Same sex marriage: what is it really?

Zyphlin · Jan 2, 2011

Centrist77 said:
No I get what you want to do, remove it completely. But what I fail to see is if people argue thats discrimination is how to argue against it. I certainly wouldnt argue against them and would see their point.

But to argue discrimination you have to show that the change is discriminating against someone.

But the very first question I would ask if I was trying to argue discrimination is WHY was it changed? And any answer that didnt involve "because gays wanted to get married and some religious people cried loud enough to get the law changed" or because "some overly religious people cried so loud the government made a compromise based on them not wanting gays using the term marriage (even though marriage does NOT have to do with religion) so they changed it" would be pretty much dishonest.

The law regarding marriages, as its currently created, is unconstitutional due to the discrimination it places upon gender that does not meet the required levels of scrutiny to justify such discrimination under the EPC. Therefore, Civil Unions...not marriages...are the more constitutional form of coupling we have in this country. Due to those two fats, coupled with the issue of seperation of church and state and the dual definitions of the word marriage, it is most constitutional and beneficial for the country to reject the unconstitutional form of coupling we currently have and instead focus solely on the constitutional form, leaving the word marriage and that ceremony as something purely within the private sector.

You can't say anyone is being "Discriminated" against in that. The only thing you could say is that religious people could claim they are being "discriminated against" because they can't have the government recognize their term "marriage" anymore...but the government never dealt with religious marriage anyways in reality, so that's rather weak, and additionally for it to be discrimination it would need to be shown that somehow the government IS recognizing other peoples religious coupling, which it wouldn't be. They could claim its "discrimination" because they're the government won't call it marriage anymore, but again, for it to be discrimination someone else would have to be having it called marriage...that's not the case, no one would be.

Sure, people could MAKE the argument. They should be laughed at when they do, because there's no actual argument there if you look at the facts and logic.

What if when blacks wanted to be more 2/3 a man/human the ruling was now NOBDOY will be a man under law, we will all be call patriots now because some white people refuse to call them men, that word is sacred to them, so were are changing the name.

And as long as "Patriots" had all the same rights amongst everyone, alright. However, this is a poor analogy, as "marriage" has a clear long history mixed with religion that is an issue for the government....such is not the case with "man". But even then, you couldn't argue "discrimination"...not in a constitutional sense. In the above suggestion, EVERYONE would be considered the same with the same abilities under the government....they could call it Kwijibo for all I care, that doesn't mean there's discrimination as a legitimate argument in a lawful sense. You could argue that it is overly complicated for literally no reasonable reason, OR you could argue that its based off of discrimination, but neither of those things are unconstitutional.

By that I mean...there's nothing in the constitution that says a persons motivation for something can't come about due to discrimination. However, if said persons motivation turns into a law that causes the government to actively discriminate, then there's a problem.

I know that example is an appeal to emotion and dramatic in ways but Im just doing it to make a point. I couldn't look another american in the eye, especially a gay american and tell them that, yes, making them all civil unions was fair and not discrimination. Thats just my opinion.

I don't mind the appeal to emotion, or the dramatic way. My issue though is complete and utter inability to understand how you see treating everyone the same way is an example of the government discriminating.

roguenuke · Jan 2, 2011

I personally agree with everything you are saying Zyplin, I just don't think that it will happen. That would make a good compromise, but I really do think that we are just going to eventually get same sex marriage rather than an entire word change for the whole thing. It is just a lot simpler, administratively speaking and even legally speaking, than just changing the name of the legal institution.

Jerry · Jan 2, 2011

Redress said:
Hey look, this is interesting: Lessons from a Gay Marriage | Psychology Today

Wow that's a great link. Seriously, a good source.

Before I comment on the imediat topic at hand, I'd like to footnote this:

"Women simply expect different things from marriage than men do," says Nissen. "And if they don't get them, they prefer to live alone."

This is a constant I've observed in my own life, that women generally have an unrealistic expectation of marriage, a fantasy their counterpart can't or won't live up to. Some men have unrealistic expectations also, but men just deal with it; women are the sex initiating most divorces in the US and Denmark, not men.

