BleepingComputer.com: Gay Marriage

[quote name='LadyDro' post='1087969' date='Jan 11 2009, 04:26 PM']I am a straight married woman and I will never understand why we care so much what other people do when the actions have no effect on us personally! Who really cares who marries who. Some argue that it compromises the integrity and sanctity of marriage....but havent straight people done that for years with infidelity and divorce? I mean if thats the case then people in Hollywood shouldnt be allowed to marry either....lol Sexual orientation should in no way effect your human rights. This should not even be an issue....period! Live and let live!!![/quote]

But they do have an affect on us. Companies would have to start paying benefits to them which would cost the company money and then lower your wages. Social security, the tax system would be affected. Sorry but Marriage is between a man and a women. See DOMA. I have nothing against gays except for the marriage thing.

[quote]Sorry but Marriage is between a man and a women. See DOMA. I have nothing against gays except for the marriage thing.[/quote]

Can you explain what DOMA is?

[quote]But they do have an affect on us. Companies would have to start paying benefits to them which would cost the company money and then lower your wages. Social security, the tax system would be affected. Sorry but Marriage is between a man and a women. See DOMA. I have nothing against gays except for the marriage thing.[/quote]

Us and them. Why the divide? Gays and Lesbians work hard, pay taxes, contribute to society in exactly the same way as heterosexuals. Why then should they not be entitled to exactly the same rights? We are all in our cultural, religeous, sexual diversity part of the human race, and therefore should be treated equally.

[quote name='DeFweetLan' post='1093385' date='Jan 14 2009, 09:59 PM'][quote]But they do have an affect on us. Companies would have to start paying benefits to them which would cost the company money and then lower your wages. Social security, the tax system would be affected. Sorry but Marriage is between a man and a women. See DOMA. I have nothing against gays except for the marriage thing.[/quote]

Us and them. Why the divide? Gays and Lesbians work hard, pay taxes, contribute to society in exactly the same way as heterosexuals. Why then should they not be entitled to exactly the same rights? We are all in our cultural, religeous, sexual diversity part of the human race, and therefore should be treated equally.
[/quote]


EXACTLY! You say "them" like they are of another life form....get over yourself!! "Companies would have to start paying benefits to them which would cost the company money and then lower your wages. Social security, the tax system would be affected." These things happen when ANYONE gets married....including you...so thank you for screwing up the tax system, the economy, and lowering my wages! All I know is I am DAMN grateful that I wasnt raised to be so close minded and self righteous! Sucks to be you!!!

[quote name='DnDer' post='1083227' date='Jan 8 2009, 05:33 PM']I once asked that to some lesbians I knew. Drinks were thrown in my face.

Curiosity is never rewarded on an appropriate level.[/quote]

Haha. You know I had an instance like that. Except I didn't ask. My fiances cousin is gay and she asked. He's a guy, so it was rather awkward. Anyways, there shouldn't be debates over this. It's as simple as if the President and Congress was all gay, and they chose to make straight marriage illegal they could. Is that fair? no. It's always about who has power and what they fear they will illegalize. Ridiculous. It's their right, it doesn't affect me, or you. So let it go and legalize the damn thing

[quote name='scff249' post='1093362' date='Jan 14 2009, 10:34 PM'][quote]Sorry but Marriage is between a man and a women. See DOMA. I have nothing against gays except for the marriage thing.[/quote]

Can you explain what DOMA is?
[/quote]

It is the Defense of Marriage Act which was signed into Law by Bill Clinton in 1996. Basically it defines marriage as between a man and a women.

[quote]SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."[/quote]

[url="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm"]Source[/url]

Oh, yeah.....that one.....now I remember where I've heard of that (of course, this was some 3 years ago).

......I don't even understand why it was made and what their reasoning is behind it...

[quote name='scff249' post='1093684' date='Jan 15 2009, 08:11 AM']Oh, yeah.....that one.....now I remember where I've heard of that (of course, this was some 3 years ago).

......I don't even understand why it was made and what their reasoning is behind it...[/quote]

1996 is a tad more than 3 years ago.

