[Mars]

I don't know enough about taxes really, and I'm sorry I brought that up. But I don't think it makes sense to pay people just for being together, especially when they can just get divorced at a moment's notice. That would apply to all couples.

Fair enough!

But I do think that calling it "marriage" is a deliberate act of aggression against anyone who believes differently. And heterosexual people do not have the right to marry anyone they choose either, so calling for "equal rights" is also a deliberate twisting of language that I cannot stand. If they had instead claimed that all people ought to be allowed to marry whomever they chose, they might have had better success.

Burden of proof is on you. Why do you think calling it marriage is an act of aggression. How do they currently have equal rights in terms of marriage. They DO claim, generally that people ought to be allowed to marry whomever they choose but understandably their argument mainly centers around same sex couples, because they are same sex couples.

This is what I think. It might be confusing that I started with what people should be up in arms about, instead of religious prejudices.

The way you put it and the argument you made were rather provocative shall we say.

[Qent]

If a white wanted to marry a black then that's cool. Whites have money and can make stuff happen. If a black wanted to marry a white then no go.

To be honest I don't know, and I thought you were referring to 19th century US. But educate me: how is allowing a man and a woman with different skin colors to marry the same as letting two men marry?

Burden of proof is on you. Why do you think calling it marriage is an act of aggression.

I'm not taking anyone to court over it, but that's what it seemed like, and that does influence my decision.

How do they currently have equal rights in terms of marriage. They DO claim, generally that people ought to be allowed to marry whomever they choose but understandably their argument mainly centers around same sex couples, because they are same sex couples.

Their catch phrase is "Equal rights for all," suggesting that heterosexuals can marry whomever they please, but homosexuals cannot.

This is what I think. It might be confusing that I started with what people should be up in arms about, instead of religious prejudices.

The way you put it and the argument you made were rather provocative shall we say.

Yeah, I'm sorry -- I get annoyed when it's implied that I think my religion ought to be forced on anyone.

[Mars]

If a white wanted to marry a black then that's cool. Whites have money and can make stuff happen. If a black wanted to marry a white then no go.

To be honest I don't know, and I thought you were referring to 19th century US. But educate me: how is allowing a man and a woman with different skin colors to marry the same as letting two men marry?

Because skin color is just as relevent as gender in that decision, unless you have an argument why it shouldn't be? Please address my response to your post, unless your goal is to troll.

[MP-Ryan]

You all do realize that the term marriage predates modern religion and in fact was not a religious ceremony originally, right?  Getting annoyed because same-sex couples want to use a term that actually applies to the situation they want to enter is quite ironic.

Marriage was primarily a transfer of property rights through union of families prior to religion getting a hold on the gig.  Marriage benefits were also not originally intended to raise the birth rate - that's a very modern policy goal that never required incentive in the past.  Furthermore, allowing same-sex couples to have a marriage is likely to accomplish that policy goal - women in same-sex couples are still biologically able (and it seems quite willing, from anecdotal evidence) to have children, while same-sex male couples readily adopt children if that is their desire.  In fact, one might argue that same-sex couples may even make better parents because they have to jump through so many hoops to even become parents - it's a very conscious decision.

Just because Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the rest recognize marriage does not mean they have a monopoly on the term.  What same sex couples want is what heterosexual couples have.  There is no reason to call it anything different, other than religious people thinking they have a monopoly on a term that predates their belief systems.

So no, calling a union between two people of the same sex (or gender, they're different things) a marriage is not an act of aggression, it's an act of clarification.  They have just as much right to call it a marriage as anyone else... and frankly, any heterosexual who believes their marriage is threatened by a same sex couple calling their union a marriage has bigger issues to begin with.  How does it affect you in any way, shape, or form?

[Nuke]

i should point out that homosexual couples often adopt children who would have otherwise been raised by state institutions (such children rarely become "productive members of society", but children raised by homosextual parents are usually no worse off than those raised by straight couples). way i see it if the state is going to use a religious definition (or rather one religion's definition, there are religions out there that accept gay marriage) for marriage, then it has no place in the state at all. frankly marriage should be between you, your spouse, and your deity(s)/church. if you happen to be of a faith that supports gay marriage then you should be able to get married as per the tennants of your religion. using one religion's definition exclusively is discriminatory to people of other religions. marriage as an institution is bogus, people are going to breed by the simple fact that they have genitals and they want to use them. despite contraceptives there are plenty of unplanned births to keep the population going.

but what it all comes down to is money, nobody really wants to pay benifits to somone's same-sex spouse (because they hadn't had to before and like the status quo), and the irs wants to be able to get as much out of you as possible, so same sex spouses dont get to file jointly. civil unions should be a valid way for people to run a shared resource household. as far as the tax code goes civil unions should replace "marriage", as its about a financial arrangement and has nothing to do with the relationship statuses of those invloved. you have those bringing money in and those adult dependents (and children) that dont make any money, but are still part of the unit. and these arent non-productive members, they clean maintain the propery, raise children, prepare meals, contribute to group morale, etc. tax code should reflect that. as for benifits, well thats a different matter entirely. nobody wants to cough up. pass a law that depmands it and you get outrage from those buisnesses that suddenly are required by law to pay more money.

