Now that 'gay marriage' is real, can we talk?

[Montrovant]

And again, what does this actually have to do with homosexuals getting married?

None of this has ever had anything to do with homosexuals getting married, they've been doing it for years. No state prohibits people from obtaining a marriage license because they are homosexual. I had a teacher in high school who was a flaming homosexual, he was married and had two children. BUT... "Marriage" is the union of a man and woman, not same-sex homosexual partnership. That's something people want to INCLUDE in marriage, and others are opposed to.

How does it set a precedent for changing age of consent, or allowing non-humans to consent?

There is already precedent for age of consent, as I pointed out, not too long ago, girls as young as 12 and 14 could marry legally in this country. The 'precedent' is establishing that marriage is there to accommodate your sexual lifestyle. Once that has been done, it has to be done for all sexual lifestyles to be "equal under the law" according to the Constitution. You can't pick and choose which sexual lifestyles (or groups) are appropriate and which are not. As it stood, there was no requirement regarding sexuality, marriage was simply between a man and woman, it didn't matter what their sexual proclivities were.

It might lead to some sort of accommodation for polygamous marriage, that I can accept.

So what's the limit? 15...20? What if I want to be Mac Daddy and find me a harem of bitches to draw welfare checks for us to live and love on? You down with that too?

As I said, I agree with the idea that the government would be better off using another term than marriage. Do you agree that such a change is unlikely to happen any time soon? Too many people want to use marriage legally, people are too accustomed to it, for it to easily be changed. That being the case, isn't allowing same sex marriage the best alternative available?

I think too many Liberal Democrats see this as a trophy issue they can't abandon no matter what. I also think too many Christian Republicans are dead set to fight it to the bitter end. So both political 'sides' are too politically invested to let it go at this point. This has not a damn thing to do with "what is easy to do" and everything to do with politics.

No, allowing "same sec marriage" is redefining marriage under the parameters of legitimizing sexual behavior, and I am not okay with that. I don't think it's the government's place to legitimize (or condemn) sexual lifestyles, and that is simply what we are allowing now. The same government with the power to tell us it's legal for same sex partners to marry, can tell us it's NOT legal. Does that fact escape some of you, or what?

What I think would be the BEST alternative, is to write legislation which completely removes the federal government from any recognition of "marital status" and replace this with CU. Urge states to adopt models based on the Federal example, and remove 'marriage' from the lexicon of all government. It's none of their damn business! This takes the issue off the table forever, it's DONE! SETTLED! Every side gets what they claim to want.... gays get to enjoy benefits, church ladies get to keep sanctity of religious ceremony... the state isn't endorsing sexual behavior or denying/allowing any rights because of sexual proclivity. It's a win/win/win/win solution. But it's not going to happen because Liberals smell blood in the water. This has to be turned into Civil Rights all over again, and they have to use it to denigrate and bash Christians. While Christians are always looking for a good 'crusade' ...so the cake is already in the oven.

I predict it will end up being a fucked up mess we wish had never been started.

I obviously was asking how any of your points have to do with same sex marriage. I'll try to avoid using gay marriage or homosexual marriage if you're going to quibble about it like this.

Is same sex marriage about sexual lifestyles? As far as I'm aware there is no requirement to either have sex at all, or reveal anything about one's sexual proclivities, when two people get married. This is true of opposite sex and same sex couples. So allowing same sex marriage is really gender based rather than based on sexual activity, is it not?

I was accepting the idea that allowing same sex marriage might lead to polygamous marriage. I wasn't stating an opinion on that type of union. I will say, though, that I don't really care what kind of arrangement consenting adults might want to enter into. I'm not sure how it would be dealt with legally; the complexities might make it prohibitive to treat it as marriage is now.

I think my point about the use of the term marriage is pretty apolitical. It is my belief that many people, regardless of political leanings, feel very strongly about the use of the word marriage in their government union. I don't think anything close to a majority of adults would be accepting of the government dropping the term marriage. It has nothing to do with politics at all.

As I said earlier, same sex marriage is about gender, not sexual lifestyle. A same sex couple could conceivably marry but never have sex, or only have sex with opposite gender people outside of their marriage. There is, as far as I'm aware, no requirement for any information about a person's sexual proclivities to be part of getting married. You are making it about the act of sex rather than about gender.

I don't think the fact the government can say it's not legal for same sex couples to marry has escaped anyone's notice. They've been saying that for many years now.

So, considering you seem to agree that changing the term for government unions to something other than marriage is not going to happen, what would you consider the best solution under those conditions?

I'm also very curious : how is it that changing the wording from marriage to civil unions would somehow make the issue no longer about sexual proclivities? How does the word marriage make this issue about sexual behavior? It sounds like you are using some definition I have not heard.

 

[Boss]

I obviously was asking how any of your points have to do with same sex marriage. I'll try to avoid using gay marriage or homosexual marriage if you're going to quibble about it like this.

Is same sex marriage about sexual lifestyles? As far as I'm aware there is no requirement to either have sex at all, or reveal anything about one's sexual proclivities, when two people get married. This is true of opposite sex and same sex couples. So allowing same sex marriage is really gender based rather than based on sexual activity, is it not?

No, because same genders don't constitute a marriage. The word means a union between man and woman. The REASON for same genders to want to marry, is sexual lifestyle. You're removing the word from context of generic male/female union and turning it into a word which is inclusive of homosexual relationships. What if we wanted to alter the word "consent" to include females who wear provocative clothing? She's obviously "consenting" that she wants to have sex, so it's okay if we change what that word means to include this, right? Of course not, it's absurd. We don't go around changing the meaning of words to accommodate our sexual proclivities. It's wrong, but even more importantly, it's dangerous.

I was accepting the idea that allowing same sex marriage might lead to polygamous marriage. I wasn't stating an opinion on that type of union. I will say, though, that I don't really care what kind of arrangement consenting adults might want to enter into. I'm not sure how it would be dealt with legally; the complexities might make it prohibitive to treat it as marriage is now.

My position is the same, I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. As long as no human rights are being violated, it shouldn't matter to the government either. Why not take this opportunity to remove government from recognizing marital status at all, and move to civil union contracts which can be entered into by any two consenting adults of legal age? Instead, we seem to be hell bent on having the government tell us what is a proper marriage and how we individually can define that word.

I think my point about the use of the term marriage is pretty apolitical. It is my belief that many people, regardless of political leanings, feel very strongly about the use of the word marriage in their government union. I don't think anything close to a majority of adults would be accepting of the government dropping the term marriage. It has nothing to do with politics at all.