It was passed in 1996, yes, but I first heard of it about three years ago is what I'm saying.

Then how come, Gays can legally Marry, in Massachusetts and California?

[quote name='DSTM' post='1093747' date='Jan 15 2009, 09:37 AM']Then how come, Gays can legally Marry, in Massachusetts and California? [/quote]

First you need to read DOMA.

[quote]The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.[/quote]

Second Gays are no longer permitted to marry in California.

If a Gay marriage doesn't affect anybody else,then the thinking is prudish.IMO.
Who gives anyone the right to dictate anyone's lifestyle,if it doesn't infringe?

The definition of marriage… "one man and one woman".

In light of the high rates of infidelity and divorce in western society today hetersexual marriage almost seems like a joke. Hardly a good role model for the gay community to base their long-term committed relationships on.
However, for those who would choose to marry, they are entitled to do so. As societies evolve change is inevitable, therefore it makes sense that the definition of marriage needs changing.

In light of nothing. This is what gets me angriest about the whole debate.

In a secular, Constitutional examination of the language, the government has no right and no place to dictate this sort of thing. Especially the Federal government. First, marriage, as a civil institution should be recognized as little other than filing paperwork that two people are living together and have given each other specific legal rights over power of attorney, taxes and the like. There is no objective reason to prevent two people from filing this work if they so choose to live in that kind of arrangement. Civil unions don't grant the same right, and are equally unconstitutional, by creating a second class of citizenry.

The state of marriage being between a man and a woman is a theological argument. The government doesn't get a say in determining theological policy for its people. Silly little thing called "separation of church and state." You can't tell me who to worship, what I can and can not say, and not who I peacably assemble with (including whomever I should choose as my spouse, to stretch the language). Let the church decide what it does and does not want to recognize. The government doesn't get the luxury to pick and choose.

Secondly, the Federal government technically has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes. That's something that needs to be repealed, too, along with the dissolution of the IRS. That's a topic for a different thread, though.

In short:
- separate but equal... isn't
- marriage to the government =/= marriage to the church, just happens to use the same word
- government cannot dictate moral policy based on theological imperative
- this wouldn't be a problem if we just repealed the unconstitutional federal tax system to begin with

GTK48,

Simply because the government makes a law does not make that law right. As late as 1967, it was illegal in some US states for blacks and whites to marry each other (see the aptly named case of Loving vs. Virginia). At one time it was legal to own a slave, at one time it was legal to segregate people according to their race, at one time it was legal to sterilize the mentally disabled, and so on.

And to argue that gay marriages would require companies, social security, and other institutions to pay more benefits is simply insulting. I pay taxes, I pay into my employer's health plan, I pay into Social Security. Why, they, am I not permitted to reap the same benefits as a stright man would be able to?

And what of the other rights afforded married couples? If my partner gets into an accident then I may have no say whatsoever in his medical treatment, indeed I may not even be allowed to see him at all! The reason? Because our relationship has no legal standing, we are strangers as far as the government is concerned.

I can hear your mind churning and burbling, and I don't doubt that there will be further arguments forthcoming. So let me save you some effort on some of the more popular justifications for this discriminatory viewpoint of yours.

1. "Marriage is for procreation".
If that's so, why are people who are incapable of having children allowed to marry?

2. "It's unnatural."
By what standard? If we go by nature, than homosexual relationships are indeed natural; over 1500 animal species have been observed as having homosexual members (Reference).

3. "Gay relationships are immoral."
Say who? The Bible? At least here in the United States, there is freedom of religion. This also imples the freedom from religion. It is laid out in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and further reenforced in the Treay of Tripoli. Besides, the Bible forbids a great deal which modern Judeo-Christians have no qualms about doing. (Try reading Leviticus, you should start feeling guilty after the first page or so)





You'll have to forgive me if I come off as a little curt in this matter, please understand that it's because this means so much to me that I can't help but attack, and vigorously, the falsehoods and injustices I see around it.

I urge you, and anyone else interested, to read this essay by Scott Bidstrup: Gay Marriage: The Arguments and Motives.

This post has been edited by Amazing Andrew: 15 January 2009 - 01:04 PM