Is banning same-sex marriage fair?

[Nosmo King]

The existence or not of a valid marriage affects the rights of persons other than the two who are married. For example, if a piece of real estate was taken as tenants by the entireties and the couple who bought it was not, in fact, legally married and one dies, the children of that decedent might have a valid claim to a portion of the property. If I own an insurance company and you wish to enroll a "significant other", I need more proof of the relationship's beginning date and ending date than a "I took them off my facebook friends list" would provide.

I could go on and on. Point is, society at large has a need for formalized, ascertainable relationships between members of a family, especially partners in a marriage.

Not only that, but I think everyone could agree that marriage is a stabilizing institution with roots deep in social history.

What great societal good can come from denying the stability of marriage to those who desire it?

anyone---any --age---no restrictions ?

No. As with any other valid legal contract, both parties must be of the age of majority. And, since it's marriage, any blood relatives should be excluded because legally, a new entity is being established. There are other ties established by blood relationships.

 

[dilloduck]

Not only that, but I think everyone could agree that marriage is a stabilizing institution with roots deep in social history.

What great societal good can come from denying the stability of marriage to those who desire it?

anyone---any --age---no restrictions ?

No. As with any other valid legal contract, both parties must be of the age of majority. And, since it's marriage, any blood relatives should be excluded because legally, a new entity is being established. There are other ties established by blood relationships.

entity schmentity------you're getting all legal again. Why can't Joe blow marry his cousin ? ( let's say they have no interest in having sex or children ) Is it fair ?

 

[Nosmo King]

anyone---any --age---no restrictions ?

No. As with any other valid legal contract, both parties must be of the age of majority. And, since it's marriage, any blood relatives should be excluded because legally, a new entity is being established. There are other ties established by blood relationships.

entity schmentity------you're getting all legal again. Why can't Joe blow marry his cousin ? ( let's say they have no interest in having sex or children ) Is it fair ?

Because there are already legal ties established by Joe's relationship with his cousin. Estates are usually settled by blood relationships.

And it's the legality of the whole marriage thing that makes discussion of same sex marriage pertinent.

 

[dilloduck]

No. As with any other valid legal contract, both parties must be of the age of majority. And, since it's marriage, any blood relatives should be excluded because legally, a new entity is being established. There are other ties established by blood relationships.

entity schmentity------you're getting all legal again. Why can't Joe blow marry his cousin ? ( let's say they have no interest in having sex or children ) Is it fair ?

Because there are already legal ties established by Joe's relationship with his cousin. Estates are usually settled by blood relationships.

And it's the legality of the whole marriage thing that makes discussion of same sex marriage pertinent.

We're not discussing legality--we are discussing "fairness". How is it right to deny anyone the right to enter into a contract because they love that person and they want to share the benefits provided by the state sanctioned contract ?

 

[Nosmo King]

entity schmentity------you're getting all legal again. Why can't Joe blow marry his cousin ? ( let's say they have no interest in having sex or children ) Is it fair ?

Because there are already legal ties established by Joe's relationship with his cousin. Estates are usually settled by blood relationships.

And it's the legality of the whole marriage thing that makes discussion of same sex marriage pertinent.

We're not discussing legality--we are discussing "fairness". How is it right to deny anyone the right to enter into a contract because they love that person and they want to share the benefits provided by the state sanctioned contract ?

It isn't.

 

[dilloduck]

Because there are already legal ties established by Joe's relationship with his cousin. Estates are usually settled by blood relationships.

And it's the legality of the whole marriage thing that makes discussion of same sex marriage pertinent.

We're not discussing legality--we are discussing "fairness". How is it right to deny anyone the right to enter into a contract because they love that person and they want to share the benefits provided by the state sanctioned contract ?

It isn't.

How come the whole benefit package that the state confers along with marriage isn't challenged for everyone ? This is unfair to way more people than just the gay community.

 

[JBeukema]

First they wanted to marry *******, now they want to marry faggots- soon they'll demand we let them marry the dog!

