Should same-sex marriage be legal?

[debk]

According to what document?

If you're saying marriage is a religious rite, then why is the government protecting it?  Seems like a blatant violation of the Constitution.

I think of marriage as more of a religious rite.

If a Catholic man and a Catholic woman are married by a priest in the Catholic Church (I don't believe it is required for the wedding ceremony to be held within the Church walls)...the Catholic Church recognizes the marriage. While the civil courts may divorce the couple, the couple remains married in the "eyes of the Church" unless they apply to the Church, for an annulment and it is granted by the Church. Only after an "annulment by the Catholic Church",  is either party allowed to marry another Catholic by a Catholic priest and for the Church to recognize the marriage. Either party is legally allowed to remarry, and be legally married by the laws of the state, but without an annulment by the Church, those marriages are not recognized by the Church.

If one individual of the couple is Catholic, and the other is not...and they are not married by a Catholic priest...they are not married in the "eyes of the Church". They do not require an annulment by the Church to remarry another Catholic (provided that individual is considered "single" by the Church) by a Catholic priest.

(I hope I explained that correctly. I know the Church's system, just hope I explained it clearly. The Catholic Church makes a LOT of money from annulments. My step-sister had one, my half-sister did, M did.)

I guess the government is involved because it requires government intervention by the civil court system to legally acquire a divorce.

FYI....per Wiki...only because it was the most recent update of the sites I checked.

Common-law marriage can still be contracted in eleven states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and in the District of Columbia.

 

Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Oklahoma (Nov. 2010), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).

The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, California, and Wyoming. Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana, which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction. As such, it is a former Council of Trent jurisdiction.
 

[Gina]

eh, go ahead and let them get married.......let them be as miserable as the rest of us 

[Ptarmigan]

I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.

Exactly!

[Boudicca]

Religious institutions should be allowed to determine whether or not to marry gays, but as for the civil courts, I also really don't care.  I'd rather two gays be in a committed, exclusive relationship than promiscuous, and that is how I feel about heterosexuals as well.
Marriage has been defined, as still is in some parts of the world, as between a man and up to four women.  I personally find that more abhorrent than two guys or two gals marrying; to me that guy is just a man whore.  Also, if my marriage were ever to fail due to infidelity, it wouldn't be because my husband decided to start screwing some guy.

[MP_Sarge]

Religious institutions should be allowed to determine whether or not to marry gays, but as for the civil courts, I also really don't care.  I'd rather two gays be in a committed, exclusive relationship than promiscuous, and that is how I feel about heterosexuals as well.
Marriage has been defined, as still is in some parts of the world, as between a man and up to four women.  I personally find that more abhorrent than two guys or two gals marrying; to me that guy is just a man whore.  Also, if my marriage were ever to fail due to infidelity, it wouldn't be because my husband decided to start screwing some guy.

H5 for most of it, but it seems counter-intuitive that committing to a monogamous relationship is somehow being a man-whore.

[Boudicca]

H5 for most of it, but it seems counter-intuitive that committing to a monogamous relationship is somehow being a man-whore.

You misunderstood my post...the man whore comment was in regards to men who are married to FOUR women at the same time a la Islam.  They certainly don't allow their women the option of marrying four guys at a time.  That's not a monogamous relationship-that's a guy getting his jollies with more than one woman AND blessed by his religion.  Just one of the many reasons I dislike Islam so much.

[ExGeeEye]

Never heard of water polo, huh?

Two different games, like American Football and Australian Rules Football (that ***** game for pre-teen girls they call "football" in the EU etc. doesn't even qualify).  But you knew that...

Voting is a right.  Still can't do it until you're 18, and a citizen.

Something you can do without the agreement and participation of another person.  But you knew that...

Just because something involves restrictions, doesn't mean it isn't a right.

I would argue the opposite, that a real "right" cannot be restricted by anyone who claims that you have it.

I have the right to own a gun.  Provided I can afford one.

Agreed.

