Gay Thread:6-3-05 Republicans succeed at keeping California discriminatory against Gays

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
The contract is between the two people PLUS the government/society. Like I said, if two people want to get married, I have no problem with that. However, if you want the government to give you benefits as part of that marriage, then they are involved as yet another party to the contract.
By benefits, are you talking about tax breaks?
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Tabb
Marrige IS a contract, however everyone should have EQUAL ACCESS to that contract. Removing gay's from access to that contract is a unreasonable form of discrimination.
I've already demonstrated why this is simply not the case. Why should you be given the same access to signing a contract as an engineer as me? You're simply not qualified to meet the job requirements, while I am (at least on paper :p). Signing a contract knowing that your party cannot meet their end of the contractual obligations is actually illegal. Why would I offer you a contract knowing that you cannot fulfill your end of the bargain? Is this discrimination, or common sense?

It would be helpful if you would provide more information on the nature of this marriage contract.

I infer from your previous posts that you think the contract goes something like this:

The marrying individuals agree to procreate and raise children for the benefit of the State and the good of all citizens. In exchange, the State allows the couple to access civil marriage, and all the "benefits" and "goodies" that go with the marriage institution. In a nutshell, the couple agree to fvck and squeeze out some kids, in exchange for a few tax breaks. Gay couples are unable to produce biological offspring with each other, therefore they are excluded from the marriage contract with the State. They are not "qualified" to squeeze out a few rug rats of their own (without the use of donor sperm or eggs), and are therefore unable to meet the obligations demanded of them by the State.

Is this an accurate summary of your understanding of this marriage contract?

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
It would be helpful if you would provide more information on the nature of this marriage contract.

I infer from your previous posts that you think the contract goes something like this:

The marrying individuals agree to procreate and raise children for the benefit of the State and the good of all citizens. In exchange, the State allows the couple to access civil marriage, and all the "benefits" and "goodies" that go with the marriage institution. In a nutshell, the couple agree to fvck and squeeze out some kids, in exchange for a few tax breaks. Gay couples are unable to produce biological offspring with each other, therefore they are excluded from the marriage contract with the State. They are not "qualified" to squeeze out a few rug rats of their own (without the use of donor sperm or eggs), and are therefore unable to meet the obligations demanded of them by the State.

Is this an accurate summary of your understanding of this marriage contract?
I have offered at least 3-4 times in this thread to let you tell me what comprises a marriage contract. As yet, you haven't done so. Please, do. As of yet, my argument simply states that marriage, which is a contract, may be restricted on the basis of a party meeting the qualifications for that contract. I have suggested the ability to procreate as one possibility - please suggest others.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Tabb
Marrige IS a contract, however everyone should have EQUAL ACCESS to that contract. Removing gay's from access to that contract is a unreasonable form of discrimination.
I've already demonstrated why this is simply not the case. Why should you be given the same access to signing a contract as an engineer as me? You're simply not qualified to meet the job requirements, while I am (at least on paper :p). Signing a contract knowing that your party cannot meet their end of the contractual obligations is actually illegal. Why would I offer you a contract knowing that you cannot fulfill your end of the bargain? Is this discrimination, or common sense?

That's not really a good comparison.

What are the obligations besides consent of both parties for gay marriage? Why should they not be allowed access to marriage.

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Tabb
That's not really a good comparison.

What are the obligations besides consent of both parties for gay marriage? Why should they not be allowed access to marriage.
As I've said a good 30 times already in this thread, the contract is not simply between the two getting married. The government/society is also a party to the contract, as they are the ones providing benefits to the couple. This is where additional obligations come in.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Tabb
That's not really a good comparison.

What are the obligations besides consent of both parties for gay marriage? Why should they not be allowed access to marriage.
As I've said a good 30 times already in this thread, the contract is not simply between the two getting married. The government/society is also a party to the contract, as they are the ones providing benefits to the couple. This is where additional obligations come in.

Yes, the goverment is APART of the the contract, however there is no valid reason as to why gays not allowed access to this contract. It's an unreasonable form of discrimination.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, the goverment is APART of the the contract, however there is no valid reason as to why gays not allowed access to this contract. It's an unreasonable form of discrimination.
Then you haven't read anything that I've said to this point. *shrug*
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The contract is between the two people PLUS the government/society. Like I said, if two people want to get married, I have no problem with that. However, if you want the government to give you benefits as part of that marriage, then they are involved as yet another party to the contract.

I deny that the contract is between three parties.

Marriage is the a agreement between two people who wish to meld their property, consummated with sex.

The government enforces the conditions of this contract, especially the dissolution of this contract. The goverment also enforces the conditions of landlord and tenent agreements. Does that mean that you sign a lease with the government?

The govenment offers subsidies to this contract, in the form of pensions, tax benefits, etc. But the government sometimes offers subsidies to landlords who keep their rents low. Or to tenents who need extra money to pay rent. Does that mean that I'm signing a lease to the government? If the government chooses to change its policies, I have no legal recourse. I cannot sue them for breach of contract. That means that they are not in a contract with me. Why am I in a legal contract with them?

The government requires a licence from prospective married couples. But the government requires a licence from hot dog vendors. If I buy a German Sausage with everything, am I making a contract with the government?

The government enforces the terms of all contracts. The government also implements fiscal policies that affect contracts. The existence of government interference within the terms of a contract does not make it a contract with the government.

Marriage has always been a contract between two families. Not two families and the government. Child rearing has never been a prerequisite for marriage. Only sex has. The government has never been a prerequisite for marriage.

By taking this position, Cyclo, you are redefining the traditional definition of marriage. And you are stripping the rights of childless heterosexual couples. The state has no business in marriage. We agree on that. If political neccessity leads to the state keeping a role in marriage, then their participation should be as transparent as possible.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Tabb
That's not really a good comparison.

What are the obligations besides consent of both parties for gay marriage? Why should they not be allowed access to marriage.
As I've said a good 30 times already in this thread, the contract is not simply between the two getting married. The government/society is also a party to the contract, as they are the ones providing benefits to the couple. This is where additional obligations come in.

Holy crap, this guy is Hitler incarnate.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Tabb
That's not really a good comparison.

What are the obligations besides consent of both parties for gay marriage? Why should they not be allowed access to marriage.
As I've said a good 30 times already in this thread, the contract is not simply between the two getting married. The government/society is also a party to the contract, as they are the ones providing benefits to the couple. This is where additional obligations come in.

Yes, but what ARE those additional obligations?

Where are they specified? If marriage really is nothing more than a business contract, then the obligations required by all parties should be explicitly specified, i.e., written into the contract, right?



Gay Divorce Rate In Holland Comparable To Those Of Heterosexuals

by Toby Sterling, Associated Press

April 4, 2005

(Amsterdam, Netherlands) Gay Dutch couples appear to divorce at a rate of about one percent a year - the same rate as heterosexual married couples, according to government data released Monday.

The Netherlands legalized gay marriage in 2001 - the first country to do so - and the data released Monday was the first time the government has reported on gay divorce rates.

Between April 2001, when gay marriage was legalized, and December 2003 there have been 5,751 gay marriages and 63 divorces, according to figures gathered from city registers.

In the same period, there were around 243,000 heterosexual marriages and 2,800 heterosexual divorces in the country of 16 million.

Jan Laten, a demographics expert at the Netherlands' Central Bureau for Statistics, cautioned that the figures for gay couples were based on a relatively small sample and could be interpreted in various ways.

"The rate could just as well be two percent next year," he said.

He said many of those who married shortly after legalization had waited years for their chance, implying a higher than usual level of commitment and stability.

On the other hand, gay couples are generally more likely to be two-income families with no children - couples which have a higher risk of divorce in the straight population, he said.

Professor Laten said that Dutch lesbian couples appeared to divorce at a slightly higher rate than gay male couples.