 

[JBeukema]

I think it depends on if a person views it as two people being joined under God. In that case, couples would find a church who supported that, but would some then complain about the churches who don't?? I used to think that if we had civil unions for legality purposes, and marriages for religious institutions, then everyone would be happy. Now I think people from both sides would complain no matter what.

We could just kill everyone and be done with it...

 

[JBeukema]

Not only that, but I think everyone could agree that marriage is a stabilizing institution with roots deep in social history.

What great societal good can come from denying the stability of marriage to those who desire it?

anyone---any --age---no restrictions ?

No. As with any other valid legal contract, both parties must be of the age of majority..

I always thought that went without saying.

I forget there are people as stupid as dilloduck

 

[dilloduck]

Everyone should be able to do anything that makes them feel good.

 

[JBeukema]

Everyone should be able to do anything that makes them feel good.

Like ejaculating into dilloduck's coffee, since we're asking stupid questions in this thread?

 

[dilloduck]

Everyone should be able to do anything that makes them feel good.

Like ejaculating into dilloduck's coffee, since we're asking stupid questions in this thread?

Seems only fair-----as long as everyone gets to do it.


(hold it----no fair----women can't do that--no one should be able to)

 

[Sherry]

I think it depends on if a person views it as two people being joined under God. In that case, couples would find a church who supported that, but would some then complain about the churches who don't?? I used to think that if we had civil unions for legality purposes, and marriages for religious institutions, then everyone would be happy. Now I think people from both sides would complain no matter what.

We could just kill everyone and be done with it...

Well that's a profound solution.

 

[manifold]

So far not one single post for fair.

It appears that even those who support bans on same-sex marriage acknowledge that they support weilding majority power to impose unfair restrictions on the minority. Yet they support it anyway.

Interesting.

 

[dilloduck]

I think it depends on if a person views it as two people being joined under God. In that case, couples would find a church who supported that, but would some then complain about the churches who don't?? I used to think that if we had civil unions for legality purposes, and marriages for religious institutions, then everyone would be happy. Now I think people from both sides would complain no matter what.

We could just kill everyone and be done with it...

Well that's a profound solution.

probably easier than getting the entire religious world to change.

 

[dilloduck]

So far not one single post for fair.

It appears that even those who support bans on same-sex marriage acknowledge that they support weilding majority power to impose unfair restrictions on the minority. Yet they support it anyway.

Interesting.

It's not fair for anyone to tell anyone what they can or cannot do

 

[manifold]

So far not one single post for fair.

It appears that even those who support bans on same-sex marriage acknowledge that they support weilding majority power to impose unfair restrictions on the minority. Yet they support it anyway.

Interesting.

It's not fair for anyone to tell anyone what they can or cannot do

So now you're implying that telling people they can't commit murder or robbery isn't fair???





Seriously dude, quit while you're...


oh wait, nevermind.

 

[JBeukema]

Everyone should be able to do anything that makes them feel good.

Like ejaculating into dilloduck's coffee, since we're asking stupid questions in this thread?

Seems only fair-----as long as everyone gets to do it.


(hold it----no fair----women can't do that--no one should be able to)

Female ejaculation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dilloduck]

So far not one single post for fair.

It appears that even those who support bans on same-sex marriage acknowledge that they support weilding majority power to impose unfair restrictions on the minority. Yet they support it anyway.

Interesting.

It's not fair for anyone to tell anyone what they can or cannot do

So now you're implying that telling people they can't commit murder or robbery isn't fair???





Seriously dude, quit while you're...


oh wait, nevermind.

but they passionately want to !

 

[Barb]

We could just kill everyone and be done with it...

Well that's a profound solution.

probably easier than getting the entire religious world to change.

But it is not the "entire religious world" that objects. It is the most powerful, organized, and most vocal among them. There are Christian and Jewish churches that support gender equality in marriage, and some that would perform the ceremony if it came with a valid license from the state. How does (and I know I'm not supposed to here, sorry Mani) this preference for the wants of powerful church lobbies not fly in the face of establishment?