Or is gun ownership not a right because the Founding Fathers didn't distribute a firearm to every citizen, and sufficient ammunition on a yearly basis to make gun ownership worthwhile?

Precisely the opposite of my point: for it to be a right, you must be able to do it yourself, alone, without help or hindrance from anyone else be they individual or government.

Is freedom of the press not a right, because not everyone can afford their own publication?

Freedom of the press is the right to publish whatever you can publish, however you can publish, without fear of the government punishing you for the content.  But I think you knew that, too.

Is the right to be free in your effects from unreasonable searches and seizures not a right if you're too poor to own a home?

Everyone, no matter how poor, has some private place.  Not to be gross, but a naked man has the right to free from unreasonable search and siezure of the contents of his ass-crack.

But you knew that, too, right?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And your argument for restricting this to heterosexual relationships is?

Homosexuality is not new and yet it has not been given social sanction but the most advanced civilization in history.

Why?

And it's somehow harmful to promote monogamy amongst homosexuals, how?Can you produce evidence, other than irrelevant historical evidence, to prove that this is taking place?

I reject the claim on its face. If the idea were to be promoting monogamy the same voices would be promoting mongamy among heteroes but their other actions do everything to tear down monogamy and ridicule nuclear families.

I can produce evidence that Christians have engaged in genocide.  That historical evidence isn't proof that modern Christians do so.  What does one have to do with another?

Because permission leads to action. The savages in the M.E. repeat to themselves how it is OK to take sexual slaves from among the conquered so they have no qualms about raping female reporters.

Granted, there is a far cry between gays and savage Islamic rapists but since you introduced such analogies it seemed fitting.

You were born heterosexual, were you not?  Are you then proving that you *choose* to be heterosexual when you make a choice to marry?

I can choose my sexuality. There is no part of my physical anatomy that differs from any other male's. Ditto for every male homosexual.

I agree- relationships are a choice.  I suppose a homosexual person could make the choice to never have sex, never engage in a relationship, live and die alone.  But why should they?

Or maybe they have chosen the lifestyle because it physically feels good.

Or maybe they are psychologically mal-adjusted due to some trauma (child sexual abuse victims are more likely to engage in homosexuality).

Or maybe they are psycho-physiologically defective the way a diabetic suffers from his condition.

Which of those possibilities deserves force of law?

In our Country, this has been decided by the courts as false, during trials to determine the legality of prohibiting marriages between blacks and whites.

False analogy.

As I noted, homosexuality can be acculturated, learned, a reaction to trauma or imbalance.

Race is none of those things.

Marriage has been deemed a right.

And it can be undeemed just as easily.

It can also be restricted. Just as speech is a right but vocally advocating violence is not permitted.

The right for blacks and whites to marry had to be established without the consent of the majority, as the majority opposed the measure.

And while the practical result is socially agreeable it would have been far more effective if the laws were overturned in their proper place: the legislature.

If legislation is incapable of imparting morality, so much more so judicial diktat. At least legislation enjoys (for the most part) the consent of the majority.

[MP_Sarge]

Homosexuality is not new and yet it has not been given social sanction but the most advanced civilization in history.

Why?

For the same reason that slavery receiving sanction is something that has recently ended.

[MP_Sarge]

As I noted, homosexuality can be acculturated, learned, a reaction to trauma or imbalance.

Prove it.

[MP_Sarge]

I can choose my sexuality. There is no part of my physical anatomy that differs from any other male's. Ditto for every male homosexual.

Or maybe they have chosen the lifestyle because it physically feels good.

Or maybe they are psychologically mal-adjusted due to some trauma (child sexual abuse victims are more likely to engage in homosexuality).

Or maybe they are psycho-physiologically defective the way a diabetic suffers from his condition.

Which of those possibilities deserves force of law?

You cannot prove a single one of these assertions, and in fact several have been proven to be patently false.

[MP_Sarge]

I reject the claim on its face. If the idea were to be promoting monogamy the same voices would be promoting mongamy among heteroes but their other actions do everything to tear down monogamy and ridicule nuclear families.

