Gay Marriage

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Okay, Lunar, where we seem to be differing mostly is over the nature of rights. Rights are not absolute. They always come with limits and conditions and are often withheld from individuals for the sake of a healthy society. Kids can't buy alcohol because then the right to drink becomes a detriment to society when alcoholic third graders fail to finish school or injur themselves or others as a result of exercising the right.
Well... Hero, they don't have that right... it is not legal for them to buy, consume or provide to other third graders that alcohol. You see... the key to all this is 'legal'. Legal is the measure by which our behavior is controlled or sought to be controlled.

Felons can't vote because then the right to vote becomes a detriment to society. People are, in fact, legally discriminated against to protect the healthfulness to society of certain rights. Marriage is no different. I'm asserting that to maintain it's positive effect on society as a standard, it needs to discriminate in the same manner so many other rights do.
Well... it is illegal for a felon who has not had his civil right of the vote restored to vote.. Society saw fit to deny that right to the felon... it is the law.
So, Hero, it follows that anything illegal is immoral as well but, what is legal must be considered moral and it must be equally available. This is the tenor of the USSC on every issue it has been faced with.

Some may well have serious argument against 'gay marriage' based on all sorts of rationalization. But, the fact remains that marriage itself is not harmed by who gets married. The basic rights we enjoy are individual rights. That is my basic argument. The right to marry and garner the benefits consistent with the 'full faith ...' clause insures Colorado recognize Utah's law as it may pertain to a Citizen of Utah passing through Colorado. This is an individual right. Income tax is individual as is Social Security as is when one dies intestate. The ability for one to be automatically enabled for health care as next of kin or the other law regarding marriage.
We must treat all individuals as equal. To deny Betty the ability to marry just because the spouse's name is Joan is denial of the same right you have to Betty. I know I married a person with a girl name. What difference does my sex have to do with it?
By no reasonable measurement is the 'Union' that is created by 'Marriage' harmed by the partners so joined.
The strongest argument I could come up with was that if that is the case and gay marriage is affirmed then gay prisoners will marry each other in prison and demand apartment living and so on (to be equal and all that)... Not that I'm against them getting married but the issue to me is in the cost and the absence of the penal aspects of prison.

edit: We need a law which denies felons the right to marriage but, I don't think that will fly..

I disagree. For the reasons stated above, I believe that once marriage is no longer defined just as a mongomous heterosexual bond, it weakens what marriage represents. If you change democracy so that all the decisions can be made by one person, it ceases to offer the benefits of democracy...you can still call it democracy, but the word no longer carries the same meaning.

And we all do have the same rights. Every man, homosexual or not, has the same right...to marry a single woman. So we all have the same rights. Should a man choose not to exercise that right, that's his choice. Gays are a minority who want a new right just for them...and that right is to destroy the defiition of marriage and marriages role in society to accomodate what is by every account a lifestyle choice and not a biological distinction. I don't think they deserve that right.

 

[user1234]

let them do whatever they want

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Hahahahahah this argument by the fundies is always funny. It's like they can't understand sexuality.
Zephyr

By all accounts that is EXACTLY what is going on. I laughed when they chased down the members of Frankie Goes To Hollywood and they're all married and have kids. I remember my gay cousin as a kid saying he "wanted" to be gay. How about the fact that in most gay coupoles, one of the partners instinctually begins to assume some aspects of the opposite sex? You know...one of the lesbians cuts her hair short and wear fatiques while the other doesn't or one guy assumes the feminine role in a gay relationship.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Okay, Lunar, where we seem to be differing mostly is over the nature of rights. Rights are not absolute. They always come with limits and conditions and are often withheld from individuals for the sake of a healthy society. Kids can't buy alcohol because then the right to drink becomes a detriment to society when alcoholic third graders fail to finish school or injur themselves or others as a result of exercising the right.
Well... Hero, they don't have that right... it is not legal for them to buy, consume or provide to other third graders that alcohol. You see... the key to all this is 'legal'. Legal is the measure by which our behavior is controlled or sought to be controlled.

Felons can't vote because then the right to vote becomes a detriment to society. People are, in fact, legally discriminated against to protect the healthfulness to society of certain rights. Marriage is no different. I'm asserting that to maintain it's positive effect on society as a standard, it needs to discriminate in the same manner so many other rights do.
Well... it is illegal for a felon who has not had his civil right of the vote restored to vote.. Society saw fit to deny that right to the felon... it is the law.
So, Hero, it follows that anything illegal is immoral as well but, what is legal must be considered moral and it must be equally available. This is the tenor of the USSC on every issue it has been faced with.

