls Speaks About Family

I love this guy! Nineteen-year-old Zach Wahls defends his parents, who are lesbians. He's an impressive young man.

 

[Kotchanski]

That would be ideal. However, most of the situations require a lot of medical testing, government intervention and mind reading. Which isn't worth the financial obligation and interference to weed out the small amount of marriages that fit into those categories.

My personal opinion is that the monetary benefits should be removed from marriage and they should be bestowed upon people that are legal guardians of children, regardless of relationship status.

I'll readily admit, the law isn't perfect. But no laws are.

So you agree that those in list A should not be getting the benefits (under the theory posed by yourself for the reasons they are gifted to heterosexual couples) and that they are highly unlikely for financial reasons to bother with removing those benefits.

You must therefore concede that the only way to make things fair, is to stop using those reasons and allow ALL adult couples a marriage licence and all the benefits that currently go along with them, or deny everyone them? It makes little difference which option they choose, but it really does have to be an all or none case, under the aforementioned theory.

 

[Captain Elephant]

I know that 25 or 30 years down the road, and hopefully it's not that long, people will recall how gays were at one time not allowed to marry much like minority and women were not allowed to vote. Can you imagine we were ever that ignorant?

 

[B_Jingoist]

So you agree that those in list A should not be getting the benefits (under the theory posed by yourself for the reasons they are gifted to heterosexual couples) and that they are highly unlikely for financial reasons to bother with removing those benefits.

You must therefore concede that the only way to make things fair, is to stop using those reasons and allow ALL adult couples a marriage licence and all the benefits that currently go along with them, or deny everyone them? It makes little difference which option they choose, but it really does have to be an all or none case, under the aforementioned theory.

The big question is what is fair and to what extent we consider consenting adults.

Fair is a very subjective term. Since no same-sex couple, regardless of their sexual persuasion can apply for a marriage license, that to me is fair. And even if you don't consider it to be fair, well we need to answer a question.

If the likely hood of procreation is removed from the requirement of marriage, at what point do we cross the line? The slippery slope argument is a compelling one. If love is the only requirement for marriage how do we deny multiple people from marrying each other, how can we regulate family from marriage, or even people who wish to marry animals or inanimate objects.

I don't see many people championing for those causes, but if the state interest in marriage is redefined there is no compelling argument to limit marriage benefits to those individuals in those situations.

Hell, I'd marry my dresser if it meant a tax break.

As far as all of nothing. Not really. As I've said before, laws aren't perfect. Even if it works most of the time, it is still a pretty good law.

 

[gymfresh]

The point [conservative pinheads] are missing is that, as a general rule, the law seeks to be as inclusive as possible, not exclusive. I'll concede that the most likely reason that gay and lesbian couples haven't been included up to this point is that quite honestly they weren't on anyone's radar when civil marriage emerged. The process now underway is the correction of an oversight, intentional or not in present day, that treats same-sex couples disproportionately. There is broad consensus that the focus of marriage is on fostering strong relationships between two adults (financial, emotional, legal, etc.). The primary beneficiaries are the individuals getting married, not children or extended family.

The benefits are not exclusively monetary. A 90-year old man can bring his 90-year-old fiancée from Switzerland to live in the US, virtually no questions asked, so they can marry here. Hell, you can mail order a bride from Russia or SE Asia. A 25-year-old man from Massachusetts cannot bring his male fiancé from Switzerland into the country on a visa so they can marry legally in his state, which does offer same-sex marriage. Worse yet, they can't live in Massachusetts as a couple even if they're already married!

Rather than just rehashing the lame reasons the law is fucked up and defending past mistakes, conservatives ought to be offering proposals to make the law fairer and correct glaring problems like the example above -- as well as hospital decision/visitation and survivorship for those who have built a life together. It's that investment that marriage seeks to insulate.

 

[Kotchanski]

So now we're getting somewhere...

Gays getting married is the first step to incest, bestiality and objectophilia.

If I could ignore you, I would ignore you, since I can't, I will happily sit back and await the inevitable moderator forum flooding generated by your vile, deplorable and dare I say it, not very well bloody hidden homophobia.

 

[The Dragon]

So now we're getting somewhere...

Gays getting married is the first step to incest, bestiality and objectophilia.

If I could ignore you, I would ignore you, since I can't, I will happily sit back and await the inevitable moderator forum flooding generated by your vile, deplorable and dare I say it, not very well bloody hidden homophobia.