He said the reason wasn't clear, but data from Nordic countries - where gay civil unions have been legal for more than a decade _ also showed a slightly higher divorce rate for lesbians.

Although the legalization of gay marriage caused great debate here, the issue has quickly faded, and the Dutch viewed recent controversies in the United States with bemusement.

©365Gay.com 2005
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As I've said a good 30 times already in this thread, the contract is not simply between the two getting married. The government/society is also a party to the contract, as they are the ones providing benefits to the couple. This is where additional obligations come in.

Yes, but what ARE those additional obligations?

I'd like to know, too.

It can't be 'procreation' because that's clearly not an obligation of heterosexual couples. It can't be child-raising, because homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising children.

So what are these mysterious obligations?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The government requires a licence from prospective married couples. But the government requires a licence from hot dog vendors. If I buy a German Sausage with everything, am I making a contract with the government?
You make some good points, but here is where it falls apart. If I buy a sausage license, it enables me to sell hotdogs. This has nothing to say about my customers, except that I'll be expected to pay sales tax to the government rather than collecting money under the table. The customer, therefore, does not enter into the contract. I could eat the cost of tax and pay it myself, or I can tack it on to the cost of the sausage to increase my profits, which is what pretty much every company I've ever seen here does.

Buy purchasing a marriage license, you are agreeing that you want the benefits provided by the state in return for whatever the state wants from a married couple (what exactly this is I can't say for sure - I merely put forth one idea and tried to explain how it should be upheld, and it is far from definitive). Note well that if you want, you can just have a church/Vegas wedding without purchasing a marriage certificate. If you pursue this path, then you have made the contract between yourself and your partner. In doing so, you have renounced government benefits in exchange for the freedom to marry according to your own terms. Again, I have absolutely no problem with this type of marriage for anyone - homosexuals or otherwise. However, if you want to sign on the dotted line to receive government benefits, you need to give the government/society whatever it is they want in exchange for subsidizing your relationship.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Holy crap, this guy is Hitler incarnate.
:cookie: At least a pseudo-creative troll, for once.
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
CycloWizard said:
Buy purchasing a marriage license, you are agreeing that you want the benefits provided by the state in return for whatever the state wants from a married couple (what exactly this is I can't say for sure - I merely put forth one idea and tried to explain how it should be upheld, and it is far from definitive). Note well that if you want, you can just have a church/Vegas wedding without purchasing a marriage certificate. If you pursue this path, then you have made the contract between yourself and your partner. In doing so, you have renounced government benefits in exchange for the freedom to marry according to your own terms. Again, I have absolutely no problem with this type of marriage for anyone - homosexuals or otherwise. However, if you want to sign on the dotted line to receive government benefits, you need to give the government/society whatever it is they want in exchange for subsidizing your relationship.

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about. When a couple is married in a church (or I assume in Vegas as well), they still must get a marriage license. You're still very much legally married, if the minister/priest or other person performing the ceremony is authorized by the state to do said function. Whether you opt for a civil ceremony or marry in a church, you are still legally married. Your contract is with your partner, not your state. The only thing the state can do is set some guidelines such as blood testing, age at which a person can marry, these types of things. Nothing in there about procreation, or dues to the government.

Currently the licensing guidelines require or are changing to requiring the 2 persons to be male and female. This is what is preventing same-sex marriages. That is what needs to change to allow partners of the same sex to marry, the contract itself will not need to change because there is nothing in it now that requires procreation as was mentioned earlier.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about. When a couple is married in a church (or I assume in Vegas as well), they still must get a marriage license. You're still very much legally married, if the minister/priest or other person performing the ceremony is authorized by the state to do said function. Whether you opt for a civil ceremony or marry in a church, you are still legally married. Your contract is with your partner, not your state. The only thing the state can do is set some guidelines such as blood testing, age at which a person can marry, these types of things. Nothing in there about procreation, or dues to the government.
There is a difference between being married in a legal sense and in a religious sense. I can go get married in any church I like. Why would I need to get a marriage license to do so? If I'm not concerned with the benefits of legal marriage, I can do as I see fit in my own religion. Feel free to offer proof of this being incorrect, but I doubt you'll find it.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[
You make some good points, but here is where it falls apart. If I buy a sausage license, it enables me to sell hotdogs. This has nothing to say about my customers, except that I'll be expected to pay sales tax to the government rather than collecting money under the table. The customer, therefore, does not enter into the contract. I could eat the cost of tax and pay it myself, or I can tack it on to the cost of the sausage to increase my profits, which is what pretty much every company I've ever seen here does.

