Why do people push so hard for gay marriage?legal unions that warrant you the same benefits as marriage? fuck yeah, let gays have them. why not? as citizens, they're entitled to the same legal alternatives and financial discounts associated with marriage. but gay MARRIAGE? that's religious stuff. it's absolutelly disgusting to rage about the church 24/7 because the church dislikes gays, only to barge in there claiming the RIGHT to appropriate the tradition associated with something you loathe and criticize 24/7.make up your minds, faggots. either you dislike the church and have nothing to do with it or you accept it as much as you preach that you want to be accepted yourself. It's not that hard. It's called having a conscience and actually making a commitment to the society in return for all the commitments society is making to all gays in the past few years. (if you deny that society has changed and altered itself in a huge commitment as of late towards gays, you're nothing but self-entitled pricks.).in short: legal unions? gays are human beings and should have legal alternatives that equals (to the extent of possibility) those granted to heteros.gay marriage? nope. it's religious shit."give unto ceaser's what belongs to ceaser. Give unto the God what belongs to God." problem is , people have a hard time establishing reasonable boundaries and constantly push towards getting as much leeway as they can.Also, what you people fail to realize, is that when two heteros get married, the state makes a commitment to the couple to aid them, in return the couple aids the state by providing offspring.When gays get married, what's been assumed up until now , was that no children would come from such an union (and effectively dont).The only real alternative, in fact, is adoption.In which case, gays really do provide a public service by raising up homeless/parentless children in their own homes, and should earn the same benefits as "regular" couples.
OP, would you mind stating what country you live in? In the US, marriage is both a legal and religious institution.
Why does marriage have any legal value anyways?seems to completely ignore the whole disestablishmentarianism thing
>>20799 (OP)but the fact that there's plenty of gays who rage and QQQ about this alternative tells me that those in specific aren't really asking for egualitarianism. Were they really striving for equality, they'd settle for a practical means of being equal.When they refuse that and chose to flamboyantly act like an edgy rebelious teen, all it tells me , is that they're just that: kids who need attention.and before you guys pull the all too commonplace "gay hate card", let me tell you: I am gay. And I am DISGUSTED by your constant biggotry.have a nice day.
>>20916because , when you get married, there's an implication (straight couple) that you'll reward the state with offspring.it's a 2 way deal . you help the state, it rewards you.
Marriage is a legal civil union, not just a religious ceremony. Many non religious people get married.
>>20985Or you burden it with eight starving mouths to feed in a trailer
>marriage>religious stuff>both of my parents are atheist and they are marriedThis guy.
>>20929But legally speaking, separate but equal is an exercise in pointlessness, and really only exists to say "group A is better than group B." Ideally, there would be Civil Unions for everyone, gay and straight, and marriage would be a purely religious thing.
those legal unions don't actually have the same benefits of marriage.
>>21028then why not come up with an legal solution that doesn't come with the word "marriage" attached?believe it or not, the US was founded with deep roots in chsitianism.All you get for pushing for "marriage" is shock at the manhandling of a religious tradition.just push for a legal alternative with a different name.
>>21156see >>21081
>>21081The thing is, religious marriage automatically implicates the couple will reward the state with offspring. Gays can't provide offspring. They can only raise someone else's.The deal is different. The contract needs to be different.is that too hard to understand?
>>21077Pretty much this. I'm an atheist and I can get married any time I want because the government recognizes marriage as a legal status.>>21156We can't have a separate status for gay men and women because we already settled this idea with the idea of seperate but equal IS NOT inherently equal. The government cannot extend separate rights to individuals in similar situations.The only options are that marriage becomes completely separated from the government, offering and only recognizing civil unions for both gay and straight people and then religious people can go have their church marriages.ORWe grant the legal status of marriage to everybody and religious people can just not have gay marriages in their church.The second one is incredibly more likely to occur at the path we're heading.
>>21417So why can infertile and childfree couples marry?What does right of attorney and hospital visitation rights have to do with having children?
>>21484what about?no.if you start reducing the big picture into the personal level, you come to the conclusion that some time or another, EVERY LAW FAILS.
>>21428and I stand for that.What boggles my mind is that there's people who actually cannot understand the difference between legal union status and marriage.one is a spiritual and religious process/ritual, the other is a legal procedure.which one is easier to implement?
>>21562I have no goddamn idea what you are trying to say here.
