InfiniteNow Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 I am pretty sure that the vast majority of citizens are beginning to realize that this issue is only brought up to distract the people, and bring out around election time those who will vote purely on one or two hot button issues... but tell me, What are the reasons used to support and justify laws which might be enacted to prevent marriage between homosexual partners? Zythryn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Excellent question and thread!I am curious myself, as none I have heard actually hold up to examination. It sure does work as a distraction though, works like a charm;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 I am pretty sure that the vast majority of citizens are beginning to realize that this issue is only brought up to distract the people, and bring out around election time those who will vote purely on one or two hot button issues... but tell me, What are the reasons used to support and justify laws which might be enacted to prevent marriage between homosexual partners?You have the issue on its head. Same sex or "gay" marriage has always been illegal. The forces of change at work are not trying to make it illegal, they are trying to keep it illegal. Nobody is being repressed by new legislation, there is resistance to change in legislation. The exception to that is the Constitutional Amendment which is pure politics. There are all sorts of restrictions on marriage. Minimum age is a law in every state, but that seems to be OK even though kids are apparently discriminated against. You can only be married too one person. You can only marry someone when thye are fit to consent to the contract (no REALLY crazy people, no comatose). And in every state the marriage must be presided over and signed for by someone licensed by the state - can't just claim you are married. You cannot marry your immidiate family (I am pretty sure that includes adopted siblings). In most states you cannot marry your cousin. And you have to marry someone of the opposite gender. Here is a link to all US marriage laws. Bill infamous 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 You have the issue on its head. Same sex or "gay" marriage has always been illegal. The forces of change at work are not trying to make it illegal, they are trying to keep it illegal. BillQuite right BigDog, and one other good reason: The vast majority of American citizens are against it. I personally think that's a pretty good reason....................................Infy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Most of Americans are also currently against the war in Iraq, should we outlaw that? While taking a poll of how Americans feel about a subject is benificial to politicians 'spin' machines, it is not necessarily the best way to govern. At one time, it was against the law for two people of different races to marry. So, what are the underlying reason this it is a good idea to not allow two people that love each other to marry? Some limits are in place, I would agree with many of them. But even these have changed over time as society changes and grows. In terms of marraige performed by clergy, I don't believe any clergy members should be required to perform a ceremony (marraige or otherwise) that is against their religious faith. Just my 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Most of Americans are also currently against the war in Iraq, should we outlaw that? Currently only a slight majority but never-the-less, a majority. In a Democracy, majority rules sooooo, I vote for the peoples right to make these decisions based upon the prevailing popular mood.............................Infy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Marriage is an ancient tradition as strongly rooted in human culture as religion. It would make sense for gays to be sympathetic to this heart felt tradition and opt for another word to describe the social status they are looking for. Most people would be sympathetic to a new label, since they would not become a victim of a minority. The gays could still get the very same practical results that the marriage laws provides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 At one time, it was against the law for two people of different races to marry.The race issue was entirly different. It is against the law to descriminate on the basis of race. The laws that you allude to did not ever apply to all states - something about the United States that is too easliy forgotten. Homosexuality is different. It is an act, a chosen lifestyle, a behavior. If one has impulses to be gay, and they do not act on those impulses, then they are not gay. If one has impulses to be a different race, it doesn't matter how they choose to act, they are the race they are born into. How a person chooses to act should not equate them with people who were discriminated against just for being born. The gay community is making strides in getting their chosen lifestyle more widely accepted. But in the end it is a choice. I don't care what people say about "born gay". In the end it is defined by the act, not the impulse. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Currently only a slight majority but never-the-less, a majority. In a Democracy, majority rules sooooo, I vote for the peoples right to make these decisions based upon the prevailing popular mood.............................Infythat would be terrible, today gay marriage is legal, tommoro not :naughty: It was adam and eve not adam and steve... I dont really care what they do, but it doesnt seem 'right' to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edella Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 There are all sorts of restrictions on marriage. Minimum age is a law in every state, but that seems to be OK even though kids are apparently discriminated against. You can only be married too one person. You can only marry someone when thye are fit to consent to the contract (no REALLY crazy people, no comatose). And in every state the marriage must be presided over and signed for by someone licensed by the state - can't just claim you are married. You cannot marry your immidiate