Challenge of same-sex marriage ban begins in Calif.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Unfortunately they will be forever trotted out as "the next step" if gays get married, much like the same exact argument were trotted out to oppose interracial marriage.

Sadly, people will always need something to hate and fear. It's just too bad they don't expend their energy towards a subject that might actually affect them instead of vehemently denying total strangers their rights.

Originally posted by truth_of_truth
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

then let me repharse for you no one should stand in the way of two consenting adults from marrying eachother

And what benefit does the title of "marriage" give to society?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Straight people are not permitted to marry family members or multiple people under the law. So, gay people would not be permitted to do so, either. Duh.

And straight people are not allowed to marry people of the same sex either. So the issue is?

Marriage is a legal contract. Children are not permitted to enter into a legal contract.

These arguments are so stupid.

I should be able to marry whomever I love, correct?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Magnum007
Here in Canada it is clear in our Charter that there should be no discrimination in any way whatsoever therefore making same sex marriage legal.

It's also clear in our Constitution, but our states laws don't always abide by the Constitution. Hopefully, this ban will be overturned and all people will have equal treatment under the law in this issue.

There is no discrimination.


Homosexuals have all the rights and non-rights that straight people have.

Religions and Sects invented marriage thats why they claim it. I dont see why two people need to marry just to prove to themselves or others that they really do love each other. I dont believe in marriage. I think people miss the point of love and trust.

Originally posted by wigiman
Religions and Sects invented marriage thats why they claim it. I dont see why two people need to marry just to prove to themselves or others that they really do love each other. I dont believe in marriage. I think people miss the point of love and trust.

It is so they can get benefits from the government.

WHat they fail to realize is that gay marriage does not benefit society.

In essence, they want something for nothing.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Uh, yes it does benefit society. Despite what you might think, homosexuals are a part of society.

Benefits of marriage:

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Source

It's funny that you keep trumpeting the notion that homosexuals already have the right to marriage by claiming that they can already marry someone of the opposite sex...neglecting to include that said marriage would be devoid of any romantic or physical attributes associated with marriage.

So you would rather have someone marry another person strictly as a business contract? You would rather it be a completely loveless relationship, without the intent to start or continue a stable household? Do you think a marriage between two people who aren't romantically involved with one another is more stable or beneficial to society than between two people who do love one another? How exactly does a loveless, unromantic, marriage maintain the "moral fiber" of marriage?

Interesting that those who argue the "sanctity" and "traditional" values of a secular marriage would reduce it to nothing more than a legal and economic formality between two people that will never share anything more than friendship.

But hey, more power to you. And since you'd rather marriage just be a contract between friends or strangers, why not include friends of the same sex? You've already stripped it of love, why make it gender specific?

reply to post by Avenginggecko


They can't have children, which is the ultimate benefit to society

A few things here, First the religious right always likes to get tied up in such issues because they believe "marriage" is a religious institution between a man and a women which is declared in their respective religious texts. Ok that's fine.
"marriage" can be deemed an institution between a man and a women, and if that definition is to be used and justified by your religious ideology then it is a religious issue which the state has no place getting involved in which means HETEROSEXUAL marriage as defined by the state would be unconstitutional because its a mingling of secular law and the church which is prohibited by the 1st amendment, meaning the church and the church alone should have full and complete jurisdiction and powers over the term and religious "institution".
which also means the benefits or lack there of that married couples receive due to their state sponsored "religious institution" should be terminated due to this violation of the 1st amendment which prohibits such intermingling between the church and state in regards to law.

Secondly, not only should heterosexual marriage as overseen by the state be declared unconstitutional simply because its a issue of church and state and law, but it should also be declared unconstitutional because not only does this institution violate the 1st amendment it also deprives same sex couples the equal protection of the law.

So if the religious sects want to make it a moral or theological issue then that's fine and you should be fully and willingly supportive of giving up your legal benefits due to the fact that they violate the separation clause of the first amendment by granting a religious institution benefits while denying another institution those same benefits.

