Debate Thread: Marriage Equality

[Thalian]

This thread looks like it's going in a worse direction than the others.

Oh, aren't you Mr. Unconstructive Post?

[Feral Camel]

4 reason I'm all for marriage equality.

1. It doesn't effect me.
2. It doesn't hurt anybody in any way.
3. People want to be equal ground.
4. The most important part, great for the hospitality industry.

[stuck4cash]

Let people marry whomever and whatever the hell they want. I really don't understand why others try to control this.

So marrying people under age is OK? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Not saying that's a valid reason to stop gays getting married even though I'm somewhat against it (this is because I've found 90% of homosexuals that I've known for more than 2 seconds to be extremely rude and inconsiderate of others feelings, I do however realise I'm an exception, not the rule and therefore I don't have actively stop them or blame them for wanting it).

And let's get this straight, this isn't about equality at all, it's about marrying another legally aged person of the same sex. When other similar minority groups get campaigning from gay people in the same way then I'll call it equal (polygamy as the main one comes to mind since they're all consenting human adults).

[Uennie]

Oh, aren't you Mr. Unconstructive Post?

... Are you honestly disagreeing? People are already arguing the rights of veterans in this thread. There are threads on this already, I think it's a bit ridiculous you'd make another one, and I said that already.

There is nothing to debate, so ... the purpose? That's about as OT as you can get for what's going on here.

[obdigore]

Gay people will never be equal in the eye of those who will never let them be equal, legally married or not. Equal in a legal sense is what i was shootin for. The additional hurdles with "attorney or power" and caregiver stuff shouldnt be an additional fee after the fact.

There is no reason to have two things that do the same thing. Marriage is a recognized institution by the government that grants benefits, and is a legal contract. The sex of the people engaging in the legal contract should have no bearing on its validity.

[Underverse]

So marrying people under age is OK? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Not saying that's a valid reason to stop gays getting married even though I'm somewhat against it (this is because I've found 90% of homosexuals that I've known for more than 2 seconds to be extremely rude and inconsiderate of others feelings, I do however realise I'm an exception, not the rule and therefore I don't have actively stop them or blame them for wanting it).

And let's get this straight, this isn't about equality at all, it's about marrying another legally aged person of the same sex. When other similar minority groups get campaigning from gay people in the same way then I'll call it equal (polygamy as the main one comes to mind since they're all consenting human adults).

yeah better off getting rid of marriage if we can't figure out where to draw the line with our random constructs

[Very Tired]

In before false comparison with pedophiles/bestiality.

[chadwix]

There is no reason to have two things that do the same thing. Marriage is a recognized institution by the government that grants benefits, and is a legal contract. The sex of the people engaging in the legal contract should have no bearing on its validity.

It will be at least 40 years until we can indoctrinate what the word marriage means to the kids, we have to take it slow.

We have changed the meaning of words over time to meet a social agenda in the past, "marriage" should be no different.

[obdigore]

It will be at least 40 years until we can indoctrinate what the word marriage means to the kids, we have to take it slow.

We have changed the meaning of words over time to meet a social agenda in the past, "marriage" should be no different.

... Marriage means a contract between two people. I'm not a child. What more needs to be said?

[Sunseeker]

Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the government seeking to ensure the longevity of it's people.

Personally anyone over the AoC should be able to get a "civil union" and we can let churches have their totally non-legally binding, non-government involved spiritual "contract". And while we're at it lets fix the tax code and allow polygamy too. No real reason to deny that other than religious uptightness too.

[chadwix]

... Marriage means a contract between two people.

So does a civil union. But like i said you dont get the full benefits unless you do the paperwork after the fact. A tweaked civil union and why would you care? Are other people really that interested in you calling it a marriage? Seems self serving.

The problem is that our gov used a religious term. All marriages in the eyes of our gov should be civil unions. They really messed up when writing the laws, guess they didnt see this one coming.

[obdigore]

We should also legalise and regulate prostitution, never hurts to get some added income (And hopefully with the regulations, a better life for prostitutes)!

It seems other countries are taking that approach, it is working well, yes?

Its better for both the prostitutes and the johns if it is legalized and regulated.

Also, there is a ton of it in the bible so the religious morality reasons don't hold up.

