What's wrong with gay marriage?

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from Optional:

But why can't a gay couple have the same rights as a hetero couple? I don't even know what the difference is as it varies state by state country by country.
But obviously there's more to it than "why change anything". Clearly the gays feel like they aren't getting a fair shake at the marriage tree.

Because it's just a benefits grab via govt dictate .
And it opens up marriage to be interpreted later as any combination and number of adults , citizenship, pets , farm animals for special rights and privileges.

It also legally presupposes all combinations are equal before the court in family law. Quite frankly it's a silly assumption that men and women are interchangeable.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from Optional:

1)Polygamy is legal in some places. If that's what you want, then go for it.
2)If you put it to a vote, I think you will find it will be voted down with extreme prejudice.

3)Why do only heteros get the full benefit of marriage while gays do not?

4)And how does it affect you if they get married like you did (or didn't).

1) That's true but I've never heard of any state being forced to recognize such marriages.

2) It was put to a vote and gay marriage was not wanted.
3) I've never heard of a homosexual being refused the right to marry the opposite sex. Maybe it's because they don't want to .

4) I think the taxpayer is out of teats , it's time to cull the herd.

 

[Max E.]

As a libertarian, i dont think the government should have anything to do with marriage to begin with.

If two people want to put a ring on each others finger, and have peter pan tell them they are married, no one should be able to take that away from them.

It has a certain meaning to some people, and a different one to others.

Gays are making a mistake in trying to get everyone else to redefine marriage (a biblical term), when they should be simply insisting on the same treatment in the eyes of the law. Gays should have equal treatment under the law.

 

[nutmeg]

Quote from Optional:

I'm not a trained sex professional but I teach my kids what it means to be gay. Usually when they ask because they read about it in the news or hear it on TV or whatever.

I tell them that being gay doesn't make a person any less or more of a person than you or I.

Why is it so hard to explain to your shitty kids what it means to be gay?
I don't get it.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Parents should teach kids about gay marriage, etc. Imo, the reality will be schools, hollywood, advertisers will market gay life to kids.

 

[Max E.]

Quote from nutmeg:

Maybe I wasn't clear. Parents should teach kids about gay marriage, etc. Imo, the reality will be schools, hollywood, advertisers will market gay life to kids.

I agree with you that kids should not be taught abnormal things, but Gays will insist much harder in pushing their lifestyle in schools, so long as they feel they have a mission, and they are being cheated.

How much will you see or hear from them outside of san francisco if they dont have a cause to fight for?

The reason why gays are vocal is because they see themselves as victims, i dont see a lot of people who dont feel like victims staging rallies.

Let them have gay marriage, and you will hear alot less from them, if thats your goal.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

As a libertarian, i dont think the government should have anything to do with marriage to begin with.

If two people want to put a ring on each others finger, and have peter pan tell them they are married, no one should be able to take that away from them.

It has a certain meaning to some people, and a different one to others.

Gays are making a mistake in trying to get everyone else to redefine marriage (a biblical term), when they should be simply insisting on the same treatment in the eyes of the law. Gays should have equal treatment under the law.

I agree. The government should get their nose out of the bedroom, gay or straight. There should be no government recognition or regulation of marriage, period.
No tax breaks.
No marriage licenses.
No nothing!
Marriage is a spiritual bond and should fall under separation of Church and State.

Now, if two people want to legally share access their property, an Durable Power of Attorney is simple to draw up, and will cover the issue completely, regardless of your sexuality.
It's as simple as that.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I agree. The government should get their nose out of the bedroom, gay or straight. There should be no government recognition or regulation of marriage, period.
No tax breaks.
No marriage licenses.
No nothing!
Marriage is a spiritual bond and should fall under separation of Church and State.

Now, if two people want to legally share access their property, an Durable Power of Attorney is simple to draw up, and will cover the issue completely, regardless of your sexuality.
It's as simple as that.

The gov will never get out of the marriage game. Too much money in it.

 

[Grandluxe]

You can get married but you should not be able to do file jointly when it comes to taxes since you are not contributing to society in the form of procreation.

 

[JamesL]

Quote from Grandluxe:

You can get married but you should not be able to do file jointly when it comes to taxes since you are not contributing to society in the form of procreation.

Sometimes this procreation is not a desirable contribution to society. Just saying.

BTW, anyone listen to the arguments yesterday? Kagan was scoring some good points for her team during the proceedings - backing the solicitor into a corner she was choosing. Based on what I was hearing, you all are going to have to get used to used to Gary and Bob Smith. Just like the interracial marriage ruling some 40+ yrs ago, takes a while to accept but soon enough, no one really notices anymore.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from JamesL:

Sometimes this procreation is not a desirable contribution to society. Just saying.

BTW, anyone listen to the arguments yesterday? Kagan was scoring some good points for her team during the proceedings - backing the solicitor into a corner she was choosing. Based on what I was hearing, you all are going to have to get used to used to Gary and Bob Smith. Just like the interracial marriage ruling some 40+ yrs ago, takes a while to accept but soon enough, no one really notices anymore.

I interpreted the majority as not wanting to be backed into the corner and having to issue a ruling. They often times argue the absurd or extremes, if the rule of law applies there it's pretty clear cut.

California already grants the rights of "married couples" to same sex unions, the opponents to Prop 8 state that gays are "harmed" by the stigma of not having their unions "labeled" a marriage..... what's at stake is the definition of "marriage".

From the dawn of recorded history that construct has been between a "man and an woman" and at times "women" which was introduced, but never between the same sex. The ramifications placed on society under this monogamous heterosexual construct is known...... the cause and effect of changing this construct is unknown. Gay marriages in relation to the timeline of history is a mere blip.

What appalled most of the judges was the fact that the State of California circumvented and stripped the peoples means of changing the law by vote.

What was clear that they all thought there was no way to wall off this ruling to effect "only" California. Breyer, who is considered a liberal, thought the efforts to strike down Prop 8 would actually harm the Gay community in States that do not permit same sex marriage, making it more difficult to get laws passed as the "Marriage Term" change would precede the law in those states, which is much more unpopular that the idea of same sex unions themselves.