Should same sex marriage be legal?

[ADigitalArtist]

I know you have a lot of replies but I wanted to offer another two cents.

It is hard for adopted children to be able to be cared for yet alone same sex couples. The lack of bonding is genuine care for a child is still a biological production of birthing.

In the US adoption is in no way tied to marriage. Gay adoption was already legal as well as surrogacy. Stopping gay marriage wouldn't stop gay adoption.
We also do not, in any way, penalize adoption over having your own children. We consider it noble, even.

Further, decades of research into gay parenting has not shown that children of gay parents thrive on any emotional, social or scholastic parameters less than children of heterosexual parents.

Marriage has been about procreation and the ensuring of society that a child will have proper uprearing and be of a benefit to society.

Marriage as it stands in most industrialized first world nations is a government contract which merges wealth and decision making power between spouses so they can be taxed as a single entity. There is no stigma, government or social, here in the states against couples who are married but do not want children or couples who adopt.

Marriage is not even a state matter, it is a civil matter and should remain so as a contractual affair. No government has a right to see who you marry and how you inseminate your spouse at night under any conditions.

The government contract for tax purposes is a state matter. In the US there are several hundred rights and benefits provided through government marriage contracts.

in such unions as well, it is a matter of the clergy and the religious tradition to decide if it is willing.

I agree, churches shouldn't be forced to preform any marriage service. And they aren't. They can even refuse interracial marriages after Loving V Virginia lifted interracial marriage bans. But courtrooms, judges, marriage offices of the state, etc cannot.

 

[metis]

do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?

Of course it should be as anything less is just unnecessary discrimination. Whom someone else marries is none of my business.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I know you have a lot of replies but I wanted to offer another two cents.


In the US adoption is in no way tied to marriage. Gay adoption was already legal as well as surrogacy. Stopping gay marriage wouldn't stop gay adoption.
We also do not, in any way, penalize adoption over having your own children. We consider it noble, even.

Thank you for not reading anything I said.

Further, decades of research into gay parenting has not shown that children of gay parents thrive on any emotional, social or scholastic parameters less than children of heterosexual parents.

The data is out, incomplete and very misleading. I am familiar with the data and it still makes me chuckle.

Marriage as it stands in most industrialized first world nations is a government contract which merges wealth and decision making power between spouses so they can be taxed as a single entity. There is no stigma, government or social, here in the states against couples who are married but do not want children or couples who adopt.


The government contract for tax purposes is a state matter. In the US there are several hundred rights and benefits provided through government marriage contracts.


I agree, churches shouldn't be forced to preform any marriage service. And they aren't. They can even refuse interracial marriages after Loving V Virginia lifted interracial marriage bans. But courtrooms, judges, marriage offices of the state, etc cannot.

I in no shape or form acknowledge the state or its powers. I simply do not care about what is legal or illegal by a bunch of old men in suits.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It's not pointless, because marriage today is not what it was in biblical times, which by the way never applied to 99% of the world's cultures. We're not in archaic times. Elderly marriage is a thing today, marriage for love is a thing today. We live in today. Many things have changed over the millennia. Marriage is one of them, and rightly so. Nothing exists or changes in a vacuum.

I will give myself a facepalm.

Like "until death do us part" and no divorce?

Another facepalm

That's not the reason at all. It's the evolution of society that requires contractual protections. A marriage license guarantees incontestable spousal right of survivorship. Will, powers-of-attorney, guardianship or any other paper work can be challenged and overturned in court. A marriage license trumps everything, as well as conferring almost 1,100 legal and societal benefits and protections. Marriage is not, never was, never will be "God-instituted".

And yet another facepalm.

Come on, my head is hurting with all this lack of reading.

Why on earth are you arguing about the Bible and god and I am an atheist? I in no way or form give a single care about god or the silly notion that a woman cannot divorce her spouse.

Are you seriously responding to the correct the post?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thank you for not reading anything I said.

In what way was my reply off message?

The data is out, incomplete and very misleading. I am familiar with the data and it still makes me chuckle.

In what way? And even if it is, what data do you have to contradict it?

I in no shape or form acknowledge the state or its powers. I simply do not care about what is legal or illegal by a bunch of old men in suits.

That's your prerogative. Doesn't change that the state relationship with marriage is there, and a significant part of the SSM debate.

