Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Satyrstone]

In many states, they are, including mine. And, technically, the Federal gov does not ban the legalization of same-sex unions, so states can make that decison for themselves.

The problem is that the federal government doesn't recognize civil unions, thereby denying some of the more important rights to couples. Things like Social security benefits, military funerals, joint tax filings, ect. That, and the social benefit of being married, as opposed to civil unionized.

Then let the federal government recognize the unions, but marriage is still between a man and a woman. Marriage has a traditional set-up.Unions can be like marriages, but for homosexual couples. All we ask is that the actual institution of marriage be kept traditional.

Because separate but equal has always worked in the past!

[Nobel Hobos]

Of course they should be able to marry whomever they will. They have a right to the same rights everyone else has, although I know the argument is going to arise that getting married is not exactly a right but I hope you all get my meaning.

Right to marry a consenting adult.

As long as poygamy is forbidden: right to marry one consenting adult, who is not married already.

Actually the practice of polygamy continues, but it is not recognized under state and federal law.

I'm with Muravyets on this one. Marriage is a legal institution, and I neither know nor care what the word means inside a church. They can "marry" Commander Spock on Vulcan if they want to pretend that way.

[Omega Uliza]

We have a couple of concerns on both sides, right?

Pro-Gay Marriage people worry about equality whilst the Pro-Hetero Marriage people worry about, what's the list up to?, world population, religious morality, and possible other events for allowing same-sex marriage.

Let us address this logically and calmly.

World population is currently around 6.3 or 6.4 billion. Let's say 25% of the entire population decided to have same-sex marriages, that slows down the population rise by 25%, provided that these are only men. With only men, that means only 2.9-ish billion males are available for reproduction before you take away the infertile, the young, and the old. Include women and you suddenly find yourself making further cutbacks.

Response: That could very well be a serious issue if we didn't have the problem of too MANY people at the moment. Should population levels decline severely, we have a lot of ways to get those levels back to rise. Take for example, homosexual males and females could be required or 'politely asked by their friendly local government' to donate sperm and ovum. Heterosexual males and females could work with more poly-amorous relationships. There are always solutions to the problems we create.

Religious morality states by 'fill in religious book and line here' that man was made to boink the woman next to him and not the hunk across the street.

Response: If this what you believe, very good...that neither makes it better or worse than the logic for same-sex marriage. Highlight and underline the word belief several times and try again.

I remember the idea being raised on an alternative forum that allowing such degeneracy would only allow us to do even stranger things.

Response: Rape is illegal, pure and simple...no one has a snowball's chance in hell of erasing that one from legislature. Bestiality for a woman is pretty much legal provided you aren't drugging the animal...and that violates its' own set of laws. Bestiality for men is more tricky because the issue of 'whether or not the animal actually wants it' is more difficult to determine. For bestiality thought-provoking ideas within our society, look up one of the ladies who married a horse, a rock, or the Eiffel Tower, all three have been done...they don't harm anyone.

The issue of equality is a big step to look at and consider. 'All men are created equal' is not guaranteed by the Constitution. This is a line from the Decleration of Independence...pay attention during your history class:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Does this sound familiar? The U.S. Constitution does have the 14th amendment which directs that citizens shall not be discriminated against. Then you have the Equal Rights Amendment...which expired before it was actually adopted as part of the constitution in the late 70's. The Constitution will not be a gentle friend for this debate.

It is the policy of the United States government to treat people equally regardless of their sex, color, sexuality, or age. That, is a truth that you can find on every single official paper you find which in the end has the option 'rather not say'.

[Novistrainia]

In many states, they are, including mine. And, technically, the Federal gov does not ban the legalization of same-sex unions, so states can make that decison for themselves.

The problem is that the federal government doesn't recognize civil unions, thereby denying some of the more important rights to couples. Things like Social security benefits, military funerals, joint tax filings, ect. That, and the social benefit of being married, as opposed to civil unionized.

Then let the federal government recognize the unions, but marriage is still between a man and a woman. Marriage has a traditional set-up.Unions can be like marriages, but for homosexual couples. All we ask is that the actual institution of marriage be kept traditional.

Because separate but equal has always worked in the past!

What about the institution is traditional, really what.
Islamic, German,Irish,Catholic,Protestant, atheist,some guy all have different views on how marriage should be.

The fact is marriage is an act, something you can do say, and you can believe, the government doesn't have to recognize it at all, but that doesn't change the fact you are married right.
A union allows you to combine your finances for tax benefits and helps with the parental thing in the government eyes.

That thing you did at the church, Marriage
That tax form you fill out, or that custody hearing(god forbid) that is a civil union.

[Balavoria]

No. Marriage is between a man and a women.

i get what you mean when you say that. it's the natural process where a baby is made, etc. etc. etc.

but really, don't we have different people?

we aren't telling people to like purple if they like red are we?

I say yes they should have the right to. it's like if straight couples had to be debated upon whether or not they could marry. it might never happen, but you know what I mean? it's kind of cruel.

I'm straight but I know lots of gay people. not one of them has ever done anything horrible to anyone I know.

compared to the straight ones I know. at least half of them have done something horrible to someone else. like HORRIBLE kind of horrible, you know what I mean?

[Omega Uliza]

Of course they should be able to marry whomever they will. They have a right to the same rights everyone else has, although I know the argument is going to arise that getting married is not exactly a right but I hope you all get my meaning.

Right to marry a consenting adult.

As long as poygamy is forbidden: right to marry one consenting adult, who is not married already.

Polygamy is an entirely different can of worms based more on the social view of 'soulmates' than religion.

[Nobel Hobos]

On the subject of polygamy: polygamous marriage is going to have to be called something other than "marriage".

Either that, or we will have the same word for two different things: one, the existing definition of marriage (under which many people are already contracted) which specifies only one marriage per person, and two, a broader definition without that restriction.

OK, it doesn't HAVE to be named something else, but nor can existing contracts be changed. A person entering a second "marriage" is breaking their vow taken under the old contract, has given their first spouse grounds for divorce with the fault entirely the polygamist's.

[Omega Uliza]

No. Marriage is between a man and a women.

i get what you mean when you say that. it's the natural process where a baby is made, etc. etc. etc.

but really, don't we have different people?

we aren't telling people to like purple if they like red are we?

I say yes they should have the right to. it's like if straight couples had to be debated upon whether or not they could marry. it might never happen, but you know what I mean? it's kind of cruel.

I'm straight but I know lots of gay people. not one of them has ever done anything horrible to anyone I know.

compared to the straight ones I know. at least half of them have done something horrible to someone else. like HORRIBLE kind of horrible, you know what I mean?

I have a pretty good idea of what you mean on both accounts. Reversing the situation would seem utterly ridiculous...and yet...for some people, it is ridiculous.

[Tmutarakhan]

Is the act of marriage religious or is it a financial act?

It is a LEGAL act.

The way I see it
That Paper from the government that says you are together, that is a Civil union
That big or small or whatever tradition you did, that is a Marriage.

The paper from the government is the MARRIAGE. The traditional thing you did is the WEDDING.

[Novistrainia]

On the subject of polygamy: polygamous marriage is going to have to be called something other than "marriage".

Either that, or we will have the same word for two different things: one, the existing definition of marriage (under which many people are already contracted) which specifies only one marriage per person, and two, a broader definition without that restriction.

OK, it doesn't HAVE to be named something else, but nor can existing contracts be changed. A person entering a second "marriage" is breaking their vow taken under the old contract, has given their first spouse grounds for divorce with the fault entirely the polygamist's.

We could argue the moral implications, but I would argue the financial implications, it would give these groups of people an extremely unfair financial advantage, and would you have higher taxes on them than others, how would you treat it, like a multiple partnership, and then what if the polygamist dies how is the property, children distributed. What if one of the other adults dies, does the polygamist get sole control over all of the finances and proper that person had.

[Omega Uliza]

On the subject of polygamy: polygamous marriage is going to have to be called something other than "marriage".

Either that, or we will have the same word for two different things: one, the existing definition of marriage (under which many people are already contracted) which specifies only one marriage per person, and two, a broader definition without that restriction.

OK, it doesn't HAVE to be named something else, but nor can existing contracts be changed. A person entering a second "marriage" is breaking their vow taken under the old contract, has given their first spouse grounds for divorce with the fault entirely the polygamist's.

You make it sound like two people enter a contract together to spend their life together and everyone else can go to hell. Contracts by their very nature are entrepreneurial, and the more business partners you have the better you stand financially.

[Novistrainia]

Is the act of marriage religious or is it a financial act?

It is a LEGAL act.

The way I see it
That Paper from the government that says you are together, that is a Civil union
That big or small or whatever tradition you did, that is a Marriage.

The paper from the government is the MARRIAGE. The traditional thing you did is the WEDDING.

Good you answered my question, it is a legal act, meaning it pertains to financial, (civil) and parental things,
Also it was a poor choice on the wording but if marriage is a legal act then it should pertain to two consenting humans as far as the law should be concerned

[Omega Uliza]

On the subject of polygamy: polygamous marriage is going to have to be called something other than "marriage".

