What religion do you 'practice', and what does marriage have to do with Christianity as opposed to any other established religion? Are you just arguing for the sake of it? I think so.

A related topic, I'd like to see heterosexual civil unions or whatever you may call it where you don't have to register with the government. The things that really galled me when I married was having to pay money and ask the government for permission to marry, and then having to go to a government approved person (either an officially registered minister or a politician with marriage authority) to make it official. There is an interesting history to that. I believe the first marriage laws and licensing in the American colonies, when they was still a part of Britain, were made to prevent people from marrying outside their race, or at least to petition for permission to do so. I actually know several people who have married without licenses because they are opposed to the principle (sometimes for religious reasons) but don't get the special privileges of those that do form a marriage contract with the government. I suggested the idea to my wife-to-be, but she was not comfortable taking that road due to the extra risks involved, so we went with the regulated form. But handing over the cash to the probate court and swearing their oath really ruined the day.

Oh god, I love you daganev. You start off with



and end with



For a few seconds I thought you were serious, until I realized you couldn't possibly be, and from now on I will be more careful when reading your posts. You won't trick me again! You crazy jokester you!

...I can't be bothered to quote the part where you say that marriage is for having children. This belief is circa the 1800's and early 1900's. I would *not* get married to someone I think will be a good father, and frankly, I don't think you would either. What -should- be happening is people getting married because they want to express their love for each other, not because they want to raise a good child. There is an increasing number of people getting married,

As for your thoughts on civil unions enabling polygamy...well...(edited because it was offensive)

I did not say marriage was for -having- children, I said that the State is interested in raising children. Poorly raised children increase the crime rate. There is a new book out called Freakenomics that postulates that the decrease in crime in American in the 1990s was do to Roe V. Wade in the 1970s. Less unwanted children ment less criminals. Just because a system does not work 100% of the time, doesn't mean the intent of the system just gets thrown out the window. You fix whats broken about it, not throw it away.

If you look at the laws of marriage and divorce, especially in the U.S. love does not factor in one way or another. You can not get a divorce just because you no longer love them. Your lack of love for them must be demeonstrated in a way that puts a burden on your life for the divorce to be legal etc.


As for "polygamy" in Civil Unions. If Civil Unions exist, and I had the time, I would be the first one to sue the government if they did not allow me to have more that one union. Please explain to me the rational for limiting a union to one person. *edit* Because I can clearly see a state's reason for limiting a Marriage to one person, but not a civil union. (i.e. the raising of the next generation, and the establishment of bonds of culture)

Someone stated as an exmaple, what if you were not allowed to get married just becuase your Jewish. This is VERY different than the situation with so called 'gay marriage'. And I'll explain some historical context for this. There was a law in Europe that forbade Jewish people from getting married. What this ment, was that a Jew was not allowed to get married to ANYBODY, under any circumstance. Even if that Jew was forced to marry someone they hated, they would not be allowed to do it. However, in America, if a gay person is not forbiden from getting married. There is only a limit on the choices of people that person can get married to I am not allowed to get married to my sister, how is that discrimination.

As for laws forcing social acceptance. I do not believe this is the case. Laws were written that forced economic equality, giving all people a fair chance of a livelyhood and other economic rights. No laws exist in the U.S that dictate that you must root for your local sports team or enjoy integration. They only ask that you give all people the same economic and legal opportunity. Again, there is no law forbidding a gay person from marrying a person of the opposite sex to get any economic benefit they may enjoy from that.

If your might get fired from a job, then change the law that affects jobs, don't bring things in that are not really relevant. Gay people should not be fired, or beaten up or anything of the like, but that doesn't mean that intrests of the state have to be changed to make them feel comfortable with religions. That would be a issue with the religion not the state, and your not suppose to be mixing the two. Because from what I hear, it sounds like the issue is not with the state, but with people trying to get the state to change the religion in a round a bout, and legal manner.

Edit: Bolded and Italicised to make the points to rebut easier to see.

Wicca, more or less. If you don't know what marriage in the western world in 2005 has to do with Christianity you need to open your eyes.

I'm arguing because I am discriminated against, I didn't realise I needed your permission.

Don't most wedding vows have a 'love, cherish and obey' statement? Or is that different overseas?

The argument about being able to marry, but not whom you wish is somewhat ludicrous.

Hypothetical:
I'm in love with Joe, and decide to spend my life in fidelity and companionship with him, maybe bring up children (in an ideal world). Oops, can't marry him, but have no fear - I should be content because I can marry Jane down the street. Sure, it amounts to little more than economic prostitution, but what the hey, got to be thankful for our blessings. So many years later, when Joe lies dying and I desperately want to spend our last moments together but can't, I can think 'hey, its all good' because being with my financial business partner is so much more spiritually fulfilling.

