Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Ottoleo]

how many times do i have to say this?

Feel free to stop, any time.

Its about equality under the law, idk why these good-law abiding christians can't see this. We aren't going to force you to do marrages lol.

It may come as a shock to you, but the debate is not just going to stop because YOU express an opinion.

To save you from having to repeat yourself any more: explain what equality under the law is all about please.

well you don't give one group of citizens a right that can't be shared by another group of the same citizens

The "same" citizens meaning citizens of the same country ?

We may allow women the right to get pregnant. But that right can't be shared by men. Problem ?

Yeah. There should be COMPLETE EQUALITY among EVERYONE. So women should have penises and men vaginas. And everyone should be the same age all the time, and all look the same, and earn the same amount of money, and act...you get the point.

i didn't say that, perhaps right wasn't the right word, I just believe if your going to allow two adults marry, why descriminate against the sex of the person?

Because some things aren't naturally right, as I'm sure you observed above in my little rant. And I certainly don't want my children viewing two teenage lusty homosexuals making out in the park. No siree, I have a BIG problem with that.

People see lots of things that they may not like, Porn, other religions, gays(as you think), politcal partys, don't look at them then, and if you don't want your children to see them, then tell them to cover there eyes or something lol.

Well then, if that's the way you wish to play, majority rules.

[North Calaveras]

can someone give a real reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage, other than a religous hate of it? even though Jesus never talked about homosexuality.

[Desperate Measures]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Ah yes, the happiness of the minority as decided by the majority. Good clean fun, that.

[WWII History Geeks]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Ah yes, the happiness of the minority as decided by the majority. Good clean fun, that.

Democracy is based on the rule of the majority.

[Afforess]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Ah yes, the happiness of the minority as decided by the majority. Good clean fun, that.

What's the point of a democracy if the people can't decide laws for themselves? Love it or leave it.

[Desperate Measures]

Ottoleo: I wouldn't worry. It all turned out ok.

Errr...what?

I think DM means that it "turned out OK" because you are grasping that the post you replied to was a joke. You are grasping that, aren't you ?

I know it's a bit confusing when a poster makes a serious and argumentative post, and then their next post is completely silly and just for fun. But get used to it; it helps to keep everyone from getting too angry and flaming each other.

Thanks. I feel like such a n00b.

It may help to know that I'm an idiot.

[Nobel Hobos]

This Republic was founded as a Christian Nation.

The only mention of religion in the original constitution was in Article VI, "No religious test shall ever be required for public office," and of course the First Amendment reaffirmed that the government is separate from religion.

"The United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under the Washington Administration, signed by John Adams

Yeah, but those are just pieces of paper. The Mayflower was an actual ship.

---

Ottoleo: I wouldn't worry. It all turned out ok.

Errr...what?

I think DM means that it "turned out OK" because you are grasping that the post you replied to was a joke. You are grasping that, aren't you ?

I know it's a bit confusing when a poster makes a serious and argumentative post, and then their next post is completely silly and just for fun. But get used to it; it helps to keep everyone from getting too angry and flaming each other.

Thanks. I feel like such a n00b.

It's a pleasure. I think really light hearted posts from time to time also serve to show others that you're not really angry, however strongly-worded your actual argument is. People tend to get angry when they think someone's angry at them.

I'm not sure about Steffenberg. It's hard to tell from just three posts. Treat that as serious (and seriously WRONG) and if they don't lighten it up, blow 'em away.

[North Calaveras]

This Republic was founded as a Christian Nation.

The only mention of religion in the original constitution was in Article VI, "No religious test shall ever be required for public office," and of course the First Amendment reaffirmed that the government is separate from religion.

"The United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under the Washington Administration, signed by John Adams

Yeah, but those are just pieces of paper. The Mayflower was an actual ship.

---

Ottoleo: I wouldn't worry. It all turned out ok.

Errr...what?

I think DM means that it "turned out OK" because you are grasping that the post you replied to was a joke. You are grasping that, aren't you ?

I know it's a bit confusing when a poster makes a serious and argumentative post, and then their next post is completely silly and just for fun. But get used to it; it helps to keep everyone from getting too angry and flaming each other.

Thanks. I feel like such a n00b.

weren't the pilgrims running away from religous persecution?

It's a pleasure. I think really light hearted posts from time to time also serve to show others that you're not really angry, however strongly-worded your actual argument is. People tend to get angry when they think someone's angry at them.

I'm not sure about Steffenberg. It's hard to tell from just three posts. Treat that as serious (and seriously WRONG) and if they don't lighten it up, blow 'em away.

