What is the deal with Gay Rights?

[Texas1911]

On one side of the fence you have a group of people that are pushing for recognition as a married couple, and on the other hand you have a group of people that believe that God upholds homosexuality as sinful behavior. One side says it is a behavioral choice, and the other holds fast that it is ingrained in their genetic code.

One thing is for certain though, ... marriage is NOT a Federal issue per the Constitution. This is a societal issue, to be handled by society. Marriage, always has, and always will be a religious matter. That's why people get married in a religious ceremony of some sort. The state has no right to give preferential treatment to any citizen because of their religious stature. Ergo, the state has no right to extend or even recognize marriages.

Why do we waste our time with this worthless matter?

 

[navyguy]

On one side of the fence you have a group of people that are pushing for recognition as a married couple, and on the other hand you have a group of people that believe that God upholds homosexuality as sinful behavior. One side says it is a behavioral choice, and the other holds fast that it is ingrained in their genetic code.

One thing is for certain though, ... marriage is NOT a Federal issue per the Constitution. This is a societal issue, to be handled by society. Marriage, always has, and always will be a religious matter. That's why people get married in a religious ceremony of some sort. The state has no right to give preferential treatment to any citizen because of their religious stature. Ergo, the state has no right to extend or even recognize marriages.

Why do we waste our time with this worthless matter?

There are actually some Federal and State government issues involved in a legal marriage. Some financial. Tax implications, community property and the like. But there are other legal issues that go with what we call a marriage.

I guess I don't have to much of a problem if there were laws that allowed a "civil union" some of those same legal rights. It I just can't get passed calling it a marriage, unless it's a man and women.

 

[Man With A Gun...]

Call me jaded.. If we give in to these peter-puffers, whats next?! What other group of degenerates are next in line to demand "rights"?! Will it be people who dig banging animals? Will they force their way of life down the throat of America? Or maybe Pedophiles... they will say "But I was born this way! So don't discriminate!" I don't care what sick idea you come up with, you get enough people on board and we must give them "Rights".

 

[MadMo44Mag]

I feel all this is BS and should not be allowed but this is a country where personal freedoms can still be expressed.
If these "8 balls" want a union ok but don't ask me to condone it or acknowledge it personally.

 

[rsayloriii]

Here's my whole problem with giving them recognition as a "married couple". The reason the IRS has "married" and "single" is because with married, it's believed that you will procreate and that has a larger burden on your financial capabilities than if you're single (assuming you're not procreating). That brings about the problem I have with gays being given recognition as a "married couple". While they may adopt, they're not out to procreate as given to that "lifestyle". Therefore theoretically they should not need the same tax break as a married couple that intends to procreate. So why should they be given a tax break when they don't "need" it?

I don't care what lifestyle you choose to live, for the most part, but don't shove it down my throat!

And I agree with High Cap, it's a choice, not a d@mn thing to do with genetics. The whole point to life is to procreate. We just involve ourselves with other frivolous tasks to kill the time in between.

 

[TSU45]

Well judging from the responses so far I'll probably get flamed for this, but I could honestly care less if two dudes want to get married. I'd just assume let them.

People can argue all day whether it's a genetic or learned behavior and at the end of that day, for whatever reason, some dudes are just into other dudes and some chicks into other chicks.

They don't mess with my right to do as I please as long as I don't bring harm on others and I don't intend to mess with theirs.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I'm ok with same-sex marriage as long as we make them deal with same-sex divorce!!!

Personally, I believe it's a problem with terminology. The government has created tax incentives for being "married." Conversely, they've created welfare incentives for remaining single. Insurance companies provide discounts for "married" couples.

The fact is, however, the term "marriage" comes from religious origins. Virtually every religion encourages "marriage" because early human beans knew that it was necessary for procreation, and monogamy reduces the spread of STDs.

If these guys and girls want to reap the financial benefits of marriage, that's fine; but let's find another name. Or, here's an idea: Let's reference a union between a heterosexual couple, ordained by God and all that, as "Marriage" with a capital "M." We'll then reference all of those other civil unions as "marriage" with a lower-case "m."

