Help plz.

[Devils.High]

Can someone please tell me a reason why people shouldnt be able to chose who they want to marry? Gay or not WTF is the difference I think its so stupid that people are actually arguing that they cant marry guys or girls or w.e they want. And even if it is a church thing doesnt America have the seperation of church and power? So why dont the gays go of and make a religion and say that being straight is wrong. That would be stopping to thier level but I think it would get the point across.

Why do we still debate this I think its pretty clear that if people cant chose who they want to marry then doesnt that mean that not everyone is born equal?

 

[FallingPianos]

Can someone please tell me a reason why people shouldnt be able to chose who they want to marry? Gay or not WTF is the difference I think its so stupid that people are actually arguing that they cant marry guys or girls or w.e they want. And even if it is a church thing doesnt America have the seperation of church and power? So why dont the gays go of and make a religion and say that being straight is wrong. That would be stopping to thier level but I think it would get the point across.

Why do we still debate this I think its pretty clear that if people cant chose who they want to marry then doesnt that mean that not everyone is born equal?

hate, fear, and brainwashing.

 

[Devils.High]

At first when I looked at it, it looked funny but now its just sad.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Can someone please tell me a reason why people shouldnt be able to chose who they want to marry?

Well, the thing you have to understand is that marriage is not an inherent right. It isn't something that government must allow people to do, because marriage itself-- in the sense of legally-recognized marriage-- is an agreement with the State that comes with specific legal benefits. It isn't "a church thing", because churches are allowed to sanction marriages however they see fit; many churches do, in fact, perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

It is within the State's prerogatives to decide under what conditions that legal recognition and those legal benefits may be granted. The State's refusal to recognize marriage between same-sex couples does not prevent them from being married by their church or from living as a married couple.

As for why same-sex marriage might not be allowed, there are specific reasons why legally-recognized marriage receives the benefits it does. Those reasons pertain mostly to resolving inheritance and custodial disputes in court, which is primarily a concern for couples with children. Since same-sex couples-- unlike the vast majority of opposite-sex couples-- do not naturally produce children, providing them with the benefits of legal marriage is not necessary.

Of course, same-sex couples deciding to raise children despite this disadvantage are part of my argument in favor of recognizing their marriages...

Why do we still debate this I think its pretty clear that if people cant chose who they want to marry then doesnt that mean that not everyone is born equal?

There are a lot of restrictions on legal marriage. We're not allowed to marry close blood relatives, for instance, or more than one person at a time. Every single State has a minimum age requirement for marriage, and in most States it isn't the same as the age of consent. Marriage to foreigners is tightly regulated. And several States have other requirements which must be met by prospective newlyweds before they can be legally married, ranging from marriage counseling to blood tests.

Do these restrictions mean that people who conflict with them are "less equal" than people who have no problem with them? Or does it simply mean that the State has certain requirements for a relationship to be recognized as a marriage?

 

[imprtnrd]

Yes, hate,fear, & brainwashing is some of it. Plus this country is soooo backward. Like living in the 1950's! Str8 people need to quit worrying about what doesn't concern them and get a life! Did they choose to be Str8? NO!

 

[imprtnrd]

Just like the big hoola baloo about 2 lesbains kissing at an IHOP. I live in Kansas City, MO. IHOP is down the hiway and I will NEVER go to any IHOP with my partner. If that was a Str8 couple nothing would have been said!

 

[Gardener]

Can someone please tell me a reason why people shouldnt be able to chose who they want to marry? ?

There ARE no reasons.

THere is only sophistry manufactured in such a way as to appear as reason.

 

[rivrrat]

There aren't any good reasons for it not being allowed. There is only ignorance and hatred.

 

[Mixed View]

Can someone please tell me a reason why people shouldnt be able to chose who they want to marry? Gay or not WTF is the difference I think its so stupid that people are actually arguing that they cant marry guys or girls or w.e they want. And even if it is a church thing doesnt America have the seperation of church and power? So why dont the gays go of and make a religion and say that being straight is wrong. That would be stopping to thier level but I think it would get the point across.

Why do we still debate this I think its pretty clear that if people cant chose who they want to marry then doesnt that mean that not everyone is born equal?

