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

[true blood]

What kind of corruption do you expect?

For instance, if same-sex marriage becomes legal, why shouldn't one of my heterosexual friends and I enter into a legal marriage simply for the tax cut? I'm not gay but if same-sex marriage becomes a reality people will take advantage of it as will I.

 

[Trinitas]

From a cultural or religious standpoint you may have a point, but not from a legal one.
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.

Hey there, Mr_Spinkles,

How are ya? Just thought I'd chime in on the discussion.

You have a point on the legal aspect of marriage, but in the United States (as in all societies) law is based upon the peoples' culture. In the United States, our culture is historically Judeo-Christian, not atheistic. I could quote ad nauseum from Supreme Court documents that make that very claim, but the space here could be better utilized, I'm sure.

Furthermore, marriage does not belong to Christianity or to any one religion. It is a human institution that transends all religions, cultures, and national boundaries. Therefore, we must look beyond religious definitions to human ones. If you look at the history of marriage throughout the span of ages, you will not find homosexual "marriage" anywhere. Pretty much every society in the world for all time has recognized that marriage is
1. the union of one man and one woman,
2. one man and many women (polygamy), or
3. one woman and many men (polyandry).

There is no example, however of marriage being between members of the same gender. There is not even a word for this. The whole issue of homosexual "marriage" is something unique to our own time and place. Therefore, the arguments in favor of it lack the weight of human experience to back it up. It seems that those who favor same sex "marriage" do so not from reasoned argumentation, but rather from sympathetic leanings. The real issue here is the very nature of marriage. Marriage, according to the witness of human history can be
1. monogomous (one man/one woman)
2. polygamous, or
3. polyandrous,

But it is not homosexual. Even the ancient Greeks never went so far as to recognize same sex "marriages" because by nature there is no such thing.

 

[Jaymes]

For instance, if same-sex marriage becomes legal, why shouldn't one of my heterosexual friends and I enter into a legal marriage simply for the tax cut? I'm not gay but if same-sex marriage becomes a reality people will take advantage of it as will I.

What's stopping a girl and a guy entering a marriage now for benefits?

Hey, TVOR! Let's get married! I want a tax cut!

It seems that those who favor same sex "marriage" do so not from reasoned argumentation, but rather from sympathetic leanings.

Oh, yea. You saw right through me. Jolly good show.

Wait, no it's not.

I want to get married because marriage does not depend on religion, or reproduction, and shouldn't depend on anything other than love.

I have love for my girlfriend. I want to marry her. How hard a concept is it?

I don't want to let gays get married because I feel sorry for "the poor wittle gays," I want to let them get married because they deserve it. Every human being has the inherent right to marry who they love when the person they love consents. The government has absolutely no right to say, "No, you can't marry that person."

As for the 'by nature there is no such thing' bullcrap... what do you call penguins of the same sex who bond for life?

Wait, wait! I know! Natural.

 

[Ceridwen018]

true blood,

For instance, if same-sex marriage becomes legal, why shouldn't one of my heterosexual friends and I enter into a legal marriage simply for the tax cut? I'm not gay but if same-sex marriage becomes a reality people will take advantage of it as will I.

It's called a sham marriage--people do it all the time, so go ahead and feel free.

Trinitas,

In the United States, our culture is historically Judeo-Christian, not atheistic. I could quote ad nauseum from Supreme Court documents that make that very claim, but the space here could be better utilized, I'm sure.

This is very true--I agree that our nation was founded upon and our Constitution written with Christian values as a guide. However, we still have a separation of church and state, which is what makes adhering to these Christian values for no other reason besides that they are Christian, illegal. If someone can come up with a logical and secular argument for why homosexuals should not be allowed to be married or enter a civil union, then we'll be in business.

Pretty much every society in the world for all time has recognized that marriage is
1. the union of one man and one woman,
2. one man and many women (polygamy), or
3. one woman and many men (polyandry).

Yes, but there was a point in history when we changed from polygamy as the norm, to monogamy as the norm. Why can't we do the same thing now from heterosexuality to homosexuality? I'm sure the ancients aregued that monogamous marriage was not found anywhere in the world, so why should they make it law.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

For instance, if same-sex marriage becomes legal, why shouldn't one of my heterosexual friends and I enter into a legal marriage simply for the tax cut?

For the same reason that you do not enter into a legal marriage with one of your female friends simply for the tax cut. You have not presented a problem that will arise from making same-sex marriage legal...you have only presented a problem that will arise from making marriage in general legal. Should we pass an amendment outlawing straight marriage to prevent this "possible corruption"?

Hi Trinitas.

You have a point on the legal aspect of marriage, but in the United States (as in all societies) law is based upon the peoples' culture. In the United States, our culture is historically Judeo-Christian, not atheistic. I could quote ad nauseum from Supreme Court documents that make that very claim, but the space here could be better utilized, I'm sure.

