Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Tmutarakhan]

So there. Gay marriage violates property rights, and we hold those rights very dear you must agree.

Indeed they are the only objective basis of morality. A = A!

[Godforsaken Warmachine]

"Generally speaking, to avoid liability for refusal to receive a prospective guest, hotels must reasonably believe a person is unable or unwilling to pay, plans to use the room or premises for an unlawful purpose; or plans to bring a potentially dangerous object onto the premises." http://www.enotes.com:80/everyday-law-e ... ted-guests

Seeing how sexual orientation is not a crime, they are already opening themselves up to a lawsuit without gay marriage in place.

If the two people want to stay there and they can pay and that other stuff, they can rent two single rooms. Still they have been "received" as it says there.

It doesn't say there that they must be given a double bed or allowed to share a room.

[Tmutarakhan]

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

No, actually, once gay marriage is in place it is left alone. People find out that the sky doesn't fall and it doesn't affect their own marriages one bit, and it stops being an issue. Massachusetts just went through a contentious election in which "gay marriage" never came up, because-- everybody's used to it. All the votes against gay marriage have happened in states where they've never had it, and scaremongers can tell all kinds of ridiculous stories about what would happen if they did, none of which have any bearing on reality.

[Desperate Measures]

"Generally speaking, to avoid liability for refusal to receive a prospective guest, hotels must reasonably believe a person is unable or unwilling to pay, plans to use the room or premises for an unlawful purpose; or plans to bring a potentially dangerous object onto the premises." http://www.enotes.com:80/everyday-law-e ... ted-guests

Seeing how sexual orientation is not a crime, they are already opening themselves up to a lawsuit without gay marriage in place.

If the two people want to stay there and they can pay and that other stuff, they can rent two single rooms. Still they have been "received" as it says there.

It doesn't say there that they must be given a double bed or allowed to share a room.

How would that prevent the bonking? It seems that the only way to make sure sin wasn't occuring would be to risk your hotel over a lawsuit.

[Tmutarakhan]

If someone does not want sin on their property,

then they should not open their property to the public.
If you do not want to feed sinners, do not open a restaurant.
If you do not want to transport sinners, do not drive a cab.

[Rotovia-]

If the government is going to regulate marriage, it needs to do so in a way that is not discriminatory

[Desperate Measures]

And this:
"A widely-acknowledged exception to this general rule is that a non-guest or stranger coming to the hotel at the request or invitation of an existing guest has a right to enter the premises for that purpose; otherwise, the guest would unfairly be deprived of a privilege necessary for his or her comfort while at the hotel. However, the hotel may revoke such permission if the non-guest engages in conduct which would justify his or her eviction."
http://www.enotes.com:80/everyday-law-e ... ted-guests

[Godforsaken Warmachine]

So there. Gay marriage violates property rights, and we hold those rights very dear you must agree.

Indeed they are the only objective basis of morality. A = A!

I don't think so. Then forgery would be alright because the money is just a piece of paper. But forgery is fraud and it IS wrong.

[Godforsaken Warmachine]

And this:
"A widely-acknowledged exception to this general rule is that a non-guest or stranger coming to the hotel at the request or invitation of an existing guest has a right to enter the premises for that purpose; otherwise, the guest would unfairly be deprived of a privilege necessary for his or her comfort while at the hotel. However, the hotel may revoke such permission if the non-guest engages in conduct which would justify his or her eviction."
http://www.enotes.com:80/everyday-law-e ... ted-guests

That means I can rent a single room, and then invite all my friends. If they don't make too much noise they can stay there all night and in the morning we can share the bill. Only a few dollars each!

And if the management doesn't like that or wants me to pay more, I just have to threaten to sue them for "unfairly depriving me of a privelege necessary for my comfort."

I will remember this, it could be useful thankyou.

I have to go now.

[Desperate Measures]

No. That is not what it means. I think the hotel has problems with people staying overnight that haven't paid...

