Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Rassales said:

Why would you think that? I don't date masochists. Or silly people who don't understand their own privileges. My wife would object.

Click to expand...

Ohh...you want to swap places with me...you're a swinger, got it, my bad.

Idk, what does your wife look like?

Jerry said:

Oh, wait, we forgot about polygamists...1st. Amendment and all....damn I guess gays are just as bigoted as the rest of us :doh

Click to expand...

If we allowed marriage of more than one person to people of different sexes, we'd have to allow them to groups of all the same sex too.

Rassales said:

If we allowed marriage of more than one person to people of different sexes, we'd have to allow them to groups of all the same sex too.

Click to expand...

True, but so what as long as they're consenting adults....

Jerry said:

Oh, wait, we forgot about polygamists...1st. Amendment and all....damn I guess gays are just as bigoted as the rest of us :doh

Click to expand...

If they want to call their relationships marriages, there's nothing that prevents them from doing so.

Jerry said:

True, but so what as long as they're consenting adults....

Click to expand...

Yeah so what?

Tucker Case said:

If they want to call their relationships marriages, there's nothing that prevents them from doing so.

Click to expand...

Well there's nothing that prevents them today...so I guess there's nothing to go to court over.

winston53660 said:

Yeah so what?

Click to expand...

That's what I'm asking.

It's your turn to dream up an answer.

So...what?

Ockham said:

Daydreaming is fun isn't it?

Click to expand...

No, I was just matching mindless one liners that add nothing to the discussion with a parody in kind.

Still waiting on an actual REASON you believe marriage under the law should not have its definition changed and instead we need to create an entirely new law doing the exact same thing but with a different name.

Jerry said:

Oh, wait, we forgot about polygamists...1st. Amendment and all....damn I guess gays are just as bigoted as the rest of us :doh

Click to expand...

Not at all. The change from allowing a consenting male and female to two consenting adults in regards to the law is mostly negligible. There is few, if any, issues within the law that such a change will cause any trouble that would need to fix.

Or in other words, changing it from 1 man 1 woman to 2 people would not create many ripples through the law. Tax law regarding marriage would still function the same way. Ownership rights regarding marriage would still function the same way. End of life decisions regarding marriage would still function the same way. Custody and divorce laws regarding marriage would still function in basically the same way.

Such is not the case with polygamist relationships. Polygamist relationships would need not a minor tweak to the law but a complete overhaul to a large portion of the legal code in just about every facet that marriage touches. Additionally, logistically, there are a number of pitfalls of allowing polygamist marriage under the law that there is little help with. For example an individual marriage to one person, who is married to a seperate person, who in turn is married to another seperate person but not connected in any way to the first cause a large quagmire in regards to legal powers, amongst others. If you'd like I could probably pull up some older threads where the pitfalls and reasons for why it would be impossible from a government stand point.

Now, if two couples "married" or "unioned" or whatever else under the law want to join together in a polyigamous marriage through their relationship and all live under the same house...so be it, I don't care what they do in private. But legally there is far, far to many potential issues, problems, and pitfalls from allowing them benefits outside of that of a standard 2 person marriage.

These pitfalls do not exist in a two person marriage, regardless if its man and woman or woman and woman. The change to the law is extremely minor. It has very few ripples. The ONLY tangable consequences to allowing it is that a LEGAL word has its definition changed, something that is far from uncommon within our country.

I'm EAGERLY awaiting your in depth response as I'm sure you were wanting to actually debate and weren't just coming in to throw a trollish sarcastic one liner with a half assed thought out point that you wouldn't bother to actually back up if someone actually mistook it for an attempt to debate.

Zyphlin said:

No, I was just matching mindless one liners that add nothing to the discussion with a parody in kind.

Still waiting on an actual REASON you believe marriage under the law should not have its definition changed and instead we need to create an entirely new law doing the exact same thing but with a different name.