Let me explain why the word is so important. Since the days of Martin Luther (not King), when Judeo-Christian marriage began, it has been a cornerstone and foundation of family, regarded sacred by the Church. This makes it not only a social union, but a religious one as well. Again, the government should have never been involved with religion, but here we are. The reasoned solution is not to have government besmirch religious sanctity of marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals. The better alternative is to remove government from having any damn thing to do with marriage or how it is defined by the individual, as it always should have been.

As I said earlier, same sex marriage is about gender, not sexual lifestyle. A same sex couple could conceivably marry but never have sex, or only have sex with opposite gender people outside of their marriage. There is, as far as I'm aware, no requirement for any information about a person's sexual proclivities to be part of getting married. You are making it about the act of sex rather than about gender.

But it IS about sexual relationships, that's why you want to change the definition. Not allowing gay marriage, doesn't prevent homosexuals from engaging in homosexual activities, it doesn't prevent them from living as if they were a married couple, it doesn't even prevent them from having an elaborate wedding ceremony. People are sometimes shocked when I tell them, I actually attended a gay wedding in 1986, in ALABAMA! Yep, backwoods, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, bible-belt, hick, Alabama! It was a beautiful ceremony on a hillside, performed by a Rastafarian minister, complete with bridesmaids, groomsmen, wedding cake and rice. The couple had a wedding album full of pictures from their honeymoon, and celebrated their 25th anniversary a few years ago.

The really interesting thing is, neither of them are supporters of "gay marriage" and you'd think they would be. They both favor my idea of civil unions, in fact, that's where my idea came from. They reason that "gay marriage" is never going to be fully accepted by all of society. It may be legalized, we may change the law, but a certain segment of society will always be trying to throw roadblocks up and create adversity. They had rather the issue be put to rest permanently, by taking marriage out of the hands of government. They spent years going through the courts to obtain legal property and beneficiary rights, and this could have all been avoided with simple civil union legislation. The simple solution is there, but this has become some sort of political football game that never ends.

I don't think the fact the government can say it's not legal for same sex couples to marry has escaped anyone's notice. They've been saying that for many years now.

Exactly, so why is everyone so adamant about government stepping in to tell us who can get married? If they can say that gay marriage is okay today, they can just as easily say it's not okay tomorrow. Again, the BETTER solution, is to remove them from this entirely, and let individuals determine what marriage means. It's not the government's business.

So, considering you seem to agree that changing the term for government unions to something other than marriage is not going to happen, what would you consider the best solution under those conditions?

I'm also very curious : how is it that changing the wording from marriage to civil unions would somehow make the issue no longer about sexual proclivities? How does the word marriage make this issue about sexual behavior? It sounds like you are using some definition I have not heard.

I don't agree that it will never happen, but people have to come around to this way of thinking, and that takes time. I think a case can be made for CU, which appeals to both the gay community as well as the religious community, and let's face it, these are the two primary forces in the battle.

As for your last question: Marriage, as currently recognized, has nothing to do with sexual proclivity. It is simply a union of a man and woman. Changing it to include homosexual couples, alters that distinction and introduces a sexual proclivity. The problem is, now you have to allow other sexual proclivities the same right to legitimize their behaviors through marriage. Instead of setting up what amounts to a slippery slope, we need to re-examine the options and come to a rational compromise, by adopting CUs. A Civil Union contract would not be based on sexual proclivity, it would be generic and available for any two consenting legal age adults, who may or may not have a wedding or become 'married'. They may even be relatives, an elderly mother and her daughter who cares for her, may want to have a CU for tax benefits, or whatever. It could be used for a variety of reasons other than marriage, but also for marriages of any kind. Most importantly, it resolves the issue for good, takes government out of the business of marriage or defining morality, and puts it back in the hands of the individual.

 

[MaryL]

Is there a question here? I despise this cat and mouse game. "GAY" rights is redundant. We ALL have the same rights. It's weird how we keep redefining rights in the last fifty years. GAYS have become a legitimate category that are being "discriminated against" since that popular of episode "Ellen" years ago. It seems like a mentally disturbed sexually dysfunctional clique can buy popularity and gain self esteem with the modern media if they really try hard enough. This makes a mockery of rights. Let
alone anything else connected to civil rights. "Gay rights"? I know what is MEANT, but I don't accept it.Gays aren't a category that are being "persecuted". They are more like spoilt children with a attitude, smart and manipulative narcissistic selfish children.

 

[Montrovant]

No, because same genders don't constitute a marriage. The word means a union between man and woman. The REASON for same genders to want to marry, is sexual lifestyle. You're removing the word from context of generic male/female union and turning it into a word which is inclusive of homosexual relationships. What if we wanted to alter the word "consent" to include females who wear provocative clothing? She's obviously "consenting" that she wants to have sex, so it's okay if we change what that word means to include this, right? Of course not, it's absurd. We don't go around changing the meaning of words to accommodate our sexual proclivities. It's wrong, but even more importantly, it's dangerous.

Once again, this is a semantics argument. If consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the same legal arrangement, the word used to describe it should be the same (to avoid separate but equal issues), whether that is marriage or civil unions.
Who does, though, get to change the meanings of words? It happens, who is a legitimate authority for changing word meanings?

Your consent argument is pointless, other than to attempt to link same sex marriage to pedophilia or similar acts. That the word consent can have its meaning change is true regardless of same sex marriage existing or not. The one does not lead to the other. Unless you wish to contend that words never have changed meaning until this issue?

My position is the same, I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. As long as no human rights are being violated, it shouldn't matter to the government either. Why not take this opportunity to remove government from recognizing marital status at all, and move to civil union contracts which can be entered into by any two consenting adults of legal age? Instead, we seem to be hell bent on having the government tell us what is a proper marriage and how we individually can define that word.

I agree, I just don't think most others do. People are too accustomed to using marriage.

Let me explain why the word is so important. Since the days of Martin Luther (not King), when Judeo-Christian marriage began, it has been a cornerstone and foundation of family, regarded sacred by the Church. This makes it not only a social union, but a religious one as well. Again, the government should have never been involved with religion, but here we are. The reasoned solution is not to have government besmirch religious sanctity of marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals. The better alternative is to remove government from having any damn thing to do with marriage or how it is defined by the individual, as it always should have been.

Did marriage not exist before Martin Luther? Was Christianity the first religion to have marriage? How does government sanctioned, secular marriage 'besmirch' the sanctity of religion marriages?

