I don't understand why gays want to marry

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by AbsoluteVoluntarist, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasnt making any assumptions about YOUR sex life and was instead making a generalization of gay mens sex life. Ive read in CDC publications that its a popular activity for men who have sex with men. Im sorry if you were offended by the implication that you are one of those gay men who sticks his willy into another man. Without a bottom, there could be no top.
     
  2. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "Sticking willies up eachother's bums" has what to do with anything? We know it's all most anti-gay people think of when they consider what gay equality means... But I thought you were more intelligent than that? Apparently not.
     
  3. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I totally support gay marriage because the time is long past that only heterosexual males should get screwed in divorces. The only problem will be cluing the judge in on which side he's supposed to have "empathy" for.
     
  4. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think the problem really is a matter of semantics and psychology. A "marriage" gives a relationship "legitimacy" in a community as a formal and public commitment and title that creates a "family". The main problem being that a secular act gives a relationship legitimacy in the church community.

    There is not a clear distinction between the religious aspect of marriage, and the secular aspect of it, that's the problem I think. No doubt the church establishment is keen to keep the status quo, and I think they've gone a long way to blocking homosexual marriage which, imo, is completely unethical.

    Within a country of 300 million+ people, or even a state with 10+ million people, there are going to be hundreds or thousands of different interpretations of what constitutes a legitimate relationship.

    Obviously the church community is a huge part of many peoples lives and many people feel that if "marriage" is extended to homosexuals, something many people believe is immoral and not a legitimate relationship, that degrades their own title of marriage by association.

    I've said this before, but imo the term "marriage" needs to be dropped from law altogether, and "Civil Union" should be the standard for all couples. Homosexual or heterosexual.

    To be "married", you should then need to perform some kind of religious ceremony at your church of choice (such as, getting married in a church by a priest). Something that is only recognized within that church community and not in law. Then each community can discriminate freely against any relationships they are opposed to, without that discrimination extending to federal or state law.

    If, as I suspect, many homosexuals want to make homosexual marriage legitimate in the eyes of the church establishment, then that can be campaigned as a separate issue, which it is entirely.
     
  5. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    One you've no business making if you expect to be taken seriously.

    Define "popular", bearing in mind that disease statistics don't necessarily define what's true of the greater population.

    A recent, very large study found the 40% of heterosexually identified men have had anal sex with someone of the opposite-sex.

    Continuing to make ignorant assumptions about the sex lives of gay men. For starters, the terms "top" and "bottom" don't apply only to anal sex. Additionally, those labels don't apply to all gay men, either.

    Lastly, it has nothing to do with marriage. You're making those statements just to bait people.
     
  6. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your suspicions have no foundation in fact. While many gay people are people of faith, many are atheists and agnostics.

    As an agnostic, I couldn't care less what any church does with marriage in the context of its own adherents.

    As for the term marriage vs. civil union, I see no good reason to cede the term marriage to religion merely because some people hold religious beliefs about marriage. If there's a compromise to be had here, it's to begin differentiating more clearly between civil marriage vs. religious marriage. Maybe it's time to revoke the power of clergy to perform civil marriage ceremonies, returning their authority to where it belongs - the church.
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a rather myopic view of marriage as it encompasses far more than just procreation or the raising of children although both of those were cited in the Baker v Nelson State of Minnisota Supreme Court decision in 1971 as being an "interest of the State."

    Even with these two identified "State Interests" same-gender couples are raising children (between about 25% to 30% of same-gender couples are raising children) and, at least for women involved in a same-gender relationship they can procreate with donor sperm and men can "procreate" with surrogate mothers under contract.

    But "marriage" under the law predominately focuses on the merging of personal financial assets and liabilities of the individuals involved to a far greater degree than it does related to children. The joint filing of tax returns, bankruptcy laws and inheretance laws which are based upon the legal institution of marriage are all financial in context and have nothing to do with raising children per se.