Not at all. The change from allowing a consenting male and female to two consenting adults in regards to the law is mostly negligible. There is few, if any, issues within the law that such a change will cause any trouble that would need to fix.

Or in other words, changing it from 1 man 1 woman to 2 people would not create many ripples through the law. Tax law regarding marriage would still function the same way. Ownership rights regarding marriage would still function the same way. End of life decisions regarding marriage would still function the same way. Custody and divorce laws regarding marriage would still function in basically the same way.

Such is not the case with polygamist relationships. Polygamist relationships would need not a minor tweak to the law but a complete overhaul to a large portion of the legal code in just about every facet that marriage touches. Additionally, logistically, there are a number of pitfalls of allowing polygamist marriage under the law that there is little help with. For example an individual marriage to one person, who is married to a seperate person, who in turn is married to another seperate person but not connected in any way to the first cause a large quagmire in regards to legal powers, amongst others. If you'd like I could probably pull up some older threads where the pitfalls and reasons for why it would be impossible from a government stand point.

Now, if two couples "married" or "unioned" or whatever else under the law want to join together in a polyigamous marriage through their relationship and all live under the same house...so be it, I don't care what they do in private. But legally there is far, far to many potential issues, problems, and pitfalls from allowing them benefits outside of that of a standard 2 person marriage.

These pitfalls do not exist in a two person marriage, regardless if its man and woman or woman and woman. The change to the law is extremely minor. It has very few ripples. The ONLY tangable consequences to allowing it is that a LEGAL word has its definition changed, something that is far from uncommon within our country.

I'm EAGERLY awaiting your in depth response as I'm sure you were wanting to actually debate and weren't just coming in to throw a trollish sarcastic one liner with a half assed thought out point that you wouldn't bother to actually back up if someone actually mistook it for an attempt to debate.

Click to expand...

Did you just try using the law to justify bigotry?

Yeah you did.

Wow.

Jerry said:

Did you just try using the law to justify bigotry?

Yeah you did.

Wow.

Click to expand...

Ahh...so apparently my assumption at the end of my post was incorrect.

Surprising

Ockham said:

Nice logical fallacy - so if one word cannot change, then no words can change - especially as quickly as you want them to. So you've gone from ad hominem to now logical fallacy.

Click to expand...

But it's not. The point is that you deny the ability of a word to change to meet the necessities for a continually evolving society. Fact is that it does change, and just because you think your word shouldn't change doesn't mean it cannot.

Ockham said:

Apparently you and a minority of people think so. Government does not and nor do I.

Click to expand...

For now, still in rightful government the rights of the minority cannot be infringed upon by the majority. But seeing as you have admitted a few times that you would infringe upon rights, you have shown a penchant for treason and tyranny against the minority. But rest assured, same sex marriage will be realized nationwide in our lifetimes.

Ockham said:

In fact, traditions are EXACTLY how humans do things. If what you say was true, traditions would not exist, and people would drop things as quickly as they adopt new things. That doesn't happen in real life.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah? So we're the same as say ancient Greece? I mean, lots of traditions, right? No, humans hold on to certain traditions for some amount of time because some are unable to deal with change. But even those "traditions" will change. How many religious traditions did we used to have which do not exist anymore?

Humanity advances and marches on, we do not stagnate. Stagnation is slow death. Everything we've done has been done by not adhering to tradition but rather pushing forward. Notice we no longer declare people witches and instead understand science. A continual push for evolution, that is humanity. So too with our "traditions" and societies. Marriage is expanding whether you like it or not. And regardless of personal bigotry and tyranny it will come about. Humans always push forward even if some try to hold the rest back.

Ockham said:

Wow, pulling out the "tyranny" now? LOL

Click to expand...

When you move against the rights and liberties of the individual you engage in tyranny. That simple.

Ockham said:

Tell you what, just pass a law then to abolish marriage for everyone. Sure, that'll work.

Click to expand...

