Why shouldn't homosexuals receive equal rights?

The Republican position should be removing government from marriage. Then everything is fine. Let individuals decide if they want to get married, and don't offer tax incentives.

If you don't want homosexuals married then the solution would be just not to marry them. Let someone else do it. The government doesn't need to be involved here, it's ridiculous.

 

It fairly standard in the US to remove ones rights to do something others do you must have a valid reason and that is be superior enough to override the rights of the people your removing the rights from.

An example in the US a convicted felon cannot by law own a firearm since they commited a crime, this can only be reinstated by the government with serious efforts.

You cannot marry a close blood relative since the genetic issues may hurt the child and of likely abusive issues that can result.

You cannot vote if a convicted felon.

Now what is the exact set of reasons that would overcome the right of marriage to a small minority of adult couples who wish to marry? I have no knowledge of any that can pass muster the rights of religion cannot be used since they can't be forced to marry a same sex couple unless in military service as a chaplain and they are doing so under orders, and they are military service members. Children can't be the reason they cannot have them neither can an older couple and they can marry and there is no proof adopted or biological children are under grave threat if the parents are both homosexual. (Seriously most of the issues are teasing and the like from those in society not the family unit.)

Simply put give me good reasons here?

 

Adoption, marriage.

 

Ok, let's ask the next, if marriage exists, who says that you are married or not?

For example I am married by a Church, but that does not figure in any place, and for example I go to a hotel that requires to be married to stay in the same room with my couple, but how there is no official paper and nothing that validates as that marriage of valid, they can deny me that. And this nonsene in USA is quite usual.

I mean the nonsense of the necessity to be married to stay people of different sex together in the same room.

So, my position is: if there is marriage(that is an authoritarian thing) let's keep this authoritarian thing and make that the state is the one that validates that marriage being registered in the civil register.

Or let's abolish marriage, and the figure of this thing, that is absurd continue keeping the marriage something out of time, nowadays.

 

Actually, the correct question in why do heterosexuals get special treatment.

The govt should not be involved in marriage.

 

Well, I see your point. Even so, that is actually another topic.

Getting government out of marriage... will take longer and be even more difficult than getting MONEY out of politics. At the very least, that's another few threads worth of discussion.

Before government is out of "marriage" (if ever)... gay marriage will likely be legal in most if not all states.

 

tkolter wrote: Now what is the exact set of reasons that would overcome the right of marriage to a small minority of adult couples who wish to marry?

If you're taking about a civil marriage such as what is done at a courthouse to join two unrelated people together, then yes, I suppose even gay couples should be afforded that right...

... however if you are insisting on forcing a church to perform the ceremony against their religious beliefs, then you are not talking about your rights but are advocating violating religious rights of a church to practice their religion based on their Constitutionally protected religious beliefs...

... that is where separation of church and state comes into play. The gov't. cannot dictate to any church how to practice their religion. That is what separation of church and state is all about.

 

I suppose someone out here is advocating for that... but I understand they are being extreme and unreasonable. I haven't seen anyone seriously pushing for the same.

 

Govt regulation of marriage is unconstitutional.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. In the US the constitution states the govt shall make no laws concerning religion.

 

Mariage is civil or religious. In the civil marriage state should be involved.

 

No, a wedding can be a religious ceremony but a marriage license is a contract between two people to share certain aspects (many of them financial or property based) of their lives together.

I had a wedding over thirty years ago, in a registry office, presided over by a JP that was not, at all, religious in nature. My legal obligations to my wife are exactly the same as if we'd had a big Catholic shindig.

As far as I'm aware no church or any other religious house of worship has ever been forced to wed any, even heterosexual, couples of whom it disapproves, so I don't think there's anything to worry about there.

By contrast there are many religious and philosophical groups who would like to officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies which will lead to legal marriages but can't. These include numerous Christian and Jewish denominations, most Buddhists and nearly all Baha'is and organized, secular Humanists.

 

LOL! Haven't been to the states since the 1960s, have you? And back when they did require a man and a woman to be married in order to share a hotel room, there was no such requirement for two people of the same sex.

 

of the 4 couples i know with adopted children, only 1 of them is married. as for marriage, it's only a license to sue, and Lee Marvin's palimony suit took away the need for that license.

 

For the most part I agree, the effects of a marriage license are often more keenly felt when things go wrong: death, divorce etc but they can also be beneficial in the form of a lack of inheritance tax, provision of S.S. benefits etc.

Not really. Palimony suits are murky waters. They may be worth considering if the ex. is, demonstrably, very rich but in most cases the cost of mounting the suit will far outstrip any benefit gained from doing so and it's not the sort of work which most lawyers will take pro-bono (I suppose it could be a possible gamble if the defendant was extremely rich).

It certainly wouldn't be a practical application of family law for most average people.

 

Because children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, high school dropouts, teen pregnancy and crimina conviction as an adult, all factors frequently leading to the need for even more governmental involvement.

 

I did note the only way a person of faith might have to perform a gay marriage is if a military chaplain their obligations are to the service they are in after all as a soldier, they must then accept the obligations of the uniform. I'm sure since the 1st Amendment is pretty clear no one of faith or a faith would have to marry gays past circumstances are likely they would not have to. They can't be forced to marry already someone outside the faith and one in the faith if they so choose say in the old days a Priest could refuse to marry a Catholic and a Jewish person.

But with so many faiths odds are one denomination would marry them correct say you had a lesbian Jewish couple if a Ultra-Orthodox Temple would say no a Conservative one might say yes. Same for Christians and other religious groups.

 

It really isn't.

No. An accurate claim would be:

A marriage ceremony can be religious or secular. The state has an interest in defining certain rights to property and authority concerning children. Religion is simply a personal consideration of the couple entering into marriage.

No, that isn't what is says.

 

LGBT people should receive full equal rights...unless they post at PF.

 

They adopted as a couple? Or only one member is the legal tutor or parent?

 

Barney Frank Weds Jim Ready

Gay Couple Adopts
Like I said, they have them already, so quitchabichin.

 

Meanwhile back in reality, same-sex couples cannot adopt in my state, nor are their marriages legally recognized in my state. So no, I won't quit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)in'.

 

no they don't, their legal state marriages are not recognized by the federal government the same hetero-sexual marriages are

this is no different the the fight for interracial marriages of time past

separate but equal is not equal

.

 

Yep!! That is correct.

 

I think we're mostly on the same page, the reason I have the concern is because of the HC issue where Catholic charities were going to be forced to purchase contraceptive insurance despite the church's longstanding opposition to contraception. I think honestly, charging those who wanted it for the rider would fix the issue without much difficulty. The point being that I don't want a federal law to rewrite church laws. If you're open to the public and doing something that's not specifcally related to your denomination, then federal laws apply. I have no problem with that. I have a problem when Catholic institutions doing specifically Catholic things under the name of Catholic (FYI there are rules about who can use Catholic in the name of a charity or the like) are being told to violate their religion. If it's a Methodist church, and they're running a Methodist Wedding Hall, then they make the rules. If it's a rental thing, and they aren't providing the clergy, then it's public and you don't get to decide what the public can do in public. I think we're mostly in agreement here, it's probably down to argueing about when something is "public" and when it's "church", which is probably going to be a court case.

 

Interracial couples procreate just like same race couples do. Homosexual couples do not.