Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

Originally posted by dazbog

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I agree. However, this has been part of many governments for quite a long time now. Let's see if those who are against gay marriage agree with us, that no couple need ask permission nor receive special status for deciding to marry the person they love.

Bloody outstanding ! The OP & Mod have stated their mutual agreement on the focus of this long standing emotionally charged issue. I've gained ! Of late, a very rare worthy post. Of course after the first few pages it goes South, fore then we slide into the emotional quagmire of feelings. Thank you both.

Not really sure what your point is.'

The OP - - was basically taking the position of Equality - - - by removing privileges of Legal marriage of Heteros.

Something - - I'm pretty sure the majority of that group would not willingly accept - - and go down "kicking and screaming".

Yeah yeah - - there's a few of both Hetero and Homo - - that think government should stay out of marriage. But I doubt it has any support of significance.

LEGAL marriage needs to be the same for all.

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist

Old Man Waterfall: That's right, I'm a polygamist. Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself, had I not used my intestine as a rope to hoist a flag made of my own skin, if it would protect the freedoms of the proud people who salute that flag. Freedom such as polygamy.

Crowd: Boo!

Judge: Also, in a rare double whammy decision, the court finds polygamy constitutional.

Crowd: Boo!

Old Man Waterfall: I can't wait to tell my husband!

Crowd: BOOO!!!

Old Man Waterfall: I request a Satanic funeral!

Crowd: BOOO!!!

theinfosphere.org...

Do the rights of a polygamist count?

What about a satanist?

Go Misoir

edit on 7-9-2012 by freemarketsocialist because: (no reason given)

The Church of Satan is a religion and is recognized legally under the First Amendment and as such enjoys all the rights that Christian churches and other religions enjoy.
FUN FACT:Even though the Church of Satan is tax exempt--it has waived this right and chooses to pay taxes.Ironic,innit?
FUN FACT:Michael Aquino,one of the highest ranking officers in our military was openly a full-fledged member of the Church of Satan,or he was before he left to form his own Satanic Church,The Temple of Set.

reply to post by Kali74

most definitely am not trolling and for millionth time I am not suggesting the ability to get married be revoked just the special status it grants to some and not all

I doubt this is true, as it conflicts with your inflammatory title that you want to revoke all the rights and priveleges of heterosexual couples. That would mean that the marriage would have no purpose really as far as a legal status is concerned. I doubt that you even view marriage as something sanctified before God, but as a vehicle to gain status in society and benefits. By nature of marriage of course there are the obvious benefits such as declaring your partner an exemption, but there is inheritance as well. Some gays do build businesses as well, but they can become partners inc for that and many do.
So is this really just about stuff or is it about being equal in the eyes of men?

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Being equally unfair does not make it fair

Clearly you are not a mom. Moms use this tactic of dispute resolution all the time:

Kids fighting over a toy? Take the toy away - no one gets to play with the toy.

Can't agree on what movie to watch? Fine, DVD goes off. No one gets to watch a movie.

Bickering in the backseat on the way to the zoo? Turn the car around - no one goes to the zoo.

The world would be a more fair and reasonable place if Moms ran it.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Battleline
reply to post by Kali74

 

I have never had a problem with gay marriage tell now.What happen to the we love each and just want to be together?

I'm sick of this position of argument. What the hell do you think gays have been doing for centuries?

But then there's the legal side of things. Suppose you were with your partner for 50 years - - and your partner dies. You are not allowed in the hospital because you are not related. Everything you've built together is ripped away from you by your partners anti-gay family and anti-gay judges.

This is real and this happens all the time. Legal paperwork has not prevented it. Marriage would.

You totaly read something into my post that was not there. My position is agenst the OP taking it out on innocent people. The idea that you "ALL" better get onboard or else is what I am opposed to.

The position your angry about i agree with, marriage is marriage and if you give one set of people rights and don't pass that on to the other set then it is discrimination at its worst.

Chill, are you always this angry?.............................not good for you.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


If it is about God then leave it with God. Government has no business, most especially the US Government where it is one of our founding principles, making laws that have anything to do with God.

