Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[bodecea]

laws will never make homosexuality 'normal'....

So?

I don't think too many homosexuals wanting to marry really care if you consinder them "normal." They just want equal treatment under the law.

so it's just all about the money....?

No, it's about being equal under the law. As we have said again and again and again and again and again and again.

 

[bodecea]

So?

I don't think too many homosexuals wanting to marry really care if you consinder them "normal." They just want equal treatment under the law.

so it's just all about the money....?

When did I mention anything about money?

Furthermore, when heterosexuals marry, is their only reason for marrying versus living together money?

I don't pretend to know why every couple decides to marry, but I'd be willing to bet it's not just the money for most.

Everytime someone like ScreamingEagle asks if it's about the money, it makes me wonder if that's why they had a legal marriage.

 

[bendog]

so it's just all about the money....?

When did I mention anything about money?

Furthermore, when heterosexuals marry, is their only reason for marrying versus living together money?

I don't pretend to know why every couple decides to marry, but I'd be willing to bet it's not just the money for most.

Everytime someone like ScreamingEagle asks if it's about the money, it makes me wonder if that's why they had a legal marriage.

I had/have no idea what Screaming Eagle was trying to get at with that one. Straight/gay/whatever, marriage is not a money saving activity. LOL

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So?

I don't think too many homosexuals wanting to marry really care if you consinder them "normal." They just want equal treatment under the law.

so it's just all about the money....?

No, it's about being equal under the law. As we have said again and again and again and again and again and again.

so you want to emulate marriage 'equally under the law'......yet you don't bring to the marriage the equal ability to have children....kinda blows your argument for equality doesn't it...?

 

[bendog]

so it's just all about the money....?

No, it's about being equal under the law. As we have said again and again and again and again and again and again.

so you want to emulate marriage 'equally under the law'......yet you don't bring to the marriage the equal ability to have children....kinda blows your argument for equality doesn't it...?

Bullshite. You don't think gay and lesbians have kids? Try looking around.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, it's about being equal under the law. As we have said again and again and again and again and again and again.

so you want to emulate marriage 'equally under the law'......yet you don't bring to the marriage the equal ability to have children....kinda blows your argument for equality doesn't it...?

Bullshite. You don't think gay and lesbians have kids? Try looking around.

together....? news to me...

 

[bendog]

so you want to emulate marriage 'equally under the law'......yet you don't bring to the marriage the equal ability to have children....kinda blows your argument for equality doesn't it...?

Bullshite. You don't think gay and lesbians have kids? Try looking around.

together....? news to me...

Apparantly it is, to you.

 

[Katzndogz]

Your argument is yours to make but as I pointed out, your argument is already fatally flawed by legal precedent. It is not legal to deny homosexuals civil rights enjoyed by others on the grounds that homosexuals are 'abnormal'. That ship sailed long ago.

laws will never make homosexuality 'normal'....

So?

I don't think too many homosexuals wanting to marry really care if you consinder them "normal." They just want equal treatment under the law.

To be specific, they don't want equal treatment under the law as it exists, but under the law as soon as they change the law.

 

[Seawytch]

While I would like to agree with you, I find the occasional appearance of Queers In Public entertaining: At least as entertaining as dwrafs, albinos, an alligator wrestler, or a giraffe.

Thus I look forward to the so-called, "Violation of my sense of normalcy."

ON THE OTHER HAND;

I share your concern about tossing away Judeo-Christian morality norms that have guided western culture for thousands of years, and was very probably well established long before Israelite Wise Men decided to incorporate them. While some of these ancient beliefs, e.g. stoning unmarried women who become pregnate, are repugnant, and are only practiced within cultures we now consider "backward," MANY MORE, e.g. "Thou shall not kill" remain. There was some reason for the ancients to put together RULES of BEHAVIOUR.

Whether or not they can now be completely understood is immaterial to a significant proportion of Americans who deserve to have their VOTE count rather than have their beliefs ignored.

traditional marriage follows natural law....it is UNIQUE.....and ubiquitous.....the core family is the building block of society....from that flows a civilized society...

to change all that to satisfy a measly 1/2% of society is simply ridiculous....

Great. I agree.

However, what we change about our state laws, which are based on our collective opinion of "natural law" are founded upon how we VOTE, or how our representatives vote: States should retain this right.

If a state decides queers should marry, then why not? Ditto for when they should NOT marry. If the lesbos in California want to be married, the move the **** out to Iowa, or whatever.

And if a state should vote to ban handguns or semi automatic weapons? Cletus can just move from NY to Alabama if they want their guns, right?

 

[Seawytch]

laws will never make homosexuality 'normal'....

So?

I don't think too many homosexuals wanting to marry really care if you consinder them "normal." They just want equal treatment under the law.

To be specific, they don't want equal treatment under the law as it exists, but under the law as soon as they change the law.

Wrong again. I want my legal marriage treated exactly the same as yours.

 

[Seawytch]

so you want to emulate marriage 'equally under the law'......yet you don't bring to the marriage the equal ability to have children....kinda blows your argument for equality doesn't it...?

Bullshite. You don't think gay and lesbians have kids? Try looking around.

together....? news to me...

Yes, together. My partner and I are the parents of our children legally and emotionally.

 

[bendog]

Bullshite. You don't think gay and lesbians have kids? Try looking around.

together....? news to me...

Yes, together. My partner and I are the parents of our children legally and emotionally.

He seemed to think that same sex marriage was somehow lessened by an ability of the two members to procreate together. I think one of the Justices seemed to wander in that direction yesterday, though he also referenced people past "55." Of course the irony is that same sex couples, and even those past 55, can use the fertility advances of the past 30 or so years to do just that.

