Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

**Strike For The South** · 10-11-2008, 17:33

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

What is the point of the institution?

**ICantSpellDawg** · 10-11-2008, 17:37

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

What is the point of the institution?

That's a good question. It is to celebrate the unique relationship between one man and one woman. If it no longer does that, it is no longer necessary for the State to be involved at all.

There are always civil unions. I think the way forward is to keep the State out of marriage and just let any two people - be they brother and sister, brother and brother, man and wife, man and other man, girl and girl, friend and friend - join into joint civil responsibility.

Religious institutions do metaphysical recognition much better anyway.

I don't believe in State marriage if it is incapable of its simple and reasonable purpose.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-12-2008, 23:49

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

**m52nickerson** · 10-12-2008, 23:50

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

You missed this last page, the separation is what we have been talking about.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-13-2008, 00:04

Just noticed...

still no arguments why that would be bad though...

**m52nickerson** · 10-13-2008, 00:27

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Just noticed...

still no arguments why that would be bad though...

I don't think it would be, as long as everything was the same for all couples.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-13-2008, 00:35

Of course...

It is rather fun though... because when you really look into this issue, the only conter-argument would be... "but.... but.... it's GAY!!!"

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-13-2008, 01:43

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

Hey Kadagar,

There is ZERO legal discussion of forcing churches to do anything. That is a scare tactic being used by people who oppose gay marriage in the U.S. Churches have not and never will be forced to perform any sort of ceremony they do not feel is in keeping with their beliefs or traditions.

The discussion or rather political controversy over gay marriage in the U.S. is strictly over the legal rights. In the U.S., many rights including shared property, inheritance (i.e. if you die, your wife gets the house, instead of your parents or your brother), medical decisions in the hospital or in case of coma or illness, hospital visitation (many U.S. hospitals only allow legal/blood family to visitation rights, which excludes gay partners) and such. With no form of "formal", legal status for gay couples in at least 48 of the 50 states, (and one of those likely to be overturned in 2 months) all kinds of legal problems arise because for many gay couples one side of the family or the other does not approve of the relationship and causes problems, either overriding the "spouse's" decisions in the hospital, or even making claim on property that was shared between a couple living together when one of them dies. And unless that couple has gone to a lawyer and had things cemented into stone about who owns what and who has medical directives and such, in rather costly and extensive documentation, the spouse has nebulous grounds upon which to challenge any of these things.

The problem in the U.S. is that some people say marriage is RELIGIOUS, and should be protected as only between a man and a woman and sacred. This argument is bunk because the legal rights of marriage under the law have nothing to do with a specific religion or religious viewpoint, or rather, SHOULDN'T according to our Constitution. While other people use a vague argument about how it "threatens the sanctity of marriage" or in some way devalues, attacks, or destroys traditional marriage if gay marriage is allowed. The second group tend to just be prejudiced people who don't want any sort of recognized rights for gay people because they don't "approve" of someone being gay.

That's about it, in a nutshell.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-13-2008, 02:18

Hmm... Geez, I thought western ideals had made more ground than that in the states.

Seriosly, to argue against church marriages for gay couples = fine.

To argue about legal rights for gay couples...???

I just can not see the sence in it, at all.

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-13-2008, 02:24

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Hmm... Geez, I thought western ideals had made more ground than that in the states.

Seriosly, to argue against church marriages for gay couples = fine.

To argue about legal rights for gay couples...???

I just can not see the sence in it, at all.

Well, as you've seen in this thread, some people think it's a mental illness or a sick fettish. That's what we have to deal with over here.

And frankly just a lot of irrational hate and intolerance and people who don't want to see any rights observed for gay people or any..... particularly protections against people discriminating against them or persecuting them in some way. For instance a lot of people in the U.S. oppose gaybashing (physical beating etc.) being classified as a hate crime, and just think it should be prosecuted as any typical assault charge. The problem with that is, that a gay person is exponentially more likely than a straight person to be randomly attacked on the street by crazy people with a lead pipe or baseball bat for no provocation than "just anyone else." So I feel laws need to reflect that it's a special "target" of crime, and discourage it accordingly. But as I said, many disagree.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-13-2008, 02:32

Well, as you've seen in this thread, some people think it's a mental illness or a sick fettish. That's what we have to deal with over here.

They are not very much into science, now are they?

We have those nutjobs in Sweden and Austria too, but they are far away from any political power, as should be.