How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

[Darkwind]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

No.

The first rule of government is that when it interferes, it is wrong.

You, and government, have no right at all to invade the privacy of any citizen in this country. What any citizen decides to do in the privacy of their own home, with the consent of other adults, simply put, is beyond the authority of government.

The problem with liberals, and some conservatives, is that they think they have the right to write law that will limit or describe the conduct of the citizens of this country.

This is contrary to the entire concept of freedom; specifically, freedom from government tyranny.

A conservative should promote ONLY those laws that rescind the laws that infringe upon the freedom of the citizens of this country.

We have a freedom of Religion. We do NOT have a freedom from religion. But religion does not have the power to dictate the individual actions and morality of the citizens.

Freedom is a bitch because it never gives us everything we want. But it always gives us everything we deserve.

Just to clarify, then youre FOR same sex marriage?

No.

I am for the elimination of marriage as described by government.

I have never needed government to tell Me I am married to My wife and with regard to legal issues, I think that a social contract will suffice in place of an alleged marriage license.

You want to be married, go to see your preacher.

You want rights to your partnership, go see a lawyer.

Oh, to answer your question...

I have never been against gay marriage...I oppose government involvement in the private lives of the citizens.

I simply do not have a dog in this fight as I am not against homosexuality.

 

[Noomi]

No is saying that anyone should be denied rights. The argument is that instead of pursuing civil partnerships for added amendments or changes why attack marriage?

The only people attacking marriage are the heterosexuals who have no respect for it.

 

[Noomi]

@ WorldWatcher

Two sisters, both divorced, both with kids.
They pool their money together to buy a house.
They live there and raise their children together for 20 years.
If one dies the other will have to sell the house to pay the taxes.
What reason is their to prevent them from getting married?

They are not a same sex 'couple'. But there should be nothing to prevent them from being married, just as there should be nothing to prevent two straight, random strangers from getting married.

Marriage is already down the drain, so who cares if it gets fucked up a little more?

 

[Darkwind]

No is saying that anyone should be denied rights. The argument is that instead of pursuing civil partnerships for added amendments or changes why attack marriage?

The only people attacking marriage are the heterosexuals who have no respect for it.

That is not true and you know it. If you cannot make an argument without the hyperbole, then why even join in the discussion?

The understanding is that marriage has always meant one thing, and one thing only. To try to redefine it is like trying to say that a cat is really just an overgrown muskrat.

In My opinion, its all a stupid argument because government is based strictly on laws, and marriage is based strictly on religion.

Since nether of them are compatible, neither of them should be valid.

You want rights that a marriage bestows upon a heterosexual couple, then you write up a contract. You want rights as a heterosexual couple, then you write up a contract.

You want to be recognized before God as married, find a priest.

 

[Vidi]

No.

The first rule of government is that when it interferes, it is wrong.

You, and government, have no right at all to invade the privacy of any citizen in this country. What any citizen decides to do in the privacy of their own home, with the consent of other adults, simply put, is beyond the authority of government.

The problem with liberals, and some conservatives, is that they think they have the right to write law that will limit or describe the conduct of the citizens of this country.

This is contrary to the entire concept of freedom; specifically, freedom from government tyranny.

A conservative should promote ONLY those laws that rescind the laws that infringe upon the freedom of the citizens of this country.

We have a freedom of Religion. We do NOT have a freedom from religion. But religion does not have the power to dictate the individual actions and morality of the citizens.

Freedom is a bitch because it never gives us everything we want. But it always gives us everything we deserve.

Just to clarify, then youre FOR same sex marriage?

No.

I am for the elimination of marriage as described by government.

I have never needed government to tell Me I am married to My wife and with regard to legal issues, I think that a social contract will suffice in place of an alleged marriage license.

You want to be married, go to see your preacher.

You want rights to your partnership, go see a lawyer.

Oh, to answer your question...

I have never been against gay marriage...I oppose government involvement in the private lives of the citizens.

I simply do not have a dog in this fight as I am not against homosexuality.

So youre for the elimination of any legal benefits that go along with the legal term marriage?

 

[Darkwind]

Just to clarify, then youre FOR same sex marriage?

No.

I am for the elimination of marriage as described by government.

I have never needed government to tell Me I am married to My wife and with regard to legal issues, I think that a social contract will suffice in place of an alleged marriage license.

You want to be married, go to see your preacher.

You want rights to your partnership, go see a lawyer.

Oh, to answer your question...

I have never been against gay marriage...I oppose government involvement in the private lives of the citizens.

I simply do not have a dog in this fight as I am not against homosexuality.

So youre for the elimination of any legal benefits that go along with the legal term marriage?

Sometimes, I have a problem with this format.

I have stated, repeatedly, that a contract can bestow upon people the same rights as marriage. After all, when you distill it down, and as far as government is concerned, it is nothing more than just that. A contract.

Marriage is a religious institution. You want to be married, go find a man of God to marry you.

Otherwise, find a lawyer.

 

[Vidi]

No is saying that anyone should be denied rights. The argument is that instead of pursuing civil partnerships for added amendments or changes why attack marriage?

The only people attacking marriage are the heterosexuals who have no respect for it.

That is not true and you know it. If you cannot make an argument without the hyperbole, then why even join in the discussion?

The understanding is that marriage has always meant one thing, and one thing only. To try to redefine it is like trying to say that a cat is really just an overgrown muskrat.

In My opinion, its all a stupid argument because government is based strictly on laws, and marriage is based strictly on religion.

Since nether of them are compatible, neither of them should be valid.

You want rights that a marriage bestows upon a heterosexual couple, then you write up a contract. You want rights as a heterosexual couple, then you write up a contract.

You want to be recognized before God as married, find a priest.

Im sorry but marriage has meant many things over the centuries.

For some its a legal contract between two families, tribes or kingdoms. For some it was a right of passage and a means by which their way of life could continue. For some it is an expression of love and devotion. Some married simply out of duty or convienience.

What I find interesting is the difference between my grandparents and my parents.

My grandparents were arranged. Their parents decided that they wanted the two families to join so they promised their children would wed. My grandfather had only met my grandmother once before they married. They fell in love after they were married and stayed together for 61 years before my grandfather passed.

My parents on the other hand married for love. They lasted only 18 and are both on their second marriage now.

My wifes parents married for love as well. They divorced last year after 27 years.

 

[Vidi]

No.

I am for the elimination of marriage as described by government.

I have never needed government to tell Me I am married to My wife and with regard to legal issues, I think that a social contract will suffice in place of an alleged marriage license.

You want to be married, go to see your preacher.

You want rights to your partnership, go see a lawyer.

Oh, to answer your question...

I have never been against gay marriage...I oppose government involvement in the private lives of the citizens.

I simply do not have a dog in this fight as I am not against homosexuality.

So youre for the elimination of any legal benefits that go along with the legal term marriage?

Sometimes, I have a problem with this format.

I have stated, repeatedly, that a contract can bestow upon people the same rights as marriage. After all, when you distill it down, and as far as government is concerned, it is nothing more than just that. A contract.

Marriage is a religious institution. You want to be married, go find a man of God to marry you.

Otherwise, find a lawyer.

sorry to keep doing this...

so as long as the "marriage" is simply a legal contract and performed outside the church by a non clergyman, youre cool with same sex "marriage"?

 

[Darkwind]

So youre for the elimination of any legal benefits that go along with the legal term marriage?

Sometimes, I have a problem with this format.

I have stated, repeatedly, that a contract can bestow upon people the same rights as marriage. After all, when you distill it down, and as far as government is concerned, it is nothing more than just that. A contract.

Marriage is a religious institution. You want to be married, go find a man of God to marry you.

Otherwise, find a lawyer.

sorry to keep doing this...

so as long as the "marriage" is simply a legal contract and performed outside the church, youre cool with same sex "marriage"?

I have already said as much.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. As long as they do not try to dictate or teach to My children or My grandchildren that what they do is natural, I could care less.

