Who should be allowed to marry?

[nixium]

Government is an agent of society. Government recognition of homosexual relationships is about society accepting homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships.

This is false. Heterosexual relationships are more important to society.

Society also consists of homosexual couples that want to get the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. According to your argument, since they're a part of society, they deserve to be heard. Not that I'm accepting your argument, in the first place, but it falls on itself.

Homosexual relationships = heterosexual relationships legally. You are free to socially assume whatever you want.

Please define clearly in what way are heterosexual relationships *legally* superior to homosexual relationships? What is the *legal* societal benefit of banning them (not because you think it's icky)

Every argument used in favor of same-sex marriage can also be used in favor of human-parrot marriage. The only difference is that you don't have a problem with bestial-sexual bigotry.

If marriage cannot discriminate against sexual minorities than how can you oppose such a redefinition of marriage?

And as for imbecilic arguments why don't we talk about the same-sex marriage supporters who believe that citizenship status is important for marriage, or that 2 men can procreate together.

No they can't. Parrots are not persons!

Like is said before, if the Church of Nehalem blesses bestiality unions, go for your human parrot marriage. Just don't expect the Government to provide benefits to non-persons.

I've no idea who advanced those arguments. They sound imbecilic they way you've described them. But since you're also seriously proposing legal benefits for parrot-human marriages I will take your assertions with a grain of salt.

 

[nixium]

The name is what the fight is over. Marriage has been a religious institution LONG before the US government came into existence. The legal institution was put in place to give legal powers to the religious institution and that should never have been done.

Rather than making a wrong even worse, they should stop the wrong altogether.


Basically, words can be powerful, which is why the entire battle is over a word.

EDIT: We can end the fight immediately and grant new rights to new groups of people easily if we simply stop using the word marriage and make them all civil unions. The fight over the word is delaying this.

This I agree with. The rights have to be provided immediately. But I still don't see how it makes "a wrong even worse" to make marriage the defining word. If people are butthurt that's their problem. Take the a-holes at the westboro baptist church. No one likes what they do, but we smile and take it because freedom of speech is important. Same principle here.

Realistically though, I agree with you... the gay marriage fight would be a lot easier if it were just for civil unions, psychologically speaking. The opposition wouldn't be nearly as fierce. Once civil unions are sufficiently established, the fight for "marriage" or deletion of said word can be done anyway.

 

[nageov3t]

Realistically though, I agree with you... the gay marriage fight would be a lot easier if it were just for civil unions, psychologically speaking. The opposition wouldn't be nearly as fierce. Once civil unions are sufficiently established, the fight for "marriage" or deletion of said word can be done anyway.

in theory... realistically, though, it would also require a whole slew of new laws and regulations to make civil unions equal to marriage.

NJ has legalized gay civil unions and studies have shown that they're not equal to marriage, as companies will jump on the difference in wording as a reason to deny benefits or coverage that would normally be extended to married couples.

 

[cybrsage]

[/B]

This I agree with. The rights have to be provided immediately. But I still don't see how it makes "a wrong even worse" to make marriage the defining word. If people are butthurt that's their problem. Take the a-holes at the westboro baptist church. No one likes what they do, but we smile and take it because freedom of speech is important. Same principle here.

Realistically though, I agree with you... the gay marriage fight would be a lot easier if it were just for civil unions, psychologically speaking. The opposition wouldn't be nearly as fierce. Once civil unions are sufficiently established, the fight for "marriage" or deletion of said word can be done anyway.

It comes down to the never ending fight between church and state. If we remove the religious aspect, it becomes a state only issue and then is quite easy (relatively) to do. Everyone wins with civil unions...there really is no downside.

 

[cybrsage]

in theory... realistically, though, it would also require a whole slew of new laws and regulations to make civil unions equal to marriage.

NJ has legalized gay civil unions and studies have shown that they're not equal to marriage, as companies will jump on the difference in wording as a reason to deny benefits or coverage that would normally be extended to married couples.

A law can be passed saying all legal marriages are now civil unions. They then become equal. I know it is not quite that easy, but had the fight never been over the word marriage this would have been completed years ago.

 

[nixium]

in theory... realistically, though, it would also require a whole slew of new laws and regulations to make civil unions equal to marriage.

