Gay marriage - It's not often the right looks to France for examples

[klinc]

I couldn't think of a more fitting avatar for you than the one you have... though I don't know whether you're cute or not.

Haha I said that with a tongue in the cheek. But its my human right to say what I want ain't it? Or do we rely on laws to decide what a is right or not? We all have the right to live but we executive people.

If I wish to seek assistance from a criminal band calling itself the United States of America in order to force the criminal band called the State of Whatever to not violate my natural rights, I am free to do so as long as the criminal band called the United States of America does not violate anyones natural right in the process. And of course, it cannot be said to be violating the State of Whatevers natural rights since the State of Whatever has no natural rights to infringe on....

 

[zsdersw]

But its my human right to say what I want ain't it?

Yes, and it is my human right and everyone else's human right to say what we think of what you said.

 

[klinc]

Yes, and it is my human right and everyone else's human right to say what we think of what you said.

but who decides if what we have said is moral or immoral? Since when is a man made thing like marriage a human right?

 

[mikeymikec]

but who decides if what we have said is moral or immoral?

Society does, if you don't have a moral compass to have figured it out yourself. Considering how you're arguing the point now, I don't know why you bothered to say that your original post was "tongue-in-cheek".

Since when is a man made thing like marriage a human right?

A human right, in which sense? Morally, legally?

So far the total argument on this thread against the idea of gay people being allowed to marry is "because some religions think it is wrong". Since:

a) Religious institutions don't wield executive power in most developed countries;

b) Most gay people probably wouldn't want to get married according to a certain religion which deems them as second-class citizens

c) As far as I'm aware, most major organised religions haven't championed any human rights for at least a century (a lot of human rights matters would have been cleared up a heck of a lot quicker if they had!)

Why should most people care what the major religions think?

The only other reason I can think of why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry is "because some bigots think that it might somehow sully the definition of marriage", which is a pretty crap reason, and if society lets the bigots align society's moral compass, we may as well throw out a load of other human rights out of the window at the same time, because bigots have existed in every generation, resisting change that means that they ought to respect their fellow human beings a bit more than before.

 

[Moonbeam]

I couldn't think of a more fitting avatar for you than the one you have... though I don't know whether you're cute or not.

I'm wondering, more, whether he's cybersage or not.

 

[LunarRay]

but who decides if what we have said is moral or immoral? Since when is a man made thing like marriage a human right?

Regardless of how we feel about it our Founders had in mind the notion that there is a God - some didn't practice their chosen religion but most accepted religious dogma as the word of God. Their rejection of a State religion was to preserve the differences that they left Great Briton in the first place for... mostly.

Today, we have enshrined in the Constitution words that do not exist in it. Rights that normally would be expected to be had or that 'went without saying'.
The Catholic Church has determined marriage to be sacramentum... sacred and among the Seven other and similarly important sacraments... Through out history from about 326 AD This Religion has held sway even over Kings in the 'intelligent' world... Even a king has to be anointed by clergy.

The point is that we ARE a religious nation in that the morality we strive for has been part of our history for quite some time. It is why folks opposed to Gay Marriage do hold Marriage to be a sacred rite between boy/girl and any other condition is an affront to what has become a genetically produced understanding of morality. (so to speak)

But, as we get further away from the power and rights of the Churches in both our population and the notion of their infallibility we tend toward a 'who cares' attitude... I'm told daily that this country is 'going to hell in a hand basket' and that God will put an end to it all.... That means that folks who think like that are required to do all they can to alter the direction of the country for self preservation and the preservation for God... until the Tribulation time comes about... Or we are in the End Days now...

So those who find no comfort in Religion or in those Religions whose dogma is contra to their thinking create a new branch or none at all... And with that the demands of their thinking fosters a higher and more righteous condition.... Equality.

 

[klinc]

Society does, if you don't have a moral compass to have figured it out yourself. Considering how you're arguing the point now, I don't know why you bothered to say that your original post was "tongue-in-cheek".