 

[Shad]

Just... never mind...

Yes when someone goes off script it becomes hard to follow the narrative you want

 

[YmirGF]

Sane-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005 and the world didn't end. We have all gotten along just fine, in fact.

 

[Sha'irullah]

In what way was my reply off message?

You just cited a lot of stuff that I agree with then you told me the current facts of marriage and its applicability with the state.

It is like walking up to a lawyer and asking him "do you know anything about the law?" ; "Did you know a lawyer has to go to law school?"

You are telling me things that are EXTREMELY OBVIOUS!

In what way? And even if it is, what data do you have to contradict it?

A mixture of research, common sense and the fact that the research that supports your claims is very dubious, biased and extremely unscientific.

That's your prerogative. Doesn't change that the state relationship with marriage is there, and a significant part of the SSM debate.

You obviously did not read the OP. This is about OUR opinions and under OUR circumstances. My circumstance just doesn't acknowledge government involvement.


Now do not get me wrong in that I am trying to be a douche towards you but I have been on forums for almost a decade now and the one thing that always upsets me is when people do not read my postings and respond to it without knowing a single thing I said. I have had people argue to me refusing to acknowledge that we have the same identical opinions on a subject.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sane-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005 and the world didn't end. We have all gotten along just fine, in fact.

Not sure if it is a typo or on purpose but that is just brilliant !

 

[YmirGF]

Not sure if it is a typo or on purpose but that is just brilliant !

It was initially a typo, but I liked it and let it stand. A Freudian slip of the best type.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is already legal with the Supreme Court.

Only if you assume 'Supreme Court' = 'Supreme Court of the USA' (or some other variant that has legalised it)
Hasn't happened universally.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Only if you assume 'Supreme Court' = 'Supreme Court of the USA' (or some other variant that has legalised it)
Hasn't happened universally.

What I mean it is in the US.

 

[YmirGF]

Hasn't happened universally.

and one can only scratch their head and wonder why... I suppose it's largely because primitive ideas of human sexuality are so much more comforting.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What I mean it is in the US.

Yep, I know. And it's all fair enough. As an Australian, I'm simply all too aware that OUR Supreme Court is in a different place.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

and one can only scratch their head and wonder why... I suppose it's largely because primitive ideas of human sexuality are so much more comforting.

Yep, I suspect things that challenge existing world views find resistance, regardless of the ability to rationally defend the status quo.
But in the particular case of Australia, there is a good dose of apathy. We're not great at supporting things which don't impact on us, culturally, I think.
(And yes, I would also make the argument that it impacts all of us, but I mean in terms of direct and simple impact)

 

[Revoltingest]

Sane-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005 and the world didn't end. We have all gotten along just fine, in fact.

Have you noticed though that since it became legal here,
we went from Obama as Prez to Trump as Prez?

 

[YmirGF]

Have you noticed though that since it became legal here,
we went from Obama as Prez to Trump as Prez?

I know, it's pretty fabulous.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A mixture of research, common sense and the fact that the research that supports your claims is very dubious, biased and extremely unscientific.

Such as what research, what about the claims are dubious and unscientific? What about common sense shows that children of gay parents suffer in any tangible way? (excepting from negative stigma towards homosexuality in general).

You obviously did not read the OP. This is about OUR opinions and under OUR circumstances. My circumstance just doesn't acknowledge government involvement.

The OP was about faith based reasons for opposition to gay marriage, but I was responding to the absolutism assertions that I felt were in your post that isn't reflected by either study of same-sex family households or how marriage documents work in their current form.

Now do not get me wrong in that I am trying to be a douche towards you but I have been on forums for almost a decade now and the one thing that always upsets me is when people do not read my postings and respond to it without knowing a single thing I said. I have had people argue to me refusing to acknowledge that we have the same identical opinions on a subject.

Snapping at people and accusing them of not reading your post just because you don't agree with or understand how they are relevant to them is pretty douchy. I read your post. I disagreed with the content as I understood it. You could clarify what you meant by them instead of starting with accusations and working your way form there.

 

[Jainarayan]

Are you seriously responding to the correct the post?

Entirely possible I'm not. I bounce between phone, computer, budget reports and auditors and internet forums. Anything is possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know, it's pretty fabulous.

Oh....I was trying to frighten you.