What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[kaz]

America is known for allowing it’s citizens to do what they want

Do you not see the difference between:

1) Me and my guy are in our own home engaging in a relationship which we desire between consenting adults and it's none of your freaking business, go away

2) I want to be left alone, which means government must validate my relationship, provide me with , tax breaks, ...

One of those meets the standard of allowing citizens to do what they want, the other doesn't. Doing what you want does not come with it the right do demand things of others.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

how can that be....? relativism by definition has no morality....

Because Religiously written morals were derrived from men, not from a deity.

They're arrived at based on reason.

Which is why you couldn't really name one of the main morals that I can't come to with logic, meaning I wouldnt need Religion at all to reach said conclusion.

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

In quoting Genesis 1:27, Jesus indicated first that God has made men and women different, and that God is the one who joins men and women together in marriage. In this, Jesus asserts God’s authority over marriage; it is God’s institution, not man’s – so it is fair to say that His rules apply.

Matthew 19 - Jesus Teaches on Marriage, Divorce, Riches, and Discipleship

what rules apply to gay marriage....?

Are there any slaves involved???

"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed , nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death , because she was not free ." - Leviticus 19:20

 

[bripat9643]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

To obtain legal and financial protections for a relationship. Same as heterosexual marriage.

Wrong. The purpose is to provide legal and financial protections to mothers and children. Any other claims are propaganda.

 

[kaz]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

To obtain legal and financial protections for a relationship. Same as heterosexual marriage.

Wrong. The purpose is to provide legal and financial protections to mothers and children. Any other claims are propaganda.

I disagree. The purpose of all laws dividing citizens into different classes is to pit them against each other, which grows the power of politicians. Nothing is done for the people.

 

[Flopper]

That is opinion, not fact.

Same goes for infertile couples wanting to raise children.

you are entitled to your own opinion....as are others....

when we make the laws that we live by in this country.....they should reflect the opinions and morals of the majority....

despite what leftist judges have ruled and despite what leftie polls say.....the majority in this country are still pro-traditional marriage...even in fruits-and-nuts California...as Prop 8 proved in Nov. 2008....

The homosexual marriage issue is just part of the larger demoralization, and slow decline
of an American empire, and society that is following in the foot steps of many past
societies, ie the Roman, and Greek empires are prime examples of countries
that allowed homosexuality to florish, and saw their societies degeneration, and
then invasion by barbarians, who then proceeded to loot and pillage and destroy those countries.

I really doubt that sexual preference has much of an impact on the downfall of nations. More likely are war, geopolitics, and economics.

 

[KevinWestern]

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

"Infringe" on is a bad choice of words here. Gays decide gay marriage = straight marriage, then they demand government recognition and benefits. It's not infringing on rights that's the issue here, it's demanding recognition and benefits (tax treatment, ...) that's the issue. If gays can demand recognition and benefits, then why can't other groups do it?

Personally I don't see why ANYONE needs government to validate their relationship. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to gays arguing that this is a pretty good indication that marriage is not a universal definition, so let's get government out of the marriage business. That would be an extremely valid point. Saying that demanding recognition and benefits doesn't infringe on rights actually isn't if you think about it.

My point was focusing largely around how society validates relationships. We validate a gay relationship (or at very least accept it) because it’s two consenting adults. On the flipside, we don’t accept a pedophilia relationship because it’s one adult and an underdeveloped child. My “rights infringing” comment in that instance was simply with regards to the relationship itself, just want to clarify.

I think I asked Randall this (and he agreed to an extent), but what other “groups” would be asking for marriage equality other than gays? I can see polygamists, but that’s about it. Adults/children doesn’t fly because of the inherent exploitation of the child, and Adult/animal doesn’t fly because of the inherent exploitation of the animal.

What else is there? Adults/aliens? Adults/toasters? (lol, I’m not mocking you or anything just trying to be funny)

I’m all for the gov’t getting out of marriage and simply issuing civil unions, equally, to both gay and straight couples. I think gov’t involvement is necessary for the obvious asset transfer/sharing reasons, ect, ect.


.

 

[RandallFlagg]

To a point, yes. However, we live in a country today that produces (I believe) 40,000 new, liberal trained lawyers each year. Whose to say that, just like Gay Marriage, lawyers, at some point, don't decide to litigate say, minor children being allowed to marry? In many states to this day, a 16 year old is allowed to marry. Will you be intolerant towards these people? Don't THEY have the right to happiness also? Or is it merely gay couples that the laws should be changed to accommodate?