It's one of the proper ways, abolishing of the marriage license. It's probably the best solution as the government has no real purpose in the institution of marriage. But so long as the marriage license exist, marriage is a completely legal tool and contract. And the people have the right to contract, government may not properly infringe upon that. Any defense of infringement upon the individual's right to contract is defense of tyranny and support of treason against the People. Plain and simple. Don't be so hate filled and maybe you can begin to understand.

Ockham said:

Ignorance like the opinion you have is a joke. Pick a new word.

Click to expand...

Weren't you bitching about ad hominem, try to be consistent. Yet my opinion is not a joke. It's firmly rooted in the rights and liberties of the individual which is the basis for the Republic. I'm not the one out of tune with the purpose of this country.

Ockham said:

Sure fascist works - Like I care what you call me. Look, it's not going to change. Just because you don't find value in traditions, history and society doesn't mean everyone else has to jump on the "what's new" bandwagon... marriage is between a man and woman. Obama says so, I say so, most local governments say so as do the states. You want something new, go call it whatever you want, officially it stays as is. And if evolving requires me to be what you think it should be, I'd much rather be dead and miss the abortion that is your viewpoint.

Click to expand...

I find value in the traditions of upholding freedom and liberty. That's that. Slavery was once legal, why did we change the "tradition". I mean, it's tradition right? We changed it because we began to understand the infringement of freedom and liberty it posed. We stopped thinking of the slaves as second class and acknowledged their humanity. Upon doing so, we expanded our definitions, broke improper tradition, and created more freedom and liberty. Same is the case here. People want to treat homosexuals as second class so they can infringe upon their right to contract. But we're breaking out of that archaic, ignorant, dark age thinking. We will break improper tradition and expand freedom once again. If you can't handle it, well too bad. But this Republic was founded upon the notions of freedom and liberty and the ideals to promote and proliferate the blessings of such.

Jerry said:

Well there's nothing that prevents them today...so I guess there's nothing to go to court over.

Click to expand...

They can go to court to try and have the governemnt recognize any social contracts they enter into.

But once they have the same rights to enter into social contracts, the the semantics issue is pretty much a moot point.

Zyphlin said:

Ahh...so apparently my assumption at the end of my post was incorrect.

Surprising

Click to expand...

Um, did you notice the poll options?

This is a bait thread, therefore as long as I remain civil I'm free to bait...because that is the point of this thread.

My position on gay marriage is not reflected in the poll options...in fact there's not even an "other" option...so if I were discuss my actual view of gay 'marriage I would actually be way off topic.

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry
No, they're already equal.

-or-

Yes, if a significant number of them are raising children.

But again, this is a bait thread.

Tucker Case said:

They can go to court to try and have the governemnt recognize any social contracts they enter into.

Click to expand...

rof It's actually a municipal contract.

Tucker Case said:

But once they have the same rights to enter into social contracts, the the semantics issue is pretty much a moot point.

Click to expand...

You're dismissing the entire social reason and history behind wanting to marry for there to even be a complimentary "contract".

Jerry said:

Did you just try using the law to justify bigotry?

Yeah you did.

Wow.

Click to expand...

But we'll forgive you're pathetic attempt.

Marriage, at its core, is "bigoted" in the way you're ignorantly using the word in your (poor) attempt to be a smart ass. You're allowing people that are in a couple (or in your case Jerry a polygamist relationship) a bonus over single people. So, in and of itself, marriage as it is under the government already establishes that discrimination based on the amount of people is allowed. Mind you, this is not descrimination based on sex, ethnicity, color, etc but one simply based on number which would be arguable in and of itself as a potential "civil right".

Now, the reason benefits that are given to marriage aren't given to single people is that tthere's no government interest in simplifying things both for them, and the couple, in giving the breaks to an individual. Similarly, its not in the governments interest to give it to more than 2 people because it overly complicates the law and makes MORE work, not less, for the government and costs MORE money to deal with, not less. This, again, is not the case with a homosexual couple as the interest in simplifying is as present there as it is with a heterosexual couple.

