Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gay Marriage

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Gay Marriage

    Just to chime in here, I wonder how much those divorce rates depend on the divorce rates for military service members. I remember reading somewhere that the Army has an 80% rate. However, a common practice for new recruits is getting married right before getting shipped off to basic training in order to be eligible to receive separation pay while on orders, then divorce soon after training is completed.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Gay Marriage

      Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
      What happens if you have a child that is gay?
      What happens if my child is NOT gay?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Gay Marriage

        see now, if people want to protect the sanctity of marriage, start with this!

        Originally posted by tailgunner View Post
        a common practice for new recruits is getting married right before getting shipped off to basic training in order to be eligible to receive separation pay while on orders, then divorce soon after training is completed.
        No, it's not rocket science, it's plumbing and unlike rocket science it requires a license.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Gay Marriage

          Originally posted by ToUtahNow View Post
          How is it discriminating to maintain the traditional definition of marriage? There is no reason this could not have all been avoided by allowing Civil Unions the same rights as married persons which has been done in many areas. If we go down this path how is it different from multi partner marriages, sibling marriages or multiple individual marriages?

          Mark
          Mark, it is discriminating because the notion of "traditional" marriage, as you choose to define it, is based for the most part on religious beliefs or personal views of morality, and serves only to take rights off the table for a certain group of citizens. That's discmination.

          If you argue that it is not discrimination, you could similarly argue (and people did) that the traditional definition of American voting public does not include women or blacks. There are people who feel very, very strongly that "traditional" marriage doesn't include mixed-race marriages. Should the law also address their definition of "traditional"?

          Isn't the best and simplest way to simply have the same rules for everyone? I think it is. Leave the religious postions up to the individual religions and leave the moral issues up to the individual family.

          The other forms of marriage you mention are not discrimination. They are laws that apply equally to ALL citizens. It is not discrimination if everyone plays by the same rules. For example certain religions promote polygamous marriage. The ban on such marriages has been challeged but never on the grounds, to my knowledge, that it was discriminatory... rather than it infringed religious freedom. That argument hasn't worked well for a variety of reasons.

          If you change the definition of a civil union to be equivalent to marriage, what's the point? Seems like at that point we are just hung up on a word. If it's the same thing legally, then let's call a toaster a toaster or a machine gun a machine gun.

          Are we losing sight of the fact that the concept of civil marriage is quite different from the concept of religious marriage? For example, the law recognizes divorce, but the Catholic church only recognizes divorce as a necesary legal status that must be antecedent to an annulment. In other words, even if you get a legal divorce, you are still married in the eyes of the Catholic church..."till death do (they) part" unless/until you are granted an annulment. And annulments are hard to get. The Catholics seem to have been able to live at peace with this difference in law for quite some time... why would those who PERSONALLY don't recognize gay marriage (which will certainly include several different religions) be unable to coexist with a legal definition of CIVIL marraige that recognizes it?

          No one is asking any one to support homosexuality or even to recognize (whatever that means in this context) gay marriage. But the law is supposed to see CITIZENS... two people, irrespective of sex, race, religion, etc. Driving the law to reflect either religious or personal views that abridge the rights of others is simply an attempt to codify discrimination... whether it's the majority view or not.

          Finally, as I see it, divorce stats and a persons' suitability, viewpoints or past success at marriage has little to do with the question. Whether gays marry or not has no influence on how well any other marriage, "traditional or otherwise" turns out.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Gay Marriage

            Originally posted by Flux View Post
            What happens if my child is NOT gay?
            Nothing nearly as bad as if your child is homosexual and you are convinced it is a evil thing and unacceptable lifestyle . Plenty of young folks have comitted suicide because their parents would not accept their sexual preference.

            You have to make up your mind before you have children that you will love them regardless of such things as being gay. I know Dads who made life miserable for their children if they were not good athletes. I wish they had a Dad like mine. I was real sick when I was little and while my Dad wanted me to be athletic, he was happy to have me alive.

