Arguements against Gay marriage/Civil Unions

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

>Personally, I'd like to get the government out of the marriage business alltogether . . .

Agreed, and we are almost there now.

Before we got married we had to go to town hall and get a 'marriage license,' which is the form that gets filled out to legally recognize the marriage. It has to be signed by someone (the priest in our case.) Then you go on to the religious ceremony.

All we have to do is change that signature line, so that the two people getting married are the only required signatures. After all, priests/rabbis/ministers don't marry people, people marry people.

So that first form becomes the legal creation of the civil union. You still go to town hall and fill out the 'license' - this gives you the civil union, and all the rights that go along with it. Then you go and have whatever religious ceremony you want (or none at all.) Or you just have the religious ceremony WITHOUT the legal union; this would make divorces much less acrimonious.

Not exactly what I meant. I don't think the government should legally recognize any relationship at all, although the situation you describe would be the next best thing.

[Johnnyskydive 0]

My kids are biological What else would they be, robotic?

Before you respond, I know what you really meant.

Don't be so positive us gay folk can't have biological children, though. Absent the option to adopt many gay parents can and do have children... some even opt to have them the "old fashioned" way.

Gay men and lesbians are entirely capable of having heterosexual sex, even if it isn't emotionally or physically fullfilling. Some will handle the distaste long enough to conceive children if they wants kids badly enough.

Some of those lesbians and gay men would have been happy to adopt if they had the legal option. The only losers are the children who don't get adopted and do don't get the loving home they might have had. ***

....I KNOW that. But you know what I meant.

I was more referring to how ANY couple should be able to adopt children. There are so many out there that just need a good home. Don't really think that you should deny anyone the ability to adopt based on sexual orientation.

Johnny Skydive!

[Johnnyskydive 0]

If what I do doesn't bother other, how about I marry my dog fifi. She sure could use some benefits. How about my 10 year old daughter. Shouldn't bother you she needs some insurance. How about I marry an illegal alien. At least they could be here legally now. My point is where do we draw the line? ***

Yeah, sure since marrying a dog is the same as two consenting adults. Much less a 10 yeah old. And about the legal alien....if you are in love with one....then what would be wrong with marrying them? Unless your talking about the green ones in space ships .

I'll echo what a few others said. As long as its two consenting adults then it shouldn't be anyones business than the couples. To deny people the same rights is wrong. Really, to get involved in what should be a personal decision between the two is wrong. I think it'd be a great idea to just have everyone get a civil union....and then those who choose to....go to a church, synagogue, mosque, etc and get married.

Johnny Skydive!

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Quote

I know the examples were extreme, but where do you draw the line on who demands marriage rights? There are so many more examples that could be brought up. And don't tell me that that would never happen. It's a sick and twisted world we live in.

You draw the line when it isn't TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. If it has to do with children...nope. When it has to do with animals...well thats just silly. But still NO, a dog can't concent ...and if he/she can...then hell go for it!

So many more examples....I'd really like to hear some of these.....that aren't total BS.

What floors me, is that really the only problem here is religion. Which gets me off on another rant. Religious beliefs shouldn't make a nations laws. Why? Because, we aren't a religious state. Nor should we be. There are people in this country of many different religions. To think they should have to live with your religions morals and beliefs is backwards. You wouldn't want to have someone else's forced on you.....why force yours on them?

And people will go on and on about how this country was founded on Christianity blah blah blah. Then why didn't they write that into the Constitution? Why didn't they say the national religion was Christianity?

Johnny Skydive!

[yjumpinoz 0]

Why not three or four consenting adults??

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why not three or four consenting adults??

if you can rewrite divorce and marriage laws to accomodate N, there really is no problem.

The issues I've seen with polygamy are that the consenting part is a little bit fuzzy. You have girls being sold into marriages long before they're old enough to know what's going on.

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Quote

Why not three or four consenting adults??

I really see no issue their either. As long as ALL of the ADULTS are consenting. Again, it really shouldn't be up to the government or the Christian church or any religious entity to make personal decisions like that for people.

Johnny Skydive!

[yjumpinoz 0]

Back to my point. Were is the line drawn. Apparently it will not be.

[airdweller 0]

Why not three or four consenting adults??