If its a secular issue then the same can be said again, the term marriage needs to be discontinued in regards to the legal benefits and those benefits should be applied equally to any two individuals who have a legal contract with one another to share a burden.

The godly ceremonies and term marriage should be under the jurisdiction of the church in such cases and the legal benefits of a secondary legal agreement and contract between two individuals should be under the authority of the state.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by C0le]

This is first of all not a superficial struggle. Civil unions provide only some of the same economic benefits as marriage. But they do not provide social equality: Married couples and Domestic partners are not the same. The difficult part for gay couples is that they want complete equality and are not yet getting it. This is another aspect of a significant social revolution. And as revolutionary battles go, I hope it wins.

For Christians, marriage is a sacrament (especially so for Catholics and Orthodox, but for Protestants as well); and as a sacrament the issue for them is religious and Christian. Forget for a moment the theoretical separation of Church and State.

This is their primary difficulty. The religious do not care about the economic equality, they are largely concerned with the religious purity of their "sacred" state. And their distress is as great as the gay couple's disappointment in prop 8. I know this struggle will continue for a long while on both sides. Remember, that the Civil War started as a social war based on the issue of ownership and personal "property rights."

Your not against property rights are you? U a Commie? So one aspect of property rights lost in that war. Are we sorry about the outcome? Some still are, others not.

Evolution continues...

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

They can't have children, which is the ultimate benefit to society

Which is why you suggest they marry someone of the opposite sex, with whom they will also never have children?

Large percentages of marriages are childless marriages. Do we start enforcing a one child per marriage minimum now? Are infertile men and women barred from marriage in your eyes?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And what benefit does the title of "marriage" give to society?

Not everything I do benefits society, nor is it required to do so. Entering into a legal contract with someone else does not necessarily benefit society. Where is it written or implied that everyone's marriage must benefit society?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I should be able to marry whomever I love, correct?

As long as you are not breaking any laws to do so and you both are of legal age to enter into the legal contract. Yes.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Homosexuals have all the rights and non-rights that straight people have.

What the heck is a "non-right"? But no, they do not have the legal right to enter into a marriage contract with the person of their choosing.

Originally posted by wigiman
Religions and Sects invented marriage thats why they claim it.

They did not. Marriage predates religion.

I dont see why two people need to marry just to prove to themselves or others that they really do love each other.

They don't NEED to. They WANT to. Just as many straight people want to.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
They can't have children, which is the ultimate benefit to society

I can't have children, either. Are you saying I shouldn't be legally allowed to get married? Funny, they didn't ask me when I got my marriage license if we planned to breed...

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
I find it most interesting that this is still going on. The people voted, does the court have a right to change this, instantly invalidating the vote of the majority of the people ? I find this whole process bizarre.

What I find bizarre is how any group of people could champion sexual equality but at the same time deny it.

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

They can't have children, which is the ultimate benefit to society

Which is why you suggest they marry someone of the opposite sex, with whom they will also never have children?

Large percentages of marriages are childless marriages. Do we start enforcing a one child per marriage minimum now? Are infertile men and women barred from marriage in your eyes?

At least they gave it a shot before adopting, which is more than a gay couple can say

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Not everything I do benefits society, nor is it required to do so. Entering into a legal contract with someone else does not necessarily benefit society. Where is it written or implied that everyone's marriage must benefit society?

You missed the point. Gays want the benefits afforded to them without returning the benefits. They want something for nothing.

As long as you are not breaking any laws to do so and you both are of legal age to enter into the legal contract. Yes.

There you go. So I CAN"T marry anyone I want to. if it is against the law, or they are not legal age, I can't marry them, even if I wanted to.

What the heck is a "non-right"?

But no, they do not have the legal right to enter into a marriage contract with the person of their choosing.

Straights can enter into marriage with a member of the opposite sex. So can homosexuals.

Straights can't enter same sex marriages. Neither can homosexuals.

Straights can't marry family. Neither can homosexuals.

Straights can'tmarry under a certain age limit. Neither can homosexuals.

Straights can't be in a polygamous marriage. Neither can homosexuals.


