Homosexual Marriage

[Kamunt]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Homosexuals aren't bisexuals, however.

It's the whole...same root different prefix means different concept thing.

Omnisexuals F.T.W. 'Nuff said.

What's the name of that song, where the chorus is like "I'm just goin round in circles, going around in circles, going around in circles"?

Yeah, that.

Um...."Circles"?

[AriesMalvis]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

well to put it this way I AM NOT A LITTLE KID! I am 17 and chances are probably older than you. If you want to be the FFR *** of the year, please go ahead without me

lol wow...attitude problem
and yea age doesn't have much say on this site
it's more of a maturity thing rather than actual age

[lord_carbo]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Yeah; Mom's who made absolutely no difference to the level of comfort of kids undergoing serious, life threatening medical procedures. That sure suggests "critical and neccessary position of a mother in every family" to me!

It's called "taking things for granted." More or less the position of a parent in general, not so much specifically mothers as per the rest of your post.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

It's called "taking things for granted." More or less the position of a parent in general, not so much specifically mothers as per the rest of your post.

I'm not sure what you mean. The general cultural assumptions parents make about their neccessity are probably across the board in terms of gender, race, sexuality blah blah blah, but many assumptions are gender specific and based on conceptions of gender essentialism. Child rearing ability tends to be something Mothers are assumed to have, and a special bond between mother and child is a concept directly tied to this.

[Chrissi]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I would still like to see an answer to what I posted earlier? Because if I am correct, there is no more possibility for debate.

My idea:

Everyone should agree that religion has no place in legal matters, meaning that any two adults should be allowed to be legally married. Gay marriage is therefore not an issue.

Also, everyone should agree that the government has no place in religious matters, meaning that each church can allow or disallow anyone they want to be married by the church. Gay marriage is therefore, again, NOT AN ISSUE.

This effectively ends the argument.

Please find a problem with it.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Please find a problem with it.

K

Everyone should agree that religion has no place in legal matters, meaning that any two adults should be allowed to be legally married. Gay marriage is therefore not an issue.

Why should government have any say in marriage at all? Any desire to give the government power to do something, in this case affirm marriages in the legal sense, requires an accompanying argument.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

This effectively ends the argument.

Well...it ends the argument for people who agree that religion has no place in legal matters, which is not everyone. And it ends the argument for people who agree that the government has no place in religious matters which is also not everyone.

Further, people could still object on the grounds that legal marriage ought -also- to be between a man and a woman based on mistaken views of homosexuality and how it operates, and may be concluding that people are trying to cheat the system or at least, would be more encouraged to try and cheat the system.

For sufficient advantages and tax breaks and other benefits, I could absolutely see single people who have close friends of the same gender "Getting married" to share in all the benefits while having no actual intention or desire to be married to that person. I mean...such happens already, but you'd be making it dramatically easier.

Bear in mind, I utterly agree with you, but since the people objecting to this stance have been...less than effective in phrasing arguments in a compelling way, I figured I'd play a little Devil's Advocate for you.

Why should government have any say in marriage at all?

Because the government gives benefits to -legally- married couples, and thus ought to have a say in what does or does not count as married for the purposes of their benefits. Legal marriage is a government-created institution, so it has control over that institution.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Because the government gives benefits to -legally- married couples, and thus ought to have a say in what does or does not count as married for the purposes of their benefits. Legal marriage is a government-created institution, so it has control over that institution.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Government does give benefits to legally married couples, and legal marriage is a government created institution, but I'm not sure there are actually any justifications for these benefits or for this role of government to begin with.

Basically it seems to me like you're starting with the assumption that the place government has currently assigned itself in marriage is legitimate, something which I believe actually needs justification before you can make some of the arguments you have been making.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Well, you can advocate if you like that there should be absolutely no legal benefits to being legally married, and that marriage at -all- should only be religious, but i don't suspect you'd find very wide-spread support for it.

Or more to the point, it seems that you are saying "Prove marriage should exist at all outside a religious observance before you can talk about how it would work."

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Not quite. I'm saying "prove marriage should be handled in any form by the government". I think that religious marriages are fine, as would be marriages certified by any other private party. I'm only wondering why government needs a place in it. I don't believe there should be any benefits for getting legally married. I also don't see the neccessity for legal marriage.

I really, really don't care whether or not my opinions are popular.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Not quite. I'm saying "prove marriage should be handled in any form by the government". I think that religious marriages are fine, as would be marriages certified by any other private party. I'm only wondering why government needs a place in it. I don't believe there should be any benefits for getting legally married. I also don't see the neccessity for legal marriage.

I really, really don't care whether or not my opinions are popular.

Well, all of the benefits detailed in http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...&postcount=289 are made as a consideration for the issues involved in marriage. Should no such distinctions ever be made, should nobody get those benefits, should you be able to share those benefits with any person you want?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Should no such distinctions ever be made, should nobody get those benefits, should you be able to share those benefits with any person you want?

Absolutely. Private agreements should mitigate all of those things, not government intervention.

[OuterSpace]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

The thing is, whether it's "legal" or not isn't going to change the love between two men/women.

But yeah, I agree that there are different definitions of marriage, and it's definitely not just a religious ceremony anymore.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Further, people could still object on the grounds that legal marriage ought -also- to be between a man and a woman based on mistaken views of homosexuality and how it operates, and may be concluding that people are trying to cheat the system or at least, would be more encouraged to try and cheat the system.

For sufficient advantages and tax breaks and other benefits, I could absolutely see single people who have close friends of the same gender "Getting married" to share in all the benefits while having no actual intention or desire to be married to that person. I mean...such happens already, but you'd be making it dramatically easier.

Didn't i say that like over 10 pages ago? Oh well, we all knew this was going in circles anyway.
The logistics of the situation shows that the only ones that suffer are the gay couples that miss out on the marriage benefits that come with having a spouse in peril. So it is really a matter of discrimination, rights shouldn't be withheld from people purely based on whom they choose to love unless of course it is not a right to begin with. Obviously you cannot get married in a church that does not support homosexual marriage and its that churches every right to do that but the argument is really about whether or not the government has the right to hold back such benefits and whether its for a good enough reason. What all this accomplishes i do not know.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Absolutely. Private agreements should mitigate all of those things, not government intervention.

I very strongly suspect that, like me, you would throw complete support behind the statement "Adults, who can prove themselves to be rational, reasonable and in possession of their mental faculties ought to be able to enter into a contract specifying absolutely anything they want"