Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage - Page 14

Kevin · #**196** 07-13-2006, 06:43 PM

With the divorce rate at what it is today, how does anyone say that they want to 'protect the sanctity of marriage' and keep a straight face?

The way I see it is that we ought to completely abolish "marriage" from our laws. Replace the term with "civil union." Then, allow any two people who have reached the age of consent to form a civil union which would qualify them for governmental benefits like changed tax status, insurance benefits, join tenancy, etc.

To me, marriage is a sacrament -- it is sacred. That the state thinks it can perform a sacrament is a little absurd to me. I think the two ought to have different names (state marriage and church marriage) because they really are different things.

Rudey · #**197** 07-13-2006, 06:50 PM

Being straight is also a requirement of marriage.

I can sign a contract with another farmer to send my pig to him. Did the pig consent to being moved? No. The owner determined that consent.

-Rudey

Quote:

Originally Posted by greekalum

Consent is a requirement of marriage, so, legally, it is an issue. (There is no legal contract to own or posess an animal that the animal also enters into.)

I do understand that some people may want to marry or have sex with animals or children, as has been discussed in this thread. There are plenty of moral and ethical arguments against this, as well as some of the religious arguments that have been used here against homosexuals. I'm not presenting any of those. I'm just saying that as the law currently stands, animals and children are not able to give consent to sexual acts or enter into a contract of marriage. If you want to make the argument that people should have the right to marry animals, you are getting into bigger legal waters.

Also, shinerbock, things you may have heard about and don't want to discuss isn't a strong basis for argument. Plenty of things creep me out, but I can't argue that they should be illegal.

shinerbock · #**198** 07-13-2006, 06:51 PM

KT, I wish we could do that as well. I do think it would be quite difficult, however. I hear the divorce thing a lot, but just because divorce is common, doesn't mean that we're not against it. I am strongly against divorce, and think it does damage the sanctity of marriage, just as gay marriage would.

greekalum · #**199** 07-13-2006, 07:16 PM

Rudey, that's exactly my point. Two farmers can enter into a contract together. A pig and a farmer cannot.

And being straight isn't actually a marriage requirement- a homosexual man could marry a heterosexual woman. What is a marriage requirement is that they be of opposite genders, and this is what is discriminatoyr.

Rudey · #**200** 07-13-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greekalum

Rudey, that's exactly my point. Two farmers can enter into a contract together. A pig and a farmer cannot.

And being straight isn't actually a marriage requirement- a homosexual man could marry a heterosexual woman. What is a marriage requirement is that they be of opposite genders, and this is what is discriminatoyr.

It's discriminatory that a cow cannot get married.

The owner made the decision for the animal though. Just like a parent can act as a custodian for a child.

And are retards allowed to marry? I don't know if they are. Isn't that discriminatory if they're not and illegal if they are since their minds are not able to consent?

-Rudey

kddani · #**201** 07-13-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

The reason I brought up the mental disorder issue is because many Christians, myself included, struggle to understand homosexuality in terms of our faith. For example, if homosexuality is a sin(which I believe it is) how could it be innate? Why would God create people who are predisposed to a particular sin?

I can understand your viewpoint, but this sounds like something you need to talk about with your clergymen, bible study group or what have you. It's not anything to do with the legal aspects. And religion should have zero bearing on legal rights here. That whole "separation of church and state" thing.

shinerbock · #**202** 07-13-2006, 09:40 PM

The mental disorder was simply throwing it out there. It has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue.

valkyrie · #**203** 07-13-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I am strongly against divorce, and think it does damage the sanctity of marriage, just as gay marriage would.

You're strongly against divorce until the day your wife becomes more interested in dressing the children in matching Lilly dresses and securing them recs for Kappa than in having sex with you and lets herself go and gets all fat and greasy, all the while complaining that you don't look like Fabio or act like the men in the romance novels she has stashed away under her side of the mattress.

RACooper · #**204** 07-13-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm sure there are people against gay marriage solely because they don't like gays, just as I imagine there are people promoting gay marriage solely to piss off Christians and Republicans.

If find it interesting that you seem to be able to only see the arguement in black and white terms: Christian vs Anti-Christian; Republican vs Democrat

The only problem with this image is of course that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny - afterall there are many Christians and Republicans that do support granting same-sex couples the right to be married; just as there are many Non-Christians or even Anti-Christians that vehemently oppose granting any rights to homosexuals in general...

So for example, I'm a conservative and Catholic, and yet I supported the granting of same-sex marriage rights - why? I looked at it as a human and civil rights issue... does that mean I support them getting married in a Catholic church? Hell no ~ Just as I don't have a right to force my particular religious views on others, neither do they have to right to force a change in my religious views.

macallan25 · #**205** 07-13-2006, 10:50 PM

Most of the moms I know who dress their kids in Lilly and exquisite childrens clothing and can see to it that their daughters are in top sororities at _____ University are not fat and greasy.

RACooper · #**206** 07-13-2006, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudey

And are retards allowed to marry? I don't know if they are. Isn't that discriminatory if they're not and illegal if they are since their minds are not able to consent?

-Rudey

In Canada (and in most countries) the mentally challenged can and do get married - as long as the proof of sufficient emotional and intellectual capacity to understand the concept of marriage is made clear for both parties...

valkyrie · #**207** 07-13-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Most of the moms I know who dress their kids in Lilly and exquisite childrens clothing and can see to it that their daughters are in top sororities at _____ University are not fat and greasy.

Well, if his future wife doesn't get fat and greasy, she'll probably be catching crabs from the pool boy. Oops!

macallan25 · #**208** 07-13-2006, 10:55 PM

Have you had a bad experience or something?

xo_kathy · #**209** 07-14-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Okay, so take out fertility treatments.

Nope, keep em in. I currently work for the Head of Global Comp and Benefits at Mastercard. We provide fertility treatments - once a year I think - as part of healthcare. My husband is Head of HR for his company, and they provide it one time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I mentioned it a while back about corporate concerns over insuring partners

Every company I have worked for in the NYC metro area has provided same-sex benefits. Mastercard does as well. The amount of money we spend on those benefits is negligible compared to all the other costs. There is no reason from a business/cost perspective - especially at a large, international company - to not provide same-sex benefits. Perhaps your friend in Atlanta (anyone thirsty for a Coke perhaps?) is allowing his personal beliefs to cloud his judgement - and the market data for that matter.

AlphaFrog · #**210** 07-14-2006, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xo_kathy

Nope, keep em in. I currently work for the Head of Global Comp and Benefits at Mastercard. We provide fertility treatments - once a year I think - as part of healthcare. My husband is Head of HR for his company, and they provide it one time.

Also, I've heard of some state's Medicaid paying for fertility treatments. Which makes me

because A) It's expensive B) It's not a medical necessity and C) IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD BASIC HEALTH INSURANCE, YOU CAN'T AFFORD KIDS, and they're probably going to end up on welfare.