You seem to forget that to the vast majority of straight people in this world view gay as a perversion and, in several countries results in an immediate death sentence. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

The "slippery slope" thing is the logical progression of things. Again, Gay was (and in some places still is) considered a killing offense. Now, in America, we are doing the PC thing to accomodate. Who can say what will be the next "accommodation" in 20-30 years????

I really don’t buy that, Randall. You’re comparing apples with organges (an act where no one’s rights are infringed vs one where someone’s rights are infringed).

America is known for allowing it’s citizens to do what they want – whether it comes to speech, self expression – so long as it’s not infringing on another individual’s rights. This is one of the foundations of our great country. People aren’t afraid to wear anti-gov’t t-shirts in the same way Iranians are.

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

So, with that said, not sure how you can take that argument and somehow have that be set as the precedent for allowing future relationships to occur in the future where one of the individual's rights are infringed and exploited (ie an adult marrying a little girl, ect). You know what I mean?

In order for this to happen, we have to somehow go from (1) gay marriage equality to (2) a society where people are allowed to infringe on the rights of others and exploit children, ect. There’s no logical connection I can come up with.


.

I have to respectfully ask. How old are you? I ask because (apparently) you did not live through the 50s and 60s. In those prehistoric times, and for the most part, if a woman was not married by the time she was sixteen, the neighbors would begin to "talk". It was uncommon for a young lady to NOT be well on her way to family life by then. What once was considered "normal" is now looked upon as child abuse. However, that having been stated, there was no "infringement" of anyone's rights, because it was an accepted societal norm.

Additionally, if a young, unmarried woman were to become pregnant, she would go to "visit" her Aunt in another city, have the child, put the child up for adoption and return home.

Everything changes over time and, usually as a direct result of other changes that preceded them. Again, homosexual marriage would have been a horror show as recently as the 80s. Stating that additional "changes" will not occur in society as a result of the ever-bending societal "norms" to satisfy every fringe group is short sighted.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

yes we know you are a godless anti-religious relativistic Secular bigot....

God isn't even remotely relevant to the issue of gay marriage and yet people like you insist on bringing it up.

Take your god issues and butt out.

take your Secularist Shit and butt out...

Then what you planning on doing with them??!!!!

​

 

[Londoner]

The purpose is something the OP or the Conservative Nanny Government doesn't get to decide. The purpose is decided by two consenting adults - who shall be judged by God not by a radical rightwing nutjob who wants to post a government agent at the foot of every bed.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

God isn't even remotely relevant to the issue of gay marriage and yet people like you insist on bringing it up.

Take your god issues and butt out.

take your Secularist Shit and butt out...

I completely respect other's beliefs and right to practice a religion peacefully (and actually do think it can be a very beneficial thing for a community (my wife DOES NOT, lol)), but do you agree that you can’t really prove whether or not a God exists?

Too (on the flipside), let’s take the angle and say God really did give Moses instructions, and some of the more supernatural aspects of the old/new Testament really did occur..

Even in this scenario, weren’t those stories and instructions handed down for literally hundreds/thousands of years before being written down (thousands with regards to old testament, obviously)? And when the stories were written down, was it possible the writers had an agenda?

....Or....

.....somebody fucked-up!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's one thing to assert western christianity influenced the morality of people like Locke and Jefferson, though Jefferson's views on marriage were questionable on morality grounds, but it's quite another thing to assert American marriage laws exist to apply Jewish (and the reformed don't really follow those) or Jesus out of context quites to civil law.

so as a people we are supposed to just dump the very core beliefs that have contributed so much to the success of the Western world.....

The Golden Rule is too-difficult for you "conservatives" to remember, huh??

How 'bout......


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8]George Carlin - 10 Commandments - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[KevinWestern]

America is known for allowing it’s citizens to do what they want

Do you not see the difference between:

1) Me and my guy are in our own home engaging in a relationship which we desire between consenting adults and it's none of your freaking business, go away

2) I want to be left alone, which means government must validate my relationship, provide me with , tax breaks, ...

One of those meets the standard of allowing citizens to do what they want, the other doesn't. Doing what you want does not come with it the right do demand things of others.

Yes, I see your point, and now we’re diving into a more meaty part of the argument.

I believe there exists two types of couples – gay and straight – and which group you fall under personally is something out of the individual’s control. We are born one way or another. Therefore, in my view those two types of couples should be treated equally under the law.