    It was the denial under the law of federal financial benefits and privileges to legally married same-gender couples that are completely unrelated to children which lead the Boston District Court to declare DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional. The evidence was so compelling that the Obama adminstration including the Attorney General to decide to not appeal the decision. Even the conservative law firm hired by Republicans in Congress to appeal the decision has since dropped out after reviewing the evidence presented in the District Court knowing it cannot win on appeal.

    It is the personal financial partnership inherent in marriage that is most important and I would agree that all marriage laws should be abolished and the entire matter should be solely an issue of contract law. Why individuals would want to engage in these contracts is, of course, irrelevant and isn't a consideration at all. The only thing that matters is that they have a Right to form these personal partnerships and the government should not be involved in them at all.

    As it is though we do have "marriage laws" that provide government benefits and privileges to couples that join in personal financial partnerships by forming a "family" and the inclusion of same-gender couples is logical and just. They should not be excluded because there is no justifiable reason for institutionalized discrimination against them. The inclusion of same-gender couples under the marriage laws does not infringe upon anyone elses Rights under the Constitution and no logical grounds exist for their exclusion.
     
  8. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps they are christians and want their marriage to have the same significance? Perhaps they are small government conservatives, who do not hold much weight in the government approved marriage and want god to witness their love?
     
  9. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are wrong. The state is preventing them from the same marriage rights as anyone else. Using simantics such as "they chose to marry the same sex" is disingenuous at best, homophobic at worst.
     
  10. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So a church should be able to refuse to marry two black people?
     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia a white person could marry anyone they choose to in several states unless that person was a black person and a black person could marry anyone they wanted so long as it wasn't a white person.

    Invidious discrimination, whether it's based upon race or gender, is still invidious discrimination and is prohibited under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
     
  12. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wish all the people objecting to full rights would just have the balls to say "our homophobic views, driven by the Old Testement prevent us from agreeing".

    Instead they just come up with nonesense rationales, because they don't want to admit their own prejustices.
     
  13. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its biology. Men and women who become husbands and wives with the potential to become fathers and mothers to the children they create. "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
     
  14. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The vast majority of benefits and privileges afforded to the legal institution of marriage are financial considerations related to the merging of personal assets and liabilities and have absolutely nothing to do with procreation or children.

    Procreation and child rearing, while identified as an "interest of the state" in Baker v Nelson are only a minor consideration related to the laws that relate to the legal institution of marriage. Most of these laws related to the financial partnership of the couple created by marriage which are unrelated to procreation or child rearing.

    What part of that isn't being understood? Joint filing status on federal tax returns, bankruptcy laws, Social Security benefits, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with procreation or raising of children per se (except for survivor Social Security benefits for dependent children that same-gender couples are also raising).
     
  15. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Homosexuality exists in many spiecies throughout the world, including ours for as long back (millenia) as we have records. So your "biology" theory is nonsense. Now couple that with the reality that men and women copulate mainly for the act of expressing their emotions, or just for the gratification of it, which is the same for gays. So again, your biology theory does not work in practice.

    "Also, putting something in quote marks, does not help make it so".
     
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has everything to do with procreation and children. They are the ones most in need of the stable home. Birds dont build nests for a comfortable perch to rest upon. Its about procreation and the upbringing of their offspring. And if you want to start subsidizing nest building so that the two gay birds have a comfortable perch to rest upon, you really have no justification for denying the subsidy to ANY OTHER two birds wishing to have a comfortable perch to rest upon. Nothing special about those pairs who happen to be gay that would justify such special treatment.
    And hypocritical to insist that marriage has nothing to do with procreation because they allow infertile couples to marry, and in the same breath argue that it must be made available to gays on the offhand chance that they might choose to adopt. And of course, AGAIN, any two consenting adults could adopt and raise a child. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay that would warrant such special treatment.
     
