Gay Marriage

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Government has no business legislating morality.

I think you mean strictly personal morality. Most of the criminal code is merely a reflection of society's shared common morality, and I doubt you suggest the gov't shouldn't be in the business of enforcing it.

Gay marriage is consensual. Crime is not. One is agreed upon mutually by two parties, the other is perpetrated usually under the threat of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Marriage is a concept from the bible. It's a union between man, woman, and God! Thats the definition. Not a union between man and man or woman and woman and the state.

It has nothing to do with religion, it's just a biblical relationship between people and God... I see. Tell me, what do you think the word "religion" means? Cause I think you may be using it wrong....

 

[miketheidiot]

nice quote there bober, but please put a date on it for me, tia

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Government has no business legislating morality.

I think you mean strictly personal morality. Most of the criminal code is merely a reflection of society's shared common morality, and I doubt you suggest the gov't shouldn't be in the business of enforcing it.

Gay marriage is consensual. Crime is not. One is agreed upon mutually by two parties, the other is perpetrated usually under the threat of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime

And when did I ever argue to the opposite? You're looking for an argument where there is none. I merely was bothered by the simplistic use of the "Gov't shouldn't legislate morality!" talking point (again). It shows shallow thinking. As I referenced above, I see two distinct kinds of morality - the personal (that which affects only me, such as smoking pot in my own home) and the public (that which affects others, such as murder). I've never supported gov't interference in personal moral issues, but public moral issues are a different matter. Murder is a moral issue which is properly also a criminal issue (due to gov't legislation). OP just needs to be clearer with his use of terms.

And just to be clear, I consider gay marriage to be strictly a personal issue, not subject to gov't action or prohibition.

 

[Mursilis]

Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bobcpg

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

Total BS...

We don't have any problem with under population in the US so that's out the window.
Where is your proof kids are better in a man+woman relationship?
It's not natural in your opinion. There's a lesbian woman where I work who got invetro (sp?) would disagree with those bigoted views.

We don't have any problem with under population in the US so that's out the window.

Exactly my point, why do you think we do not have a population problem? Do not think we are immune to it.


It's not natural in your opinion. There's a lesbian woman where I work who got invetro (sp?) would disagree with those bigoted views.

IV is a medical procedure, its not natural, simple as that. I'm sure she is a nice lady and all that but there you go with emotions getting in the way.

Are you saying if the US allowed gay marriage we may have to worry about our population? If so, bwahahahaha!

Are you forgetting man + woman couples can get IV? Are they unnatural or is it only unnatural if it's a lesbian?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

What happens if a guy has three wives, he goes into a hospital in a coma and the doc says he has a 10% chance of living.

Wife one says pull the plug, wife two says keep him alive, wife three is indifferent. Who has the right to say what is right?

Then there's issues with insurance coverage, beneficiaries (are assets split 3 ways evenly?), child custody, ect.

Adding in multiple spouces makes legal obligations and rights very difficult to administrate.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Because it's a slippery slope that leads to bestiality and ensures state sanctioned child molestation.


Obviously.

The Gay Marriage Haters are attributing their own inclinations to the Pro side? Judging others by their own standard, right??:laugh:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: K1052

Because this is a god fearing country of good honest people founded by christian men under one religion and allowing gays to marry will destroy the very fabric of American society by making my hetro marriage meaningless then in turn causing the final moral decay of our once great Christian nation and opening us up for Moslam domination.

BULLSHIT! I don't fear anyone's pissant deity. I greatly fear the harm dogmatic zealot maniacs are willing to inflict on others in the name of whatever pissant deity they so blindly follow.

Originally posted by: brandonb

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible. It's a union between man, woman, and God! Thats the definition. Not a union between man and man or woman and woman and the state.

MORE BULLSHIT! No religion or group of religions has the right to restrict the rights of those who do not adhere to their faith. Our Federal and state civil governments confer specific rights, privileges and advantages for married couples. With those rights come corresponding legal duties and commitments. Those rights, privileges, advantages and responsibities should be available to all law abiding couples.

Secular nations should not even recgonize marriage.

"Shouldn't" is meaningless in the face of "is."

Why is there such a push to allow gays to marry? Who cares?

Could it be gay human beings seeking the same rights, privileges and advantages available to you? Who the fsck are you to deny them those rights?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

What happens if a guy has three wives, he goes into a hospital in a coma and the doc says he has a 10% chance of living.

Wife one says pull the plug, wife two says keep him alive, wife three is indifferent. Who has the right to say what is right?

Then there's issues with insurance coverage, beneficiaries (are assets split 3 ways evenly?), ect.

Adding in multiple spouces makes legal obligations and rights very difficult to administrate.

