Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Originally posted by Homedawg

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Homedawg
apples and oranges....loving one parent or one child is much different than advocating allowing 3 or more people to marry...

Ive had many sexually open living situations. And you don't think Love was not involved. Why shouldn't committed couples, trios or even communal groups be allowed to marry? What's the difference between an extended legal partnership and a communal marriage.

My Kelloggs comment stands

Qualify your argument or STFU. Calling names is against the terms and conditions of the posting agreements here. Add something to the debate or leave.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No one is arguing that gay people can reproduce alone. But this isn't about reproduction. It's about marriage, which is currently granted to people, regardless whether they can or will reproduce.

So then we have to ask why does the state really even care if anyone gets "married"? I know about the religious aspect of things but those people could still go to a church and have a ceremony without needing a marriage license. Quite honestly a public commitment in front of family and a pastor would satisfy pretty much all religious nuts like myself.

reply to post by BIGPoJo


This argument is and has been all about the money...pensions,Social Security,alimony etc....all else is a smokescreen

Originally posted by dbates
So then we have to ask why does the state really even care if anyone gets "married"? I know about the religious aspect of things but those people could still go to a church and have a ceremony without needing a marriage license. Quite honestly a public commitment in front of family and a pastor would satisfy pretty much all religious nuts like myself.

For the benefits and protections provided by the government once a couple is married. If I am the breadwinner in my home, I should be able to claim my partner and kids as dependents, but I can't. There are spousal benefits, retirement benefits, and pensions that become available, as well as, insurance etc. Some of these things can be taken care of via power of attorney, but even those can be disputed. It is very unfortunate when a person dies and you have the surviving partner that lived with and made financial and household decisions as a couple be denied rights that the survivor in a heterosexual relationship would be given without hesitation. It has happened before and that one of the things that legally recognized gay marriage will protect against.

Edit to add @ Homedawg, money and benefits are part of it, but definitely not the only reason there is an argument about this. It is about doing what is right and fair. You would want your family protected, right?

Like I said...its about the money

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Why would gays want to marry each other? Its not like they are going to have natural intercourse with each other that will result in a family. Marriage is a religious practice that is recognized by the State. If gays feel like married couples get government benefits, maybe they should attack that angle instead.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It's a social practice which is legally recognised.

If gay people wish to marry it is likely because they want legal recognition of their partnership and devotion.

The idea of standing up in front of people and going through what would be considered a traditional marriage ceremony with another man intimidates me and makes me uncomfortable as though I'd be 'going through the motions', and I recognise that my union - if I were partnered - is different to a heterosexual one, so I'd be happy with equal status under the law, even if it were called something other than marriage.

reply to post by Garfee


Looks like you will have to take on the US Gov since they are still the ones that prohibit it....

reply to post by dbates


Not being able to have kids doesn't invalidate your marriage or prevent you from being able to get married.

Increasing or decreasing the risk of a broken home does not invalidate your marriage.

Potential quality of educational benefit does not invalidate your marriage.

When looking at reasons for denying someone rights, all you have to do to see if it's fair is apply it to YOUR current rights.

There are no reasons for someone to deny gay marriage that can be applied to heterosexual marriage and still make sense. By following any argument that I have seen, you'd have to take the rights away from heterosexuals for that to be valid.

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Garfee

 

Looks like you will have to take on the US Gov since they are still the ones that prohibit it....

I live in Australia.

The US government only legislate on internal issues and no-one outside of it expects this issue to be resolved there anytime soon due to the country's large religious population.

Originally posted by grahag
When looking at reasons for denying someone rights, all you have to do to see if it's fair is apply it to YOUR current rights.

Okay lets do that... can I marry someone of the same gender?

Nope.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Garfee

 

Looks like you will have to take on the US Gov since they are still the ones that prohibit it....

I live in Australia.

The US government only legislate on internal issues and no-one outside of it expects this issue to be resolved there anytime soon due to the country's large religious population.

Sir, you would be surprised to find out how much reach the US government has in Australia.

2 things.

1. Many men and women who are gay, pay in to the states of America via taxes etc, and yet they aren't given equal rights. So, why should they be paying for heterosexuals who disagree that the homosexual community should not be given equal rights?

2. Same-sex marriage is also heterophobic.

Lets play a scenario..

Mary and Jane have been friends for 30 years, both with jobs, both paying taxes, both have gone through various divorces, but they're the closest of friends, they love each other very much, as friends, nothing more, they've decided they've had enough of men, so they want to marry each other as a best-friend kinda thing.
Why is it so wrong for them to do that? They love each other, they pay taxes, they're best-friends, can have relationships with other men, can get divorced from each other if they find 'the one'.

America, you make me sad.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
When looking at reasons for denying someone rights, all you have to do to see if it's fair is apply it to YOUR current rights.

Okay lets do that... can I marry someone of the same gender?

Nope.

edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

I can go out and marry a girl right now if I like but I wouldn't love her or be attracted to her. Same deal. Why would you waste your time?

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by grahag

 

As far as the ruling goes I don't see an issue with judge being homosexual. Hopefully this man was appointed based on his merit and not his personal opinions.

I'm sure that's the case. I brought up the argument to show how silly it seemed.

reply to post by voidla


Gays have the equal right to marry the opposite sex, no one is stopping gays from marrying except themselves. They are not allowed to marry the same sex, nor am I. The American government recognizes the union between a man and a woman because they can produce offspring which actually helps the economy. I hope this clears things up for you.