No, what you misunderstand is that the fundamental contract between a hot dog vendor and a consumer is the sales contract; the agreement to provide a sausage for payment of legal tender. The hot dog guy gives you food, and you give him money. If there is tax on top of that, then that tax is merely an inefficiency applied by the government; Often in order to gain revenue. (Or maybe to discourage an unhealty product, but I won't buy that until they void the licence tax on tofu dogs.)

The thing is, the fundamental economic exchange lies between the vendor, who provides a product (the sausage) and the buyer, who demands a product (a quick lunch). The government is merely a middleman, who gains a useless cut of the economic benefit. (The benefit being shared between the vendor, who is trying to sell stuff to make a living, and the consumer, who is buying stuff that benefits him.) If the consumer wasn't benefiting from the relationship, then he wouldn't be buying from the hot dog cart to begin with. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what a contract is to begin with. If the government has an interest (we'll assume for the common good, though there is little evidence to substantiate that that is what motivates the gov't) then it could modify that essential contract. Which it does, through taxation, licneces, etc.

Buy purchasing a marriage license, you are agreeing that you want the benefits provided by the state in return for whatever the state wants from a married couple (what exactly this is I can't say for sure - I merely put forth one idea and tried to explain how it should be upheld, and it is far from definitive). Note well that if you want, you can just have a church/Vegas wedding without purchasing a marriage certificate. If you pursue this path, then you have made the contract between yourself and your partner. In doing so, you have renounced government benefits in exchange for the freedom to marry according to your own terms. Again, I have absolutely no problem with this type of marriage for anyone - homosexuals or otherwise. However, if you want to sign on the dotted line to receive government benefits, you need to give the government/society whatever it is they want in exchange for subsidizing your relationship.

The government does not discriminate between Vegas marriages and other marriages. You are shooting yourself in the foot to minimize this kind of relationship.

A good friend of mine has recently married an American man to only months before now. (July, IIRC) She did it in a church (United, if the denomination means anything, though her father was the minister). And she is among the most commited wives I know. Her husband is a former US Marine who was injured in Bosnia, if that means anything to you. She's a social worker who works with troubled youths (waiting on her permanent residency, or whatever you call it down there) and isn't sure about whether or not she ever wants to have children. (An underdtandable feeling, considering her business.) Her husband is working in California (where his family lives), which is a jurisdiction which needs people of her skills.

Cyclo, are you willing to invalidate their contract?



 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Cyclo, are you willing to invalidate their contract?
Either I'm really missing something or I'm not explaining myself very well. I'll try a pointwise approach.

1. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all. Marriage should be between the individuals directly invovled in the relationship. Why should the state be given any oversight here?

2. Given that the state insists on having oversight, they must have some motivation to stick their nose in it. It is possible that simply the revenues from marriage licenses are all the government is after - who knows? I simply put forth one possibility (procreation) that might motivate society to bestow rights on a married couple. It may be only one of many, it may not even be in the picture - I have no idea.