[Ottoleo]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Ah yes, the happiness of the minority as decided by the majority. Good clean fun, that.

What's the point of a democracy if the people can't decide laws for themselves? Love it or leave it.

Sadly, this is true. But alas, if any country granted everyone every sort of right there is then it would be anarchy.

[North Calaveras]

so gay marriage would cause anarchy? its not hurting anyone is it?

[Desperate Measures]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Ah yes, the happiness of the minority as decided by the majority. Good clean fun, that.

What's the point of a democracy if the people can't decide laws for themselves? Love it or leave it.

You must be joking. Well, perhaps we should take a vote and see what religion America is.

[Ottoleo]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Ah yes, the happiness of the minority as decided by the majority. Good clean fun, that.

What's the point of a democracy if the people can't decide laws for themselves? Love it or leave it.

You must be joking. Well, perhaps we should take a vote and see what religion America is.

That's a tad bit different...

[Ottoleo]

so gay marriage would cause anarchy? its not hurting anyone is it?

Oh my. You should read and fully comprehend my posts before you judge them.

[Nova Magna Germania]

I cant take these debates seriously anymore after the incident with old players trolling.

[Redwulf]

No. Like it or not Marriage is a religious not governmental issue.

Wrong.

If it were correct it would actually support gay marriage as well as plural marriage due to the religions that allow such things.

Depends on the religion, actually.

If it were purely a religious issue then gay marriages would HAVE to be allowed by any religion that supports them. Ditto for plural marriage.

[Dempublicents1]

It seems I have made the mistake of taking on faith the assertion that adoption in the US is denied to same-sex couples.

I shouldn't accept such things as true, just because they come from an ideological ally.

There are some portions of the US in which a same-sex couple cannot adopt. However, a single person can adopt, to my knowledge, throughout the entire country. Part of the problem with the inability of same-sex couples to marry is that one's partner often cannot become a legal parent of one's child (whether said child is biological or adopted). Thus, the children of same-sex couples receive less legal protection.

So you're saying that a couple cannot adopt but that either of them individually can. Regardless of what kind of partner they have: they could adopt as an individual, single parent.

Unless they are married, in which case they can adopt together or the step-parent can legally adopt the child that was not his prior to the marriage.

Why couldn't one of them adopt the child as a single parent, and the other be a delegated guardian when required ? I'm thinking that the only downside would be if the partner who did adopt were to die, the other would not be recognized as a parent, and the power to delegate that responsibilty would perish with the dead person.

Being a delegated guardian is essentially what legal parenthood is. And there is much more to it than simply a matter of one parent dying. A parent can only put a child on an insurance policy if that parent is legally recognized as such. This means that, if the non-recognized parent is the only one with an affordable insurance policy, they can't get the child covered. A legally recognized parent is the only person who can make medical and legal decisions for a child. So, if one parent is not available, the other cannot make legally binding decisions - even when those decisions need to be made right away. Also, in the case of a divorce, a person who is not recognized as a legal parent is under no obligation to continue providing for the child. And so on.....

And I strongly suspect that in practice, a couple is preferred over a single person when applying to adopt. It should be on merit (probably the merit of whichever partner is LESS worthy) but in practice ... is it ?

The two aren't really mutually exclusive. A couple provides two persons who will be able to split their time between providing for (ie. working) and actually caring for the child. Thus, it will be easier for a couple to do so. A single person is going to have a harder time doing so and thus will have a harder time meeting the bar for adoption. This does not, of course, mean that one cannot do so, just that it is more difficult.

OK, let me turn to income sharing. Two people have very different jobs, one has a very low income and pays no income tax, the other has a high income and pays lots.

A third person looking at that situation sees more tax being paid to the government they have the benefit of (ie the money is going to pay for things they benefit from). If those two people were married and could pool their income and be taxed on the average of it, they would pay less tax in total.

Isn't that unfair from the point of view of that third person ? Don't they have a claim against the supposedly private business of those two people, if government is going to treat them differently for being married ?

Not really. They are now acting as, and thus being taxed as, a single unit. This obviously means that some people might actually end up paying less than they would jointly pay filing singly. Of course, there is also the possibility that they will end up paying more in taxes than they would singly. The only clear difference in how they are treated is that the people living as a single legal entity are now treated as such.