            You can either be a man of God first or a Dad who loves his children above and beyond any religious teachings. I pray for your children to be that you make the right decision, just in case.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Gay Marriage

              Originally posted by Andy_M View Post
              Mark, it is discriminating because the notion of "traditional" marriage, as you choose to define it, is based for the most part on religious beliefs or personal views of morality, and serves only to take rights off the table for a certain group of citizens. That's discmination.

              If you argue that it is not discrimination, you could similarly argue (and people did) that the traditional definition of American voting public does not include women or blacks. There are people who feel very, very strongly that "traditional" marriage doesn't include mixed-race marriages. Should the law also address their definition of "traditional"?

              Isn't the best and simplest way to simply have the same rules for everyone? I think it is. Leave the religious postions up to the individual religions and leave the moral issues up to the individual family.

              The other forms of marriage you mention are not discrimination. They are laws that apply equally to ALL citizens. It is not discrimination if everyone plays by the same rules. For example certain religions promote polygamous marriage. The ban on such marriages has been challeged but never on the grounds, to my knowledge, that it was discriminatory... rather than it infringed religious freedom. That argument hasn't worked well for a variety of reasons.

              If you change the definition of a civil union to be equivalent to marriage, what's the point? Seems like at that point we are just hung up on a word. If it's the same thing legally, then let's call a toaster a toaster or a machine gun a machine gun.

              Are we losing sight of the fact that the concept of civil marriage is quite different from the concept of religious marriage? For example, the law recognizes divorce, but the Catholic church only recognizes divorce as a necesary legal status that must be antecedent to an annulment. In other words, even if you get a legal divorce, you are still married in the eyes of the Catholic church..."till death do (they) part" unless/until you are granted an annulment. And annulments are hard to get. The Catholics seem to have been able to live at peace with this difference in law for quite some time... why would those who PERSONALLY don't recognize gay marriage (which will certainly include several different religions) be unable to coexist with a legal definition of CIVIL marraige that recognizes it?

              No one is asking any one to support homosexuality or even to recognize (whatever that means in this context) gay marriage. But the law is supposed to see CITIZENS... two people, irrespective of sex, race, religion, etc. Driving the law to reflect either religious or personal views that abridge the rights of others is simply an attempt to codify discrimination... whether it's the majority view or not.

              Finally, as I see it, divorce stats and a persons' suitability, viewpoints or past success at marriage has little to do with the question. Whether gays marry or not has no influence on how well any other marriage, "traditional or otherwise" turns out.

              It is not "my" definition of marriage, it is the historical definition of marriage which dates back around 2,400 years or so.

              Society through legislation discriminates all of the time as they should. Using your logic same-sex marriages would already be legal in all 57(Obama) States. So would Polygamy, Bigamy, Polyandry, Polygyny, Sibling Marriage, First Cousin Marriage and Child Marriages plus many others. While perhaps none of those Unions are important to either of us, I guarantee they are to some out there. In addition, there would be no age limits on things like driving or drinking. As a matter of fact we could also throw out all child labor laws.

              Mark
              Last edited by ToUtahNow; 08-15-2010, 06:38 PM.
              "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

              I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Gay Marriage

                Originally posted by ToUtahNow View Post
                It is not "my" definition of marriage, it is the historical definition of marriage which dates back around 2,400 years or so.
                Along that same logic we should not make any advances to our society. Women upon marriage should become the property of their husband and shouldn't have any rights to begin with as those were long held traditions. If your beliefs are that women and gays should be considered lesser people and not have access to the same rights as straight men feel free to believe, but don't expect me to sit around and let you use our government to enforce your personal beliefs.

                Society through legislation discriminates all of the time as they should. Using your logic same-sex marriages would already be legal in all 57(Obama) States. So would Polygamy, Bigamy, Polyandry, Polygyny, Sibling Marriage, First Cousin Marriage and Child Marriages plus many others. While perhaps none of those Unions are important to either of us, I guarantee they are to some out there. In addition, there would be no age limits on things like driving or drinking. As a matter of fact we could also throw out all child labor laws.

