Should HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES be banned ?

[Aethrys]

Because it's a waste of effort fighting a battle when the source of conflict can be eliminated. Those inclined may continue fighting, but there won't be any victory to be had. Get a clearly secular and inclusive definition of Civil Unions on the books, which grants equal rights across the board. Eliminate marriage terminology from government and laws, and the majority of cultists will back down, there can't be official gay marriages if the government has no official "Marriages". Support for legislation opposing gay rights will wane, as the right won't be able to claim religious persecution anymore.

Socially, anyone will be able to say they are married. This just obviously won't confer any legal benefits unless they also have a civil union. Those inclined will be able to opt for just the civil union.

Again, all US marriages are already civil unions. The terminology shouldn't matter and, frankly, the "cultists" should learn to share. They don't own the word "marriage." Your solution tells them they do and that we're deferring to them by changing the laws to reflect that.

Except it's not.

Under my system, Pablo and Stefan can get a civil union if they desire to receive the associated benefits. They can even call it a marriage right then and there, before that, or after whatever ceremony they want to mark it. The choice is entirely up to them.

The Catholic cult can refuse to recognize Pablo and Stefan's marriage. They are going to do this anyway, and this doesn't really have a tangible impact on Pablo and Stefan. If this becomes a point of contention between them, then it's a private matter, and the parties involved can discuss, argue, cajole, etc. to their hearts content, or ignore eachother as they see fit. The government has no need to step in, as everyone has the option to receive the same benefits, and call their relationships whatever they please. Please explain where this is showing cults preferential treatment in the ownership of marriage game, other than in their own minds. Because the minds of cultists really shouldn't matter.

[Grenartia]

Except it hasn't always been a "secular concept",

History disagrees.

Except it hasn't always been a "secular concept", for thousands of years there wasn't even a separation of church of and state concept, so... so yeah.

Marriage pre-dates new-fangled religions like Christianity and wasn't always religious. So ... yeah.

Pretty much exactly this. Beat me to it.

[Llamalandia]

No thanks. Marriage is a simpler term. That, and it sounds less cold and mechanical. I don't want to civilly unionize somebody. I want to marry them.

Civil unions remind me of the term "common-law marriage" way too much. My aunt was common-law married to her boyfriend of 25 years because they owned so much together but refused to get married. It is crazy that people are defined in contract a whole different way simply based on sexual orientation when they want a real marriage.

And after reading pages of this thread I really think this debate reflects just how ridiculous things have become in the real world. Banning straight marriages, opening them up to minors and animals, polygamy... this isn't what the majority of LGBT people are fighting for whatsoever. I've heard some people say before that we need to ban straight marriages if gays and lesbians can't wed, and most of those people are straight allies that don't care about getting married in the first place. Discriminating against the majority because the minority are being hurt is never a solution.That's like shuttering a school that refuses to racially integrate instead of making sure minorities can enroll as well.

The problem is the LGBT community is fighting just for "gay marriage" they are fighting for "marriage equality" which arguably would also permit incestuous marriage. So i really don't have much problem with people being "pro-gay marriage" what I have a problem with is "marriage equality". If the argument was gay marriage and straight marriage should both be recognized fine, so long as they continue to exclude blood relatives (and preferrably adopted children / parents) from marrying each other.

[Farnhamia]

Civil unions remind me of the term "common-law marriage" way too much. My aunt was common-law married to her boyfriend of 25 years because they owned so much together but refused to get married. It is crazy that people are defined in contract a whole different way simply based on sexual orientation when they want a real marriage.

And after reading pages of this thread I really think this debate reflects just how ridiculous things have become in the real world. Banning straight marriages, opening them up to minors and animals, polygamy... this isn't what the majority of LGBT people are fighting for whatsoever. I've heard some people say before that we need to ban straight marriages if gays and lesbians can't wed, and most of those people are straight allies that don't care about getting married in the first place. Discriminating against the majority because the minority are being hurt is never a solution.That's like shuttering a school that refuses to racially integrate instead of making sure minorities can enroll as well.

