So I see that some voters in California have gotten together enough signatures to get a bill on the ballot that will ban recently-legalized Gay Marriages in the state.
I understand that most of the opposition to gay marriage comes from religious types, and I grew up in the Church, so I know that they think it is wrong.
But I can’t relate to this idea that since I think something is wrong, I should be able to make sure nobody else does it! I guess it’s the same thing with Gambling or Drinking, or Smoking. Can we not just agree that it is not the place of the Government to step in and tell us every little thing that we can or cannot do?
Gay marriage in particular is confusing to me. On the one hand, if two guys/girls/miscellaneous want to get married, how does that affect me? Does it raise my insurance rates? Does it affect my relationship with whatever God I choose to worship? Nope.
It seems to me that the solution is simple (not necessarily easy). If the government would get out of the marriage business altogether, the problem would basically go away, wouldn’t it? That way, “marriage” would remain a function of the church, and if a couple wanted to gain tax & legal benefits, they could apply for whatever partnership liscence they want to create. Just apply the same rules to gays and straight partners, and the religious types wouldn’t have anything left to complain about. Or at least that’s how I see it.
I really don’t know… I can understand wanting legislation instead of court activism (though that’s another thread entirely) but I really don’t get people who are straight up against gay marriage.
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married. Filing as a married couple raises your taxes and has very little benefits. The only big sticking point I can think of is inheritance/hospital authority, and both can be taken care of with some clever documenting before anything tragic occurs. Am I wrong?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married. Filing as a married couple raises your taxes and has very little benefits. The only big sticking point I can think of is inheritance/hospital authority, and both can be taken care of with some clever documenting before anything tragic occurs. Am I wrong?
[/quote]
I think you are mistaken. There are some benefits that cannot be conveyed to partners if they are not legally married. Insurance is an issue, so are pensions, which are sometimes transferable to a remaining spouse after death.
Ultimately, however, I do not think it is about any of these things. Instead of allowing the issue to resolve itself calmly over time, the gay rights crowd is ramming it down everyone’s throats. Gay marriage, in the final analysis, is more about forcing the legal system to recognize homosexuality than it is about benefits.
Which doesn’t mean that I am against gay marriage.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either.
It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people pull this one out every time a discussion about gay marriage comes up.[/quote]
The “slippery slope” argument isn’t going away. There’s no logical reason why we can outlaw marrying an animal, a vegetable, or multiple men or women now.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.
[/quote]
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.
I’m against gay marriage because I think, as nephorm alluded, the issue is largely symbolic.
The “issue” is not a particularly important one to me, I won’t campaign against gay people, and I keep my opinions to myself outside of appropriate contexts. I don’t believe they should be treated as second-class citizens or subject to bona fide persecution. I also do not believe that any of that is happening.
But since gays currently have virtually every right straight people do, putting the issue to a vote is, in my view, asking me to approve of their lifestyle. I do not approve of their lifestyle, so I voted against gay marriage the only time it appeared on my ballot.
In my opinion, the goal of the gay movement is not equality, because they already have equality. It’s about a governmental stamp of approval.
I don’t think it will be the end of the world if nation-wide legalized gay marriage comes to pass in this country. Further, I expect that it will come to pass eventually.
That said, I think the legitimate issues of gay couples (inheritance, insurance, etc.) would be better served by amending existing laws, not by attempting to legalize gay marriage.
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.[/quote]
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either.
It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people pull this one out every time a discussion about gay marriage comes up.
The “slippery slope” argument isn’t going away. There’s no logical reason why we can outlaw marrying an animal, a vegetable, or multiple men or women now. [/quote]
Animals and vegetables are not afforded constitutional rights, and as far as I know, no legal contract between man and animal/vegetable is enforceable anywhere in this country.
Let’s drop that issue because it clouds the legitimate issues of polygamy and adult incest.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either.
It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people pull this one out every time a discussion about gay marriage comes up.
Absolutely. Clearly the bestiality argument is ridiculous on its face. But let’s springboard off of that into what I think is a legitimate discussion.
Isn’t a law prohibiting adult incest a violation of the California constitution now?[/quote]
Why is it ridiculous? Why shouldn’t the Muslim now be allowed to take as many wives as Mohammed commanded now? If everyone is entitled to their own unique definition, we have no legitimate reason to say bestial marriages shouldn’t be allowed.
I don’t give a flying rats ass about gay marriage. I do have an issue with them adopting, though.
The caveat is what will fuck up a kids’ head more, same sex parents, or an orphanage. It’s a tough call, but I am intrinsically against same sex parents.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either.
It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people pull this one out every time a discussion about gay marriage comes up.
The “slippery slope” argument isn’t going away. There’s no logical reason why we can outlaw marrying an animal, a vegetable, or multiple men or women now. [/quote]
Bestiality: marriage requires consensus based on sentience. Consensus cannot be secured. No slippery slope.
Vegeiality : see above. No slippery slope. Besides, the vegetable may not really care.
Polygamy: yes, there could be an argument for that. And yes, it’s been and is accepted in some a variety of forms throughout human history. If a society bases it on proper consensus (not archaic discriminatory tradition) and a democratic majority can be found for it - I’m happy with that.
Incest: Medical issues may ensue when too closely related. First cousin marriage is legal in many western states, even siblings if I remember correctly in some (gotta check some sources on that). In most cases not a medical problem - that is, if not exclusive over generations - just an increased probability of hereditary conditions. Not a slippery slope.
Personally, I won’t recognize any such marriage. Doesn’t mean I want the state in on it, though. In fact, I think government shouldn’t recognize any marriages. Hetero, Polygamy, adult incest, bestiality, bisexual marriages, transexual-bisexual-bestiality mixes, whatever. Shouldn’t recognize any of them.
: see above. No slippery slope. Besides, the vegetable may not really care.