[North Calaveras]

No. That is not what it means. I think the hotel has problems with people staying overnight that haven't paid...

its funny, I'm telling other adults that they can get married but someone can say that I can't simply because of there religous beliefs. Well shit, since im Athiest I guess that means we should ban religion because I don't like it right?( even though I have MUCH respect for religion in real life, I see it as a good thing at times to, but when it forces its beliefs on others, that's when things get out of hand)

[Hammurab]

I was offended by your assertion that nobody on this board would notice the difference between pretentious parroting and genuine thought at a Freshman level. Perhaps I just took that the wrong way, but it bothered me more than a comment like "You're all stupid on this forum" precisely because it came from someone with genuine capacity and inclination for philosophy.

So I tried to hint to you that I considered that an arrogant attitude. From your reply I couldn't tell if you had taken that hint. Vesser noticed the hint. If only I'd seen Vesser's reply before using a heavier hand on you, I would have left it at that. The third party hinting that there was a hint there would have been enough.

In the best faith I can muster then: my point has been made, and I regret letting the veil of humour slip in the way I made that point. I'd like to just leave it there, if that's alright with you. If it sweetens the offer, I will admit that I took too seriously the jibe at "this board".

Never. I will never leave it there! This is vendetta!

(Although seriously, that was hardly a "hint", it was obviously clear that you considered my attitude arrogant. Why do you think I responded as I did?

You can think as you will, but a "hint" is generally more subtle and nuanced. You flat out implied it; which is fine, its just not the same thing as a hint, and I was clearly aware of your implication as evinced by my response).

Less seriously, I shall now report you to the Fake Mods, an organization that will censure your entirely un-actionable behavior! Once I invent them! The Fake Mods, I mean, not your actions.

[Desperate Measures]

No. That is not what it means. I think the hotel has problems with people staying overnight that haven't paid...

its funny, I'm telling other adults that they can get married but someone can say that I can't simply because of there religous beliefs. Well shit, since im Athiest I guess that means we should ban religion because I don't like it right?( even though I have MUCH respect for religion in real life, I see it as a good thing at times to, but when it forces its beliefs on others, that's when things get out of hand)

I agree. I'm agnostic and am actually thinking more spiritually lately. But I think that all spiritual matters are essentially private, which is probably why I argue so much about religion on here. "My religion says," is probably the worst utterance anyone can make. Too many people arguing loudly and forcefully about things which in my opinion are very intimate and personal.

[Redwulf]

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.

Let me see, a non-religious reason not to allow gay marriage. Hmm.

Some hotels or motels like to keep their property from being used for what they think are sinful purposes, like prostitution. Yes, they may have religion for doing that, but THEY are entitled to have religion, they're not the State are they.

One way to keep sin out of their property, is to only rent out rooms to two people of opposite sex if they are married. You have to understand, there are a lot of customers, usually they only stay one night or so. It's not like the hotel management can launch a police investigation to find out if people are married, there just isn't time for that and so the management has to use judgement and be on the lookout for liars. Wedding rings, same name on the ID, do the people look like they know each other well. The little things.

And because there are lots of married men and women in the world, the staff know what a married man and woman are like, so they can get it right most of the time and keep sinful dealings (as THEY see it, mind, I make no judgement) from happening on their property.

So if two gay men come in and want a room, they can just say no. Right away, it's an easy decision. And if the gay men want to argue about discrimination, the staff can just point to their rule which applies to everyone and say "see, it says here we won't rent a room to two people who are not married or related by blood" and that's the end of it.

But if there was even one gayly married couple in the whole country, they couldn't do that could they? The gay guys could just say they are married and the staff wouldn't be able to tell they weren't, because no-one knows how two men are supposed to behave when they are married. Even if the men both had the same second name on their ID that could be just coincidence and that's not enough without the little signs that everyone knows of when a man and a woman are married.

And even if the gay men WERE married, the staff might not want them having gay sex on their property, but if they tried to tell them NO there would be trouble about discriminating against THIS married couple but not against OTHER married couples.

Depending where that is, they might even get sued for discriminating that way even though it is their property to rent out how they like. If there wasn't any gay marriage, they could just say "gentlemen, you are not married, sorry try the trailer park down the road".

So there. Gay marriage violates property rights, and we hold those rights very dear you must agree.

were not talking about property were talk about two adults trying to be together.

