Gay Marriage - convince me

[jimnyc]

Look at me as someone teetering on the edge, as someone who wants to learn more about this and I'm unsure which way to 'vote'. Write a passage telling me your stance and why I should vote in your favor.

Please, this is not a debate. No quoting others posts, no replying to others, no direct posts about others - simply your belief and why it's so. Off topic posts or posts not within format will be removed.

Go ahead, convince me! (or others who may wander in and read this)

[Roopull]

Government has no role in sanctifying marriage, heterosexual or otherwise.

Marriage is, at its core, a contract between two individuals and perhaps their God.

Marital status should not be a social engineering of government, manipulated by rights & the IRS. Government should not recognize it at all.


The only way government should be involved in marriage is the same way government is involved in any other contract... and that's ensuring the adherence to the contract by those involved. If the two wish to dissolve the contract, they can go to court with their respective grievances, just like any other pair of disputing parties & have a judge sort things out.




Gay marriage? I don't care. It doesn't infringe upon my rights.



***Edited so I don't look like I don't know how to spell anything.***

[KarlMarx]

10th Amendment - those rights not enumerated in the Constitution are left up to the states to decide

Therefore, any vote on the issue of gay marriage should be left up to the voters of each state to decide.

However, this causes a problem, since some states might legalize gay marriage and others would not.

However, there is also another way to get around this issue without getting the judiciary involved, amend the Constitution. That is exactly what President Bush tried to do, but the vote did not get the required 2/3 majority in Congress.

Amending the Constitution makes the most sense, since it would use the mechanisms already in place to decide the issue (and use popular mandate to decide the issue, as it should be) and if an amendment banning gay marriage were to be added to the Constitution, it would be consistent across state boundaries.

So there you go....

[manu1959]

i look to biology....

do two males mate for life? do two females mate for life?

no and no.

the purpose of marriage is to mate for life and procreate the species.

so no the government should not be involved in stipulating who can or can not be married.

that said....go marry a goat for all i care.....and if two dudes want to be married so they can be next of kin, get health care, inherit each others shit...go for it....

[shattered]

Simply? If it doesn't affect you directly, who gives a flying rip? :D

[darin]

Society sets rules to protect itself. We have DUI laws, Smoking Laws, Age-of-Consent Laws, Laws governing child-labor - the list goes on.

It is important for the Government to take a stand against homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage DOES affect all of society in that it weakens us. Homosexual Conduct adds stress to our health care system, mental health systems, police and protection systems too. It's time for the government to heed the will of the people and enact marriage laws restricting the marriage further, to only cover opposite-gender unions.

[jillian]

The power for a Church, Synogogue, Mosque, or or any other house of worship to perform a marriage derives from the state, not the other way around. Religous denominations are, of course, free to discriminate in whose marriage they will recognize and who they won't. That right is guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, by the same token, those religious determinations are not something which can be imposed on the State.

The whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is absurd given things like Brittney Spear's 18 hour marriage.

If people have religious objections to marriage of gays, then they are free to go to a church, synogogue or mosque, or whatever, where they don't marry gays.

Mostly, though, there are rights that arise out of the marriage relationship which cannot be replicated by contract between partners.... things like social security benefits; guaranteed inheritance rights if one partner dies intestate. And it is simply wrong for a heterosexual couple who are married for two minutes to have those rights where a couple who has been together for 20 years is denied them simply because they're gay.

And discrimination in this case is the wrong thing to do. None of us choose who we love. We get up one day, look at this other person and say... ya know, he/she's got my heart. No different in homosexual relationships.

And mostly, no one chooses to be different. To not have a real family, to be turned away by one's family and friends (or risk that....).

[Hagbard Celine]

Look at me as someone teetering on the edge, as someone who wants to learn more about this and I'm unsure which way to 'vote'. Write a passage telling me your stance and why I should vote in your favor.

Please, this is not a debate. No quoting others posts, no replying to others, no direct posts about others - simply your belief and why it's so. Off topic posts or posts not within format will be removed.

Go ahead, convince me! (or others who may wander in and read this)

First, I think the word "marriage" should be taken out of the question for both hetero and homo unions because "marriage" is a religious term and shouldn't apply to the government's part in this equation. The use of the term "marriage" muddles the core issue here. That being said, what we're left with is a "legal union." Any homo couple can find a church that is willing to "marry" them, but what the government provides is a legal acknowledgement of that union. No matter what you believe, you can't actually claim to know the sincerety of another person's heart. I believe that gay couples truly love and care for their significant others because they say they do and I see no reason why they should not be able to enjoy the same legal security in their unions with their partners as straight couples do. I don't think the argument that "marriage is meant to foster procreation" is a legitimate one because I know plenty of hetero couples who do not have and are not planning to have kids. They are married simply because they love each other and enjoy each other's company. Legal unions would give gay couples the security of being able to visit their spouses in the hospital and would protect them from having the rug pulled out from under them in the event that their significant other died.

I also think gay and lesbo couples should be able to adopt or foster kids as well because I think any loving family situation is better than no family at all. But that's a different thread entirely.

[CockySOB]

My opinion: The state shouldn't take a stand on marriage at all. This means an overhaul of our tax system to get rid of all references to marriage. It also means that official governmental recognition of marriage should be in terms of a legal partnership or incorporation. I don't see this happening, but that's my preference.

[Hobbit]

In accordance to the tenth ammendment, it is my opinion that marriages should be left to the states. If you get married in a state that allows it and move to one that doesn't, you're just going to have to make some adjustments, the same as if you're a drinker who moves to a dry county.

On the federal level, it's pretty much just about income taxes, and married couples get a break over 'cohabitating' couples. The federal government, through the tax code, has the power to do this, in accordance with the seventeenth ammendment (the FairTax would solve this problem, but that's for another thread). In fact, through the tax code, the federal government has to power to condone or not condone any behavior it wants. Tax breaks range from certain types of businesses to charitable contributions to having kids. As such, I think it's appropriate for the government to give tax breaks to heterosexual married couples. Married couples are a stabalizing force in society, while gay couples, even gay married couples in places that allow it, are unstable and provide no benefit to society. If they want to live to together, then so be it, but there's no logical reason the government has to endorse it.

On the state level, I oppose gay marriage for many of the same reasons.

[GW in Ohio]

I'm sorry, I don't distinguish among people. People are people. Gay people are the same as hetero people; they have the same basic needs and wants.

People meet and fall in love. This happens to heterosexual couples and same-sex couples. And when they love each other, they want to commit to one another in a binding way. They also want to feel that their union is blessed by God.

I know some of the hard-core Christians here will argue that a same-sex union is damned by God, instead of being blessed. Well, you get the right to feel that way, but in a secular republic such as ours, you don't get to make laws based on your religious beliefs.

People are people. People have a right to get married in a church and enjoy the tax benefits that accrue to married couples, whatever their sexual orientation is.