Either that, or we will have the same word for two different things: one, the existing definition of marriage (under which many people are already contracted) which specifies only one marriage per person, and two, a broader definition without that restriction.

OK, it doesn't HAVE to be named something else, but nor can existing contracts be changed. A person entering a second "marriage" is breaking their vow taken under the old contract, has given their first spouse grounds for divorce with the fault entirely the polygamist's.

We could argue the moral implications, but I would argue the financial implications, it would give these groups of people an extremely unfair financial advantage, and would you have higher taxes on them than others, how would you treat it, like a multiple partnership, and then what if the polygamist dies how is the property, children distributed. What if one of the other adults dies, does the polygamist get sole control over all of the finances and proper that person had.

With time these issues could easily be resolved. Why does the polygamist have to take everything? It would be an equal partnership among X amount of people.

[Nobel Hobos]

I would also hope that any legal provision for polygamous marriage includes a clause that both partners must be afforded the same right to marry others.

Sure, the contract could say for instance "In marrying, I consent to my spouse marrying not more than two other people" ... or it could say "in marrying, I consent to my spouse marrying any number of other people".

But I would be deeply suspicious of a contract which says for one partner "My spouse can marry up to two other people" and for the other partner "My spouse may not marry any other person without breaching this contract".

The symmetry of modern marriage contracts isn't something to throw away.

[Omega Uliza]

I would also hope that any legal provision for polygamous marriage includes a clause that both partners must be afforded the same right to marry others.

Sure, the contract could say for instance "In marrying, I consent to my spouse marrying not more than two other people" ... or it could say "in marrying, I consent to my spouse marrying any number of other people".

But I would be deeply suspicious of a contract which says for one partner "My spouse can marry up to two other people" and for the other partner "My spouse may not marry any other person without breaching this contract".

The symmetry of modern marriage contracts isn't something to throw away.

I'm not saying it should be thrown away. I'm saying that polygamy is not so one-sided. Granted that as a corrupted form it takes that form, but where do the poly-amorous relationships go when same-sex marriages are being debated over? Love triangles around the world weep over their loss of being able to enjoy the security provided by the legal ramifications of being married and showing the two or eight people they love just how much they mean to them.

[Nobel Hobos]

On the subject of polygamy: polygamous marriage is going to have to be called something other than "marriage".

Either that, or we will have the same word for two different things: one, the existing definition of marriage (under which many people are already contracted) which specifies only one marriage per person, and two, a broader definition without that restriction.

OK, it doesn't HAVE to be named something else, but nor can existing contracts be changed. A person entering a second "marriage" is breaking their vow taken under the old contract, has given their first spouse grounds for divorce with the fault entirely the polygamist's.

You make it sound like two people enter a contract together to spend their life together and everyone else can go to hell. Contracts by their very nature are entrepreneurial, and the more business partners you have the better you stand financially.

Contracts are not AT ALL enterpreneurial, when they are endorsed and recognized by government.

What you're talking about is a pre-nup. And even that is subject to government restrictions as to what is a fair contract. When one party disputes the contract, it is settled in a government court.

[Phenia]

World population is currently around 6.3 or 6.4 billion. Let's say 25% of the entire population decided to have same-sex marriages, that slows down the population rise by 25%, provided that these are only men.

The notion that gay marriage will have any affect on population increase is pure myth. Gay marriage is not going to make gay people stop reproducing, nor does the absence of gay marriage mean gay people do not reproduce!

[Briganti]

To throw in a curve ball being gay is older than the bible *fact* and maybe older than humanity its self. So if gays cant marry (and we are older than the bible) but we let Chrisians marry.This proves the irrelivence of gays not being allowed to marry . (Note I have nothing against Christians excpt if:

(A. They are fire and brimestine
B. They belive Christianity is the only religion because clearly it isnt
or C. They think that gay people are pedophiles because we are really not)

[Gaypeoples]

of course they should, its not a left-wing or right-wing issue, its a equality issue.

THIS!
because to marry is a conservative value and so homosexuals can live a conservative lifestyle, else they couldnt. so its dumb for conservatives to be against gay marriages.

[Omega Uliza]

On the subject of polygamy: polygamous marriage is going to have to be called something other than "marriage".

Either that, or we will have the same word for two different things: one, the existing definition of marriage (under which many people are already contracted) which specifies only one marriage per person, and two, a broader definition without that restriction.

OK, it doesn't HAVE to be named something else, but nor can existing contracts be changed. A person entering a second "marriage" is breaking their vow taken under the old contract, has given their first spouse grounds for divorce with the fault entirely the polygamist's.

