StarDestroyer.Net BBS

With the sodomy laws being deemed as unconstitutional, how close you do think we are, as a nation, to extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples?

How do you feel about the idea of same-sex marriage (not Domestic Partnership or the Vermont separate by "equal" civil union, but marriage itself)?

Just curious.

Sobbastchianno wrote:With the sodomy laws being deemed as unconstitutional, how close you do think we are, as a nation, to extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples?

How do you feel about the idea of same-sex marriage (not Domestic Partnership or the Vermont separate by "equal" civil union, but marriage itself)?

Just curious.

1.) Quite a while, since Conservatives are controlling both parts of the lawmaking process.
2.) They're two, consenting human beings, above legal age. Let em do whatever the fuck they want.

It's hard for me to get too worked up over the idea of marriage, but people should have it if they want it.

Marriage being defined as male/female only is a religious definition, and has no place in secular laws.

Marriage is stupid if its for anything other then benefits. if you need to "prove" your love, then you should be with someone that distrustful. But if they want it, give it to them. Period. Government is using religious grounds to make a law, which violates first amendment rights. Congress shallm ake NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion, but this is establishing christianity as national religion. What about the religions that advocate gay marriages? Fuck congress if theyre going to pull this homophobic shit.

Sobbastchianno wrote:With the sodomy laws being deemed as unconstitutional, how close you do think we are, as a nation, to extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples?

How do you feel about the idea of same-sex marriage (not Domestic Partnership or the Vermont separate by "equal" civil union, but marriage itself)?

Just curious.

This really should be in the politics forum, btw.

Anyway.. I think the concept of marriage is being totally redefined (and I can explain that in detail if requested), and government should just get itself out of the entire matter; though of course I grant that does leave problems with visitation, etc. But if marriage were to be a sort of legal contract, binding regardless of who (or even how many) people were in it, this could be solved. Government would also then not be the arbiter of it.

Well either way, when same sex marriage is finally approved it will be a good thing to be a divorce lawyer or marriage counselor, millions more in business for them.

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Well either way, when same sex marriage is finally approved it will be a good thing to be a divorce lawyer or marriage counselor, millions more in business for them.

You know, I want to insult you, but instead I think I'm just going to sit back and shake my head at the total stupidity involved in making this comment here.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Well either way, when same sex marriage is finally approved it will be a good thing to be a divorce lawyer or marriage counselor, millions more in business for them.

You know, I want to insult you, but instead I think I'm just going to sit back and shake my head at the total stupidity involved in making this comment here.

SyntaxVorlon may have phrased that badly, but the statement is not incorrect. The simple fact of there being more marriages would mean more business for people involved in marriage and divorce.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: You know, I want to insult you, but instead I think I'm just going to sit back and shake my head at the total stupidity involved in making this comment here.

He's got a damn good point there. If I was a divorce lawyer, I'd be going
KA-CHING at the prospect of fleecing homosexuals out of their money....

No kids at all...$$$$$$ oooh baby, I'm rich....

Plus the prospect of actually defining the law.

MKSheppard wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: You know, I want to insult you, but instead I think I'm just going to sit back and shake my head at the total stupidity involved in making this comment here.

He's got a damn good point there. If I was a divorce lawyer, I'd be going
KA-CHING at the prospect of fleecing homosexuals out of their money....

No kids at all...$$$$$$ oooh baby, I'm rich....

Plus the prospect of actually defining the law.

As a gay man, I will tell you that many gay couples do have children and the divorce (including children) would be no more lucrative than a straigh one. Children can make an upper middle class couple middle class, because it costs ooodles of money to raise them.

I'm all for marriage, as a legally binding contract, because how ever much yoou love someone now, he may turn out to be a complete bastard later.

In most couples, one earns more than the other, in many couples, one doesn't earn money at all. The whole point of a marriage is a partnership, and, IMO, everything should be shared equally in marriage, and divided equally in the event of a divorce.

Divorce rates may be high, but the rate of non-married couples breaking up is even higher.

So... Yay marriage! and Yay same sex couples. Marriage IMO is a human right, and it should be extended to all couples.

meanwhile, while the Government refuses to allow same sex couples, they are granting more rights to non-married couples of either orinetation, thuis removing rights from married couples, particularly the less afluent partner (usually the wife) within that marriage.

IMHO the state shouldn't legislate marriage beyond ordinary contract law at all. The whole institution is wholly redundant.

