Homosexual Marriages

[GuidoHunter]

Sorry to be trite with a discussion topic, but I feel this could spark some nice debate which I've never had (on this subject).

From having heard much in the way of side comments regarding the amendment proposal, I feel some people may be taking a stand on the wrong issue. I hear people saying things like "I can't believe Bush wants to make gay marriages illegal", or "Marriage is about love", etc. To be completely honest, Tristia's sig is one thing that compelled me to write this. I may be taking what it says a bit out of context, but it nonetheless sparked my interest.

The idea of gay people getting married isn't up for political debate at the moment. So long as gay people can find a church that will marry them under the eyes of God, they can, and the government has absolutely no power to do anything about that. I, along with the majority of the nation, don't have a problem with people doing that. However, the debate comes up regarding the state recognition of marital status (i.e. the issuance of marriage certificates).

I am personally against the legal recognition of gay marriages. I have many gay friends, and I understand that whether or not they get married their relationship would not change as a result of having another piece of paper and being able to call the other a spouse.

The real problem is: "Where do we stop?" If two men or women want to marry each other because "they love each other", what about the grown man and his twelve-year-old girl/boyfriend who love each other, too. After all, according to Tristia's sig, marriage isn't about age. Why not add "species" to the list of things about which marriage isn't? Hell, I love my dog (not in that way, but for the sake of argument, consider the psychos out there who do), are you gonna dismiss my love for her and not let us marry?

The idea of a constitutional amendment is to prevent these situations from arising. I really don't want to have the supreme law of our land deal with something like gay marriages, but I feel it might have to. There're always gonna be people out there who'll get good lawyers out there to support their cause, but with an amendment, nobody could challenge because you can't argue with the constitution. NOBODY can.

Some of my friends have said that the above absurd situations could be controlled by taking things on a case-by-case basis. However, don't people feel that laws against gay marriages are discriminatory against gays? If so, wouldn't allowing gays to get married and not child- or dog-lovers be discriminatory to the latter groups? Those people exist in the world, however small their numbers, and if they get a good lawyer to appeal to the right liberal judge, they'd be able to skirt around the law. The only thing that could prevent that: a constitutional amendment.

The implications of people being able to marry whomever they want would wreak havoc on all sorts of legal...stuff... The first thing that comes to mind is the tax code and writing off spouses as dependants. My father's an accountant and agrees that the number of tax loopholes (which is already big) would be much greater. If saving a bunch of money each year means marrying your pet, I'm sure a lot of people would do it. I feel bad for only providing one example, but I'm sure many other legal implications exist.

So, I guess my point was to clarify the real political debate at hand and to give my stance on it. I hope we can have some insightful discussions =).

After preview edit: I was unaware that FFR "bleeped" out "g-a-y". I hope everyone can just understand that that's what "#$*" represents.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

FFR doesn't bleep out the word gay, I don't know what you're talking about. Gay gay gay gay.

Heh, in all seriousness, I don't think gay "marriage" is a good idea either. Marriage has existed in every society as a means for raising a family, and it is almost universally accepted that it is the best means in which to do so. Homosexual "marriage" simply cheapens the meaning of marriage, it makes it seem like the government's role is to legally recognize the existence of couples.

The purposes of the marriage benefits (tax breaks, etc.) are to make it financially easier for couples to afford to bear and raise children. And no other relationship than a heterosexual adult relationship can produce young.

Homosexual "marriage" simply cheapens the word and divorces it from the concept of family.

[GuidoHunter]

Excellent point, char. I stayed away from that argument, but now that you put it so well, I don't know why.

And WTF?!?! is up with the bleeping?! When I hit preview, they all became bleeped out. I even had to go back and change the topic from "Gay Marriages" to "Homosexual marriages" due to bleeping. I didn't do that editing by myself......

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

[IronMonk]

heheh yeah the bleeping is ennoying, but let me ask you a few questions,

do you agree that then people who are married and dont have children shouldnt get the tax benifits?

or do you agree that couples that adopt children shouldnt get tax benifits?

gay couples can adopt children too so then a rule that applies to hetero as to apply to homo as well.

as far as i know as long as you are old enough to get married you can marry whatever age you want. the age ristriction is there only as a limiter, but i think that it can be routed if there is parental approval.

[BluE_MeaniE]

But the laws surrounding many things including marriage are supposed to be made by the states. It's not supposed to be the federal government's issue.

So there shouldn't be an constitutional amendment made concerning this.
Each state already has their laws concerning marriages.

[IronMonk]

also another point i forgot. you can change the constitution. atleast we can in canada, i sincerly hope you can in the us too.

Originally Posted by IronMonk

do you agree that then people who are married and dont have children shouldnt get the tax benifits?

or do you agree that couples that adopt children shouldnt get tax benifits?

