Why does it have to be gay "marriage?" (page 2)

Emma

I must begin by stating that I am not a proponent of "marriage"; unlike many, I feel that the patriarchy has NOT particularly benefitted women and children historically. Having said that, civil unions are not equal but separate.

There are around 1,000 federal rights granted to married couples, and many important ones cannot be gotten by spending money on an attorney. Even if a partner gives medical power of attorney to their partner, family can demand that there are no visitation rights.

There is no family leave, social security benefits, right to inherit, or right to retain the family home if one partner goes into a nursing home. These are just a few.

As far as the "slippery slope" argument, the ridiculous argument about people marrying their dog, marriage is a contract between consenting people; as far as I know, animals don't have the right to enter into contracts. This argument is a long one as far as I can see.

I have friends, a lesbian couple with three adopted children and two biological. The partner that works from home, as well as her child, stand to loose health insurance if the Michigan ammendment to ban same-sex marriage is adopted. How will this benefit anyone?

Where is the line drawn? Where society draws it. It's moved in the past to include women's rights, civil rights, protection for children from slave-like conditions, interracial marriage, smoking, and more. Some have felt threatened but the line has still moved to the benefit of society.

my 2 cents,Emma

MorpheuzX

Golf, I quoted all those scriptures as evidence that what some people think of as the biblical and historical definition of marriage (one man and one woman) is completely off the mark.

So my question to you is this, if you want to so rigidly cling to your definition of marriage, then do you also approve of polygamy? Remember Malachi 3:6, god doesn't change. And god's people practiced it for well over a thousand years. So is that okay according to you? Should there be laws allowing it in all 50 states?

Second question taking this issue in a slightly different direction, Exodus 21:15-17 grant parents permission to kill their children.

Exodus 21:15 He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:17 He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

So tell me golf, do you think that's okay, too? Maybe we should codify that into law just because it's in the bible.

If anybody reading this is wondering what the whole point of this post is so far, it's this -- The bible is an interesting book, but that doesn't mean we should base our system of jurisprudence on it.

Yerusalyim

Satan's Helper,

If you read all my posts, you'll notice I've never made this arguement from a biblical standpoint.

Sirona,

Yeru
Tell me how gay marriage will definately lead to polygamy? How will it lead to relatives marrying? I don't see the connection at all. Marriage law could be Man / Woman, Woman / Woman, or Man / Man. All adults over a certain age and not related.
Sirona

Dear sweet Sirona, didn't you know that there are already two polygamists in Utah suing for the "right" to be married by the state, just since the "gay" marriage issue popped up? The exact same arguements used for gay marriage can be used for polygamist marriage, incestual marriage, etc.

Badger

Gays should be able to marry...why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

rem

>>Dear sweet Sirona, didn't you know that there are already two polygamists in Utah suing for the "right" to be married by the state, just since the "gay" marriage issue popped up?

So what? Let them sue. If the state feels that polygamy is fine for consenting adults and they have figured out all of the legal aspects, then what is the problem? I only see an issue with polygammy when it includes underage children, which is the problem with many polygamists in Utah. It's not my thing, and it's not the thing of 99% of the population, so how is it going to destroy the country? Oh yeah, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

>>The exact same arguements used for gay marriage can be used for polygamist marriage, incestual marriage, etc.

Each argument has to stand or fall on its own merits. Incestual marriage? There are medical issues with this and that's why it's not allowed. If those medical issues were resolved I would see nothing wrong with it for those who choose it. Again, it's not for me and it's not for 99% of the rest of the country so live and let live.

Marrying animals? So far our marriage laws require both parties to consent. Not sure you're going to be able to get the consent of an animal. Seeing that sex with an animal can be regarded as raping an animal, which is animal abuse, I don't see this happening any time soon.

So... any more brain busters?

rem

Phantom Stranger

OK, since you are trying to conserve the "meaning" of marriage as it stands, Yeru, perhaps you could share with us what that meaning is for our society today.

Sunspot

~~There are around 1,000 federal rights granted to married couples, and many important ones cannot be gotten by spending money on an attorney. Even if a partner gives medical power of attorney to their partner, family can demand that there are no visitation rights.

There is no family leave, social security benefits, right to inherit, or right to retain the family home if one partner goes into a nursing home. These are just a few.~~

I totally agre with Emma! These "perks" never even occurred to me until I heard this being debated on TV, and it made me think about all this more seriously. I've "softened" QUITE a bit on many issues since I opened up my "eyes" of love rather then playing "judge", and as Emma said, that the basic rights of a CITIZEN are denied to gays---and IMHO this is wrong.

Since this "marriage" issue has arisen, I've heard all the smutty remarks and jokes from the media, the hosts of night-time TV, etc. I often wonder for the sake of a cheap shot---they feel no compassion for others (who are not hurting THEM) and stand there and degrade sensitive human beings.

I think the whole thing stinks, and to make campaign issues around it----give me a break! Aren't there MORE problems plaguing this country other than if the Gay community should be married?

Let's see them tackle the job cuts, the budget cuts to our schools or to helping the elderly afford medical care, etc. (Just to name a few!)

Nahhh, let's strip MORE human beings of their dignity and their rights---YAY!!!!!

Annie.......who HATES injustice of ANY kind......

funkyderek

Time and time again I've said this, gays have the same rights to marry as do straights...to marry an adult of the opposite gender.

Yeru, would you be happy living in a country where Catholics were given the same religious rights as Muslims, namely to worship Allah in a mosque?

Yerusalyim

Rem.

So what? Let them sue. If the state feels that polygamy is fine for consenting adults and they have figured out all of the legal aspects, then what is the problem?

So why doesn't this work for gay marriage. The State of California already decided that gay marriage was a NO GO, yet here's the Mayor of SF along with a few activist judges ignoring the State. Kind of a double standard, no?

Funk,

I've actually been in countries where only Muslims are allowed to worship in public. Here's the problem, freedom of worship IS a right, the freedom to marry isn't. You can LIVE with anyone you want..., it's the STATE SANCTION of marriage that is at issue. And even worship can be restricted to some degree. If your cult calls for human sacrafice, it's a no go.

Valis

do not try to pull the wool over my eyes into knowing what the word marriage has meant for 1000's of years

words change according to the times in which they are used. I think it is simply a matter of the same old egoism that plagues all religions to say marriage should only be based on the biblical interpretation of a word. The very same thing we have tried to get the WTBTS to see for years now. The way you use words often times will be a direct reflection of how you treat others. In this context gay people lose out on the very real social value that marriage bonds create, just because people put thier personal morals ahead of changing social ethics.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

Why does it have to be gay "marriage?"

Share this