family (I am pretty sure that includes adopted siblings). In most states you cannot marry your cousin.Bill Your obsevation that there are restrictions on marriage misses the point.The question is:what are the reasons used to support and justify laws which might be enacted to prevent marriage between homosexual partners?Age of consent,ability to understand the contract,licencing,etc.,is not the issue.There have been past restrictions on marriage I'm certain we all would disagree with.In 1967, the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia struck down the last of the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.That wasn't very long ago. The fact that there are restrictions on marriage has nothing to do with whether certain restrictions are fair or not. And you have to marry someone of the opposite gender Can hermaphrodites get married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Marriage is an ancient tradition as strongly rooted in human culture as religion. It would make sense for gays to be sympathetic to this heart felt tradition and opt for another word to describe the social status they are looking for. Most people would be sympathetic to a new label, since they would not become a victim of a minority. The gays could still get the very same practical results that the marriage laws provides. I would have agreed with you before this year. I believe they were termed Civil Unions. However, the current proposed amendment to the constitution not only states homosexuals are not allowed to marry, it also outlaws civil unions. Thus preventing gay couples from gaining the same protection under the law as married hetero sexual couples get. For some reason, I find it far more disturbing that an amendment is being proposed at a national level. I am less disturbed by the laws being passed by individual states. Not quite sure why yet, have to do some introspection into that:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edella Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 In a Democracy, majority rules Not in America Infy,if the majority of people wanted racial group X to not vote how do you think that would go over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 why do they want to be married in the eyes of the law anyway? is it about acceptance? even if the law says its ok there will still be predudices. Nothing stops them from saying that they are in a sense married, I googled marriage and no definition cited the law, it was all about union and life-long bonds.. do they need a peice of paper to tell them this? I think it comes back to my first point about acceptance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 ...It is against the law to descriminate on the basis of race. The laws that you allude to did not ever apply to all states - something about the United States that is too easliy forgotten. You are correct I should have been more clear and said 'it was against the law in some states...'I believe it was 16 states which had laws making inter-racial marriages illegal. Homosexuality is different. There seems to be a lot of studies indicating homosexuality is more genetic than not. However, even if it is 100% choice, why in the world would we restrict their rights and not give couples of that kind the same protection, benifits and penalties under the law as we give heterosexual couples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edella Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 If one has impulses to be gay, and they do not act on those impulses, then they are not gay. BillIf you're heterosexual and do not act on those impulses are you not heterosexual? InfiniteNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Your obsevation that there are restrictions on marriage misses the point.The question is:what are the reasons used to support and justify laws which might be enacted to prevent marriage between homosexual partners?Age of consent,ability to understand the contract,licencing,etc.,is not the issue.There have been past restrictions on marriage I'm certain we all would disagree with.In 1967, the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia struck down the last of the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.That wasn't very long ago. The fact that there are restrictions on marriage has nothing to do with whether certain restrictions are fair or not. Can hermaphrodites get married?There are several states passing laws that specify marriage between a man and a woman either constitutionally or through legislation. In all of those states marriage has only ever been legal between a man and a woman. They are doing this defensivly. It is the tradition of legal interpretation that marriage is between a man and a woman, and therefore has not always been specified because doing so was unnecessary. The reason it was interpreted that way is because the dictionaries of the world have all traditionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, so specifying such detail was not needed. After the ruling by the Massechusetts supreme court turned their long established understanding of the law on its head the other states are specifying the language to match the long held interpretation of its meaning. Not all states need to do this. But it holds true that only Mass has same sex marriage, and there it is still up in the air. The fight is not about making same sex marriage illegal. It is and has been illegal. The fight is to change the law to legalize same sex marriage. Hermaphrodites pick a gender and stick with it. They can marry the opposite of that gender. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 why do they want to be married in the eyes of the law anyway? is it about acceptance? even if the law says its ok there will still be predudices. Acceptance may be an issue, however the main issues I have heard are not acceptance.Instead, it is such things as being able to speak for their partner in cases of hospitalization. Adoption, wills and spousal benifits, insurance, are some of the other issues I recall seeing in reports. I don't think any of them expect acceptance through this, simply equal treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts