Hmmm. It's really a tough question. I mean God is really the guy we should all be asking - right? Except - we still haven't found proof of his existence. So... How could you run a business where the Boss is known of and believed in but not really palpable? I guess then, we're talking more about God than Gay marriage aren't we? Okay - so what do we do if some people refuse to believe in God? If American people weren't so literal perhaps we could consider God to be more of an abstract notion and the Bible to be some kind of elaborate allegory. Which brings the tour bus back to it's pickup destination. Please leave a tip in my jar. Thanks for coming along. And have a nice day.
..sure, why not?...i don't have an argument to oppose it...as for the why...i see it as simple as 'all people' being treated equally....my answer is not just in reference to the US....and if someone doesn't want to get married...then don't.
wasn't there already a thread on this - basically the same thing?
...same kind of question, different words (maybe) over and over....and over and over....
The problem is not allowing gays to marry, the problem is that marriage is a state sanctioned condition. If the state didn't get involved, all gays would have to do is find someone who would be willing to bless their vows and they'd be in business. All of this arguing and court stupidity is just morons who want to be right. Don't kid yourself, the gay community wants this fight just as much as the other side. Rather than adopt a live and let live attitude, we're wasting too much time and energy on arguments that will never be solved.
No, it has to do with the fact that getting married confers 1,138 rights and obligations that unmarried couples do not have access to.
If it were just a meaningless symbolic designation, believe me, I wouldn't be wasting a single moment on it.
Those rights are state sanctioned.
That is his entire point.
Again, those "state sanctioned" rights are those that have been usurped from the people. Look at something as simple as spousal benefits. Shouldn't that be between an employer and employee? If I were an employer, I'd offer such a package for my employees, but because I'd want to attract the best talent to work for me. If my competitors didn't, well more power to them because they'll be limiting the talent that gets chosen for their company. If things were done that way, people would actually be penalized for being discriminatory, all without stupid fights over unimportant things.
Interesting point and possibly a valid one, but I wonder how many conservatives you'll be able to rally to your cry about devolving the rights currently conferred to married couples. I would say close to zero.
Maybe it will be the next generation's polemic issue.
Deride conservatives all you want, but conservative is not synonymous with fundamentalist. There are plenty of conservatives who reject the fundamentalist view, just as there are many liberals who reject the communist view of the far Left.
People aren't as clueless as you seem to think they are. This sort of discussion is one we've had here in the States since the start of our nation. What is the right amount of control to give an artificial body like a state or national government? For the last century the answer has been: Give them more and more power." People are coming to realize, I think, that you can't just keep doing that. From the extreme cases of Communism and even the failure of socialism in places like Greece, the debate seems to be alive and well again in the United States.
I didn't deride conservatives. I said that you're not going to enjoy as much support among conservatives as you think.
I was wondering, what are some of the 1,138 rights and obligations that unmarried couples don't have access to?
We've been through this before on this site, and you can also just look at livelonger's link, but a few of the most important include:
* The right to have their marriage automatically recognized as legitimate when they travel or move to other states.
* The right to make next-of-kin decisions in case of serious illness.
* The right to inherit property or receive custody of children in the event of the partner's death without a will.
* The right to receive employee benefits such as health insurance for the spouse.
Gay and lesbian couples can get some of these rights, but they have to consult a lawyer and file significant amounts of paperwork with accompanying fees and inconvenience, whereas they are conveyed automatically to married couples.
It was made legal in India sometime back and the whole country boiled when the judiciary announced its verdict.
Remove all government from the decision process for gays and you have your answer.
Legal? There shouldn't any law regarding marriage regardless of side. It's all a measure of control.
What is the difference in granting a legally binding contract between two people of the same sex, and formal marriage vows between a man and woman...They would have equal rights accordingly and would satisfy both sides of the argument...Relinquishing the institution of marriage to whatever is currently politically correct would initiate the beginnings of social nihilism advocated by progressives...This is simply a political football being tossed about for agendas much more dramatic than gay marriage...
It won't result in social nihilism like Progressives think, it's result in eternal civil war. But then again, I'm asking Progressives to study history, something they have neither the inclination nor aptitude for.
I have to disagree with you re progressives not knowing history...They know history very well, and are fully aware where we are headed as a nation...This is their big push time, an all out effort to rewrite the Constitution with activist judges and social constructs forced on an apathetic populace...A populace that is increasingly dependent on government largess and less on individual responsibility...Pray we do not lose any of the present constitutionally guided Supreme Court advocates...
I'd argue that they think they know where history is going to push us, but they'd be wrong. The closest parallel I can think of is the Fugitive Slave Law. The South thought that would end for all time the problem of slaves escaping. It didn't. They traded short-term success for long term failure. Most scholars agree that it was this law that pretty much set the state for the Civil War. Progressives today are making the same short-sighted mistakes. People who really know their history don't buy Progressive arguments at all.
I have to agree in principle...but then, who is MAKING history now..?...Knowing history is one thing, making history is another...
History struggles to find an equilibrium. The closest humanity ever came to that was the establishment of the United States. Or to put it another way, centralized societies tend to fall apart rather quickly. Only decentralized, liberty maxed societies survive. We can either learn that little lesson from history or wind up in history's dust bin like so many before us.
Care to explain from where exactly you get that particular historiographical view point? It seems like absolute gibberish to me. For instance, some of the longest lasting, most stable societies have been dictatorships: see ancient Egypt, Rome (after the Republic, although the republic was not liberty bonanza either). The only example I can think of that even slightly supports what you're arguing is the Holy Roman Empire which was so decentralized that it was hardly an effective polity; however, it was hardly "liberty maxed." Furthermore, contemporary Poland, which was similar in its decentralization, was split apart and eaten up by surrounding, centralized states. So, yeah, what are you talking about?