  17. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure of your point. Those species of the same sex copulating, dont procreate, its just for gratification. Biology limits them as well to couples made up of males and females doing the reproducing of offspring.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does joint filing status on federal tax returns have anything to do with procreation or children? This solely relates to combining the income of the adults on their tax forms.

    How does bankruptcy have anything to do with procreation and children? This exclusively relates to the financial conditions of the adults when their debt exceeds their ability to pay for that debt.

    How do inheritance laws where the assets of one adult are transferred without taxation to the surviving adult have anything to do with procreation and raising children?

    How do spousal Social Security benefits have anything to do with procreation or children. This relates to retirement benefits, Medicare benefits, and survival benefits under the Social Security which the "spouse" pays FICA taxes for.

    Of note survival benefits under Social Security for the dependent childred of a couple do relate to the children and it is certainly wrong that the children of a same-gender couple should be denied these benefits when the children of an opposite-gender couple receive them. In both cases the deceased paid the FICA taxes for these benefits.

    I can't think of any privilege or benefit that is based solely upon procreation or child rearing in marriage. Even single people can claim dependents on their tax forms and there are no benefits or priviledges that I'm aware of that relate to "procreation" at all.

    How about providing an example of a government benefit or privilege that is solely limited to procreation or child rearing in marriage that wouldn't be applicable to a same-gender couple.

    Since child rearing is already a major component of same-gender marriages any benefit or privilege should also be afforded to them.

    Also remember that two lesbians can "procreate" with donor sperm and two gay men can "procreate" with a surrogate mother under contract law. So even gays and lesbians can "procreate" if they choose to do so today.
     
  19. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps hetroseual married couples, who decide not to have kids should be automatically divorced? According to you anyway.
     
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Half of births are the result of unplanned pregnancies. Government has just as much interest in the wellbeing of those children as they do in the wellbeing of children that result from planned pregnancies.
     
  21. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That has NOTHING to do with homosexual people being allowed to marry legally.
     
  22. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Interesting perspective. But this portion is really the core of the matter. The state should not have any involvement whatsoever in these types of matters. It's intrusive and unjustified.

    Nice post!
     
  23. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Danboy is only partly true......A big part of marriage is the tax rights. However, many people do want to do it for other reasons as well. Most gays want to get married for the same reasons straight couples want to, they want to start a family.....tax rights is a perk. How would you feel if you and your wife (I'm assuming you are married) were told that you were not good enough to be married and people were working to outlaw your marriage for no other reason than that they hate you.......That is what the figt to outlaw gay marriage is......It's a bunch of religious zealots trying to force their moral code on everyone else.......Most of them are hipocrits since they turn around can condemn others for promoting the government overstepping its' authority, but in cases like this they are 100% supportive of it.

    The fact is, the government should have no say whatsoever in whether consenting adults are allowed to marry. Their only authority should be in setting the age of consent and deciding how much of a tax break married couples get if filing jointly.
     
  24. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're avoiding the issue, please stop doing that.

    If gays can't get married because they can't have kids. Should married couples who actively decide not to have kids be allowed to remain married?

    This should surely be a part of the marriage contract, which they apparently no longer make simply to each other, but to some higher power, who mandates that they should have children.

    Please respond directly to this.
     
  25. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While I haven't checked this it is stated that 1,400 different privileges and benefits are tied to the legal institution of marriage which are not afforded to civil unions. We know that bankruptcy, joint tax filing status, inheretance and Social Security are directly tied to the legal institution of marriage under federal law but that those were denied to legally married same-gender couples under DOMA which has been declared unconstitutional under the 5th and 10th Amendments although that decision is under appeal.

    So no, civil unions do not provide equality for same-gender couples.

    Yes, abolishing the legal institution of marriage completely and making it a simple matter of contract law for partnerships would resolve all of the inequities. The objection some would have is that this would allow polygamy and incestuous marriage as well. While I have no problem with either there are many that have religious beliefs that would object so I doubt that the marriage laws will be abolished anytime soon. Perhaps in 100 years but unlikely today.
     

Share This Page