Latest gay marriage flareup

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to how you differentiate yourself from those a few decades ago who used the same argument against interracial marriage (assuming you think they were wrong).

[/ QUOTE ]

interestingly this is the origin of marriage laws and the marriage license, to stop interracial marriage. at least in the US.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like you learned something from NotReady after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not fair. Honest debate of the reasons for the disallowing of gay marriage is not allowed to be discussed here. The PC police are out in force. Which is hilarious given the gay rights movement talk of "freedoms". Can you spell hypocrisy?

Yes I support civil unions, of a sort. Adults should generally be allowed to contract freely with others, including giving legal status for another to manage their affairs, visit them when they're sick, share bank accounts, decide inheritance without legal interference, and so on.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Adults should generally be allowed to contract freely with others, including giving legal status for another to manage their affairs, visit them when they're sick, share bank accounts, decide inheritance without legal interference, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. NotReady crack retracted [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It does seem like you have some degree of faith though about your "choice" stance. The evidence seems to point to it not being as much of a perversion as you put forward originally.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Adults should generally be allowed to contract freely with others, including giving legal status for another to manage their affairs, visit them when they're sick, share bank accounts, decide inheritance without legal interference, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds a lot like the legal definition of marriage. Whatever you call it, those rights currently don't exist across the board.

[CallMeIshmael]

I dont agree with Phil's stance on the issue, but I think he has a fair point here.

I think a rule that censors the claim that homosexuality is a perversion hurts the debate on this issue in a way that other, more sensible, censoring would not. Beyond that, Sklansky himself called it a perversion once, so its kind odd. (though, I have to say, iron does a great job overall, imo)


EDIT: though, I guess if you wanted to point it out, I would agree that his specific phrasing of the comment was part of the problem, and, if that was the reason for the censor, I think it makes more sense.

[RedBean]

I don't understand what all the debate is about regarding gay marriage. It always puzzled me as to why this was such a big deal. If they want to get married that bad, why not let them?

Granted, I think homosexuality is a perversion, in so much as it is deviating from the norm. I don't understand it, can't figure out why people do it, I sure as hell don't want to see it or be a part of it, etc.

But none of that matters.

If Billy and Bobby down the street want to spend their evenings pushing each others shit in, I don't see how it's any of my business.

Homosexuals are going to keep being homosexuals whether or not they are allowed to get a piece of paper from the County Clerk telling them they are married.

The ONLY issue I could see it presenting is the entitlement of married couples to employment and tax benefits, and by allowing gay marriage, it extends that marriage benefit to gay couples.

But I don't understand why it matters to me either way whether or not Billy and Bobby are on each other's insurance card, or why someone would want so badly to stop them.

Is there any coherent argument against gay marriage that isn't based on some sort of moral or religious belief?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the state need to recognize marrage at all?

The solution to this is simple. No state sanctioning of marrage for anyone. Everyone should be happy with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. It's only when government is brought into this issue to begin with that people on both sides start getting pissed off.

People want the government to officially recognize a certain class of citizens (married ones), and then they get pissed off because the government is only recognizing a certain class of citizens!!!

Government is about as essential as paps on a bull where marriage is concerned, but it's become some kind of us-vs-them news channel game show for the the unwashed masses unable to think outside the box.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Adults should generally be allowed to contract freely with others, including giving legal status for another to manage their affairs, visit them when they're sick, share bank accounts, decide inheritance without legal interference, and so on.



Sounds a lot like the legal definition of marriage. Whatever you call it, those rights currently don't exist across the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is simply not true. the above are all freely available to anyone. what is at issue is government/corporate benefits such as social security benefits, employer paid health insurance, etc.

to elaborate, if a husband dies his wife keeps getting his s.s., his gay lover wouldn't. a spouse would be covered by an employee family plan, a gay lover wouldn't, *although* some companies have voluntarily included homosexual couples in their family benefit plans.

bottom line, in my opinion the gays feel they are being discriminated against in these financial "schemes", but imo these "schemes" are pretty crazy anyway. it's like criticizing one part of the income tax code for being frivolous or loopholey, when the whole thing is that way.

[Metric]

Anyone can get married. It's only by introducing the government into the process of handing out "marriage licenses" (and associated benefits) that people on both sides of this issue get pissed off. GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT AND THE PROBLEM IS FINISHED.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the state need to recognize marrage at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. It only benefits women. Men have to give up their freedoms that come with being a bachelor, devote their lives to one woman, never have sex with any other woman, and, if they screw up, they lose half of their stuff.

If the wife screws up, she gets the kids and half of your stuff.