Meanwhile, the low income spouse, who was likely eligible for government aid in many arenas is no longer eligible due to the high income spouse's earnings. Why? Because all of those resources are now jointly owned. Should this person, who now has the means to support himself, still have access to government aid that was meant for people who actually need it? Would he have a claim against the supposedly private business of those people who truly do need aid, as the government would be treating them differently?

It may seem that I'm trying to "rescue" the orginal point I made, but actually I'm just trying another tack.

Doesn't government open the door to precisely what we say doesn't exist — consequences for third parties of two people being married — when it grants a privelege to a married couple ?

Not unless you can show how my husband and I being treated as the single legal entity that we live as somehow harms someone else.

Right not to testify against the partner: bad for the person who has a crime committed against them by one of the partners.

No more so than the fact that the person who committed the crime doesn't have to testify against himself. People who live as married have merged their lives to the extent that anything the spouse reveals that she knows about a crime can, in turn, be used to incriminate her. This, and the particularly close nature of the relationship - such that a person will share things they would never share with others - are the reasons behind the extension of the 5th Amendment to the spouse.

Income splitting: less tax paid by those people, thus less benefit to a third party.

Or more tax paid by those people, thus more benefit to a third party.
Or one or both of those people no longer being eligible for government aid, thus leaving more money for third parties who still need it.

Visiting rights outside general visitor hours in hospital: bad for the third party who is sick in the next bed in the ward.

Ok. This one, you're going to have to explain. How on earth does a family member getting to visit one sick patient in the hospital harm any other patients? It's not a zero-sum game. If that patient has a family member who wants to visit, the same rules apply. If you have a problem with this issue, it should be with the restriction to family members, not the fact that a married person can count a spouse as a family member.

[Redwulf]

All your positions supporting gay marriage are flawed. At least in this country. This Republic was founded as a Christian Nation.

Incorrect, thus the rest of you post is pointless.

[Redwulf]

And I certainly don't want my children viewing two teenage lusty homosexuals making out in the park. No siree, I have a BIG problem with that.

Is the problem that you find the thought so exciting that you're afraid you won't be able to resist joining in if asked?

[Dempublicents1]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Actually, not true. It's also irrelevant, if one values equality under the law. At one time, the majority of people in power in the country thought it was ok to own slaves. Did that mean it didn't violate human rights?

The "same" citizens meaning citizens of the same country ?

We may allow women the right to get pregnant. But that right can't be shared by men. Problem ?

There is no such right. Biology allows women to get pregnant, not the law. The law recognizes her right to self-determination, which men also have.

[WWII History Geeks]

And I certainly don't want my children viewing two teenage lusty homosexuals making out in the park. No siree, I have a BIG problem with that.

Is the problem that you find the thought so exciting that you're afraid you won't be able to resist joining in if asked?

No. I'm actually quite disgusted by it.

[WWII History Geeks]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Actually, not true. It's also irrelevant, if one values equality under the law. At one time, the majority of people in power in the country thought it was ok to own slaves. Did that mean it didn't violate human rights?

At the time, no.

[Dempublicents1]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Ah yes, the happiness of the minority as decided by the majority. Good clean fun, that.

What's the point of a democracy if the people can't decide laws for themselves? Love it or leave it.

There's a reason that we don't have a pure democracy. Pure democracy is, as one founding father put it, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Hence the reason that we have a Constitution in place to limit the actions the government can legitimately take.

And, with that, I must go to bed.

[WWII History Geeks]

In every state that has allowed gay marriage, when a vote was taken the gay marriage was abolished. How about that for rights?

Ah yes, the happiness of the minority as decided by the majority. Good clean fun, that.

What's the point of a democracy if the people can't decide laws for themselves? Love it or leave it.

There's a reason that we don't have a pure democracy. Pure democracy is, as one founding father put it, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Hence the reason that we have a Constitution in place to limit the actions the government can legitimately take.

And, with that, I must go to bed.

How do you know it's always two wolves and a sheep? Social darwinism anyways, my friend...

[Redwulf]

And I certainly don't want my children viewing two teenage lusty homosexuals making out in the park. No siree, I have a BIG problem with that.

Is the problem that you find the thought so exciting that you're afraid you won't be able to resist joining in if asked?

No. I'm actually quite disgusted by it.

Right. Disgusted by how much it turns you on.

[WWII History Geeks]

And I certainly don't want my children viewing two teenage lusty homosexuals making out in the park. No siree, I have a BIG problem with that.

Is the problem that you find the thought so exciting that you're afraid you won't be able to resist joining in if asked?

No. I'm actually quite disgusted by it.

Right. Disgusted by how much it turns you on.

It's made me barf before.