Homosexuality

[Tipsy]

You see by denying same-sex couples the same access to marriage you are saying otherwise.

So tell me, how are they less valid?

I am saying that a same sex couple is not more or less 'morally' valid from a legal standard. That is not an issue. I am saying that marriage as it is, is completely equal. A homosexual man has the exact same rights as a heterosexual man and vise versa. I am not implying, meaning, or in anyway saying that the law says homosexual couples are no less 'right' or 'wrong', they just aren't a part of the institution of marriage.

That being said, it leads me into the other point which is I have seen shaky little, if any evidence showing me that any marriage (homosexual, heterosexual, polygamous, etc) is beneficial to society by being a civil institution rather than in controlled directly by the general public and organizations in it. However, leaving marriage does hurt society by simply draining funds on a program that in the current time has no [to my knowledge] benefits to society.

 

[Laharl]

On the contrary. You are telling him that his relationship is less valid, via denying him access to marriage. That's all it really is.

 

[Tipsy]

On the contrary. You are telling him that his relationship is less valid, via denying him access to marriage. That's all it really is.

So I've seen myself say "I have seen shaky little, if any evidence showing me that any marriage... is beneficial to society." Homosexual marriage is in no way valid as a civil institution. Though you seem to be ignoring everything else I say. Tell me this, how can I be saying homosexual marriage is less valid than heterosexual marriage (from a legal standpoint) if I am saying neither is valid? Or are you basically claiming that 0 < 0.

 

[Laharl]

In the same respect why NOT allow same-sex marriage (according to your own logic)?

 

[Tipsy]

In the same respect why NOT allow same-sex marriage (according to your own logic)?

It does not benefit society. It is a waste of public money to create (in the case of homosexual marriage) or maintain (in the case of heterosexual marriage) an institution that does not benefit society. I don't see any reason for an institution that should not exist to be changed in a matter that enlarges it.

 

[Forged]

I agree with you sir, all marriage really does is grant your spouse power of attorney, something you could do without being married.

 

[Lizardbreath]

I support homosexuality. You guys aren't the one's who are doing it are you? No. Then STFU and move on with your own lives. Oh, and I don't give a hoot if the bible says homosexuality is wrong. The U.S cannot legally support banning gay marriage. That's segregation @ a different level.

 

[Tipsy]

I support homosexuality. You guys aren't the one's who are doing it are you? No. Then STFU and move on with your own lives. Oh, and I don't give a hoot if the bible says homosexuality is wrong. The U.S cannot legally support banning gay marriage. That's segregation @ a different level.

You're wrong in two ways here. In the scenario of not allowing same sex marriage and allowing heterosexual marriage there is no 'separation'. A homosexual man can marry a woman just like a heterosexual man can. A homosexual man cannot marry a man just like a heterosexual man cannot. We have the right to marry, that is all. In a government institution? To the person we love? None of these are your rights. It is perfectly legal to have 'ban' same sex marriage and allow heterosexual marriage.

And of course, the second argument which is the one I am in favor of, which I have been advocating for quite awhile in this thread, the complete abolition of the public institution of marriage. How exactly is there any segregation when there is no marriage. I fail to see how you can claim there is segregation if the public institution of marriage does not exist for anyone.

And I must disagree with you on this not effecting every citizen of the United States. It is a public institution.

 

[Laharl]

I vote to ban the religious institution of marriage, then allow same-sex marriage. But that would make sense.

 

[Tipsy]

I vote to ban the religious institution of marriage, then allow same-sex marriage. But that would make sense.

So you ban to infringe on the rights of a private organization and create a public institution that hurts society? How exactly does that make sense?

 

[Laharl]

I mean to say that the "religious institution" or marriage is merely for show, and that all legal weight of the "marriage institution" is now under state control. Then the church can go deal, because the discussion is no longer relevant to those bigots.

There's very little past that.

 

[usedname]

the complete abolition of the public institution of marriage

And how does the public feel about that? Because, you know, it is the only things that matter here, the public. Lets not downplay the influence the people holds on institutions and belief systems.

 

[Tipsy]

I mean to say that the "religious institution" or marriage is merely for show, and that all legal weight of the "marriage institution" is now under state control. Then the church can go deal, because the discussion is no longer relevant to those bigots.

There's very little past that.

Except there is no religion in 'civi marriage' and any argument dealing with any church holds absolutely no weight because the government is secular. And now back to the point you conveniently ignore. All marriage wastes government funds in maintaining or creating an institution that provides no benefit to society. It's that simple, it hurts society so the government should have no power to create a pointless institution that does not benefit the public.

I really would think more Americans would be behind abolishing marriage because we don't exactly have the largest surplus of money.

And how does the public feel about that? Because, you know, it is the only things that matter here, the public. Lets not downplay the influence the people holds on institutions and belief systems.

Give me any argument that the public could use. Removing marriage from the government appeases both sides of the marriage issue. For the people who want to 'protect marriage' it removes any [what they consider to be] credible organization from having control over marriage and they will be able to 'control' marriage and ignore organizations they do not consider credible. On the other side, people promoting same sex marriage on the basis of 'equality', 'freedom', etc get what they want because with marriage under the control of the people there is complete freedom in marriage - there will be absolutely no restrictions. Polygamous, homosexual, heterosexual, and every type of marriage will be allowed because there will be no restrictions. There can't be more freedom than that.

