• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A question for you gay-marriage advocates...

I

Ichigo

Platinum Member
I'm neither for nor against it, and the following question might clarify why.

As I understand it, civil unions do not confer the entirety of the legal rights accorded to married couples (property laws, tax laws, etc.). If a "civil union" were to accord those exact same rights and be distinguished from marriage only by name, would that be acceptable?

A respond that I'm anticipating is that marriage is a right, and thus the name of the union must be "marriage" based on that principle. Here's a follow-up question for that possibility. What, then, do you feel about things like polygamy or two directly related people (but still consenting adults) getting married? Just those two examples, I am not comparing gay marriage to anything else, only other situations with two or more consenting adults.

Most of my friends get too emotional when debating about it so I'm just looking for some rational discussion.
 
Ichigo said:
I'm neither for nor against it, and the following question might clarify why.

1. As I understand it, civil unions do not confer the entirety of the legal rights accorded to married couples (property laws, tax laws, etc.). If a "civil union" were to accord those exact same rights and be distinguished from marriage only by name, would that be acceptable?

2. A respond that I'm anticipating is that marriage is a right, and thus the name of the union must be "marriage" based on that principle. Here's a follow-up question for that possibility. What, then, do you feel about things like polygamy or two directly related people (but still consenting adults) getting married? Just those two examples, I am not comparing gay marriage to anything else, only other situations with two or more consenting adults.

Most of my friends get too emotional when debating about it so I'm just looking for some rational discussion.
Click to expand...

1. Separate but equal.
2. Slippery Slope.
3. P & N.
 
I really don't understand the issue. My sister is married to a gay guy and everybody knows it.
 
poly.jpg


Ichigo said:
... other situations with two or more consenting adults.
Click to expand...
i agree , limiting marriages to two human adults is discrimination

i support two options:

A- marriage will now be available to any combination of sentient/non-sentient beings or objects, as long as at least one is a human (in order to have legal standing in the human world/culture)

B- dissolve all legal status/benefits of "marriage", marriage will now be a strictly culture/religious/spiritual relationship and have no laws restricting or defining marriage nor any legal benefit/advantage/disadvantage of either being in or out of a marriage relationship


any other "solution" is not fully addressing the problem
 
Last edited:
The problem with civil unions is that so many laws/regulations/private policies/ect are worded around the hard definition of marriage. All of those would have to be re-written/worded to account for it. And then actually honored/upheld.

I just think it's easier to drop any sort of retarded whimsical attachment we have to the word "marriage" and just let two monogamous adults use it. Marriage is so secular at this point that any religious tie it had is diluted to the point of uselessness. And heterosexual couples have abused the concept to the point that a homosexual couple could do no worse to it.

I'm not even going to acknowledge the polygamy/incest arguments as those are nothing more than desperate tactics for those that have no other logical argument.
 
troll thread, predicting multiple page thread filled with people who arrogant enough to think it's ok to tell other adults what to do with their lives. No one is swayed either way and a lot of pointless, childish handwringing will result. Thread eventually abandoned until a new one appears in a month from now.

So now that we have that out of the way we can probably just close this.
 
Civil Union provide an easy way to discriminate. If you want to call everything a civil union then that is fine.

But if you have forms that get filled out and it can be married or civil union, then discrimination will occur.
 
Platypus said:
troll thread, predicting multiple page thread filled with people who arrogant enough to think it's ok to tell other adults what to do with their lives. No one is swayed either way and a lot of pointless, childish handwringing will result. Thread eventually abandoned until a new one appears in a month from now.

So now that we have that out of the way we can probably just close this.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Can a moderator move this to P&N if that's appropriate?

I'm confused. What makes something like polygamy, as long as it's a consenting decision between multiple adults, so taboo that it's not worth discussing? It seems like the attitude you have towards polygamy is similar to the attitude some people would have against homosexuality, which is lovely irony. I'm not talking about pedophilia or bestiality or something equally insulting or insane.

I'm not against gay marriage. I'm close to apathetic. I'm just curious why it's cool to hop on the gay marriage train but hate on polygamy or incest between adults.