Some may well have serious argument against 'gay marriage' based on all sorts of rationalization. But, the fact remains that marriage itself is not harmed by who gets married. The basic rights we enjoy are individual rights. That is my basic argument. The right to marry and garner the benefits consistent with the 'full faith ...' clause insures Colorado recognize Utah's law as it may pertain to a Citizen of Utah passing through Colorado. This is an individual right. Income tax is individual as is Social Security as is when one dies intestate. The ability for one to be automatically enabled for health care as next of kin or the other law regarding marriage.
We must treat all individuals as equal. To deny Betty the ability to marry just because the spouse's name is Joan is denial of the same right you have to Betty. I know I married a person with a girl name. What difference does my sex have to do with it?
By no reasonable measurement is the 'Union' that is created by 'Marriage' harmed by the partners so joined.
The strongest argument I could come up with was that if that is the case and gay marriage is affirmed then gay prisoners will marry each other in prison and demand apartment living and so on (to be equal and all that)... Not that I'm against them getting married but the issue to me is in the cost and the absence of the penal aspects of prison.

edit: We need a law which denies felons the right to marriage but, I don't think that will fly..

I disagree. For the reasons stated above, I believe that once marriage is no longer defined just as a mongomous heterosexual bond, it weakens what marriage represents. If you change democracy so that all the decisions can be made by one person, it ceases to offer the benefits of democracy...you can still call it democracy, but the word no longer carries the same meaning.

And we all do have the same rights. Every man, homosexual or not, has the same right...to marry a single woman. So we all have the same rights. Should a man choose not to exercise that right, that's his choice. Gays are a minority who want a new right just for them...and that right is to destroy the defiition of marriage and marriages role in society to accomodate what is by every account a lifestyle choice and not a biological distinction. I don't think they deserve that right.

If your marriage is THAT weak, i pity your wife.

You forgot the fact that not EVERYONE can marry the person they love, of course, as this does not apply to you and fighting for someone ELSES right would be far beyond you you don't care about that.

It was not SO long ago when it was a mans right to beat his wife, it was not SO long ago when a white woman and a black man could not get married (and i am sure you will look funny at them if you see such a couple today) but society progresses, we leave you strangely bigoted morons behind and become more evolved or whatever you want to call it.

Fifty years from now some strange human will probably look at a married gay couple the same way you would look at such a couple that i described earlier, but you know what, that is ok, we know you are a dying breed.

Good riddance is all i have to say to you and your kind.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: user1234
let them do whatever they want

I agree. That should replace the US Constitution, in fact. Tear the whole thing up and replace it with that one reckless naiive statement, "let them do whatever they want"...that way nobody ever feels oppressed. Freaking brilliant!!!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
If your marriage is THAT weak, i pity your wife.

You forgot the fact that not EVERYONE can marry the person they love, of course, as this does not apply to you and fighting for someone ELSES right would be far beyond you you don't care about that.

It was not SO long ago when it was a mans right to beat his wife, it was not SO long ago when a white woman and a black man could not get married (and i am sure you will look funny at them if you see such a couple today) but society progresses, we leave you strangely bigoted morons behind and become more evolved or whatever you want to call it.

Fifty years from now some strange human will probably look at a married gay couple the same way you would look at such a couple that i described earlier, but you know what, that is ok, we know you are a dying breed.

Good riddance is all i have to say to you and your kind.

I'm still not replying to any of your posts until you are ready for rational debate.

--Edited--

 

[Dimkaumd]

HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm still not replying to any of your posts until you are ready for rational debate.

:roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

"Gays are a minority who want a new right just for them."

Not so. You will be able to marry a guy too.

"I don't think they deserve that right."

Yes, but your reasons are all based on prior prejudice inculcated as part of a belief system. Rights are are protected by law enforcement precisely because there always some damn fool that wants to take yours away. It really galls me that you Christian bigots breed. Can't wait till there's enough votes to pass an amendment.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Hahahahahah this argument by the fundies is always funny. It's like they can't understand sexuality.
Zephyr

By all accounts that is EXACTLY what is going on. I laughed when they chased down the members of Frankie Goes To Hollywood and they're all married and have kids. I remember my gay cousin as a kid saying he "wanted" to be gay. How about the fact that in most gay coupoles, one of the partners instinctually begins to assume some aspects of the opposite sex? You know...one of the lesbians cuts her hair short and wear fatiques while the other doesn't or one guy assumes the feminine role in a gay relationship.

No, this does not happen in EVERY case and unless you have a scientifically proven, peer reviewed double blind study to prove that i suggest you keep your mouth from the bull excrements.

Because what you have is your belief, that is all you got, how about the rest of the world, do we get a say or is it your black and white world that goes and everyone else is just wrong?