All married couples should receive the marriage tax benefit to encourage them to have children and make it more affordable to do so. If they choose to adopt instead of creating their own, that's their own decision.

[GuidoHunter]

also another point i forgot. you can change the constitution. atleast we can in canada, i sincerly hope you can in the us too.

Dude, my entire post was about a proposed amendment to the constitution. I'm well aware of our nation's ability to change it, but the point was that it's extremely hard to, and once a rule's been set, you're even harder pressed to change it (that only happened once with prohibition).

@Blue: So what happens to the people who get married in one state that allows it, then move to another state that doesn't. There's a clause in the Constitution about states respecting the sovereignty and laws of other states, but this isn't on the scale of simply recognizing a driver's licence from another state. The states would have to treat certain people completely differently, as if they had diplomatic immunity or something. You'd have people marrying whomever they want in one state then moving elsewhere to skirt the law of that state. I'm all about giving more federalistic power to the states, but not on this issue.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

[mizelle59]

Ahh, the good old slippery slope theory.

First: You can't marry your 12 year old girlfriend. Why not? Well, first, she's 12. She is not yet old enough to understand the many ramifications of marriage. The general opinion of the government and country is that if you're under 18, you don't know anything, and therefore are not responsible enough to sign a contract. Some states even have it at 16, I think some are younger. There are children younger, maybe even 10 year olds, who may be able to take on the responsability of marriage. But frankly, those children are few and far between. Regardless of even that, in most states, kids under 14, 15, or 16 can't even work, and therefore cannot support themselves, their spouse, their bills, their children, etc.

Second: Can't marry your dog. Why not? No freaking duh. He can't even SIGN a marriage contract, let alone consent to the whole thing. I swear, people must not think before using this argument.

Third: Marriage has NOT only ever existed as a means of procreation. And I quote: "Research by the Yale historian John Boswell in the book, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, explores the historical context of homosexual marriages. His studies revealed that homosexual marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996)."
How can you cheapen marriage by allowing gays to marry if they were already allowed to marry for a long while? *ponder*

And don't even make me bring up the fact that over, what, 50% or so of marriages end in divorce. Yea man, growing up in single-parent homes or foster homes must really strengthen the value of marriage and family as a whole.

[Chrissi]

If gays want to get married, gays can get married. They aren't hurting anybody by doing so, and they are helping themselves with legal issues. I personally wouldn't care if you wanted to marry your dog, either, though in the eyes of the world, your dog is not a "person" and it does not benefit him/her to get married.

Gays are people. They should be able to get married. End of story. Anything else is bullshit.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

@Blue: So what happens to the people who get married in one state that allows it, then move to another state that doesn't. There's a clause in the Constitution about states respecting the sovereignty and laws of other states, but this isn't on the scale of simply recognizing a driver's licence from another state. The states would have to treat certain people completely differently, as if they had diplomatic immunity or something. You'd have people marrying whomever they want in one state then moving elsewhere to skirt the law of that state. I'm all about giving more federalistic power to the states, but not on this issue.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

But that already happens. Some states allow gay marriages and some don't, and if you get married in one state, whether it's two men, two women, or one of each, you're married in other states, whether they allow that marriage or not. It already works that way. And although there are problems, I don't think that suddenly right now is the time that it needs to be fixed.

Now, there are probably other factors that I don't know about that might change what I said, but from my knowledge, that's what I have to say.

[perfect_fat]

Originally Posted by chardish

All married couples should receive the marriage tax benefit to encourage them to have children and make it more affordable to do so. If they choose to adopt instead of creating their own, that's their own decision.

But of course gay people can't adopt kids because they'll molest them or turn them gay right?

You're a bigot. You don't believe that they should have the same rights as straight couples because you don't like the idea of homosexuality.

[GuidoHunter]

Uh, Chrissi, did you not read my post? My whole point is that gay people can get married so long as they can find a church under which they can (many churches will do this). However, the government shouldn't have to recognize them as man and spouse. That's not treating them as any less of a human. There are plenty of gay people now who don't think they're being degraded, and they currently don't have the right to get married under the state.

@Mizelle: My point was that, if you take the slickest legal action, you CAN change the laws so that you could marry someone underage or your pet, while you couldn't with a constitutional amendment. Of course you couldn't do that today, because there are laws against it. However, because those are just laws, they can be changed rather easily.

