Gay/Lesbian marriages

[Guest redbaron51]

I really don't have a problem with gays or lesbians becoming married. (unless a gay guy came on to me).

 

I think they should allow people to marry who they want to marry, and it is none of our business to decide who should they marry or not.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

I agree, the government shouldn't impose their religious morality on others. If gay/lesbian people want to be married, it's really their own business. What argument can be given against it, other than "the Bible says it's wrong"?

[Guest jtronx]

Damn straight. How can you legislate love?

[Guest ScorpionDanceofDeath]

With religion, of course.

[Guest bob_barron]

If you gays to be married do you allow three people to get married, a man and a dog to get married, etc.

 

I think legal marriage should just be a man and a women

[Guest ScorpionDanceofDeath]

Marriage is defined, even modernly, as the coupling of a man and a woman in wedlock. There are, however, other definitions that would allow two women to marry.

 

Multiple partner marriages can easily be attained by becoming Mormon.

 

And, unless you consider Fido a person, the answer is obvious.

[Guest GenerationNever]

I really don't care that much. But I don't think SOCIETY would accept them much today. I don't just mean Bible thumpers either. Here's a thought, once homosexuality is NOT the taboo anymore, what taboo will come next? Whatever. It doesn't effect me.

[Guest ScorpionDanceofDeath]

There shouldn't be any taboos.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Same sex marriages should be allowed because its love. Poly-marriages are allowed through mormans. Marrying a dog just sounds stupid. Who is to say the only men and women can love each other.

[Guest GenerationNever]

What, a man or women can't love a canine? Bestialphobe!

[Guest LooseCannon]

If two people want to spend their lives together, I don't really see where its any of the government's business to sanction it or not. Whether its two men or two women or one of each.

[Guest DrTom]

I don't really care one way or the other, but I do think it's silly for the government to define exactly who can get married to whom. But since I have a dim view of marriage to being with, more people not doing it doesn't really bother me.

[Guest chirs3]

Comparing it to a man and a dog is just silly.

 

I'm perfectly fine with 'em. If a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, love each other, then why the hell not? It's not like a gay married couple is doing harm to anybody by being married, is it?

[Guest GenerationNever]

Dr. Tom brings up a good point. Who really cares about marriage?

[Guest red_file]

Poly-marriages are allowed through mormans.

Polygamy is illegal in the United States, even for Mormans. Every now and then you'll hear about a poly-family getting busted in Utah or Colorado. The US government doesn't like it because it causes some real headaches in regards to taxes, health benefits, and succession of wealth. Crazy stuff.

[Guest EricMM]

My church openly performs homosexual marriages. I don't know if they get a marriage license but they perform the ceremony. So, um, clearly I approve.

 

But of course I have been quoted as saying "The Christian Right does not deserve a vote." how naughty of me

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Comparing it to a man and a dog is just silly.

 

I'm perfectly fine with 'em. If a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, love each other, then why the hell not? It's not like a gay married couple is doing harm to anybody by being married, is it?

Why is it silly?

 

You can easily apply what you said to a man and a dog:

 

I'm perfectly fine with 'em. If a man and a dog, or a woman and a dog, love each other, then why the hell not? It's not like a person/dog married couple is doing harm to anybody by being married, is it?

[Guest chirs3]

How do you tell if a dog loves a person? How can you tell if a dog gives consent to be married?

 

That's going past the fact that marriage is a union between two people, and dogs don't usually count as people.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Marriage is an instituation between a man and a woman. So my answer is No, gay marriages shouldn't be allowed.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

That's going past the fact that marriage is a union between two people, and dogs don't usually count as people.

No, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and dogs/men, men/men, and women/women don't usually count as a man and a woman.

[Guest J*ingus]

The ones who don't agree with it, let me ask you something. Do you disagree with the very concept of any kind of legal spousal union between two people of the same gender, or do you just disagree with using the term "marriage" for such a union?

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Undecided, but leaning toward "disagree with using the term "marriage" for such a union."

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I disagree with the concept of legal spousal union involving anyone, regardless of gender.

[Guest chirs3]

No, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman...

 

Obviously not, if there are states that allow same sex marriages.

[Guest GenerationNever]

"Marriage" itself isn't REAL. It's just a word and a peice of paper, it's finite and not tangible. Besides, it's just a tool for the goverment now.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

marriage and home ownerships are tax breaks: So right there it should be allowed JUST to be fair.

 

The problem people have is that homosexuality is different. And to quote Nas "People fear what they don't understand, hate what they can't concur , I guess its just an inferior of man". That is the reason homosexuality is illegal in most states, or atleast the acts they do.

 

And trying to keep something as "Sacred " as marriage when there is a 61% to 69% devorice rate in this country is just laughable.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I disagree with the concept of legal spousal union involving anyone, regardless of gender.

I do as well as a theoretical matter.

 

But what do you think about the idea that without government sanctioned marriage, the partner, who reasonably expects that the other partner will provide financially and so foregoes breadwinning opportunities to provide non-compensated labor (such as housework/child-rearing), loses all legal protection/entitlement when the relationship dissolves?

 

We could say "you made a fully informed autonomous choice and have to now live with the consequences." Or can government involvement in intimate relationships be partially justified to the extent that it protects a less powerful (socially, monetarily) partner in a relationship from being exploited or ruined by the failure of a longterm relationship or coerced to remain in a relationship with which they are no longer happy?

 

Just curious.

[Guest LooseCannon]

That's going past the fact that marriage is a union between two people, and dogs don't usually count as people.

No, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and dogs/men, men/men, and women/women don't usually count as a man and a woman.

Marriage is an instituation between a man and a woman.

 

I'm not exactly sure how I come out on this issue yet. Pretending for a moment that anyone needs the government to tell them its okay to commit to a relationship with someone, my instinct leans toward supporting same sex marriages, but I have my doubts. So I would find it helpful if either of you could provide the normative basis for your conclusion that marriage should be defined this way. That is, why should we define marriage as a union between a man and a woman as opposed to a marriage between two people?

 

If your response is something along the lines of "society has traditionally defined it that way," please explain why we should use that factor as determinative in this context, and why changing the definition to something more inclusive is not appropriate. Basically, why is your definition of marriage the definition we should continue to use? And I'm not looking for anything from a dictionary either, because that would be semantic frippery that misses the point.

 

Also consider this statement: "That the government sanctions heterosexual unions in the form of marriage but does not sanction similar homosexual unions, is a tacit endorsement of heterosexual relationships and a tacit disapproval of those who choose to enter into homosexual relationships."

 

Agree or Disagree

 

If you disagree, why?

 

If you agree (even if you disagree it would be nice if you argued in the alternative but of course I couldn't expect you to) why is this appropriate government policy? And as a libertarian/atheist please be mindful of what I might think are appropriate government considerations.

[Guest Some Guy]

I don't think it gay marriage should be allowed. It's not a natural thing. I just find the thought of two men being together to be disgusting, and I don't the government should promote it. Since I am attracted to women I can understand lesbianism.

Homosexuality is a deviant (I don;t mean that in an evil, religous way, just that it deviates from the norm) behavior, pratice by relatively few people when compared to the whole population, why should the government promote it?

 

I think Vermont and Hawaii are the only states that allow it, but I'm not sure.

 

This country is a democracy, I say put it on the ballot during the next Pres. election and let the people decide whether it is acceptible in our society. It won't be, I guarentee it. There just aren't enough gays and supporters in this country.

[Guest Shaved Bear]

Im for them, because Gay people are still people and therefore have the same basic rights as heteros, so they should be allowed to be married if they want to...screw what the church says about the sanctity of marriage etc