|
|
| Which crowd would you side with on gay marriage? |
| (Conservative) - Define marriage as man and woman |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| (Liberal) - Define marriage as two or more people |
|
11% |
[ 4 ] |
| (Moderate) - Define marriage as man and woman, but civil unions should have more equality |
|
13% |
[ 5 ] |
| (Libertarian) - Eliminate government recognition |
|
52% |
[ 19 ] |
| (Other/Mixed) |
|
11% |
[ 4 ] |
| (Unsure/Don't know) |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| (GOLD) |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:21 pm
Tanasha ForsakenShadow Tanasha "Seperate but equal" is unconstitutional, as things that are seperate can never be equal. The whole "sanctity of marriage" argument falls apart when you don't use the term - the religious right says it's government interferance in religion. However, if you havethe government stop using the term marriage altogether that problem goes away. It's no longer a government-regulated religious institution, it's now a legal status. At the very least, the attacks the moral majority has used so far don't work on this idea. It's even immune to those pesky state constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage. Gays get the legal benefits straight people do, the religious nuts get to have the government meddling with them *less* and can keep their word 'holy', and nobody else is affected in the slightest. Think about it. 3nodding Well if we can't just have civil unions...then we're gona have to praticly abolish marriage. The goverment CAN'T force the church to accept this, and we can't just give gays a civil union... It's not that i'm fighint this "sanctity of marriage" issue personaly i do believe its a crock, but i don't believe the goverment should interfere and force the church to do such a thing. Perhaps the libertarian ideal would be the best then. Even with those repercussions. You didn't understand the idea at all. Religious marriage would go on unfettered - if you got married in a church you would STILL be married as the government doesn not and SHOULD NOT have any control over that. However, legal marriage would become civil unions. This results in LESS religion in government and less government in religion - The government treats the term "marriage" as a purely religious concent, and the religious idea of marriage is completely divorced from government. Any other misconceptions? :/ ...Okay let me have a stab at this. Goverments gonna severe all ties with marriage...we're going to hopefully keep marriage benifits then (it would make sense then). However civil unions...are going to go into the hands of the goverment...Thus goverment has control the power to grant unions to gays and others. Giving THEM for sure the pluses of marriage. So goverment hands out civil unions and has no control over marriages. Meanwhile churchs contain soley the power of marriage...which now is just religious. and they hand them out, they also have no say in civil unions (directly)....and thus everyone is happy and the world continues to spin? Is this correct? Quote: ----(geh, dumb firewall)---------- What the hell? i can't pass it!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 6:48 pm
ForsakenShadow ...Okay let me have a stab at this. Goverments gonna severe all ties with marriage...we're going to hopefully keep marriage benifits then (it would make sense then). However civil unions...are going to go into the hands of the goverment...Thus goverment has control the power to grant unions to gays and others. Giving THEM for sure the pluses of marriage. So goverment hands out civil unions and has no control over marriages. Meanwhile churchs contain soley the power of marriage...which now is just religious. and they hand them out, they also have no say in civil unions (directly)....and thus everyone is happy and the world continues to spin? Is this correct? Basicly, yes. The legal benefits of marriage are handed over to civil unions, an everybody who's already legally married is automatically granted a civil union. It's not ideal, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:03 pm
Civil unions still exisiting I might be fine with, although I would be more comfortable if any two+ people just made all contractual arrangements independantly or bundled. (bundling might, in effect, be a civil union anyway) That would mean filing taxes seperately.
To re-explain: you want to get married out of spiritual/religious/love related reasons, then you go to to your church/backyard/las vegas and get it done. It'll never show up on paper in any government office, (except maybe on the caterer's IRS form lol) before or after that, anytime you want, maybe 5 years down the road, you make a contract or contracts with your spouse/partner/whatever on things such as hospital visitation, who you leave money to after dieing, shared bank accounts, etc. etc.. The government treats each one of you as seperate individuals, for the rest of your life, you never "fuse" in any legal aspect. In spiritual/religious/love aspects, yes, of course, you devote yourselves to each other as much as you want. If you divorce, it will work in the court the same way as if two people wanted to break contracts. If you decided to make a contract to share all property, then it would be handled in the same way as if you made a similar contract with any other person. The government merely enforces all contractual agreements. My opinions on child custody in all this are still a bit half-baked at this point though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:33 am
Cisum At the risk of sounding too liberal...Who exactly laid down the indefinate definition of marriage as being between a man and woman (apart form religious document..)?? That is a very good question... just custom I suppose. Although I think that tradition that exist simply for their own sake are a bit stupid. I think that the legal term for two people joined into one unit should be "civil union". The only reason the government should be keeping track is so they'll know who should be filing joint tax returns, and so there'll be a reacord of who the legal next of kin is in case one person dies. The term "marriage" should be confined to the religious aspect, if there is any. I have no problem with the government keeping records of marriages. I do have a problem with the government trying to control who can get married to whom. As long as everyone involved is over 18 and gives consent, I don't see anything wrong with it. I also don't agree with the idea of "commom law" marriage. That's when a man and a woman having been living together for a certain number of years, they are considered married, and have to go through divorce preceding if they want to marry anyone else. This also means that they don't need to get a marriage license; by simply living together, they're married. I think if the government is going to have marriage liscenses, they should be consistant about it. It may have been true once that men and women didn't live together unless they were married, but it's not true now. Common law marriage is outdated and should be gotten rid of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:10 pm