Until people are disciminated against I suppose I can't bame them for being ignorant of how it makes me feel so I am sorry if I have been angry in this thread where it wasn't deserved. I don't apologise for being angry, just if it was misdirected.

Wow. I never thought I'd see such information flying by.

Okay, let's take a brief look at Gay Marriage (or frankly, any legally accepted bond between two individuals of the same gender which can resemble marriage in terms of rights , duties, and responsibilities..)

I'm going to loosely quote Equality Maryland's website (also found here - www.equalitymaryland.org , and the page in reference - http://www.equalitymaryland.org/marriagerecog.htm )

For instance, heterosexual couples may take for granted the right to visit a spouse in the hospital; make medical decisions for a spouse; take leave Family and Medical Leave to care for a sick spouse; file joint tax returns; or inherit property, disability and social security in the event of a spouse's death. There are hundreds of state-level and more than a thousand federal rights and responsibilities that accompany a civil marriage license in the United States, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO).

No domestic partnership legislation, civil union or private agreement can duplicate the legal status of marriage. Neither domestic partnership laws nor Vermont's Civil Unions law are recognized by the federal government. In fact, the rights and benefits of domestic partner and Civil Unions laws end at the state line

The following is a brief list of a few rights referenced.

The right to visit a spouse in the hospital ( A hospital can deny anyone who is not immediate family the right to visit someone. In Daganev's quoted case about being placed on a list, that would be a hospital policy and not a guaranteed circumstance)

The right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse

The right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse

Access to family courts for dissolution of relationships

Death benefits for surviving spouses of firefighters and police officers

Mutual responsibility for debts

Joint assessment of income for determining eligibility for state government assistance programs

Ability to sponsor a spouse from another country for a green card

Community property ownership protections

Child custody, visitation, and duties of financial support to children

Eligibility for health benefits (without taxation) and COBRA benefits through an employer

Ability to take leave to care for a sick spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act

Right to inherit a spouse's pension

Entitlement to inherit social security and disability benefits upon the death of a spouse

Ability to inherit jointly owned property without incurring tax penalties

Right to file joint income taxes

Ability to put a spouse on the deed to a home without incurring tax penalties

Access to "family memberships"

Domestic violence protections

Immunity from testifying against a spouse

Right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse

---

The following is an excerpt from HRC.Org (Human Rights Coalition)

(Also available in PDF form from HRC.Org, at http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Ge...ContentID=17262 )

3.1 Million people live together in same-sex relationships.

A marriage is able to be performed in any state, and recognized in any state.

A Civil Union can not be guaranteed to be recognized in any state other than Vermont.

There are over 1,100 federal rights granted to a married couple that can not and will not be extended to civil unions, or domestic partners.

--

It isn't about if you feel queasy when you think about two men or two women being together. It isn't about you feeling that it's a religious issue or not. It's about discrimination and second class citizenship.

There is no seperate but equal. I'd thought that America had learned that years ago.

Questions? AIM me, MerlochAverin

"There are over 1,100 federal rights granted to a married couple that can not and will not be extended to civil unions, or domestic partners."

The word you are looking for here is -benefits- Ther are over 1,100 ferderal BENEFITS granted to a married couple.

A Benefit is not a right. A driver's license is not a right. If I'm 16 but fail the test, I can't get a Driver's License.. Help help I'm being opressed!

When your not allowed to get married to ANYONE because your gay, then you can start talking to me about opression.

All of those legal automatic situtations that you get from entering a marriage can be simulated in a legal document. You can write up a legal document that will be binding on the federal level to have all those benefits attributed to anyone you would like. You underestimate the benefits of granting 'power of atorney' to people in various circumstances and limitations.

There is a HUGE difference between being discrimnated and not allowed to get a job or to live in a location and not having the oppotunity to get a bonus because you don't fufill the requirements of that bonus. Such as a Drivers License, or becoming a State Governer, or have a Pension plan for life for being an employee of the stat, etc etc.

As for Marriage vows... When I go to Orthodox Jewish wedddings, nothing has to do with christiantiy, and there is no vow of 'love' only commitment. I could care less what Christians do at thier weddings, they are completely different from the weddings I go to do. Infact growing up, I got very confused between the diffrence in weddings in the movies and the weddings I saw in reality.

Are you implying that we should apply a gender love test, that if you fail, you don't get certain "benefits" and that the criteria of this test be that if your Jack you have to like Jill instead of Bob and if you're Jill you have to like Jack instead of Jane, despite being much happier with the other person?