I say ban the fucker now and save yourselves a vast amount of headaches.

 

[dude_007]

^ seconded

 

[The Dragon]

Surely with that last post of his he's put himself beyond the pale and wandered into the realm of multiple ToS violations.

 

[B_Jingoist]

So now we're getting somewhere...

Gays getting married is the first step to incest, bestiality and objectophilia.

If I could ignore you, I would ignore you, since I can't, I will happily sit back and await the inevitable moderator forum flooding generated by your vile, deplorable and dare I say it, not very well bloody hidden homophobia.

It is a simple logical process.

If the state cannot regulate same-sex marriages to what extent CAN they regulate it? At what point does the mere requirement of consenting adults end?

I'm speaking from a simply legal standpoint. What would the legal definition of marriage have to be to include same sex marriage yet exclude those groups you mentioned? And why is their exclusion fair?

 

[petite]

So now we're getting somewhere...

Gays getting married is the first step to incest, bestiality and objectophilia.

If I could ignore you, I would ignore you, since I can't, I will happily sit back and await the inevitable moderator forum flooding generated by your vile, deplorable and dare I say it, not very well bloody hidden homophobia.

:kiss:

 

[itsthepopei]

hmmm someone sounds somewhat bad

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files...t_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

 

[B_Jingoist]

hmmm someone sounds somewhat bad

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files...t_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

All of those arguments are horrible. Any argument based on religion, morality, or emotion is inherently wrong.

And as I've pointed out. Interracial marriages are not the same as same sex marriages. An interracial marriages can meet the requirements of both love and procreation independently of outside interference.

 

[monel]

It is a simple logical process.

If the state cannot regulate same-sex marriages to what extent CAN they regulate it? At what point does the mere requirement of consenting adults end?

I'm speaking from a simply legal standpoint. What would the legal definition of marriage have to be to include same sex marriage yet exclude those groups you mentioned? And why is their exclusion fair?

Just because you keep stating that you are only approaching the issue from a legal standpoint doesn't mean that you are. In fact you have little understanding of the law. Your tortured defense of your position is evidence of that. If you do end up being banned I think it should primarily be for agrivated stupidity. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is forever. Pity stupidity isn't a bar to marriage.

 

[gymfresh]

The big question blah blah blah

Fair is a very subjective term. Since no same-sex couple, regardless of their sexual persuasion can apply for a marriage license, that to me is fair. blah blah blah

If the likely hood of procreation is removed from the requirement of marriage, at what point do we cross the line? The slippery slope argument is a compelling one. If love is the only requirement for marriage how do we deny multiple people from marrying each other, how can we regulate family from marriage, or even people who wish to marry animals or inanimate objects.

The point of civil marriage is to allow you to form a recognized partnership with your mirror image, your alter ego -- someone with the same capacity to enter into the relationship (thus, no minors or dogs or fire hydrants). As there's only one of you, there's only one of them. And only you can determine from the pool of available life partners which one is going to fulfill your right to and needs/objective in forming a couple.

Even more fundamental than whether has couple has or can have children, more fundamental than age or health or relation to each other -- all of which vary by state law -- is the notion that civil marriage is the pairing of two. There may be tribal or religious marriage that historically has allowed otherwise (notably in the bible), but the state has always deemed the core, overriding focus of marriage to be the couple. As our societal understanding of couple becomes more enlightened and humane to embrace same-sex couples, so too does the definition of marriage. Call it by any name you like, just use the same name for all couples. The DNA of a marriage is 99.9% identical for straight couples and gay couples -- they met, dated, fell in love and decided to marry for the identical reasons.

Really, one doesn't have to look any further for whether marriage equality is right than the elation and "sense that something profound and fundamental has changed" among same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike at the moment that they are declared married by the state. What does the state get? Strong families. It's dawning on everyone that means gay and straight alike.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Just because you keep stating that you are only approaching the issue from a legal standpoint doesn't mean that you are. In fact you have little understanding of the law. Your tortured defense of your position is evidence of that. If you do end up being banned I think it should primarily be for agrivated stupidity. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is forever. Pity stupidity isn't a bar to marriage.

Prove. It.

You have failed to do so. You cannot hold a debate by simply telling me I'm wrong. You have to explain why backed up by assertions. That is the essence of argument and you and your compatriots have failed at every opportunity given.