But it IS about sexual relationships, that's why you want to change the definition. Not allowing gay marriage, doesn't prevent homosexuals from engaging in homosexual activities, it doesn't prevent them from living as if they were a married couple, it doesn't even prevent them from having an elaborate wedding ceremony. People are sometimes shocked when I tell them, I actually attended a gay wedding in 1986, in ALABAMA! Yep, backwoods, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, bible-belt, hick, Alabama! It was a beautiful ceremony on a hillside, performed by a Rastafarian minister, complete with bridesmaids, groomsmen, wedding cake and rice. The couple had a wedding album full of pictures from their honeymoon, and celebrated their 25th anniversary a few years ago.

The really interesting thing is, neither of them are supporters of "gay marriage" and you'd think they would be. They both favor my idea of civil unions, in fact, that's where my idea came from. They reason that "gay marriage" is never going to be fully accepted by all of society. It may be legalized, we may change the law, but a certain segment of society will always be trying to throw roadblocks up and create adversity. They had rather the issue be put to rest permanently, by taking marriage out of the hands of government. They spent years going through the courts to obtain legal property and beneficiary rights, and this could have all been avoided with simple civil union legislation. The simple solution is there, but this has become some sort of political football game that never ends.

Again, you are arguing things I tend to agree with. I'd prefer that government used a term other than marriage. It is not, in the short term at least, a reasonable expectation, however.

Exactly, so why is everyone so adamant about government stepping in to tell us who can get married? If they can say that gay marriage is okay today, they can just as easily say it's not okay tomorrow. Again, the BETTER solution, is to remove them from this entirely, and let individuals determine what marriage means. It's not the government's business.

Better solution is not a realistic solution all the time. This issue is a perfect example of that.

I don't agree that it will never happen, but people have to come around to this way of thinking, and that takes time. I think a case can be made for CU, which appeals to both the gay community as well as the religious community, and let's face it, these are the two primary forces in the battle.

The problem with civil unions, if they are for same sex couples but marriage remains for opposite sex couples, is the appearance of the law advocating 'separate but equal' status.

As for your last question: Marriage, as currently recognized, has nothing to do with sexual proclivity. It is simply a union of a man and woman. Changing it to include homosexual couples, alters that distinction and introduces a sexual proclivity. The problem is, now you have to allow other sexual proclivities the same right to legitimize their behaviors through marriage. Instead of setting up what amounts to a slippery slope, we need to re-examine the options and come to a rational compromise, by adopting CUs. A Civil Union contract would not be based on sexual proclivity, it would be generic and available for any two consenting legal age adults, who may or may not have a wedding or become 'married'. They may even be relatives, an elderly mother and her daughter who cares for her, may want to have a CU for tax benefits, or whatever. It could be used for a variety of reasons other than marriage, but also for marriages of any kind. Most importantly, it resolves the issue for good, takes government out of the business of marriage or defining morality, and puts it back in the hands of the individual.

HOW does changing marriage from only opposite sex couples to including same sex couples change it to being about sexual proclivity? It is changing the gender of the participants, but not specifically saying anything about their sexual activities. This seems to be something you cannot see; same sex unions can come about for the same basic reasons as opposite sex unions. Admittedly, procreation between participants is out, but there are certainly plenty of opposite sex couples that do not have and do not plan to have children together.

YOU are the one adding sexual proclivities to the equation. As it stands with opposite sex couples, they can have any kind of sexual proclivities and it is immaterial to their getting married. Why is that different with same sex couples? Can they not also have any kind of sexual proclivities and (where it is legal) still get married? That would seem to indicate that sexual proclivities are not a major factor in same sex marriage, if they are a factor at all. You are claiming that simply using a different term for the exact same thing somehow actually changes that thing. Calling it a civil union would mean it is not about sexual proclivities. Calling it a marriage means it is. That makes absolutely no sense.

Also, you talk about allowing people with various sexual proclivities to get married. They already can. Nothing stops them, as sexual proclivities are not important to marriage. What you seem to be hinging this argument on is the same tired refrain that same sex marriage will lead to changes in age of consent or even what consent means, but you provide no real reason for this to be the case. Will people change their views on consent because of same sex marriage? Who is going to say, "Same sex couples can get married. Therefor, I think the age of consent should drop to 14."?

That you don't want the definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman to change, I understand. I don't feel the same attachment to the word, but I get it. That you extrapolate from that changes in laws governing consent appears as nothing but alarmist hyperbole. It sounds like crying wolf rather than a true, reasoned fear.

 

[Montrovant]

Is there a question here? I despise this cat and mouse game. "GAY" rights is redundant. We ALL have the same rights. It's weird how we keep redefining rights in the last fifty years. GAYS have become a legitimate category that are being "discriminated against" since that popular of episode "Ellen" years ago. It seems like a mentally disturbed sexually dysfunctional clique can buy popularity and gain self esteem with the modern media if they really try hard enough. This makes a mockery of rights. Let
alone anything else connected to civil rights. "Gay rights"? I know what is MEANT, but I don't accept it.Gays aren't a category that are being "persecuted". They are more like spoilt children with a attitude, smart and manipulative narcissistic selfish children.

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly.

Are you claiming homosexuals are not discriminated against or persecuted?

 

[Boss]

No, because same genders don't constitute a marriage. The word means a union between man and woman. The REASON for same genders to want to marry, is sexual lifestyle. You're removing the word from context of generic male/female union and turning it into a word which is inclusive of homosexual relationships. What if we wanted to alter the word "consent" to include females who wear provocative clothing? She's obviously "consenting" that she wants to have sex, so it's okay if we change what that word means to include this, right? Of course not, it's absurd. We don't go around changing the meaning of words to accommodate our sexual proclivities. It's wrong, but even more importantly, it's dangerous.

Once again, this is a semantics argument. If consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the same legal arrangement, the word used to describe it should be the same (to avoid separate but equal issues), whether that is marriage or civil unions.
Who does, though, get to change the meanings of words? It happens, who is a legitimate authority for changing word meanings?

Your consent argument is pointless, other than to attempt to link same sex marriage to pedophilia or similar acts. That the word consent can have its meaning change is true regardless of same sex marriage existing or not. The one does not lead to the other. Unless you wish to contend that words never have changed meaning until this issue?

Word meanings don't change with regard to Constitutions and law, unless the SCOTUS does that through some kind of ruling. It's not a semantics argument, except the semantics trick that is being played with the word "Marriage" to define a same-sex partnership. We've somehow adopted "gay marriage" as something that can and does exist, and not an oxymoron. Marriage does not involve same-sex partners, that's not what constitutes marriage. It's like claiming doggy-style sex is platonic, or multiple partners is monogamous. The words have specific meanings, they can't just mean whatever our sexual desire wants them to mean.

