While reading arguments against same sex marriage...

[joG]

Because there are some things that require the government to be involved in, including recognition of spouse as a legal relation, along with ....

Why? No reason a contract couldn't handle that.

 

[joG]

Things should be as simple as we can make them. Not everything will be simple, but it is stupid to take something that works in a simple form and make it more complicated just because a few feel it doesn't work for them, eventhough making it more complicated makes it more likely to not work for a whole lot more people than those few who were complaining before and had other options.

So make it simple ant leave government out.

 

[roguenuke]

Why? No reason a contract couldn't handle that.

Except this is a single contract that handles multiple things at a very low cost in a way that also helps to alleviate some problems with simply having multiple contracts in place. Efficiency. Marriage is efficient.

 

[roguenuke]

So make it simple ant leave government out.

Government is where our legal relationship recognition comes from. The courts are run by the government, and the court is where most things are going to matter. Laws come from the government, even those that deal with legal matters dealing with relationships. The government is involved with who is a legal spouse, hence the use of the word "legal".

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.

1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.

2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.

In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.

All your posting shows, is that unsurprisingly, you are unable to come anywhere close to understanding what marriage is really about. Men and women were created as we were for an intelligent reason, neither complete without the other. Marriage is the holy union that takes these two incomplete parts, and makes a complete and wonderful whole. It is not, and will never be possible to accomplish this in a “same sex marriage”, nor do I expect that someone who is homosexual will ever be able to understand why this is so important.

 

[Zinthaniel]

It is not, and will never be possible to accomplish this in a “same sex marriage”, nor do I expect that someone who is homosexual will ever be able to understand why this is so important.

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

 

[Lursa]

Keep it simple and remove the government from regulating matrimony.

How does that make it more simple?

 

[Lursa]

All your posting shows, is that unsurprisingly, you are unable to come anywhere close to understanding what marriage is really about. Men and women were created as we were for an intelligent reason, neither complete without the other. Marriage is the holy union that takes these two incomplete parts, and makes a complete and wonderful whole. It is not, and will never be possible to accomplish this in a “same sex marriage”, nor do I expect that someone who is homosexual will ever be able to understand why this is so important.

Can you please tell me how/why a same sex couple cannot be a complete and wonderful whole? Where is that defined, btw? The Bible? WHere please. I'd like to know why gays cannot be that.

And this holy union of complete and wonderful wholes is rendered unsunder on a daily basis by straight people: adultery, wife beating, child abuse, divorce. If straight people can make a mockery of it, sully it, why cant gays get a piece of that action? At least they are starting out desiring to honor the institution...why else would they be fighting so hard to marry?

 

[Deuce]

All your posting shows, is that unsurprisingly, you are unable to come anywhere close to understanding what marriage is really about. Men and women were created as we were for an intelligent reason, neither complete without the other. Marriage is the holy union that takes these two incomplete parts, and makes a complete and wonderful whole. It is not, and will never be possible to accomplish this in a “same sex marriage”, nor do I expect that someone who is homosexual will ever be able to understand why this is so important.

And the great thing about America is that people still have the right to do something even when Bob Blaylock thinks it will never be as good. Two dudes can sign a legal contract with each other called marriage, and you can believe with all your heart that it's wrong. Individual liberty lets both them and you do that. Don't you just love freedom?

 

[clownboy]

It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.

1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.

2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.

In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.

Of course it seems that way to you. It's your closed mind reinforcing it's own arguments by boxing opposing arguments into convenient packages.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Can you please tell me how/why a same sex couple cannot be a complete and wonderful whole? Where is that defined, btw? The Bible? WHere please. I'd like to know why gays cannot be that.

For the same reason you can't build a car with two engines and no transmission, or two transmissions and no engine.

It takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. You cannot make a marriage any other way. You need one of each.

And this holy union of complete and wonderful wholes is rendered unsunder on a daily basis by straight people: adultery, wife beating, child abuse, divorce. If straight people can make a mockery of it, sully it, why cant gays get a piece of that action? At least they are starting out desiring to honor the institution...why else would they be fighting so hard to marry?

Are you under the impression that I approve of any of these other abuses; or that the fact that what could have been proper marriages much too often fail somehow justifies trying to create something and call it a “marriage” which has no possibility of ever actually functioning as a true marriage?

 

[Lursa]

For the same reason you can't build a car with two engines and no transmission, or two transmissions and no engine.

It takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. You cannot make a marriage any other way. You need one of each.

Are you under the impression that I approve of any of these other abuses; or that the fact that what could have been proper marriages much too often fail somehow justifies trying to create something and call it a “marriage” which has no possibility of ever actually functioning as a true marriage?

Wow...since there are many marriages between gay couples...and I know several...you are wrong. Not only that, they have kids too...their own bio kids and adopted kids. THey are real marriages, no different than straight ones. If you can explain ANY difference besides gender...please do so.

And it doesnt matter what you approve of. Straight people **** all over marriage and there's nothing stopping them, including the law. So it's ridiculous to use some kind of sacred high ground to prevent gays from marrying.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wow...since there are many marriages between gay couples...

No, there are not. There has never been, and can never be, any such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex. What you are describing as a “marriage” is nothing more than a sick mockery of a marriage.

Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Calling anything else a “marriage” is just a lie, nothing more.

 

[Lursa]

no, there are not. There has never been, and can never be, any such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex. What you are describing as a “marriage” is nothing more than a sick mockery of a marriage.

Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Calling anything else a “marriage” is just a lie, nothing more.

lololol

 

[Arcana XV]

All your posting shows, is that unsurprisingly, you are unable to come anywhere close to understanding what marriage is really about. Men and women were created as we were for an intelligent reason, neither complete without the other. Marriage is the holy union that takes these two incomplete parts, and makes a complete and wonderful whole. It is not, and will never be possible to accomplish this in a “same sex marriage”, nor do I expect that someone who is homosexual will ever be able to understand why this is so important.

Marriage doesn't do any of that. Love does.

 

[CLAX1911]

All your posting shows, is that unsurprisingly, you are unable to come anywhere close to understanding what marriage is really about. Men and women were created as we were for an intelligent reason, neither complete without the other. Marriage is the holy union that takes these two incomplete parts, and makes a complete and wonderful whole. It is not, and will never be possible to accomplish this in a “same sex marriage”, nor do I expect that someone who is homosexual will ever be able to understand why this is so important.

I don't think you understand. Yes it is possible to accomplish this with same sex marriage. It very much takes two incomplete parts and makes a whole.

You are making the same lame argument. Your Argument is that marriage is about sex. I pity you, more so I feel bad for your wife.

 

[CLAX1911]

Of course it seems that way to you. It's your closed mind reinforcing it's own arguments by boxing opposing arguments into convenient packages.

Bottom line, if marriage wasn't strictly about inserting a penis into a vagina there could be no argument against same sex marriage.

So sad that those that talked about protecting marriage have reduced it to vaginas and penises.

I think critical thought hit gold here. And there isn't anything you can say against same sex marriage, and for traditional marriage without making it an argument about penises and vaginas.

 

[CriticalThought]

Of course it seems that way to you. It's your closed mind reinforcing it's own arguments by boxing opposing arguments into convenient packages.

For the record I am not the person denying rights and privileges inherent to marriage to hundreds of thousands of families on the basis of nothing more than a couple's genitals.

Now tell me more about closed mindedness.

 

[CLAX1911]

For the record I am not the person denying rights and privileges inherent to marriage to hundreds of thousands of families on the basis of nothing more than a couple's genitals.

Now tell me more about closed mindedness.

You articulated this very well, hats off to you friend.

 

[CriticalThought]

All your posting shows, is that unsurprisingly, you are unable to come anywhere close to understanding what marriage is really about. Men and women were created as we were for an intelligent reason, neither complete without the other. Marriage is the holy union that takes these two incomplete parts, and makes a complete and wonderful whole. It is not, and will never be possible to accomplish this in a “same sex marriage”, nor do I expect that someone who is homosexual will ever be able to understand why this is so important.

Heterosexual couples are somehow less able to be "a complete and wonderful whole" if gay couples are allowed to marry?

I am not sure why you think I or anyone else cares what you think of gay relationships. But I certainly do not reduce my partner to a "part." I am a better person because I have my partner in my life. I grow every day so I can be a better partner for him and he grows to be a better partner for me. We are complete individuals on our own who are better and happier people because we have each other. But given you are an individual who reduces marriage to a spiritual obsession with genitals, I do not think you will understand.

 

[CriticalThought]

No, there are not. There has never been, and can never be, any such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex. What you are describing as a “marriage” is nothing more than a sick mockery of a marriage.

Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Calling anything else a “marriage” is just a lie, nothing more.

I would argue that reducing marriage as a spiritual union of a penis and vagina is a "sick mockery." You are entitled to your opinions on marriage but know that you are now attacking families.

 

[joG]

How does that make it more simple?

What did someone else write here? There are how many thousand laws and regulations?

 

[roguenuke]

For the same reason you can't build a car with two engines and no transmission, or two transmissions and no engine.

It takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. You cannot make a marriage any other way. You need one of each.

Are you under the impression that I approve of any of these other abuses; or that the fact that what could have been proper marriages much too often fail somehow justifies trying to create something and call it a “marriage” which has no possibility of ever actually functioning as a true marriage?

Legally (and that is what we are talking about here, legal marriage), there is no problem whatsoever with two people of the same sex making a marriage because legally there is nothing about sex/gender that restricts marriage from functioning properly regardless of what combination of the sexes/genders you have.

And personal marriages are up to the individuals. Your belief about what marriage is or should be is nothing more than your personal opinion and has no place being forced on others. You are free to believe it but you cannot force others to abide by it.

 

[roguenuke]

What did someone else write here? There are how many thousand laws and regulations?

Those wouldn't go away without the government recognizing marriage. They would become more complicated and less clear. The entire point of most of those laws and regulations is to make things easier and more efficient so that the courts are not tied up with stuff that is easily taken care of with laws or regulations to cover the vast majority of these issues.

Spouses are part of the hierarchy for legal kinships, and they are at the top. Barring some legal contract to the contrary that was made up after a couple got married, the spouse has legal say of things such as medical decisions and after-life decisions (burial, cremation). For an unmarried person, the person with that legal say is going to be a parent or next down the line in legal kin (sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, etc.). This also means that the spouse has a legal responsibility to pay for final expenses.

Splitting up property in the case of a separation for all those people would be a nightmare for the courts because they would have to decide when the relationship was truly established. With marriage, you take the date of marriage. Visitation in many hospitals is limited to legal family only when it is serious, but without marriage, there is no legal kinship, no matter how many contracts or legal documents they have written up between them. And the military uses legal kinship, immediate family to determine who to allow as being claimed a "dependent", which includes being covered by medical and dental insurance, and even a life insurance policy, not to mention an ID card to give base access. By just allowing people to choose whoever they want to be their dependent based on them just saying so, it easily can lead to security issues along with a lot of extra money being spent by the government.

There are so many more things as well.

 

[Quag]

What did someone else write here? There are how many thousand laws and regulations?

And marriage in one simple contract takes care of them. Getting rid of marriage will jsu tcomplicate everyones life.