I doubt that you even view marriage as something sanctified before God

Assuming that you know a person's spiritual beliefs is extremely arrogant. How I view God and how I view love and commitment have nothing to do with this discussion but just for the record... I have a very strong belief in God and love, to me there is nothing more sacred than love which is what God to me is, Love. But that is between me, God and the man that I love. The difference for me is that I don't expect the government to reward me for following my heart, nor do I need it's permission for such.

If religious people are going to insist that Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman and if the government is going to bow down to that than government needs to:

A) Grant the same recognition to same sex unions or for that matter any consenting adults that decide to pool their financial resources.

or

B) Not play favorites by granting special status to no one.

B does not violate anyone's Right to stand before their God and commit to the person they love and call it a marriage.

Originally posted by Kali74
we should strike the balance with NO federally recognized marriages or unions. That is fair, right?

That actually makes a lot of sense. Because there is nothing the government can do to make a gay union equal to a straight union. And why should the government be discriminating and treating people unequally in an egalitarian society?

The gay union isn't even the whole issue. It's about the right of people to form companion groups of any number. We already have limited partnerships and corporations that can fulfill these roles. So there is an existing structure for people to hold assets in common etc..and get preferential tax benefits for their group, and so on.

Any number of people can form a non-profit corporation or trust co. or Foundation, and write their own rules of union into the articles of formation of the entity.

There's no need to have the same kind of union as your neighbor has.

This gives the most flexibility, and the greatest freedom to people who want to re-define marriage to suit their purposes.

Let the church and religious orders keep "marriage", remove that "marriage" from the Civil Laws, and encourage people to use the already existing laws of corporate formations to form unions of their own design and liking, to hold assets in common and organize their tax arrangements each according to their preferences.

That is the ultimate solution.

Five people could form a non-profit corporation, buy a house, live together, share responsibilities, love each other, be recognized as linked companions by their corporate logo, get hospital visit rights..etc..And those five people could be of any sexual orientation: 2 straight, 2 gay, and one eunuch, for example. No restrictions on who can join up. Their written articles of incorporation will detail who has the right to receive what, and obligation to do what things.

Designer relationships.

That's the next big advance in social engineering.

The right to design your own relationships, and implement your own fancy lifestyle to meet your unique needs.

Customized unions, to meet every imaginable need, and express every possible thought.

Government is in the way.

The government should recognize that they are impeding human progress, and simply get out of the business of telling people what kind of relationships they should be having in the modern world.

reply to post by Kali74


Hmmm, we should favor recreational sex over procreation and family. The purpose of marriage along with staying monogamous with one's partner out of love, trust and respect is to have children. I do not know of one gay couple that can have children naturally between themselves. They can adopt, but then they are at a genetic disadvantage because they still have to use a heterosexual process to produce offspring that is only 50% genetically a part of them. They could clone, but replicant copies of themselves produce increased genetic error rates with every genetic iteration.

I do not understand how it is a legislative "right" to marry and procreate anyway, or how any government should be able to take away that alleged "right" since it is a purely natural biological function for opposite sex partners. The whole idea of rights in this regard is stupid.

Should gays have the "right" to marry for the purposes of recreational sex in order to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples? Maybe, probably, who knows? Heterosexual couples get married for a host of biologically non-productive reasons, like recreational sex, like arranged marriages with no offspring, like business partnerships, like family mergers, so it seems almost any reason is a good reason to marry.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by Battleline

You totaly read something into my post that was not there.

No I didn't. I've been doing this a long time.

My position is agenst the OP taking it out on innocent people. The idea that you "ALL" better get onboard or else is what I am opposed to.

The OP is saying - - removing all benefits makes things Equal.

The position your angry about

There is no emotion on the internet. If you are injecting emotion - - it is your own.

i agree with, marriage is marriage and if you give one set of people rights and don't pass that on to the other set then it is discrimination at its worst.

Yes it is.

Chill, are you always this angry?.............................not good for you.

Those are your own emotions you are reading into it.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Battleline

You totaly read something into my post that was not there.

