Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Briganti]

And as I forgot to mention in my previous post if you dont like gay marrage, thats fine dont have one. Please dont annoy everyone eles by makeing us listen to your drivle. Thankies

[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.

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.

Government has attached many many conditions to marriage. The list of different entitlements based on marriage status is as long as your arm.

If you want to argue for keeping it simple, how about this: abolish marriage in the legal sense. The government deals precisely the same way with every individual, laws apply exactly the same to every individual, regardless of whether they are married or not.

It's actually my preferred scenario, though I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[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.

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.

When I say moral I refer to how most modern religions are against it, which leads to the reason why people are against gay marriage, the financial problems with gay marriage are the same as straight marriage, the same rules could be easily applied,

We would have to come up with a whole new law,idea what ever you want to call it to deal with polygamy, and then would that polygamy be limited to say only 4 or unlimited that is why I am against it as the limit on where the law applies becomes extremely complicated.

[Nobel Hobos]

And as I forgot to mention in my previous post if you dont like gay marrage, thats fine dont have one. Please dont annoy everyone eles by makeing us listen to your drivle. Thankies

Ah, the old "shut up" argument. Very persuasive.

[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.

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.

I am arguing with the very notion that your first thought is that it must solely be two people in this combination. If, granted that this is theoretical, our idea of what is fair on this particular subject is only because it has been a limit and constraint on our way of moving in society, then what if the society as a whole is wrong?

To throw in an example, you have three people who are in their twenties, all rather attached to one another, want to spend the rest of their life together. How do the join in on the marriage-fest? They could decide they don't NEED marriage. But the state officially recongizes only a select few people take for example if one of the three is involved in an auto crash. How do the other two go in, like you might expect of any normal couple, and spend time with their loved one as they fight for their life? They can't.

The fact remains that this is a side of society that we do not anticipate for. Male 1 is badly injured and in the ICU. Female 1 and Female 2 or any combination thereof want to see them. Access denied, only family members are allowed to see them.

[Satyrstone]

So, if a male rapes another male he is still legitimately classified as straight? As long as its in prison? Odd. Of course, I am still of the opinion that everyone is inherently bisexual, so maybe that's why I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept.

There are definitely situations where homosexual physical interaction does not necessarily make one or both parties actually homosexual. Prison is often an example of this, I think. However, comparing this to citizens in the city choosing to attempt to have the homosexual contact is not appropriate, and an invalid comparison. It certainly seems to me like homosexuality.

The comparison is irrelevant. Could rape not be the immoral part of this story? Why do people always assume that homosexuality is the wicked part of this story?

[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.

Government has attached many many conditions to marriage. The list of different entitlements based on marriage status is as long as your arm.

If you want to argue for keeping it simple, how about this: abolish marriage in the legal sense. The government deals precisely the same way with every individual, laws apply exactly the same to every individual, regardless of whether they are married or not.

It's actually my preferred scenario, though I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I can't say that would be a bad situation. Think it would be possible to get people to calm down under such a situation where the beheading could begin?

The French Revolution tried something similar...hence the joke.

[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.

I am arguing with the very notion that your first thought is that it must solely be two people in this combination. If, granted that this is theoretical, our idea of what is fair on this particular subject is only because it has been a limit and constraint on our way of moving in society, then what if the society as a whole is wrong?

To throw in an example, you have three people who are in their twenties, all rather attached to one another, want to spend the rest of their life together. How do the join in on the marriage-fest? They could decide they don't NEED marriage. But the state officially recongizes only a select few people take for example if one of the three is involved in an auto crash. How do the other two go in, like you might expect of any normal couple, and spend time with their loved one as they fight for their life? They can't.

The fact remains that this is a side of society that we do not anticipate for. Male 1 is badly injured and in the ICU. Female 1 and Female 2 or any combination thereof want to see them. Access denied, only family members are allowed to see them.

You make a good point, and as to that issue socially we haven't grown enough yet to handle that, and something like that should and will probably change in the years to come, maybe 40 to 50, I'm referring to seeing person A in hospital by person B and C and D through n/
As to death, people need to use wills, as they are important.
But honestly at this moment I would say that as a society we are not ready to face this question, we are still trying to deal with the question of homo-sexuality, as seen by the thread.

[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.

When I say moral I refer to how most modern religions are against it, which leads to the reason why people are against gay marriage, the financial problems with gay marriage are the same as straight marriage, the same rules could be easily applied,

We would have to come up with a whole new law,idea what ever you want to call it to deal with polygamy, and then would that polygamy be limited to say only 4 or unlimited that is why I am against it as the limit on where the law applies becomes extremely complicated.

Might I say that calling it by the more accurate term "same-sex marriage" avoids granting the premise that marriage is about sex. Why should it be? THAT'S the sexual morality bullshit which belongs in a church and has no place in law.

I'm not "for" or "against" polygamous marriage, until I see a detailed model of what it will involve. If the proposal is just "people should be allowed to marry as many people as they like" then I'm against it ... as being inadequately thought-out. I don't buy a pig in a poke.

So, since it's off-topic and you and I roughly agree, let's not argue about it huh ?

[Satyrstone]

Yes. I'm Jewish and being honest, I find homosexuality absolutely disgusting. However, the Torah forbids homosexuality intercourse-not views. It's a right that you cannot deny.

I'm happy to hear that you find me completely disgusting without taking the time to meet me.

Oh by the way, are you free for dinner tomorrow night? Wear something sexy!

[North Calaveras]

There is no reason gay people should not get married and everyone against it has shown not one shred of solid evidence, other than using religious material in which case would be against the whole separation of church and state concept(ya i know its not perfect). GIVE ME SOME DAMN PROOF

[Satyrstone]

Also; on the topic of homosexuality; most religions believe it is wrong. However, I respect homosexuals and us religious people need to be respected of our views, so long as we don't preach things such as killing homosexuals, or nonsense like that.

You respect me, but find my relationship absolutely disgusting? No, I don't think so. That is disrespect.

[Neu Heidelberg]

Gay and lesbian couples already have the right to get married. The issue is we don't always recognise that right.

Once you realise this is not a matter of granting a right, but of recognising one, the moral dimension of the question changes. No longer are we asking: "is a same sex relationship worthy enough of the title marriage?" Instead, we must ask ourselves: "am I worthy enough to judge a relationship other than my own?"

You must be pretty high on righteousness to believe you can judge love and commitment of a couple you have never met.

[Nobel Hobos]

Yes. I'm Jewish and being honest, I find homosexuality absolutely disgusting. However, the Torah forbids homosexuality intercourse-not views. It's a right that you cannot deny.

I'm happy to hear that you find me completely disgusting without taking the time to meet me.

Oh by the way, are you free for dinner tomorrow night? Wear something sexy!

To be fair, Vitius did not say that they find homosexuals absolutely disgusting. But homosexuality.

Whether that means their mental image of a homosexual act, or a mental image of a muscular guy in a rope singlet and leather trousers ... or what, I cannot say. Perhaps we could ask Vitius just what it is that they find absolutely disgusting ?

EDIT: Oops, Vitius DID say that in another post. Oh well, I find that opinion absolutely disgusting then.

[Novistrainia]

Gay and lesbian couples already have the right to get married. The issue is we don't always recognise that right.

Once you realise this is not a matter of granting a right, but of recognising one, the moral dimension of the question changes. No longer are we asking: "is a same sex relationship worthy enough of the title marriage?" Instead, we must ask ourselves: "am I worthy enough to judge a relationship other than my own?"

You must be pretty high on righteousness to believe you can judge love and commitment of a couple you have never met.

^ This

[Satyrstone]

No, I just can't picture anyone being capable of having that kind of affection for someone of the same sex. It just isn't right, real love should be between man and woman. I don't want to sound like some square asshole, cause thats not me, but I just don't think they should be able to get married. I do however think that marriage shouldn't have an age limit.

You're telling me I'm incapable of real love.




Thanks.

[Satyrstone]

The Constitution never said anything about gay marriage or male/female marriage.

I really don't care, I don't care about the haters, I don't care about the supporters

People could do whatever hey want, It's America, i'm not going to be a hater but I am going to be a hater if some guy likes me when i'm never gay.

It's the people's choice, I really don't give a crap, you could be gay or not, but it's your choice.

Don't hate them, take it as a complement. They're not going to rape you or anything if they're a sane human being.

[Nobel Hobos]

No, I just can't picture anyone being capable of having that kind of affection for someone of the same sex. It just isn't right, real love should be between man and woman. I don't want to sound like some square asshole, cause thats not me, but I just don't think they should be able to get married. I do however think that marriage shouldn't have an age limit.

You're telling me I'm incapable of real love.

Thanks.

You've got a round peg, right ? It doesn't fit in Phanafia's square hole.

You're incompatible, that's all. Real love isn't going to happen.

[North Calaveras]

so love is about sex.............that's what your saying right?

[Satyrstone]

No, they shouldn't.
Should people have the right to marry a dog? A plant? A rock? No, because it goes against the design of humans.
Why should people marry members of their own gender? Humans weren't designed that way for a reason.

Here we go again.

Why does my brain tell me to fuck men? Why is their genetic proof of homosexuality? Apparently I'm designed this way.

[Nobel Hobos]

so love is about sex.............that's what your saying right?

What, me ?

[North Calaveras]

ya im talking about what you said, about the two parts that don't fit, clearly signifying a pussy and a dick right?

[Norrain]

Move to Canada, problem solved. The US wont change so long as the christian right has a death grip on the south.

btw, I live in Canada and believe in equality for all. And any christian who puts their religious beliefs (or at least what they've been told are their beliefs) before the wellbeing of their fellow man isn't much of a good christian, are they? This applies to other religions who claim to preach tolerance and peace on earth as well.

also: anything I say about the US isn't necessarily true, I don't live there how can I know for sure? It's just what I've gathered from years of watching "The Daily Show" and lurking Fox news.

I lost track of what I was talking about 5 sentences ago. So I suppose just ignore this post?





note: please correct me on anything I wrote which is incorrect, I really want to know what the #$%@ is actually going on in that hellhole to the south. Also if you want to hate on me...go right ahead

<3

--Heterosexual-Atheist-Socialist signing off....or something like that.

[Nobel Hobos]

ya im talking about what you said, about the two parts that don't fit, clearly signifying a pussy and a dick right?

Er, no.

>X< I don't want to sound like some square asshole, cause thats not me, >X<

Square hole ...

I apologize for my childish sense of humour.

You might like to consider that Communist Phanafia is the one who considers marriage to be wrong without sexual attraction involved. And think about what they say in the same post about "age limits".

It's a pretty grave accusation to make, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Might have just been poorly worded.

[North Calaveras]

Can you give a real reason why two adults cannot marry each other if they are of the same sex?