________________________________________________

Some Christians do believe this. Just go out to Utah.

edit for spelling

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Again, give me a non ludicrous example. Pologmy can get out of hand...no doubt. I don't think it'd be wise for a guy to have 10 wives....but I also think it'd be hard to convince 10 women to let him be married to all of them.

Again, the line is drawn at letting adults make decisions about their personal lives and relationships. No ones saying let beastality (sp?) become legal, incest, or the molesting of children . And it's pretty messed up to even compare a gay couple to those examples .

Johnny Skydive!

[yjumpinoz 0]

It was two consenting, now it may be ok for more. Thats what I am talking about. It has already changed. My opinion is that being gay is wrong. I repeat only my opinion. Personally some people believe its perfectly normal. Do you think that molesters, polygimists, etc. don't think they are normal? Maybe the government should leave them alone to do what they want and get their rights.

[Nightingale 0]

Child molesters have nothing to do with adult relationships, which is the matter at hand. The issue here is consent. A child is not capable of consent. A dog is not capable of consent. An adult is. An adult is capable of making their own choices when it comes to who they will share their lives and their bed with. I don't give a damn if they're male, female, intersex, or how many are involved. As long as they're CONSENTING ADULTS, it's, quite frankly, not my business.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It was two consenting, now it may be ok for more. Thats what I am talking about. It has already changed. My opinion is that being gay is wrong. I repeat only my opinion. Personally some people believe its perfectly normal. Do you think that molesters, polygimists, etc. don't think they are normal? Maybe the government should leave them alone to do what they want and get their rights.

Which part of the word "consenting" are you misunderstanding?

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Quote

It was two consenting, now it may be ok for more.

Thats the way marriage laws are (were in some cases) defined now....two consenting adults. Some states are just now changing their laws to add "Man and Woman". Your entitled to your opinion....but I do have a question. Why do you think its wrong? Seriously....

No, I don't think most molesters think what they are doing is okay. Some do, but not most. And its NOT THE SAME THING. So you should probably quit comparing the two. That's what kills me here. No one can really give a good reason not to make it legal. The only excuses are: "it'll open the door to other things. Like beastiality, molestation, incest, blah blah". Since these are so obviously the same thing . What the person should really be saying is: "I'm a religious zealout, homophobe, who likes to force my beliefs on other people." And if someone just came out and said that. I'd have a whole lot more respect for them. At least they are telling the truth. Other than just saying that a gay couple getting married is the same as molesting children.

Johnny Skydive!

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Quote

Child molesters have nothing to do with adult relationships, which is the matter at hand. The issue here is consent. A child is not capable of consent. A dog is not capable of consent. An adult is. An adult is capable of making their own choices when it comes to who they will share their lives and their bed with. I don't give a damn if they're male, female, intersex, or how many are involved. As long as they're CONSENTING ADULTS, it's, quite frankly, not my business.

Exactly. Said it much better than I did.

Johnny Skydive!

[billvon 3,116]

>Do you think that molesters, polygimists, etc. don't think they are
> normal? Maybe the government should leave them alone to do
>what they want and get their rights.

The government should leave them alone - until they violate someone ELSE'S rights. A pervert who wants to molest women, but doesn't, is no more guilty of anything than you are, even though you may not like how he thinks. But if he does attack a woman, then he goes to jail. Not because his "way of life" or something is wrong, but because he broke a law.

[Everon 0]

Quote

If what I do doesn't bother other, how about I marry my dog fifi. She sure could use some benefits. How about my 10 year old daughter. Shouldn't bother you she needs some insurance. How about I marry an illegal alien. At least they could be here legally now. My point is where do we draw the line?

Can Fifi sign a legal document?

Seriously, banning gay marriages is gender based discrimination - period. That's why states have to change the definition to prohibit them. The only reason a person would be against same-sex marriage is that he doesn't like it - and that is bigotry plain and simple. To use a religious argument against it smacks of hypocrisy.

Where do we draw the line? Under the constitution same-sex marriages are permissible - it's not about changing it to allow them. Also, your argument about your dog, polygamy, your 10 year old daughter, etc. is a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

[yjumpinoz 0]

Yes my reasons for being against gay marriage are mainly religious. My examples are far fetched. I honestly feel that it would probably open other doors. I am not a homophobe, I feel that a civil union of some sort is not discriminatory. I think you will cry semantics, but I believe marriage is one man one woman. I would ask an honest question. Besides insurance, what are the benefits for the "union"?