All issues easily solved by legislation. For example, the state could enact "first spouse" privileges which grant all rights of attorney, inheritance, etc., to the first spouse only, unless all affected parties contractually agree to another arrangement. In essence, the state could say we refuse to play a role in enforcing the rights of any second or subsequent spouses, but we also don't forbid such a practice either.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: K1052

Because this is a god fearing country of good honest people founded by christian men under one religion and allowing gays to marry will destroy the very fabric of American society by making my hetro marriage meaningless then in turn causing the final moral decay of our once great Christian nation and opening us up for Moslam domination.

BULLSHIT! I don't fear anyone's pissant deity. I greatly fear the harm dogmatic zealot maniacs are willing to inflict on others in the name of whatever pissant deity they so blindly follow.

Might want to get some new AAs for that meter over there Harvey!



Anyway, I heard you can catch gay from a toilet seat, or by allowing them to marry.

Teh gayz is spreading. Be careful.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

What happens if a guy has three wives, he goes into a hospital in a coma and the doc says he has a 10% chance of living.

Wife one says pull the plug, wife two says keep him alive, wife three is indifferent. Who has the right to say what is right?

Then there's issues with insurance coverage, beneficiaries (are assets split 3 ways evenly?), ect.

Adding in multiple spouces makes legal obligations and rights very difficult to administrate.

All issues easily solved by legislation. For example, the state could enact "first spouse" privileges which grant all rights of attorney, inheritance, etc., to the first spouse only, unless all affected parties contractually agree to another arrangement. In essence, the state could say we refuse to play a role in enforcing the rights of any second or subsequent spouses, but we also don't forbid such a practice either.

So then it's not really a marriage/legal binding at all for anything after 1?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

So you think a gay man should be encouraged to marry and impregnate a woman? How likely do you think this is?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: K1052

Because this is a god fearing country of good honest people founded by christian men under one religion and allowing gays to marry will destroy the very fabric of American society by making my hetro marriage meaningless then in turn causing the final moral decay of our once great Christian nation and opening us up for Moslam domination.

BULLSHIT! I don't fear anyone's pissant deity. I greatly fear the harm dogmatic zealot maniacs are willing to inflict on others in the name of whatever pissant deity they so blindly follow.

As usual your emotions have clouded your thinking, Harvey. I'm 99.9% certain the post you quoted was pure sarcasm.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

I don't have a problem with it or gay marriage. I believe in live and let live, I really don't care what people do as long as it doesn't hurt others.

As vi edit pointed out though there are some issues that would have to be addressed if polygamy was to be legalized. It's not really a good comparison to gay marriage because gay marriage doesn't have any of the practical issues that polygamy does. IMO the only reason to oppose gay marriage is bigotry, whereas I think there are some legitimate reasons to be cautious about legalizing polygamy (how do you handle the tax breaks w/multiple spouses, decisions as vi edit mentioned, etc.).

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

What happens if a guy has three wives, he goes into a hospital in a coma and the doc says he has a 10% chance of living.

Wife one says pull the plug, wife two says keep him alive, wife three is indifferent. Who has the right to say what is right?

Then there's issues with insurance coverage, beneficiaries (are assets split 3 ways evenly?), ect.

Adding in multiple spouces makes legal obligations and rights very difficult to administrate.

All issues easily solved by legislation. For example, the state could enact "first spouse" privileges which grant all rights of attorney, inheritance, etc., to the first spouse only, unless all affected parties contractually agree to another arrangement. In essence, the state could say we refuse to play a role in enforcing the rights of any second or subsequent spouses, but we also don't forbid such a practice either.

So then it's not really a marriage/legal binding at all for anything after 1?

Obviously, the idea needs to be fleshed out some more, but I don't think it's beyond intelligent minds to solve. Currently, under most laws, the children of a person have the greatest rights (inheritance, medical determinations, etc.) behind a spouse, and there's frequently more than one child, but the courts can usually get it right weighing those occasionally competing interests.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

Quick question to gay marriage opponents: What are your thoughts on bringing up things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc in defense of the only man + woman marriage argument when they have nothing to do with each other?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

The difference is that you could amend the marriage laws to allow for gay marriage with the stroke of a pen: It's still basically an interaction between two people, and the fact that those two people are of the same sex doesn't require any change in the marriage laws beyond just the laws stating who is allowed to marry. Polygamous marriage, by contrast, would require a re-write of essentially all laws which deal with marriage in any way, laws which have been built up over the course of centuries and which impact many other aspects of law in many ways.

For example : At the least, polygamy requires the legal notion of a spouse's rights and responsibilities be clarified. With a two-person marriage (between A and B), spouse A has, by default, legal next-of-kin status to B and the right to make certain decisions if B is rendered medically incompetent and such. How this nice, simple and clear business gets translated to polygamy is up for debate - does spouse C have to defer to A if B is incapacitated? Can C and D outvote A? What responsibilities, if any, to C and D have to the biological children of A and B in the event A and B die or are incapacitated?