In fact, I have a few dozen gay friends, and they all agree with My view on this...the real gays, not the activists, all just want to be left alone.

I support that.

 

[Vidi]

Sometimes, I have a problem with this format.

I have stated, repeatedly, that a contract can bestow upon people the same rights as marriage. After all, when you distill it down, and as far as government is concerned, it is nothing more than just that. A contract.

Marriage is a religious institution. You want to be married, go find a man of God to marry you.

Otherwise, find a lawyer.

sorry to keep doing this...

so as long as the "marriage" is simply a legal contract and performed outside the church, youre cool with same sex "marriage"?

I have already said as much.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. As long as they do not try to dictate or teach to My children or My grandchildren that what they do is natural, I could care less.

In fact, I have a few dozen gay friends, and they all agree with My view on this...the real gays, not the activists, all just want to be left alone.

I support that.

Cool. Sorry about all that I just wanted to fully understand your stance on the subject. You and I agree.

When my wife and I married, we were turned away by two different churches. One because she was divorced and one because we were living together and they wouldnt marry people living in sin. So we rented this beautiful Victorian and got married there by a non denominational minister.

I say that if the government is calling the contract "marriage" then it should be open to all. BUT, the churches have a right to turn away ( without legal ramification ) anyone they feel are not living within their value system.

then its up to the individual couples to make other arrangements for the ceremony itself.

After all, the contract itself doesnt require a ceremony just the signature of an someone with the proper credentials.

Imagine the new business opportunities someone would have by performing the ceremonies for those turned away from the church...hmmmm....I may just have to get ordained!

 

[Darkwind]

sorry to keep doing this...

so as long as the "marriage" is simply a legal contract and performed outside the church, youre cool with same sex "marriage"?

I have already said as much.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. As long as they do not try to dictate or teach to My children or My grandchildren that what they do is natural, I could care less.

In fact, I have a few dozen gay friends, and they all agree with My view on this...the real gays, not the activists, all just want to be left alone.

I support that.

Cool. Sorry about all that I just wanted to fully understand your stance on the subject. You and I agree.

When my wife and I married, we were turned away by two different churches. One because she was divorced and one because we were living together and they wouldnt marry people living in sin. So we rented this beautiful Victorian and got married there by a non denominational minister.

I say that if the government is calling the contract "marriage" then it should be open to all. BUT, the churches have a right to turn away ( without legal ramification ) anyone they feel are not living within their value system.

then its up to the individual couples to make other arrangements for the ceremony itself.

After all, the contract itself doesnt require a ceremony just the signature of an someone with the proper credentials.

Imagine the new business opportunities someone would have by performing the ceremonies for those turned away from the church...hmmmm....I may just have to get ordained!

Yes, I think the entire area of marriage law could be expanded if the government went to strictly government contractual obligations of partnerships (dood, I should be a government writer!). A person with a Doctorate of Jurisprudence in such an area would be rich overnight!

However, this is what I support. Take the entire emotional content out of the argument by just taking out the entire concept of government supported marriage.

 

[hwyangel]

@ WorldWatcher

Two sisters, both divorced, both with kids.
They pool their money together to buy a house.
They live there and raise their children together for 20 years.
If one dies the other will have to sell the house to pay the taxes.
What reason is their to prevent them from getting married?

They are not a same sex 'couple'. But there should be nothing to prevent them from being married, just as there should be nothing to prevent two straight, random strangers from getting married.

Marriage is already down the drain, so who cares if it gets fucked up a little more?

People care because it's the children who always suffer in the end. It's two entirely different concepts being put under one blanket and this is what creates contention.
On one hand (same) is the "aids confidentiality Act" that prevens discrimination against a minority group. On the other (opposite) is marital blood testing that prevents death, disability and diseases from being passed to pregnant women and children.
On one hand (same) there is no justification to discriminate against someone who is related. On the other (opposite) acknowledging a marriage by legalizing it between opposite gender couplesis intentionally cruel to children that may result from it.