                Mark
                So the slippery slope argument? The government is clearly allowed to discriminate as we can do things like strip murderers of their freedom with due process. However when the government chooses to discriminate it must do so with just cause. The case in CA weighed the need for CA to discriminate against the rights to marry for gays and found no compelling need. Allowing gays to marry has shown to have no effect on heterosexual marriages.

                Our laws have declared that men and women are equal so in all our laws and documents if 'man' or 'women' needs to be specified a compelling reason for that discrimination needs to be presented through due process.

                In all the examples you present through due process we can find the government has a need to specify the various parties involved. Such as a child can not legally consent to a government contract so is therefor ineligible for a marriage license. Though various religions could still marry children so long as they don't violate any laws meant to protect minors.
                Polygamy is enforced equally without discriminating against a specific group. The governments rules only allow for two people to sign the same contract. If or society chooses to offer a contract that allows more parties that we can choose to or not to cross that bridge.
                Personally I don't care about sibling or first cousin marriages, they are consenting adults if that's what they want to to feel free. Though I think it would be fair game to hold them legally accountable if they chose to procreate and lay the expenses on the government for their poor decision.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Gay Marriage

                  >> "It is not "my" definition of marriage, it is the historical definition of marriage which dates back around 2,400 years or so."

                  It is the definition you are using, whether you invented it or not. In any case you must be referring to a biblical definition? I doubt if the mormons would agree with the concept you hold of a traditional marriage. And certainly, the notion is not defined in the United States Constitution in any way that clearly excludes gays.

                  People thought the world was flat for many thousands of years. It doesn't make it so.

                  I have no quibble with anyone holding any belief and definition they like about "traditional" marriage, and leading their personal life in accordance thereto. I do have a problem with any attempt to impose personal beliefs or religious concepts on citizens of the United States in a way that abridges their freedom and constitutional rights. That is the TRUE conservative perspective.... the Government should refrain from social engineering.

                  >> "Society through legislation discriminates all of the time as they should. Using your logic same-sex marriages would already be legal in all 57(Obama) States."

                  No!Society should NOT discriminate through legislation all the time. That's why we have a Constitution instead of allowing the current thinking (which changes over time) to dictate public policy.

                  Same-sex marriage will likely become legal in all states when unconstitutional bans are legally challenged. The country, as is often the case, is waiting to see how the California case turns out so that it can be cited as a precedent. This makes future cases much easier.

                  Obama is a numbskull, but not because of a slip of the tongue. I can't wait to see him sent packing. But I'm sure he knows how many States are in the Union.

                  >> "So would Polygamy, Bigamy, Polyandry, Polygyny, Sibling Marriage, First Cousin Marriage and Child Marriages plus many others."

                  Absolutely not true. My logic could not influence any of these. None of them are discriminitory. The same prohibitions apply to everyone irrepsective of race, color, creed... or sexual orientation.

                  >> "In addition, there would be no age limits on things like driving or drinking. As a matter of fact we could also throw out all child labor laws."

                  Nope. All the things you mention harm society in a tangible way by presenting a real danger to individuals. Fact is, all that gay marriage does is offend people's sensibilities.

                  Many things that people do offend the sensibilities of others. I suggest that those that are offended go right ahead and be as offended as they feel is appropriate about gay marriage -- or anything at all -- commiserate with their friends about it and teach their children whatever they like about it. That is everyone's constitutionally guaranteed right. But it is FAR MORE OFFENSIVE to take a freedom away from someone because it offends me or you. In our brief history as a nation, many people have died so this wouldn't happen.

                  I believe in the Constitution and I believe that the US is a great country precisely because of what it guarantees to each citizen. I will never support loss of freedom simply because someone's sensibilities are offended. It takes a considerably better reason than that.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Gay Marriage

                    Sorry guys but you cannot pick and chose what you think is discrimination and what is not. Currently there are only 8-States where same-sex marriage is legal. Does that mean all 57 (Obama) States should make it legal. There is a reason the Defence of Marriage Act was passed.