Your "everyone knows" idiocy only makes you look more like a fool.

It's like "everyone knows you'll catch a cold if you get your feet wet" well, everyone "knows" that but it's still BS.

 

[Dimkaumd]

anyone agree with my statement above?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Klixxer
If your marriage is THAT weak, i pity your wife.

You forgot the fact that not EVERYONE can marry the person they love, of course, as this does not apply to you and fighting for someone ELSES right would be far beyond you you don't care about that.

It was not SO long ago when it was a mans right to beat his wife, it was not SO long ago when a white woman and a black man could not get married (and i am sure you will look funny at them if you see such a couple today) but society progresses, we leave you strangely bigoted morons behind and become more evolved or whatever you want to call it.

Fifty years from now some strange human will probably look at a married gay couple the same way you would look at such a couple that i described earlier, but you know what, that is ok, we know you are a dying breed.

Good riddance is all i have to say to you and your kind.

I'm still not replying to any of your posts until you are ready for rational debate.

--Edited--

A rational debate would be agreeing with you or what?

I think the fact that you brought up that every man can marry any single woman speaks volumes of what you consider rational.

Give me ONE good reason why gays should not be allowed to marry, not the slipperly slope that was used when interracial marriages were discussed, just ONE good argument, who knows, maybe you can even sway me, it's not like i set my beliefs in stone.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

No, actually NO marriage is a "right" for everyone. The gov't has set limits to who can and can't get married. Infact certain people do not have any legal "right" to marry here in the US.
3 examples of what I am speaking of:
1. Those determined by the state to not be of competent or sound mind. This includes those with mental retardation. This varies state to state depending on their guardianship statutes but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
2. Age. The gov't restricts those who have this "right" to those of legal age. Again this may vary from state to state but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two.

These are all based on what the gov't has defined marriage as and what rules they put in place around it. So anyway this "right" isn't really a "right" as it sits now -there are guidelines that limit it. The issue of who "grants" these "rights" isn't really the correct context. The gov't doesn't "grant" rights - it provides legal guidelines for those seeking to exercise these "rights" which essentially is gov't and legal recognition thereof.
No, it is not society's role to "accomodate everyone's lifestyle" and it certainly isn't the gov't role to give legal status to everyone's lifestyle.

CkG

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
anyone agree with my statement above?

I do.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
anyone agree with my statement above?

I do.

...I now pronounce you....



CkG


(come on - laugh! )

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Gays are a minority who want a new right just for them...and that right is to destroy the defiition of marriage and marriages role in society to accomodate what is by every account a lifestyle choice and not a biological distinction. I don't think they deserve that right.

No, there are several correlational twin studies that imply a genetic component to homosexuality. It's not proof, but "all accounts" do not agree.

How about the fact that in most gay coupoles, one of the partners instinctually begins to assume some aspects of the opposite sex? You know...one of the lesbians cuts her hair short and wear fatiques while the other doesn't or one guy assumes the feminine role in a gay relationship.

This doesn't happen in all gay relationships. I once knew a lesbian couple where both were attractive and both wore makeup and dresses. Yes, it was very hot. No, they didn't allow "joiners." Also, in most gay couples I have known, both men were very fey. And I have known many lesbian couples where both members were fairly "butch." Your sterotypes would be very challenged if you spent just one night in a Gay bar. Bring a chick, they really dig it. And you have very little competition.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"But trying to force the state to give a government stamp-of-approval to destructive acts through judicial activism is a horse of a totally different color."

Yeah.. except there is no force, there is no stamp of approval, no destructive acts and no judicial activism.

Except that I?ve given support for all of those ideas, and you've yet to come up with anything but a "nuh uhh" counter argument.

good job in showing exactly what you can come up with without misusing the term bigot to defend your point of view.

bigot ... bigotry

...nevermind.

Worry about all the good Christian women who will die in childbirth

So you equate necessary functions to the continuation of life with sexually deviant behavior intended for personal satisfaction. Well, I?m sure we can allow all clear-thinking individuals looking for the best approach to society to take a look at my bigotry and your irrationality and come to what the most utilitarian conclusion is.

Or is this a "i don't care about utility I?m just right and anyone who disagrees is a bigot" issue?

Yea, thought so.

That kind of closed mindedness that intends to hurt others because of what they believe is the true definition bigotry.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

No, actually NO marriage is a "right". The gov't has set limits to who can and can't get married. Infact certain people do not have any legal "right" to marry here in the US.
3 examples of what I am speaking of:
1. Those determined by the state to not be of competent or sound mind. This includes those with mental retardation. This varies state to state depending on their guardianship statutes but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
2. Age. The gov't restricts those who have this "right" to those of legal age. Again this may vary from state to state but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two.

These are all based on what the gov't has defined marriage as and what rules they put in place around it. So anyway this "right" isn't really a "right" as it sits now -there are guidelines that limit it. The issue of who "grants" these "rights" isn't really the correct context. The gov't doesn't "grant" rights - it provides legal guidelines for those seeking to exercise these "rights" which essentially is gov't and legal recognition thereof.
No, it is not society's role to "accomodate everyone's lifestyle" and it certainly isn't the gov't role to give legal status to everyone's lifestyle.

CkG

1. Seriously? Even if the legal guardian agrees?
2. Of course, as long as you are not of legal age, goes without saying
3. Yup

Is it me or is there no mention of sex at all in this?

When it comes to societies role, acceptance of different lifestyles as long as it is not illegal is required.

What you are saying is basically that YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

Well then, let me ask you this, should the government care about personal relationships and marriages at all? And if so, why?

 

[Dimkaumd]

CADkindaGUY:
The examples provided above are examples of people who are deemed not capable of making consentual agreement. meaning a psycho cannot get married because he is insane...and a young person is too young to make a rational decision. thus, it is still a right, it just can be limited in cases where the person in question is deemed not capable of rationally consenting to marriage.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
CADkindaGUY:
The examples provided above are examples of people who are deemed not capable of making consentual agreement. meaning a psycho cannot get married because he is insane...and a young person is too young to make a rational decision. thus, it is still a right, it just can be limited in cases where the person in question is deemed not capable of rationally consenting to marriage.

I think the case for being able to marry whoever you wish who is a consenting adult is a strong one, in fact, if you were to argue that it is not a right, then is there a right to bear arms? i think pretty much the same rules apply there or even stricter rules.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

No, actually NO marriage is a "right". The gov't has set limits to who can and can't get married. Infact certain people do not have any legal "right" to marry here in the US.
3 examples of what I am speaking of:
1. Those determined by the state to not be of competent or sound mind. This includes those with mental retardation. This varies state to state depending on their guardianship statutes but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
2. Age. The gov't restricts those who have this "right" to those of legal age. Again this may vary from state to state but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two.

These are all based on what the gov't has defined marriage as and what rules they put in place around it. So anyway this "right" isn't really a "right" as it sits now -there are guidelines that limit it. The issue of who "grants" these "rights" isn't really the correct context. The gov't doesn't "grant" rights - it provides legal guidelines for those seeking to exercise these "rights" which essentially is gov't and legal recognition thereof.
No, it is not society's role to "accomodate everyone's lifestyle" and it certainly isn't the gov't role to give legal status to everyone's lifestyle.

CkG

1. Seriously? Even if the legal guardian agrees?
2. Of course, as long as you are not of legal age, goes without saying
3. Yup

Is it me or is there no mention of sex at all in this?

When it comes to societies role, acceptance of different lifestyles as long as it is not illegal is required.

What you are saying is basically that YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

Well then, let me ask you this, should the government care about personal relationships and marriages at all? And if so, why?

Having multiple live-in girlfriends is an alternative sexual behavior, one that is illegal to express through marriage.

how is homosexuality any different on a principled level?

YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

why should we be? If one person?s actions are bad for everyone why should we want to encourage those actions?

we aren?t saying lock people up for having sex with each other, we are saying that it's not the role of the government to give the title marriage to those who are sexually deviant.

including 2 people of the same sex, 2 people of the same relation, 3 people of any sort, or any number of people and any number of animals.

at what point is the principled line drawn that we can start judging other peoples sexually deviant behavior as wrong enough that we shouldn't encourage it?

 

[Dimkaumd]

bearing an arm is a right. violating someone elses rights with it is not. in other words - if i rob a bank with it, im violating someones right of property. of course even though this right exists, if the government feels that in certain areas society would benefit from a reduction of guns, and takes away ppls rights to bear arms that is legitimate. (to an extent)

 

[Dimkaumd]

to make the connection with gay marriage: you could argue that the govt can take away the right of gay marriage for the overall benefit of society...but there is no benefit...at least not a concrete one. sounds utilitarian...but thats the best i can do.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

No, actually NO marriage is a "right". The gov't has set limits to who can and can't get married. Infact certain people do not have any legal "right" to marry here in the US.
3 examples of what I am speaking of:
1. Those determined by the state to not be of competent or sound mind. This includes those with mental retardation. This varies state to state depending on their guardianship statutes but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
2. Age. The gov't restricts those who have this "right" to those of legal age. Again this may vary from state to state but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two.

