Couldn't think of any. Why is it still illegal in a lot of states?
Because the United States is still run by dipshits, in case you hadn't noticed.
Oh, well that sums it up.
I can think of lots of reasons why gay marriage should be banned. But these reasons also apply to straight marriage. So I guess they're just reasons why marriage should be banned. Let's get rid of it.
Marriage is a personal relationship between two people. The government should have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: "The Whit"Marriage is a personal relationship between two people. The government should have nothing to do with it.
Actually, I would prefer the government over most Christian Churches.
There are legal reasons for marriage
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/rel ... rences.htm (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/relationships_w/relationships_living_together_marriage_and_civil_partnership_e/living_together_and_marriage_legal_differences.htm)
To put it simply, cohabiting only in a limited sense applies to ownership of the partner's goods, rights, housing and so on. Marriage automatically implies rights that otherwise would have to be specified with separate legal actions.
If you cohabit(lease or rent) in an apartment, only one person is considered the legal resident. Death of the legal resident exposes the cohabiter to eviction, and so on.
This is one of the primary reasons for gays wanting the right to marry. They only want what heterosexual marriage provides for everyone else. That is why Prop 8 was/is ultimately unconstitutional.
Quote from: "Aleps"Why is it still illegal in a lot of states?
Because most Christians wrongly think that their Bible condemns homosexuality.
I think marriage should be banned.
I think marriage should be a legal contract designed by the participants with a limited duration, an option to renew and a built in pre-nup. The participants get married for, let's say, 3 years and see how it goes. If either decides not to renew they follow the rules for ending the contract regarding property and move on. There would be a section specifying whether children are expected and what the course of action will be if an unexpected child is produced. Any number of adults of any gender could enter a contractual marriage.
If gays are allowed to marry it means your parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on either have to be declared gay or divorced and forced to become eunichs.. yeah, I can't spell eunich.. probably my faggy grandparents fault! :evil:
Um ...
I know I can think of a reason if I try hard enough ...
Oh yea. Gays and lesbians want to marry? Gays don't want to marry straight women, much less lesbians. And if a gay and lesbian wanted to marry, they wouldn't really be gay and lesbian, would they?
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Aleps"Why is it still illegal in a lot of states?
Because most Christians wrongly think that their Bible condemns homosexuality.
They're not wrong about that. the bible does condemn it. it recommends the death penalty for gays too.
the error they make is trying to create a theocracy and impose their religion on all of us.
Quote from: "stromboli"There are legal reasons for marriage
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/rel ... rences.htm (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/relationships_w/relationships_living_together_marriage_and_civil_partnership_e/living_together_and_marriage_legal_differences.htm)
To put it simply, cohabiting only in a limited sense applies to ownership of the partner's goods, rights, housing and so on. Marriage automatically implies rights that otherwise would have to be specified with separate legal actions.
If you cohabit(lease or rent) in an apartment, only one person is considered the legal resident. Death of the legal resident exposes the cohabiter to eviction, and so on.
This is one of the primary reasons for gays wanting the right to marry. They only want what heterosexual marriage provides for everyone else. That is why Prop 8 was/is ultimately unconstitutional.
Well, marriage is basically betting someone half your shit you will be together for ever.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"the error they make is trying to create a theocracy and impose their religion on all of us.
What is truly sad is that I've heard people who are against gay marriage say the exact same thing about those who want gay marriage. Shows just how ignorant the other side of this issue is IMO.
There's only one reason to get all caught up in someone else's decision to marry and that's CONTROLLING other people. And wanting to control other people (other than unlawful/harmful acts) is straight up bullshit and what has ruined this planet from beginning of time. It's called: (wait for it)................ religion.
Will gay and lesbian relationships reduce the number of children born? Demographic concern.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Will gay and lesbian relationships reduce the number of children born? Demographic concern.
I'd consider that a valid argument if the "population of the earth graphs" didn't look like this:
(//http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population.JPG)
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"There's only one reason to get all caught up in someone else's decision to marry and that's CONTROLLING other people.
And making sure they clearly understand that they are "less than".