I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it. I think we are a country that says that we stand for justice and EQUALLITY but we don't follow through. A civil union is not a big deal. It won't make more people homosexual or corrupt our society, cause our society is already corrupt. I am a Christian to let you know. And I believe by not letting homosexuals marry is not going to change who they think they are. So like I said, it's not a big deal. America, start walking the walk!

 

[Kelzie]

Meh, it's only a matter of time. Progress always wins and if recent polls are any example, I'm sure gay marriage will be legal within two decades.

 

[Thelost1]

Well, the thing you have to understand is that marriage is not an inherent right. It isn't something that government must allow people to do, because marriage itself-- in the sense of legally-recognized marriage-- is an agreement with the State that comes with specific legal benefits. It isn't "a church thing", because churches are allowed to sanction marriages however they see fit; many churches do, in fact, perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

No it is not. It is an ageement between 2 people. The state just oversees it.

 

[Devils.High]

Notice how there still is no good reason.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No it is not. It is an ageement between 2 people. The state just oversees it.

If it were not an agreement with the State, then why does the State extend special privileges to the parties of the agreement? Why, and under what authority, does the State limit the agreement to two parties with a specified minimum distance between bloodlines?

Two people becoming legally married provokes a number of changes in the way the law is applied to them; marriage may or may not change the relationship between those two people, but it definitely and formally changes their relationship with the State.

Notice how there still is no good reason.

Asking for good reasons and then ignoring them is poor form. Proceeding to then proclaim that those good reasons do not exist borders on the delusional.

 

[Devils.High]

Ummm well I dont see a reason. If 2 people that want to engage in a serious relationship are denied because they are both guys or girls.... Thats not equal but maybe there is something I am missing.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Civil Practices And Remedies Code

"Civil Practices And Remedies Code"

Ummm well I dont see a reason. If 2 people that want to engage in a serious relationship are denied because they are both guys or girls.... Thats not equal but maybe there is something I am missing.

Two people may engage in serious relationship, each may, through civil union, grant power of attorney or will financial benefits.
Likely of special interest to the state are dependent tax withholdings and social security entitlements.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Ummm well I dont see a reason. If 2 people that want to engage in a serious relationship are denied because they are both guys or girls.... Thats not equal but maybe there is something I am missing.

They're not denied a serious relationship or a committed one. They're not denied social or religious recognition of their relationship, unless their social group or their church denies them. (Which ain't the State's business.)

The only thing they are denied are legal privileges which the State chooses to extend to a fairly limited range of relationships. Homosexuals have no more right to these legal privileges than second cousins, polygamists, or mail order brides do; depending on the reason you accept for why those privileges exist, they may even have less.

The reasons not to allow them to marry is that it requires changing the law and it would cost the government money in the form of tax breaks and reformatting thousands of government documents. There is also the argument that, whether or not we agree with them, there's a very large and very active segment of the population who finds the concept offensive.

You and I would agree that these are weak reasons, and that the reasons for changing the law are far stronger. However, that doesn't mean that there is no reason-- and it does mean that the burden lies upon those who wish to change the law to make a compelling argument for why it should be done.

And, unfortunately, the main argument for why we should allow same-sex marriage misses the point of marriage itself-- then again, so does our entire culture-- and is as faulty as the main argument against it.

 

[Thelost1]

If it were not an agreement with the State, then why does the State extend special privileges to the parties of the agreement? Why, and under what authority, does the State limit the agreement to two parties with a specified minimum distance between bloodlines?

Two people becoming legally married provokes a number of changes in the way the law is applied to them; marriage may or may not change the relationship between those two people, but it definitely and formally changes their relationship with the State.

But those changes mostly involve them sharing their assets and such.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

But those changes mostly involve them sharing their assets and such.

Mostly. It also gives them visitation privileges in institutional settings-- prisons and hospitals-- creates a legal framework for child custody, and grants them immunity from testifying against each other in court. Some States require spousal consent for certain medical procedures-- abortion and sterilization, mainly-- and marriage waives the expensive and irritating process of legally changing your name.

All of this is over and above the privileges normally granted to next-of-kin. No other contract between two parties is capable of creating these privileges.

And, along with sharing their assets, married couples are treated favorably in many financial matters pertaining to taxes, some forms of government assistance, and even military stationing.