No I didn't. I've been doing this a long time.

My position is agenst the OP taking it out on innocent people. The idea that you "ALL" better get onboard or else is what I am opposed to.

The OP is saying - - removing all benefits makes things Equal.

The position your angry about

There is no emotion on the internet. If you are injecting emotion - - it is your own.

i agree with, marriage is marriage and if you give one set of people rights and don't pass that on to the other set then it is discrimination at its worst.

Yes it is.

Chill, are you always this angry?.............................not good for you.

Those are your own emotions you are reading into it.

Well I tryed but if you agree with the OP then I oppose your train of thought just as much as I do the OPs.

"No i didn't. I've been doing this a long time"...........that purity much explains where your coming from, no debate here unless in total agreement with you.

" No emotion on the internet", wow thats a new one.

You have a nice day.

reply to post by Annee


Is it asinine, Annee? I'm basically suggesting a compromise where each side gets what it wants on one social issue at the expense of another. Some of these social issues might actually get resolved if both sides weren't so hell bent on restricting the rights of their political opponents. Then again, I suppose the idea of a compromise in American politics is nuts these days.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Annee

 

Is it asinine, Annee? I'm basically suggesting a compromise where each side gets what it wants on one social issue at the expense of another. Some of these social issues might actually get resolved if both sides weren't so hell bent on restricting the rights of their political opponents. Then again, I suppose the idea of a compromise in American politics is nuts these days.

There is no compromise in EQUAL.

Originally posted by Battleline
Well I tryed but if you agree with the OP then I oppose your train of thought just as much as I do the OPs.

Show me where I agree with the OP.

that purity much explains where your coming from, no debate here unless in total agreement with you.

I state my viewpoint. Simple. I expect nothing.

"No emotion on the internet", wow thats a new one.

No its a very old one. I've been doing this for about 20 years. Started with ICQ.

Annee, I gave you a star.

You had 16,666... I know you are not Religious.

But that was really creeping me out.

PS. Hey everybody, I have seen Annee argue for over 40 pages.

If your trying to change her mind...Better pack a lunch.

reply to post by Annee


And there you have it.

Tell you what. When you're aligning with a political movement that is trying to take away my equally valid constitutional rights, don't expect me to come running to protect yours. Sure, I'm aware that its a two-way street, but I'm suggesting a possibility where both sides basically get what they want on one of their key social issues. But that's not good enough.

If you want to know why, in practice, conservatives don't compromise, you've just proven why.

LGBT are a minority. To remove all rights from the majority for every right denied to every minority in the world is to bring us back to the dark ages. No thank you. Homosexuals keep fighting for equality but don'T dare touch my freedoms. This is the sort of arguments that turns people homophobic and it is really not helping the cause of all the gays out there.

Good Morning ATS! The coffee has kicked in, and I have had my morning sucked away reading this thread in it's entirety. I think I am now ready to wade into battle, so to speak.

First off, kudos to the many who have intelligently and passionately argued their positions. Of note Annie, Muzzleflash, Tothetenth, Kali, Misoir and many others have tried to debate in a thoughtful and mature manner, while still conveying their strongly held beliefs.

Full Disclosure: I am married (15 years), 3 kids, active member of my church, fiscally conservative, socially centrist (leaning libertarian), hope to get a dog in the next few weeks, just about done (finally) with college. I think that covers it.

I am 110% in favor of G/L couples being able to access the full rights and benefits that straight couples can have. As so many have posted here, it IS inherently wrong that after a lifetime together, an anti- family or judge can strip them of everything they and their partner have worked for. It's wrong that while pooling resources financially they don't get equal benefits on taxes and whatnot that a married couple get. [insert more examples here].

What I am absolutely against, however is the G/L community using the specific word 'Marriage'. I will lay out my argument for this, so please bear with me to the end. Once you have heard me out, feel free to unload or agree as you see fit. In this argument, I note that Deadeyedick tried to inject this position in his discussions with Annie, but the hook failed to set.

