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

[skills101]

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 agree with Jensa. I mean, if decisions were decided by the majority, women would not have the right to vote and blacks would still be slaves!

I've yet to find a justification for banning gay marriage other than religion, so I hate to think there's even a small chance this country is decided by Christian views.

 

[Sunstone]

I've yet to find a justification for banning gay marriage other than religion...

I wish someone could give me even one legitimate (albeit non-religious) reason to ban gay marriage. Just one reason with substance! I really do. Because as it stands, there seem to be no such reasons to ban gay marriage. And that makes me think that a whole lot of people who oppose gay marriage are irrational. I don't like thinking that many people are basically irrational, so I devoutly wish someone could give me just one legitimate reason to ban gay marriage.

 

[Bastet]

Now I've seen everything... http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110504txBooks.htm

 

[Quoth The Raven]

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.

Yes, you're quite correct...there are throngs of homosexuals out there who want to marry within their immediate family.:banghead3
Did you actually think before you posted that? They're not asking to marry anyone YOU wouldn't be allowed to marry. They're not asking for anything YOU can't have. YOU can marry the partner of your choice (unless you're part of some religious group that forbids marriage outside the group), why should someone else be denied that right because they happen to choose someone of the same sex?

 

[robtex]

Well at this point we can see the obvious dividing line. Christians who think it is not a reasonable request and everyone else that does...This the same battle line outside our forum community. See a group fighting against gay marriages and rest assured some church is attached to it. Maybe there should be Christian marriages and non Christian marrigages both with equal legal rights..just one being for Christians and one for eveybody else. Non christians don't want inclusion in your religion and Christians (many) don't want gay or lesbians in their religion. So is it viable just to have them divided into Christian marriages and non christian marriages......both with the same rights and previlgages just one in a church and one forbidden from being in a church...if that were on a ballet would it be reasonable?

 

[true blood]

Christians vs. everyone else isn't the same battle line outside of this forum community and all true christians would welcome any gay or lesbian. That's why Jesus Christ was sent. It's why I believe in him. I would rather be governed by a gift given from God, rather then by world governments. This is not a perfect society nor will it ever be until the return of the true bridegroom. The word of God does teach of the real marriage. Perhaps the gov't should abolish all marriages except the unions between a male and female having children. It removes all man-made religion, doesn't matter if one is homosexual or heterosexual. A man and woman having a child at least provides physical evidence of a natural union. Then that family of male, female, children should recieve special rights by the government. This is how the next generation of humans are made and is essential to survive.

 

[huajiro]

"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. "

Hmmm, last time I checked this was true for us heterosexuals as well. Isn't marriage about being with someone you love, not rules and regulations and definitions?

 

[true blood]

"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. "

Hmmm, last time I checked this was true for us heterosexuals as well. Isn't marriage about being with someone you love, not rules and regulations and definitions?

Legal marriage is about getting special rights and privilages from the government. I see no reason the government should give those who are "in love with each other" special rights and privilages. No. That goes for homosexual and heterosexual. Christian and Athiest. But rather only to those having children.

 

[Sunstone]

Legal marriage is about getting special rights and privilages from the government. I see no reason the government should give those who are "in love with each other" special rights and privilages. No. That goes for homosexual and heterosexual. Christian and Athiest. But rather only to those having children.

Since homosexuals can adopt children, would you then allow a homosexual couple with children to get married?

 

[godischange]

Our defense of marriage must focus primarily on the importance of marriage, not on homosexuality or other matters. The Church’s teaching about the dignity of homosexual persons is clear. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Our respect for them means we condemn all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse. Equally clear is the Church’s teaching about the meaning of sexual relations and their place only within married life.

REALLY? Because the rest of your post screams "SHUN THEM! THEY ARE NOT EQUAL!" Homosexuality isn't a personal descretion thing. If your gay, you souldn't be denied the rights to an equal marriage because of the way you are. And if you are a member of a religion that does not shun homosexuality, where is the problem? This nation is not entirely christian or catholic. Marry under a justice of the peace or a clergy form your faith, and you have nothing legally wrong with that. The government has no right to rule against marriage of the same sex because of a holy book- aka the seperation between church and state. So who's ready to face-off the legal system to condemn one more minority to a life without rights? Show of hands please...

 

[true blood]

Since homosexuals can adopt children, would you then allow a homosexual couple with children to get married?