Originally posted by Garfee
I can go out and marry a girl right now if I like but I wouldn't love her or be attracted to her.

Correct, so people should stop saying that I have some right that gay people don't.

reply to post by BIGPoJo


Ah, I didn't realize the most population you have, the better economy you have.

I mean it's about what? 16 / 18 years before a new member of said population can get a job that contributes directly to the economy?
Paper-rounds don't really do much for your town, do they?

And, especially within America where the economy is shot, the amount of people you have, according to you, your economy should be booming!

And since when does marriage = reproduction?
You better run to the White House and tell them infertile couples should have their marriage dissolved!

reply to post by leo123


Oh right, and the institution hasn't been cheapened by the 50% divorce rate?

Well this has gone back to the points on why a person should marry and the points for and against gay marriage. As some have brought up there are points in history and other points on children. In this posting, I will not go into putting anyone into a position of if they were attracted to situation however, let us keep in mind the ideas of the country and the over riding laws of the country the Constitution of the United States, where all are created equal and equal under the law.
From a historical point of view, the very nature of homosexuality goes back in history, far longer than any of us have been alive, to the times when civilization was getting started. Some of the greatest civilizations had it, it comes and goes, and always following with the rise and decline of religion. That is a point of fact, as it is based in historical documentation, on such, and should not be disputed.
Religion, another old historical fact has come and gone throughout the ages, starting long before many of us were born and often, the goal is set forth what would be considered fair and moral in the eyes of society. It has shaped civilizations and guided the hand of many who would write laws and rule over people. This too is a true fact.
Come forward to the formation of a new country, where the ideas of religion and equality are held both in esteem and now you have a conflict between the 2 very ideas of religion and equality, which should take a higher authority? As this is the United States of America, based on our very history, the answer has always been equality and the law, not religion, as it has taken more and more of a back seat to those very ideas. To use religion as an excuse to deny one group a particular right that another group enjoys is putting religion ahead of not only the very laws that govern the country, but promotes and enforces a religious point of view on those who may not exactly believe in what the majority does.
Some would use the children as an excuse, however, the question must be asked, what is more important to raising of a child a stable home where the child’s needs be met, or a home that has a traditional family, and what is a traditional family? There has not been a traditional family in the US for the past 30 to 40 years. The days of 2 parents, one staying at home and the other working are long gone, and such is rare, with more and more children being latch key children. Is that healthy for a child where the only time the parents are seen are on the weekend, and even then may be if they are lucky both are there? A marriage is no longer to produce children, as there is a portion of the population that falls into the category of where either one parent is missing or the child is removed from the home and placed into foster care or a government system. Does it matter in the long run if a child has 2 parents or not? With divorce, and the lack of care for some children, the answer must be no it no longer matters. Nor can the excuse be used that a marriage of one man and one woman is better for raising of a child, as that leads to the question, what if the couple decided not to have children, or are sterile? Does that invalidate their marriage? And what if one of the parents is not the upstanding member of the community? Do you think that the ice man or the Teflon don made for a good role model for their children? It was a traditional marriage, one man, one woman and children.
But it also serves to raise the question, as to what other reasons could there be, beyond fear of change is there to prevent 2 people of the same sex from getting married? How is their getting married going to affect you and your life? Are they going to live in your home? Are they going to influence your private life? Chances are the answer is no, so does it really matter? Could there be a benefit to having gay people marry? The answer is yes, if you look at it from an economic sense. Gay marriages, would mean that there would be money spent, an estimated 5 to 6 billion more in communities that would permit such, not to mention if they bought a home and then guess what they are home owners, and working, like every one else, to increase the value of their homes to live in a nice neighborhood. Many neighborhoods where this has happened, often become valued cause they look nice, people taking the time to improve and then the property values go up. Is that such a bad thing? And what if it changes the trend of divorce and families strengthen, would that be bad. And ultimately the question that many should ask, what if it was my own child, or a member of my family, would it matter then? Is it right to ask one group to abide by the laws and rules of society, yet deprive them of the very benefits of that society all cause they do not fit what society would considered to be normal?
There are no studies to say how a child would be if that child grew up in a house with same sex parents, and those that state otherwise are biased with a heavy emphasis on religion, tainting the study in itself. It has been proven, that civil unions do not go far enough for gay people, as it lacks one thing and that is the legal protection that a marriage would entail.
So there it is in a nutshell, the system is not equal and people are still being treated as second class citizens, deprived of the very rights that they should not be.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Everyone has equal rights to marry the opposite sex. Everyone also equally does not have the right to marry the same sex. Not sure how this is considered a rights issue. Marriage was originally created and is viewed as being between a man and a woman. People get married and have a family, usually though the natural act of heterosexual intercourse. Why would gays want to marry each other? Its not like they are going to have natural intercourse with each other that will result in a family. Marriage is a religious practice that is recognized by the State. If gays feel like married couples get government benefits, maybe they should attack that angle instead.

Lets take away the legal benefits of marriage and then your argument makes sense. Marriage would no longer confer tax benefits or inheritance. If you want those, you'd need to get a contractual agreement. You'd have to do that for both gay and straight couples though.

And the origin of marriage (even gay marriage) predates religion and even the written word. In this case, we're debating the legal ruling, which strikes down the ban against gay marriage.