Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[m52nickerson]

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.

No it would not make the marriage of a man and a woman any less special. A marriage is special becasue of the people in it.

So what is the point of the institution? If it is for children, should we not allow a women who can't have kids not marry, what about a man. Should we not allow couple who do not want children to marry.

If children is not the point what is?

By the way the sanctity of marriage argument has been used before.

[Don Corleone]

I think the whole idea of state sanctioned marriage is wrong and stupid. It was originally designed to protect women from the abuses of men, but those days are long past.

But as long as we keep the legal institution, it's hard to see where the state can deny marriage licenses to gay people, to me at least.

Now, may the gay agenda can move on to forcing all churces to perform gay weddings, whether they like it or not. If they complain, shut 'em down...

[Strike For The South]

Now, may the gay agenda can move on to forcing all churces to perform gay weddings, whether they like it or not. If they complain, shut 'em down...

That I dont agree with. One mans freedom ends where another begins. They church can decline any wedding it does not want to take on. Not to mention most gays are areligious anyway. I dont think that'll be a problem

[ICantSpellDawg]

That I dont agree with. One mans freedom ends where another begins. They church can decline any wedding it does not want to take on. Not to mention most gays are areligious anyway. I dont think that'll be a problem

You don't agree now. I'm sure that, given a few years, you will agree with that too. Most people who identify as homosexuals are not a-religious.

Those cartoons are more true than you know. It is funny that when conservatives say "slippery slope" or that these rulings will lead to new attacks on traditionally understood institutions, we are laughed at. When we recognize that people love pets and some love them too much, we can't point to new Spanish laws that give apes quasi-human rights - or to laws that make reproduction in marriage a nonissue. We are just being bigots. There is no way that man and ape will ever be married because that would be crazy. I'm sure that people used to say that about Gay marriage; "what is the purpose of that?" they'd say. I think that many conservatives have better imaginations than their liberal counterparts. Foresight is a gift when fighting things that you believe serve little purpose other than to take decisions away from the electorate and muddy important waters.

I think that the government should get out of the marriage business to be honest. Civil unions should be open to any two human beings for any reason whatsoever. It's funny. This is yet another position that Alan Dershowitz and myself agree on.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business

By Alan M. Dershowitz

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard University. Link


Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.
The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.


The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.
Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.
Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.
In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.
Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.
Although this proposal may sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally — except for labels — from the situation that exists in many states today. Throughout the United States, couples have the option of being married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and simply signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and being married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.
All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.
Though some traditionalists would be certain to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples should be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.
So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.

I like this idea because it doesn't acknowledge sexual relationships - only that there is some sort of relationship. This would open civil unions up to single mothers who are done with sexual relationships and just want to strengthen their children's futures, or brothers and sisters who are not all that interested in sex or dating and would rather focus on other things. All without sanctioning homosexuality as somehow worthy of note.

[KarlXII]

Tuff, do you know any homosexuals? I doubt it, but just asking.

I mean, I do. My location is full of them. And guess what? They're no different from you or me. They vote, they pay taxes, they have their favorite football teams. Giving them their right to actually marry those they love will not harm you, me, or anyone here. Of course churches should not be forced to, however, gays should not be denied the right to marry in this country.

Oh, and you repeat that marriage

between one man and one woman as special

that those damned homosexuals shouldn't stain it. Then, you say,

marriage has historically rarely been about love.

If love doesn't make marriage special, I don't know what does anymore.

[m52nickerson]

I think that the government should get out of the marriage business to be honest. Civil unions should be open to any two human beings for any reason whatsoever. It's funny. This is yet another position that Alan Dershowitz and myself agree on.

Fine, but until that change takes place, we must give gay couples the rights the straight couples have. Not "same but different" but the same.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff, do you know any homosexuals? I doubt it, but just asking.

I mean, I do. My location is full of them. And guess what? They're no different from you or me. They vote, they pay taxes, they have their favorite football teams. Giving them their right to actually marry those they love will not harm you, me, or anyone here. Of course churches should not be forced to, however, gays should not be denied the right to marry in this country.

Oh, and you repeat that marriage that those damned homosexuals shouldn't stain it. Then, you say,

If love doesn't make marriage special, I don't know what does anymore.

I know many homosexuals. Most of whom have been in and out of heterosexual relationships and then change their sexual orientation description between "we are all creatures capable of love" to "Bi" "Straight" and "Gay". Most homosexuals that I know are profoundly confused and don't fit neatly into any one category, despite how intensely they claim to at various points in their lives.

Modern concepts of homosexuality are confusing and bizarre issues for the modern era to deal with. I don't believe that homosexuals are different at all in any biological way. I would be as adamantly against two heterosexual males who wanted to tie the knot if it makes you feel any better.

[KarlXII]

I know many homosexuals. Most of whom have been in and out of heterosexual relationships and then change their sexual orientation description between "we are all creatures capable of love" to "Bi" "Straight" and "Gay". Most homosexuals that I know are profoundly confused and don't fit neatly into any one category, despite how intensely they claim to at various points in their lives.