---------- Post added 2013-04-18 at 01:03 AM ----------

So does a civil union. But like i said you dont get the full benefits unless you do the paperwork after the fact. A tweaked civil union and why would you care? Are other people really that interested in you calling it a marriage? Seems self serving.

The problem is that our gov used a religious term. All marriages in the eyes of our gov should be civil unions. They really messed up when writing the laws, guess they didnt see this one coming.

No, marriage is not a religious term. It was around before any current religious, and religion attempted to subvert it to their own ends.

[vizzle]

So marrying people under age is OK? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Not saying that's a valid reason to stop gays getting married even though I'm somewhat against it (this is because I've found 90% of homosexuals that I've known for more than 2 seconds to be extremely rude and inconsiderate of others feelings, I do however realise I'm an exception, not the rule and therefore I don't have actively stop them or blame them for wanting it).

And let's get this straight, this isn't about equality at all, it's about marrying another legally aged person of the same sex. When other similar minority groups get campaigning from gay people in the same way then I'll call it equal (polygamy as the main one comes to mind since they're all consenting human adults).

Do I have to add *within the realm of reason to all my posts? I just thought it was implied, I guess.

If the two individuals in the marriage are over the AoC and understand what they're doing, and still agree to do it, then it shouldn't be a problem.

[chadwix]

No, marriage is not a religious term. It was around before any current religious, and religion attempted to subvert it to their own ends.

People were worshiping the sun god Rah back then, i dont think there were many athesists. Religion was a standard of the time.

[obdigore]

People were worshiping the sun god Rah back then, i dont think there were many athesists. Religion was a standard of the time.

I'm not going to go over this in another thread with people who assume the institution of marriage is a religious one. Do your own research, or look at one of the numerous other threads about it.

[belfpala]

So marrying people under age is OK? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Next thing you know, they'll want to marry animals!

No. Slippery slope arguments are usually dumb.

[Very Tired]

The case of marriage being religion related is irrelevant. Marriage has been something practiced across the world throughout human history, meaning no one religion gets the call the shots on it.

[chadwix]

I'm not going to go over this in another thread with people who assume the institution of marriage is a religious one. Do your own research, or look at one of the numerous other threads about it.

Feel free to when you have the time. Id like to debunk each of your theories that defy religion was common sense in their era. Like i said there were no atheists, well none that lived. You cannot apply todays standards to those times.

Same sex's didnt marry until when? If you refuse to acknowledge that fact your ignoring your premise.

[stuck4cash]

Do I have to add *within the realm of reason to all my posts? I just thought it was implied, I guess.

If the two individuals in the marriage are over the AoC and understand what they're doing, and still agree to do it, then it shouldn't be a problem.

"within the realm of reason" is a very broad and ambiguous statement. There's lots of people that argue that same sex isn't within the realm of reason and others argue that under age marriages are. You still need to draw a line of where this "realm of reason" starts and ends and it's a very blurry line.

[spinner981]

What people fail to mention in these debates is the many many doorways that are opened when the line that has existed for so long is destroyed. If we strive for equality, to make everyone happy, and therefore we legalize gay marriage, what argument will we be able to make against legalizing polygamy or pedophilia based marriages if all parties and peoples have given their consent? Taken to a further extreme, marrying animals and inanimate objects? Years and years ago homosexuality was viewed as gross, disgusting, etc., just like some of these other forms of "marriage" or "love" are viewed now, so it is not crazy to expect them to take the same exact path. Where do we draw the line? How will we draw the line when we have already decided that we shouldn't be able to stop them from "Being happy"?

It all comes down to morality and the fact that indefinite forms of morality (like the kind that most non-theists embrace) are ultimately decided by mere popular opinion and not what morality (aka: right and wrong) actually is. It is in everyone's best interest that we don't kill each other because people don't want to die, same thing for theft and what not. If gay marriage is legalized everywhere, the cat is already out of the bag and we will eventually start seeing cases pop up all over the place of people wanting the right to dabble in polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality, because why should we stop them from being happy if everyone involved has given consent?

As far as the age of consent goes, 11 and 12 year olds are required to now sign forms to let their parents read their medical records. It is not ridiculous that this age of consent is questioned alongside many other "Imposed limitations".

Just because we might commonly see something as ridiculous now doesn't mean it can't radically change in just one years time.