Nothing to see here. Move along!

 

[Texas1911]

I think you guys have lost the point, some more than others.

It is not the role of Federal government to rule on gay marriage. Over time they've taken initiative, illegally in my opinion, to promote benefits to married couples. To me, this is recognizing an establishment of religion, as marriage is religious.

They need to remove the "benefits" and you'll push the entire matter into social acceptance; read: a social matter.

 

[Texas1911]

Call me jaded.. If we give in to these peter-puffers, whats next?! What other group of degenerates are next in line to demand "rights"?! Will it be people who dig banging animals? Will they force their way of life down the throat of America? Or maybe Pedophiles... they will say "But I was born this way! So don't discriminate!" I don't care what sick idea you come up with, you get enough people on board and we must give them "Rights".

There is a difference.

Gays are American citizens, animals are not.
Gays are adults, children are not.

Gays already have rights, but because of the government choosing to give benefits, unconstitutionally, to married couples has them fighting for the same recognition.

 

[idleprocess]

I really don't care about homosexuals much one way or another. I don't think they're any more depraved than the blatantly obvious (and unhealthy) sublimation of many Bible-beaters' sexual desire into rage against the rest of society. I find them annoying in the same way I find cultural minorities annoying when they complain that they don't wield cultural influence and acceptance disproportionate to their numbers (and are often hypocrytically intolerant of the mainstream... pot. kettle.black.).

I think that homosexuality is like a deeply ingrained personality trait. There might be genetic predispositions that effect it - much like genetically-induced brain chemical imbalances can be a major factor in emotional problems or an individual's overall perspective - but I doubt there's a simple genetic cause.

I take a libertarian view on marriage - the government should by and large get out of it. If people want to do it for religious purposes, fine, let the church handle it. If your church doesn't want to marry homosexual couples, that's the price of free association, sorry.

If people want to do it for other more practical purposes (joint ownership of property, custody of children, etc), then let them form contracts. The state should mandate that marriage contracts can be between any two consenting adults and have semi-standard clauses for termination of said contract so that "divorce" is basically pre-planned and doesn't require stacks of court time and lawyers' fees to execute. It might not be romantic to sign a formal agreement even more elaborate and binding than a pre-nuptial, but perhaps society needs it given the absurd divorce rates in this country.

One thing I'm noticing that no one in this big messy debate is mentioning is that homosexuals can already obtain nearly all the practical benefits of marriage via standard civil contracts regardless of the laws in their particular state. Jointly-owned property, child custody, power of attorney, inheritances ... nearly all doable with contracts.

 

[M. Sage]

That's why people get married in a religious ceremony of some sort.

I didn't. My wife and I got hitched at the county courthouse. Neither of us is religious, so no reason for a religious ceremony.

Marriage is a contract (sometimes involving religion). No need to involve the state in contracts either way.

 

[Texas1911]

I really don't care about homosexuals much one way or another. I don't think they're any more depraved than the blatantly obvious (and unhealthy) sublimation of many Bible-beaters' sexual desire into rage against the rest of society. I find them annoying in the same way I find cultural minorities annoying when they complain that they don't wield cultural influence and acceptance disproportionate to their numbers (and are often hypocrytically intolerant of the mainstream... pot. kettle.black.).

I think that homosexuality is like a deeply ingrained personality trait. There might be genetic predispositions that effect it - much like genetically-induced brain chemical imbalances can be a major factor in emotional problems or an individual's overall perspective - but I doubt there's a simple genetic cause.

I take a libertarian view on marriage - the government should by and large get out of it. If people want to do it for religious purposes, fine, let the church handle it. If your church doesn't want to marry homosexual couples, that's the price of free association, sorry.

If people want to do it for other more practical purposes (joint ownership of property, custody of children, etc), then let them form contracts. The state should mandate that marriage contracts can be between any two consenting adults and have semi-standard clauses for termination of said contract so that "divorce" is basically pre-planned and doesn't require stacks of court time and lawyers' fees to execute. It might not be romantic to sign a formal agreement even more elaborate and binding than a pre-nuptial, but perhaps society needs it given the absurd divorce rates in this country.

