Gay marriage soapbox

scardeal wrote: ..Why do you care that the government recognizes your union or not?...

If you could attain the same thing without it, then yes no one should care, but that is not the case.

from: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

Differences between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships):

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

JohnInKansas wrote: Alternatively, if they wanted to eliminate the government benefits to married heterosexuals rather than legalizing gay marriage, it would provide equal rights and take care of the issue, in my mind.

So if you were in an accident and needed medical decisions made, you'd be ok that they took away the right of your spouse to do so, just so that homosexuals won't have that right, too?

rotard wrote: Where are the hot redheads?

Here's one hot blonde that fits well with the thread.

Chris_V wrote:

JohnInKansas wrote: Alternatively, if they wanted to eliminate the government benefits to married heterosexuals rather than legalizing gay marriage, it would provide equal rights and take care of the issue, in my mind.

So if you were in an accident and needed medical decisions made, you'd be ok that they took away the right of your spouse to do so, just so that homosexuals won't have that right, too?

No, I wouldn't. But if no one had that right, no one would complain that they weren't treated equally (and really, that's the heart of the issue, isn't it?).

I'm for allowing gay marriage with the same rights as any other married couple.

Chris_V wrote: Did you simply skim over that part of the debate, too?

I didn't read the whole thread, so... probably. Plus, I'm trying to not be too distracted from my work.

The default thinking of my questioning is simply this: "Only introduce government control/action when necessary for the common good." For these purposes, I'm assuming the common good is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And those goods are ordered as written. You need to have life before you can have liberty, and liberty before you can pursue happiness.

Exactly. And stop spending negative energy on those who are doing absolutely no harm to others and just want to take care of each other. Why on earth would any form of organized belief be against that?

Lesley wrote: Exactly. And stop spending negative energy on those who are doing absolutely no harm to others and just want to take care of each other. Why on earth would any form of organized belief be against that?

AMEN!

scardeal wrote: The default thinking of my questioning is simply this: "Only introduce government control/action when necessary for the common good." For these purposes, I'm assuming the common good is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And those goods are ordered as written. You need to have life before you can have liberty, and liberty before you can pursue happiness.

Yes those are the rights and are ordered as written. Your right to your life supersedes my right to liberty which supersedes someone else's right to pursue happiness. That does not dictate that I must create life.

The government does not need to take action only to promote the "common" good. The government exists to protect individual rights. Protecting the rights of the individual, even when they are unpopular with the majority, promotes the common good. When an individual's rights are being violated or protection is being extended unequally, it is the duty of the government to correct that.

Gay marriage does not violate anyone else's rights. It only goes against what is popular.

Lesley wrote: Exactly. And stop spending negative energy on those who are doing absolutely no harm to others and just want to take care of each other. Why on earth would any form of organized belief be against that?

I don't follow. My statements and questions have been based upon the philosophical idea of the common good ("life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"), the social science conclusion that intact families produce better citizens, and the biological fact that humanity naturally propagates via heterosexual intercourse.

Salanis, you are spot on.

No, your statements and questions have been based on your idea of the common good.

My idea of the common good is to respect what other people's ideas of what happiness is, unless it infringes on my ability to be happy.

scardeal wrote: I don't follow. My statements and questions have been based upon the philosophical idea of the common good ("life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"), the social science conclusion that intact families produce better citizens, and the biological fact that humanity naturally propagates via heterosexual intercourse.

This country is primarily about the protection of individual liberty. The common good occurs as a result of that protection.

We have the freedom to each decide for ourselves what "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means to us individually. You are free in our society to decide that means procreating within the institution of marriage. My definition is to drive fast cars and then sit on the couch and enjoy a good beer with my girlfriend. These two are not at odds with each other.

Homosexuals want the same opportunities to pursue happiness that heterosexuals now have. Gay marriage marriage does not limit your ability or anyone else's to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, however you define those things.

Osterkraut wrote: I'm opposed to government recognition of gay marriage. I'm opposed to government recognition of all marriage, actually. Because it's an inherently religious institution, the government shouldn't be using it as a metric at all. Everyone should have to legally have a civil union. If you want to call it marriage that's fine, but when you do your taxes it's "Civil Union, filing jointly." I also don't have a problem with churches being unwilling to marry gays. It's their field, they can control who gets the ball. Churches should pay taxes, though.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD. I could not put my own position more succinctly.

scardeal wrote: ...My statements and questions have been based upon the philosophical idea of the common good ("life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"), the social science conclusion that intact families produce better citizens, and the biological fact that humanity naturally propagates via heterosexual intercourse.

Exactly. So an marriage (including gay) is for the common good. If the couple are unable, for whatever reason, are not able to propagates via heterosexual intercourse, then they can use other medical means.

"Sounds" like you either support gay marriage or do not support people getting married who cannot biologically reproduce naturally.

Maybe government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

DaveEstey wrote: Maybe government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

I think it should protect the desires of people to live their lives as a unit. It protects the rights of people to form business partnerships, social ones seem even more appropriate to protect.

DaveEstey wrote: Maybe government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

Again, there are rights to the spouse that are contractual that the government guarantees, and are necessary for many reasons, such as the medical choices I mentioned before. These are rights that promote the common good and the general welfare of the populace, which is why they are "in the marriage business." It is a legally binding contract, and the government oversees and guarantees laws pertaining to legally binding contracts.

What they are NOT in the business of is... Holy Matrimony. THAT'S the religious side of it. For those so inclined. I'm not religious. I'm married. To a wife who cannot reproduce (thus apparently I should not be married to her according to some here )

Tell me then, how is the government protecting the rights or normal people to get married? If government wasn't involved with marriage then people could marry whomever they want.