And they still should be denied marriage? If they love each other, they don't have a right to marry?

[m52nickerson]

I would be as adamantly against two heterosexual males who wanted to tie the knot if it makes you feel any better.

....and that is the whole problem. You are against something others are doing that will not affect you in one bit. If that not a mark against peoples freedoms I don't know what is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And they still should be denied marriage? If they love each other, they don't have a right to marry?

Like I've said; Love is not a qualification for marriage in the State. I love my family, friends and pets and inanimate objects.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And they still should be denied marriage? If they love each other, they don't have a right to marry?

What if you love five women? Six? Should you be allowed to marry all of them?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What if you love five women? Six? Should you be allowed to marry all of them?

Right. How would that affect you if I married 5 women that I love?

Some here are perfectly content in keeping certain arbitrary barriers up while demolishing others. I try to keep a consistent stance on issues.

[m52nickerson]

Like I've said; Love is not a qualification for marriage in the State. I love my family, friends and pets and inanimate objects.

I believe the point was that a gay couple loves each other just as a straight couple loves each other.

No one here is supporting marriage between inanimate objects, animals, children, multiple people. We are talking about 2 consenting adults having the right to enter into a marriage, regardless of their sex.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No one here is supporting marriage between inanimate objects, animals, children, multiple people.

Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.

You are not talking about those things because they haven't been brainstormed by progressives yet, just as gay marriage hadn't been brainstormed by most progressives when sodomy laws were overturned. As soon as some people start making an emotional case for bringing their pets into the hospital and leaving inheritances to their pets or more than one lover, you will be for it as well.

So many people have more than one lover, the government's prohibition of multiple marriages actually strains and destroys marriages because it forces the husband to choose between which family he lives with!!!!!!!! Lets get on it progressives!

[KarlXII]

Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.

You are not talking about those things because they haven't been brainstormed by progressives yet, just as gay marriage hadn't been brainstormed by most progressives when sodomy laws were overturned. As soon as some people start making an emotional case for bringing their pets into the hospital and leaving inheritances to their pets or more than one lover, you will be for it as well.

So many people have more than one lover, the government's prohibition of multiple marriages actually strains and destroys marriages because it forces the husband to choose between which family he lives with!!!!!!!! Lets get on it progressives!

A toaster can't give consent.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A toaster can't give consent.

Does it have to? I can destroy it without legal trouble, as long as it is mine. Is consent really an issue with inanimate objects?

[KarlXII]

Does it have to? I can destroy it without legal trouble, as long as it is mine. Is consent really an issue with inanimate objects?

What can a toaster do in bed?

[m52nickerson]

Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.

Good for you

The whole "slippery slope" defense was BS when they used it against inter-racial marriages. Guess what, nothing went down any slope.

Not allowing gay couples to marry is nothing more then simple sexual discrimination.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What can a toaster do in bed?

You haven't lived, my friend.

About the slippery slope thing - I don't believe that the miscegenation law repeal has anything to do with the current situation. Those laws should have been nullified by the 13th and 14th amendments, but were in place after that because of real biological bigotry. The current situation would be comically absurd to me if it wasn't such a real threat. Certain legal rulings have opened up the floodgates for these rulings on gay marriage and we used gay marriage as a stop-gap against those rulings, but our foresight was dismissed. I don't have a problem with changing marriage laws, but the way it is going on is unconscionable. It is underhanded and undemocratic - spurred on by fallacious charges of discrimination.

[KarlXII]

You haven't lived, my friend.

Well, I'm sure it can make some hot, lovely,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

toast.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually you shouldn't call it toast. It is our son - it carries my DNA!!

[KarlXII]

Actually you shouldn't call it toast. It is our son - it carries my DNA!!

So that isn't butter?

[Viking]

Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.

You are not talking about those things because they haven't been brainstormed by progressives yet, just as gay marriage hadn't been brainstormed by most progressives when sodomy laws were overturned. As soon as some people start making an emotional case for bringing their pets into the hospital and leaving inheritances to their pets or more than one lover, you will be for it as well.

So many people have more than one lover, the government's prohibition of multiple marriages actually strains and destroys marriages because it forces the husband to choose between which family he lives with!!!!!!!! Lets get on it progressives!

Hehe, I think your logic makes sense to a certain extent. The problem is that toasters are not human and thus the marriage carries no legal purpose (same goes for marriages with DVD players, iPods computers and necrophiliac marriages), whereas gay marriage as well as polygamous marriages would.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hehe, I think your logic makes sense to a certain extent. The problem is that toasters are not human and thus the marriage carries no legal purpose (same goes for marriages with DVD players, iPods computers and necrophiliac marriages), whereas gay marriage as well as polygamous marriages would.

Uh oh. It is starting if I have to start it myself. hehe. Humanity and the rights that go along with it are relative to the time and place. There are a number of people in growing organizations that want to extend the rights that humans have to animals. When this happens, how will you rationalize not extending marriage rights to inter species relationships? Certain animals can communicate, show affection, enjoy sex and share bonds with people. Why shouldn't they be protected by the rights of marriage? Think down the road with the foresight given to you, using historical precedent whenever applicable.

Childhood is an illusion. A minors inability to give consent clashes with reason and is merely a legal construct. Who's right is it to say whether a 15 year old can get married if they want to?

These are all legitimate questions that lead me to attempt to define marriage as something that can weather the storm - using the realistic standard that biology gives us.

[Viking]

Uh oh. It is starting if I have to start it myself. hehe. Humanity and the rights that go along with it are relative to the time and place. There are a number of people in growing organizations that want to extend the rights that humans have to animals. When this happens, how will you rationalize not extending marriage rights to inter species relationships? Certain animals can communicate, show affection, enjoy sex and share bonds with people. Why shouldn't they be protected by the rights of marriage? Think down the road with the foresight given to you, using historical precedent whenever applicable.

Well, that's one question. Have I not seen dogs inheriting money? At the same time; comparing two humans (or more) to humans and animals is somewhat icky - human-human relationships got more to do with society than human-animal.

Childhood is an illusion. A minors inability to give consent clashes with reason and is merely a legal construct. Who's right is it to say whether a 15 year old can get married if they want to?

Most of Western society claims that right . This question goes beyond mere marriage, anyhow.

These are all legitimate questions that lead me to attempt to define marriage as something that can weather the storm - using the realistic standard that biology gives us.

Biology gives us all of this stuff. Only in one sort of relationship can the individuals produce offspring with each other; but this might change as technology advances.

[m52nickerson]

These are all legitimate questions that lead me to attempt to define marriage as something that can weather the storm - using the realistic standard that biology gives us.

If we go by biology then we should have no marriage. Most other primate males will have sex with as many females as possible.

You see Tuff the biology argument was also used against inter-racial marriage.

The fight for gay couples to marry mirrors other fights for rights, like inter-racial marriage, freedom from slavery, civil rights, woman's rights. All of these started with people like yourself resisting the change. History shows us that all of these people were on the wrong side in the end.

Perhaps you should look at your stance on this issue. Letting gay couples marry will not affect your life, or your marriage. You are on the wrong side of this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If we go by biology then we should have no marriage. Most other primate males will have sex with as many females as possible.

You see Tuff the biology argument was also used against inter-racial marriage.

The fight for gay couples to marry mirrors other fights for rights, like inter-racial marriage, freedom from slavery, civil rights, woman's rights. All of these started with people like yourself resisting the change. History shows us that all of these people were on the wrong side in the end.

Perhaps you should look at your stance on this issue. Letting gay couples marry will not affect your life, or your marriage. You are on the wrong side of this.

Those things that you've quoted all required amendments, they were decided by the legislature. Oh man! You mean the legislature is capable of doing that?! It's been so long since I have heard of them making any social policy that I had forgotten what we were capable of!

humans and animals is somewhat icky - human-human relationships got more to do with society than human-animal.

Sounds like a pretty weak personal judgment call. Is that your argument? That it is icky? It hasn't worked on our end - I hope you fare better. I see dogs taken everywhere, they inherit money and property - they have great personalities, they are loyal, they don't ask for much, and they are sex machines - sounds like the ideal partner to some people.

Most of Western society claims that right . This question goes beyond mere marriage, anyhow.

Most of western society claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman too. Take a few foundational blocks out and it won't be such a simple sentiment to keep.

All of these questions go beyond marriage. They touch on government by the people, what the constitution means, what are people allowed to decide regarding their own government, Can the government promote a reasonable ideal, etc.

[Strike For The South]

Tuffstuff Do not tell me what I will think.

When we recognize that people love pets and some love them too much,

I had a long drawn out response but This isnt worth my time. You seem to think this is a battle and if the gays win everything will fall and soon Joe bob will marry his goat. Dont assume simply because I dont mind two men playing in the mud to solidify there relationship is the same as bestiality.

[KarlXII]

Tuffstuff Do not tell me what I will think.



I had a long drawn out response but This isnt worth my time. You seem to think this is a battle and if the gays win everything will fall and soon Joe bob will marry his goat. Dont assume simply because I dont mind two men playing in the mud to solidify there relationship is the same as bestiality.

Lewis Black: "Israel and Palestine will lay down their arms 'He stopped the queers, I love you to!'"

[Strike For The South]

Lewis Black: "Israel and Palestine will lay down their arms 'He stopped the queers, I love you to!'"

It's prejudice, and it's ignorance, on a level that is staggering at this point in time. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a group of gay bandidos. They travel from village to dell. And as night falls, they travel to that cul-de-sac, where only one house stands. And in the window, you see a family, just setting down to their evening meal. And these queers... these queers... don their black hoods, and matching pumps, very tasteful. Sneak up to the house ever so slightly, open the door, and start... ******* EACH OTHER IN THE ASS! AND ANOTHER AMERICAN FAMILY... IS DESTROYED!

You have been one upped