- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.
1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.
2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.
In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.
1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.
2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.
In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.
LOL
So what does that mean when the couple falls into the 'not having sex anymore' category.
Funny - I hadn't thought of it that way.
Well, even if the married couple is a man and a woman, if they're not having vaginal intercourse, they're homos and jesus weeps.
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.
1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.
2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.
In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.
Well, even if the married couple is a man and a woman, if they're not having vaginal intercourse, they're homos and jesus weeps.
1. there is, of course, a difference between hetero sex and, what you call sex between gays.
If a heterosexual couple only had anal sex, would that make their relationship the moral equivalent of a homosexual relationship?
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.
1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.
2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.
In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.
1. there is, of course, a difference between hetero sex and, what you call sex between gays.
But why not get government out of regulating marriage altogether? Let everyone do it the way they want. If you and your boyfriend want your sex holied, rent a priest. If you want protection, get a lawyer.
Why get the govt out of marriage? Allowing homosexual marriage does allow peopel to do what they want.
There is no good reason to use a one fits all contract that state regulation of marriage means. So let's grab the opportunity, give the people real contractual freedom and put it on rational footing without government interference in people's private affairs..
But why not get government out of regulating marriage altogether? Let everyone do it the way they want. If you and your boyfriend want your sex holied, rent a priest. If you want protection, get a lawyer.
So could you explain specifically how this "getting government out of marriage" (assuming your are talking about Civil Marriage [i.e. that recognized under the law]) would work?
With this "private" marriage, would the government still recognize the establishment of a family relationship where one did no exist before making the spouse the default legal next of kin for all emergency medical decisions or would they need a separate Medical Power of Attorney?
Would this "private" marriage have general applicability like current Civil Marriage or would each couple have to write up their own contract that could vary wildly and cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to get lawyers to review them?
If the government would recognize for Civil purposes "marriages" conducted by a religious organization, would they recognize as valid those religious marriages performed by a religious organization for same-sex couples?
In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, she is exempt from estate taxes for my portion of our joint property, would that disappear?
In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, if I die - she get to continue to claim the "married" exemption (up to a $500,000) on the sale of our home, while the single exemption (which is what she is once I die) is only $250,000, would that disappear?
In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, if I die before she does she gets to draw on my Social Security (which is higher than her's since I'm the main wage earner), would that disappear?
While I was on active duty my wife could seek medical attention at military clinics/hospitals, the government provided relocation for her when I was ordered to move, and they provided "Command Sponsorship" when I was stationed in foreign countries so she could accompany me, would this disappear?
At last count there were 1,134 Federal "rights, responsibilities, and benefits" tied to Civil Marriage. Now if we figure another 300 or so for each State that - Ummm - 16,134 legal items that have to do with Civil Marriage. To have the same general applicability as a $35 Civil Marriage license - how much to you think it will cost to have lawyers draw up documents that provide the same expansive results?
>>>>
There are lots of reasons, just legally speaking look here.
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dont like what happens when you get married dont get married but dont make everyone else suffer because you dont like it.
Just because there are rights and responsibilities out of history, it does not mean that they are sensible nor that the olden ways were the best. People here are yelling all the time that the old ways were not good and want them changed. The only thing is that the proposed change just reproduces an error form the past.
There would certainly be a lot of details to work out. This would be especially, where the government had responsibilities toward citizens out of presently active marriage contracts. All present obligations would have to be fulfilled in one way or another. That would be taken care of in a law and in courts. Thereafter many laws and regulations would become redundant.
But in the final analysis we would be talking about a private marriage contract that two persons would agree on and sign very much like any contract.
What olden ways? what are you talking about? What specifically?
Is this unsensible? Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
Or this? Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
Or this? Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Or this? Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Or this? Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Or this? Funeral and bereavement leave
Or this? Joint adoption and foster care
Or this? Legal status with stepchildren
Or this? Making spousal medical decisions
Or this? Right to inheritance of property
Or this? Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Or this? Providing financial support for raising children born of the marriage
ETC etc....
Again If YOU dont want everything that legal marriage entails dont get married. There is no reason for you to deny others marriage.
1. there is, of course, a difference between hetero sex and, what you call sex between gays.
But why not get government out of regulating marriage altogether? Let everyone do it the way they want. If you and your boyfriend want your sex holied, rent a priest. If you want protection, get a lawyer.
In certain aspects it would. They would be stilling their sexual drive but not having sex in the evolutionary reproductive sense. No problem with having fun. But it won't move the species very far.
There is no good reason to use a one fits all contract that state regulation of marriage means. So let's grab the opportunity, give the people real contractual freedom and put it on rational footing without government interference in people's private affairs..
Did your mother tell you things would be simple? If she did, she was wrong. And another secret. Just because thing appear difficult to you does not mean that they are well ordered. As a matter of fact, the opposite is often the case. Keep it simple and remove the government from regulating matrimony.
Did your mother tell you things would be simple? If she did, she was wrong. And another secret. Just because thing appear difficult to you does not mean that they are well ordered. As a matter of fact, the opposite is often the case. Keep it simple and remove the government from regulating matrimony.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?