NJ has legalized gay civil unions and studies have shown that they're not equal to marriage, as companies will jump on the difference in wording as a reason to deny benefits or coverage that would normally be extended to married couples.

Hmmmm

1. If the benefit difference is intentional, that should be rectified by the Government.

2. If it's the company exploiting loopholes, then said loopholes should be closed or said companies mercilessly sued.

Ideally, yes, call everything marriages. But as Cybr pointed out, that's resulting in a backlash by the ignorant that's causing no rights to be awarded. Perhaps a case could be made for small victories, and an incremental approach. After all, some rights are better than none. Of course, the final target should be full equality (legally).

 

[cybrsage]

Ignorance abounds on both sides. One side says the others are ignorant and should stfu and let the meaning of marriage be changed. The second side says the others are ignorant and should stfu and let the meaning of marriage remain as it is. Both sides see the other side as forcing their views onto everyone and both sides are actually right about that.

 

[alzan]

I don't care either, however, I say that to point out that this isn't an "equal rights" issue like they're making it out to be...

I am in agreement with Nehalem's point all along - they are trying to force people to recognize their relationships or "marriages". Equal rights is only a smoke-screen.

That being said, under this government, whoever wants to marry can be married if it's legal. They just need to tell the truth and admit that all they care about are the benefits (tax, inheritance, hospital visitation and so on).

There's probably a small percentage of hetero & gay couples who just want to game the system. I'm not aware of any study that puts an exact number.

Also, I've heard the "stable relationships" argument too. I am certain that if there were as many SS couples married as there are Hetero couples married, the divorce rate would still be high but split between both evenly.

We live in a throwaway society, that includes relationships unfortunately. And with as small a sample size right now, we really can't say for sure what the divorce rate is/maybe be in the future for gay couples.

SSM being legal in the entire US would be "new", so we'd expect that something new would flourish for a while until it become part of normality and people get bored with it.

Yeah, kind of like religion, faith, belief...

It's an endless cycle....

It's an endless cycle if the people involved choose it to be. We are our own worst enemies at times.

 

[nehalem256]

in theory... realistically, though, it would also require a whole slew of new laws and regulations to make civil unions equal to marriage.

NJ has legalized gay civil unions and studies have shown that they're not equal to marriage, as companies will jump on the difference in wording as a reason to deny benefits or coverage that would normally be extended to married couples.

So in other words you want to force your definition of marriage onto other private people.

So much for same-sex marriage not affecting others huh?

 

[nehalem256]

Society also consists of homosexual couples that want to get the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. According to your argument, since they're a part of society, they deserve to be heard. Not that I'm accepting your argument, in the first place, but it falls on itself.

Homosexual relationships = heterosexual relationships legally. You are free to socially assume whatever you want.

Please define clearly in what way are heterosexual relationships *legally* superior to homosexual relationships? What is the *legal* societal benefit of banning them (not because you think it's icky)

Heterosexual couples are more important to society. Because only heterosexual couples can procreate. This is why marriage has been heterosexual only for millenia.

This is precisely the argument from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Like is said before, if the Church of Nehalem blesses bestiality unions, go for your human parrot marriage. Just don't expect the Government to provide benefits to non-persons.

I've no idea who advanced those arguments. They sound imbecilic they way you've described them. But since you're also seriously proposing legal benefits for parrot-human marriages I will take your assertions with a grain of salt.

Society also consists of bestial sexuals that want the same legal benefits as heterosxual couples.

Bestialsexual relationships = homosexual relations = heterosexual realtions legally. You are free to assume what ever you want. But discriminating against sexual minorites is wrong I thought?

 

[nixium]

Heterosexual couples are more important to society. Because only heterosexual couples can procreate. This is why marriage has been heterosexual only for millenia.

This is precisely the argument from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

The point here is making new laws, not using existing ones to fit homosexual relationships under.

Also, procreation can't be a sole reason for marriage. That's as LOL as hospital visits being the sole reason. Then infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry, under that logic.

Also, just because we did something for millenia doesn't mean we should continue doing it. Torture by the state was perfectly acceptable for millenia too, but we know better now.

Society also consists of bestial sexuals that want the same legal benefits as heterosxual couples.