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"There's only one reason to get all caught up in someone else's decision to marry and that's CONTROLLING other people.
And making sure they clearly understand that they are "less than".
This. Prop 8 was nothing but an effort to reduce gays to 2nd class citizens, at best.
Yes, "protection of marriage" acts are essentially an effort to enforce another form of Jim Crow.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Will gay and lesbian relationships reduce the number of children born? Demographic concern.
Relationships may have an effect on the number of children born, but whether those relationships are marriages or just people living together won't have much of an effect. It's no longer the stigma it used to be to be living with someone without being married.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Will gay and lesbian relationships reduce the number of children born? Demographic concern.
Not in a significant amount. Considering that gay and lesbian people don't tend to have children anyways unless forced to as a way to hide their sexuality, I don't think the demographics would change if we just let them be.
> Marriage is a personal relationship between two people. The government should have nothing to do with it.
It's mostly politicians who claim to be conservative, that is, who say they want the least government interference in private affairs, who advocate this government interference in private affairs.
Frak
What, nobody has any comments on my anti-gay-marriage argument? I worked real hard on it.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"What, nobody has any comments on my anti-gay-marriage argument? I worked real hard on it.
Teh gays are threatening to do just what you suggest://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Will gay and lesbian relationships reduce the number of children born? Demographic concern.
I'd consider that a valid argument if the "population of the earth graphs" didn't look like this:
[ Image (//http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population.JPG) ]
Or if gayness were hereditary.
Gay marriage should be banned because it makes a mockery of the sanctity of marriage! The two mommies next door directly affect MY life and MY marriage because....
Um.
Because....
Er.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "GSOgymrat"Teh gays are threatening to do just what you suggest://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8
Oh I remember this. :rollin: Brilliant.
yes indeed! :lol:
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"I think marriage should be a legal contract designed by the participants with a limited duration, an option to renew and a built in pre-nup. The participants get married for, let's say, 3 years and see how it goes. If either decides not to renew they follow the rules for ending the contract regarding property and move on. There would be a section specifying whether children are expected and what the course of action will be if an unexpected child is produced. Any number of adults of any gender could enter a contractual marriage.
this already exists...it's called not getting married.
Quote from: "jansnyder"I dont care if they get married, but isnt gay marriage a sort of oxymoron, since it's a religious institution, the same religion that basically bans homosexuality?
If that's all marriage were, a religious thing, there couldn't be any legal ban on gay marriage. (The Constitution bans the government from regulating internal church matters.) But marriage is a civil (legal) thing. Married spouses have rights vis-a-vis the other spouse, children and the government that unmarried people, even people faithfully living together for decades, but without a marriage contract, don't have.
If the government got completely out of the marriage business, the entire gay marriage question would disappear. Then if a gay couple wanted to get married (it would be solely a church function), they'd find a church that would marry them and get married. But the government (read: people) will never give up the "right" to issue marriage licenses and certificates, so gay marriage remains an issue until people realize that, unless it's them who's getting married, it's none of their concern.
Quote from: "jansnyder"I dont care if they get married, but isnt gay marriage a sort of oxymoron, since it's a religious institution, the same religion that basically bans homosexuality?
It's not a religious institution anymore. It's become more of a legal one.
My marriage is certainly not a religious one, but if I were in the hospital, my husband would be able to make choices on my behalf. He would receive benefits if I died. Can't say the same for most gay couples.
Quote from: "jansnyder"Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "jansnyder"I dont care if they get married, but isnt gay marriage a sort of oxymoron, since it's a religious institution, the same religion that basically bans homosexuality?
It's not a religious institution anymore. It's become more of a legal one.
My marriage is certainly not a religious one, but if I were in the hospital, my husband would be able to make choices on my behalf. He would receive benefits if I died. Can't say the same for most gay couples.
I still see it has religious stigmas, even if it is a state institution.
I've never been married but am heterosexual. I don't know too much about it. I only know what people complain about, and many marriages seem to end poorly between heterosexuals. I also can only barely feel emotions like love due to stunted emotional development, so even when they talk about love between gays, it is sort of over my head. Like, it's great you feel "love" or whatever, but frankly it has nothing to do with me, and I only have a limited ability to empathise with you, sense I don't feel this emotion overly much myself.
No one is asking you to empathize. If you don't understand the attraction of marriage in general then there is no point in trying to explain to you why gay marriage is important to people. But you don't have to understand why people desire marriage to understand that in our current legal system, marriage affords people certain rights and privileges. No religion is involved or required for those rights and privileges to be enjoyed therefore no religion is required for people to want to get married. And because marriage affords individuals certain rights and privileges that it doesn't afford to non-married couples, denying marriage to certain couples is nothing less than discriminatory. That is all anyone need understand about the topic.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Will gay and lesbian relationships reduce the number of children born? Demographic concern.
There are more children being born now than ever before. And there are more gay and lesbian relationships now than ever before. That being said, I can't help but wonder what demographic you're specifically concerned about.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Will gay and lesbian relationships reduce the number of children born? Demographic concern.
There are more children being born now than ever before. And there are more gay and lesbian relationships now than ever before. That being said, I can't help but wonder what demographic you're specifically concerned about.
Probably the false claim that gays and lesbians don't have children. (But maybe would if they got married? Or their getting married would take a breeding pair out of circulation?) Gay marriage and the number of children being born really have little to do with one another, so there's no "Demographic" to worry about.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Will gay and lesbian relationships reduce the number of children born? Demographic concern.
There are more children being born now than ever before. And there are more gay and lesbian relationships now than ever before. That being said, I can't help but wonder what demographic you're specifically concerned about.
Probably the false claim that gays and lesbians don't have children. (But maybe would if they got married? Or their getting married would take a breeding pair out of circulation?) Gay marriage and the number of children being born really have little to do with one another, so there's no "Demographic" to worry about.
Exactly.
Plus, why does anyone care whether couples can or cannot reproduce? That is such a nonsequitur.
Marriage: Betting someone half your stuff that you'll love them until the day you die.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Plus, why does anyone care whether couples can or cannot reproduce? That is such a nonsequitur.
So is "if gays can marry, that cheapens my marriage", but it's one of Christianity's main arguments against gay marriage.
Quote from: "Plu"I'd consider that a valid argument if the "population of the earth graphs" didn't look like this: (Image)
:) I am not talking of the whole world. We will continue our way. The concern is for US, Europe, Japan, etc.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"And if a gay and lesbian wanted to marry, they wouldn't really be gay and lesbian, would they?
The marriage IMHO would be legal and could be good companionship, each doing what one likes the best.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Quote from: "Plu"I'd consider that a valid argument if the "population of the earth graphs" didn't look like this: (Image)
:) I am not talking of the whole world. We will continue our way. The concern is for US, Europe, Japan, etc.
And what is the concern exactly? I fail to see why anyone need be concerned about birth rate when it comes to allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Because remember, we're not talking about allowing gay and lesbian couples to exist. They already exist and will continue to do so. All we're talking about is granting them the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have available. I cannot imagine how the birth rate would be significantly effected one way or the other if gays were allowed to marry so I fail to see why this is a concern.
Gays and lesbians are not sterile. I have a gay coworker who, with his male partner, have three biological children via a surrogate. There is a lesbian couple with two children in my neighborhood. The population argument is silly, particularly considering the real concern is overpopulation. I suspect if gay marriage were socially acceptable parents would be pressuring their gay children to "settle down and start a family" like they do with their straight children.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Quote from: "Plu"I'd consider that a valid argument if the "population of the earth graphs" didn't look like this: (Image)
:) I am not talking of the whole world. We will continue our way. The concern is for US, Europe, Japan, etc.
[/quote]
For one, it's not those countries we should be worried about. Those countries are going to be fine. It's the underdeveloped countries we should worry about, because they're having way too many children and they aren't able to support them.
For second, if you want more kids you don't need to care about gay marriage, you need to care about education, intelligence, and atheism. Those are the things that cause people to have a sensible and sustainable number of children.
(Those first two reasons are also why stupid religious people can now have 15 kids and expect all of them to live through puberty.)