|Legal Question re: Gay Marriage||pitt83|
Aug 11, 2003 3:42 PM
|First, I'm not gay (Even though I'm a man who does wear lycra shorts w/o underwear daily and shaves my legs 3X weekly).
OK, with that straight, my question is this: How can the state legally deny gay marriages? Think about this: Beyond being a declaration of an emotional bond, marriage is a legal state of incorporation of 2 individuals. Being married confers rights of inheritance, dependance, a tax status and others. Therefore, by denying any 2 individuals that legal status, it's discriminatory.
God, religion and morals are for a higher power to determine the validity of such a union. Those arguments rest with each individuals' morae. But, for the state, who is supposedly blind as to sex or sexual orientation, to pass judgment based on it as a reason to deny a legal status, I think is discriminatory.
The argument that "it's an abomination" was once applied to jews, blacks, catholics, others. Insert those words into the rhetoric and you'll see how opposition of gay marriage is simply another form of discrimination.
Flame away and tell me what I've missed.
|Don't you guys live in a free country? (I'm in Canada). nm||Spunout|
Aug 12, 2003 3:41 AM
|Not since Donald Rumsfeld and the "Patriot" act nm||pitt83|
Aug 12, 2003 5:00 AM
Aug 12, 2003 5:56 AM
|marriage is defined by law as a union of a man and a woman. Society has "sanctioned" man/women unions because they do serve a good purpose for society, that being forming a family in which to raise children which perpetuates that society. By sanctioning gay marriage you are legally redefining the concept of marriage. Also, you do open the door to other issues, polygamy being one. How can you sanction gay marriages and not polygamous marriages?
Society has to have a structure, and our society has decided that man/woman marriages are a positive to our societal structure and gay marriages are not.
HOw does a gay marriage help society? Very little. But, heterosexual marriages do by promoting family and the perpetuation of society. This is not gay bashing. Do what they want behind closed doors, as heteros should also, but, dont ask society to "legitimize" it.
|A modest proposal||torquer|
Aug 12, 2003 6:39 AM
|If man/woman (only) unions are so critical, why do we allow divorce? If it's so critical for society, how do 40% of maried couples get to shirk their social responsibility? Of course, many have already had kids, so does their responsibility to perpetuate society end there?
I would like to see how much support a constitutional amendment banning gay marrige would have if it included a ban on divorce.
Aug 12, 2003 6:45 AM
|don't forget getting a divorce used to be much harder than it is now..guess it is all a sign of decay of our structure...families start breaking down, people running away from marriages rather than staying and working it out.....good for us as a country? I think not....question is where do we draw boundries and stop the erosion?|
|What an amazingly naive and black & white position.||Len J|
Aug 12, 2003 6:51 AM
|"don't forget getting a divorce used to be much harder than it is now..guess it is all a sign of decay of our structure...families start breaking down, people running away from marriages rather than staying and working it out.....good for us as a country? I think not....question is where do we draw boundries and stop the erosion?"
You obviously have no experience with disfunctional marriages, especially those that stay together because they had to. The damage to society from these ripples thru generations.
Unlike you, who obviously have the wherewithall to fight thru any problem with your marriage, not everyone has the capability, nor are all marriages salvagable (nor should they be).
I hope you are never faced with a spouse who comes to you one day and says that she has made up her mind to leave you. And nothing can save a marriage if one party is not willing to try. What would you recommend in this case?
Sorry if this sunds like a personal attack, it is not meant that way, you just hit a nerve.
Aug 12, 2003 7:05 AM
|I was married in August of 1992. In May of 1999 I came home from a business trip to an empty house. The wife had left after backing up a moving truck to the house. I had been begging for months for us to get counseling, but, apparently her boyfriend wasn't too keen on that idea. So, I have been there, done that. My point was that divorce is a serious issue, it shouldnt be taken lightly. Couples should work hard to work it out rather than running to get a divorce. I have known people who have been through five marriages in ten years. Divorce to them is nothing, but it should be. Yes, some couples should get divorced, but, it shouldnt be as easy as walking into the courthouse and paying some money and filling out some papers.