[Qent]

You all do realize that the term marriage predates modern religion and in fact was not a religious ceremony originally, right?  Getting annoyed because same-sex couples want to use a term that actually applies to the situation they want to enter is quite ironic.

Marriage was primarily a transfer of property rights through union of families prior to religion getting a hold on the gig.  Marriage benefits were also not originally intended to raise the birth rate - that's a very modern policy goal that never required incentive in the past.  Furthermore, allowing same-sex couples to have a marriage is likely to accomplish that policy goal - women in same-sex couples are still biologically able (and it seems quite willing, from anecdotal evidence) to have children, while same-sex male couples readily adopt children if that is their desire.  In fact, one might argue that same-sex couples may even make better parents because they have to jump through so many hoops to even become parents - it's a very conscious decision.

Just because Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the rest recognize marriage does not mean they have a monopoly on the term.  What same sex couples want is what heterosexual couples have.  There is no reason to call it anything different, other than religious people thinking they have a monopoly on a term that predates their belief systems.

So no, calling a union between two people of the same sex (or gender, they're different things) a marriage is not an act of aggression, it's an act of clarification.  They have just as much right to call it a marriage as anyone else... and frankly, any heterosexual who believes their marriage is threatened by a same sex couple calling their union a marriage has bigger issues to begin with.  How does it affect you in any way, shape, or form?

No I didn't.

[MP-Ryan]

No I didn't.

=)

[Qent]

Yeah I probably shouldn't have stepped into this thread. I think it was as a reaction to everyone's implying that anyone who voted yes on Prop 8 did so for religious reasons. So sorry for wasting your time.

[Mars]

IMAGE

The rainbow makes it funny

Yeah I probably shouldn't have stepped into this thread. I think it was as a reaction to everyone's implying that anyone who voted yes on Prop 8 did so for religious reasons. So sorry for wasting your time.

There is virtually no other reason for it. And all of them that I've encountered are misguided.

[MP-Ryan]

The rainbow makes it funny

Am I the only one who remembers those ridiculous "The More You Know" clips on some American TV networks?  I think it was CBS or ABC, but I can't honestly remember.  That's where that picture is from.

[Bobboau]

NBC

[Mongoose]

Heh, yeah, I remember those.  Good times.

I honestly didn't know that little factoid about the term "marriage" predating its religious attachments either.  Even looking beyond gay marriage, I'd always found it strange that government was in the process of certifying "marriages" in general, but if that's the actual original usage, then that shoots down the theoretical idea of applying some other term to everybody.  From a practical standpoint, though, I doubt many people out there are aware of that fact, and even if they were made aware of it, a good number probably wouldn't take it to heart, so we're still stuck in the same unfortunate boat.

[Bobboau]

>>>implying that anyone who voted yes on Prop 8 didn't do so for religious reasons.

ok, start over, try and establish this, keep in mind we will ask the question "and why was that" and if it ends up with either "god said so" or something equivalent to "it just ain't natrul" then you have failed.

BTW the phrase "they want special rights" was _THE_ argument against interracial marriage and the civil rights movement. just in case you were unaware of that.

[Qent]

Heh, no thanks. I just said I shouldn't have posted here in the first place.

[Mars]

So. . . what are some arguments people have heard against it? The only real non-religious one I can think of would be that marriage has no part in the state, has anyone heard any others?

[samiam]

This woman explains the whole situation very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Iq4YD3Trg&feature=BFa&list=PLE764A630E498EB0C&lf=results_video

[NGTM-1R]

erudite post that unfortunately missed the root cause of this

The thing is churches started performing a number of semi-governmental roles around the fall of the Western Roman Empire and continued to do so well into the 19th century. One of them was, in fact, certifying this transfer of property. It's an essential bit of history and why we are where we are; pretending the whole thing is unreasonable/stupid/precedentless doesn't help any more than pretending that denying such rights is just.

[samiam]

What? Is my wife my property? Awesome! Thanks, legal heritage of the Western Roman Empire.

[Mikes]

if people wanna be gay by all means, more chicks for me.

What about the lesbians tho... that can't be good... 

How about proposition 8 and 1/2: Only ugly Lesbians are allowed to marry

[esarai]

In terms of arguments against gay marriage, I've heard a few that hailed to pseudo-science for validity and got smacked in the face with actual science, like the 'kids need a mom and a dad to develop properly' malarky.  There was also the 'same-sex marriage is unnatural, only humans do it' attempt, but that was chopped when scientists discovered female tigers (or other large predatory felines) getting it on.

As it were, I don't think I've heard any secular arguments against same-sex marriage that have been able to stand up to the test of scientific analysis.  They've pretty much all been debunked, and the only arguments left standing are nonsecular ones about 'morals' derived from religious manuscripts, which we shouldn't even be considering in the first place because of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Since the prohibition of same-sex marriage is largely a religious construction, if it is passed without secular purpose, it can be construed as an establishment of a religious doctrine into federal law.  Even if the 1st Amendment can't be called into play thanks to the twisting of words the Supreme Court is so fond of, there's always the 14th to come in and say that a ban on same-sex marriage denies homosexual individuals equal protection under the law.

As I understand it, the whole concept that homosexual marriage is bad stems from a religious background, and so once you remove that as a legitimate excuse to prevent same-sex marriage, all sexual orientations must be respected, else the 1st and 14th were written as jokes.