***
To get back on topic, when it comes to the State promoting stable relationships through offering a marriage license, if we're going to change the rules and offer that license to gay couples in the name of equality, why not also include in the same piece of legislation various standards which improve the divorce rate?

Equality is all well and good, and I'm not saying abandon it, but at the end of the day if you still have a 50% divorce rate, you haven't accomplished anything of lasting value.

In the same pen stroke we open the door to gays we should support the attributes of successful marriages. One such attribute might be raising the legal marriage age:

Lessons from a Gay Marriage said:
...to wait before tying the knot.....They have also been older on average than newly married heterosexuals.

Alfons · Jan 2, 2011

Arcana XV said:
Who the hell cares? Keep your god in your church and out of the government. .

and let Islam conquer our countries, right?

You have the choice only between the Holy Bible and Quran, "thanks" idiotic "politic" of liberals our countries produce not enough children to replace the people. Only strong Christianity can stop Islam, not fluffy - bunny liberals with their brainless "politic".

Jerry · Jan 2, 2011

Centrist77 said:
No need to because it is in fact invalid and meaningless to today's institution of marriage. The FACT that you dont need to have kids to get married or don't need to have them after you get married makes your statement totally irrelevant to the GAY marriage topic.

Now if you would like to debate your statement in a GENERAL way you are welcome too, I was just pointing out that its meaningless to the GAY marriage topic that's all.

Well, I could've quoted some SCOTUS for you and given many examples of the utility of marriage in various cultures, but it seems you've made up your mind. So, have a good one :2wave:

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2011

Zyphlin said:
But to argue discrimination you have to show that the change is discriminating against someone.

The law regarding marriages, as its currently created, is unconstitutional due to the discrimination it places upon gender that does not meet the required levels of scrutiny to justify such discrimination under the EPC. Therefore, Civil Unions...not marriages...are the more constitutional form of coupling we have in this country. Due to those two fats, coupled with the issue of seperation of church and state and the dual definitions of the word marriage, it is most constitutional and beneficial for the country to reject the unconstitutional form of coupling we currently have and instead focus solely on the constitutional form, leaving the word marriage and that ceremony as something purely within the private sector.

You can't say anyone is being "Discriminated" against in that. The only thing you could say is that religious people could claim they are being "discriminated against" because they can't have the government recognize their term "marriage" anymore...but the government never dealt with religious marriage anyways in reality, so that's rather weak, and additionally for it to be discrimination it would need to be shown that somehow the government IS recognizing other peoples religious coupling, which it wouldn't be. They could claim its "discrimination" because they're the government won't call it marriage anymore, but again, for it to be discrimination someone else would have to be having it called marriage...that's not the case, no one would be.

Sure, people could MAKE the argument. They should be laughed at when they do, because there's no actual argument there if you look at the facts and logic.

And as long as "Patriots" had all the same rights amongst everyone, alright. However, this is a poor analogy, as "marriage" has a clear long history mixed with religion that is an issue for the government....such is not the case with "man". But even then, you couldn't argue "discrimination"...not in a constitutional sense. In the above suggestion, EVERYONE would be considered the same with the same abilities under the government....they could call it Kwijibo for all I care, that doesn't mean there's discrimination as a legitimate argument in a lawful sense. You could argue that it is overly complicated for literally no reasonable reason, OR you could argue that its based off of discrimination, but neither of those things are unconstitutional.

By that I mean...there's nothing in the constitution that says a persons motivation for something can't come about due to discrimination. However, if said persons motivation turns into a law that causes the government to actively discriminate, then there's a problem.

I don't mind the appeal to emotion, or the dramatic way. My issue though is complete and utter inability to understand how you see treating everyone the same way is an example of the government discriminating.

See THAT is a good argument but Im guessing there would still be lot of people that would argue it and that would call BS. Id be one of them if asked.

The MAIN motivation to change it would be because people cried they didnt want that term, an already non religius term by law, used to describe gays.

With that answer, that real answer, I see it as the bad guys winning and yielding to people who want to continue to discriminate.