I would strictly limit legal marriage to a male and a female having offspring. The male, female and offspring would get special rights and privilages from the government. The offspring from a male and female is required, generation after generation. Adoption is another issue. I feel that if a person adopts, the man or woman along with the child should recieve other rights and privilages from the government. However, I would not allow a person to use adoption as a ploy to recieve legal marriage rights. I would even deny heterosexuals legal marriage if they do not or could not produce offspring. This entire marriage issue is strange. Why should anyone, homosexual or other, recieve special government benifits just because a couple is "in love with each other". What is the point?

 

[Sunstone]

I would strictly limit legal marriage to a male and a female having offspring. The male, female and offspring would get special rights and privilages from the government. The offspring from a male and female is required, generation after generation. Adoption is another issue. I feel that if a person adopts, the man or woman along with the child should recieve other rights and privilages from the government. However, I would not allow a person to use adoption as a ploy to recieve legal marriage rights. I would even deny heterosexuals legal marriage if they do not or could not produce offspring. This entire marriage issue is strange. Why should anyone, homosexual or other, recieve special government benifits just because a couple is "in love with each other". What is the point?

I don't believe I can go along with that, True Blood. It seems to me that your vision of marriage reduces the institution to something it hasn't entirely been since the Middle Ages -- merely a contract for procreation.

I'm astounded that you can see no point in marriage because a couple is in love. I suspect that you might have very little actual experience of being in love. Is that the case?

 

[Lightkeeper]

The one good thing this argument has done is make heterosexuals rerealize the value of marriage. They have been trashing marriage for years. The divorce rate show this and the amount of couples living together without marriage has increased. The number of children born out of wedlock has greatly increased. Then there are the children that have several sets of stepparents. We do need to realize the real value of marriage and honor it and the family. We might gay marriage is a great step toward saving the marriage and family system.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

okay, gays will not get married for the sake of privelages and rights. its funny, some people dont want gays to get married, but you have no problem seeing a hot chick get married to a rich old gessier? or celeberty marriages? and that doesnt honor the sanctity or marriage? holy crap. at least gay marriages have two spouses who LOVE each other for a long time commitment. seriously..

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Why should anyone, homosexual or other, recieve special government benifits just because a couple is "in love with each other". What is the point?

true blood-- In this country, the government recognizes that all citizens are free in their pursuit of happiness. In our day to day lives, this means the government pretty much leaves us alone (except when we infringe on the rights of others).

However, there are times when a citizen cannot make those decisions. For example, when a citizen is in the hospital, s/he must be allowed to be treated undisturbed by anyone, save close freinds and family. Obviously, if a citizen dies, that person is no longer able to give an inheretence to others of his/her choosing.

So, the government allows us to form a legal contract with other citizens...if you love someone, and you want to give them an inheretence when you die, and you want them to be able to visit you in the hospital, and that makes you happy...then the government should allow it. Why not? What's so awful about letting people pursue happiness in the way they choose?

Forgive me, true blood, but your argument about the possibility of a sham marriage is just plain ol' silly. You could get a sham marriage now, if you wanted to. It's not easy though.

 

[huajiro]

Legal marriage is about getting special rights and privilages from the government. I see no reason the government should give those who are "in love with each other" special rights and privilages. No. That goes for homosexual and heterosexual. Christian and Athiest. But rather only to those having children.

Again it is about the children. Everyone wants more children to increase their customer base.....shouldn't love be more important, even when you think of having the children?

 

[huajiro]

I would strictly limit legal marriage to a male and a female having offspring. The male, female and offspring would get special rights and privilages from the government. The offspring from a male and female is required, generation after generation.QUOTE]

I would love to see the greeting cards your kids get. "Happy Birthday Offspring"

 

[anders]

I would strictly limit legal marriage to a male and a female having offspring.

So you mean that to be married, the couple must have produced a child? I think that few people in this world agree with that view.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I would love to see the greeting cards your kids get. "Happy Birthday Offspring"

Wouldn't that be,"Happy Birthday Required Offspring."?

 

[FyreBrigidIce]

I wonder if "required offspring" would be mentioned if the children ask why they are here and where did they come from. For example:

Child: Daddy, why am I here?
Parent: As a requirement of our marriage your mother and I had to biologically have at least one child.
Child: What does requirement mean?
Parent: In order for a marriage to be recognized as true, proper, and deserving of government recognition our marriage has to be for the creation of you and your siblings.
Child: So my sisters and I were not wanted but were a product of keeping your marriage legal?
Parent: Ummm, Ummm, all of you were wanted. We love you all.
Child: But you just said that we were a requirement and that was our reason for being here. You did not mention that you and Mommy wanted us because of your love for each other.


Yes, this was a convo with a bright child, I know, but I think the point is there.