Where did I say someone's rights were being infringed?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Printable View
Where did I say someone's rights were being infringed?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Govt should stay out of peoples private lives so gays should be able to marry. Got itQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Yes. But, government should not dictate what employers must offer employees, based on a marriage contract, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
If you want to insure your spouse, pay for it.
They're jerks,Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
So? Jerks are protected by the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Polygamy is protected by the Constitution?
Explain.
Let the fags get married just don't let them adopt kids.
But they already have kids.
See, the best solution would just be to kill all tax breaks for married couples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Or if you're looking at tax breaks as an incentive to produce children, then at the least there should be a time limit for procreation or adoption. :D :lol
Non-Issue Issues like this make me sick to be an American. Americans give Christians such a horrible image.
All fags that want to get married already have kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Watch it Chimp... I think the annointed ones father is a polygamist.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
True. Civil unions in CA offer all the same benefits as marriage. The issue is about the use of a fucking word. And for the record the state shouldn't be involved in regulating marriage between whoever and however many, so long as it is between consenting adults. Still, CA's fiscal house is burning down and this is what the masses worry about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Many already have their own kids -- what are you going to do about them?Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
Is he American? Living in America with his wives?Quote:
Originally Posted by hope4dopes
dang this entire board is boring at 4am.... nothing going on.
That makes more sense. My opinion has changed. Fags shouldn't be allowed to be married. Queers are disgusting. One can tolerate a queer but that does not mean it is still not disgusting. By definition a queer is strange,not normal, unconventional, as in behavior and perverted. You let them get married and they get all the benifits by law as normal Americans. It sends a message to our youths that being queer is ok. Which it is not. I am going with my man Obama on this one. Men should not marry men nor women marry women.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The polygamist argument is a valid one (I'm not bringing animals into it, because animals can't consent). If the entire issue is based around the human right to marry someone they love, why should the definition be limited to only two people?
I think what some of the gay's really want, is to get this approved, then move on to teenagers marrying. Doesn't NAMBLA have a contribution to these efforts? After all, teenagers can consent to many things already!Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Once you break down what traditional marriage means, it becomes meaningless. Marriage should never have been something the government got involved with. It is between a man, a woman, the families, and their God.
What happened to the liberal argument of "Separation of Church and State?" Guess they want interference here.
I say remove all preferences that a marriage gives legally. Make contracts for that in all cases.
Marriage was traditionally polygamous.
You changed the definition of traditional marriage.
Shame on you.
"When any society says I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom" Dr. Martin Luther King Jr 1958
18 year olds can already marry -- and teens younger than that can marry with parental consent in many states -- so the notion of allowing teen marriage is not exactly a novel one.
The polygamy argument, to me, is effective insofar as it shows that this debate is about drawing arbitrary lines -- like the line of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
After all, no sane person would argue that allowing that definition of marriage would suggest that one man should be able to marry 10 women or vice versa.
But if you despise same sex marriage, one means to discredit the idea is to suggest that maintaining the number of parties to a marriage will never be enough if we alter the gender construction for what we deem a marriage.
In the end, saying a marriage is only between 2 people strikes me as far less arbitrary (and more defensible) than saying that it's only between one man and one woman. A significant portion of the society is much more comfortable with the entirely arbitrary line that now exists and what better way to defend the arbitrary line that you like than to suggest all sorts of ridiculous scenarios for changing that line.
Those arguments make no sense together. The same-sex marriage argument, as a public policy issue, has very little to do with religious recognition of that union. It has everything to do with governmental recognition of a union that need not necessarily be a religious one. Different sex couples that marry through non-religious means get the same governmental treatment as those who are religiously married. So the religion argument is a total red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The point about eliminating any governmental benefits arising from marriage is a much stronger position.
True. The definition of marriage as being between a couple is just as arbitrary as it defined solely as a heterosexual institution, now that we are moving beyond the notion of heterosexual marriage as a necessary part of society, one which is relied upon to provide for the creation, development, and care of individuals through childhood. With the collapse of the traditional family unit, the state is now called upon to replicate that which was generally provided without state intervention. To me, that's the larger issue regarding "marriage" in this country, instead of the hotbutton issue of homosexual marriage. In short, heterosexuals have done a good job destroying the importance of marriage over the last five decades in this country such that it really doesn't matter how it's defined anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Let's not forget the dowry! I think we should bring dowries back! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I agree with your last statement though.
Once upon a time it was not uncommon for teens to marry in this country. Of course, as they generally did not enjoy an extended childhood, they were much more mature, at least mentally. This, of course, is not to say that this is desirable and that more time to 'grow up' and devote to education as opposed to familial responsibilities is a bad thing. Considering the prevalence of teenage mothers in our society, I'm sure it's an issue which will receive some attention in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra