A question for those opposed to gay marriage.

[Wells]

Marriage is not currently a contract

Oh jesus fuck I'm done.

[IIamaKing]

No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman

So blacks as slaves and women not voting was fine too? Those were the status quo as well.

[MathAddict]

No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. It has nothing to do with "hating" gays, or wanting to deny rights, but rather having more concrete, set standards of life. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an everybody wins mentality.

But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.

Seems like a slippery slope type of thought. Some laws/rights should never change and some laws/rights should absolutely change. If laws never changed because we wanted concrete standards of life, then we might all still be able to own slaves and segregate entire races in the USA.

[Rukentuts]

Marriage is not currently a contract.

Before you post again, go down to City Hall and ask for a marriage license and the legal responsibilities thereof. We'll wait here.

[Tradewind]

Before you post again, go down to City Hall and ask for a marriage license and the legal responsibilities thereof. We'll wait here.

...take a sock puppet with you for extra lulz.

[IIamaKing]

[QUOTE=DEATHETERNAL;24411787

Marriage is not currently a contract. [/QUOTE]

So why do they call it a marriage contract? And why is it illegal in many states to violate said contract with an affair?

[D3thray]

I think I specifically said "Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government..." in what you quoted, so I'm not sure what you are asking.


Marriage is not currently a contract. It lacks any degree of certainty and specificity in regard to what actually happens in cases like child custody, property rights, inheritance, and the like. It currently simply gives the government the power to decide things in those situations instead of leaving the decisions up to the individuals involved in them. It is bribing the citizenry with tax benefits in exchange for power over children and property in the case of alteration or cancelation of the marriage. Leave people to their own liberty to make those decisions for themselves either in contract or at the time they arise. Demanding that the government enforce its arbitrary will on those matters needlessly is unneeded and unjust.


Because she bore the child. Don’t like it? Get your women to sign a contract giving equal rights both you (the father) and her or whatever you want.

Marriage IS a social contract tho. If you so desperately don't want gubmint involved in arbitrating for its citizenry then I suppose to could go be a hermit. This idea that government does nothing good or useful for our society is just willful ignorance.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Before you post again, go down to City Hall and ask for a marriage license and the legal responsibilities thereof. We'll wait here.

For something to be a contract, does it and should it have to be willingly entered into by all who are part of it? Answer that question then my reason can be made apparent.

If you so desperately don't want gubmint involved in arbitrating for its citizenry then I suppose to could go be a hermit. This idea that government does nothing good or useful for our society is just willful ignorance.

I challenge you to find where I ever stated such was true. Until such time as you complete such an impossible tank, I suggest you make arguments instead of false insinuations.

[THE Bigzoman]

Marriage IS a social contract tho. If you so desperately don't want gubmint involved in arbitrating for its citizenry then I suppose to could go be a hermit. This idea that government does nothing good or useful for our society is just willful ignorance.

How do you take disdain towards to governments involvement in marriage as "You don't think the government works well at all go be a hermit"?

[Wildtree]

And even then it's still possible to get busted for it on a federal level if you're in that safe imaginary border.

State law should never contradict federal law... The federal government is responsible for the countries safety and well being, and the federal law should therefore always trump state law.
It is a huge problem in the USA, and one of the main reasons why the country doesn't function properly.

[jimlow]

What 'civil rights' has a religious authority usurped in the US ? (outside of Utah, but that's cause the religious authority IS the state)

Really guy? you want that chronologically or alphabetically?

[Zarc]

I'm against the government usurping religious authority and defining what marriage is. If they want to be the arbiter of civil union contracts, cool... but the separation of church and state should mean that they have NO BUSINESS in marriages. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

Can we be against religious authority usurping civil rights at the same time?

How is religious "authority" usurping civil rights? Look, I am for gay marriage. But I find that people often speak past each other when it comes to this issue. Those gay-marriage opponents who are not completly crazy religious nutjobs are usually not opposed to gay people have the same rights, having the same ability to be lawfully bound to another person and have the same benefits and recognition before the law. What they usually are against is that they should be able to me "married", which is a purely Religous and Symbolic thing, with no effect before the law. All the legal stuff between 2 individuals should be open to everyone, no matter the sex of these two individuals. But marriage is a religous thing part of individual Christian churches that are private organizations. And if you want you religion to be that of a God who thinks marriage is a union between a man and a woman, shouldn't people have the freedom to excercise this religion privately? Surely, gays can form their own Christian Church if the current ones wouldn't accept them, but is it the role of the state to interfer with a religious institution and force them to include anyone who wants to enter their religious organization to be able to do so? Should the state force religious institutions to change their religious beliefs? That seems wrong, as if a Conservative Party would be forced by law to accept Socialists to join their party and be forced to change their view of the role of the government to accomodate the beliefs of these Socialists. Seems wrong to me.