Here's how it is.Right now a straight couple can get married by a justice of the peace, a government official. If they choose, they can also have a civil union. Or a straight couple can be married by a religious minister.I am OK will disallowing gay men and women to be married and instead reserving civil unions performed by government officials, but there's a catch.The government must perform these unions equally. ALL GOVERNMENT ISSUED UNIONS MUST BE CIVIL UNIONS, STRAIGHT OR GAY. Then, all religious unions may be considered marriage and could fairly exclude gays if they chose.>tl;dr Gov does civil unions only, straight or gay. Religion does marriage only, straight only.
>>21671what I'm saying is that if you start getting into that one couple who cannot reproduce, that one case in which the law isn't applicable and fails because it's that 0,01% case that just so happens to exist every once in a while, you need to revise every law.we need to be practical. We need laws that work as often as possible, but one time or another every law fails. there's plenty of cases where you can say justice isn't met in the American justice system.The fact that I had to explain myself in such lengths at such an easy thing to understand, tells me I might be wasting my time.Not everything has to work 100% of the time. It just has to keep our society going.
>>21826sure. That's actually what I'm defending for like the 3rd time in this same thread.
I have no idea, marriage is bullshit.
>>21852You had to explain yourself at length because the first attempt read like madlibs.Wouldn't the best solution for laws that work as often as possible then be for gay people to get married, or some secular version thereof for both gay and straight people? Again, many of the rights and laws bound up in marriage have nothing to do with children.
>>21057right.you really want to cherry-pick counter arguments?you guys are such bigots. It's prohibitive to label gays as something negative, buts it's ok to portray heteros in a negative light?fucking bigots. cut the rebelious act.
>>22058right. let's also treat all criminal offences the same.
>>22058also, that's no excuse. I made my point perfectly clear. Let's not turn this argument into getting bullshit thrown around.
>>21081And it's not even separate-but-equal right now. As of writing this, I can legally marry my same-sex partner in the state of New York.But guess what? Because of DOMA, my marriage still isn't recognized by the federal government. So when it comes to all of the federal benefits that straight people receive, such as social security survivor benefits to name one, my partner and I are shit-out-of-luck.
>>222081) I understand that can be frustrating.2) you still provide different benefits to the gov. than straight couples (read: offspring)3) you need to first prove the state that you can reward the state with something, only then can you claim to have any RIGHTs. remember, rights are EARNED, not claimed.4) you still didn't adress the fact that religion and the state still are merged and mixed up in certain areas of the government. in order for your "legal union" to be fully recognized, you need to convince the state that your union is not religious. It's exacly what I'm saying. there's a huge misconception around this whole debate! it's not marriage you want. that's religious... of course same sex marriage won't be recognized at some instance.... not untill you completely separate the state from religious affairs.
>>22148????????>>22199No you didn't, which is why I had to ask for clarification.>>22208At least DOMA isn't going to be defended by the government anymore. Or was that DADT?
>>22118>wah wah strawman argument My point is that legal or religious marriage have no actual benefit to mankind from a biological standpoint...or even from a social one, since a fuckton of married couples get divorced anyway.
>>223421.) Childfree couples2.) Infertile couples3.) Many states do not allow gay couples to adopt.
>>20799 (OP)>but gay MARRIAGE? that's religious stuff67% of marriages carried out in the UK last year were civil ceremonies. That means religion wasn't involved in their marriages, just like it won't be involved in most gay marriages. Secondly, while a lot of churches are anti gay, anti gay marriage, it's definitely not all. Quakers, reform and conservative jews, many christians, believe that same-sex marriage is just as valid as opposite sex marriage, and why should any country deny them the religious freedom to do what they believe, if marriages are so religious?
>>20799 (OP)They're homosexuals, that's why.They take it up the ass.You get it?Up the ass
I'm going to have to stop you at "marriage is religious stuff."The wedding is what's religious. The marriage itself is a contract between you and your spouse. Unless you are married to god, it really has no part in the actual act of being married, just the ceremony should you choose to have it in a church.
>>223551) ??? doesn't count. if you're too stupid to read between the lines, you shouldn't even get to vote.2) I don't care. I responded to you and further clarified, even tho you clearly just chose to refuse to read between the lines. Which is why certain movements that refuse to read between the lines FAIL and don't even realize it.3) I'm not american. would you please elaborate on DOMA and DADT?>>22371You're saying that there's no benefit to the state from providing incentives for people to give them offspring (read: future labour).This just about does it: you people are so dumb it's not worth it. You just have no idea how the world works, and that's why your demands fail to be met with reasonable responses : YOU'RE NOT REASONABLE YOURSELVES.>I just grew even more disgusted by you guys. Thanks for proving yet again my original point.