What you're saying is that you should not be able to get something because you choose (debatable) to express something different within traditional bounds, despite it not infringing on anyone elses personal freedom, and that IS discrimination.

Incidently, if you're not just being an ass to debate people, this stance makes you a bigot. Organize any clan meetings lately Daganev?

Why do you assume that a state contract involving economic benefits has anything to do with love?

Marriages are often about economics, politics, and legal residancy as much as they are about 'love'

If your getting married for love that is a 100% religious issue and not something the state would ever really care about.


So before you start playing the biggot card as if that somehow instantly disqualifies an opion, think about your premises and the real argument that you wish to make.

Since many people like to talk tradition, that's the requirement to have a non-taboo marriage.

If you want to be strict, it is a legal-union. Which is the most damaging part of your entire argument, Daganev. Since Jack can't be married to Bob, they are denied the unique benefits given to them regarding the other person. Its the basic principle, and of course you continually miss that.

You could make your same argument about inter-racial marriages, which is why your argument is that of a bigot's.

Let's take just a few of Merloch's list of so-called benefits, as Daganev would have us see them.

"Domestic violence protections"
"The right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse "
"The right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse "

If those are benefits and not rights in your world, Daganev, then you scare me. Trying to justify laws and hide behind them doesn't dilute the bigotry and discrimination.

Just to throw things in a new direction, what are people's thoughts on if all marriage laws and licenses were abolished, and everyone used power of attorney for things like medical decisions for a sick spouse, funeral arrangements, inheritance/wills, etc.? Current custodial laws already handle cases for children when there is no marriage, so I'm sure that even custody issues could be hashed out without marriage laws. An interesting thing is it could be billed as appealing to both sides of the political spectrum. To the left: it is egalitarian since it gives the same legal status for all relationships (and also for single people who also sometimes get the shaft with current marriage laws). To the right: it puts control of marriage 100% in the hands of the church, giving each church the right to marry whom they will and acknowledge or not acknowledge any marriages as they see fit.

There is quite a big difference between an inter-racial marriage and a same sex marriage.

A same sex marriage can not, ever, extend the population of a society.

You have to go back and look at the state marriage concept and see if all the purposes combined are able to be fuffiled by the proposed change.

Although not all marriages affect the growth of a state and raise children that the state would like to have, 0% of same sex marriages, would create that growth, unless they go and break the bonds on their marriage as defined by that state.

As for domestic abuse laws... I have a hard time believing that A. Two roomates are allowed to beat eachother up without any legal recourse, and B. That there is external family preasure for an abused roomate to stay in the home.

as for ""The right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse "
"The right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse "" Those are most definitly benefits as anyone who creates for themselves a cooperation and gives over powers of attorney can have those same rights.


Getting rid of marriage all together may be itneresting, but I have a strong suspicion that such an idea would harm many of the intrests and incentives that the state has in enoucraging the growth of thier own culture and population.


Take a look here and notice how often children come up. http://www.law2.byu.edu/marriage_family/Oc...%20overview.pdf

You're right, same sex marriage won't ever extend society's population. However to give that argument any merit you'd have to come up with concrete evidence that America's population isn't growing to fast, or simply needs to grow faster at all. All signs and studies point against this however. You'd also have to argue that if not allowed to marry a person of the same sex, they'd be more inclined to breed, or if you want to pull a Daganev and switch an argument around, that they couldn't breed outside of marriage. The likely hood of an admittedly gay man or woman producing children whether married or not is extremely slim.

You may think you're the end all and be all of wisdom and knowledge, Daganev, but not even you can counter those facts.

Um, actually Daganev a same sex couple could adopt and contribute to society by providing a stable, nurturing environment in which a young child may grow.

You mean they cannot (and lets ignore IVF for now) spawn children themselves, which is true. But I thought most divorce proceedings determine what is the best environment for a child to grow in, not what percentage of raw genetic material has been taken from each parent. And I think using divorce process as an argument for marriage is really bizarre, but I'm using the parameters you defined.

Quick, ban infertile couples from marrying!

In a society where there's massive unemployment, homelessness, overcrowding....hell we should be BEGGING for same-sex couples so maybe we could conceivably reduce the population some.

The only true arguement against same-sex marriages is a religious one, based on christianity in any of it's forms, be it baptist, catholic, jewish, whatever. That's where the main thrust of this whole problem comes from.

As a non-christian, I think that maybe it should be set up in this manner. CHRISTIAN marriages cannot be of same-sex. Whatever, fine. But leave the other religions that have no issue with same-sex marriages the right to marry legally. *shrug* I personally think it'd be a fair solution, the whole 'freedom of religion' thing being a foundation of america in the first place.