My consent argument is very much valid, it's an example of how absurd it would be to change the definition of something to accommodate a sexual desire or proclivity. If we can willy-nilly change what "marriage" means, we can certainly do that for "consent" which can be much more ambiguous in meaning. My point is not to say we WOULD do this, but why the fuck not, if we can change what words mean?

My position is the same, I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. As long as no human rights are being violated, it shouldn't matter to the government either. Why not take this opportunity to remove government from recognizing marital status at all, and move to civil union contracts which can be entered into by any two consenting adults of legal age? Instead, we seem to be hell bent on having the government tell us what is a proper marriage and how we individually can define that word.

I agree, I just don't think most others do. People are too accustomed to using marriage.

Well people would have to stop using the word or getting married. I am only talking about the governmental perspective, and how government would acknowledge ANY domestic partnership under the law. Who gives a shit what is on a government document? Changing "marriage" is the stickler here, so why not just eliminate the word, and replace marital contracts with CU contracts? Churches could still marry folks, they could even marry gay folks if they wanted. But as far as the government was concerned, there would only be the CU, no sanctioning of marriage by any definition. Leave that to the individual.

Did marriage not exist before Martin Luther? Was Christianity the first religion to have marriage? How does government sanctioned, secular marriage 'besmirch' the sanctity of religion marriages?

I think Martin Luther is pretty much where our traditional marriage comes from. It's what has always been understood as "marriage" in America, whether that is right or wrong, or historically whatever. I would say, the government intervening to sanction homosexual "marriage" is an affront to the religious sanctity of marriage the institution, as recognized by the Church. This is why there is such great resistance to the idea, and will continue to always be. The religious people feel like you're taking a great big steamy dump on religion and religious customs and traditions. Again, my CU idea removes this issue for them, they can retain the sanctity of marriage, they can choose to not recognize homosexual marriage, but yet... homosexual couples can use the CU to obtain whatever 'benefits' they desire. Everybody gets something they want.

Again, you are arguing things I tend to agree with. I'd prefer that government used a term other than marriage. It is not, in the short term at least, a reasonable expectation, however.

Better solution is not a realistic solution all the time. This issue is a perfect example of that.

Why? Because we're too hell bent to turn this into a Civil Rights issue and drive the bitch home? Because we don't know how to tell Liberal idiots to shut the fuck up and move on? Because we're too timid and cowardly to stand up and do the right thing? Why is it not reasonable to expect reasonable people to adopt a reasonable approach to reasonably resolve a problem? Any ideas?

I don't agree that it will never happen, but people have to come around to this way of thinking, and that takes time. I think a case can be made for CU, which appeals to both the gay community as well as the religious community, and let's face it, these are the two primary forces in the battle.

The problem with civil unions, if they are for same sex couples but marriage remains for opposite sex couples, is the appearance of the law advocating 'separate but equal' status.

Woah, hold on... Where did I say we would KEEP marriage for straight couples? My proposal does away with "marriage" from the lexicon, it's no longer recognized in any way by our government. In place of that, is a generic contract, signed between willing parties. A "marriage license" effectively becomes a CU contract. I would be opposed to any "separate but equal" plan, allowing traditional marriage licenses to remain as they are, and adding CUs as an alternative. Just so that is perfectly clear.

HOW does changing marriage from only opposite sex couples to including same sex couples change it to being about sexual proclivity?

Because of the reason for changing it.

It is changing the gender of the participants, but not specifically saying anything about their sexual activities. This seems to be something you cannot see; same sex unions can come about for the same basic reasons as opposite sex unions. Admittedly, procreation between participants is out, but there are certainly plenty of opposite sex couples that do not have and do not plan to have children together.

But again, you are trying to justify your actions by coming up with excuses for them. There isn't a need to redefine marriage. The need is to get homosexual couples the same benefits as traditional married couples. This can be done without changing what marriage means, or redefining how government acknowledges marriage.

YOU are the one adding sexual proclivities to the equation. As it stands with opposite sex couples, they can have any kind of sexual proclivities and it is immaterial to their getting married. Why is that different with same sex couples?

How is it different? Homosexual couples applying for traditional marriage licenses, aren't asked about their sexual proclivities. All that matters is that they are opposite gender, because that is what "marriages" are. Same-sex relationships are not "marriages," you are attempting to turn them into that. The reason, is sexual proclivity of homosexuals.

Can they not also have any kind of sexual proclivities and (where it is legal) still get married? That would seem to indicate that sexual proclivities are not a major factor in same sex marriage, if they are a factor at all. You are claiming that simply using a different term for the exact same thing somehow actually changes that thing. Calling it a civil union would mean it is not about sexual proclivities. Calling it a marriage means it is. That makes absolutely no sense.

Again, you are wanting a legal redefinition of marriage made by government, to recognize homosexual same-sex unions as "marriage" and people are vehemently opposed to that. Civil Unions would take that all off the table and render it benign forever. A CU contract could be used by gay couples, straight couples, transgender couples, midgets, family members, or any other two consenting adults who wanted such an arrangement. Meanwhile, "marriage" is off the table, and the religious people will be content to have "saved the sanctity" of traditional marriage, while gays enjoy benefits of the 'married' in society. Why does that idea not make sense?

Also, you talk about allowing people with various sexual proclivities to get married. They already can. Nothing stops them, as sexual proclivities are not important to marriage. What you seem to be hinging this argument on is the same tired refrain that same sex marriage will lead to changes in age of consent or even what consent means, but you provide no real reason for this to be the case. Will people change their views on consent because of same sex marriage? Who is going to say, "Same sex couples can get married. Therefor, I think the age of consent should drop to 14."?

You are missing my point entirely here. It is the reason you are seeking a change, that is the problem. Whenever we redefine marriage to give an advantage to one group, we must do the same for other similar groups who want it, that's the law, that's what the Constitution says we must do. In this case, we are changing it to accommodate homosexuals. That is a sexual behavior and lifestyle. You're fine with that, but how are you going to feel when SCOTUS rules that you must also do this for the goat fuckers? You'll say, wait a minute, that's too far over the line... and someone will say, hey... the Constitution says... equal protection, baby! It's FAR TOO LATE after you have set the standard into law.

That you don't want the definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman to change, I understand. I don't feel the same attachment to the word, but I get it. That you extrapolate from that changes in laws governing consent appears as nothing but alarmist hyperbole. It sounds like crying wolf rather than a true, reasoned fear.

Again, my point is not that I fear this will happen, but that the rationale would be similar to what you are asking for now. You want to change and redefine "marriage" to legitimize a sexual behavior.

 

[Montrovant]

Just a quick reply Boss, to try and clear things up a bit.