Even if your statement were true, it's still a weak argument: 1)there are in fact many cultures and sub-cultures in the U.S. ...ultimately, the only accurate classification of an American is found on the individual--not group--basis. 2)There are Christians and Jews who support gay marriage, and there are Christians and Jews who are against it. It is an egregious mischaracterization to compare support for gay marriage rights to atheism (or any other philosophy). 2) Law is not based on our culture. If it was, we would all be required by law to be baptized Christian.

Instead, our laws are founded upon secular ideals--namely, that individuals have rights that the government should not infringe upon, and that everyone has these same rights. In fact, the reason we adopted a federalist system was to protect individuals and minorities from a tyrannical majority. The United States is about individual freedom, not enforcement of a "culture". Culture is great, but if you want the majority's culture to be enforced by the government, go visit Iran.

Marriage may or may not be a "human institution" that "transcends national boundaries"--philosophically, you may or may not be correct. But as far as our government is concerned, marriage is a legally binding agreement. That's all. That's why we have marriage lawyers, divorce lawyers, judges who perform the ceremonies, etc. Outside of government, you may be right--we have priests, customs, rituals, etc. But all citizens of the U.S. have the right to enter into a contract with another citizen. It is discrimination to deny that right to one group of people when they have not infringed upon the rights of others.

Your argument that our country's laws cannot deviate from history is also weak; if that were true, we would have established yet another theocracy or monarchy. America's radical premises of free speech, free religion, and individual rights was something that deviated quite drastically from history. Yes, there have been same-sex marriages in history, particularly in Native American tribes. And they were the first "true" Americans.

I hope that my arguments are based on reasoning, though I admit I am sympathetic towards the plight of homosexuals, just as many were sympathetic towards the plight of blacks.

Just think about what it is you are actually against: let's say we have a gay couple, Mary and Sally. They are in love with each other, and have decided to spend the rest of their lives together. Why do you want to deny Mary the right to leave Sally her inheretance if she wants? How does that infringe on our rights in any way? Why can't Mary obtain a legal guarantee to visit Sally in the hospital if she gets sick?

What if you lived in some strange society where the situation was reversed--where same-sex marriage was common and heterosexual marriage an irregularity? Would you throw up your hands and agree you should not be allowed to form a legally binding contract with the woman you love?

 

[true blood]

The government has absolutely no right to say, "No, you can't marry that person."

I think the government does. Why shouldn't they? If the gov't is granting special privilages to married couples, the gov't will be involved. Marriage depends on alot more then just love. How do you define love because I "love" alot of my friends and family. If you feel the govt has no right to draw lines, where would you draw the line?

 

[Sunstone]

How do you define love because I "love" alot of my friends and family.

True Blood, are you suggesting that the love a homosexual couple have for each other is somehow not quite the same as the love a heterosexual couple have for each other? And if that is indeed what you are suggesting, then precisely how does the love of a homosexual couple differ from the love of a heterosexual couple?

 

[true blood]

For the same reason that you do not enter into a legal marriage with one of your female friends simply for the tax cut. You have not presented a problem that will arise from making same-sex marriage legal...you have only presented a problem that will arise from making marriage in general legal. Should we pass an amendment outlawing straight marriage to prevent this "possible corruption"?

I think we should just vote on the issue. Every state should cast their ballot on this issue. 11 down so far. Perhaps after each state votes then the fed. gov't should maybe pass an amendment regarding the issue. Let the people as a majority decide.

"But all citizens of the U.S. have the right to enter into a contract with another citizen. It is discrimination to deny that right to one group of people when they have not infringed upon the rights of others."

To a certain degree. No one should be able to enter into a contract of marriage with their mom, dad, sister, brother, etc... With that we have discriminated against groups. If I'm correct, my understanding is that homosexuals feel that anybody can enter into a contract of marriage with any partner period. No rules. No regulations. No definitions. If you love them, marry them.

 

[Sunstone]

...my understanding is that homosexuals feel that anybody can enter into a contract of marriage with any partner period. No rules. No regulations. No definitions. If you love them, marry them.

Where are you getting this 'information'? Are you getting it from proponents of homosexual marriage, or from their critics? And if you are getting it from their critics, may I respectfully suggest that you exercise common prudence and not believe half of what they tell you? No one but an innocent babe in the woods should be so foolish these days as to uncritically believe what one side says about the other --- on any public debate (not just the gay marriage debate). True Blood, it is no more than common sense to recognize that people exaggerate and distort the opposition's views. Take care!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No one should be able to enter into a contract of marriage with their mom, dad, sister, brother, etc...

Actually, yes they should be able to do so and in fact everyone is automatically in a contract with their family members...familly members inherit your wealth and can visit you in the hospital.