If the state is merely subsidizing the relationship, as you suggested, then what is the state's motivation for doing so? If the state subsidizes landlords who keep rent low, is this not discrimination? The point is that the government does not (or, at least, SHOULD not) simply hand out benefits to everyone who comes to the door begging. There are criteria that must be met to qualify for any sort of government benefits, according to the type of benefits. Whether or not the government is party to the contract, you cannot deny that the government at least recognizes the contract and bestows benefits as part and parcel of said contract. So, I have to yet again ask the impossible question: why does the government see fit to bestow benefits on married persons? I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone really does, hence #1 above.

edit: And :beer: to your friend. I have a brother who served in the USMC in Bosnia. Now I have several friends from Bosnia and Serbia (even my department chair is from Serbia, when it was just Yugoslavia). It's very interesting, sometimes depressing, to hear the various sides.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Cyclo, are you willing to invalidate their contract?
Either I'm really missing something or I'm not explaining myself very well. I'll try a pointwise approach.

1. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all. Marriage should be between the individuals directly invovled in the relationship. Why should the state be given any oversight here?

Your point stays consistent here. Shoulda stayed here

2. Given that the state insists on having oversight, they must have some motivation to stick their nose in it. It is possible that simply the revenues from marriage licenses are all the government is after - who knows? I simply put forth one possibility (procreation) that might motivate society to bestow rights on a married couple. It may be only one of many, it may not even be in the picture - I have no idea.

If the state is merely subsidizing the relationship, as you suggested, then what is the state's motivation for doing so? If the state subsidizes landlords who keep rent low, is this not discrimination? The point is that the government does not (or, at least, SHOULD not) simply hand out benefits to everyone who comes to the door begging. There are criteria that must be met to qualify for any sort of government benefits, according to the type of benefits. Whether or not the government is party to the contract, you cannot deny that the government at least recognizes the contract and bestows benefits as part and parcel of said contract. So, I have to yet again ask the impossible question: why does the government see fit to bestow benefits on married persons? I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone really does, hence #1 above.

The point at which the government should or should not extend benefits lies in where the greater good lies. If the costs of taxation outwiegh the greater good, they should not subsidize. If the benefits of subsidies (like in education, or telecommunications, or roads, or the military) outweigh the costs of taxation, they should not subsidize.

(Note that I would personally change this this equation in favour of the poor, but not all would agree with me).

Marriage subsidies,like all policy subsidies, should be weighed in terms of a societal cost benefit model, with potential modifications in terms of class (if one leans towards rooting for the litle guy, like I do, but that is a value question.) But if the cost of the subsidized contract no longer benefits society on the aggregate (or the value-biased aggregate), then the subsidy should be ended. Period. But through it all, the nature and definition of the contract should remain independent of the fiscal decision to subsidize said contract.

edit: And :beer: to your friend. I have a brother who served in the USMC in Bosnia. Now I have several friends from Bosnia and Serbia (even my department chair is from Serbia, when it was just Yugoslavia). It's very interesting, sometimes depressing, to hear the various sides.

Yeah man, one of the reasons you will hear me defend the soldier, even when it appears he has done wrong. I don't know what it's like, but I know what kind of guys go over there. And that's enough for me.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
More hypocrisy from the gay-bashing Republican Party.

Did I mention that Ken Mehlman -- leader of the RNC -- is gay?

Yet the Republican Party -- TRUE TO FORM -- is using this issue to divide Americans.

Hypocritical bastards.

G.O.P. Consultants Weds His Male Partner

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: April 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 8 - Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

"I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners," he said.

He declined further comment on the wedding, which was in December.

Some of Mr. Finkelstein's associates said they were startled to learn that this prominent American conservative had married a man, given his history with the party, especially at a time when many Republican leaders, including President Bush, have campaigned against same-sex marriage and proposed amending the Constitution to ban it. Mr. Finkelstein has been allied over the years with Republicans who have fiercely opposed gay rights measures, including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy. He was identified as gay in a Boston Magazine article in 1996.

One of Mr. Finkelstein's associates, who declined to speak on the record, citing Mr. Finkelstein's desire for privacy, said Mr. Finkelstein did not view his marriage as a political statement and had specifically decided to have a civil ceremony rather than a religious one. This associate argued that over the past 20 years, Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government, distancing himself from social conservatives as they have gained political muscle and dominance in the party.

Mr. Finkelstein's associates declined to provide his spouse's name. He was married at his home by a gay state official, whose name and office were not released. The ceremony was attended by relatives of both men, a few friends and a state legislator, an attendee said.