I think the reason changing the wording from 'marriage' to 'civil union' won't fly at the moment is mostly force of habit. People are used to the word marriage being the government sanctioned arrangement. Many will be resentful of having to change, even though they can still be married in a non-government way if they wish. Given enough time to try and integrate the idea into our social consciousness, I think it can change, but that would be years down the road. I'm all for it, but I think the reasons many people would be opposed to such a change are not at all political.

I don't know what could make such a change go smoother or quicker.

You continue to equate same sex marriage to sexual proclivities. This is, in my mind, a false argument. Same sex marriage is about gender. It's an important distinction. A person's sexual proclivities is unimportant. As with the argument that homosexuals can marry opposite gender people under traditional marriage, heterosexuals can marry same gender people under same sex marriage. What kind of sex, if any, that any of the participants have is unimportant.

Because sexual proclivities are not a factor, there is no valid argument that other sexual proclivities must be granted marriage status. No worry that goat fuckers are going to get the ability to marry their goats. No need to try and twist logic to assume that there is some constitutional mandate to allow marriage with something that cannot consent. Goats are not a gender of humanity, same sex marriage is merely changing the gender rules of marriage, so no equal protection issue. It is a silly argument to begin with, but not to worry, it's an invalid one.

 

[Boss]

Just a quick reply Boss, to try and clear things up a bit.

I think the reason changing the wording from 'marriage' to 'civil union' won't fly at the moment is mostly force of habit. People are used to the word marriage being the government sanctioned arrangement. Many will be resentful of having to change, even though they can still be married in a non-government way if they wish. Given enough time to try and integrate the idea into our social consciousness, I think it can change, but that would be years down the road. I'm all for it, but I think the reasons many people would be opposed to such a change are not at all political.

I don't know what could make such a change go smoother or quicker.

I don't understand what people would have to "get used to" here. What am I asking anyone to have to change? Life would go on as normal, most people wouldn't even notice a change. Basically, all that is changing is a word on government document. We change postage stamps all the time, people seem to adjust without any problem.

You continue to equate same sex marriage to sexual proclivities. This is, in my mind, a false argument. Same sex marriage is about gender. It's an important distinction. A person's sexual proclivities is unimportant. As with the argument that homosexuals can marry opposite gender people under traditional marriage, heterosexuals can marry same gender people under same sex marriage. What kind of sex, if any, that any of the participants have is unimportant.

And you continue to miss the point that it's the REASON you are making the change, which is the problem. There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" because that isn't marriage. It's a homosexual union. Now, we could have marriages and homosexual unions, but that would be "separate but equal" and we don't want that... so Civil Unions covers all.

Because sexual proclivities are not a factor, there is no valid argument that other sexual proclivities must be granted marriage status. No worry that goat fuckers are going to get the ability to marry their goats. No need to try and twist logic to assume that there is some constitutional mandate to allow marriage with something that cannot consent. Goats are not a gender of humanity, same sex marriage is merely changing the gender rules of marriage, so no equal protection issue. It is a silly argument to begin with, but not to worry, it's an invalid one.

Yes, they ARE a factor, it's why you want to redefine marriage. If you can redefine it to include homosexual unions, then it can be redefined to accommodate other sexual proclivities, and other words we don't like the meaning of, can be changed too, you've established the standard. You can say "goats are not humans" or "this is not that" all day long... marriage is not homosexual unions, either. If we can redefine words to accommodate sexual proclivities, that's the standard, you've set it.

 

[Montrovant]

Just a quick reply Boss, to try and clear things up a bit.

I think the reason changing the wording from 'marriage' to 'civil union' won't fly at the moment is mostly force of habit. People are used to the word marriage being the government sanctioned arrangement. Many will be resentful of having to change, even though they can still be married in a non-government way if they wish. Given enough time to try and integrate the idea into our social consciousness, I think it can change, but that would be years down the road. I'm all for it, but I think the reasons many people would be opposed to such a change are not at all political.

I don't know what could make such a change go smoother or quicker.

I don't understand what people would have to "get used to" here. What am I asking anyone to have to change? Life would go on as normal, most people wouldn't even notice a change. Basically, all that is changing is a word on government document. We change postage stamps all the time, people seem to adjust without any problem.

You continue to equate same sex marriage to sexual proclivities. This is, in my mind, a false argument. Same sex marriage is about gender. It's an important distinction. A person's sexual proclivities is unimportant. As with the argument that homosexuals can marry opposite gender people under traditional marriage, heterosexuals can marry same gender people under same sex marriage. What kind of sex, if any, that any of the participants have is unimportant.

And you continue to miss the point that it's the REASON you are making the change, which is the problem. There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" because that isn't marriage. It's a homosexual union. Now, we could have marriages and homosexual unions, but that would be "separate but equal" and we don't want that... so Civil Unions covers all.

Because sexual proclivities are not a factor, there is no valid argument that other sexual proclivities must be granted marriage status. No worry that goat fuckers are going to get the ability to marry their goats. No need to try and twist logic to assume that there is some constitutional mandate to allow marriage with something that cannot consent. Goats are not a gender of humanity, same sex marriage is merely changing the gender rules of marriage, so no equal protection issue. It is a silly argument to begin with, but not to worry, it's an invalid one.

Yes, they ARE a factor, it's why you want to redefine marriage. If you can redefine it to include homosexual unions, then it can be redefined to accommodate other sexual proclivities, and other words we don't like the meaning of, can be changed too, you've established the standard. You can say "goats are not humans" or "this is not that" all day long... marriage is not homosexual unions, either. If we can redefine words to accommodate sexual proclivities, that's the standard, you've set it.

We are redefining the word to accommodate genders, not sexual proclivities. That is the standard.

Again, homosexuals can get married without ever having sex. Therefor, there sexual proclivities are not the reason they can marry.

The definition of marriage has been changed in the past, including in this country. At one point, marriage meant a heterosexual union between people of the same race. That was changed. So, the precedent of changing the meaning of words, including marriage, has been set before now.

You are too hung up on sexual activities here. They are not a requirement for marriage.

 

[Boss]

We are redefining the word to accommodate genders, not sexual proclivities. That is the standard.

No, you are redefining it to accommodate homosexuals. There are already words for same gender relationships... friends, buddies, pals... you want 'marriage' redefined to include homosexual partnerships.

Again, homosexuals can get married without ever having sex. Therefor, there sexual proclivities are not the reason they can marry.

It doesn't matter what they CAN do, it matters why you are changing the definition of marriage.

The definition of marriage has been changed in the past, including in this country. At one point, marriage meant a heterosexual union between people of the same race.