One thing I'm noticing that no one in this big messy debate is mentioning is that homosexuals can already obtain nearly all the practical benefits of marriage via standard civil contracts regardless of the laws in their particular state. Jointly-owned property, child custody, power of attorney, inheritances ... nearly all doable with contracts.

I concur with this assessment.

I believe that homosexuality is primarily genetic. People argue that it's a choice on the basis that it's in our genetic makeup to mate to produce offspring. Well, is it not equally obvious that there are people with defective genetic code? Conditions like dwarfism, mental retardation, hermaphrodites, etc. I think it's further exacerbated by the fact that even within most homosexual relationships you have a male and female behavioral role. Ergo the reason why it is sometime seen in nature as well, and how it has always been in society, even in those that are incredibly hostile towards homosexuality, ie. Iran and the era of the Catholic church death machine.

 

[Texas1911]

I didn't. My wife and I got hitched at the county courthouse. Neither of us is religious, so no reason for a religious ceremony.

Marriage is a contract (sometimes involving religion). No need to involve the state in contracts either way.

I think we all understand the point I was aiming for, marriage has always been a religious practice in the past.

 

[M. Sage]

I concur with this assessment.

I believe that homosexuality is primarily genetic. People argue that it's a choice on the basis that it's in our genetic makeup to mate to produce offspring. Well, is it not equally obvious that there are people with defective genetic code? Conditions like dwarfism, mental retardation, hermaphrodites, etc. I think it's further exacerbated by the fact that even within most homosexual relationships you have a male and female behavioral role. Ergo the reason why it is sometime seen in nature as well, and how it has always been in society, even in those that are incredibly hostile towards homosexuality, ie. Iran and the era of the Catholic church death machine.

It's also apparent in the animal world, too. 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

 

[Texas1911]

It's also apparent in the animal world, too. 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Some animals, like monkeys, do it as a means of asserting dominance, which is rather different than what humans perform... well, so long as you don't find yourself in prison.

 

[M. Sage]

Some do, sometimes.

 

[idleprocess]

Marriage is a contract (sometimes involving religion). No need to involve the state in contracts either way.

Actually, it's the threat of action by a powerful impartial party (generally the state) that makes contracts between entities work. Otherwise the consequences of failure to abide by the terms of the agreement would be limited to whatever punishment that the aggrieved parties could inflict on the violators - which could be badly asymmetric if the violator is powerful and the aggrieved is weak.

 

[DCortez]

Some do, sometimes.

Tops and Bottoms

 

[Phoebe Ann]

The marriage ceremony is a legal process, not religious. One must apply for a license and file the license with the State. If you are married in a religious ceremony, the State does not recognize it untill filed with the State. You can get married in a hot air balloon, under water, in the church or by a Voodoo Jedi Master. It's not a marriage until the State gets involved.

While I have personal opinions regarding gay marriage, I still don't think it will work from a legal standpoint. This is not a federal issue and I don't think it will ever be passed on the federal level. So you're left with the State choosing to recognize gay marriage or not. But, the legal entanglements there would be so massive it would tie up the courts forever! I.e. - Joe and John get married in Vermont where Gay Marriage is recognized by the State. Joe and John now want to move to Nebraska to be farmers. But Nebraska doesn't recognize their legal union. What, are they now "unmarried?" They file suit in Nebraska and the legal web begins.

Same sex marriage won't be passed on the Federal level and it will not work on the State level. This issue won't be going away.

btw - my company grants all benefits to "significant others." How one validates they have a "significant other" I don't know. But we offer all benefits (health insurance, adoption, etc.) to significant others.

 

[cuate]

I like Women, guns, Mexican food, Country Music, Brandy, Beer, and the American Republic as it was "BO" (before obama)...

Rest of things, LEAVE ME BE !!!