When it comes to two consenting adults who are in love and want to build a life around each other, I do not believe it is fair (or necessary) for the government to discriminate and say that only opposite-sex couples deserve to have the right to waive an estate tax, or deserve to have the right to access one another’s medical bills, or deserve to have the right get on one another’s insurance.

Either the gov’t quits giving benefits to just the straight couples, or the gov’t extends the benefit to gay couples.

.

 

[kaz]

My point was focusing largely around how society validates relationships. We validate a gay relationship (or at very least accept it) because it’s two consenting adults. On the flipside, we don’t accept a pedophilia relationship because it’s one adult and an underdeveloped child. My “rights infringing” comment in that instance was simply with regards to the relationship itself, just want to clarify.

I think I asked Randall this (and he agreed to an extent), but what other “groups” would be asking for marriage equality other than gays? I can see polygamists, but that’s about it. Adults/children doesn’t fly because of the inherent exploitation of the child, and Adult/animal doesn’t fly because of the inherent exploitation of the animal.

I didn't take your point as flip. You got the point. The social right think marriage is between a man and a woman, and government should provide validation and benefits. Others say marriage is two "people," so government should provide recognition and benefits.

First, you ask what other groups there are, like polygamy. Sure, if you want to argue people defining their own marriage and demanding recognition and benefits isn't hurting anyone, you'd have to include their right to do the same for the same reason. But that's a relatively small group.

The bigger thing is if you can expand "marriage" from man/woman, why can't others say it doesn't have to be related to "marriage" at all? I'm an individual, I want government recognition of that. Oh, and I want tax benefits as well. Or we're a bowling team, we want government recognition and benefits.

You can't have it both ways. If you allow gays to remove the "man/woman relationships" from marriage and demand government recognize it and provide benefits, others can not only define their own marriage, but they can remove other constraints as well. Like sex, children, ...

Keep in mind I'm against all government marriage, I'm not arguing for man/woman. I also think people should be able to demand they be left alone if they aren't hurting anyone. But no one can demand things of others and claim that's being left alone.

 

[Flopper]

To a point, yes. However, we live in a country today that produces (I believe) 40,000 new, liberal trained lawyers each year. Whose to say that, just like Gay Marriage, lawyers, at some point, don't decide to litigate say, minor children being allowed to marry? In many states to this day, a 16 year old is allowed to marry. Will you be intolerant towards these people? Don't THEY have the right to happiness also? Or is it merely gay couples that the laws should be changed to accommodate?

You seem to forget that to the vast majority of straight people in this world view gay as a perversion and, in several countries results in an immediate death sentence. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

The "slippery slope" thing is the logical progression of things. Again, Gay was (and in some places still is) considered a killing offense. Now, in America, we are doing the PC thing to accomodate. Who can say what will be the next "accommodation" in 20-30 years????

I really don’t buy that, Randall. You’re comparing apples with organges (an act where no one’s rights are infringed vs one where someone’s rights are infringed).

America is known for allowing it’s citizens to do what they want – whether it comes to speech, self expression – so long as it’s not infringing on another individual’s rights. This is one of the foundations of our great country. People aren’t afraid to wear anti-gov’t t-shirts in the same way Iranians are.

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

So, with that said, not sure how you can take that argument and somehow have that be set as the precedent for allowing future relationships to occur in the future where one of the individual's rights are infringed and exploited (ie an adult marrying a little girl, ect). You know what I mean?

In order for this to happen, we have to somehow go from (1) gay marriage equality to (2) a society where people are allowed to infringe on the rights of others and exploit children, ect. There’s no logical connection I can come up with.


.

I have to respectfully ask. How old are you? I ask because (apparently) you did not live through the 50s and 60s. In those prehistoric times, and for the most part, if a woman was not married by the time she was sixteen, the neighbors would begin to "talk". It was uncommon for a young lady to NOT be well on her way to family life by then. What once was considered "normal" is now looked upon as child abuse. However, that having been stated, there was no "infringement" of anyone's rights, because it was an accepted societal norm.

Additionally, if a young, unmarried woman were to become pregnant, she would go to "visit" her Aunt in another city, have the child, put the child up for adoption and return home.

Everything changes over time and, usually as a direct result of other changes that preceded them. Again, homosexual marriage would have been a horror show as recently as the 80s. Stating that additional "changes" will not occur in society as a result of the ever-bending societal "norms" to satisfy every fringe group is short sighted.