The problem is the LGBT community is fighting just for "gay marriage" they are fighting for "marriage equality" which arguably would also permit incestuous marriage. So i really don't have much problem with people being "pro-gay marriage" what I have a problem with is "marriage equality". If the argument was gay marriage and straight marriage should both be recognized fine, so long as they continue to exclude blood relatives (and preferrably adopted children / parents) from marrying each other.

What serious gay marriage advocates are also pushing for blood relatives marrying?

[Condunum]

Civil unions remind me of the term "common-law marriage" way too much. My aunt was common-law married to her boyfriend of 25 years because they owned so much together but refused to get married. It is crazy that people are defined in contract a whole different way simply based on sexual orientation when they want a real marriage.

And after reading pages of this thread I really think this debate reflects just how ridiculous things have become in the real world. Banning straight marriages, opening them up to minors and animals, polygamy... this isn't what the majority of LGBT people are fighting for whatsoever. I've heard some people say before that we need to ban straight marriages if gays and lesbians can't wed, and most of those people are straight allies that don't care about getting married in the first place. Discriminating against the majority because the minority are being hurt is never a solution.That's like shuttering a school that refuses to racially integrate instead of making sure minorities can enroll as well.

The problem is the LGBT community is fighting just for "gay marriage" they are fighting for "marriage equality" which arguably would also permit incestuous marriage. So i really don't have much problem with people being "pro-gay marriage" what I have a problem with is "marriage equality". If the argument was gay marriage and straight marriage should both be recognized fine, so long as they continue to exclude blood relatives (and preferrably adopted children / parents) from marrying each other.

why do you care who marries who?

Edit: God dammit I did it again.

[Llamalandia]

The problem is the LGBT community is fighting just for "gay marriage" they are fighting for "marriage equality" which arguably would also permit incestuous marriage. So i really don't have much problem with people being "pro-gay marriage" what I have a problem with is "marriage equality". If the argument was gay marriage and straight marriage should both be recognized fine, so long as they continue to exclude blood relatives (and preferrably adopted children / parents) from marrying each other.

What serious gay marriage advocates are also pushing for blood relatives marrying?

Any of them that say they are for "marriage equality" rather than for "gay marriage". I mean, i realize is not their intent to make that argument but as far as I see that's exactly what they are in fact doing by saying everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. Obviously anyone would include blood relatives.

[Dyakovo]

It's a battle they're losing anyway, so Why concede anything to them?

Because it's a waste of effort fighting a battle when the source of conflict can be eliminated. Those inclined may continue fighting, but there won't be any victory to be had. Get a clearly secular and inclusive definition of Civil Unions on the books, which grants equal rights across the board. Eliminate marriage terminology from government and laws, and the majority of cultists will back down, there can't be official gay marriages if the government has no official "Marriages". Support for legislation opposing gay rights will wane, as the right won't be able to claim religious persecution anymore.

Socially, anyone will be able to say they are married. This just obviously won't confer any legal benefits unless they also have a civil union. Those inclined will be able to opt for just the civil union.

It wouldn't be eliminated. The religious right fought tooth & nail against Vermont when they were legalizing same-sex civil unions. It would be granting a concession for no gain.

[Polski Swiety Imperium]

Now, I know this is going to confuse some of you, but let me explain. As a hetrosexual Christian male, I support gay marriage. Although I feel it is a sin, from a secular point of view, I can't understand why gay men and lesbians can't get married.

Therefore, I propose that straight marriages be banned. In that way, they would they would stand on an equal ground as gays and lesbians. Of corse, all the privledges of hetrosexual marriage would be erased and you're marriage would be dissolved, but what harm would it do ?

So, NSers, how would you feel not being married to your husband or wife ? What would you do if in all 51 states ALL straight marriages were banned ?

No, just no. Marriage has countless social and administrative benefits and banning it for anybody would cause nothing but problems. As fun as it would be to see heterosexuality be the persecuted sexual orientation, there's no logical reason to do something like that.

Oh, and for the record, there are only fifty states in the US.

He MIGHT have included the territories as a state, or Puerto Rico, or Washington.

[Dyakovo]

What serious gay marriage advocates are also pushing for blood relatives marrying?