So, given that "number of people" is not a civil rights issue and not a constitutional thing under equal protection. And given that there's no compelling state interest to give marriage benefits to multiple person groups. And given that the government has already long established that it can deny marriage benefits to individuals based on the number of people due to government interest.....yes, I'm saying its perfectly fine.

I actually have legitimate reasons for mine.

I'm actually saying them instead of throwing out trollish one liners.

What about your defense for you stance? Going to actually say it, or just going to make sarcastic comments again and show your true worth to this thread?

Actually, considering the court case now going on in California and the arguments made there, the poll is an accurate reflection of the anti-SSM argument. In the California case, defendant's counsel is arguing that marriage is primarily about procreation--it's a means of giving legal protections and incentives to couples who can have children. That means giving heterosexuals an advantage over homosexuals because society benefits from their producing children and rearing them within intact families.

We want people to give to charity, so we give them legal advantages through tax breaks.

We want people to own their homes, so we give homeowners legal advantages through tax breaks.

We want people to have children and rear them with intact, two parent families, so we give them legal advantages via marriage.

This is the justification being used, right now, to defend Prop. 8 in California.

The poll reflects the actual arguments being made in court at this moment. Don't be afraid to own up to the perspective you're defending.

Zyphlin said:

But we'll forgive you're pathetic attempt.

Marriage, at its core, is "bigoted" in the way you're ignorantly using the word in your (poor) attempt to be a smart ass. You're allowing people that are in a couple (or in your case Jerry a polygamist relationship) a bonus over single people. So, in and of itself, marriage as it is under the government already establishes that discrimination based on the amount of people is allowed. Mind you, this is not descrimination based on sex, ethnicity, color, etc but one simply based on number which would be arguable in and of itself as a potential "civil right".

Click to expand...

Yeah, free religious expression is so dumb...like that 4 y/o in Texas boy who was suspended for having long hair...he should just cut it.

Zyphlin said:

Now, the reason benefits that are given to marriage aren't given to single people is that tthere's no government interest in simplifying things both for them, and the couple, in giving the breaks to an individual. Similarly, its not in the governments interest to give it to more than 2 people because it overly complicates the law and makes MORE work, not less, for the government and costs MORE money to deal with, not less. This, again, is not the case with a homosexual couple as the interest in simplifying is as present there as it is with a heterosexual couple.

Click to expand...

I've never seen the government have a problem with over-complicated laws before...take the tax code or Obama'care, for example.

The government's interest in marriage is the raising of children.

No children, no government interest, no rational reason to put the government in your bedroom.

Zyphlin said:

So, given that "number of people" is not a civil rights issue....

Click to expand...

....free religious expression not FTW?

Zyphlin said:

What about your defense for you stance? Going to actually say it, or just going to make sarcastic comments again and show your true worth to this thread?

Click to expand...

That kinda sounded like a personal attack

Zyphlin said:

No, I was just matching mindless one liners that add nothing to the discussion with a parody in kind.

Still waiting on an actual REASON you believe marriage under the law should not have its definition changed and instead we need to create an entirely new law doing the exact same thing but with a different name.

Click to expand...

The current definition of marriage has been in place for over a thousand years in one form or another. I'm still waiting for a good reason to apply that definition to gay couples... the question isn't "why shouldn't the definition change", the question is "for what purpose is a long standing word being redefined?". Marriage under the law is already defined - that's REASON enough. Referendums in States which want to apply gay marriages to that same definition have largely rejected the use of "marriage" but rather another term.

What benefit does changing the definition make to non gay people? Answer - none. So until a majority of this country is gay, I would say the traditional definition will stay intact for the most part. California, Massachusetts, NY and NJ possibly are the exception because they're filled with loons to begin with.

Why is accepting the word "marriage" as only between a man/woman so alien? Up until about 20 years ago there was no alternative. Change for change's sake or just want to stick it to the "man"?

I've already stated my position - making accusatory "trolling" nonsense means you simply cannot accept my position and therefore must bring in irrelevance to bolster a weak position. I'll save you some time if you're still considering a reply:

You WON'T change my mind about this. It's a waste of time. That's who I am, that's what I believe, and the definition is what it is. Any other questions or clarifications - please see my prior posts. Ibid.

Rassales said:

Actually, considering the court case now going on in California and the arguments made there, the poll is an accurate reflection of the anti-SSM argument. In the California case, defendant's counsel is arguing that marriage is primarily about procreation--it's a means of giving legal protections and incentives to couples who can have children. That means giving heterosexuals an advantage over homosexuals because society benefits from their producing children and rearing them within intact families.

Click to expand...

However this is a flawed thinking based on one simple thing...

People don't have to have children to enter into a marriage.

People unable to have children can enter into a marriage.

If that was the legal reasoning than sterile men and women should not be allowed to enter into marriage and others would have to make a pledge upon marrying that they WILL have a kid.

Which is in and of itself ridiculous.

We want people to give to charity, so we give them legal advantages through tax breaks.

Click to expand...

However we don't give those tax breaks UNTIL they give to charity.

We want people to own their homes, so we give homeowners legal advantages through tax breaks.

Click to expand...

however we don't give those tax breaks UNTIL they buy a house.

We want people to have children and rear them with intact, two parent families, so we give them legal advantages via marriage.

Click to expand...

And if this was the actual legal reasoning we shouldn't give them those benefits UNTIL they have a kid.

But we don't, because its not.

Zyphlin said:

However this is a flawed thinking based on one simple thing...

People don't have to have children to enter into a marriage.

People unable to have children can enter into a marriage.

Click to expand...

Benign examples which prove the rule.

Ockham said:

the question is "for what purpose is a long standing word being redefined?

Click to expand...

Same reason we freed the slaves. We understood the base humanity between all humans, white or black. Straight or gay in this context. And by admitting that gay people are human and thus in possession of the full set of human rights; they too have the right to contract. As marriage is a contract granted through the use of government, the government cannot discriminate upon sexual preferences. We adapt and change our concepts because things today are not as they were 1000's of years ago. Everything changes and we begin to understand the world and choices and people better as our societies and knowledge evolves. Since homosexuals are human with the same rights as everyone else, they are more than free to engage in contract. Because we recognize homosexuals as human, the government may not discriminate against them along those lines and cannot refuse the contract of the marriage license from them.

As we grow, we are meant to become more free; not less. To accept, not condemn.

Ockham said:

The current definition of marriage has been in place for over a thousand years in one form or another.

Click to expand...

Wait the current "definition" of one man one woman has been in place for over a thousand years?

Zyphlin said:

However this is a flawed thinking based on one simple thing...

People don't have to have children to enter into a marriage.

People unable to have children can enter into a marriage.

If that was the legal reasoning than sterile men and women should not be allowed to enter into marriage and others would have to make a pledge upon marrying that they WILL have a kid.

Which is in and of itself ridiculous.



However we don't give those tax breaks UNTIL they give to charity.



however we don't give those tax breaks UNTIL they buy a house.



And if this was the actual legal reasoning we shouldn't give them those benefits UNTIL they have a kid.

But we don't, because its not.

Click to expand...

Hope you understand that I'm not supporting that argument, just laying it out to defend against the charge that this is somehow a troll thread.

Jerry said:

Benign examples which prove the rule.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean? How does an exception "prove" anything? You're being illogical.

winston53660 said:

Wait the current "definition" of one man one woman has been in place for over a thousand years?

Click to expand...

Nope, the definition has changed. Polygamy used to be very common, but society's needs changed and the definition was redefined. Marriage as we know it today was not the same as it once way. It also was once an mechanism of property transfer when women were considered property. That's where the father giving away the bride came from. But that too changed, we recognize women not as property, but as humans. Now they are free to engage in the contract of marriage at their leisure. But don't try to burst his "tradition" argument too violently.