Don't know where you lived in the 50's, but a girl in my town getting married at 16 was a rarity. Yes girls that got pregnant were shipped off to the aunt, however abortion was much more common than was generally believed. That was one of those things that you didn't talk about in the 50's so it was not a problem. Like abortions, homosexuality was not a problem because there were no homosexuals, then the bubble burst in the 60's.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's one thing to assert western christianity influenced the morality of people like Locke and Jefferson, though Jefferson's views on marriage were questionable on morality grounds, but it's quite another thing to assert American marriage laws exist to apply Jewish (and the reformed don't really follow those) or Jesus out of context quites to civil law.

so as a people we are supposed to just dump the very core beliefs that have contributed so much to the success of the Western world.....just because some minority wants us to approve of their sodomy....?

Isn't tolerance one of the core American virtues? How could we build such a great nation with people from all over the world and not have some tolerance for our differences? Not acceptance, but simple tolerance. You're Chinese, but that doesn't give me the right to refuse you service in my store. You're Black, but that doesn't make it right for me to burn a cross on your front yard. You're Irish, but that doesn't mean I can fire you for that.

Tolerance. A virtue lost on Conservatives when marriage equality is proposed.

....Or, any time they walk-out their front-door, for that matter.

 

[WorldWatcher]

you mean like the societal harm of denying children their real mother or their real father....?

if you hurt just one child.....you hurt the world....

So we can assume you are against adoption, sperm donation for infertile couples, and IVF for infertile couples because it denies children their real mother and real father?


>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

not in this country...

If homosexuals are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers or just two-same sex friends who want to get bennies are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

What prevents polygamists from entering into legally recognized marriages now?

 

[kaz]

I believe there exists two types of couples – gay and straight – and which group you fall under personally is something out of the individual’s control. We are born one way or another. Therefore, in my view those two types of couples should be treated equally under the law.

We agree on that. But I would go further and add that the government should not treat any citizen differently than any other. If I'm an ass and no woman would marry me. Why am I discriminated against if I was born that way? Suppose my brother and I are in our 80s and our wives died and we're roommates and take care of each other. Why should be get less favorable treatment than if we were not related and having sex?

You're on the right path with equality, I'm just saying you aren't taking it far enough. Expanding government discrimination to include more people isn't the way to reduce government discrimination.

Besides, they are arguing marriage is "man woman" and you are arguing it's "two people." Fine, both live your lives in peace in your disagreement. However, you're both arguing government should institutionalize your definitions and discriminate between citizens based on your definition. My point to you in that case would be, in the end, both your points are arbitrary. You're both advocating government force be used to administer your definition. How is your definition less arbitrary than theirs? It isn't.

 

[Spoonman]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

Why do heterosexual people who never want to have children get married?

Answer that one, and you have what you are looking for.

^^^^that.

We want to marry for all the EXACT same reasons the ST8s do.

because our girlfriends tell us no more sex until we produce a ring

 

[KevinWestern]

I have to respectfully ask. How old are you? I ask because (apparently) you did not live through the 50s and 60s. In those prehistoric times, and for the most part, if a woman was not married by the time she was sixteen, the neighbors would begin to "talk". It was uncommon for a young lady to NOT be well on her way to family life by then. What once was considered "normal" is now looked upon as child abuse. However, that having been stated, there was no "infringement" of anyone's rights, because it was an accepted societal norm.

Additionally, if a young, unmarried woman were to become pregnant, she would go to "visit" her Aunt in another city, have the child, put the child up for adoption and return home.

Everything changes over time and, usually as a direct result of other changes that preceded them. Again, homosexual marriage would have been a horror show as recently as the 80s. Stating that additional "changes" will not occur in society as a result of the ever-bending societal "norms" to satisfy every fringe group is short sighted.

Your correct on your assumption that I’m young, because I am (born in the 1980’s).

Too – I agree that these standards do change and I don’t object to that notion.

However, the point I’m making is that I don’t see the connection between gay marriage and society regressing backwards into thinking it’s OK for an adult to marry a child. Those are two unrelated things. We have to examine trends here…

Do you think it’s likely than in 20/30 years Americans are going to reverse their standards that children need to be protected, and will accept adults marrying 12 year olds? I don’t see any evidence supporting that notion and consider it highly, highly unlikely.

That was mostly my point. Gay marriage might pave the way for polygamy, but that’s about it. How we approach the rights of children is a completely, completely different argument.

.