I'm not trying to troll. I'm not trying to anger anyone. I just want someone to explain to me why two consenting adults is morally superior to three consenting adults. Refusing to acknowledge it because you think it's morally decadent is exactly the attitude anti-gay-marriage advocates have and you should know better.
 
As I understand it, civil unions do not confer the entirety of the legal rights accorded to married couples (property laws, tax laws, etc.). If a "civil union" were to accord those exact same rights and be distinguished from marriage only by name, would that be acceptable?
Click to expand...

It would be acceptable to me, but I'm not gay. If it ever came to a vote, I'd vote for gay marriage rights just because I don't think marriage is so special that we should be excluding gays. If it never comes to a vote I won't worry about it too much either.

A respond that I'm anticipating is that marriage is a right, and thus the name of the union must be "marriage" based on that principle. Here's a follow-up question for that possibility. What, then, do you feel about things like polygamy or two directly related people (but still consenting adults) getting married? Just those two examples, I am not comparing gay marriage to anything else, only other situations with two or more consenting adults.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with polygamy and related people marrying. People should be free to do whatever they want that doesn't harm anyone else. Just because I wouldn't do something myself or even if I think something is utterly disgusting doesn't mean there should be a law against it. Freedom doesn't mean just being free to do what I think you should be doing.
 
The key to me is two consenting adults.

Polygamy/polyandry - not two consenting adults. But as long as only two of them are eligible for the benefits, I don't see the problem.

2 directly related people - key issue is consent, there will ultimately be a predetermined power hierarchy, therefore consent is not possible.
 
I have no issue with gay marriage except possibly in the adoption of children. All things considered, I think a child is better off in a home with a male father and a female mother than a gay couple (and research bears this out), but there are so many shitty hetero parents to even it out.
 
Re: polygamy

When it comes to child custody, property/financial division, medical decisions, ect how do you determine which spouse gets what or says what?
 
vi edit said:
Re: polygamy

When it comes to child custody, property/financial division, medical decisions, ect how do you determine which spouse gets what or says what?
Click to expand...

how is it done today? some judge decides, based on, whatever
i don't see any difference if more than two peoples are involved , everybody just gets 1/3 instead of 1/2
 
FoBoT said:
how is it done today? some judge decides, based on, whatever
i don't see any difference if more than two peoples are involved , everybody just gets 1/3 instead of 1/2
Click to expand...

If you get hauled into a hospital with massive injuries and can not speak for yourself your spouse usually takes over medical decisions. Now what happens if one spouse says DNR and the other says do everything you can to keep him alive?
 
I'm not particularly "gay friendly," but I don't really have any problem with gay marriage.

I don't think that a gay couple is any threat to my marriage...or the "institution of marriage" in general.

It's not like we heterosexual people have done such a great job protecting the "sanctity of marriage" ourselves, with the divorce rate hovering around 50%.

We know one gay couple who has been together for years and years. (maybe 15 years?)They'd get married if it were legal...and I for one think they should be entitled to do so.

On the other hand, we know one lesbian lady who bounces from relationship to relationship...just like many straight people do. Is marriage right for her? Why not? Straight people bounce from marriage to marriage to marriage...

One big difference between "registered domestic partner" and married couple is in the federal tax law. The US government doesn't recognize "RDP," so they have to file federal taxes as single/head of household. Kahleeforneeya recognizes RDP and they can file jointly here for a huge tax savings.
Many medical insurance plans don't recognize domestic partners either...another significant disadvantage for gay couples.

Fuck it...let them marry...let them sue eath other for alimony/spousal support/child support if they adopt or bring children of previous relationships into the marriage.
If they want to have all the rights confered by marriage, they also have to have the same liabilities.
 
vi edit said:
If you get hauled into a hospital with massive injuries and can not speak for yourself your spouse usually takes over medical decisions. Now what happens if one spouse says DNR and the other says do everything you can to keep him alive?
Click to expand...

then you have to go to a judge to decide (like Terri Schiavo, where the parents wanted to keep her alive and the "husband" wanted to let her die)
no worries, any of these scenarios are solvable by including government (judicial branch) more in our lives
 
FoBoT said:
then you have to go to a judge to decide (like Terri Schiavo, where the parents wanted to keep her alive and the "husband" wanted to let her die)
no worries, any of these scenarios are solvable by including government (judicial branch) more in our lives
Click to expand...

