Krasch

Of course there's nothing in the law that states that. But the social contract that is marriage existed long before any such formalized law. And like it or not, outmoded as some would say or not, that is the primary reason for that social contract. To pair bond with the intent to produce new members of society, precisely one of the main reasons it's been made over many thousands of years into the ritualized ceremony that it is today.

That is and always has been it's traditional meaning since long before Christianity entered the picture. It's simply social revisionism that attempts to make it into something else.

Krasch

There's totally a difference between an infertile heterosexual couple who, barring the unusual medical circumstances, could possibly have kids, and a homosexual couple.

The hetero couple has all the necessary plumbing to get the job done under normal circumstances. The homosexual one simply does not.

I object strongly to your comment about "people with my religious beliefs", and expected better tact from a mod. You seem to be making an assumption that I'm some kind of Bible-thumper. FYI I'm not at all Christian (nor any of it's cousins) nor do I object to such "marriages" redefining the meaning on religious grounds at all, but rather from societal and physiological ones.

As for your assertions about the Native Americans, blacks, and suffrage of women, you couldn't be more wrong. I freely admit the equality of those races as human beings equal to whites, and the equality of rights between men and women. Any eradication of Native peoples is wrong, slavery of any one, be they black, white, green, or polka-dotted is indefensible, and women are just as equal in their own ways as men.

And again, that's the real issue. Separate yet equal. Gay couples have every right to a formalized union that provides many of the same benefits, but there's no reason we have to change the meaning of "marriage" to do so. Give them another title and protections for that title under the law.

Juan.©amaney

I know, I just don't want this turning into an argument as so far, everyone else on here has participated real well, including yourself.


For many people, having children includes happiness. If a woman can't give the man children, he has the right to go about it another way. For blood lines sake. Please note that I am not defending that act, just plainly saying that it is normal to do so.


Well that's the thing, brother. Gay people everywhere are free to get married anywhere they please in a nice formal wedding. They can rent the hall, buy the dresses or tuxes, do the ring thing, kiss the bride/groom/dude who receives etc. No one stops them from having the actual ceremony...it's just that the contract is null and void in the eyes of the law. The laws of this nation are very hypcritical, not just for gays. I'm very pro-mens rights and if you've seen the abortion arguments and alimony arguments I've participated in, you'd know that...I'm sure you do. Again, I won't get off topic.


Gotta agree with that. Take it a step further and go into regular black slaves wedding. It was illegal as well, and no court honored their real weddings as their masters could split them up and sell them off. If they were smart enough, they'd keep them around for breeding purposes, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is, they still had their ceremonies. They all got together, celebrated and jumped over the broom.


Didn't quite grasp what you are trying to say here. Gay marriages are already legal in many states. I'm keeping the church out of my stance as in my heart, the wedding I may have in front of my church will be the only one that matters. The government can keep a piece of paper all they want. Doesn't mean squat to me.

I can't help but notice people here are trying to convince me it's okay for gays to be married. I particularly don't want to stop them, I don't want the system abused. I've witnessed a gay partnership. I play softball with lesbians. Some are pro legalizing gay marriage, other's don't really care because they have all the same rights that straight couples have with the exception of the tax thing....they file separately anyway, so they don't really care.

If one dies, the other has power of attorney to take care of everything. They get benefits from work because their company is an equal opportunity employer. They had their ceremony, and their parents were cool with their choice.


I'm not here to try to tell anyone that gays are wrong wrong wrong and won't play the religion card as I find it hard to swallow with the pedophiles in my sect.

___________________________________________

Krasch

I did specify they should be "separate yet equal" but I'll forgive you for missing that.

As for the "separation of Church and State" part, that is a common error. The US Constitution says nothing of the sort, but it IS a common misinterpretation of the First Ammendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So the government can't make it's own religion (protection against a US version of the Anglican Church was the reason for this) and in fact actually states that the government can't interfere in the free exercise of religion. It's obvious the framers never intended any separation of Church and State.

Jefferson himself certainly didn't. As he wrote so adroitly, "Can the liberties of a nation, be thought secure when we removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God?"

The 2nd President, John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other."

It's only much later, and especially in the later 20th Century that the Supreme Court has woefully stretched the plain meaning of the First Amendment beyond any reasonable definition, spitting in the face of the Founding Fathers.

zpr

I remember reading something a while ago that said that marriage was a legal arrangement from the beginning. Back in the old days, a woman could not own land or any other kind of property. A father who had nothing but daughters could not transfer the ownership of his land or other property to his wife or daughters upon his death. He could, however, transfer these things to a son-in-law. So by making the legal arrangement for his daughter to marry, he gained a son. I think this may be flawed by the fact of having a wife that he couldn't leave anything to, but the point is still there.

Krasch

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

The corollary of which of course, is that the original reason for the father to marry the mother is to begat sons that he could leave his property to.

The necessity to marry the daughter off to gain a son-in-law was to provide a son for the family that nature itself didn't provide.

But the core behind the social contact is still to bear children, with a strong preference for sons; to add to the society's population and bring in new people to replace the old ones who would inevitably die.

The modern trend of husbands and wifes deliberately choosing not to have kids is simply making a choice to neglect their responsibility to society for the sake of their own desires.

zpr

I think you are going overboard with that argument. I think that a married couple deciding not to have children really holds no bearing on society. Those that believe the world is to f'd for them to bring kids into it are only denying themselves the joy of raising kids. Those who do not want to share their success or their time with kids are not effecting society either. It is a personal choice that doesn't effect anyone but themselves.

