50% of people who answered this poll are IDIOTS!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That's because you're a woman. You got a chip on your shoulder too thinking you don't have equal rights.

But guess what? You do.All women do.Just like gays.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Well. dang if they stuck to just doing that, we might have a half decent nation, because these dummies have not done any of that listed there, they're just too involved in the other BS it's called redirecting the masses, it's used to conceal the fact that they aren't doing their job, like the slacker at your office probably also uses.

reply to post by nightstalker78

Originally posted by nightstalker78
That's because you're a woman. You got a chip on your shoulder too thinking you don't have equal rights.

You're saying I only support marriage equality because I'm a woman?

A. I know I have equal rights.
B. How do you explain the millions of heterosexual MEN (like my husband) who also STRONGLY support equal marriage rights for gay people?

In other words, you're dead wrong.

this picture sums it up for me

Originally posted by Acidtastic
this picture sums it up for me

edit on 7/4/2013 by Acidtastic because: (no reason given)

And this wins the argument.
Checkmate.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

As an outsider, i am a bit confused by this. If you are saying they have no right (under the constitution) as to the legality of marriage, then surely that applies to all marriage (gay or otherwise)? If not, then it is discriminatory by nature and therefore illegal (or could easily be argued as such).

Either the law applies to all or it applies to none - if that makes sense?

Or have i missed something glaringly obvious?

What you are missing is that being discriminatory does not also mean illegal. The Government discriminates all the time, everyone discriminates all the time too, but we do have certain discriminations we deem illegal, and even then the government still discriminates in those areas too....try joining the military at age 50 or with a disability, as examples.

Originally posted by ImNotACylon

Originally posted by Acidtastic
this picture sums it up for me

edit on 7/4/2013 by Acidtastic because: (no reason given)

And this wins the argument.
Checkmate.

The question is also what is a right and what is a privilege. We tend to scream that privileges are also rights.

If marriage was a right then I should be able to marry anyone, anything in any numbers...wouldn't want to infringe on my rights....

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

A. I know I have equal rights.
B. How do you explain the millions of heterosexual MEN (like my husband) who also STRONGLY support equal marriage rights for gay people?

In other words, you're dead wrong.

So here lies the true point in all this. Gay people want equal recognition under that law, this doesn't also equal to a right, so I would be careful in how I sling the term right around. Marrage is a privlage recognized by law with many discrimitory factors as a part of it.

This is why the State votes on it so that the State can decide what discriminatory factors they want to allow by law. If it was a right then I could marry anyone at any age in any number, so I think you might understand now that marrage is privlage with many discriminators attached.

So you and your husband want to vote to remove the discrimitory factor of gay marrage, good for you guys, now go vote on it in the next state election phase.

I love how it seems like 98% of people cherrypick everything, from the bible to the constitution. Only the parts they like are valid. That is why the constitution is worth less than the hemp paper it is written on these days. We have no rights people, only the failing illusion of them.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Marrage is a privlage recognized by law with many discrimitory factors as a part of it.

Then voting is a privilege, too, not a right. Because there are discriminatory factors involved. As a matter of fact, this goes for free speech, the exercise of religion, firearm ownership, travel, privacy, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... and many more "rights" that people supposedly have.

There are limits on ALL of our rights, so by this logic, we have NO rights, but only privileges. I frankly don't care what they're called. My position is for equal treatment for all citizens under whatever laws we have. Call them rights or privileges, I don't care.

So you and your husband want to vote to remove the discrimitory factor of gay marrage, good for you guys, now go vote on it in the next state election phase.

We vote in every election phase.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My position is for equal treatment for all citizens under whatever laws we have. Call them rights or privileges, I don't care.

There are a lot of different behaviors out there that you are suggesting ALL have equal treatment. I lean towards doing away with all recognition of marriage outside of the church. It’s an antiquated system for the Government to promote marriage with favorable benefits. This way all would be equal under your view.

reply to post by Xtrozero


People keep saying they think government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and that's irrelevant. IF government is left out of marriage altogether, I would be fine with that. But at this time in our society, they are highly involved, seeing as how they offer MANY benefits and privileges to the spouses of legally married people and they issue the license to marry.

We are talking about current law. If and when the laws change, and government withdraws from marriage altogether, then we can talk. But for now, the federal government offers over 1000 benefits and privileges to married people that gay people are not eligible for. For no reason except discrimination.

ps. If the government withdrew from "marriage", I would still use the term when describing my personal relationship and so would gay people. The church simply CANNOT stop people from using what they have come to believe is "their word".

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

We are talking about current law. If and when the laws change, and government withdraws from marriage altogether, then we can talk.

But for now, the federal government offers over 1000 benefits and privileges to married people that gay people are not eligible for. For no reason except discrimination.
.

There are a lot of special interest groups other than gays, how do you elect to deal with them too on this subject?
Should it be free for all, anyone, any age, any number? This is why less would be better or a different system where a person or people can pick partner(s) and register them as such. In today's age there is no reason to offer 1000 benefits to a select group. We can also ask why are those who do not marry discriminated against too?

reply to post by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Xtrozero
There are a lot of special interest groups other than gays, how do you elect to deal with them too on this subject?

I'm sorry... I don't understand the question.

Should it be free for all, anyone, any age, any number?

All I want is equal treatment under the law for consenting adults. As to my personal and moral beliefs about marriage and relationships, that's irrelevant.

In today's age there is no reason to offer 1000 benefits to a select group.

Yet, that is exactly what is happening. The government is offering over 1000 benefits to a select group. I say offer them to every citizen equally or none at all.

We can also ask why are those who do not marry discriminated against too?