Or people could actually take responsibility and get a living will and medical power of attorney.
 
vi edit said:
If you get hauled into a hospital with massive injuries and can not speak for yourself your spouse usually takes over medical decisions. Now what happens if one spouse says DNR and the other says do everything you can to keep him alive?
Click to expand...

In MOST states, absent a "DNR order" or orders in a living will, there's no argument. The hospital is required to treat you with the intent of saving your life. It takes a court order to pull the plug barring a DNR order by the patient.
 
Marriage should be reserved for two beings who can produce a child together with their own DNA.

Arguing that interracial marriage is similar is just bullshit. That's like saying someone who is 5'1" should for some reason be barred from marring a 6'4" individual. Or, that someone with freckles can only marry someone with freckles. Or that two married adults should have similar shoe size. Seriously, skin color is a fucking physical attribute, nothing else. They are both of the Human Race, and of opposite sex, and there is no natural genetic incompatibility that prevents people of different skin color from producing children together.

The same cannot be said for people of the same sex.
I'm not religious, in fact I am atheist as many should know, and care not for religious traditions around marriage. But marriage has only in recent time been related to religion, it has existed in every culture and civilization throughout history, and is always related around preserving reproduction abilities. If one wants to turn their back on their own species, be our guest. Enjoy your time together... but marriage is not the answer.

I do not mean to offend, and I treat all gay people just like any other person. I believe they are entitled, as humans, to be treated like everyone else in a civilization. But the fact that they are not doing the animal thing, and that is bearing a child with a spouse, then well... they are not contributing to genetic diversity.
What makes this whole problem worse is humans think of our species as something special, something more than an animal. Something worthy of devotion and attention from other worldly deities... and that complicates everything, especially when we (in developed countries) live the lives we currently do, afforded so much opportunity and freedom. But that shouldn't dilute anything in the minds, as quite matter of factly, we are animals. Yes, animals have been documented to from time to time engage in homosexual activities, it's an animal thing. I get it, it's a social and power thing, but... to commit to an entire life of such ways, producing no children of your own... members of your fellow species have a right to be disappointed. Obviously many are disappointed for far different reasons, many tied to religion.

Making babies and from time to time having flings with genetically incompatible mates (of the same species) is one thing... devoting a lifetime to it is something entirely different.
Sorry. I am an animal. I embrace this, accept this, and turn my back on people who shun their genetic lineage. I know straight people who have refused to have children. I equally turn my back on those people, even if completely straight. (and for both examples, this is figuratively speaking: I don't approve of decisions, but I still treat them like fellow members of society, something every one who lives does indeed deserve equally). Of course, if they cannot afford it, then by all means I'll let them wait until they can, if that's ever the case. A child deserves a proper and fit home, in relation to the local culture at least. I could argue that's not necessary, but the developed world is not forgiving to someone who desires to live the life of a hunter/gatherer society, though regions supporting it can and do.
 
It's simple, look at it like this.

Imagine if interracial marriage were not allowed (and it wasn't so long ago that it wasn't), instead only civil unions were allowed for whites who wanted to marry blacks, asians who wanted to marry mexicans, purples who wanted to marry silvers.

Hint: it would not be acceptable
 
What about the protection of children? You should not get the extra rights, unless there is an implied responsibility for the children of the offspring of the union between a man and a woman.

However, if all gay/lesbian activists want is survivor rights, and visitation rights when sick or in the hospital, I think some kind of accommodation could be made. Just dont call the union between same sex couples marriage. It is not marriage and it never will be.
 
destrekor said:
But the fact that they are not doing the animal thing, and that is bearing a child with a spouse, then well... they are not contributing to genetic diversity.
Click to expand...

a) Should a couple where one is sterile, either because of surgery, age, or because the man was kicked in the balls be allowed to marry?
b) Should couples who *choose* not to have children, ever, be allowed to marry?
c) Do you approve of a gay couple spending their lives together, living together, sharing all their moments together, while unmarried? If no, why? If yes, then what difference does it make if they have this marriage title in their hand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top