I think a key point of the gay-marriage opponents is that marriage is a Christian religous thing and that the state/government has no business in defining what that should be, and feel that sure gays can have the same rights but not use the word "married". I mean should the state go in and put legislation that states that anyone should be able to have a Bar Mitzva, no matter the sex? No, of course not. Government has nothing to do with that, that's a thing for the various institutions of Judaism to decide for themselves. And a Bar Mitzva is a thing for males only, as it has been for thousands of years, and which used to be true for marriage as well.

So the real decisions is should the government/state hi-jack the terminology marriage and have that be the name for the civil legal contract two consenting adults regardless of gender can enter into? Religious people will object to this. I think they kind of shot themselves in the food by forcing Christianity upon everyone in the West back in the days, so now in modern days when not everyone is a Christian anymore they kind of have to let go of this word and accept that we make this into a word for a secular legal contract. So I am pro gay-marriage. Should the state/government force individual churces to enact religious/symbolic marriages between two people of the same sex? I don't think so. Would I ever want to be part of a Church that doesn't allow that? Hell no. But that is my choice. If someone does, that is none of my business. Then again, I wouldn't want to be part of any Church.

Of course if there is no civil union available that grants the exact same legal rights for gays this is a civil rights issue, but if such a legal contract is available this is not a civil rights issue but an issue over terminology and ownership of a word.

[Tradewind]

Since when is Marriage exclusively a Christian thing? Or exclusively religious for that matter....

I think you wandered into the wrong discussion. Nobody's talking about getting gay married in a church, the state had banned "civil unions" as well. A law built on "religious morals."

[Sky High]

hence why I think states rights are bullshit. however given how fucked our federal government is it makes me (a socialist) cheer when states are the ones decriminalizing weed and passing gay marriage equality before the feds can and maybe ever will. what a world.

[Masark]

So blacks as slaves and women not voting was fine too? Those were the status quo as well.

Crucifying Christians was also status quo.

Marriage is not currently a contract. It lacks any degree of certainty and specificity in regard to what actually happens in cases like child custody, property rights, inheritance, and the like. It currently simply gives the government the power to decide things in those situations instead of leaving the decisions up to the individuals involved in them.

So legal disagreements over what is meant by other non-marriage contracts never happens, because they're perfect and written in a completely unambiguous manner?

contract law attorneys must be filing for bankruptcy in your little world.

[Sky High]

Since when is Marriage exclusively a Christian thing? Or exclusively religious for that matter....

since we said it is, as with most things religious entities do. /looks at his pagan tree

[D3thray]

Marriage is not currently a contract. It lacks any degree of certainty and specificity in regard to what actually happens in cases like child custody, property rights, inheritance, and the like. It currently simply gives the government the power to decide things in those situations instead of leaving the decisions up to the individuals involved in them. It is bribing the citizenry with tax benefits in exchange for power over children and property in the case of alteration or cancelation of the marriage. Leave people to their own liberty to make those decisions for themselves either in contract or at the time they arise. Demanding that the government enforce its arbitrary will on those matters needlessly is unneeded and unjust.

Sorry about the broad remark. So used to seeing such arguments lumped in with other anti-government arguments that I read between the lines.

My point remains. Who arbitrates in case of dispute? Even if its not a contract as you say, a judge would be involved. A judge who was appointed by the government. Not every divorce for example requires litigation or even lawyers. But some do, and they use the government judiciary. There's nothing arbitrary at all about that.

[Tastyfish]

...take a sock puppet with you for extra lulz.

With that avatar.. LOL

[Elim Garak]

Yes I would support it as I am against State interference in family business - that is I'm against Marriage institution and special financial benefits for married people which is discriminatory to single/childless people.

[Ehrenpanzer]

By contract signed by the two (yeah there could be more than two if there is some kind of surrogate mother stupidity, but you know what I mean) individuals. If no contract exists, the mother has first right. Simple as that.

yeah....gl with that