Homosexual Marriage

Rationalskeptic · Post by **Rationalskeptic** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:21 pm

This topic is devoted to the question: Should we legally recognize gay marriage?

Some people think that gays are bad. Others think that they are not necessarily bad. Some people think that gay marriage is "morally wrong," others think that it is not wrong. Some think that giving gays equal rights will incourage an inferior institution. Others disagree. Some people think that the law should discourage that which they think is morally wrong, even when it does not involve agressing against the rights of others. Others disagree. Some think that there should be no gay marriage because gays are "disgusting." Others find that this does not matter. Some think that making laws protecting gays will add budgetary problems to our state and federal governments, and will hurt the rights of non-gay individuals. Others either disagree that gay marriage does, or that this is important. Some think that gay marriage should not be a legal status because it hurts "marriage." Others think that this is silly.

So what do you think on this controvercy. I have shown you most of what this issue covers. Have a fun debate.

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:23 pm

Q: Should we legally recognize gay marriage?

A: Yes.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:57 pm

Should we legally recognize gay marriage?

No. We should legally de-recognize all marriage. We spend not a small amount of tax money administrating marriage. Why are we doing this? There's no good reason for continuing this quasi-government-legal-social status of marriage. Divorce, inheritance and child custody all end up in court anyway if there is any dispute. We get little if anything out of paying bureaucrats to sign marriage licenses, etc.

De-recognition will have the added benefit for the conservatives of allowing them to define marriage as they choose and excluding whomever they choose. No one would be force to "recognize" a marriage if they are offended by it.

There you go. Problem solved.

DanZ

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:29 am

juliod wrote:
Should we legally recognize gay marriage?
No. We should legally de-recognize all marriage. We spend not a small amount of tax money administrating marriage. Why are we doing this? There's no good reason for continuing this quasi-government-legal-social status of marriage. Divorce, inheritance and child custody all end up in court anyway if there is any dispute. We get little if anything out of paying bureaucrats to sign marriage licenses, etc.

De-recognition will have the added benefit for the conservatives of allowing them to define marriage as they choose and excluding whomever they choose. No one would be force to "recognize" a marriage if they are offended by it.

There you go. Problem solved.

DanZ

This suggestion has some merit.

On the other hand it is much less likely to become reality than gay marriage itself, in my view. In addition, to the extent that marriage is a contract, it seems to me it needs to have some official legal recognition by the state, even if we did reduce the bureaucracy somehow.

I think we should legalize gay marriage, or at the very least provide for essentially equivalent civil unions.

Bans on gay marriage, since they are religiously motivated and since no one, at least in my view, has ever provided a rational secular reason to ban them amount to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Churches should feel free not to marry gays. The state should not be free to allow some consenting adults to enter into marriage contracts and not others, at least not without some compelling reason for doing so.

Rationalskeptic · Post by **Rationalskeptic** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:28 pm

juliod wrote:
Should we legally recognize gay marriage?
No. We should legally de-recognize all marriage. We spend not a small amount of tax money administrating marriage. Why are we doing this? There's no good reason for continuing this quasi-government-legal-social status of marriage. Divorce, inheritance and child custody all end up in court anyway if there is any dispute. We get little if anything out of paying bureaucrats to sign marriage licenses, etc.

De-recognition will have the added benefit for the conservatives of allowing them to define marriage as they choose and excluding whomever they choose. No one would be force to "recognize" a marriage if they are offended by it.

There you go. Problem solved.

DanZ

Marriage can exist without legal protection. However, if a couple want to have the legal rights and a legal contract, they can get a license. The legal contract of marriage creates stability in society, because there are rules to govern the rights of each married part in the marriage, it one dies, and if one or both want to divorce. The law also recognizes them as one person in some respects. This can be beneficial and stabalizing.

I favor giving married couples rights because this creates stability in society. For example, being able to pay taxes as a married couple helps them with finantial matters. Considering a married couple as one also makes things simpler.

I favor having a legal contract of marriage because this benefits married couples and gives a legal framework for their relationships.

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:19 am

I agree with some wit or other who was asked, "Do you think gays should have the right to marry?" and replied, "Absolutely. No way they should be exempt from being just as miserable as the rest of us."

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:27 am

cnorman18 wrote:I agree with some wit or other who was asked, "Do you think gays should have the right to marry?" and replied, "Absolutely. No way they should be exempt from being just as miserable as the rest of us."

My mother-in-law has a cartoon with this quip on her fridge.

It's worth pointing out that most if not all of the "evils" of allowing gay marriage are either

A. Already happening without the marriage
B. Are evils we accept from heterosexuals as part of living in a free society

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:08 pm

cnorman18 wrote:I agree with some wit or other who was asked, "Do you think gays should have the right to marry?" and replied, "Absolutely. No way they should be exempt from being just as miserable as the rest of us."

That is what Kinky Freidman said when he was running for Texas governor.

Coyotero · Post by **Coyotero** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:23 pm

micatala wrote: It's worth pointing out that most if not all of the "evils" of allowing gay marriage are either

A. Already happening without the marriage
B. Are evils we accept from heterosexuals as part of living in a free society

But, if we allow the gays to marry then people will also want to marry their dogs, and little children, and all of our marriages will lose their sanctity (Whatever the hell that means).

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:20 pm

Coyotero wrote:
micatala wrote: It's worth pointing out that most if not all of the "evils" of allowing gay marriage are either

A. Already happening without the marriage
B. Are evils we accept from heterosexuals as part of living in a free society
But, if we allow the gays to marry then people will also want to marry their dogs, and little children, and all of our marriages will lose their sanctity (Whatever the hell that means).

It means that the holiness of their first marriage that ended in divorce will be lessened, and the holiness of their second marriage that ended in divorce will be lessoned, unlike Brittany Spears 55 hour Nevada marriage that she had annulled, which shows how holy their marriage is to begin with.

Debating Christianity and Religion