And if you were trying to disprove chardish's claims, you definitely didn't succeed. All of them still hold, regardless of the points you brought up. How many of those Mesopotamian and Native American homosexual relationships fostered families? And in how many of those cultures that you listed were there subcultures which DIDN'T approve of homosexual marriages? I'd wager it's much less than the ratio of people today who approve to the ones who disapprove.
Also, I fail to see the relevance of the divorce statistic. If you could clarify, I'd like that.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

[peregrine]

words from the resident atheist: don't forget you can be married by a government official as well... it doesn't have to be religiious in nature.

Being married to somebody puts you at the level of family (or even slightly above) in government views and legal matters. If somebody decides they love somebody else and they want to be mutually responsible for each other, what's the problem? Allowing homosexual marriages would solve more problems than it would create, in my opinion.

And as far as it "demeaning the value of marriage".... let me just say that it seems to me marriage is nothing more than an old ritual ceremony. It's quaint, it's pleasant and nice and tear-inducing blah blah blah.... but to some, it's quite a waste of time, effort and money for an official, public proclamation of love such as that. If you and your partner believe marriages are special or holy or whatever... then it will be for you, that's how you should think about it. The actions of others don't demean any value in what you consider an accomplishment or milestone, they (the accomplishments) are too individual in nature.

[GuidoHunter]

don't forget you can be married by a government official as well... it doesn't have to be religiious in nature.

Uh, the outlawing of those by a constitutional amendment is what's in question in this debate...
Even if you get married in a church, you still have to go to a government official to get the certificate/recognized.

If somebody decides they love somebody else and they want to be mutually responsible for each other, what's the problem? Allowing homosexual marriages...

Let me say again, homosexuals can get married now and they will always be able to. They can love each other and be responsible for each other just fine without government recognition.

As for your "demeaning the value of marriage" comment, it seems to me that you're talking about the value of a WEDDING, not a MARRIAGE. "ritual", "ceremony", "quaint", "tear-inducing" are all descriptions of a wedding, which isn't in question here.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

[peregrine]

Let me say again, homosexuals can get married now and they will always be able to. They can love each other and be responsible for each other just fine without government recognition.

they won't be able to if that amendment gets passed, correct?

And, no offence, but I think you're just flat out wrong about being able to be responsible for each other without government recognition. Do you have any idea of all the forms and paperwork and guidelines and bylaws and protocols and the lightyears of red tape that's involved with seemingly EVERYTHING? Having that little certificate saying "we're a legally married couple" goes a long way when it comes to making decisions on your partner's behalf. Actually, it's quite impossible to do so without it to my knowledge. I think power of attorney can only extend ot family members or legal guardians.... not sure about that though.

[alextrebek]

Gay people deserve all the benefits straight people can have. And don't bring up the raising a kid bullshit. I'm 50785% certain that Gay people are as good at raising a child, which they could adopt. We need more people to adopt. There are too many kids without homes. I say more adoption. Giving gay people the benefits may encourage them to adopt. Hell, it should encourage everyone to adopt. While I realize that homeless children is more than slightly off-topic, I simply mentioned it to demonstrate that good things can come out of gay marriage with benefits. IMO, saying 2 people of the same sex can't marry is like saying 2 people raised in different states can't marry; you know why? Because being from a different state doesn't make you bad, just like being gay!

[peregrine]

I think there's pearls of wisdom in alex's post... but you kinda have to dig for em. ; )

[GuidoHunter]

Quote:
Let me say again, homosexuals can get married now and they will always be able to. They can love each other and be responsible for each other just fine without government recognition.

they won't be able to if that amendment gets passed, correct?

They will be able to marry just as they can now, unless you're strictly talking about the Justice of the Peace marriages. The government can't touch the churches, so gay people can still marry in a church, but if the amendment gets passed, they won't be able to get a certificate from the government signifying that the state recognizes their marriage. JP's are representatives of the state; you vote them into office.

I think we may have misunderstood each other on the responsibility issue. I was taking "being responsible for one another" to mean taking care of and loving each other, such as a husband and wife do when raising a family. I meant nothing legal about it. You raise a good point with all the problems that recognition could solve, I think it would create even more at the same time.

@perfect fat: I didn't get anything that was remotely anti-gay-adoption out of Chardish's post. Also, do you consider me a bigot because I completely agree with Chardish? I'm interested to hear your answer...

@alextrebek: There are many gay people who could be excellent parents, and I have no problem with gay adoptions because that can be, and is, quite regulated by the adoption companies themselves and won't get out of hand. Adoption's great, and you don't need a marriage certificate to do it. Benefits for child-rearing could be extended to "couples who adopt", and not necessarily "married people", if that would suffice.
Also, of course being gay doesn't make you bad, but just because you're not doing something wrong doesn't mean you should be given the same legal rights as certain others.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

If you start changing the definition of marriage, who knows where it'll stop.

Allow gay marriage, and by 2100 polygamy, beastiality and incest will be legally recognized relationships.