Incidentally, that this is not an argument that we should not change those laws, but it is certainly an argument that it would be much more difficult to do so. If three or more persons believe they can make a marriage work, more power to them - but we will need a distinct code of laws addressing all the issues in marriage law as applied to multiperson marraiges.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: K1052

Because this is a god fearing country of good honest people founded by christian men under one religion and allowing gays to marry will destroy the very fabric of American society by making my hetro marriage meaningless then in turn causing the final moral decay of our once great Christian nation and opening us up for Moslam domination.

BULLSHIT! I don't fear anyone's pissant deity. I greatly fear the harm dogmatic zealot maniacs are willing to inflict on others in the name of whatever pissant deity they so blindly follow.

You mean Obama?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

I agree, there is really no reason to ban polygamy either.

Ideally, I am all for the removal of government from our personal lives. Beastality, while abhorrent, should be as permitted as heterosexual couples. What Bob does behind his closed doors is no business of mine nor should it be any business of others. If his behaviors start affecting my life, for example, he bangs his goat on the front lawn, I'd be against that behavior. If he has communicable diseases, then those should be regulated. But his behavior of beastality should not be outright illegal.

There are a lot of legal hurdles to be cleared for polygamy, but on a pure thought level, there should be no sanctions against polygamy either.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

Quick question to gay marriage opponents: What are your thoughts on bringing up things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc in defense of the only man + woman marriage argument when they have nothing to do with each other?

I'm 100% for gay marriage but I still ask the same question. Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? As long as it's consenting adults why do you care how they live?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: K1052

Because this is a god fearing country of good honest people founded by christian men under one religion and allowing gays to marry will destroy the very fabric of American society by making my hetro marriage meaningless then in turn causing the final moral decay of our once great Christian nation and opening us up for Moslam domination.

BULLSHIT! I don't fear anyone's pissant deity. I greatly fear the harm dogmatic zealot maniacs are willing to inflict on others in the name of whatever pissant deity they so blindly follow.

As usual your emotions have clouded your thinking, Harvey. I'm 99.9% certain the post you quoted was pure sarcasm.

I'll be glad to go with your analysis that K1052's post was sarcasm. One less thing to hassle.

That said, my thinking on the subject was not clouded. I just didn't catch the sarcasm before I posted my reply because I've heard the same crap from too many who were entirely serious about it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

Quick question to gay marriage opponents: What are your thoughts on bringing up things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc in defense of the only man + woman marriage argument when they have nothing to do with each other?

Are you suggesting I'm a gay marriage opponent? And if so, based on what? Or are you just looking for strawmen?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

The difference is that you could amend the marriage laws to allow for gay marriage with the stroke of a pen: It's still basically an interaction between two people, and the fact that those two people are of the same sex doesn't require any change in the marriage laws beyond just the laws stating who is allowed to marry. Polygamous marriage, by contrast, would require a re-write of essentially all laws which deal with marriage in any way, laws which have been built up over the course of centuries and which impact many other aspects of law in many ways.

For example : At the least, polygamy requires the legal notion of a spouse's rights and responsibilities be clarified. With a two-person marriage (between A and B), spouse A has, by default, legal next-of-kin status to B and the right to make certain decisions if B is rendered medically incompetent and such. How this nice, simple and clear business gets translated to polygamy is up for debate - does spouse C have to defer to A if B is incapacitated? Can C and D outvote A? What responsibilities, if any, to C and D have to the biological children of A and B in the event A and B die or are incapacitated?

Incidentally, that this is not an argument that we should not change those laws, but it is certainly an argument that it would be much more difficult to do so. If three or more persons believe they can make a marriage work, more power to them - but we will need a distinct code of laws addressing all the issues in marriage law as applied to multiperson marraiges.

Well-reasoned response, and probably why we'll see gay marriage made legal well before polygamy (if at all).

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

I agree, there is really no reason to ban polygamy either.

Ideally, I am all for the removal of government from our personal lives. Beastality, while abhorrent, should be as permitted as heterosexual couples. What Bob does behind his closed doors is no business of mine nor should it be any business of others. If his behaviors start affecting my life, for example, he bangs his goat on the front lawn, I'd be against that behavior. If he has communicable diseases, then those should be regulated. But his behavior of beastality should not be outright illegal.

There are a lot of legal hurdles to be cleared for polygamy, but on a pure thought level, there should be no sanctions against polygamy either.

Bestiality is different because you can't really determine 'consent' from an animal, and most states forbid deliberate cruelty to animals. Consent is of course crucial in sexual matters, as it differentiates between legal sex and rape.