Bestialsexual relationships = homosexual relations = heterosexual realtions legally. You are free to assume what ever you want. But discriminating against sexual minorites is wrong I thought?

You're not reading what I'm writing. Once more:

"bestisexual" relationships != heterosexual/homosexual relationships, because -

BEASTS ARE NOT PERSONS AND CANNOT GET THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS.

I'm not colloquially throwing out the word person. It's a legal term. Check the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

If you want to argue for bestisexual relationships first you need to define why beasts are persons.

This is my last word on this silly beast thing - if you persist on arguing this false equivalence I'm done with this argument.

 

[cybrsage]

A better argument (instead of beasts and objects) is incestuous marriage. Two adults, brother and sister, are denied the right to marry solely because they are brother and sister. There is a genetic flaw fear, so I would limit it to only if one of the two were rendered sterile to remove that problem...but other than that, there is no reason to deny it if we say marriage must be redefined. Same with polygamy.

 

[thraashman]

So in other words you want to force your definition of marriage onto other private people.

So much for same-sex marriage not affecting others huh?

Um, that is the exact opposite of what he said. Your reading comprehension seems to be even lower than I realized. Haha I kid, it's your critical thinking skills that are nonexistent.

 

[jihe]

I'm mainly interested in seeing where the majority is drawing the line here these days, as well as reasons 'why' and 'why not'.

Seriously, we should have an IQ test for marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

Um, that is the exact opposite of what he said. Your reading comprehension seems to be even lower than I realized. Haha I kid, it's your critical thinking skills that are nonexistent.

NJ has legalized gay civil unions and studies have shown that they're not equal to marriage, as companies will jump on the difference in wording as a reason to deny benefits or coverage that would normally be extended to married couples.

The point of calling gay unions marriage is to force private business owner's to recognize gay unions as equal to straight unions.

How is that not affecting private individuals?

 

[nehalem256]

A better argument (instead of beasts and objects) is incestuous marriage. Two adults, brother and sister, are denied the right to marry solely because they are brother and sister. There is a genetic flaw fear, so I would limit it to only if one of the two were rendered sterile to remove that problem...but other than that, there is no reason to deny it if we say marriage must be redefined. Same with polygamy.

Genetic flaw fear only makes sense if you believe that procreation is an inherent purpose of marriage.

If you believe it is that also torpedo's same-sex marriage.

But hey maybe they just want to share health care and pension benefits?

 

[Incorruptible]

Government has no right to be involved in marriage. This is an issue of the 1st amendment. If two people love each other and want to get married then let them as long as they dont force their views onto anyone else. Also Churches are private institutions and cant be forced to marry gays.

If people under 18 are getting married or there is force involved then the government should get involved but otherwise they need to stay out.

 

[nixium]

A better argument (instead of beasts and objects) is incestuous marriage. Two adults, brother and sister, are denied the right to marry solely because they are brother and sister. There is a genetic flaw fear, so I would limit it to only if one of the two were rendered sterile to remove that problem...but other than that, there is no reason to deny it if we say marriage must be redefined. Same with polygamy.

Based on my societal/legal benefit structure:

Social - if a Bro wants to f* his sis, it's up to them as consenting adults and the Government should have no say in it. Incest shouldn't be illegal, makes no sense. There's enough of a social barrier in the ickiness factor that people aren't going to suddenly take to incest if it's made legal - much as straight people aren't going to turn homosexual for love and marry someone same sex if it's made legal. And it's not as if incest is enforced any way, idiotic law.

Legal: If a bro wants a civil union/marriage with his sis, it would really depend on what legal rights he can acquire from said contract, and whether it's superior to his natural legal rights as a brother. I'm not fully aware of the full extent of the legal rights provided by marriages/civil unions - just that they provide a set for two strangers who otherwise would not have said rights.

 

[nixium]

The point of calling gay unions marriage is to force private business owner's to recognize gay unions as equal to straight unions.

How is that not affecting private individuals?

On the flip side, it's recognizing that certain individuals are not receiving the benefits they should be, given new data about human-human relationships. Why should the companies go scot free on not providing these benefits?

Anyway, it's BS if companies have to provide addition benefits solely if someone is married. Child rearing I can understand, but I believe no one should get extra economic benefits just because they tied the knot, straight or gay. Fuck that. Discriminatory to single people.