Back on topic, marriage can be a lot of things. I married my wife because she is the only woman I want to be with. I took her off the market so nobody else could have a chance to find out what I have. All the other reasons that I could have married her didn't matter. I married her because she is the best thing that ever happened to me and I love her more than anything.
That really doesn't matter when you consider how easy it is to get out of marriage. When I was in the Army, I knew some people that would get married for financial reasons. At Ft. Lewis a married E-4 makes about $15k more per year than an unmarried one. That is tax free money. They make an arrangement with a stripper or another soldier to get married. If its another soldier they both gain the same thing. If its a stripper, she gains medical benefits and post privileges, sometimes they make a cash per month arrangement. After a 4 year enlistment, they divorce with the soldier about 60k ahead.
I've known people that got married for tax reasons. I had a friend that married his sisters best friend that he barely knew so she could get medical for her son that was epileptic. They didn't live even live together. They met at the courthouse to make it official and didn't hardly talk after that. Seen people get married for reduced college tuition.
Its what you want to get out of it. I don't give two shits if Bob wants to marry Tom. Their marriage isn't going to affect me. Juan has a point about people abusing the system, but people always abuse the system. If it is morally wrong and they are going to hell for it, that's their choice to make.

BackdoorJesus

If two people, straight or gay, love each other and want to get married and share a life together they should be able to, and they should be able to get all of the rights & privileges that our government & other organizations have set up for married couples.

The main thing I am thinking about here is the thing we all deal with - taxes.

Why should a gay couple be prevented from getting the tax benefit of married filing jointly, or married filing separately for that matter? If they are "legally" married, they can, but if their union is not legally identified as "married" then they don't have that option. There is no box to check for "domestically partnered filing jointly/separately".

This is just one of the issues that same-sex couples are fighting for over this issue...there are plenty of others, but on the surface of it our own tax law excluding these people is tantamount to sexual orientation-based discrimination and should not be acceptable.

In this regard, marriage of a same sex couple is not about religion at all it is about legality and equal treatment under the law. It is a lot less government to make it ok for any two people to be legally married than it is to set up a whole "separate but equal" category of marriage & apply all the same rules to that category as we do to the one that already exists, and if I am for anything I am for less government.

___________________________________________

Krasch

Wrong, and here's why...

If EVERY couple in a society made that choice at the same time, a choice that ostensibly by your argument only effects themselves, then in one generation said society is dead.
Gone.
Done.

People die, and the society needs replacements, which means kids.

The only reason that a society can support having couples that ignore their responsibility to make new members of the society is because others are there to pick up their slack in sufficient numbers. That's why Canada and the US are accepting so many people from other cultures and societies right now, because so many of our own populace are ignoring that responsibility that we're not making enough new members ourselves to support our social programs as the population ages and retires, becoming recipients of those social programs and not contributors.

Krasch

Less government is always good, but creating a new category for same-sex couples that is separate yet equal requires merely writing some new definitions and rules into the laws, hardly a separate bureaucracy to support it or anything like that. The same bureaucracy that exists now can service both groups.

There's absolutely no reason that a box for "domestically partnered filing jointly/separately" could not be added, it's not like the tax weenies at the IRS and CRA don't change the forms every year or so anyway. Equal rights and protections under the law is exactly what gay couples deserve, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we have to redefine "marriage" to achieve that.

Nor should we. Why is it acceptable to force changes on a society but only if those changes are "politically correct"? If it's REALLY about equal rights and not about the title per se, why should those who wish to keep the traditional meaning of marriage intact have to have their sensibilities ignored for the sake of some other group when a solution is possible that satisfies both sides.

Queso

Luckily there's enough stupid people around to get knocked up for not using birth control that that will never happen.




That right there is crap. I fully support people that don't want to have kids. The benefits far outweigh the cons in this one: More money for yourself and your partner, more time to do what you want to do, less worrying that you have to do. That and the fact that there are way too many people in this world as it is. So many people are homeless/starving/jobless because there isn't enough resources to support everyone. How do you expect someone to raise and provide for a child when so many can't even support themselves? You'd rather a couple bring a child into this world that they can't provide for, that may go hungry or lack an education or be tossed around from foster home to foster home, than do the responsible thing and not have kids?

You'd rather force couples that adamantly don't want children to have kids and live their lives miserably (especially if they can't afford the child) than to be happy just cherishing each other? Sounds almost like rape myself.

I don't want kids. Maybe I'll change my mind someday but right now I'm perfectly happy having my money and time to myself. Even if I wanted kids I wouldn't have them until I was financially secure enough to be able to give them a life they deserve. Someday hopefully I will be, but I may not. So am i being "irresponsible" for not wanting children?

I've worked in the kids department of a retail store and it disgusts me how people can be so irresponsible when they come in with four or five kids with another about to pop any time when they can't even afford the ones they have. It's called a condom people. use it.


Back on topic, I'm completely cool with gays wanting to get married. If they're going to have the same rights as everyone else why not just call it marriage? It's the same thing. Besides, they should have the right to become miserable and get divorced just like the rest of us.

ddoubleez

Yes, but Juan, if you and a buddy get married, you are no longer in a position to marry a woman, until you get a divorce from the fake arrangement..... Not only is that a huge deterrent, I imagine that there would red flags raised....

And using the same logic, wouldn't a gay person w/o the rights to marry be able to find a buddy that they could marry and get the same benefits... I think most of these people just want to be bonded to the people they love not take advantage of benefits, and people are trying to stop them out of hate....

Have you met a number of strait people marrying other strait people to get benefits... To me this is just as likely as your above scenario.......

FYI, cousins can marry in a few states, but on the whole, they don't without government interferance, because most people feel it is morally and biologically wrong.... So I do not think you voting to allow someone to be free will lead to sisters marring.....

CD

That's a severely flawed argument. So flawed I shouldn't even have to explain why.

___________________________________________