Example?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You cannot prove a single one of these assertions, and in fact several have been proven to be patently false.

Abstract
In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11501300&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

Example?

Who promotes gay marriage: conservatives or liberals?

Do liberals at any point in their culture promote heterosexual monogamy or propose laws to strengthen marriage?

For the same reason that slavery receiving sanction is something that has recently ended.

Slavery in the western world has had its ebbs and flows; so I'm not sure what you're on about.

This mania to equate homosexuality to race is incomprehensible but fine, I'll but.

Tell me: why was interracial marriage outlawed?

I'm going to suggest because people thought it was wrong/immoral.

Once it was permitted was it considered immoral?

Nobody thinks so today.

Do people blanch at the sight of interracial couples?

Nope.

Are there more interracial couples today then when the laws were in effect?

yep

So permission leads to action.

[MP_Sarge]

So you're saying that people who thought interracial marriage was immoral were correct?

[MP_Sarge]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11501300&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

You're aware that the entire cohort methodology is flawed in and of itself, and that specific study has been rejected overwhelmingly as having flawed methods, to include the definition of "sexual abuse" as having been a variety of sexual experiences that come nowhere near clinical abuse.
The study was conducted by asking people at Gay Pride rallies to fill out a survey.

Oh, and the leader of the study you cite [Templer], also thinks black people are inherently less intelligent than white people, at a biological level.  [A point of view generally known as racism.]

Furthermore, the study draws an unsupported conclusion.

It assumes that a perceived correlation between childhood abuse and homosexuality is equal to a causation of homosexuality by abuse.
It completely ignores the possibility that gender non-conforming children are more likely to be sexually abused, and that homosexuality causes abuse, not vice versa.

Oh look, a study that supports just that idea:
That queer kids are more likely to be abused, by virtue of the fact that they are queer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15982145

[MP_Sarge]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Sexual_abuse_being_a_contributing_factor_for_homosexuality

The authors of the above medical journal article entitled Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons  also stated that childhood sexual molestation may not be a causal factor for homosexuality and that the abuse molestation may be occurring after the individual is a homosexual and the medical researchers speculated that the victims of molestation may be engaging in behaviors that put them at greater risk for molestation.

[MP_Sarge]

I reject the claim on its face. If the idea were to be promoting monogamy the same voices would be promoting mongamy among heteroes but their other actions do everything to tear down monogamy and ridicule nuclear families.

Do you hear me advocating anything other than monogamy?

[Attero Dominatus]

I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.

+1

[IassaFTots]

I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.

Indeed!  I couldn't agree with you more. 

[DixieBelle]

While it seems this was a hit and run post started by a newbie, it was well worth it to read "WWRPD" by snugs.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Do you hear me advocating anything other than monogamy?

Well, that's 1.

Now how about the rest of the liberal political and cultural establishment?

So you're saying that people who thought interracial marriage was immoral were correct?

No. I'm saying the comparison is asinine. Sexual proclivity =/= race.

That liberalization of marriage an its effect on social norms is an existential fact. I'm merely noting that fact not making any judgment as it its rightness or wrongness but if you must know my first real relationship was inter-racial and I still carry a torch for her to this day.

My entire point in this thread is that "gay marriage" is a fiction. Gay is not the same as black. You even concede one minute acculturate homosexuality exists then the next minute you beg to know if heteros can choose their sexual orientation. We haven't even mentioned situational homosexuality (I try not to because if anyone makes a crack about naval service Thor gets so upset he stops posting Lady Gaga to charge in and tell us how thilly we all are).

If you want to petition in favor of it, so be it, such is your right. It is also the right of other to petition against it.

Now let me ask you: Which is more important, gay marriage or ruling a majority against their consent?

[MP_Sarge]

Acultural homosexuality has existed historically, yes.
In the same sort of cultures where battlefield rape of conquered armies was an acceptable practice.

Historical evidence of something isn't equatable to present culture. 

I personally don't advocate gay marriage.  I'd be much happier to see the government stop endorsing religion in violation of the Constitution, and un-involve itself in marriage entirely.  Civil unions should be the standard for ANYONE who wants legal recognition of a family unit.