 

[Noomi]

Isn't a custody battle cruel for children? Heterosexuals are more likely to go through a custody battle, yet they are still allowed to procreate, when it is clear that sometimes, they care only for themselves.

 

[oldernwiser]

I would argue that this is an irrelavant question as no one is attempting to ban same-sex marriage. Marriage is a covenant made between a man and a woman (And often with God). There can no more be a same sex marriage as there can be circular square or a feathered mammal.

The political question being examined is whether the government should recognize same sex unions as marriages sanctioned by the state. Nothing is stopping anyone from entering into a same sex union or even calling it whatever they want, despite it being an oxymoron to call it marriage.

Look at the polygamists. The lack of government recognition doesn't stop them from entering into private covenants and calling it marriage. They, for the most part, aren't going around trying to force people to recognize their marriages. They largely ignore what others have to say and do what they choose to do.

Nothing is stopping homosexual couples from making covenants with one another. Nothing is stopping them from calling their relationship whatever they want. The issue at hand is should the population be forced to recognize and redefine marriage because a small minority wants us to. The answer is no.

The only reason government recognizes traditional marriage is because it serves public policy to do so. and the public policy is the perpetuation and raising of future generations of citizens. If it weren't for that, there would be no reason for government to recognize traditional marriage. In fact, I think there is a strong argument for government getting out of the marriage business. I don't buy the argument, but the argument is there.

I work in the juvenile justice system. I see the affects of the breakdown of the traditional family everyday. Children need both their mother and their father married whenever possible. They need to see how families should behave and should treat one another so they can do the same. The breakdown of the traditional family, which homosexual unions is only a small part of, is leading to a destruction of the culture that has lead the advancement of our society for thousands of years.

People need to make choices. Do we choose to continue to let our culture slide to the lowest common denominator, or should we make a choice to lift our culture to higher ground? Do we choose to give into weakness and treat marriage as a joke or do we get married to our first spouse and stay married. Do we honor the commitments we make even when times are tough or do we run at the first sight of trouble? Do we let our natural urges control us or do we control them?

Yes, im alittle off topic at this point. But I dont think we can address this issue without looking at the bigger cultural battle going on in the hearts and minds of the people, especially our children.

Seriously?

I think you are dead wrong in everything you posted here.

North Carolina just allowed a referendum which specifically states that a civil union can only be between a man and a woman, and further stated that marriage is the only civil union recognized by the state. Sounds to me like a heavy handed attempt to stop same sex marriage, and they aren't the 1st state to word amendments to their constitution that way.

The Lutheran church as well as some Episcopal parishes recognize the validity of same sex marriages in the states where it is allowed, and actually lobby against the discriminatory laws - and so the square peg, round whole thing isn't a unified view. But, I won't argue theological philosophy as it's relevance is where the question actually lies.

Polygamy is flat out illegal - you go to jail for that. Your marriages are annulled. There are no property rights conveyed. No petitions for support. Legally, it's as though the unions never took place. The only thing that polygamy and same sex marriage has in common is that someone at some point in time considered their own morals to be superior, convinced enough people that it ought to be so, and began passing laws to enforce those morals. That doesn't make the practice correct, it only makes a voting majority.

Now we come to where the rubber hits the street - and I've really been waiting for this one. You make the statement "The issue at hand is should the population be forced to recognize and redefine marriage because a small minority wants us to". I would ask in return, if marriage is a respected covenant between two people who are committed to the life-long success of one another, what is being redefined exactly? And, what price would you be paying to be "forced to recognize" that level of commitment?

Functionally speaking, there doesn't seem to be any major difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual relationship even when kids are involved. Using children as a club to bash gay marriage is a total deflection. There has been no credible evidence to suggest that a traditional marriage is "better" for children - at least once you get past the Reverend's Sunday sermons on the topic.

But you're final point tells me where your head is - Do we let our natural urges control us or do we control them? Number 1 - only bad things can happen when we make the attempt to control our natural urges; kidneys can burst, and Catholic priests get reassigned. But a homosexual is as much unable to change his/her orientation as a heterosexual would be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Private association is not germane to this discussion.