                    Using Andy's example of Mormons, who by the way abandoned Polygamy 120-years ago, if they decided to allow Polygamy today does that mean all 50-States must follow? Why isn't group marriages between large groups discriminated against those individuals? Since we are trying to redefine marriage why does love or procreation have to have anything to do with it (of course to some it neved did). Why can't four women on Welfare get married to increase their subsidies? Why can't five partners in crime get married so their partners can't testify against them?

                    Mark
                    "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

                    I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Gay Marriage

                      "Many things that people do offend the sensibilities of others. I suggest that those that are offended go right ahead and be as offended as they feel is appropriate about gay marriage -- or anything at all -- commiserate with their friends about it and teach their children whatever they like about it. That is everyone's constitutionally guaranteed right. But it is FAR MORE OFFENSIVE to take a freedom away from someone because it offends me or you. In our brief history as a nation, many people have died so this wouldn't happen.

                      I believe in the Constitution and I believe that the US is a great country precisely because of what it guarantees to each citizen. I will never support loss of freedom simply because someone's sensibilities are offended. It takes a considerably better reason than that."

                      Good post, I obviously agree. I am offended by some of the things I have read on this Forum over the years, but in order to remain here it is necessary to understand the source. Personally I believe I can disagree with the Bible and still believe in God. I can find fault with traditional marriage and still remain loving and married to my wife. I can do these things in spite of others who feel my opinions fly in the face of their's.

                      Some folks think they can use The Bible to justify their opinions and behaviors. I warn them that if it is alright for them to do so, then it is alright for radical muslims to follow their murderous path to religious domination.

                      Gays and gay marriage offend christians who follow the words in The Bible, I get that. I do think it is insulting and unnecesary to drag pedophiles and such things as sibling marriage into the discussion.

                      Gays are not destroying traditional marriage and our society's moral fiber. Straight married couples who break vows, abuse, murder and burden the courts with high divorce rates are more to blame.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Gay Marriage

                        Your argument on polygamy is a straw man.

                        Clearly a legal contract between two people is not polygamy. The rules as they are set now allow for two people to legally enter into a government contract together. As such those rules need a compelling reason to discriminate against gay individuals. None has been presented.

                        Government marriage does not require love or children or anything else it is simply a tool we choose to offer.

                        My personal opinion is the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. I'd be fine if the government offered no contract. As unions are complicated things it makes sense to offer an easy means with set rules on joining and divorcing because most people would not otherwise make a contract in private. To take that burden off the courts simply offing only civil unions might be a better option.

                        Of course the majority of people are opposed to disbanding marriage as a government institution, so it is what we have. Imagine the outrage if gays actually did destroy marriage. Since it is the government institution we offer however it needs to be open to all regardless of some peoples outdated beliefs.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Gay Marriage

                          Mark, I am not picking and choosing what is discrimination, just defining it properly.

                          Discrimination means that certain rights or priveledges are allowed to certain groups and denied to others without there being good reason. In your group marriage example , there is no discrimination because group marriage is not allowed for anyone, period. Marriage by law, for everyone, is defined as involving two people - no matter what creed, race, etc. In the case of gay marriage, you seem to be in favor of denying one group a right that other groups, who should not be viewed any differently under the law, enjoy. That's discrimination. There's no harm inflicted on anyone if gays marry, so there is no just cause for the denial of the right. Is that picking and choosing discrimination? I don't think so... I think the distinction is very clear, and apparently the Court agrees.

                          My point on the Mormons was that there is history there, too, in response to your 2400 year old definition. You ask if the Mormons allowed polygamy would all states have to follow. Huh? The Mormons aren't empowered to pass laws or define public policy. If they reinstated polygamy in their religion, that would be their business but it would STILL be illegal in the United States - including Utah. Just because they are a religion does not give them any rights beyond those given to other citizens or religions. If it did, it would clearly be a case of what has been come to be known as reverse discrimination... something that has been challenged many times in court, frequently involving various affirmative action programs.

                          People actually do and have for a very long time gotten or stayed married for financial reasons, to gain resident status in the US, and for a variety of other reasons. Right or wrong, sensible or crazy, this is in fact allowed. Civil law does not require love, intent to procreate or anything other than just consent between two people.

