Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one. You have to earn/work for it. Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Karon wrote:I'd like for everyone to realize that the Bible and the Catholic Church are very, very different things.

Eh? In the area around gay marriage? The Bible specifically instructs gay people to be stoned to death. If anything the Catholic Church is a liberal rainbow-loving hippie compared to the specifics of some areas in the bible.

It goes back to the Protestant Revolution with John Locke and Martin Luther where this was revealed.

I do plan to read the bible one day to see this for myself.

Go for it. No offence, but that might mean you know what you are talking about next time you speak up about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

I believe there is a rational opposition, but this pertains as to whether or not Same-sex families are a healthy environment for children to be raised in and whether they should be allowed to have children (and my knowledge regarding this area is very limited so I can't cast an opinion either way). I don't see any real rational reasons to prevent same-sex marriages though.

I wasn't aware of that, and my comment wasn't aimed at the topic at hand.

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one. You have to earn/work for it. Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

Actually the right to marry is listed as a basic human right in UN charter and american courts have previously ruled that couples cannot be prevented from marrying due to race, ethnicity, religion etc. So yes you do have a right to marriage

youbedead wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one. You have to earn/work for it. Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

Actually the right to marry is listed as a basic human right in UN charter and american courts have previously ruled that couples cannot be prevented from marrying due to race, ethnicity, religion etc. So yes you do have a right to marriage

States aren't subject to the UN charter. If they were, this wouldn't be an issue.

Stormrider wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one. You have to earn/work for it. Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

Actually the right to marry is listed as a basic human right in UN charter and american courts have previously ruled that couples cannot be prevented from marrying due to race, ethnicity, religion etc. So yes you do have a right to marriage

States aren't subject to the UN charter. If they were, this wouldn't be an issue.

No but they under the authority of the US government which follows UN charter. States are also subject to the rulings of the SCOTUS thats why interracial couples are allowed now. Further more this

t will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

is not how the system works and it never has.If something is in violation of the Constitution it is not up to the majority to change it it is the duty of the supreme court. Or do you believe that states where the majority of people are opposed to guns should abolish them

Because Lady Gaga isn't president

I've started wearing a "Support Gay Marriage" button to work. It annoys me that I can hear old women talking crap about gays being immoral and I'm not allowed to say anything about it because I might offend a customer (and yes, this has happened). I figure they can deal with it and complain if they have the balls, the crusty broads. I've even had a few say things to my face in idle chit chat, yet seem completely unaware that they're saying it to a guy in eyeliner with a rainbow belt.

The irony is prop 8 passed by selling it's self as protecting the separation of church and state.

The thing people need to realize is either stance on gay marriage can be sold as protecting the separation of church and state.

It's easy to convince people preventing gay marriage is a clear attack on the separation of church and state by the church forcing it's moral views upon the state. That one is a really easy sell to a rational human being.

It's easy to convince people that allowing gay marriage is a clear attack on the separation of church and state by the state dictating what does and doesn't constitute a marriage, and that the state might punish churches that don't recognize a marriage that the state recognizes. It's really easy to convince the anti gay marriage crowd that once gay marriage passes their priests/pastors will be forced by the government to marry gays inside their church by state anti-discrimination laws. It's telling the anti gay marriage crowd what they want to believe anyways.

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one.

sbuh?

If a straight couple wants to get married they can. They don't have to earn anything, they can just do it. If a gay couple wants to get married they apparently need to 'earn' it by getting half the population of their state to support it.

Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

That would be true if the US was a pure democracy. It isn't. It's a liberal democracy that recognises certain rights exist beyond the willingness of the mob to grant them.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Gay marriage is illegal? Where?

Do you go to jail for it?

Zimbabwe. You get hanged for it.

Not for getting married you don't. Zimbabwe has a lot of other problems to deal with before they start talking about gay marriage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/28/zimbabwe-gay-rights-workers-released-torture

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/africa/27zimbabwe.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/201007310173.html

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/18/Zimbabwe_President_Mugabe_No_to_Gay_Rights/

To the christian church I believe it is HERESY!!!! (blasphemy actually but yeah)

Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

As Robin Williams says (NSFW): at 1:58min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M1XVE9W67g

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

AvatarForm wrote:Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

As Robin Williams says (NSFW): at 1:58min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M1XVE9W67g

The benefits are very similar, but it's not really the same thing here.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

I believe the argument goes along the lines of the problems regarding the inherent self-destructiveness that such a society would experience.

Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Neither do religions... since when has a faith had legal say-so over the rights of individuals or businesses?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I believe the argument goes along the lines of the problems regarding the inherent self-destructiveness that such a society would experience.

Which is really nothing but unproven speculation and fear-mongering. Not exactly rational.

Melissia wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I believe the argument goes along the lines of the problems regarding the inherent self-destructiveness that such a society would experience.

Which is really nothing but unproven speculation and fear-mongering. Not exactly rational.

I was talking about the distribution of Child Pornography.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I believe the argument goes along the lines of the problems regarding the inherent self-destructiveness that such a society would experience.

Which is really nothing but unproven speculation and fear-mongering. Not exactly rational.

I was talking about the distribution of Child Pornography.

Thereby demonstrating the problem.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

I believe there is a rational opposition, but this pertains as to whether or not Same-sex families are a healthy environment for children to be raised in and whether they should be allowed to have children (and my knowledge regarding this area is very limited so I can't cast an opinion either way). I don't see any real rational reasons to prevent same-sex marriages though.

Research shows the healthiest households for children are lesbian households.

My bad, I was still talking about gay marriage, which I assumed this thread was about.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Bigamy should be allowed., Child porn... that endangers the child. I think it's a pretty clear (and rational) cut step to say child porn is bad and hurts the child.... there fore should be illegal.

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Bigamy should be allowed., Child porn... that endangers the child. I think it's a pretty clear (and rational) cut step to say child porn is bad and hurts the child.... there fore should be illegal.

No joke. At the very least there is measurable psychological trauma for the child.

AvatarForm wrote:Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

Who decides what is and isn't "a relationship"? Some relationships are more serious than others, what's the criteria? Where's the burden of proof? I assume two blokes sharing a flat for a year or so won't find that one guy is entitled to keep half the stuff when the other moves out.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

Who decides what is and isn't "a relationship"? Some relationships are more serious than others, what's the criteria? Where's the burden of proof? I assume two blokes sharing a flat for a year or so won't find that one guy is entitled to keep half the stuff when the other moves out.

US case law disagrees with you depending on the facts. Be careful what you wish for dudes, you might get it.

Half your stuff..gone!

That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

That's why the idea of heterosexual "marriage in all but name" is rather silly.

The only reason for having two different classes of marriage would be if the obligations on the contracting persons are different.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Bigamy should be allowed., Child porn... that endangers the child. I think it's a pretty clear (and rational) cut step to say child porn is bad and hurts the child.... there fore should be illegal.

No joke. At the very least there is measurable psychological trauma for the child.

....How in the hell is child porn/pedo -actions ( in which "half" of the individules involved in the "relationship" aren't mentally evolved enough to even begin to comprehend /comtemplate a "sexual relationship") in anyway be compared to a relationship between two (or more) consenting individuals?

Both are frowned upon by the invisible man, so they must be the same...

Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

That's why the idea of heterosexual "marriage in all but name" is rather silly.

The only reason for having two different classes of marriage would be if the obligations on the contracting persons are different.

Oh its even murkier KK. There's caselaw supporting "reallocation of assets" including alimony type payments for couples where marriage is not even an issue (thanks California...)