That's what I am talking about. Two GAY adults trying to be together in the hotel when the management does not want them to. Read it!

so gay adults shouldn't be allowed to marry because of hotel management policys?

Policies that have already been ruled illegal if based on race rather than sexuality . . .

well that is just what I'm saying: its based on whether the people are married not what their sexuality is.

Really a hotel can't make you take two rooms if you are not married?? I didn't know that.

Just like they can't force interracial couples to take two rooms . . .

[Redwulf]

So there. Gay marriage violates property rights, and we hold those rights very dear you must agree.

Indeed they are the only objective basis of morality. A = A!

I thought A = X4/3 to the 4th power?

Note to the math nerds who will almost inevitably find something to quibble with about my equation: it's just some random mathease strung together at 4 in the morning before I hit the sack. Stop ruining the joke.

[Treznor]

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.

Let me see, a non-religious reason not to allow gay marriage. Hmm.

Some hotels or motels like to keep their property from being used for what they think are sinful purposes, like prostitution. Yes, they may have religion for doing that, but THEY are entitled to have religion, they're not the State are they.

[snip]

I find it curious that no one has called you on the fact that you utterly failed to come up with a reason that isn't based in religion. Just because someone wishes to enforce "property rights" in order to stop "sin" doesn't make the reasoning non-religious, it's using property rights to justify enforcing their religious reasoning.

[Tekania]

All your positions supporting gay marriage are flawed. At least in this country. This Republic was founded as a Christian Nation. If you don't like that then you always free to leave and go to some enlightened nation. If you feel persecuted you can always become a modern day pilgrim and find your own Mayflower. No more conjecture, show me in the Constitution where you have the right to marriage.

Try reading the US Constitution, specifically Amendment I, in what is colloquially known as the Bill of Rights. You'll find a line in there regarding a prohibition relating to respecting the establishment of religion. Basing law upon religious moral discipline (example, prohibiting SSM based upon Christian moral concerns) is a violation of that Amendment (a Christian is telling you this right now). We have this in place to keep religion in the sphere of private influence where is belongs. It's not the purpose of the general civil government to enforce religious discipline, that is the job of your own particular Church's ecclesiastic government upon its congregates.

[Tekania]

No. Like it or not Marriage is a religious not governmental issue. The Government actually has no right to even issue a liscense for people to marry, but thats an even bigger issue. The answer is no. Now Gays could be provided the same tax breaks, health insurance etc as married people but not the actual title. There is a liberal (progressive) agenda behind the gay rights movement which wants to destroy the fabric of this country and has had some success. How else would an issue that actually matters to so few people become the issue it is.

You claim to say "marriage is a religious issue" and then support a policy which denies religions issues regarding marriage. Knews for you, some religions are in FAVOR of Same-Sex-Marriage, like the UUA. You're basically attempting to enshrine YOUR religion into the civil law, and then use it to persecute other religions. You personify the concept of un-American.

[Logan12345]

i hate gays

[Zwetterland]

Yes. Without doubt.

[Tekania]

i hate gays

Wow, how such an deep and well reasoned positional argument. How old are you? 4?

[Osmstan]

Forget the government's ability to establish marriages/ grant marriage liscences at all. Leave "marriage" to the Church.


A friend of mine had an idea that he called Cooperative Living Contracts.

The CLC could be between any 2,3, or 4 people, regardless of sex.

They'd get all the benefits of being married, and could even still have rings.
Anyone involved in a CLC would have to live with the people they're contracted to, so it's not like you could just sign up and then do your own thing. The relationships wouldn't have to be romantic, though.

That way, everyone can still have the benefits of a marriage without a fight between the Uber-Christians and the...well, everyone who supports gay rights. (I'm Christian myself, but...in no way a "Bible Banger.")
If a same-sex couple does want to get MARRIED married? Well, it'd just have to be left at the discretion of the church. Right?

I don't really remember all the details of the CLC, but I know it was more thorough when my friend conceived it. (It's totally not my idea; I just really liked it.)