No, it didn't, marriage has never been defined by sexuality. Interracial marriages were prohibited, but that was a discrimination based on race, which is unconstitutional.

 

[Boss]

And let's get something else straight here... there is no "national" definition of marriage, or parameters for it, there never has been. It's a state issue. The criteria varies from state to state. We shouldn't even be having this discussion on a "federal" level, it's none of the federal government's business, and never has been. My suggestion was for the Federal government to set the example by removing 'marriage' from the lexicon, which means, for purposes of federal government recognition, there would be no more 'married' people, just people who have CUs. We don't even HAVE to do CUs, we could just say that federal gov't no longer affords benefits to couples over single people. No more "federal" benefit from being "married" whether straight or gay. Let states define it any way they vote to do so.

 

[Montrovant]

We are redefining the word to accommodate genders, not sexual proclivities. That is the standard.

No, you are redefining it to accommodate homosexuals. There are already words for same gender relationships... friends, buddies, pals... you want 'marriage' redefined to include homosexual partnerships.

Again, homosexuals can get married without ever having sex. Therefor, there sexual proclivities are not the reason they can marry.

It doesn't matter what they CAN do, it matters why you are changing the definition of marriage.

The definition of marriage has been changed in the past, including in this country. At one point, marriage meant a heterosexual union between people of the same race.

No, it didn't, marriage has never been defined by sexuality. Interracial marriages were prohibited, but that was a discrimination based on race, which is unconstitutional.

Friends, buddies, pals? Really? Those are the words you would use for a romantic same sex relationship? I find that comment interesting.

The definition of marriage is being changed to accommodate same sex couples.

Marriage has been defined by sexuality as much as it is with same sex couples. It has been limited to opposite genders. Now it will include same genders. If including same gender couples is about sexual proclivity, why is including opposite gender couples not?

 

[Montrovant]

And let's get something else straight here... there is no "national" definition of marriage, or parameters for it, there never has been. It's a state issue. The criteria varies from state to state. We shouldn't even be having this discussion on a "federal" level, it's none of the federal government's business, and never has been. My suggestion was for the Federal government to set the example by removing 'marriage' from the lexicon, which means, for purposes of federal government recognition, there would be no more 'married' people, just people who have CUs. We don't even HAVE to do CUs, we could just say that federal gov't no longer affords benefits to couples over single people. No more "federal" benefit from being "married" whether straight or gay. Let states define it any way they vote to do so.

There are, in fact, national or federal definitions of marriage. Whether they should be done away with or should never have been put in place does not negate their existence. There are and have been federal laws dealing with and defining marriage, probably since the inception of the country. There are federal benefits, until just recently we had DOMA, etc.

I agree it would be better for the federal government to be out of the marriage business...but the reality is that they are in it.

 

[Boss]

We are redefining the word to accommodate genders, not sexual proclivities. That is the standard.

No, you are redefining it to accommodate homosexuals. There are already words for same gender relationships... friends, buddies, pals... you want 'marriage' redefined to include homosexual partnerships.



It doesn't matter what they CAN do, it matters why you are changing the definition of marriage.

The definition of marriage has been changed in the past, including in this country. At one point, marriage meant a heterosexual union between people of the same race.

No, it didn't, marriage has never been defined by sexuality. Interracial marriages were prohibited, but that was a discrimination based on race, which is unconstitutional.

Friends, buddies, pals? Really? Those are the words you would use for a romantic same sex relationship? I find that comment interesting.

No, I would call that a "homosexual relationship" but you said it wasn't about sex.

The definition of marriage is being changed to accommodate same sex couples.

No, same sex couples can be buddies, pals, friends, remember? We have words for that. They can also be homosexual partners, if the relationship is intimate. You want marriage redefined to accommodate homosexual partners.

Marriage has been defined by sexuality as much as it is with same sex couples. It has been limited to opposite genders. Now it will include same genders. If including same gender couples is about sexual proclivity, why is including opposite gender couples not?

No, it simply is not defined by sexuality in any state in the Union, as far as I'm aware. It's not "limited" to opposite genders, that's what "marriage" means. You want it to include homosexual partners having homosexual relationships. Opposite gender couples are not being "included" in anything, that is what "marriage" is defined as, the union of opposite gender partners.

What we continue to see in this debate, is the insistence that homosexual partnerships are already a marriage, like that has been established as a fact of the matter, and they are being denied the right. Homosexual partnerships are NOT marriage, they've never been defined as "marriage" until just recently. THAT is the debate, whether or not to allow homosexual relationships to be marriage. You argue as if that is already the case, and we're arguing if it should be legal. I reject that homosexual relationships are marriage, or ever will be marriage. But regardless, I don't want the government determining for me, what I am to accept as "marriage" because it's none of their goddamn business.

 

[Montrovant]

No, you are redefining it to accommodate homosexuals. There are already words for same gender relationships... friends, buddies, pals... you want 'marriage' redefined to include homosexual partnerships.



It doesn't matter what they CAN do, it matters why you are changing the definition of marriage.



No, it didn't, marriage has never been defined by sexuality. Interracial marriages were prohibited, but that was a discrimination based on race, which is unconstitutional.

Friends, buddies, pals? Really? Those are the words you would use for a romantic same sex relationship? I find that comment interesting.

No, I would call that a "homosexual relationship" but you said it wasn't about sex.

The definition of marriage is being changed to accommodate same sex couples.

No, same sex couples can be buddies, pals, friends, remember? We have words for that. They can also be homosexual partners, if the relationship is intimate. You want marriage redefined to accommodate homosexual partners.

Marriage has been defined by sexuality as much as it is with same sex couples. It has been limited to opposite genders. Now it will include same genders. If including same gender couples is about sexual proclivity, why is including opposite gender couples not?

No, it simply is not defined by sexuality in any state in the Union, as far as I'm aware. It's not "limited" to opposite genders, that's what "marriage" means. You want it to include homosexual partners having homosexual relationships. Opposite gender couples are not being "included" in anything, that is what "marriage" is defined as, the union of opposite gender partners.

What we continue to see in this debate, is the insistence that homosexual partnerships are already a marriage, like that has been established as a fact of the matter, and they are being denied the right. Homosexual partnerships are NOT marriage, they've never been defined as "marriage" until just recently. THAT is the debate, whether or not to allow homosexual relationships to be marriage. You argue as if that is already the case, and we're arguing if it should be legal. I reject that homosexual relationships are marriage, or ever will be marriage. But regardless, I don't want the government determining for me, what I am to accept as "marriage" because it's none of their goddamn business.

