Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Aeson]

Scoutmasters should not be allowed to marry their scouts! (in either sense)

[Ben Kenobi]

[Az]

@ Asher and BK.

[Ben Kenobi]

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Asher

I find this comment offensive.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm not the only one?

Of course not, Park Avenue voted as well. Enjoy the company!

[Agathon]

Someone should have put a "No, and all poofs should be shot for good measure!" option just for him.

[MrFun]

Full marriage rights for couples of same gender who marry one another.

[Agathon]

You know I'm really shocked that Fred Phelps has not weighed in on this issue.

I've been going to godhatesfags.com every day for a couple of weeks in hope of seeing him foam at the mouth over the marriage issue, but nothing.

What kind of country is it when it's worst fundamentalist bigot doesn't even care about gay marriage enough to denounce it on his site?

[Thorn]

Fred Phelps is in prison for tax evasion right now, FYI.

[Drogue]

Now 13 people for Hetero marriage only, and 7 of them non US Looks like BK and PA aren't alone.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by yavoon


why just 2? I hardly think the number 2 is less arbitrary than "man and women"

Actually, it's easy to make an arguement that two is not less arbitrary.

In today's society, despite what some may believe, we strive for equality. In a marriage, the two spouses are looked upon as equal partners, sharing each others commitment with no one else. It's what allows for the default 50% ownership of assets, decisions rights (eg:for medical procedures), implied POA, etc. When you start splitting the same issues among various people, you potentially run into problems. Some examples:

A spouse has been in an accident and needs contsent for a certain procedure. One spouse is fully willing to proceed, another disagrees - who's opinion takes priority?

Divorce. Let's say there are five spouses in total. One files for divorce from the other four (which, in and of itself would likely cause another problem), how do you deem the assets to be divided up? Does everyone own a one-fifth share? Most likely, not everyone got married at the same time, so how do you justify that spouse #5 that wants a divorce is entitled to the same amount as spouse number one who entered the union 10 years before? With two person marriages, it's simple because everyone (both) concerned entered the union at the same time.

Having said that, I'm not adamently against polygamy, as long as everyone consents. I think it makes more sense to not allow it, but I wouldn't actively fight it or have an aneurysm if they were allowed. It might, however, cause me to love my wife less.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Let me put it another way, if you don't limit the number of people you can marry you essentially reduce the value of the institution from a legal sense. I would suggest therefore that you remove the legal institution and replace it with electable rights, which you can elect to anyone you choose whether you are romantically, physically or otherwise involved with them or not. Where rights are not exclusive there would be no limit on how many people you choose to give them to.

so ur going to deny people a right based upon the legal convenience of the consequence?

I think legal convenience arguments are hard to stretch into this arena.

[Sava]

I'm for treating people equally, equal protection under law, and making no law respecting the establishment of religion... I don't care what people call it... civil unions, marriage, whatever... but the constitution says EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW... so whatever you call it, gay couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

and the gay-haters can go **** themselves

[JohnT]

Wow Sava, that is brilliantly reasoned.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by yavoon


so ur going to deny people a right based upon the legal convenience of the consequence?

I'm not denying any rights.

[St Leo]

Only Catholics should be allowed to marry. Letting Hindus and Jews marry dilutes the meaning of the word.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by pchang
What I really want is for marriage to be a religious thing and completely removed from the political arena. I want marriage laws to be rewritten in a gender neutral civil union type of way. That way, religions can say to gays "no, you cannot be married within our church", but gays would still get the same legal rights and benefits that married people get today (tax, insurance, decision making, survivor stuff, etc.).

Sounds like a very good Idea to me.
Let the Civil Union grant the full rights, which are nowadays granted by a marriage
and separate the Marriage in a church from this,
so that you aren´t entitled any rights from a marriage in church, but it is just a religious ceremony.

This way you could probably also solve a problem with Polygamy.

Allow people like Mormons and the like to have a religious marriage with as many people they want. But they are, as all other people, just allowed to form a civil union with one other person.
Maybe with one exception:
People with a religious marriage are considered relatives, regardless of wether they also form a Civil Union or not (important for visiting their partners in Hospital and the like).

But any financial advantages (taxes, insurances) are only granted by a Civil Union (which you, as I said, can only have with one person [regardless of wether he/she is of the same or of the opposite sex])

[St Leo]

Why do religious people get to steal the word "marriage" from normals? Why can't normal people keep "marriage" and religious folk invent a new word for the silliness?

[Proteus_MST]

I believe, because Marriages where first religious motivated.

To connect the purely religious marriage with some other Benefits besides receiving some kind of Blessing from God for the relationship, was something which evolved much later (at least I think so).

So Religions have the right of the Inventor, to claim the term "Marriages" for themselves.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I believe, because Marriages where first religious motivated.

it was about property... women were seen as such

[Proteus_MST]

Are you sure?

After all there were probably a lot of Religions which had some form of marriage before the christians and jews and not all were patriarchates.
The Jewish or christian Religion probably just took the ritual of Marriage from other religions (and altered it for their own use), as they did with so much other things.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Are you sure?

After all there were probably a lot of Religions which had some form of marriage before the christians and jews and not all were patriarchates.
The Jewish or christian Religion probably just took the ritual of Marriage from other religions (and altered it for their own use), as they did with so much other things.

that's what I've heard... in the end, I doubt anyone we could ever know for sure

[Ben Kenobi]

Why can't normal people keep "marriage" and religious folk invent a new word for the silliness?

So religious people are not normal?

Secondly, they've been doing marriages this way for a lot longer than any country. So if anything, the country should change before the religion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Are you sure?

Yes. Marriage originates in the enslavement of women in order to ensure that men can ensure their offsrping really are theirs. At some point, as with mst things, religion clouded up the real, practical origins of the institution, and made it dogma.

Both marriage and organized religion originated about the same time, the neolithic revolution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So religious people are not normal?

Adults with imaginary friends are crazy and are not normal.

[Ben Kenobi]

women were seen as such

By European society? Might want to check that again. Marriages have been done for a long time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Adults with imaginary friends are crazy and are not normal.

Nothing imaginary about God.

Secondly, didn't you admit that 80% of the US is religious? Religion is the norm at least in American society.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Nothing imaginary about God.

Secondly, didn't you admit that 80% of the US is religious? Religion is the norm at least in American society.

big deal, I put the amount of stupid people at about 95%... but don't feel bad, that means like 15% of the dopes are atheists.

[Aeson]

Stupid people comprise a full 100% of the population!