These are all based on what the gov't has defined marriage as and what rules they put in place around it. So anyway this "right" isn't really a "right" as it sits now -there are guidelines that limit it. The issue of who "grants" these "rights" isn't really the correct context. The gov't doesn't "grant" rights - it provides legal guidelines for those seeking to exercise these "rights" which essentially is gov't and legal recognition thereof.
No, it is not society's role to "accomodate everyone's lifestyle" and it certainly isn't the gov't role to give legal status to everyone's lifestyle.

CkG

1. Seriously? Even if the legal guardian agrees?
2. Of course, as long as you are not of legal age, goes without saying
3. Yup

Is it me or is there no mention of sex at all in this?

When it comes to societies role, acceptance of different lifestyles as long as it is not illegal is required.

What you are saying is basically that YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

Well then, let me ask you this, should the government care about personal relationships and marriages at all? And if so, why?

1. Yes. My sister-in-law is Downs Syndrome(but very mild yet needs constant structure - basically she'll be about 12years old forever). If my mother-in-law decides to bring her guardianship status to Iowa(they moved from Wisconsin) then my SIL will lose not only her "right" to marry but also her right to vote. Iowa's system doesn't allow(ATM) for limited guardianships whereas Wisconsin does. They don't have to change which state the guardianship is filed in but it would be far more convenient to file the required paperwork here locally instead of having to send it to Wisconsin when it is due. There is continuous paperwork that gets filed when you have guardianship. Constant income/spending reports, health reports, etc. It's absolutely how much work there is to being a guardian.
2. Why is this "OK" but other limits considered "discrimination"? People married young less than 100 years ago - why is it not "legal" today? What changed?
3. Exactly so why isn't this considered "discrimination"? Why shouldn't this be a "right" too?

No, society isn't "required" to accept all lifestyles. We make laws everyday that limits what is acceptable behavior in our society.

No, I didn't say that with what I posted. I do however know that the gov't places restrictions and put in place guidelines for "rights".

"personal relationships"? - no. However if the gov't is going to base other legal things on one's marriage status then they must also define and regulate marriage.

CkG

edit - spelling

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

No, actually NO marriage is a "right". The gov't has set limits to who can and can't get married. Infact certain people do not have any legal "right" to marry here in the US.
3 examples of what I am speaking of:
1. Those determined by the state to not be of competent or sound mind. This includes those with mental retardation. This varies state to state depending on their guardianship statutes but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
2. Age. The gov't restricts those who have this "right" to those of legal age. Again this may vary from state to state but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two.

These are all based on what the gov't has defined marriage as and what rules they put in place around it. So anyway this "right" isn't really a "right" as it sits now -there are guidelines that limit it. The issue of who "grants" these "rights" isn't really the correct context. The gov't doesn't "grant" rights - it provides legal guidelines for those seeking to exercise these "rights" which essentially is gov't and legal recognition thereof.
No, it is not society's role to "accomodate everyone's lifestyle" and it certainly isn't the gov't role to give legal status to everyone's lifestyle.

CkG

1. Seriously? Even if the legal guardian agrees?
2. Of course, as long as you are not of legal age, goes without saying
3. Yup

Is it me or is there no mention of sex at all in this?

When it comes to societies role, acceptance of different lifestyles as long as it is not illegal is required.

What you are saying is basically that YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

Well then, let me ask you this, should the government care about personal relationships and marriages at all? And if so, why?

Having multiple live-in girlfriends is an alternative sexual behavior, one that is illegal to express through marriage.

how is homosexuality any different on a principled level?

YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

why should we be? If one person?s actions are bad for everyone why should we want to encourage those actions?

we aren?t saying lock people up for having sex with each other, we are saying that it's not the role of the government to give the title marriage to those who are sexually deviant.

including 2 people of the same sex, 2 people of the same relation, 3 people of any sort, or any number of people and any number of animals.

at what point is the principled line drawn that we can start judging other peoples sexually deviant behavior as wrong enough that we shouldn't encourage it?

Sexually deviant? Does that include whips? what if a man is heterosexual but deviant, should we monitor everyones sexual habits to make sure?

In what way are homosexuals actions bad for everyone? How about strangulation sex, is that more or less harmful than gay sex, in what way is gay sex harmful?

It took me two seconds to destroy your arguments.

How about you can the slippery slope, it's old, it's tired and it doesn't help your argument, if anything, it is an argument against state sanctioned relationships alltogether.

How about you strange people just accept that there are differences in relationships and in people and allow everyone the same "god given right" you have to marry?

I am divorced myself and cannot for the world of me understand why anyone would WANT to marry anyone.