[rubliw]

No. I'm saying the comparison is asinine. Sexual proclivity =/= race.

That liberalization of marriage an its effect on social norms is an existential fact. I'm merely noting that fact not making any judgment as it its rightness or wrongness but if you must know my first real relationship was inter-racial and I still carry a torch for her to this day.

My entire point in this thread is that "gay marriage" is a fiction. Gay is not the same as black. You even concede one minute acculturate homosexuality exists then the next minute you beg to know if heteros can choose their sexual orientation. We haven't even mentioned situational homosexuality (I try not to because if anyone makes a crack about naval service Thor gets so upset he stops posting Lady Gaga to charge in and tell us how thilly we all are).

If you want to petition in favor of it, so be it, such is your right. It is also the right of other to petition against it.

Now let me ask you: Which is more important, gay marriage or ruling a majority against their consent?

So are you actually trying to argue that sexual orientation is simply a matter of culture?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Acultural homosexuality has existed historically, yes.
In the same sort of cultures where battlefield rape of conquered armies was an acceptable practice.

Historical evidence of something isn't equatable to present culture. 

Baseless and improbable.

To claim no society can undergo acculturation is simply unprovable. In your desperation to link race and homosexuality you have also inadvertantly betrayed the fact that a society can be acculturated to change deeply held views, i.e. racism, once acceptable, is now a universally reviled trait.

Please tell me by what stroke of imagination can something be continually portrayed and pleasurable, acceptable and even beneficial and not gain broader practice?

Even though you were contradicting yourself you implied earlier that heteroes were born the way they are when you questioned whether or not I or any other hetero chose their lifestyle. Did humanity suddenly evolve a homophobic gene to prevent such acculturation (and do you really want to play THAT line of argument)?

I personally don't advocate gay marriage.  I'd be much happier to see the government stop endorsing religion in violation of the Constitution, and un-involve itself in marriage entirely.  Civil unions should be the standard for ANYONE who wants legal recognition of a family unit.

The debate appears to be over what constitutes a family unit. Even civil unions must be defined by what will and won't be recognized as legitimate by the courts. In matters of civil law there is tremendous latitude as to what private parties may voluntarily agree to between themselves but conversely there is a broad range contracts that are forbidden.

And yes, the government can regulate marriage on behalf society both in agreement with and opposition to religion. That is why there are such things as age of consent, forced marriage, anti-incest and anti-polygamy laws.

The fact is, there is a debate. The "traditional marriage" side has not agitated for this debate because until recently they did not have to and even now they are merely fighting a holding action. It is the pro-gay marriage (PGM) side that has agitated to compel government into the realm of marriage. The debate is here; it will not go away until the PGM ceases their protest. Yet, they have every right to protest but the protest itself forces the issue into the hands of courts and legislatures.

If you really want to see government out of the marriage business maybe your argument is with those who forced the issue in the first place.

So are you actually trying to argue that sexual orientation is simply a matter of culture?

I'm sure some homosexuals endure a physcho-physiological malady the same way diabetics or epileptics have to endure their conditions. But to claim homosexuality CANNOT be acculturated is to deny the avalache of historical and anthropological evidence affirming the fact.

[rubliw]

I'm sure some homosexuals endure a physcho-physiological malady the same way diabetics or epileptics have to endure their conditions. But to claim homosexuality CANNOT be acculturated is to deny the avalache of historical and anthropological evidence affirming the fact.

What avalanche of evidence?

The existence of societies where the open practice of homosexuality was or is virtually nil, does not constitute good evidence that sexual orientations of individuals can be influenced or altered by social pressures.   I'm somewhat reminded of the time Ahmadinejad was asked about homosexuality in Iran as he gave a speech in the US, and he replied, "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."  Sure, maybe the open practice is non-existent - and even the clandestine practice is probably very small (because if they get caught, they might be executed) - but doesn't mean there are any less men who are  sexually attracted primarily to other men (same goes for women).