Quote: "Gays don't vommit. They're a very clean people. And they have been ever since they came to this country from France." - Peter Griffin its simple why its so easy to hate them, they're all French =) i think homosexuality intolerance grew out of the pre-renaissance times where every village lost large numbers of men in wars, making every sperm a valuable commodity. even masturbation was considered immoral (as some fundamentalists still believe) men had multiple wives, and married as soon as they hit puberty (sometimes at 13 years of age) villages who advocated tolerance of homosexuals could suffer significant underpopulation since every living man with functional "love equipment" meant 5-15 more kids in the next generation. it was common sense the world over that all heteros not making babies were to be regarded as "not totally pulling their weight" in the community, and were exiled, or, more often, just executed (much more entertaining wink ) since the bible, koran, etc. doesnt have a process to be amended like our constitution, many policies, although reasonable in the past, survive to today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:58 pm
Sinew Quote: "Gays don't vommit. They're a very clean people. And they have been ever since they came to this country from France." - Peter Griffin its simple why its so easy to hate them, they're all French =) i think homosexuality intolerance grew out of the pre-renaissance times where every village lost large numbers of men in wars, making every sperm a valuable commodity. even masturbation was considered immoral (as some fundamentalists still believe) men had multiple wives, and married as soon as they hit puberty (sometimes at 13 years of age) villages who advocated tolerance of homosexuals could suffer significant underpopulation since every living man with functional "love equipment" meant 5-15 more kids in the next generation. it was common sense the world over that all heteros not making babies were to be regarded as "not totally pulling their weight" in the community, and were exiled, or, more often, just executed (much more entertaining wink ) since the bible, koran, etc. doesnt have a process to be amended like our constitution, many policies, although reasonable in the past, survive to today. Interesting. That makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:31 am
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Are we talking about polygamory as well or just palygamy (sorry if that's not spelled right) because some of the things you are saying apply more to plygamory than the other. I just want to be clear on exactly what realtionships we are talking about. No, I do not believe a person should be able to marry more than once. Yes, I do agree that gays should be able to marry; that's their own fricken buisness! I don't know about poly groups. I'm still not ready for that yet, and nobody's really raised that much of an issue about it. I do belive it is possible for a man to love another man and visa versa, and so long as it's consentual with every partner involved and there is no secrecy, I agree completely with polyamory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:40 pm
Periathien I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Are we talking about polygamory as well or just palygamy (sorry if that's not spelled right) because some of the things you are saying apply more to plygamory than the other. I just want to be clear on exactly what realtionships we are talking about. No, I do not believe a person should be able to marry more than once. Yes, I do agree that gays should be able to marry; that's their own fricken buisness! I don't know about poly groups. I'm still not ready for that yet, and nobody's really raised that much of an issue about it. I do belive it is possible for a man to love another man and visa versa, and so long as it's consentual with every partner involved and there is no secrecy, I agree completely with polyamory. The idea is, in the eyes of the government would view every individual just as that, an individual. Marriages would be unregistered and unregulated, just as relationships, friendships, flings, etc. are now. So a polygamist would be able to marry multiple wives/hubbies, because he wouldn't need permission from the government to do so, other people around the nation may choose to not recognize the marriage if they want. Marriage is a commitment between people to love each other, such a thing is an abstract contract between human beings, something that government should never be involved in. If you start dating somebody you don't need to get a license from a judge do you? If the government gets out of marriage, marriage doesn't become something that the government authorizes you to do, it becomes what it should be: an intense expression of love and commitment between people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:56 am
I like that outlook. Frankly, i don't see a need ot ever get married. The only thing mariage really offers is a tax break. You don't need to be married, though, to have a beuatiful and happy realtionship with children and such. I don't plan on marrying, but I encourage others to do so if that's what they need to do to express their love. The government should BUTT OUT of marriage, but in order to do that, you have to get the people to agree that that's what they want, which would be the hard part. Being married is rewarded (how messed up is that?) with money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:09 pm
Periathien I like that outlook. Frankly, i don't see a need ot ever get married. The only thing mariage really offers is a tax break. You don't need to be married, though, to have a beuatiful and happy realtionship with children and such. I don't plan on marrying, but I encourage others to do so if that's what they need to do to express their love. The government should BUTT OUT of marriage, but in order to do that, you have to get the people to agree that that's what they want, which would be the hard part. Being married is rewarded (how messed up is that?) with money. *nod* tax codes, along with a list of social subsidies like hospital visitation, medical coverage, inheritance, adultery, divorce, immigration... can't think of much more. Not to be a broken record but most of the above should be discussed between partners before a marriage anyway, so it is easy to see contracts specifying some or all of the above being drawn up, making marriage very similar to our current system, it would just be less automatic, since the government would not assume all the arrangements that couples want. Leave the responsibilities of all that to the people themselves. Oops, is that last sentence too obviously worded libertarianly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