 

[true blood]

True Blood, are you suggesting that the love a homosexual couple have for each other is somehow not quite the same as the love a heterosexual couple have for each other? And if that is indeed what you are suggesting, then precisely how does the love of a homosexual couple differ from the love of a heterosexual couple?

I do not know. Every relationship with love involved is not equal. Perhaps I love my girlfriend more then the couple down the street. /shrug It's impossible for me to measure and compare. I'm not sure what you are asking. I think human anatomy also plays a role on the depth of a loving relationship. Now the physical act of "making love" is most definately designed between a man and a woman. A man's anus is not designed for penetration by another man's penis as for two woman "making love" I'm not sure what they do to be honest. Toys? I was concieved just like all of you, by a man and a woman.

 

[true blood]

Actually, yes they should be able to do so and in fact everyone is automatically in a contract with their family members...familly members inherit your wealth and can visit you in the hospital.

I think I see what you mean. Me and my {friend or brother} rent an apartment. We are both heterosexual. Are you suggesting that we should have the rights to enter into a legal contract of marriage. We do not have a physical loving relationship together but we do have some love for each other. Should we be able to marry?

 

[Lightkeeper]

I think I see what you mean. Me and my {friend or brother} rent an apartment. We are both heterosexual. Are you suggesting that we should have the rights to enter into a legal contract of marriage. We do not have a physical loving relationship together but we do have some love for each other. Should we be able to marry?

No, If you are heterosexual, I would hope you are looking for the opposite sex to marry.

 

[Bastet]

I oppose the issue as well but not to the point that I would actually vote against it, I would abstain.

If all the fence-sitters like you - who oppose the issue, but are too apathetic to actually do something about it - had voted against these measures, then I think the outcome would have been considerably different.

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.

All of the states passed the issue, that is the problem! These measures passed because people voted 'Yes' to banning gay marriage. The closest any state came to not passing the measure, was Oregon. And it only passed by about 54% (not sure of the exact figure, but I'm sure it was early 50s). That's a pretty close race, if you ask me.

 

[Bastet]

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.

Regardless of whether they're oranges or apples, they are all fruit, and should as such be treated equally within the fruit bowl.

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.

Other people have already addressed this quite well, but I would just like to say: horse pucky! I have a heterosexual married friend, who does not want children...she and her husband are both in agreeance on this, and it was discussed before their marriage. They plan to never have children. Are they any less deserving of a marriage licence because of this decision? They are two people who enjoy each others company, and will not procreate. Do you plan to deny every couple in this situation?

 

[Jaymes]

I think we should just vote on the issue. Every state should cast their ballot on this issue. 11 down so far. Perhaps after each state votes then the fed. gov't should maybe pass an amendment regarding the issue. Let the people as a majority decide.

People should never be able to vote on whether the rights of others should be restricted.

 

[Bastet]

For instance, if same-sex marriage becomes legal, why shouldn't one of my heterosexual friends and I enter into a legal marriage simply for the tax cut? I'm not gay but if same-sex marriage becomes a reality people will take advantage of it as will I.

Honestly, this has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've heard yet. There's nothing stopping you from entering into a sham heterosexual marriage right now. If all I was after was tax cuts, then I would also enter into a sham heterosexual marriage. But that is not what marriage is about for me.

 

[Lightkeeper]

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.

How did we get from gay marriage to a discussion of "fruit"? The whole point is an orange doesn't want to be an apple. The orange wants to keep company with it's own kind and doesn't want to be forced to be an apple. Orange wants to be recognized as being just as worthy as apple of having basic rights. Not all apples want to be a pie, or sauce, some want to be carmeled and on a stick. Some want to grow old and wither. Both have likenesses and both are good for you. Both oranges and apples can be juice, they can be served with lunch and breakfast, they can be added to recipes for flavoring. They can sit on your table and look pretty. The bottom line is a fruit is a fruit.:biglaugh:

 

[Bastet]

I think we should just vote on the issue. Every state should cast their ballot on this issue. 11 down so far. Perhaps after each state votes then the fed. gov't should maybe pass an amendment regarding the issue. Let the people as a majority decide.

I'll just quote my own post from earlier...

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??

 

[Bastet]

I do not know. Every relationship with love involved is not equal. Perhaps I love my girlfriend more then the couple down the street. /shrug It's impossible for me to measure and compare. I'm not sure what you are asking. I think human anatomy also plays a role on the depth of a loving relationship. Now the physical act of "making love" is most definately designed between a man and a woman. A man's anus is not designed for penetration by another man's penis as for two woman "making love" I'm not sure what they do to be honest. Toys? I was concieved just like all of you, by a man and a woman.

true blood ~ if you don't know the difference between the love of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together, and the love you have for your brother, then you have serious problems. I suggest you seek help.