A bit more to add, now that I've thought about it some more.
On the United States: you realize that the United States has only become a stronger, more effective, polity as it has become more centralized? That the greatest threats to its existence came while it was more decentralized? Furthermore, you are aware that before the Constitution things were even more decentralized, right? I assume you also know how long that lasted.
On Rome: I should also point out that the Roman Empire began to fall apart in no small measure because it became to big to be effectively centralized. Where the emperor was, armies were loyal, defenses were effective, taxes were paid, etc. Wherever he wasn't, things had a much higher propensity for going wrong. This led, in the latter days of the empire, to a division of the empire, ruled by two co-emperors (and that did save one half of the empire until 1453, quite a long time). So, in other words, though Rome's fall might in some measure be attributed to its centralization, that is not an indictment of centralized power, just of centralized power misused or overstretched.
On Europe: it's worth noting the the trend in Europe for the past three hundred odd years has been towards centralization, generally with slowly increasing liberty, but centralization all the same. As far as I know, most European polities are still coherent states.
Finally, keep in mind that I am not arguing the desirability of "decentralized, liberty maxed societies," just pointing out that your historical view-point seems to be totally unsupported.
I think that's actually what most progressives consider the ideal situation. Give everybody - gay and straight - a civil union with equivalent rights and privileges to current marriage certificates, and if the couple wants a religious ceremony in addition to the civil recognition, then it's up to them to find a church/synagogue/etc. that will "marry" them.
That way, gays and lesbians get equal rights, churches/etc. that don't want to marry gays and lesbians don't have to (in accordance with their first amendment rights), and churches/etc. that do want to marry gays and lesbians will be free to (in accordance with THEIR first amendment rights). Everybody wins.
What we are asking is whether it is a basic human right for those of the same sex to marry. I think the natural anatomy of a man and a woman answer that question. No, it is not a basic human right because sex between two people of the same sex is not natural - opinions of the American Medical Association and pop psychologists not withstanding.
Regardless, marriage is a state of mind and heart not a piece of paper with the signature of a pastor or a court magistrate. Marriage is a commitment of the heart and soul to remain faithful to one and only one partner for the rest of your life.
If marriage is seen merely as a social contract, then what is the difference between marriage and civil unions. My understanding is that in most states where civil unions have been approved same sex couples get the same family benefits as married couples.
It seems to me that those same sex couples who are suing for the right to marry think that a piece of paper will make their unions seem more acceptable to those who oppose them. In the end, the word marriage on the certificate won't make the relationship any more natural or any more acceptable to God.
ecoggins, why do you think sex between two men is "unnatural?" The natural anatomy does sort of fit the same way as when a heterosexual couple chooses to have anal or oral sex. And I will point out that there is lots of gay sex in the animal kingdom (dolphins, etc.) It is about as natural as you can get. I wonder why God wants so much anal action to occur in the animal kingdom. Does he like to watch?
I can't understand what all the fuss is about. What's the big deal anyway? If two people, gay or not, want to get married what business is it of anybody else's? Why shouldn't gays be allowed to legally marry? Who does is hurt? Does it change anything in anyone else's personal life? It's nonsense to waste so much time, energy, and resources debating this question. Let them get married and be done with it.
Yeah gays are fighting for equal rights cause it's all a big progressive conspiracy.
On a more realistic plane, 22 years ago just about 11% of the American population approved of gay marriage. It's been steadily rising ever since, and this year gay marriage gained a majority support, with 52% of the American public saying the believe gay marriage should be allowed.
In just 22 years, 40% of the American public changed their minds on this issue. So you see, open discussion and the exchange of factual information does change peoples' hearts.
hey gay people have just as much of a right to be as miserable as everyone else in marriage, so who cares? besides, i was watching a documentary the other day, where they said most of the politicians that strongly against gay marriages....are secretly gay themselves. as they revealed on their phone bills of them calling up gay sex line on the phone. can you imagine that? therefore, I think it's just stupid. if a couple of gay dudes or girls want to be married, then let them. besides, what a man or woman do behind close doors is really nobodies business than their own.
In case anyone wanted to read the article.
Marriage in general isn't a governmental issue.
Thus any law preventing two people from marrying is tyranny.
Thus gays should be allowed to marry.
(Freedom is easy to explain, tyranny require a twisted tongue)
by Tom Cornett 7 years ago
Because.....If liberal progressives are for abortion and gay marriage, then it makes sense that mostly progressive liberals will most often enact those rights...far more than conservatives.Which means...there will be far less progressive liberals in the future. Wouldn't it make sense to give...
by Akriti Mattu 3 years ago
Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?
by TimTurner 8 years ago
Every time a gay marriage proposal hits the votes, Christian groups spend so much money on ads and campaigning against it spreading fear and their "moral" arguments.Yesterday, Maine voters repealed the gay marriage law that was passed by Maine legislators.Yet, Christians let new laws for...
by Texasbeta 7 years ago
Today, neocons and liberals appear to have some basic historical points that we are still debating. The lines of the past appear to still be the lines of today.Separation of Church and State American Civil War - the right still seems to support the SouthThe New Deal and Roosevelt's...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
How do you feel about marriage equality? For? Against? Why?
by mio cid 6 years ago
I have a solution to the gay marriage debate.If you are a heterosexual, don't marry somebody of your same gender,trust me the gays won't come to your house and force you.At least they haven't in my case ,when me and my wife got married nobody tried to stop us.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|