See if the change was just brought on for NO reason or ONLY because its unconstitutional then Id buy it but that fact remains the only reason this is suggested is because of religion crying about a term they have no right too. Or more curiously, MOST of the time they don't even care about it as long as its a man and woman. How often do religions cry over OTHER religions getting married or a person getting married by a magistrate or by singing elvis, its VERY rare. If they are being TRUE and not hypocrites and not discriminating those should EQUALLY bother them.

Again Im not saying that any of this is your stance but I disagree and think they would have a VERY solid leg to stand on for discrimination. It would be because the real motivation for the name change would be to not to allow gays to have that term and I think the majority of the gay population would view it and see it that way. Thats only my opinion I cant speak for them but I see it has a cop out and I think they would too.

Jerry · Jan 2, 2011

roguenuke said:
I personally agree with everything you are saying Zyplin, I just don't think that it will happen. That would make a good compromise, but I really do think that we are just going to eventually get same sex marriage rather than an entire word change for the whole thing. It is just a lot simpler, administratively speaking and even legally speaking, than just changing the name of the legal institution.

IMO, give gays everything they want, and more also.

We need to allow the stable gay relationships to exist while we enhance the license to promote healthy stable marriages for everyone. I mentioned raising the age limit, as marrying young is strongly associated with divorcing. I also support requiring pre-marital counseling and personal finance counseling, as money fights are the leading cause for divorce.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2011

Jerry said:
Well, I could've quoted some SCOTUS for you and given many examples of the utility of marriage in various cultures, but it seems you've made up your mind. So, have a good one :2wave:

Its not my mind, its the facts. No matter what you quote the facts remain. When you get a marriage license you aren't required to have kids so that's the end to your fantasy that you think holds merit in THIS debate. (GAY marriage)

Tomorrow I can get married and NEVER have kids so your point is totally moot, you also have a good one :2wave:

roguenuke · Jan 2, 2011

Jerry said:
Wow that's a great link. Seriously, a good source.

Before I comment on the imediat topic at hand, I'd like to footnote this:

This is a constant I've observed in my own life, that women generally have an unrealistic expectation of marriage, a fantasy their counterpart can't or won't live up to. Some men have unrealistic expectations also, but men just deal with it; women are the sex initiating most divorces in the US and Denmark, not men.[i/QUOTE]

Even if women do initiate most of the divorces, I don't believe that it makes it the woman's fault or that they are all just not trying to work out their marriage. Sometimes marriages shouldn't work out, i.e. if one is abusive or there is some betrayal that affects the foundation of the marriage.

I have only seen men initiate the divorces in my family, with the exception being my grandmother, who faced an unwilling-to-change alcoholic in my grandfather (til after the divorce) and an abusive husband (both her and my aunt) in her second marriage. My father initiated the divorce of my parents (he wanted to live in his home state, my mother found a job that provided better requiring a move, and he had at least one mistress). My uncle divorced my aunt because his parents didn't approve of her (of course, they remarried 5 years later and are still married). And my other aunt still hasn't divorced her abusive husband eventhough they've been separated for over 15 years.

I believe that all divorces depend on the individual and their values, not their gender.

***

Jerry said:

To get back on topic, when it comes to the State promoting stable relationships through offering a marriage license, if we're going to change the rules and offer that license to gay couples in the name of equality, why not also include in the same piece of legislation various standards which improve the divorce rate?

Equality is all well and good, and I'm not saying abandon it, but at the end of the day if you still have a 50% divorce rate, you haven't accomplished anything of lasting value.

In the same pen stroke we open the door to gays we should support the attributes of successful marriages. One such attribute might be raising the legal marriage age:

Click to expand...

I actually kind of agree with you on raising the legal age to marry. At the very least, I believe that the minimum legal age to get married should be 18. Marriage should not be entered into before a person is legally able to sign the contract themselves, without parental permission.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2011

roguenuke said:
I personally agree with everything you are saying Zyplin, I just don't think that it will happen. That would make a good compromise, but I really do think that we are just going to eventually get same sex marriage rather than an entire word change for the whole thing. It is just a lot simpler, administratively speaking and even legally speaking, than just changing the name of the legal institution.