Any of them that say they are for "marriage equality" rather than for "gay marriage". I mean, i realize is not their intent to make that argument but as far as I see that's exactly what they are in fact doing by saying everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. Obviously anyone would include blood relatives.

So you construct strawmen irl too...

[Punkvania]

Civil unions remind me of the term "common-law marriage" way too much. My aunt was common-law married to her boyfriend of 25 years because they owned so much together but refused to get married. It is crazy that people are defined in contract a whole different way simply based on sexual orientation when they want a real marriage.

And after reading pages of this thread I really think this debate reflects just how ridiculous things have become in the real world. Banning straight marriages, opening them up to minors and animals, polygamy... this isn't what the majority of LGBT people are fighting for whatsoever. I've heard some people say before that we need to ban straight marriages if gays and lesbians can't wed, and most of those people are straight allies that don't care about getting married in the first place. Discriminating against the majority because the minority are being hurt is never a solution.That's like shuttering a school that refuses to racially integrate instead of making sure minorities can enroll as well.

The problem is the LGBT community is fighting just for "gay marriage" they are fighting for "marriage equality" which arguably would also permit incestuous marriage. So i really don't have much problem with people being "pro-gay marriage" what I have a problem with is "marriage equality". If the argument was gay marriage and straight marriage should both be recognized fine, so long as they continue to exclude blood relatives (and preferrably adopted children / parents) from marrying each other.

What is this noise? That's exactly the line people tried to say interracial couples were trying to cross by having their marriages recognized. Only back then they alluded that it was already bestiality. Seriously who is telling you that by fighting for gay marriage they are also wanting incestuous marriage?

[Dyakovo]

No, just no. Marriage has countless social and administrative benefits and banning it for anybody would cause nothing but problems. As fun as it would be to see heterosexuality be the persecuted sexual orientation, there's no logical reason to do something like that.

Oh, and for the record, there are only fifty states in the US.

He MIGHT have included the territories as a state, or Puerto Rico, or Washington.

None of which are states.

[Punkvania]

What serious gay marriage advocates are also pushing for blood relatives marrying?

Any of them that say they are for "marriage equality" rather than for "gay marriage". I mean, i realize is not their intent to make that argument but as far as I see that's exactly what they are in fact doing by saying everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. Obviously anyone would include blood relatives.

That's like saying that people fighting for equality in the workplace means that child molesters shouldn't be discriminated against when they apply for teaching positions and daycare jobs.

[Spoder]

Any of them that say they are for "marriage equality" rather than for "gay marriage". I mean, i realize is not their intent to make that argument but as far as I see that's exactly what they are in fact doing by saying everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. Obviously anyone would include blood relatives.

That's like saying that people fighting for equality in the workplace means that child molesters shouldn't be discriminated against when they apply for teaching positions and daycare jobs.

Not to mention very few people use the word "marriage equality". The buzzword is "gender equality".

[Llamalandia]

Any of them that say they are for "marriage equality" rather than for "gay marriage". I mean, i realize is not their intent to make that argument but as far as I see that's exactly what they are in fact doing by saying everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. Obviously anyone would include blood relatives.

That's like saying that people fighting for equality in the workplace means that child molesters shouldn't be discriminated against when they apply for teaching positions and daycare jobs.

Well, yeah, that sounds about right now that i think about it. They should be more specific in what type of equality they are talking about. If they mean gender equality then say "gender equality" if they mean racial equality then again say "racial equality".

[Rocopurr]

What serious gay marriage advocates are also pushing for blood relatives marrying?

Any of them that say they are for "marriage equality" rather than for "gay marriage". I mean, i realize is not their intent to make that argument but as far as I see that's exactly what they are in fact doing by saying everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. Obviously anyone would include blood relatives.

I think incest is a bad example since it isn't that harmful. You know that is not their intent or what they mean, so why are you being so pedantic?

[Llamalandia]

That's like saying that people fighting for equality in the workplace means that child molesters shouldn't be discriminated against when they apply for teaching positions and daycare jobs.

Not to mention very few people use the word "marriage equality". The buzzword is "gender equality".

I hear marriage equality repeatedly on pmsnbc almost daily. Especially from al sharpton.

[Condunum]

That's like saying that people fighting for equality in the workplace means that child molesters shouldn't be discriminated against when they apply for teaching positions and daycare jobs.

Not to mention very few people use the word "marriage equality". The buzzword is "gender equality".

...Buzzword. No.

[Punkvania]

That's like saying that people fighting for equality in the workplace means that child molesters shouldn't be discriminated against when they apply for teaching positions and daycare jobs.

Well, yeah, that sounds about right now that i think about it. They should be more specific in what type of equality they are talking about. If they mean gender equality then say "gender equality" if they mean racial equality then again say "racial equality".

So we have to tack on gay to "marriage equality" so you don't get confused and think we mean people should be allowed to marry their children or an animal? I think this is your personal problem with definitions and possibly your own displeasure with the issue coming to light.

[Llamalandia]

Any of them that say they are for "marriage equality" rather than for "gay marriage". I mean, i realize is not their intent to make that argument but as far as I see that's exactly what they are in fact doing by saying everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. Obviously anyone would include blood relatives.

I think incest is a bad example since it isn't that harmful. So, you have a problem with the LGBT community fighting for their rights because some of us use a term that could be interpreted as supporting incest? You know that is not their intent or what they mean, so why are you being so pedantic?

Because that's how things start sometimes. I mean, what if the supreme court when it eventually fully leaglizes gay marriage at the federal level says something like, everyone over 18 has a legal right to consent to marry anyone else? I mean, if that's the ruling how long before some brother and sister or brother and brother sue and say they're "being discriminated against" and "denied equal treatment" and cite the gay marriage ruling as precedent? Hell a bro/sis has already tried sue in Germany for incestuous marriage, fortunately they were shot down though.

[Condunum]

Well, yeah, that sounds about right now that i think about it. They should be more specific in what type of equality they are talking about. If they mean gender equality then say "gender equality" if they mean racial equality then again say "racial equality".

So we have to tack on gay to "marriage equality" so you don't get confused and think we mean people should be allowed to marry their children or an animal? I think this is your personal problem with definitions and possibly your own displeasure with the issue coming to light.

It also comes across as the usual "Gays getting marries = goat fuckingz!!!1!!"

[Llamalandia]

Well, yeah, that sounds about right now that i think about it. They should be more specific in what type of equality they are talking about. If they mean gender equality then say "gender equality" if they mean racial equality then again say "racial equality".

So we have to tack on gay to "marriage equality" so you don't get confused and think we mean people should be allowed to marry their children or an animal? I think this is your personal problem with definitions and possibly your own displeasure with the issue coming to light.

Well it's obvious they aren't talking about animals and even if one assumes they were animals are incapable of consent so it's a moot point anyway.

[Fox News Lovers]

Yes! I'm straight and I love beans! Their gifds from God.

[Llamalandia]

So we have to tack on gay to "marriage equality" so you don't get confused and think we mean people should be allowed to marry their children or an animal? I think this is your personal problem with definitions and possibly your own displeasure with the issue coming to light.

It also comes across as the usual "Gays getting marries = goat fuckingz!!!1!!"

Like I said, I don't see this leading to bestial marriage only incestuous marriage on the gorunds of "equality" animals don't have rights and even if they did they clearly are in no position to consent to anything.

[Punkvania]

So we have to tack on gay to "marriage equality" so you don't get confused and think we mean people should be allowed to marry their children or an animal? I think this is your personal problem with definitions and possibly your own displeasure with the issue coming to light.

Well it's obvious they aren't talking about animals and even if one assumes they were animals are incapable of consent so it's a moot point anyway.

You're assuming people are alluding to incest. You are dude, not anyone else really.

[Greater-London]

Or just let anyone marry pretty much anyone else.

The state should be impartial on these matters and should allow everyone to have their relationship(s) be recognized by law and be treated equally.

Don't want to marry some people in your place of worship? Absolutely fine you don't have to.just don't stop people calling their union whatever they want and enjoying the same legal rights as you.