Yup, it sure did when women got the vote, and when blacks got civil rights.

And all the good things of those facts will occur again when the universal marriage war is over and same sex has won.

The same mindset opposed suffrage for women, and civil rights for Americans of African descent.

Women have rights like maternity leave, and priority for custody that specific to their needs. But their still not allowed in mens public restrooms or mens only clubs.

 

[hwyangel]

Sometimes, I have a problem with this format.

I have stated, repeatedly, that a contract can bestow upon people the same rights as marriage. After all, when you distill it down, and as far as government is concerned, it is nothing more than just that. A contract.

Marriage is a religious institution. You want to be married, go find a man of God to marry you.

Otherwise, find a lawyer.

sorry to keep doing this...

so as long as the "marriage" is simply a legal contract and performed outside the church, youre cool with same sex "marriage"?

I have already said as much.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. As long as they do not try to dictate or teach to My children or My grandchildren that what they do is natural, I could care less.

In fact, I have a few dozen gay friends, and they all agree with My view on this...the real gays, not the activists, all just want to be left alone.

I support that.

I know what you mean, lol. Not all "gays" support same gender marriage. I employ a really nice lesbian lady to take care of my adult autistic son. She and her partner are fine with collecting two separate child support checks, while she works and partner gets a welfare check and stays home with their kids. Ever see an opposite gender couple do that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

sorry to keep doing this...

so as long as the "marriage" is simply a legal contract and performed outside the church, youre cool with same sex "marriage"?

I have already said as much.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. As long as they do not try to dictate or teach to My children or My grandchildren that what they do is natural, I could care less.

In fact, I have a few dozen gay friends, and they all agree with My view on this...the real gays, not the activists, all just want to be left alone.

I support that.

I know what you mean, lol. Not all "gays" support same gender marriage. I employ a really nice lesbian lady to take care of my adult autistic son. She and her partner are fine with collecting two separate child support checks, while she works and partner gets a welfare check and stays home with their kids. Ever see an opposite gender couple do that?

You mean an opposite gender couple remain unmarried so that the woman can draw welfare?


Ya, happens all the time.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, I have seen example so unmarried with children opposite sex couples do that for the last forty years. All the time.

sorry to keep doing this...

so as long as the "marriage" is simply a legal contract and performed outside the church, youre cool with same sex "marriage"?

I have already said as much.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. As long as they do not try to dictate or teach to My children or My grandchildren that what they do is natural, I could care less.

In fact, I have a few dozen gay friends, and they all agree with My view on this...the real gays, not the activists, all just want to be left alone.

I support that.

I know what you mean, lol. Not all "gays" support same gender marriage. I employ a really nice lesbian lady to take care of my adult autistic son. She and her partner are fine with collecting two separate child support checks, while she works and partner gets a welfare check and stays home with their kids. Ever see an opposite gender couple do that?

 

[hwyangel]

I have already said as much.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. As long as they do not try to dictate or teach to My children or My grandchildren that what they do is natural, I could care less.

In fact, I have a few dozen gay friends, and they all agree with My view on this...the real gays, not the activists, all just want to be left alone.

I support that.

I know what you mean, lol. Not all "gays" support same gender marriage. I employ a really nice lesbian lady to take care of my adult autistic son. She and her partner are fine with collecting two separate child support checks, while she works and partner gets a welfare check and stays home with their kids. Ever see an opposite gender couple do that?

You mean an opposite gender couple remain unmarried so that the woman can draw welfare?


Ya, happens all the time.


>>>>

I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one sex.

 

[hwyangel]

Isn't a custody battle cruel for children? Heterosexuals are more likely to go through a custody battle, yet they are still allowed to procreate, when it is clear that sometimes, they care only for themselves.

Are you saying that all heterosexual couples are "cruel for children"? Or are you using the exception to throw the baby out with the bath water? Because when I say that no same gender couple is without at least one step parent, I do mean "all". And when I say that all same gender couples who advocate for same gender marriage for the changes to marriage that are harmful to children, again I do mean "all".