Logically it also makes more sense to leave it has marriage.
Being the optimist that I am I wouldnt be surprsied if gay rights happen within 10 years.

Jerry · Jan 2, 2011

Centrist77 said:
Its not my mind, its the facts. No matter what you quote the facts remain. When you get a marriage license you aren't required to have kids so that's the end to your fantasy that you think holds merit in THIS debate. (GAY marriage)

Tomorrow I can get married and NEVER have kids so your point is totally moot, you also have a good one :2wave:

I'm well aware that you could abuse the right to marry just as many people already do.

You could also go out and rape someone, that doesn't make it right, that just means you can.

Kal'Stang · Jan 2, 2011

roguenuke said:
I actually kind of agree with you on raising the legal age to marry. At the very least, I believe that the minimum legal age to get married should be 18. Marriage should not be entered into before a person is legally able to sign the contract themselves, without parental permission.

Don't quote me but I have a feeling that Jerry was talking about raising the age even higher. But since I'm not a mind reader I'm not sure. Just a feeling....

Dutch · Jan 2, 2011

Centrist77 said:
This is dishonest IMO but again lets say its true
If marriage doesnt promote monogamy then to me it further proves that length or relationships is MORE of an invalde argument than it was to begin with

Invalid in what way? Long term relationships aren't particularly important to humans tho I believe men do seem to benefit from it. I believe there is some research out there to suggest mankind may just be hardwired to sleep with a number of individuals in order to produce offspring. This may or may not be true. I see no reason to doubt the idea tho.

For whatever reason many of the world's cultures seem to believe long term relationships are important. My best guess would be to raise competent adults. This is an endeavour that does require enormous amounts of time, some 20 years for our paticular culture. Longer in my son's case. He's in his mid-20's and still isn't a fully functioning adult, he's in graduate school. That requires more of my time but that's fine by me because I think it's important for my son to be a success in our culture.

Next is, in our culture, raising children in marriage already is a non factor, you dont have to nor are required too, so thats not an argument either.

Not in my particular culture. Yes, in many of the sub-cultures that happen to inhabit this land it isn't......and it's a growing problem.

I'm now going to tell you far too much about myself. I was an elementary classroom teacher for 10 years. I've spent the last four as a librarian in two small, poor, rural districts in my homeland of northern arkansas.

In that time I've seen the result of divorce, blended, blasted, hopelessly compromised groupings of individuals and sometimes family members all trying to survive into adulthood. I've seen children living with strangers because their parents simply gave them away. I've seen family groupings whereby single mothers had four or five children, all with different fathers. I can't tell you the number of children being raised by grandparents and even totally unrelated individuals due simply to marriage. I had a child some years back being raised by her grandmother and live in boyfriend, some 20 years junior. The grandmother died in her sleep and the boyfriend/step-father/guy just continued to raise her until he mother got out of prison. By that time he already had another live-in girlfriend. The last I heard of the child she and her sister were with their mother in fort smith arkansas...and she was partying....again. I remember asking a child one time how her father was doing. She looked at me with dead-eyes and said "which one." It shook me down to my soul.

I go home some nights and I just can't think. I can't feel. I just wonder. I wonder about a lot of things. Maybe it's because I'm one of them. I never knew my father. I had a wonderful adoptive father that my mother managed to run off and then marry a man I now know to have been mentally ill. I've been shot at twice in my life, once by him.

I dropped out of high school, did a stint in the navy, bumbed around awhile. Did some things I'm still not proud of. Then I did something different. I decided to be a different man than I was. I started by going to work...on time. Things just snowballed on me after that. A house, a wife, a son, responsibilities. I've been married some 30 years now and I've never looked back.

I'm still saddened just about every day by what I see some "parents" do to their children, but I'm still fighting. My health is fading, but I'm still fighting. I'm not complaining, my life has meaning.

So, if I seem cranky, obstinate, crusty, it's because I am. If I seem as if I have strong feelings about a number of issues, marriage, child rearing, for instances, it's because I do. If I seem dubious about research that seems to suggest to all contrary previous evidence men and women aren't both vitally important in the raising of children it's because I am.

Good day to you, sir.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2011

Jerry said:
Wow that's a great link. Seriously, a good source.