A human right, in which sense? Morally, legally?

So far the total argument on this thread against the idea of gay people being allowed to marry is "because some religions think it is wrong". Since:

a) Religious institutions don't wield executive power in most developed countries;

b) Most gay people probably wouldn't want to get married according to a certain religion which deems them as second-class citizens

c) As far as I'm aware, most major organised religions haven't championed any human rights for at least a century (a lot of human rights matters would have been cleared up a heck of a lot quicker if they had!)

Why should most people care what the major religions think?

The only other reason I can think of why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry is "because some bigots think that it might somehow sully the definition of marriage", which is a pretty crap reason, and if society lets the bigots align society's moral compass, we may as well throw out a load of other human rights out of the window at the same time, because bigots have existed in every generation, resisting change that means that they ought to respect their fellow human beings a bit more than before.

See its like this. People seem to use the argument that its not fair or there is no equality when they do not want to let gay people marry. Its not a religion thing. The ministers and preachers or whatever only got the right to marry people given them by the State.

But it is simple. The State invite people 2 or more who wants to start a family or share their possessions together to sign a contract legally binding it. They state a requirement for that contract and one requirement is that it must be between a man and a woman.

The reason for that is basically marriage is just way for the State to look after the welfare of the kids if there is any. To make sure the children go with the most suitable parent and that both get access to them through whatever arrangements they come to agree on. Further as a added bonus they let you stipulate certain agreements that you might have with the property and how its shared.

If there is no kids what is the use of offering something like that to anyone. For property you can take a piece of paper, three witnesses and write out what happens or how you will devide the property if you ever go separate way. Sign it let witness sign it and each get a copy original put away somewhere. That is not something the State have to deal with which is a civil matter. Children are a state matter.

So no there is no human right to marriage. Its a contract provided by the State for the welfare of the kids. Nothing to do with because they are gay. They do not meet the requirement for that contract same as HIV people do not meet the requirement for some health insurance companies.

As for government jumping in. They can only jump in after due process. That means to courts and they are going to ask what the supreme court say. Have there been such a case brought before a court? Because I know the State do not arrest you for wanting to marry and who are you going to sue? If someone do not want to marry you then he has the right to do so. Why change a contract and requirement when there will be nothing in it that basically concern the State? Property and disputes for it are civil.

So if gay people can have kids where both party are biological parents of them then they might get married.

So government hands are tide because there was no due process. If supreme court said its unconstitutional then they can. Otherwise the state can no say to gay marriage as long as they want. Don't like it elect a governor that will change it.

 

[klinc]

Regardless of how we feel about it our Founders had in mind the notion that there is a God - some didn't practice their chosen religion but most accepted religious dogma as the word of God. Their rejection of a State religion was to preserve the differences that they left Great Briton in the first place for... mostly.

Today, we have enshrined in the Constitution words that do not exist in it. Rights that normally would be expected to be had or that 'went without saying'.
The Catholic Church has determined marriage to be sacramentum... sacred and among the Seven other and similarly important sacraments... Through out history from about 326 AD This Religion has held sway even over Kings in the 'intelligent' world... Even a king has to be anointed by clergy.

The point is that we ARE a religious nation in that the morality we strive for has been part of our history for quite some time. It is why folks opposed to Gay Marriage do hold Marriage to be a sacred rite between boy/girl and any other condition is an affront to what has become a genetically produced understanding of morality. (so to speak)

But, as we get further away from the power and rights of the Churches in both our population and the notion of their infallibility we tend toward a 'who cares' attitude... I'm told daily that this country is 'going to hell in a hand basket' and that God will put an end to it all.... That means that folks who think like that are required to do all they can to alter the direction of the country for self preservation and the preservation for God... until the Tribulation time comes about... Or we are in the End Days now...

So those who find no comfort in Religion or in those Religions whose dogma is contra to their thinking create a new branch or none at all... And with that the demands of their thinking fosters a higher and more righteous condition.... Equality.

