Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[Bastet]

I repeat, the only reason that the Church wants more kids is to have more income. Self- preservation. The only difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual ones is the fact that we can have kids. Marriage is marriage.

Marriage is marriage; love is love. Unfortunately the majority of these idiots arguing against same sex marriage think it's all about lust. HELLO, PEOPLE!! WHY BUY THE COW WHEN YOU CAN GET THE MILK FOR FREE?! Get a grip, already. :bonk:

 

[Bastet]

I am sure.

Three Canadian provinces issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. These three provinces are the most populous in Canada, which means that 71% of Canadians live in a jurisdiction that issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Because marriage laws in Canada do not have residency requirements, this also means that U.S. same-sex couples may travel to Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec to marry.

The Netherlands and Belgium also grant same-sex couples the right to legally marry. Both these countries have residency requirements, however.

And Spain will soon have same sex marriage.

Update on Canadian provinces that allow gay marriage. http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110304SaskCourt.htm

 

[FyreBrigidIce]

*Stands up and Applauds loudly for Bastet* Very well said. I got married in jeans and a T-shirt.

I agree that marriage was not created to be a religious battle. It was created to allow 2 loving people to share their life together and provide support, love, and companionship.

I must also say that I agree with an earlier post, (Sorry, but I forgot who said it), if a person is not able to take care of a child properly and protectively they should not have one and this goes for ANYONE no matter what their preference in partners is.

Brandy aka FyreBrigidIce

 

[Doc]

First off, I opposed the Issue 1. I think it was the same issue everywhere about Marriage. I believe that homosexuals have every right of benefit and anything heterosexuals do. I agree! Love is Love! And to deny love to one because it is not accepted in culture really isn't fair! We are not to dictate who loves who or the emotions people feel! There is no fact that says homosexuals can be worse/better parents the heterosexuals. One day it is going to be socially accepted. It already is starting. Unlike many of the slightly older generations who were still growing up with segregation and prejudice like that, today's younger culture are more laid back and accept people's ways of life. We have to! I go to a Catholic Highschool and I know there are several gay students. No one frowns down upon them. This is almost the same thing as Segregation. Denying certain rights to people based on race, culture, belief, etc.! Eventually, it will be gone. And that balogna about the true Sanctity of Marriage will be gone!

 

[Bastet]

I found this quote, and it fits my view on states voting these anti-gay marriage ammendments into their constitutions.

"In Canada we've never taken the view you should have votes on human rights. Otherwise, minority communities would be pushed to the sidelines and denied their rights. It's a fundamental value here in Canada that questions of human rights aren't put to that sort of test.''

Quote taken from here: http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110404canMarr.htm

If it had been put to popular vote, do you think segregation would have been abolished??

 

[Sunstone]

I think your right, Bastet. The end of segregation would never have passed by popular vote in the South -- and maybe not elsewhere either. There are principles that overide the will of the majority to impose its values on everyone. That's why the Constitution has a bill of rights, damnit.

 

[Bastet]

I find it very interesting that 70% of the voters in this poll think that homosexual couples deserve fully-fledged marriage, equal to heterosexuals. Yet in the 11 states that voted to ban gay marriage, the amendments passed with a similar percentage of the votes. The closest was Oregon, where the majority was just over 50%. Granted, we are a pretty diverse and tolerant group here at this forum, but I'm still curious...why is it so?

 

[Sunstone]

One thing that might have been a factor: age. The age of people on this board is pretty young when compared to the age of the electorate. This is significant because polls have shown that the main opposition to gay marriage comes from older people, while younger people tend to have no problem with it.

I'm not sure that accounts for all the difference, but it probably accounts for some of it.

 

[robtex]

Bastet, measure 36 passed in Oregon? To answer your question of why I voted yes for equal rights:

1) The goverment has no right to define marriage between two adults
2) Any attempts to define marriage is the forced culturalzation of marriage..or the propgation of arranged marriages.
3) To deny or tell someone how to love is immoral vicious and cruel
4) There is not a single valid reason as to why same sex marriages should not be.
5) homosexuality is not a crime so the logic and reason of why homosexual marriage is a crime is strongly flawed
6) Homosexual laws are christian laws and politics are best kept secular
7) its an insult to hetrosexual marriage to suggest that the strongest bond is the gender difference
8) homosexual anti-marriage laws are based on hate not logic or rational
9) prejudicial treatement of same sex couples to opposite sex couples has serious financial reprocussion via taxes, insurance, and social security
10) to deny same sex couples the abiltiy to legally marry is to attempt to put strain on their relationship
11) micro managing relationships on any level by the goverment is imperalistic
12) micro managing relationsips on any level by the goverment is a waste of tax dollars
13) micro managing relationsips on any level by the goverment means real issues like crime and welefare are being neglected
14) micro managing relationsips on any level by the goverment is a step towards goverment intercession on all relationships including interracial and inter religious
15) The laws in existance are based on hate and intolerance.
16) same sex couples exist legally and its illogical and irrational that if one existance is acceptable the other is not.
17) same sex couples have the exact same aspects to their relationship is opposite sex couple except for the gender
18) to promote the illegality of same sex marriage based on the current arguements is it to teach hate to the children in our communities
19) to attempt to define love for another couple is to promte ignorance to the childern (and others) in our communities
20) to be accepting of the states forcing rights on same sex couples as a hetro is to be apathic to hate and intolerance

 

[Bastet]

Do you think the younger people, who would have been old enough to register to vote, but didn't think it was important enough, or couldn't be bothered/whatever, would have made much of a difference in these amendment votes?