As for the benefits, most non-monetary benefits can be established with livings wills and so forth. For the monetary benefits, they can be given to all people instead of just married couples with tax cuts or something along those lines.

So yes, I have considered the public. What argument would they have to keep this institution in government control?

 

[Laharl]

Yes, and that would cost a lot more than simply running marriage. Because everyone would have them, not just married couples.

Zing.

 

[B)ushid(o]

Except there is no religion in 'civi marriage' and any argument dealing with any church holds absolutely no weight because the government is secular. And now back to the point you conveniently ignore. All marriage wastes government funds in maintaining or creating an institution that provides no benefit to society. It's that simple, it hurts society so the government should have no power to create a pointless institution that does not benefit the public.

Give me any argument that the public could use. Removing marriage from the government appeases both sides of the marriage issue. For the people who want to 'protect marriage' it removes any [what they consider to be] credible organization from having control over marriage and they will be able to 'control' marriage and ignore organizations they do not consider credible. On the other side, people promoting same sex marriage on the basis of 'equality', 'freedom', etc get what they want because with marriage under the control of the people there is complete freedom in marriage - there will be absolutely no restrictions. Polygamous, homosexual, heterosexual, and every type of marriage will be allowed because there will be no restrictions. There can't be more freedom than that.

You'd have Dick, Jane, Bob, Janet, Lori, and Tyler deciding to marry each other. Years go past, it's all good and well, and someof them have managed to pop off a couple of kids. Things go from happy to bitter. Uh-oh, Divorce!? Now it's not as simple as a choice between two parents. There are six parties (maybe a couple less if some of them decided to pair off) claiming custody. Of course, the genetic parents would be the most prominent, but you'd have Tyler there claiming he has a stable income, has become very close to a/the kid(s), etc. You'd also have the other five, four, or so arguing the same. Child custody battle to the max.

Also, this doesn't stop the "protect marriage" folks from arguing. The "evil" still exists, it doesn't matter if the "non-legit" organizations are doing it, because it'd still be, by the definition of the word, "legal". The government won't have a hand in it, but they're ignoring it. If anything, resentment would be stronger because there are no bars held.

 

[Tipsy]

Yes, and that would cost a lot more than simply running marriage. Because everyone would have them, not just married couples.

Zing.

It would cost more for us, not the government. That is completely legal. We can waste our money however we want (to the extent of ordering a hit on someone and so forth), however government spending has clearly laid limits and a pointless institution is breaking those limits.

You'd have Dick, Jane, Bob, Janet, Lori, and Tyler deciding to marry each other. Years go past, it's all good and well, and someof them have managed to pop off a couple of kids. Things go from happy to bitter. Uh-oh, Divorce!? Now it's not as simple as a choice between two parents. There are six parties (maybe a couple less if some of them decided to pair off) claiming custody. Of course, the genetic parents would be the most prominent, but you'd have Tyler there claiming he has a stable income, has become very close to a/the kid(s), etc. You'd also have the other five, four, or so arguing the same. Child custody battle to the max.

That could be fixed with one [as it would be called] 'landmark' judicial case. It would be 'who has the custody of children'. Since marriage wouldn't be a state institution and would have absolutely no weight in the court of law, it would fall upon the legal guardians of the child only. This would be the biological parents or the legal guardians (which could be limited to two in adoption forms).

There are countless ways to wean it down to two people immediately and then work as it is now from there. The key thing to remember is that 'marriage' would not complicate things because it would hold absolutely no weight in the court of law.

(And incase anyone hasn't read my other posts and is replying to this, this is assuming the state sponsored institution of marriage abolished.)

Also, this doesn't stop the "protect marriage" folks from arguing. The "evil" still exists, it doesn't matter if the "non-legit" organizations are doing it, because it'd still be, by the definition of the word, "legal". The government won't have a hand in it, but they're ignoring it. If anything, resentment would be stronger because there are no bars held.

If you can give me anything that will stop 'protect marriage' folk (mostly groups of religious people) from evangelizing their religion, then I will gladly look at it, but regardless of what happens, they will always be against what they consider sinful. Sure, you'd have your whack job Pat Robertsons saying God will smite the country if you don't turn it into a theocracy that follows what his version of the Bible says, but that's the price we pay for living in a free society. It wouldn't have much more behind it then groups that are against something like masturbation. They can evangelize until they're red in the cheeks, but without marriage it will nothing more than another category that falls into place with the 'Does [my/your/any] God Exist?' instead of something that in any way concerns the government.

 

[d2sux]

Letting homosexuals marry will just continue the breakdown of the traditional family in our society. The Amish are the one modern culture that values the importance of a structured family environment the most, and ther result is that their society is as close to a utopia as you can get. They have the lowest sucide rate among any modern civilization, and studies have shown that they are happiest of any culture.

The further we stray from the traditional definition of what a family is, the more our culture will contine its demise. Gay people should not be allowed to marry or adopt children.

 

[Laharl]

D2sux, so far Canada has allowed same-sex marriage and (to my knowledge) gay guys to adopt children.

I see no degradation at all. Point some out?

Oh, and site your sources.

 

[d2sux]

Many of their children will be screwed up, I know from experience. That just leads to one more person with serious mental issues in our society, I would consider that demise.



I'll try to find the sources now, I read that info awhile ago.

EDIT: I canit find sites, but I've found books on the subject which studies were conducted in.

 

[Laharl]

Even if they merely get married without adopting it still has no real effect on society. It all comes down to whether or not you will respect the rights of minorities. America chooses not to.