I took my marriage seriously and never cheated on her. If I ever remarry I hope its for life, pray its for life..I dont think I can go through another divorce..ripped my soul out...so, yes, been there and done that...
Before divorce couples should try counseling and whatever they can before the divorce. Divorce should be a last resort, not an easy haven to run to.
Aug 12, 2003 7:29 AM
|Hey Clyde......||Len J|
Aug 12, 2003 8:29 AM
|sorry I mistook your post.
I too have been there, and have been happily remarried for 13 years, it can be done. For me it took paying attention to my part in it (even in light of it being driven by her), after all, I was attracted to her for some reason.
I agree that it should be a last resort BTW.
I also grew up with two parents that never should have stayed married.
sorry for the overreaction.
|What an amazingly naive and black & white position.||Duane Gran|
Aug 12, 2003 9:12 AM
|Unlike you, who obviously have the wherewithall to fight thru any problem with your marriage, not everyone has the capability, nor are all marriages salvagable (nor should they be).
I will agree that not all marriages should be salvaged, but with a divorce rate of 40% as a society we could do better, don't you think? There are many frivolous divorces out there, primarily because there are frivolous marriages. In the not so distant past, many of the people trying to get married would be admonished by priest and justice of the peace alike.
|Getting married should be more difficult...||ClydeTri|
Aug 12, 2003 9:35 AM
|Should be a minimum of a seven day waiting period, if not more, for people to get married after getting their license....|
|All good points, but you're agreeing with me||pitt83|
Aug 12, 2003 7:15 AM
|Sentence 1 is exactly my point. Once you define gender, you discriminate. What if you substituted "white people" in that sentence? Sounds real offensive, doesn't it.
From solely this perspective, I fail to understand how gay marriage can be excluded.
|the only justification seems to be religious or cultural (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Aug 12, 2003 7:30 AM
Aug 12, 2003 7:47 AM
|So how can the state continue to deny anyone two people their right to obtain that legal status?
The whole moral issue lies with each of us and a higher power than the govt. (If one exists beyond Rumsfeld)
|why only two people? why not groups of three? four?||ClydeTri|
Aug 12, 2003 7:51 AM
|you really cant make a logical arguement that if you open the door as you describe it that you keep it to two people...why descriminate against three people in love with each other? four people?|
|It's not discrimination to prohibit polygamy||pitt83|
Aug 12, 2003 8:10 AM
|Because, the institution of marriage specifies the number of people in each relationship. That's fine; just like business are set up based on how many people own them. I have no problem whith that; just that we exclude based only on a gender criteria.|
|yeah, why not?||dr hoo|
Aug 12, 2003 8:19 AM
|Line Marriage: a term from the works of Robert A. Heinlein, science fiction writer, meaning a marriage that from time to time adds younger members, eventually establishing an equilibrium population, spouses dying off at the same rate as new ones are added, this is a different form of familial immortality than the traditional one of successive generations of children.
Heinlein presented this as an alternative that has the major advantages of never dying, never having a situation where the children are left uncared for or unloved, and preserving capital resources from generation to generation.
Aug 12, 2003 8:43 AM
|let's stick to two people. what is the issue then with allowing two people to join together? i don't really have a problem with polygamy although in practice it seems to encourage child abuse and coercion amongst the women "participants". it also seems to encourage mass welfare fraud, though that may be in part because all but one of the women are not really "legally" married and when they have kids they can milk the system for tons of cash. maybe if it was legal the system could be adjusted to minimize such abuses. am reading the krakauer book called under tha banner of heaven now. i can see why LDS is not too crazy about it. it doesn't portray their religion in too good of a light.|
|aren't there childless hetero couples though?||ColnagoFE|
Aug 12, 2003 7:27 AM
|and hetero couples who beat their children? and hetero couples who sleep with other people than their spouse? methinks people have an idealized notion of marriage. who says that gay couples can't adopt and raise a family just like a hetero couple? and who decides all this? GWB?|
|you haven't missed anything||ColnagoFE|
Aug 12, 2003 7:24 AM
|you are totally right and GWB is pandering to the right wing christians by supporting a ban on gay marriage. whatever happened to separation of church and state in this country? as far as gays not being able to procreate...does the law prevent sterile couples from marrying? case closed.|| |