Between a boy or a girl is the contract requirements. There is no human right that say a contract have to include everyone.

 

[LunarRay]

Between a boy or a girl is the contract requirements. There is no human right that say a contract have to include everyone.

All Rights are individual... They are held by the person...

IF the State decides that ANY two people can get married then they have that Right.
What you declare to be a Right or not a Right is irrelevant... It is all about what the current law provides.

 

[mikeymikec]

See its like this. People seem to use the argument that its not fair or there is no equality when they do not want to let gay people marry. Its not a religion thing. The ministers and preachers or whatever only got the right to marry people given them by the State.

But it is simple. The State invite people 2 or more who wants to start a family or share their possessions together to sign a contract legally binding it. They state a requirement for that contract and one requirement is that it must be between a man and a woman.

The reason for that is basically marriage is just way for the State to look after the welfare of the kids if there is any. To make sure the children go with the most suitable parent and that both get access to them through whatever arrangements they come to agree on. Further as a added bonus they let you stipulate certain agreements that you might have with the property and how its shared.

However, people don't choose to marry because of some state-oversight thing. They get married as a public declaration of their long-term commitment to each other.

There are other reasons why the state is interested in marriage, because stable relationships are good for society in just about every way that the state is interested in. If people are in stable relationships then they tend to act in more predictable and stable ways. Economically speaking, people working together tend to be more economically stable. If gay couples are allowed to adopt (the argument against this idea on this thread so far seems to boil down to something like "couples who are able to procreate make better parents", which, quite frankly IMO is a load of crap (unless someone wants to provide some non-biassed research into analysing the parenting skills of different parents... good luck with that), as is "gay parents may indoctrinate their children to become gay, and then society would crumble!"), then that helps society in that more children are in stable homes rather than being up for adoption.

 

[klinc]

All Rights are individual... They are held by the person...

IF the State decides that ANY two people can get married then they have that Right.
What you declare to be a Right or not a Right is irrelevant... It is all about what the current law provides.

Its still a contract and the requirement is a man and a woman. Rights are relevant because what is the argument against it?

 

[klinc]

However, people don't choose to marry because of some state-oversight thing. They get married as a public declaration of their long-term commitment to each other.

There are other reasons why the state is interested in marriage, because stable relationships are good for society in just about every way that the state is interested in. If people are in stable relationships then they tend to act in more predictable and stable ways. Economically speaking, people working together tend to be more economically stable. If gay couples are allowed to adopt (the argument against this idea on this thread so far seems to boil down to something like "couples who are able to procreate make better parents", which, quite frankly IMO is a load of crap (unless someone wants to provide some non-biassed research into analysing the parenting skills of different parents... good luck with that), as is "gay parents may indoctrinate their children to become gay, and then society would crumble!"), then that helps society in that more children are in stable homes rather than being up for adoption.

If marriage is a comprehensive union and has no intrinsic connection to children, then why ought it be permanent?

Please define for me what is marriage?

 

[alzan]

Its still a contract and the requirement is a man and a woman. Rights are relevant because what is the argument against it?

The government has to show a compelling societal interest to deny same-sex couples the constitutional rights and protections granted to all citizens. The trouble is the government doesn't have one.

 

[klinc]

The government has to show a compelling societal interest to deny same-sex couples the constitutional rights and protections granted to all citizens. The trouble is the government doesn't have one.

So the two arguments will be under the due process clause and the other under the equal protection clause? This issue have been going on for ages and it goes in circles everytime in the courts. California's proposition was voted by the people so all they have to do in courts is to not to defend it in court and the Supreme court can make any decision they want because

under the California Constitution and election laws], the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state¡¯s interest in the initiative¡¯s validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative

 

[mikeymikec]

If marriage is a comprehensive union and has no intrinsic connection to children, then why ought it be permanent?

Please define for me what is marriage?

As I wrote in my previous post:

People get married as a public declaration of their long-term commitment to each other.

I think that's how most people define marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

klinc, I hope you're prepared to live with gay marriage... because it's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.