[Tekania]

Forget the government's ability to establish marriages/ grant marriage liscences at all. Leave "marriage" to the Church.


A friend of mine had an idea that he called Cooperative Living Contracts.

The CLC could be between any 2,3, or 4 people, regardless of sex.

They'd get all the benefits of being married, and could even still have rings.
Anyone involved in a CLC would have to live with the people they're contracted to, so it's not like you could just sign up and then do your own thing. The relationships wouldn't have to be romantic, though.

That way, everyone can still have the benefits of a marriage without a fight between the Uber-Christians and the...well, everyone who supports gay rights. (I'm Christian myself, but...in no way a "Bible Banger.")
If a same-sex couple does want to get MARRIED married? Well, it'd just have to be left at the discretion of the church. Right?

I don't really remember all the details of the CLC, but I know it was more thorough when my friend conceived it. (It's totally not my idea; I just really liked it.)

Never understood this point. We already have "two" marriages anyway, they just happen to act similar to a single because we allow religious ministers to bring the culmination of licensure into effect (that is, states issue the marrial licensure, and religious representatives may preside over the ceremony which makes it legally official). So effectively we already have this similitude, we simply have segments of the population using political force to en-graph their view of religious discipline into the civil law on the issue. Religious institutions can already refuse to marry individual based upon their own private beliefs (happens all the times, prior-divorcees, inter-racial marriages, etc); allowing SSM does nothing to the civil legal concerns involving the practice of their religion.

[Farnhamia]

Forget the government's ability to establish marriages/ grant marriage liscences at all. Leave "marriage" to the Church.


A friend of mine had an idea that he called Cooperative Living Contracts.

The CLC could be between any 2,3, or 4 people, regardless of sex.

They'd get all the benefits of being married, and could even still have rings.
Anyone involved in a CLC would have to live with the people they're contracted to, so it's not like you could just sign up and then do your own thing. The relationships wouldn't have to be romantic, though.

That way, everyone can still have the benefits of a marriage without a fight between the Uber-Christians and the...well, everyone who supports gay rights. (I'm Christian myself, but...in no way a "Bible Banger.")
If a same-sex couple does want to get MARRIED married? Well, it'd just have to be left at the discretion of the church. Right?

I don't really remember all the details of the CLC, but I know it was more thorough when my friend conceived it. (It's totally not my idea; I just really liked it.)

Never understood this point. We already have "two" marriages anyway, they just happen to act similar to a single because we allow religious ministers to bring the culmination of licensure into effect (that is, states issue the marrial licensure, and religious representatives may preside over the ceremony which makes it legally official). So effectively we already have this similitude, we simply have segments of the population using political force to en-graph their view of religious discipline into the civil law on the issue. Religious institutions can already refuse to marry individual based upon their own private beliefs (happens all the times, prior-divorcees, inter-racial marriages, etc); allowing SSM does nothing to the civil legal concerns involving the practice of their religion.

Exactly. All marriages in the US are "civil unions" already. You don't need anyone to pronounce you anything. I imagine the rules vary by state, but as long as you get the license, have it witnessed competently, and register it at the appropriate state office, you're married. Osmstan's proposal actually stands the current system on its head.

[Setebuhza]

Forget the government's ability to establish marriages/ grant marriage liscences at all. Leave "marriage" to the Church.


A friend of mine had an idea that he called Cooperative Living Contracts.

The CLC could be between any 2,3, or 4 people, regardless of sex.

They'd get all the benefits of being married, and could even still have rings.
Anyone involved in a CLC would have to live with the people they're contracted to, so it's not like you could just sign up and then do your own thing. The relationships wouldn't have to be romantic, though.

That way, everyone can still have the benefits of a marriage without a fight between the Uber-Christians and the...well, everyone who supports gay rights. (I'm Christian myself, but...in no way a "Bible Banger.")
If a same-sex couple does want to get MARRIED married? Well, it'd just have to be left at the discretion of the church. Right?

I don't really remember all the details of the CLC, but I know it was more thorough when my friend conceived it. (It's totally not my idea; I just really liked it.)

I tell you what. You work to literally destroy marriage, the rest of us will work to extend it to more people.