Everyone has the same rights.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


do i sense a bit of hatred towards homosexuals and you did say that society needs laws thats false, we are ment to believe that we cant live in peace most countries that go to war the citizens dont really have a problem with the other countries citizens its the politicians who have the problem and that is the point make us believe that we need these people in power to make sure we act ok why would we put another human being who has the same faults as everyone else, and the funny part is that the people who actually have power are the idoits who only care about there own selfish goals and you say we need this people in power tell me whats wrong here

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
You missed the point. Gays want the benefits afforded to them without returning the benefits. They want something for nothing.

What about straight people who don't want kids or can't have kids? What "benefit" are they returning?

Everyone has the same rights.

You can say that a million times, but that doesn't make it so.

The 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, gay people are citizens. No law shall abridge the privilege of marriage OR deny them equal protection under the law. It's right there in the Constitution. NO WHERE does it state that marriage is between two people of opposite sex.

The ninth Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Everyone here notices that you are avoiding the question about infertile couples and those who choose not to have children. It's pretty clear your argument that only people who breed should be able to marry is a crap argument.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by truth_of_truth
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

do i sense a bit of hatred towards homosexuals

Nope. None at all. But thanks for asking. I actually have a couple of homosexual friends. We get into good debates all the time . . . especially when drinking

and you did say that society needs laws thats false, we are ment to believe that we cant live in peace most countries that go to war

That is false. There must be some rules in place or anarchy will always turn into chaos. Show me where this is not the case.

the citizens dont really have a problem with the other countries citizens its the politicians who have the problem and that is the point make us believe that we need these people in power to make sure we act ok

War has been around since the beginning of time. People will fight over money, land, sex, religion, etc. You name it, humans will fight over it.

why would we put another human being who has the same faults as everyone else, and the funny part is that the people who actually have power are the idoits who only care about there own selfish goals and you say we need this people in power tell me whats wrong here

Now you are off on a different tangent and putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


What about straight people who don't want kids

They always have the option to have them

or can't have kids? What "benefit" are they returning?

They gave it a shot, which is more than gays can say.

You can say that a million times, but that doesn't make it so.

The 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, gay people are citizens. No law shall abridge the privilege of marriage OR deny them equal protection under the law. It's right there in the Constitution. NO WHERE does it state that marriage is between two people of opposite sex.

The ninth Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Gays have every single right a straight does.

I have proven it with examples.

--In all the states where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, the voters voted against it -- as they should have. Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have. People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time. Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands. Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options. Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football. Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it? The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights. If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it. The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people. The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else. Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it. What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS. They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids. There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering. Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable. They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.

Link

Everyone here notices that you are avoiding the question about infertile couples and those who choose not to have children.

Answered it twice now.

It's pretty clear your argument that only people who breed should be able to marry is a crap argument.

Would you enter into a legal contract in which you benefit nothing?

So why do you expect society to give a contract where society benefits nothing?

Just to make my personal opinion clear:

I don't believe couples of any sexual orientation should be receiving benefits and privileges at the expense of taxpayers if they do not intend to have or raise children. If two straight people marry and don't intend to raise children, why should they receive financial support from the rest of society? This goes the same for two gay people that wish to "marry" and not adopt kids.

The law should be that marriage does NOT equal automatic benefits. Proof should be given that this couple is raising one or more children before they receive any handouts from taxpayers. Why should taxpayers have to provide financial support to two adults that do not plan to have or raise kids? At this point they are not benefiting society. By conceiving a child or adopting one into their home they would THEN be benefiting society.

The problem now is that marriage in the West DOES automatically give people these bonuses and privileges. The whole point of attaching these benefits was to encourage people of the opposite sex to marry and raise children into this world because it provides benefits to society. From this viewpoint Gay Marriage is a threat to the definition and purpose of Marriage.

On a side note, when you take emotion out of the equation, people of all sexual orientations have the same rights as each other. They also have the same restrictions. This push for Gay Marriage is being done in the name of giving everybody equal rights, where it will in fact give certain people extra rights.

[edit on 12/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]