Before I comment on the imediat topic at hand, I'd like to footnote this:

This is a constant I've observed in my own life, that women generally have an unrealistic expectation of marriage, a fantasy their counterpart can't or won't live up to. Some men have unrealistic expectations also, but men just deal with it; women are the sex initiating most divorces in the US and Denmark, not men.

***
To get back on topic, when it comes to the State promoting stable relationships through offering a marriage license, if we're going to change the rules and offer that license to gay couples in the name of equality, why not also include in the same piece of legislation various standards which improve the divorce rate?

Equality is all well and good, and I'm not saying abandon it, but at the end of the day if you still have a 50% divorce rate, you haven't accomplished anything of lasting value.

In the same pen stroke we open the door to gays we should support the attributes of successful marriages. One such attribute might be raising the legal marriage age:

Increasing the age would be fine by me, I'd have no problem with that and think it would be fine, I think it wouldn't work though unless its made 18 with NO exceptions. I only believe that because that's the age our society has picked for everything, voting, dying for your country, getting tried as an adult etc. Only drinking isnt 18.

Can anyone tell me if there are states that you can be under 18 with permission or a co-signer of sorts?

roguenuke · Jan 2, 2011

Centrist77 said:
Logically it also makes more sense to leave it has marriage.
Being the optimist that I am I wouldnt be surprsied if gay rights happen within 10 years.

I don't believe a change really is needed. I honestly believe that we will just get same sex marriage. But I can see the validity of the argument.

Now, I don't believe that it is a compromise that is likely to be offered, anyway. There are way too many anti-SSM people who want to maintain their ability to be called "married" and keep the gays from getting "their" word. Their own idea of a compromise still includes discrimination, but they don't see it. Civil unions just for one group is still discrimination.

It really does remind me of that Dr. Suess book about the two groups, one had stars on their bellies and the other didn't. The group with stars felt that they were better than the one's without, until the ones w/o were able to get stars, then they wanted their removed. Eventually, no one knew who had stars originally and who didn't.

Redress · Jan 2, 2011

More interesting stuff: http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf

These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the
American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.

Dutch · Jan 2, 2011

roguenuke said:
Jerry said:

Wow that's a great link. Seriously, a good source.

Before I comment on the imediat topic at hand, I'd like to footnote this:

This is a constant I've observed in my own life, that women generally have an unrealistic expectation of marriage, a fantasy their counterpart can't or won't live up to. Some men have unrealistic expectations also, but men just deal with it; women are the sex initiating most divorces in the US and Denmark, not men.[i/QUOTE]

Even if women do initiate most of the divorces, I don't believe that it makes it the woman's fault or that they are all just not trying to work out their marriage. Sometimes marriages shouldn't work out, i.e. if one is abusive or there is some betrayal that affects the foundation of the marriage.

I have only seen men initiate the divorces in my family, with the exception being my grandmother, who faced an unwilling-to-change alcoholic in my grandfather (til after the divorce) and an abusive husband (both her and my aunt) in her second marriage. My father initiated the divorce of my parents (he wanted to live in his home state, my mother found a job that provided better requiring a move, and he had at least one mistress). My uncle divorced my aunt because his parents didn't approve of her (of course, they remarried 5 years later and are still married). And my other aunt still hasn't divorced her abusive husband eventhough they've been separated for over 15 years.

I believe that all divorces depend on the individual and their values, not their gender.

***

I actually kind of agree with you on raising the legal age to marry. At the very least, I believe that the minimum legal age to get married should be 18. Marriage should not be entered into before a person is legally able to sign the contract themselves, without parental permission.

Click to expand...

My father once remarked "it's a damn wonder any marriage last for long. Women go into it thinking they can change their husbands. Men going into it thinking their brides will not change."

Jerry · Jan 2, 2011

roguenuke said:
Even if women do initiate most of the divorces, I don't believe that it makes it the woman's fault or that they are all just not trying to work out their marriage. Sometimes marriages shouldn't work out, i.e. if one is abusive or there is some betrayal that affects the foundation of the marriage.

I didn't see where the source provided said that women initiate most divorces because they're all abused.