You make it sound like two people enter a contract together to spend their life together and everyone else can go to hell. Contracts by their very nature are entrepreneurial, and the more business partners you have the better you stand financially.

Contracts are not AT ALL enterpreneurial, when they are endorsed and recognized by government.

What you're talking about is a pre-nup. And even that is subject to government restrictions as to what is a fair contract. When one party disputes the contract, it is settled in a government court.

And when the government has attached as much nonsensical meanings to its' decision? What then? No government can decide what is fair. Only a person can.

[Novistrainia]

On the subject of polygamy: polygamous marriage is going to have to be called something other than "marriage".

Either that, or we will have the same word for two different things: one, the existing definition of marriage (under which many people are already contracted) which specifies only one marriage per person, and two, a broader definition without that restriction.

OK, it doesn't HAVE to be named something else, but nor can existing contracts be changed. A person entering a second "marriage" is breaking their vow taken under the old contract, has given their first spouse grounds for divorce with the fault entirely the polygamist's.

We could argue the moral implications, but I would argue the financial implications, it would give these groups of people an extremely unfair financial advantage, and would you have higher taxes on them than others, how would you treat it, like a multiple partnership, and then what if the polygamist dies how is the property, children distributed. What if one of the other adults dies, does the polygamist get sole control over all of the finances and proper that person had.

With time these issues could easily be resolved. Why does the polygamist have to take everything? It would be an equal partnership among X amount of people.

With time yes, but what about children, time to bring some of the moral back in, it takes custody battles long enough as is, it could become a whole lot messier and longer in our court system, same with the money.
Are you arguing that marriage is a financial contract between two people. or basically a partnership which has its own laws,
Marriage as I understand it is that 2 consenting adults agree to tie there finances and property together, and the right to have equal parental control over children, that should one die then the other should by unless there is a will stating otherwise receive full control over these things, in the event of the severing of this pact, and there was no prior agreement that they would leave with what they only brought in the marriage and then share equally earned in the marriage part, they would normally share the finance equally, unless children are involved then in which case which ever adult is believed to be a better care taker shall receive custody over the child and increased financial help from the other person.

[Gesford]

Ugh. "Marriage" as a civil institution? Sure, if everyone else gets it, why not homosexuals as well.

Marriage as a religious institution? Let the religion in question decide who or what it wants to acknowledge as married before the lord/law/god/whatever.

[Omega Uliza]

World population is currently around 6.3 or 6.4 billion. Let's say 25% of the entire population decided to have same-sex marriages, that slows down the population rise by 25%, provided that these are only men.

The notion that gay marriage will have any affect on population increase is pure myth. Gay marriage is not going to make gay people stop reproducing, nor does the absence of gay marriage mean gay people do not reproduce!

I was addressing the issue as it is perceived.
As I made a note of...homosexuals can still reproduce. Thank you ankle-bitter....

[Nobel Hobos]

On the subject of polygamy: polygamous marriage is going to have to be called something other than "marriage".

Either that, or we will have the same word for two different things: one, the existing definition of marriage (under which many people are already contracted) which specifies only one marriage per person, and two, a broader definition without that restriction.

OK, it doesn't HAVE to be named something else, but nor can existing contracts be changed. A person entering a second "marriage" is breaking their vow taken under the old contract, has given their first spouse grounds for divorce with the fault entirely the polygamist's.

We could argue the moral implications, but I would argue the financial implications, it would give these groups of people an extremely unfair financial advantage, and would you have higher taxes on them than others, how would you treat it, like a multiple partnership, and then what if the polygamist dies how is the property, children distributed. What if one of the other adults dies, does the polygamist get sole control over all of the finances and proper that person had.

It's not really the subject of the thread. Nor am I a strong supporter of polygamous marriage. Just because I'm setting limits to what should be allowed, doesn't mean I think it should be allowed at all.

I wasn't aware I was making a "moral" argument. I was just trying to stay compatible with other principles of law.

Feel free to put your own financial argument. It doesn't detract from mine.

[Novistrainia]

World population is currently around 6.3 or 6.4 billion. Let's say 25% of the entire population decided to have same-sex marriages, that slows down the population rise by 25%, provided that these are only men.

The notion that gay marriage will have any affect on population increase is pure myth. Gay marriage is not going to make gay people stop reproducing, nor does the absence of gay marriage mean gay people do not reproduce!

Hmm, Gay people do not reproduce under traditional values,
I mean yes they can adopt or artificially impregnate, which works better for gay women than men, who require a separate host who they would then have to hope that they mother would not want to keep the child.
Can Gay people spread there genes: Yes
Can gay people reproduce as through the biological way that humans evolved/were designed to reproduce: No