Same Sex Marriage

[asmartbull]

I'm for it too and because i don't understand the "no" vote i would like to see someone post their views from that side.

Here in the US, marriage is left to the states, it is no business of the Fed gov.

So says the constitution.

Additionally, I believe marriage is a religious event and no gov should have any say in the matter.

As far as individual rights are concerned, I can draft a legal doc which actually give the same rights except for the right that concerns testifying against another in a legal matter....and this to can be solved.

Frankly, the Gov looks at this largely as and property rights issue.

Most religious folk are actually more concerned about the ability to adopt children.

If one uses the equal protection clause and the laws of reciprocity to argue their case they better be prepared for the next suit, which will allowing all Americans to open carry. You can't have it both ways.

The numbers in the US are also misleading......actual *** Americans that want this is equal about about 1.4 percent.....

If this is truly what people want, they should change the constitution.

Again, just one persons option. ...

[Ken Gargett]

Here in the US, marriage is left to the states, it is no business of the Fed gov.

So says the constitution.

Additionally, I believe marriage is a religious event and no gov should have any say in the matter.

As far as individual rights are concerned, I can draft a legal doc which actually give the same rights except for the right that concerns testifying against another in a legal matter....and this to can be solved.

Frankly, the Gov looks at this largely as and property rights issue.

Most religious folk are actually more concerned about the ability to adopt children.

If one uses the equal protection clause and the laws of reciprocity to argue their case they better be prepared for the next suit, which will allowing all Americans to open carry. You can't have it both ways.

The numbers in the US are also misleading......actual *** Americans that want this is equal about about 1.4 percent.....

If this is truly what people want, they should change the constitution.

Again, just one persons option. ...

this i will take some strong objection to. "marriage is a religious event". holy crap (about as religious as i get). should i ever choose to get married, i can promise you that religion will have absolutely nothing to do with (or as little as i can legally get away with - which i guess would make it a governmental issue anyway - before, during and after). it could not be more irrelevant in this (and you'll probably gather i think it should be irrelevant in an awful lot more as well).

this bit, i'm sorry but i don't follow - If one uses the equal protection clause and the laws of reciprocity to argue their case they better be prepared for the next suit, which will allowing all Americans to open carry.???

as for the adoption bit, well, given that there are hundreds of thousands of parents who seem determined to prove, every day, they are incapable of doing it properly then i hardly think that should be the leading criteria. surely it should be down to who can offer the child the best home, whether ***, straight or even single?

i'm also a bit lost with the 1.4%. 1.4% of gays or all americans? i assume all americans.

given i reckon you'd find 99% of ***/lesbians to be in favour, does this mean that the ***/lesbian population in the states is only about 1.4%? it might be - i have no idea - but it seems small. but even so, i'd argue that such a figure is irrelevant. it is a matter affecting society and as such, surely everyone is entitled to an opinion (democracy?). it may be the overall vote would be against (i'd lose no sleep, but i think it would be an unfortunate decision) and if so, fair enough.

as for the religious aspect, given the monumental disaster the myths, imaginings and hypocrisy of religion has made of pretty much everything it has touched throughout history, the less it has to do with marriage the better.

and before i get howled down by people saying i should not say anything that might offend the religious, take a moment to think how those of us who have it shoved down our throats endlessly and then told we must not say anything in response, feel. something about 'works both ways', never really does seem to work both ways with religion.

[DrunkenMonkey]

I believe marriage is a religious event...

So when people who aren't religious get married, do you believe that is a religious event? Or are you saying you'd also like to disallow non-religious people from being allowed to be married? Because my wife will be disappointed. Well, at least I hope she will.

[Warren]

I think I am evolving as I get older. When I was younger I think I could have been categorized as very anti ***. The funny thing about us humans is we tent to make judgments based on very little evidence or information. The fact is that when I was younger I don't think I knew any *** people. Since those days I have met some lovely people who just happen to love differently to the way I do.

I found them to be funny, caring, and complex people. There will be a lot of people out there who will think that this is some kind of slide into depravity, an end to life as we know it.

I think that after a while these same people will see that the world didn't end. I'll bet they don't even notice the difference.

The only difference will be perhaps that a few more people find happiness.

Isn't it a good thing that in this time in history when there is so much to fear that we can look forward to a little happiness?

[Warren]

So when people who aren't religious get married, do you believe that is a religious event? Or are you saying you'd also like to disallow non-religious people from being allowed to be married? Because my wife will be disappointed. Well, at least I hope she will.

When I got married I forgot to send God an invitation.

Do you think he would have given us a good wedding present?

Oh bugger, I'll never know.

[pbibby]

I'm only 25 and my views have changed a ton on this matter. I used to be very against the *** rights movement, never a homophobe, but just didn't want to see it. Now I consider myself pro-*** rights because I've become more libertarian. I'm also very religious, but I have come to realize that just because someone else is married (in terms of being recognized by the state and such) it literally does not affect my marriage at all. In my opinion, even if I didn't get a marriage license or anything else from the state to "validate" my (state) marriage, I would still be married in the eyes of myself, my wife and my God. Long story short, I think that the government has no business in the marriage business (*** or straight).

[asmartbull]

Bolivr wanted an example of the arguments of the other side and I was happy to oblige.

Religion aside, the Feds do not have the power to pass this law constitutionality. Don't like it, change the constitution.

My numbers are 100% accurate. ..regardless of how the media portrays it.

IMHO, no gov agency should have say in this matter, but then you have to leave it open to polygamy, as the justification for one works the same with the other.

As far as adoption, the solution is to fix the problem. One persons rights ends when it effect an other, and there is no doubt that children do better with a man and woman.

....aadditionally, the divorce rate is higher in same sex marriages than heterosexual marriages......a additionally this is really smoke, as the constitution trumps all.

The fact of the matter is that states also had a chance to address this issue and rejected it in large numbers......aadditionally, because one is against *** marriage, it doesn't mean one is against gays.

I consider myself a conservative libertarian. ...I don't really care what consenting adults do....3 spouses, 4 spouses, a rock..don't care, but I do see the breakdown of the family unit as a major contributer to the breakdown of society. ...

[Colt45]

this i will take some strong objection to. "marriage is a religious event".

KG, in some religions, matrimony is a sacrament of the church. Getting married by a justice of the peace, at town hall, etc would be considered a civil service

[Ken Gargett]

KG, in some religions, matrimony is a sacrament of the church. Getting married by a justice of the peace, at town hall, etc would be considered a civil service

but still a marriage.

ever heard anyone say that they had been 'civil serviced'?

but i understand your point. red rag and all...

[Ken Gargett]

Bolivr wanted an example of the arguments of the other side and I was happy to oblige.

Religion aside, the Feds do not have the power to pass this law constitutionality. Don't like it, change the constitution.

My numbers are 100% accurate. ..regardless of how the media portrays it.

IMHO, no gov agency should have say in this matter, but then you have to leave it open to polygamy, as the justification for one works the same with the other.

As far as adoption, the solution is to fix the problem. One persons rights ends when it effect an other, and there is no doubt that children do better with a man and woman.

....aadditionally, the divorce rate is higher in same sex marriages than heterosexual marriages......a additionally this is really smoke, as the constitution trumps all.

The fact of the matter is that states also had a chance to address this issue and rejected it in large numbers......aadditionally, because one is against *** marriage, it doesn't mean one is against gays.

I consider myself a conservative libertarian. ...I don't really care what consenting adults do....3 spouses, 4 spouses, a rock..don't care, but I do see the breakdown of the family unit as a major contributer to the breakdown of society. ...

wasn't suggesting you or anyone else was anti-***.

re the adoption, i suspect that in a perfect world, you are absolutely correct re male/female parents. but that said, sadly, very far from a perfect world. i know *** couples who would be infinitely better parents than 1,000s of straight parents. for me, interests of the child paramount. so you go with the best option for the kid, no matter what they are.

no argument re the government. i'm all for keeping the government out of as much as we possible can. i'm even more in favour of keeping religion out of everything we can but i understand that there'll be people who disagree on both counts.

the thing i am genuinely fascinated by are the numbers. i have absolutely no idea of what they should be and not disputing you are correct. but if you are then that is quite extraordinary. as i mentioned above (and i am assuming your 1.4% is of the american population), i would think that probably 99% of ***/lesbians are in favour of same sex marriage. even if it is only 90%, that still means that only 1.3 to 1.4% of the population is *** or lesbian. not disputing that as i have absolutely no idea but it seems extremely low to me.

[asmartbull]

Not blaming anyone and sorry if it came across as such....I believe children do better with a man and a woman. ..that is all

[finecigar]

Not blaming anyone and sorry if it came across as such....I believe children do better with a man and a woman. ..that is all

Well I believe children do better with loving parents who provide essential needs of shelter, food, safety, compassion, etc... This could be with two men, two women, a man and a women, and all the other combinations. I know plenty of *** couples who've raised wonderful children... I know we all have different opinions but I can't quite understand how you can devalue the quality of parenting *** couples can offer. We are not ruining the "home" values. I dream of the day my partner and I will get married, adopt a child and give them a beautiful life.

[DrunkenMonkey]

Not blaming anyone and sorry if it came across as such....I believe children do better with a man and a woman. ..that is all

It's ok to disagree, no problem, but I know some *** couples who are fantastic parents. It's amazing to me that anyone would presume to tell them that their family unit was inferior.

[earthson]

Maybe the religious types who claim *** marriage negatively affects their marriage are just jealous that others are finally getting to do what they themselves secretly wanted to do all along???

[Rushman]

I'm married. Hell I've been married twice. I can't possibly see how two people sharing the same type of genitals getting married would impact my life in the slightest. If it makes them happy have at it. As for adoption, last time I checked there were many times the number of adoptable children than the number of suitable parents. I'd vote in favor of a license to have children before I'd ever vote against *** marriage. As for the quoted 14% of gays in favor of this???? Doubt it. But the perfect part is passing the law doesn't force *** couples to marry any more than straight couples are forced to marry.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cigcars]

*In a slight departure from the "religious" or "government legal or illegality" concerning this topic; if you'll notice, the main individuals who make the most noise and condemnation of *** people - are the *** people who've attained high political or religious office who are pretending not to be ***. I think it's safe to say that most of the rest of us don't care. I know I don't run around concerning myself about what other people are doing with their bodily nether regions. And if I am then it means there are certain "issues" going on with ME! And it's the same thing when it came to the advent of illegality of mixed race sexual interaction. Everybody primarily points to the old days United States, but let's not leave out South Africa too. The "laws were on the books" banning racial sexual interaction, yet the hand full of White settlers in South Africa engaged in so much sexual interaction with the natives that whole tribes of mixed race persons appeared; the Griquas, the Bastaards, the Rehoboths, and the most notable ones, the Hottentots with frizzly haired ruddy complexions chiefs with names like Adam Kok and Waterboer. Despite how much we may disagree with certain discriminatory and unfair laws affecting anyone from Gays to Minorities, what I personally find MORE despicable are the ones who pen the laws and are deliberately and intentionally violating their own laws regularly - and thinking that they're safely hidden from everybody's view. As always, "the truth will out". My humble 2 cents.

[perkinke]

"Here in the US, marriage is left to the states, it is no business of the Fed gov.

So says the constitution.

Additionally, I believe marriage is a religious event and no gov should have any say in the matter."

These two arguments are entirely unfounded. The Constitution says NOTHING about marriage, what it does say is that every citizen is guaranteed equal rights under the law.

The second belief that marriage is a solely religious function is historically false as well. Marriages have been used to cement political alliances for all of recorded history. They have also been used as economic vehicles to merge estates and ensure inheritances.

That last is the crux of the equal protection argument: legal spouses have non-religious benefits conferred on them such as being the default beneficiary for death benefits and the right to make decisions for the health of the other spouse in the event they are rendered incapacitated or incompetent to make their own decisions. If hetero spouses had none of these automatic rights, as well as the perceived social status of a marriage their would be no issue.

[Ken Gargett]

I'm married. Hell I've been married twice. I can't possibly see how two people sharing the same type of genitals getting married would impact my life in the slightest. If it makes them happy have at it. As for adoption, last time I checked there were many times the number of adoptable children than the number of suitable parents. I'd vote in favor of a license to have children before I'd ever vote against *** marriage. As for the quoted 14% of gays in favor of this???? Doubt it. But the perfect part is passing the law doesn't force *** couples to marry any more than straight couples are forced to marry.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

i'm still trying to work out these figures.

our friend quoted 1.4% not 14%. but i can't get an answer as to whether this is 1.4% of gays or 1.4% of americans. one surely has to assume it is americans and not gays. or was it a misprint and our friend did mean 14% but then again, of what?

i have no idea as to whether that is the correct figure but i would like to know which and also where the figure is from.

bull, this is not about blaming anyone. i'm just keen to find out.

[asmartbull]

Constitution 101...any powers not expressly given to the feds is a state issue. No judge will disagree. Folks are using equal protection to challenge it....as far as the 1.4 I will site the source when I get home....remember it is the national average. ...

[DrunkenMonkey]

Cite the source, yes, but also tell us what it is you're saying. It was really not clear at all.

[tmac77]

I know a number of older generation *** people that have lived in misery for a long time. Being afraid to be openly *** and in some cases even under the threat of going to jail. Some of them, to this day, are still caught up in the old ways and will deny being *** for fear of being shunned. Good on the Irish for coming out, so to speak, in support of this.

[perkinke]

Constitution 101...any powers not expressly given to the feds is a state issue. No judge will disagree. Folks are using equal protection to challenge it....as far as the 1.4 I will site the source when I get home....remember it is the national average. ...

it is nowhere near that clear. Nowhere does the constitution say the Feds can regulate pharmaceuticals, but they do (commerce clause); nowhere does it say that it can regulate education but they do under the equal protection amendments. Constitutional law is not as simple as most pundits want to make it, the document itself was never meant to be interpreted literally or there would not have needed to be a bill of rights or a process to amend it.

[SparklePony]

As someone who's been married to another man for seven years (we still call ourselves *** married for kicks) I can assure you that *** marriage is much like heterosexual marriage. I have to hide the extent of my my purchases from this site. I have to deal with "not tonight, I have a headache." I have to pretend to like my mother-in-law. Yay, Ireland! Spread the misery, I say.

[Ken Gargett]

just saw an aussie politician declaring he'd solved the problem to the satisfaction of both sides and that everyone will now live happily ever after.

he wants to create a new category of 'life partners'. you get a ceremony and presumably a nice certificate and your family and friends can attend and be happy for you.

in fairness, no point blaming these idiots. we elected them.

[pbibby]

in fairness, no point blaming these idiots. we elected them.

I try to remind myself this on a daily basis....... Haha