I did see where the study claimed that women initiate most divorces due to unmet expectations.

roguenuke said:
I believe that all divorces depend on the individual and their values, not their gender.

It's imposable to discuss individuals in this online setting. Even if we had the resolve to go through billions of personal profiles, we couldn't, as per DebatePolitics.com's rules against exposing personal information, even about yourself, even with your consent.

So, we have to stick to groups and populations.

Statistically, the leading cause for divorce in the US is money troubles, not abuse. Even if abuse were the leading cause for divorce, there is no movement to ban divorcing an abusive spouse. There are already laws on the books against abuse, so I don't see what any additional legislation could accomplish.

roguenuke said:
I actually kind of agree with you on raising the legal age to marry. At the very least, I believe that the minimum legal age to get married should be 18. Marriage should not be entered into before a person is legally able to sign the contract themselves, without parental permission.

I might support something stronger, say 25, as that age is associated with marriages becoming more resistant to divorce.

I wouldn't expect an age increase to 25 to piggy-back a gay-marriage law, however. I don't see any politician standing on the steps of a courthouse, in front of a large crowd of gay couples, proclaiming that equality has been achieved...and then sending over half that crowd away because they're now under age to marry.

roguenuke · Jan 2, 2011

Kal'Stang said:
Don't quote me but I have a feeling that Jerry was talking about raising the age even higher. But since I'm not a mind reader I'm not sure. Just a feeling....

I don't agree with raising it higher, just because I think every legal ability should be available at the age of majority or it is age discrimination. 18 isn't really an unreasonable age limit to set marriage at, but I don't know how the support would go for that. There still are a lot of people who believe that girls who are pregnant, no matter their age, should get married, preferably to the father of the baby.

But I don't have any issue with some of his other suggestions either, like requiring marriage counseling and/or financial counseling to get married. I just don't see those things really coming about any time soon.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2011

Dutch said:
Invalid in what way? Long term relationships aren't particularly important to humans tho I believe men do seem to benefit from it. I believe there is some research out there to suggest mankind may just be hardwired to sleep with a number of individuals in order to produce offspring. This may or may not be true. I see no reason to doubt the idea tho.

For whatever reason many of the world's cultures seem to believe long term relationships are important. My best guess would be to raise competent adults. This is an endeavour that does require enormous amounts of time, some 20 years for our paticular culture. Longer in my son's case. He's in his mid-20's and still isn't a fully functioning adult, he's in graduate school. That requires more of my time but that's fine by me because I think it's important for my son to be a success in our culture.

Not in my particular culture. Yes, in many of the sub-cultures that happen to inhabit this land it isn't......and it's a growing problem.

I'm now going to tell you far too much about myself. I was an elementary classroom teacher for 10 years. I've spent the last four as a librarian in two small, poor, rural districts in my homeland of northern arkansas.

In that time I've seen the result of divorce, blended, blasted, hopelessly compromised groupings of individuals and sometimes family members all trying to survive into adulthood. I've seen children living with strangers because their parents simply gave them away. I've seen family groupings whereby single mothers had four or five children, all with different fathers. I can't tell you the number of children being raised by grandparents and even totally unrelated individuals due simply to marriage. I had a child some years back being raised by her grandmother and live in boyfriend, some 20 years junior. The grandmother died in her sleep and the boyfriend/step-father/guy just continued to raise her until he mother got out of prison. By that time he already had another live-in girlfriend. The last I heard of the child she and her sister were with their mother in fort smith arkansas...and she was partying....again. I remember asking a child one time how her father was doing. She looked at me with dead-eyes and said "which one." It shook me down to my soul.

I go home some nights and I just can't think. I can't feel. I just wonder. I wonder about a lot of things. Maybe it's because I'm one of them. I never knew my father. I had a wonderful adoptive father that my mother managed to run off and then marry a man I now know to have been mentally ill. I've been shot at twice in my life, once by him.

I dropped out of high school, did a stint in the navy, bumbed around awhile. Did some things I'm still not proud of. Then I did something different. I decided to be a different man than I was. I started by going to work...on time. Things just snowballed on me after that. A house, a wife, a son, responsibilities. I've been married some 30 years now and I've never looked back.