That's silly. Marriage is a voluntary option. Any consenting adult can participate, as long as they're not gay.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

There are a lot of special interest groups other than gays, how do you elect to deal with them too on this subject?
Should it be free for all, anyone, any age, any number? This is why less would be better or a different system where a person or people can pick partner(s) and register them as such. In today's age there is no reason to offer 1000 benefits to a select group. We can also ask why are those who do not marry discriminated against too?

It seems we are again plunging off toward the silly side of this debate. I am not sure what other "special interests" would be applicable to this unless we are looking to make marriage a group activity, which may have its merits though joining more than two individuals together under such a contract would require a good bit of legal re-structuring and would then be an entirely different animal altogether. Such a group union might then warrant its own legal designation though polygamists may still wish to refer to it as their "marriage."

As it is currently, marriage could effectively bind any two age-of-consent individuals together regardless of their respective genders. Animal lovers may "marry" their pet in some sort of ceremony but it would not carry nor merit the same type of legal standing - the IRS would not grant a tax exemption nor a hospital guarantee visitation rights or consent to one's dog.

Although there may be "benefits" granted in marriage agreements there are many other responsibilities and liabilities assumed as well. There are good reasons why many couples choose to co-habitate as a couple rather than marry. A downside to marriage obligates one to assume their partner's debts and other liabilities acquired in that union. I really see no benefits a single person loses out on. Under qualifying circumstances a single person can acquire the tax benefit of "Head of Household."

Another tax benefit may be the option to file jointly. This could benefit a couple where one remains unemployed to take care of the home but with two career individuals it is generally to their advantage to file separately. Another benefit might be to include a "spouse" in a family medical plan. In either of these circumstances I see no reason why gender should present an exclusion, nor how a single person would be discriminated against.

Marriage allows two persons to name each other as their direct next-of-kin. That is another instance where gender should not be exclusive or a single person be discriminated against. There may come a time when an individual outlives others in their family and has no remaining next-of-kin. In their golden years such folks may find themselves re-united with a childhood or lifelong friend of similar circumstances. Their trust in each other and their own employment and/or domestic circumstances may suggest such a union could benefit themselves as well, regardless of gender. As a heterosexual and if I found myself in such circumstance I surely would not refer to that partner as my "husband" but would have no qualms in referring to them as my next-of-kin.

I could see many reasons for such a same-sex union under those regulations or laws that currently exist and presently are commonly referred to as "marriage." Some individual state laws may benefit with a bit of re-wording as regards gender, and perhaps it would be preferable to not call it "marriage" if that name is offensive to some in regards to a same-sex union, but its legal benefits and responsibilities as they are appear to work well enough for a non gender-exclusive arrangement as many people may find beneficial for a variety of reasons.

I would like to hear an intelligent discussion about a down-side to this that is not biased by emotion or old tradition. The standard "anti-" arguments are only emotional or discriminatory in nature and not based on current societal needs. There is a need for family or next-of-kin benefits to reach beyond gender exclusion. There exists no obligation for a married couple to procreate and raise children - my middle-age spouse and myself feel no obligation to create or raise children at our ages. And to address another silly-sounding counter-argument, silly to me, I do not believe same-sex marriages would suddenly halt human procreation and spell an end to the human race.

Please, anyone, give this heterosexual male, myself, a rational argument why same-sex unions under current marriage laws should not exist. I will consider it and change my stance and rationale on the subject if the argument is logical and convincing. Thanks.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Please, anyone, give this heterosexual male, myself, a rational argument why same-sex unions under current marriage laws should not exist. I will consider it and change my stance and rationale on the subject if the argument is logical and convincing. Thanks.]

Though I agree with much of what you said I still believe much of this should be put to the vote at the state level. One could ask why are so many drugs illegal, why giving someone money for sex is illegal, why can't I buy booze on Sunday, or own a gun in many cities, and many other like questions just as why can't gays marry and the same answer comes up for all of them. The morality of the majority dictates what is right, wrong or acceptable.

Once the majority adjusts then laws change. As you said the big part in all this is excepting the responsibility of another, why does love or bonding really need to be a part of the process other than though one's beliefs?

reply to post by Xtrozero


In response I will repeat what I posted early in this thread -

I believe one of the last times the Supreme Court ruled on marriage was to uphold "Equal Protection" of the 14th Amendment to override states' laws preventing inter-racial marriages. That was not too many decades ago when a number of US citizens were outraged by the federal government stepping in to allow mixed races to be married or have their marriages recognized in ALL states even though voters in some of those states objected to having mixed black/white couples living among them.

While I favor States' Rights and local autonomy I am more in favor of those when the individual states use that power to grant additional privileges as in the way the State of Nevada allows gambling and prostitution and others have recently allowed for and taken criminal penalties away from other concerns you mentioned.

I am libertarian by nature and have a much more permissive attitude on almost any issue than our tyrannous majority population provided non-participating individuals are not being harmed, though as regards what they do not care to see I suggest they grow a thicker skin. Therefore I really have little objection when the federal government steps in to lift state restrictions especially on matters that pertain to discriminatory practices and personal liberties.

While a majority in many areas have not fully accepted gender pairing as yet, a similar situation was rectified when less than a majority on some areas were not then ready to accept interracial pairings and strongly protested it. We can look back on those times now and the majority of us view that attitude then as being archaic and discriminatory as it was.

Across the US those mixed couples no longer have their matrimonial bond invalidated or nullified when moving about from state to state because of emotional ideas of non-acceptance when there is no rational or practical reasons existing that should effect it. Likewise today's "non-mixed" couples should not have to deal with the same discriminatory practices because of similar archaic or traditional ideas about human pairing based on old beliefs and religious ideas. Churches should not be compelled to sanction such unions but the civil licensing that makes that a legally recognized bond has no bearing on those beliefs and should not discriminate by neither race nor gender.