 

[Sunstone]

Record numbers of younger people turned out for this election. Unfortunately for the marriage amendment votes, older people turned out in record numbers too -- so the proportions stayed about the same as they've always been. That is, young voters made up only about 12% of the total voters.

 

[Hope]

Jewscout, though I may get maligned, I have to say you make some very, very good points.....

 

[Quoth The Raven]

This whole ban gay marriage thing is really giving me the irrits. Here's a heads up for the Christians...RELIGION DOESN'T OWN THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE!!!
Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults.It is not a religious institution, and if it is then the amendments/propositions that have been voted on during the election can't be legal because church and state are seperate, and therefore government should not be able to legislate in relation to the matter. If it is a religious institution then there should be no secular way to be married. If it is a religious institution then people who go off and get ordained with a form on the internet or off the back of a Wheeties packet should just be allowed to perform marriages by right, without having to be recognised by the relevant secular authorities. If it is a religious institution then you shouldn't need to be a married couple to have the legal - secular - rights that a married couple have.
If religious groups don't want to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples then they have that perogative. They can't be forced to go against what they believe because they're a reigious group and there is supposed to be such a thing as freedom of religion.
There is no legal reason to legislate against the recognition of same sex marriage and all the rights pursuant to that. Maybe there are plenty of religious reasons not to agree with it (should you be religious), but once again that should legally account for nothing and not have legislation drafted in relation to it because (everybody, sing along!) CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPERATE!!!

 

[true blood]

I oppose the issue as well but not to the point that I would actually vote against it, I would abstain. 11 states had the gay-marriage issue on this years ballot. The voters, who cast their ballots privately, denied the homosexuals the right to get "married". Honestly, I think it would of been interesting had at least 1 state pass the issue but that didn't happen. I think this government still has a long way to go before the start recognizing same-sex relationships. In fact, if gays get the same rights as a legal marriage between a man and a woman like tax cuts and other benifits I imagine alot of corruption would follow.

 

[Sunstone]

In fact, if gays get the same rights as a legal marriage between a man and a woman like tax cuts and other benifits I imagine alot of corruption would follow.

What kind of corruption do you expect?

 

[Trinity]

I oppose the issue as well but not to the point that I would actually vote against it, I would abstain. 11 states had the gay-marriage issue on this years ballot. The voters, who cast their ballots privately, denied the homosexuals the right to get "married". Honestly, I think it would of been interesting had at least 1 state pass the issue but that didn't happen. I think this government still has a long way to go before the start recognizing same-sex relationships. In fact, if gays get the same rights as a legal marriage between a man and a woman like tax cuts and other benifits I imagine alot of corruption would follow.

What rights do they not have? It seems that gays are fighting for inclusion in the definition of marriage. An orange doesn't say I want to be an apple.
Below is a definition of marriage, note point 4.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

# A wedding.

The Key to marriage is sex. Both gender and the physical act. Men and woman have procreative sex. This means their "union" has a possible purpose to further the human race. It is rare that couples who do want, AND do not have kids have a much higher divorce rate than ones that do. Procreative marriage is different from a union of two people who enjoy each others company.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Trinity-- not from the government's standpoint. From a cultural or religious standpoint you may have a point, but not from a legal one. A marriage does not have to be procreative for the government to recognize it in our country. Even someone who is unable to have children can get married (believe it or not .

Marriage, from the government's perspective, is a legal contract between people--it is not defined by religion or culture or morals, but within the context of law. Since there are such vast numbers of people in our society who want to live together for the rest of their lives, the government allows them to form a legally binding contract--this includes things like inheretence upon death, the right to visit one another in hospitals, etc. Why does the government grant these people such a contract? Because citizens of the United States have the right to form contracts among themselves.

We have only recently become aware that there is a large portion of the population--roughly 10%--who may want to live with same-sex partners for the rest of their lives. Because of their sexual orientation, these people desire to live monogamously with a same-sex partner rather than a partner of a different sex. Just as a husband wants to be gauranteed the legal right to visit his sick wife in the hospital unrestricted, so too do homosexuals desire these rights. To deny them the right to form an equivalent legal contract as those of heterosexual couples is to condone discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[huajiro]

Marriage is marriage; love is love. Unfortunately the majority of these idiots arguing against same sex marriage think it's all about lust. HELLO, PEOPLE!! WHY BUY THE COW WHEN YOU CAN GET THE MILK FOR FREE?! Get a grip, already. :bonk:

lol, good point...if the milk is good, then you get married and have a milk-moustache day and night :jam:

 

[huajiro]

What rights do they not have? It seems that gays are fighting for inclusion in the definition of marriage. An orange doesn't say I want to be an apple.
Below is a definition of marriage, note point 4.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

# A wedding.

The Key to marriage is sex. Both gender and the physical act. Men and woman have procreative sex. This means their "union" has a possible purpose to further the human race. It is rare that couples who do want, AND do not have kids have a much higher divorce rate than ones that do. Procreative marriage is different from a union of two people who enjoy each others company.

Trinity, do you really think that the Church is interested in the human race, other than what they can provide to it in form of tything?

 

[huajiro]

In fact, if gays get the same rights as a legal marriage between a man and a woman like tax cuts and other benifits I imagine alot of corruption would follow.

Before I eat into you, I would like to give you a chance to explain fully what the h*ll you mean by this