I'm still saddened just about every day by what I see some "parents" do to their children, but I'm still fighting. My health is fading, but I'm still fighting. I'm not complaining, my life has meaning.

So, if I seem cranky, obstinate, crusty, it's because I am. If I seem as if I have strong feelings about a number of issues, marriage, child rearing, for instances, it's because I do. If I seem dubious about research that seems to suggest to all contrary previous evidence men and women aren't both vitally important in the raising of children it's because I am.

Good day to you, sir.

Wow thats a lot of nothing for the topic at hand. I am sadden by your stories and concerned about society and how people view MARRIAGE in general but all those things are topics about MARRIAGE period, not gay marriage. Start your own thread about how we can improve marriage, family values/unite and you have many on board and a bunch of personal experience to pull from.

Not to be insensitive about your issues but the FACTS remain that the CURRENT marriage system doesn't factor in stability or relationship length nor are children a factor.

I don't WANT people getting divorced every year but they CAN and DO, none factor to GAY marriage.
I can get married tomorrow and never have kids, none factor to GAY marriage.

If you want to change the rules of marriage or education of the family unit that is FINE by me and a GOOD idea in my opinion. But it still isnt a reason to discriminate against gay marriage at all. Gays are AMERICANS, they are in OUR SOCIETY, they are in OUR FAMILIES. So the things you want to do to improve US you dont leave them behind, you bring them for the ride so we ALL improve.

Jerry · Jan 2, 2011

Centrist77 said:
Increasing the age would be fine by me, I'd have no problem with that and think it would be fine, I think it wouldn't work though unless its made 18 with NO exceptions. I only believe that because that's the age our society has picked for everything, voting, dying for your country, getting tried as an adult etc. Only drinking isnt 18.

Can anyone tell me if there are states that you can be under 18 with permission or a co-signer of sorts?

Marriage Laws in the US by Age

South Dakota: Applicants 16 and 17 must have parental consent. South Dakota law does not permit marriage of those under 16.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2011

Jerry said:
I'm well aware that you could abuse the right to marry just as many people already do.

You could also go out and rape someone, that doesn't make it right, that just means you can.

Glad you agree that your opinions are for a different topic then, you ARE perceptive.
The rape example has no merit, thanks.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2011

Jerry said:
Marriage Laws in the US by Age

Thanks
Like I said Id be willing to go to 18 but higher than that would probably be an impossible sell.

Jerry · Jan 2, 2011

Centrist77 said:
Thanks
Like I said Id be willing to go to 18 but higher than that would probably be an impossible sell.

I'll change gears on you then and use a different example.

Sure, people who plan to never ever carry a concealed weapon can go get a CCW....but who cares? No, you're right, the government doesn't require you to have a firearm at any point in your life while you have a CCW, but if you're not going to carry, why should anyone care whether you can get a CCW or not? Why should non-carriers be the focus of any push to give more more people access to a CCW.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2011

Jerry said:
I'll change gears on you then and use a different example.

Sure, people who plan to never ever carry a concealed weapon can go get a CCW....but who cares? No, you're right, the government doesn't require you to have a firearm at any point in your life while you have a CCW, but if you're not going to carry, why should anyone care whether you can get a CCW or not? Why should non-carriers be the focus of any push to give more more people access to a CCW.

LMAO change gears all you want, your arguments have no merit for GAY marriage, only MARRIAGE.
Like I said if you want to change marriage in general that's fine I have no problem with that but you dont discriminate against gays while doing so you bring them for the ride so we ALL improve.

Also your example is dumb for 2 reasons, CWPs what I call them and have, do not discriminate against gays.
Secondly since the MARRIAGE license isn't called a RIGHT TO BARE CHILDREN license it makes no sense what so ever. LMAO

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?

A special right

Equal protection

Other

More options

Zyphlin

roguenuke

Jerry

Alfons

Jerry

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Jerry

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

roguenuke

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Jerry

Kal'Stang

Dutch

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

roguenuke

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Dutch

Jerry

roguenuke

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Jerry

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Jerry

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"