[Everon 0]

Quote

Yes my reasons for being against gay marriage are mainly religious.

If they are based on the bible, then they are unfounded as the original Hebrew version does not mention homosexuality.

Quote

My examples are far fetched. I honestly feel that it would probably open other doors.

Slippery slope.

Quote

I am not a homophobe

Yes, you are.

Quote

I feel that a civil union of some sort is not discriminatory.

They do not carry the same benefits as a legal marriage.

Quote

...but I believe marriage is one man one woman.

That's your definition, different from that based on ancient history long before christianity hijacked it.

Quote

I would ask an honest question. Besides insurance, what are the benefits for the "union"?

There are no benefits from a "union." For a marriage? - huge tax breaks (gays pay more taxes than any other group in this country), guaranteed inheritance upon a partner's death, the right to make life or death decisions in medical emergencies, etc.

I see absolutely no problem with granting my fellow humans with exactly the same benefits as I enjoy. In fact, I encourage it. Why can't you?

Answer - religion.

[billvon 3,116]

>>I am not a homophobe
>Yes, you are.

You can't call people names even if you feel they are deserved.

[yjumpinoz 0]

I do not feel because of a lifestlye choice, that makes anyone entitled to certain things. I do believe that as an American you are free to pursue that lifestyle even if certain groups disagree. As far as benefits, the company I work for has benefits for domestic partners. Surely a will would take care of anything in case of a death.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I would ask an honest question. Besides insurance, what are the benefits for the "union"?

Calling a gay marriage a "civil union" allows others, employers, for example, to discriminate between the two, offering benefits such as partner health insurance to married couples but not civil union couples. This is one of the big reasons that people are against having two terms for what is legally the same thing.

As for the benefits, the below info should answer your question:

"On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.

Among the state and federal benefits given to married couples are the rights to:

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;

and more...."

source: religioustolerance.org


And no, a will would not take care of inheritence the same way a marriage would, because married spouses inherit automatically and without most estate taxes.

[yjumpinoz 0]

Thanks for the well thought out researched answer.

[ROK 0]

I've read through and thought alot about the gay marriage debate. I've also spent a lot of time reading posts that Narcimund has been a part of. I set my beliefs aside and attempted to take a totally unbiased view, looking at both sides.

The only other subject I've seen that people display as much passion for/against is in the Christians VS all non believers threads.

Gay people wanting to marry those whom they love, is as natural as my marrying the one whom I love. I don't see a difference when wanting to share your life and love with another.

The problem is that as much as I try and understand, I feel on a very basic human level that the marriage would be wrong. If I set my religion to the side and look at it, I still feel the same. Perhaps it's because the institution has been man/woman for a very long time. To me the family unit has always been displayed in one specific manner.

I'm not sure discrimination is the correct term. A person or group being discriminated against is one which is denied the same things that other groups have. Other groups do not have the right (at this time) to marry same sex partners.

Attacking me for my beliefs won't help change my mind, but I am willing to continue, listen, and learn. Perhaps something will come about that helps me understand why I have the feeling that it is wrong.

What I do know from experience, is that if both sides display hatred in the debate, there will be no equitable solution for a very long time...

[Nightingale 0]

You're welcome.

Also, keep in mind that marriage isn't just about rights, it's about responsibilities. For example:

A hetero couple decides to have a child. They have some fertility difficulties and decide to use a sperm donor. The woman gets pregnant and has a child. Ten years later, she and her partner divorce. Her partner is now responsible for the child and will be providing half the child's support. Her partner would also, in a usual situation, have custody or visitation rights, regardless of genetics, even though biologically the child is not his. In most states, he wouldn't even have to formally adopt the child for the child to be considered legally his.

A lesbian couple decides to have a child. They use a sperm donor, just like the couple above. The woman gets pregnant and has a child. She and her partner split up ten years later. Her partner can walk away with no legal responsibility for that child whatsoever. The woman who carried the child can deny her ex-partner the opportunity to see the child and the partner can't do anything about it, because legally, it's not her child.