Many have argued that marriage is simply a legal contract with no real ties to religion. I submit that marriage is BOTH a legal non-secular contract and a religious contract. Each can be had independently, through non-secular marriage or as some have stated here, being married by spiritual authority without petitioning the government for permission. Typically however, the mainstream engages in both facets of this contract. This is the very core of what I am about to argue.

Annie stated that being gay wasn't akin to groupthink: That there is a broad spectrum of thinking and belief w/in the GLBT community. I agree. I spent the majority of my life in the SF Bay Area, and I have met and been friends with many G/L folks. I also have met some of the most militant, angry, anti-religious GLBT folks out there. As Phelps is to Christianity, these people are the flipside in this debate. To ease the wordcount, I'm going to use an abbreviation to refer back to this group: milgay. As in militant+gay. If it is offensive, sorry, not meant to be, it's a construct for this thread, nothing more.

Misoir posted these opinions back on page 3:

Same-sex marriage does have an effect upon everyone. For one it expands the definition of marriage, thus altering our understanding of the word and thus changing our language. Second it solidifies the acceptance of sodomite lifestyles as equal to that of heterosexuals, which are not equal; sodomy is unnatural and immoral - period. And third it allows for the legal right of sodomites to raise children, which is to inflict the acknowledgement of perversion and degeneracy at a young age; forever corrupting innocent people who should not even be exposed to such concepts.

Whether or not you agree with these, the milgay faction absolutely believes that gaining the equal status of "Married" does legitimize their practices and lifestyle. They do feel that it will indoctrinate younger generations to accept GLBT as a social norm. And their ambitions don't stop with marriage.

While the vast majority of GLBT folks would see marriage rights as the winning touchdown, milgay folks see it as first and goal. To them, the core issue is religious discrimination. Being afforded purely equal marriage status would move the moral battlelines to the front doors of any church which denies GLBT membership, marriage services or any other "exclusionary" practice. Because marriage is this two-sided coin, the changes made to the civil rights of marriage will very easily lead to challenges and reinterpretations of the spiritual (read: freedom of religion) side of marriage.

Stemming from inclusionary marriages will be legal challenges to:
→excommunications
→denial of sacraments
→refusals of marriage services
→acknowledgement of existing gay marriages
→participation in ceremony/covenants

The milgay's goal will be to force religion to integrate their lifestyle in whole or tear down any who would stand against them. Sorry to put it out there, but I have heard it from the horses mouth. It only takes one, and there are certainly many more than one.

The only solution to ensure others' rights are not threatened is to separate the facets of marriage. To Caesar goes the term Union, to religious organizations the term Marriage. This way a GLBT couple may have marriage through an accepting church.

I cannot see any other path which doesn't lead to more battles.

The LGBT should be wise enough to realize that when you go against the grain, you meet with resistance.
Let's just keep arguing over this garbage and ignore the root cause of our sorrows..
Our corrupt, and out-of-touch government - not religion - is the problem.
We need to take federal "say" out of our lives.....
But oh... no one want's to do that...
They're all addicted to the money/drug producing teet of uncle sam!
Everyone wants to take the "easy" path.
Everyone wants something for nothing.
Change your means and you will get your end.

Marriage was created by churches and governments for only one reason to hold men accountable for the children they create.In a society without marriage women would end up barring the full brunt of raising a child.Marriage is nothing more then making guys responsible for the actions by creating a partnership.When your married and have children your immediately responsible for that child.Now on to the topic at hand there is no legal right to be married never has been. Since its not a right then we must look at it from a society stand point.Is it acceptable to society?

Since this issue keeps being brought up on ballots and keeps getting voted down id have to say society doesnt approve of same sex marriage.So since society doesnt approve then it should be banned. Society doesnt approve of child molesters or do they have a right to marry a child? So unless you believe that society must accept every sexual deviation simply because they have rights then this is a non issue.As far as im concerned as long as you dont hurt anybody i can care less but dont try to force me to accept your lifestyle if i dont approve of it.

Originally posted by dragonridr
Marriage was created by churches and governments for only one reason to hold men accountable for the children they create.

The REAL history of marriage:

onespiritproject.com...