Salanis wrote: Here is why our nation should offer the protections of marriage in general and legalize homosexual marriage in particular: Our nation was founded on the notion that all people are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our government exists, above all else, to protect these rights. An individual's inherent rights are only limited by the point at which they infringe upon the equal or greater right of another. The rights of the individual override the desire or preferences of society. The institution of marriage offers protection for two people to pursue happiness together as a married unit. That happiness may be monetary, social, sexual, or procreative. The government does not get to dictate what form anyone's pursuit of happiness takes until it infringes upon the rights of another. Homosexual marriage would not limit the rights of anyone else and therefore our government has no reason to not extend equal protection to any pair. It should extend equal protection to pursue happiness as a couple to people of any sex.

Ed-Zachary. If I'm not infringing upon YOUR rights to life, liberty, and property, then it's none of the gov'ts business what I'm doing. Problem is, according to scardeal, if what I'm doing doesn't "contribute to the common good," the gov't should stop me from doing that thing. Do I understand that correctly?

If that's your (scardeal) understanding of government's function in our country, there's really no point in trying to have a rational discussion.

As far as I can tell, all marriages are same sex…you get married and then it’s the same sex over and over.

Seriously though, despite being a pretty hard core conservative that is married with children, it would be fundamentally impossible for me to care less if gays marry.

Who the hell am I to tell gays what they can and can’t do…I so don’t get how this “controversy” got any traction to begin with.

Meh

Wouldn't most gay couples be DINKS, then? Wouldn't there be tax penalties for such a thing? hmmmm

OK, normally I don't get involved in discussions like this, but, wow, just wow. There is so much information in this that's wrong it is staggering.

To the original point, I like Curtis's argument. I have no issues at all with gay marriage. They are not interferring with anything I do, so I do not care. I've had numerous friends in college that were gay, and it would be wrong to deny them benefits simply because of their orientation. I also know of no one that hates gays personally, and know no one that wants to ban their rights. That's not to say they all agree though. I also believe that this is something many were born with, and not a choice as many would lead you to believe, although I do agree it is with some that think it's cool, etc.

However, I also believe that a church can deny them any benefit they deem to go against their core beliefs. You have a right to not follow any church and can quit at any time should you want to. You are also free to join any church should you meet their requirements. In many ways it is not unlike a club in that you have requirements to meet.

Just like people, churches have rights, and the problem lately is that these rights are being infringed upon. And unlike as stated earlier, the reason for our country is that our founders wanted a place to practice their religion without it being limited or dictated upon them, ie Church of England.. That's overly simplified of course.

The separation of church and state had to with the church not ruling the state, or if you like, there not being a state religion. It has nothing to do with our founders not being Christians. On the contrary, it has to do with them wanting to practice the way they saw fit. They were against large, organized religion. I believe they would have a real issue where religion has gotten to today in this country. And yes, I believe that there are churches that are way out of line in what they are practicing, and how they infringe upon others. Keep in mind that these practices are not Biblical.

Also contrary to what was said earlier, the Bible is nothing at all like Sharia Law. I hope they were kidding. If not, do a little reading and get back to me. Nowhere in the Bible does it give punishments on Earth for not obeying laws. You are free to practice them anyway you see fit. Judgement comes later where you will answer for your sins. Either this is real, or it's not, but nothing in this life prevents you from doing what you like. Under Sharia Law, not so much. Depending on what you do, it means a death sentence, loss of limbs, and more for crimes that are not recogonized in the US, such as preaching Christianity. If anyone tells you this is true also in the Bible, it is an outright lie.

No one running for office this year wants a theocracy. They may give their views, but if you really listen, this is all smoke and mirrors. I would rather hear their views and decide if I like them or not, but in the end, we have a Constitution that protects us. If we require OUR politicians and judges to actually follow the laws we have, this is a moot point. But starting under Bush and continuing with Obama, we are flushing our rights down the toilet at an alarming rate.

So back to the point, do I think gays will ever have the same rights? Yes. Remember the idea is still relatively new in this country. Look how long it took to get women's rights and how long civil rights took, not only written into law, but accepted. It takes time for a society to change attitudes. But I never want to see the day where churches are required to marry them. That's a different argument all together.

racerdave600 wrote: So back to the point, do I think gays will ever have the same rights? Yes. Remember the idea is still relatively new in this country. Look how long it took to get women's rights and how long civil rights took, not only written into law, but accepted. It takes time for a society to change attitudes. But I never want to see the day where churches are required to marry them. That's a different argument all together.

I don't think anyone here believes that churches should be required to marry people whose union they do not agree with.

The most I have seen anyone suggest on that point is that organizations should not be allowed to deny people employment (for lay positions, I presume) on the grounds of sexual orientation. It would be like a vegetarian restaurant refusing to hire servers who liked to eat meat when they're at home.

Salanis wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: So back to the point, do I think gays will ever have the same rights? Yes. Remember the idea is still relatively new in this country. Look how long it took to get women's rights and how long civil rights took, not only written into law, but accepted. It takes time for a society to change attitudes. But I never want to see the day where churches are required to marry them. That's a different argument all together.

I don't think anyone here believes that churches should be required to marry people whose union they do not agree with. The most I have seen anyone suggest on that point is that organizations should not be allowed to deny people employment (for lay positions, I presume) on the grounds of sexual orientation. It would be like a vegetarian restaurant refusing to hire servers who liked to eat meat when they're at home.

Yup. BTW, please find the phrase "church and state" in the constitution, and I'll eat my hat.

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

so no hat eating required