Prop 8 over turned - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**151** 08-06-2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

There is a compelling interest in promoting SUCCESSFUL offspring! That is why heterosexual marriage is advantaged by the state.

By advantaging heterosexual marriage, all you are doing is promoting offspring.

Zerohour3k · #**152** 08-06-2010, 08:59 AM

I'd personally be 100% ok with denying gays the rights to marry, based on the "successful offspring" argument, if we also stripped sterile heterosexual couples of their rights to marry. Hey, they can't make children either, so they shouldn't be allowed to wed!

Or, we could just do like the rest of the civilized world is doing (Several European countries, a few Latin ones, and yesterday, the capitol city of Mexico) and let two human beings who love each other be granted the same rights as everyone else.

Religion and morality is something to define one's self, not meant to dictate to others how to lead their lives. The religious argument against gay marriage is somewhat moot because of this, otherwise we could also rationalize Muslim (and a few other) religion's views towards women's rights, setting the whole country back about 50 years.

Childbirth is also a moot argument against marriage equality, since we currently do not strip infertile heterosexual couples of their rights to marry, either.

Several states already have gay marriage in place, and guess what? They haven't imploded into a cesspool of destruction and mayhem. Children are still being born, straight parents are still being married (and divorced), and people are still free to practice their own religions, complete with scorn for gays. As far as I know, churches are not being forced to marry homosexual couples if they do not wish, as churches are a separate entity than the state. This sort of thing has been going on WAY before it was a hot topic in the USA. Really makes me wonder what arguments the opposition has against it, aside from "I don't like it" and "It's always been done this way!".

Not going to get more long winded than I already have, so I leave you with an interesting video to watch, for anybody who still tries to use the same tired excuses against the idea of marriage equality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o

JollyRoger · #**153** 08-06-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

When debating with someone I often go to their own favorite sources for support, you often cite Wikipedia so you shouldn't have any objection now.

"Support for same-sex marriage is often based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, mental and physical health concerns, equality before the law,[7] and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

My own conclusions are based on my experiences, having spent much of the last 20 years living around, working out of, having my children under the provisions of Massachusetts School Choice law educated in the schools (I drove them 40 miles round trip 180 days a year to attend school), of arguably per capita the "Queerest" community in the world Provincetown MA. I have gay relatives, gay employees, I regularly deal with gay civic leaders, politicians and bureaucrats, gay business owners, gay customers, and gay citizens and visitors. I’m personally acquainted with probably 2-300 gay people there and have on thousands of occasions engaged in friendly, frank and respectful discussions with them on straight and gay “issues” both micro and macro.

I have gay relatives who have co-habitated for now almost 50 years who do not support “gay marriage” and at the other end of the spectrum I spent a good portion of a couple years in ideological warfare thwarting access to children and the inculcation of the gay agenda into the school curriculum by a noted “Queer Rights Activist, his words” recently convicted and sentenced to federal prison pedophile, named of John Perry Ryan.

Please tell me where in all that gibberish you posted is a compelling state interest for preventing free individuals from entering into a contract that harms no others?

JollyRoger · #**154** 08-06-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

That is not the issue, that anybody "be denied the right to share a happy and purposeful life with the one they love in a union protected by a legal contract they have entered into", simply that they will have to think up they're own word for what they do because "marriage" is a heterosexual institution recognised and advantaged by societies for thousands of years.

Marriage is a legal contract between two adults to share expenses and liabilities, your "institution" gibberish has nothing to do with the law. Legally, it is not an "institution" ( I am uttterly mystified how this word even applies) it is a contract. Period. The Right of Contract is an ancient right, enshrined in English common law for centuries. It is a basic right of free men, that I can enter into any legally binding agreement with anyone else for any purpose that can be presented in a court of law as fact, and that the state can not be a party to or regulate it unless it shows it has a compelling interest to do so, or that illegal activity is involved, or that it harms the public good. You have decided that you have a right to interfere in a contract between two homosexuals, which they wish to enter into in order to share living expenses, and to enjoy the tax advantages of co-habitation. Please list why you think you can claim that right.

JollyRoger · #**155** 08-06-2010, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

I specified successful progeny not liberals, successful progeny don't need the state to feed them, house them, or provide them anything. It is the unsuccessful progeny who are ideologicly liberal always sucking off the teat of the nanny state, always demanding someone else do for them that which they are incapable of doing for thenselves, always seeing every difference in outcome as the result of manifest unfairness.

My own personal political platform would advocate the sterilization of liberals to prevent further manifestaion of that particular mental disorder.

Trolling?

dynalow · #**156** 08-06-2010, 10:23 AM

I'm with Obama on same sex marraige. I oppose it. For the same reasons he does.
I think!?

ahh, uumm....ummm.......ummm.....

Watch the clip here. Classic rope a dope by Axelrod.

Much better than Muhammad Ali in Zaire.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/05/painful-axelrod-tries-to-explain-obamas-non-position-on-prop-8/

JollyRoger · #**157** 08-06-2010, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

BS BS and BS again.

Religion cannot afford to let the state/Fed get out of the marriage business. The state/fed is the only entity protecting marriage right now. If government stops protecting marriage anyone/thing/animal you name it could get 'married'. Anyone could create any religion they wanted to and marry any entities they wanted to. Then where would your sacred concept of marriage be?

No, you need government in marriage because they are the only ones who can protect it for you. So you have a choice. Either allow gays to get married or risk loosing all control over marriage and it will mean virtually nothing to anyone. Would you rather allow people who love each other to get married or would you rather loose it all?

I agree. The state has legitimate interests in a marriage contract. The parties involved are granted generous tax advantages at all levels of government, so in order to record the granting of that right, a license is issued when the contract is entered into. If the marriage dissolves, the state as an interest to see that all children are taken care of, and it provides courts so that property can be distributed in an equal manner. It also has an interest in preventing marriage contracts where the state has a compelling interest to do so. In all of that, I see no place where the state has a compelling or regulatory interest based upon where a person happens to be sticking his penis.

#**158** 08-06-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I agree. The state has legitimate interests in a marriage contract. The parties involved are granted generous tax advantages at all levels of government, so in order to record the granting of that right, a license is issued when the contract is entered into. If the marriage dissolves, the state as an interest to see that all children are taken care of, and it provides courts so that property can be distributed in an equal manner. It also has an interest in preventing marriage contracts where the state has a compelling interest to do so. In all of that, I see no place where the state has a compelling or regulatory interest based upon where a person happens to be sticking his penis.

The suggestion was to have the state eliminate the "marriage contract" for everyone and replace it with something else. The churches can keep the word "marriage" and make whatever rules they like, of course it won't matter to the state.

MS Fowler · #**159** 08-06-2010, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Marriage is a legal contract between two adults to share expenses and liabilities, your "institution" gibberish has nothing to do with the law. Legally, it is not an "institution" ( I am uttterly mystified how this word even applies) it is a contract. Period. The Right of Contract is an ancient right, enshrined in English common law for centuries. It is a basic right of free men, that I can enter into any legally binding agreement with anyone else for any purpose that can be presented in a court of law as fact, and that the state can not be a party to or regulate it unless it shows it has a compelling interest to do so, or that illegal activity is involved, or that it harms the public good. You have decided that you have a right to interfere in a contract between two homosexuals, which they wish to enter into in order to share living expenses, and to enjoy the tax advantages of co-habitation. Please list why you think you can claim that right.

Marriage is, or has been BOTH a legal contract AND an "institution".
I have no issue from the legal contract side of the issue; you made that argument well.
Its from the " institution" side that I have some conflict. I haven't checked, but I would tend to think that "institution" is religious language reflecting the historical and biblical understanding that marriage was instituted by the Creator. It would therefore be a holdover from when governments were involved in religious affairs. Perhaps we need a clearer distinction between the state marriage and the religious one. Since the laws have been written the way they were, "marriage" is the term that is used to convey the whole list of rights you listed. I see no practical way to unwind the way the term has both a civil and a religious meaning.
So we have civil marriage performed by a state-licensed officiate, and a religious ceremony performed by a licensed minister; sometimes the same "officiate" fulfills both roles.
As much as I desire to preserve the term "marriage" for the religious ceremony only, I see no practical means to do that in out pluralistic society.

aklim · #**160** 08-06-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

If the marriage dissolves, the state as an interest to see that all children are taken care of, and it provides courts so that property can be distributed in an equal manner.

If the relationship between the biological parents dissolves, be they married or unmarried, as in the case of a "one night stand oopsie", both parents are still on the hook for the offspring. IOW, if I got a girl pregnant, I have to support the offspring whether I am married to her or not.

#**161** 08-06-2010, 11:28 AM

I think the point is that the government can only deal with the contractual aspects of marriage, and has no business getting involved with the "institution" of marriage. Unfortunately the terminology is shared between those two very different things. IMO, the only way to fix this is to get government out of the "institution" of marriage completely and let them call the contract something else. It is not OK to have the government recognize only some "marriages" and not others, so let's have them simply issue a contract to any two adults who meet the legal requirements (they can call it whatever they want) and remove the word marriage from all government documents. Marriage would then be like the catholic's comfermation, a purely religious distinction.

aklim · #**162** 08-06-2010, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

The suggestion was to have the state eliminate the "marriage contract" for everyone and replace it with something else. The churches can keep the word "marriage" and make whatever rules they like, of course it won't matter to the state.

Isn't that already the case? After all, I had a civil union but for sake of simplicity, they just call it marriage. After all, just because I had a civil union, I don't say "I am civily unioned with Jane Doe". I just say "I am married to Jane Doe".

#**163** 08-06-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

If the relationship between the biological parents dissolves, be they married or unmarried, as in the case of a "one night stand oopsie", both parents are still on the hook for the offspring. IOW, if I got a girl pregnant, I have to support the offspring whether I am married to her or not.

I agree, the issue of parental responsibility has nothing to do with the marital status of the parents; it is a completely separate legal issue.

#**164** 08-06-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Isn't that already the case? After all, I had a civil union but for sake of simplicity, they just call it marriage. After all, just because I had a civil union, I don't say "I am civily unioned with Jane Doe". I just say "I am married to Jane Doe".

Only if every state extends that right to all couples and there is no legal difference between the two. At that point, why not just change the language for everyone to avoid pissing of the religious crazies?

aklim · #**165** 08-06-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Only if every state extends that right to all couples and there is no legal difference between the two. At that point, why not just change the language for everyone to avoid pissing of the religious crazies?

Currently, is there any difference between the two? From what I see, you get a license to get married and the official is the only difference. With a church wedding, I have someone who is ordained in some ministry giving the final OK vs a Justice of the Peace. The way I see it, the difference between my civil union and your marriage is that yours is blessed by some imaginary being while mine is by a real person.