None of Mr. Finkelstein's better-known political clients, among them Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato of New York, attended, that person said. Several of Mr. Finkelstein's long-term political associates said that he had not told them about the wedding, and that they had learned about it from a reporter.

The wedding was disclosed by an associate of Mr. Finkelstein's, and he confirmed it in the interview.

Mr. Finkelstein has frequently come under criticism by gay rights groups for representing politicians who have been ardent foes of gay rights. He helped create the template for a line of attack he repeatedly invoked against Democrats, including Mario M. Cuomo of New York, describing them as liberal.

In Israel, Mr. Finkelstein used similar attacks against the Labor Party as an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and as a consultant to the winning and losing campaigns of Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister.

Mr. Finkelstein has regularly described himself as a libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights while opposing big government. In an interview with Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, after the American elections last year, he criticized the Republican Party as growing too close to evangelical Christians, warning it could cause long-term damage to the party.

Details of Mr. Finkelstein's relationship have appeared in regular news accounts over the years, as they did in the Boston Magazine article, which reported that Mr. Finkelstein lived with his partner and two children in Ipswich, Mass.

Still, some conservative friends said Mr. Finkelstein's marriage would roil conservatives and highlight divisions among them over the importance of social issues to their movement.

"In recent years, Arthur hasn't pretended to be a social conservative," said one longtime conservative associate, who cited Mr. Finkelstein's aversion to publicity in declining to be identified. "But this is the same man who was the architect of Jesse Helms's political rise."

 

glorifiedg790

Banned
Mar 29, 2005
301
0
0
Why would you want to be married if you are gay. Wow I am not a homophobic but homosexual marriage is a ridiculous topic. What they do to each other is gross enough to think about, but its just for pleasure. Hterosexuals, most at least, don't get married just for sex. A little off topic, but just because they are gay they shouldnt be priveleged with speacial rights. Its almost as if they want people to discriminate against them. They get way to much attention
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Why would you want to be married if you are gay. Wow I am not a homophobic but homosexual marriage is a ridiculous topic. What they do to each other is gross enough to think about, but its just for pleasure. Hterosexuals, most at least, don't get married just for sex. A little off topic, but just because they are gay they shouldnt be priveleged with speacial rights. Its almost as if they want people to discriminate against them. They get way to much attention

parody?
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about. When a couple is married in a church (or I assume in Vegas as well), they still must get a marriage license. You're still very much legally married, if the minister/priest or other person performing the ceremony is authorized by the state to do said function. Whether you opt for a civil ceremony or marry in a church, you are still legally married. Your contract is with your partner, not your state. The only thing the state can do is set some guidelines such as blood testing, age at which a person can marry, these types of things. Nothing in there about procreation, or dues to the government.
There is a difference between being married in a legal sense and in a religious sense. I can go get married in any church I like. Why would I need to get a marriage license to do so? If I'm not concerned with the benefits of legal marriage, I can do as I see fit in my own religion. Feel free to offer proof of this being incorrect, but I doubt you'll find it.
Find proof that you are incorrect.. how about you find it? Call a church and tell them you want to get married, what steps do you need to take, they will include the step of obtaining a marriage license. (BTDT, got the T-shirt, etc.)

The only one that isn't going to tell you to procure a marriage license is some type of independant Church of the Wood Folke, blessings carried out by Princess Cloverleaf during the full moon. Any mainstream church doing weddings is as I described before, still a legal marriage and the same as a civil ceremony.

 

glorifiedg790

Banned
Mar 29, 2005
301
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Why would you want to be married if you are gay. Wow I am not a homophobic but homosexual marriage is a ridiculous topic. What they do to each other is gross enough to think about, but its just for pleasure. Hterosexuals, most at least, don't get married just for sex. A little off topic, but just because they are gay they shouldnt be priveleged with speacial rights. Its almost as if they want people to discriminate against them. They get way to much attention

parody?

Yes