>>22342you need to first prove the state that you can reward the state with something, only then can you claim to have any RIGHTs. remember, rights are EARNED, not claimed.If my spouse and I PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY OUR ENTIRE LIVES and then one of us dies, we should rightly expect the same treatment under the law to apply to us that would apply to heterosexuals (namely, the survivors benefits).You do realize that married homosexual couples pay into the government's social security coffers just as much as married heterosexual couples do, right?
>>22529but money isn't all the benefits people bring into a society.you don't have to be married to provide that. In fact there's single people out there who provide better and bigger monetary rewards to the state than you and your spouse.Again, what the fuck is up with your volatyle memories? It's proposed in the OP, further explained in the answers, and you still IGNORE the simple biological differences between the 2 marriages.fuck all of you. get your heads out of your asses.
>>20799 (OP)Are you retarded?Do you think people like these should be allowed to marry and adopt children?Just look at them.
>>22529Oops, forgot to greentext the quote.Also, since when are rights "earned"? Have we stopped teaching civics in high school or what?In case you've forgotten, I'll remind you that this nation was founded upon the moral philosophy that people are born with inalienable rights. Now, we haven't been very good at upholding this, but that's what we profess to believe. When arguments were made that certain civil rights were being denied one group or another, it wasn't up to that group to show us what "worth" or "value" they had to society before we extended those rights to them.
>>22523It's not my job to "read between the lines" i.e. decipher what the holy fuck you are trying to tell me instead of just telling me.>>22529And bouncing off this, if gay people pay taxes and pay into social security just the same as straight people do, but don't receive the same benefits, then shouldn't gay people be receiving some form of a tax break in lieu of equal marriage?The comment regarding DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell (Don't Pursue)) wasn't directed at you.
>>22847So because a document says you're born with them you have no obligation towards the state to maintain your rights.A criminal , read: a person who broke the personal contract with the state to abide by it's rules, get's punished.That's not to say you're a criminal. It's just to say that claiming you have no obligation to the state is the same as saying a kid has no obligation of respect to his loving family. It's just wrong , bigoted, and overall, childish.
>>22650>In fact there's single people out there who provide better and bigger monetary rewards to the state than you and your spouse.Okay, so you clearly don't understand what social security even is.I pay into my social security retirement fund all of my life and so does my spouse. Normally, married heterosexuals pool resources, such as retirement funds, together. This means that if one of them dies, then the surviving spouse gets the retirement money that the dead spouse had accrued over the years.And that is currently how it works for straight people. They both pay into social security their entire lives, and when one of them dies, the other surviving spouse gets access to that money.Because of DOMA, however, if I were to die, my spouse would not receive my survivor benefits. That's OUR fucking money. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? This has nothing to do with whether or not we provide any fucking "value" to the state which, by the way, is the most retarded and juvenile argument I have ever heard for denying people equal treatment under the law.That's our retirement money. OUR. MONEY. We paid into it ALL our lives. That means that when I die, HE GETS IT.END. OF. STORY.
>>22937it's not your job to try and fully understand what the other participant's opinion is / is telling you.man the fuck up/Grow the fuck up. Stop being so childish for fucks sake.That's exacly the problem with the lot of you: you refuse the simple commitment towards understanding on a simple debate! all you want is demand, demand DEMAND rights.fuck off.
>>22986Childfree couples. The fact the state does not actively demand children from couples, nor does it revoke marriages in their absence. The laws in marriage that have nothing to do with children. The fact that lgbt give back to the state via taxes. Answer for this shit instead of repeating the same tired points, or fuck off.
> all you want is demand, demand DEMAND rights.Maybe I can settle for demanding a better understanding of english.
>>20799 (OP)If marriage is a religious thing, how about we change the language in our legal text regarding marriages to something non-religious like "civil unions" That way no one will have trouble extending benefits to their spouses and we can keep church and state separate.
>>20799 (OP)If we want to get technical, marriage has nothing to do with religion originally. It was an exchange of property from one man to another. If there were any religious ocnnotations, they were used as a scare tactic to make sure the woman, being the man's property now, would not go screwing around. "Don't fuck around on me, Eliza! God will strike you down!" So your entire argument is already down the toilet. Then it gets to the last part and I'm like, "What the fuck?" The state is not there aiding so we can have more babies. That's not how it works.