In legal terms, in several states, homosexual unions are marriage. So, yes, I will say that it is already the case, because it is. In many other states, legally, homosexual unions are not marriage. The debate is whether they should also include homosexual unions in marriage, or if the states that have done so are wrong.

As I have said, while I would prefer to avoid the argument of many and not use the term marriage for any legal union, that cat is long since out of the bag. I believe it will take quite a few years to change public opinion to the point that enough are willing to use a different term, and that assumes a push to do so.

Because I do not believe using a word or phrase other than marriage is a viable option at the moment, and because granting homosexual relationships a different name for the same legal arrangement smacks too much of separate but equal, I think that same sex marriage is the best of some bad options.

I believe that homosexual relationships are as deserving of legal sanction, responsibilities and privileges as heterosexual ones. If we have to have legal marriage (and I think that, realistically, we do for now) I am firmly in favor of granting that to same sex as well as opposite sex couples. I'm all for pushing to change the nomenclature used, but waiting until people are accepting of using civil unions or some other term is a worse option, in my opinion, than changing the legal definition of marriage now.

Oh, and if heterosexual marriage is not about sex, why call it marriage? Why not call heterosexual couples buddies, or pals, or friends? If it IS about sex, why this insistence that same sex marriage is bringing sexual proclivities into marriage? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Boss]

In legal terms, in several states, homosexual unions are marriage. So, yes, I will say that it is already the case, because it is. In many other states, legally, homosexual unions are not marriage. The debate is whether they should also include homosexual unions in marriage, or if the states that have done so are wrong.

The states that have done so are wrong, the definition of marriage does not include same-sex relationships. Yes, I realize "gay marriage" is becoming legal in places, that's the reason for the thread. I don't think "gay marriage" should even exist, and it certainly shouldn't be how government defines or sanctions "marriage."

As I have said, while I would prefer to avoid the argument of many and not use the term marriage for any legal union, that cat is long since out of the bag. I believe it will take quite a few years to change public opinion to the point that enough are willing to use a different term, and that assumes a push to do so.

Who said the public has to use a different term? Again, I favor the government removing itself from arbiter of what marriage can or can't be defined as, and allowing individual people to define it as they please. You're basically saying, we are too accustomed to the government deciding for us, so we may as well let them keep deciding.

Because I do not believe using a word or phrase other than marriage is a viable option at the moment, and because granting homosexual relationships a different name for the same legal arrangement smacks too much of separate but equal, I think that same sex marriage is the best of some bad options.

I honestly don't understand why the federal government's definition of marriage is even an issue, or why we're debating it. I've already told you, I don't favor a separate arrangement for homosexuals to compliment marriage. I would be strongly opposed to such a thing. Why do you keep returning to this, as if it's an argument I have made? Same sex marriage isn't an option for me, I don't believe that is marriage. It's a domestic partnership, a civil union, and I am fine with allowing those terms to define it. But I still don't understand why the government even has to define it at all. Why can't we define it ourselves, and take the government out of the mix?

I believe that homosexual relationships are as deserving of legal sanction, responsibilities and privileges as heterosexual ones. If we have to have legal marriage (and I think that, realistically, we do for now) I am firmly in favor of granting that to same sex as well as opposite sex couples. I'm all for pushing to change the nomenclature used, but waiting until people are accepting of using civil unions or some other term is a worse option, in my opinion, than changing the legal definition of marriage now.

Well I'm not okay with government endorsing marriage based on sexuality. Sorry. I disagree with you, strongly. I've made my case for why, and I believe my complaint is legitimate. I have offered a reasonable compromise, which would grant every party exactly what they claim they want, and remove government from the role of sanctioning ANY kind of marriage. I don't think my position is inconsiderate of homosexual couples, or disrespectful of religious sanctity of marriage. I think my proposal allows more liberty and freedom than any other proposal, because it lets THE PEOPLE determine what "marriage" means for themselves, and removes it from government.

Oh, and if heterosexual marriage is not about sex, why call it marriage? Why not call heterosexual couples buddies, or pals, or friends? If it IS about sex, why this insistence that same sex marriage is bringing sexual proclivities into marriage? You can't have it both ways.

Because of religious custom.

Look, "marriage" means the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony. It is done for the purpose of procreation and family. Homosexuals can't procreate with same-sex partnerships, so that simply can't be "marriage" in any sense of the word. You are never going to convince me that a homosexual relationship is "marriage" because I reject the concept. Furthermore, I don't approve of my tax dollars going to a government which sanctions sexual behavior through marriage. I would favor much more, a government that removes itself from recognizing ANY form of domestic partnership, and left that up to individuals or at the very least, the states, to decide this for themselves. But if we can't have such a compromise, if you are hell bent on a protracted war, then that's what we'll have! The religious folk have a lot of money and time to crusade, the politicians all seem to love using this as a political football, and hey.... gay couples can wait a few more decades to have those benefits, who really cares?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And let's get something else straight here... there is no "national" definition of marriage, or parameters for it, there never has been. It's a state issue. The criteria varies from state to state. We shouldn't even be having this discussion on a "federal" level, it's none of the federal government's business, and never has been. My suggestion was for the Federal government to set the example by removing 'marriage' from the lexicon, which means, for purposes of federal government recognition, there would be no more 'married' people, just people who have CUs. We don't even HAVE to do CUs, we could just say that federal gov't no longer affords benefits to couples over single people. No more "federal" benefit from being "married" whether straight or gay. Let states define it any way they vote to do so.

Fine.

But the 14th Amendment will continue to compel each of the 50 states to allow same-sex couples access those laws that govern marriage or civil unions or whatever name a state wants to give the institution.

 

[Boss]

And let's get something else straight here... there is no "national" definition of marriage, or parameters for it, there never has been. It's a state issue. The criteria varies from state to state. We shouldn't even be having this discussion on a "federal" level, it's none of the federal government's business, and never has been. My suggestion was for the Federal government to set the example by removing 'marriage' from the lexicon, which means, for purposes of federal government recognition, there would be no more 'married' people, just people who have CUs. We don't even HAVE to do CUs, we could just say that federal gov't no longer affords benefits to couples over single people. No more "federal" benefit from being "married" whether straight or gay. Let states define it any way they vote to do so.

Fine.

But the 14th Amendment will continue to compel each of the 50 states to allow same-sex couples access those laws that govern marriage or civil unions or whatever name a state wants to give the institution.

I disagree. It's not an "equal protection" argument. The institution of marriage is the union of a man and woman, and same-sex couples don't fit the criteria. They are certainly free to marry someone of the opposite sex, that is not being prohibited to homosexuals. If it were, you'd have a 14th Amendment argument.

Now, you can use the 14th to argue the government doesn't have the power to grant certain beneficial things to some domestic partnerships and not others. I agree, which is why I suggest we remove government from sanctioning or acknowledging ANY kind of domestic arrangement. I've still not heard a reasonable explanation for why government should be telling us what is or isn't marriage.

Again... this is all a reasonably easy thing to fix. We could put this entire issue to rest in short order, and give all parties exactly what they claim to want. It's not politically divisive, it's perfectly logical and respectful of everyone, and allows the most ultimate freedom and liberty for all. Why can't we do this? Why does this continue to be an issue? Are we, as a society, honestly to the point that we can't possibly ever agree anymore? No matter even IF WE AGREE? Is that where we are? Because things are going to get shitty soon, if there's no way for anyone to reach reasonable solutions together, don't ya think?

 

[Montrovant]

The states that have done so are wrong, the definition of marriage does not include same-sex relationships. Yes, I realize "gay marriage" is becoming legal in places, that's the reason for the thread. I don't think "gay marriage" should even exist, and it certainly shouldn't be how government defines or sanctions "marriage."


Who said the public has to use a different term? Again, I favor the government removing itself from arbiter of what marriage can or can't be defined as, and allowing individual people to define it as they please. You're basically saying, we are too accustomed to the government deciding for us, so we may as well let them keep deciding.

That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that I don't believe there are enough people willing to forgo legal, governmental marriage for that option to be feasible at this time. While there are multiple reasons for that, I think the main one is that people are used to the institution and don't see a good reason to get rid of it. It may seem reasonable to you and me, but that doesn't make it so for the majority of the population.

I honestly don't understand why the federal government's definition of marriage is even an issue, or why we're debating it. I've already told you, I don't favor a separate arrangement for homosexuals to compliment marriage. I would be strongly opposed to such a thing. Why do you keep returning to this, as if it's an argument I have made? Same sex marriage isn't an option for me, I don't believe that is marriage. It's a domestic partnership, a civil union, and I am fine with allowing those terms to define it. But I still don't understand why the government even has to define it at all. Why can't we define it ourselves, and take the government out of the mix?

I'm trying to find out what your opinion is on what I consider the realistic possibilities, not what you want to see happen but very likely can't at this time. I want to know what you think is the best solution in an environment where the government WILL continue to regulate and sanction marriage. I want to know what you think is a viable solution to providing the same privileges that opposite sex couples enjoy when same sex couples wish to have them.

Well I'm not okay with government endorsing marriage based on sexuality. Sorry. I disagree with you, strongly. I've made my case for why, and I believe my complaint is legitimate. I have offered a reasonable compromise, which would grant every party exactly what they claim they want, and remove government from the role of sanctioning ANY kind of marriage. I don't think my position is inconsiderate of homosexual couples, or disrespectful of religious sanctity of marriage. I think my proposal allows more liberty and freedom than any other proposal, because it lets THE PEOPLE determine what "marriage" means for themselves, and removes it from government.


Because of religious custom.

Look, "marriage" means the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony. It is done for the purpose of procreation and family. Homosexuals can't procreate with same-sex partnerships, so that simply can't be "marriage" in any sense of the word. You are never going to convince me that a homosexual relationship is "marriage" because I reject the concept. Furthermore, I don't approve of my tax dollars going to a government which sanctions sexual behavior through marriage. I would favor much more, a government that removes itself from recognizing ANY form of domestic partnership, and left that up to individuals or at the very least, the states, to decide this for themselves. But if we can't have such a compromise, if you are hell bent on a protracted war, then that's what we'll have! The religious folk have a lot of money and time to crusade, the politicians all seem to love using this as a political football, and hey.... gay couples can wait a few more decades to have those benefits, who really cares?

What marriage means religiously should have no impact on what it means in our secular government. Marriage, in the legal sense, is not about religious custom or holy matrimony. Procreation and family are not necessary components of legal marriage. Do you have any problems with opposite sex couples who cannot or will not procreate getting married? Do you have any problems with atheists getting married? If the answer to these questions is no, then your argument that religious tradition is the reason to prevent same sex marriage falls flat.

I am not hell bent on anything, you are reading into this what you want. Who said anything about protracted war or crusades? I've already told you that I agree with you that it would be better for government to get out of the marriage/civil union business (although I do wonder how it would affect some things). I've explained, at least to some extent, why I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. I don't think most people agree that government should drop involvement. I'm not sure where that last paragraph came from.

 

[Montrovant]

And let's get something else straight here... there is no "national" definition of marriage, or parameters for it, there never has been. It's a state issue. The criteria varies from state to state. We shouldn't even be having this discussion on a "federal" level, it's none of the federal government's business, and never has been. My suggestion was for the Federal government to set the example by removing 'marriage' from the lexicon, which means, for purposes of federal government recognition, there would be no more 'married' people, just people who have CUs. We don't even HAVE to do CUs, we could just say that federal gov't no longer affords benefits to couples over single people. No more "federal" benefit from being "married" whether straight or gay. Let states define it any way they vote to do so.

Fine.

But the 14th Amendment will continue to compel each of the 50 states to allow same-sex couples access those laws that govern marriage or civil unions or whatever name a state wants to give the institution.

I disagree. It's not an "equal protection" argument. The institution of marriage is the union of a man and woman, and same-sex couples don't fit the criteria. They are certainly free to marry someone of the opposite sex, that is not being prohibited to homosexuals. If it were, you'd have a 14th Amendment argument.

Now, you can use the 14th to argue the government doesn't have the power to grant certain beneficial things to some domestic partnerships and not others. I agree, which is why I suggest we remove government from sanctioning or acknowledging ANY kind of domestic arrangement. I've still not heard a reasonable explanation for why government should be telling us what is or isn't marriage.

Again... this is all a reasonably easy thing to fix. We could put this entire issue to rest in short order, and give all parties exactly what they claim to want. It's not politically divisive, it's perfectly logical and respectful of everyone, and allows the most ultimate freedom and liberty for all. Why can't we do this? Why does this continue to be an issue? Are we, as a society, honestly to the point that we can't possibly ever agree anymore? No matter even IF WE AGREE? Is that where we are? Because things are going to get shitty soon, if there's no way for anyone to reach reasonable solutions together, don't ya think?

What about the argument that opposite sex marriage discriminates based on gender? That as a man, I am being denied equal access to marriage laws as a woman? A woman can marry a man. I cannot, and the only reason I cannot is my gender.

I've long felt this was the most compelling argument for same sex marriage, and one not at all based on sexuality.