                          Let me ask something I've asked earlier in the thread that was never answered. What precisely is the threat posed by gay marriage? I just don't see that it should matter much to anyone other than the gay people, and no one has been able to explain what this vast threat to society actually is.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Gay Marriage

                            Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
                            Your argument on polygamy is a straw man.

                            Clearly a legal contract between two people is not polygamy. The rules as they are set now allow for two people to legally enter into a government contract together. As such those rules need a compelling reason to discriminate against gay individuals. None has been presented.

                            Government marriage does not require love or children or anything else it is simply a tool we choose to offer.

                            My personal opinion is the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. I'd be fine if the government offered no contract. As unions are complicated things it makes sense to offer an easy means with set rules on joining and divorcing because most people would not otherwise make a contract in private. To take that burden off the courts simply offing only civil unions might be a better option.

                            Of course the majority of people are opposed to disbanding marriage as a government institution, so it is what we have. Imagine the outrage if gays actually did destroy marriage. Since it is the government institution we offer however it needs to be open to all regardless of some peoples outdated beliefs.
                            Which of course will be much easier to change as people attempt to change the definition of marriage. Substitute same-sex with Polygamy in Judge Walker's decision and it would not take much.

                            Mark
                            "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

                            I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Gay Marriage

                              Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                              I do think it is insulting and unnecesary to drag pedophiles and such things as sibling marriage into the discussion.
                              I agree.

                              But what I find personally far more insulting is the notion that if you know lots of divorced people you should find better people to hang out with.

                              I am divorced. I believe I am a good person. At least I try to be honest and I work hard to try to make myself a little better every day. I try to be sensitive to other people and their needs even when it is hard or impossible for me to understad (example: homosexuals). I have many friends and a couple of relatives that are divorced. They are good people, the best as far as I am concerned. The suggestion that they do not constitute a good crowd is insulting. Fortunately I understand that the comments were made with no malice and believe that if thought about carefully, such statements would not have been made.

                              It is never appropriate to judge when we have not walked a mile in another's mocassins. That is why I passionately argue against anyone infringing anyone else's rights. And we are not talking about criminal activities here, just things like gay marriage.

                              Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                              Gays are not destroying traditional marriage and our society's moral fiber. Straight married couples who break vows, abuse, murder and burden the courts with high divorce rates are more to blame.
                              And to those that want to impose their sense of righteousness on everyone... perhaps you need to start hanging out with a better crowd.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Gay Marriage

                                Originally posted by Andy_M View Post
                                I agree.

                                But what I find personally far more insulting is the notion that if you know lots of divorced people you should find better people to hang out with.

                                I am divorced. I believe I am a good person. At least I try to be honest and I work hard to try to make myself a little better every day. I try to be sensitive to other people and their needs even when it is hard or impossible for me to understad (example: homosexuals). I have many friends and a couple of relatives that are divorced. They are good people, the best as far as I am concerned. The suggestion that they do not constitute a good crowd is insulting. Fortunately I understand that the comments were made with no malice and believe that if thought about carefully, such statements would not have been made.

                                It is never appropriate to judge when we have not walked a mile in another's mocassins. That is why I passionately argue against anyone infringing anyone else's rights. And we are not talking about criminal activities here, just things like gay marriage.



                                And to those that want to impose their sense of righteousness on everyone... perhaps you need to start hanging out with a better crowd.
                                Andy, I felt the same way as I sat in church years ago and listened as the priest said "Divorce is evil and so are people who divorce". I couldn't believe how many decent folks he hurt. No more church for me again ever!

                                The comment about better crowd meant nothing, I know what is destroying our families, hurting children and distracting from the important business of saving our country. It is easier to go with the flow than think for yourself and be your own person. I would rather stand alone, than take the easy way out. I hate pedophiles, not gays. I hate married folks who abuse, hurt and destroy, not those who divorce!
                                Last edited by Frankiarmz; 08-15-2010, 10:37 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X