But the REAL point is that for every woman who marries only once, there is just about one woman who married twice or more.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

So there are a lot of kids being raised by spouses who are not their biological source of DNA. And, I'm not aware of any rational reason to treat gays and lesbians doing this any differently that straight people.

However, some straignt people do believe that everyone should have the same legal rights, but because they entered into "marriage" when it was only a hetero relationship, the terminology should be different. I can't say that expresses a desire to discriminate.

 

[Samson]

traditional marriage follows natural law....it is UNIQUE.....and ubiquitous.....the core family is the building block of society....from that flows a civilized society...

to change all that to satisfy a measly 1/2% of society is simply ridiculous....

Great. I agree.

However, what we change about our state laws, which are based on our collective opinion of "natural law" are founded upon how we VOTE, or how our representatives vote: States should retain this right.

If a state decides queers should marry, then why not? Ditto for when they should NOT marry. If the lesbos in California want to be married, the move the **** out to Iowa, or whatever.

And if a state should vote to ban handguns or semi automatic weapons? Cletus can just move from NY to Alabama if they want their guns, right?

Sure, right after the 2nd amendment is repealed.

 

[Seawytch]

Great. I agree.

However, what we change about our state laws, which are based on our collective opinion of "natural law" are founded upon how we VOTE, or how our representatives vote: States should retain this right.

If a state decides queers should marry, then why not? Ditto for when they should NOT marry. If the lesbos in California want to be married, the move the **** out to Iowa, or whatever.

And if a state should vote to ban handguns or semi automatic weapons? Cletus can just move from NY to Alabama if they want their guns, right?

Sure, right after the 2nd amendment is repealed.

The right to marry has been determined by the SCOTUS. It is as much of a right as bearing arms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

yes it does.....it changes the definition of marriage and demeans it....

yes....homosexuality is abnormal....i don't hate the homosexual person but there is no reason to change the whole of society to accomodate their abnormal behavior...

our laws reflect a tolerance for the homosexual.....however there is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance....

Your argument is yours to make but as I pointed out, your argument is already fatally flawed by legal precedent. It is not legal to deny homosexuals civil rights enjoyed by others on the grounds that homosexuals are 'abnormal'. That ship sailed long ago.

laws will never make homosexuality 'normal'....

The socially abnormal people in America are now those who still think gays should not have equal rights.

 

[Samson]

so it's just all about the money....?

When did I mention anything about money?

Furthermore, when heterosexuals marry, is their only reason for marrying versus living together money?

I don't pretend to know why every couple decides to marry, but I'd be willing to bet it's not just the money for most.

Everytime someone like ScreamingEagle asks if it's about the money, it makes me wonder if that's why they had a legal marriage.

No one accused you of not being incredibly naive.

 

[boedicca]

I agree with the Iowahawk:

So yeah, in a secular society maybe it's time for opponents to recognize a rational basis for legal SSM. But it's also time for supporters to recognize they are espousing a position that every society in the first 99.99% of human history would have considered nuts.

The problem, I think, is that marriage uniquely represents a religious sacrament that doubles as an official secular legal status. We don't have laws, for example, that recognize someone's baptism or confirmation. Because of that duality of marriage, attempts to expand its definition naturally are seen as an attack on religion, while attempt to restrict its definition are seen as the imposition of religion on society. Everybody gets mad and yells.

The solution? Maybe it's time for government to get out of the whole marriage business altogether. Or at least to treat it as a standard civil contract between adults conferring certain privileges (wills, powers of attorney, co-ownership) and obligations (say hello to alimony and the marriage tax penalty, Bert and Ernie). Don't want to call it "marriage"? Fine, call it a civil union, domestic partnership, blancmange, whatever, leave it open to any pair of consenting adults. Leave the holy sacrament business to churches, and if First Lutheran or Immaculate Conception or Temple Beth-El don't want to bestow the title of "married" on a same sex couple, that ought to be their own business. You get married at a church, you get blancmanged at the county courthouse.

Maybe then we can get back to talking about our $16 trillion debt.

Same Sex Marriage and Gilligan's Island Game Theory

 

[Samson]

Your argument is yours to make but as I pointed out, your argument is already fatally flawed by legal precedent. It is not legal to deny homosexuals civil rights enjoyed by others on the grounds that homosexuals are 'abnormal'. That ship sailed long ago.

laws will never make homosexuality 'normal'....

The socially abnormal people in America are now those who still think gays should not have equal rights.

I'll believe it when more than a handful of states agree with you.

 

[Samson]

I agree with the Iowahawk:

So yeah, in a secular society maybe it's time for opponents to recognize a rational basis for legal SSM. But it's also time for supporters to recognize they are espousing a position that every society in the first 99.99% of human history would have considered nuts.

The problem, I think, is that marriage uniquely represents a religious sacrament that doubles as an official secular legal status. We don't have laws, for example, that recognize someone's baptism or confirmation. Because of that duality of marriage, attempts to expand its definition naturally are seen as an attack on religion, while attempt to restrict its definition are seen as the imposition of religion on society. Everybody gets mad and yells.

The solution? Maybe it's time for government to get out of the whole marriage business altogether. Or at least to treat it as a standard civil contract between adults conferring certain privileges (wills, powers of attorney, co-ownership) and obligations (say hello to alimony and the marriage tax penalty, Bert and Ernie). Don't want to call it "marriage"? Fine, call it a civil union, domestic partnership, blancmange, whatever, leave it open to any pair of consenting adults. Leave the holy sacrament business to churches, and if First Lutheran or Immaculate Conception or Temple Beth-El don't want to bestow the title of "married" on a same sex couple, that ought to be their own business. You get married at a church, you get blancmanged at the county courthouse.

Maybe then we can get back to talking about our $16 trillion debt.

Same Sex Marriage and Gilligan's Island Game Theory

The Bert and Ernie reference is what I like best.