If two people feel the need to have some form of a certificate of their love for each other ,they can just have a lawyer draw a contract for them and signe it. Why complicate the matter with tons of legislation.

Sir Sirius wrote:IMHO the state shouldn't legislate marriage beyond ordinary contract law at all. The whole institution is wholly redundant.

If two people feel the need to have some form of a certificate of their love for each other ,they can just have a lawyer draw a contract for them and signe it. Why complicate the matter with tons of legislation.

The only problem with that is that there are rights, obligations, and priviledges that go with marriage that you can not have drawn up by a lawer in the uncontested fashion that marriage, as it currently exists, provides. Marriage is pretty much uncontestable. Wills, however, can be contested by blood relatives and they stand a good chance of winning, even if mentioned in the will.

It isn't a matter of certifying their love, or proving their love, it is a matter of forming a legal family unit where a biological one does not exist. It is a matter of hospital visitation rights, medical power of attorney, automatic inheritance rights, and things that are taken as a given with marriage that you cannot get without it.

Even if one could draw up the documentation, it would cost thousands of dollars, while a marriage license is generally $50.00.

innerbrat wrote:I'm all for marriage, as a legally binding contract, because how ever much yoou love someone now, he may turn out to be a complete bastard later.

In most couples, one earns more than the other, in many couples, one doesn't earn money at all. The whole point of a marriage is a partnership, and, IMO, everything should be shared equally in marriage, and divided equally in the event of a divorce.

Well said...I remember not quite understanding the "legal" concept of marriage when I was younger and idealistic.

Sir Sirius wrote:IMHO the state shouldn't legislate marriage beyond ordinary contract law at all. The whole institution is wholly redundant.

If two people feel the need to have some form of a certificate of their love for each other ,they can just have a lawyer draw a contract for them and signe it. Why complicate the matter with tons of legislation.

The legal purpose of marriage is to have a standardized contract, so that each couple does not have to go to a lawyer and spend tens of thousands of dollars negotiating contract terms from scratch. Pre-nuptial contracts are for the people who think that the standardized contract is not suitable for them, but the only people who can afford this sort of indulgence are wealthy people.

The contract is standardized across the board via legislation for many reasons (standardization itself is a handy convenience, and it also keeps a more savvy operator from totally scamming a less savvy operator). However, like all standardized contracts, it must be altered and revised as necessary to meet changing conditions. Examples of other standardized contracts include the tenant/landlord contract, whose legislated stipulations override any fine print that a landlord might put in the tenants' contract.

I think that the word "marriage" ought to be completely removed from everything government, and replace it with some sort of binding legal union bullshit. Then let gays and whoever else tie the knot, and leave the word "marriage" to the private sector. It would simplify everything, and still give gays the rights that everyone else has. It would also be impossible to reject on religious grounds.

Howedar wrote:I think that the word "marriage" ought to be completely removed from everything government, and replace it with some sort of binding legal union bullshit. Then let gays and whoever else tie the knot, and leave the word "marriage" to the private sector. It would simplify everything, and still give gays the rights that everyone else has.

How would a pointless and confusing name-change simplify anything? The only purpose of this change would be to mollify religious bigots who are currently running around demonstrating their idiocy by claiming that marriage is an exclusively Christian invention.

It would also be impossible to reject on religious grounds.

The government is not obligated to give a flying fuck about religious grounds.

Nope, but sometimes IMHO its not worth the fight. Besides, it would be interesting to see the fuckers squirm.

Howedar wrote:Nope, but sometimes IMHO its not worth the fight. Besides, it would be interesting to see the fuckers squirm.

Fuck 'em, Marriage is nowhere even close to a solely Christian concept. It occurs in every single human society out there. It's species inherent. If they don't like it, they can go sit on Solomon's Chair.

Howedar wrote:Nope, but sometimes IMHO its not worth the fight. Besides, it would be interesting to see the fuckers squirm.

Obviously, quite a few gay couples believe that it is worth the fight. And how would it make the fundies squirm to appease them?

It wouldn't be appeasing them. They'd realize that gays were getting married, and they'd look for a way to curb it but find themselves with even less of a leg to stand on.



Unless gays want to be married in every way including the word "marriage", I don't see that they'd lose anything. They get their legal rights and as far as I can tell everyone's happy.

Personally, I don't get a hardon just by thinking about confronting people and having a fight. If you can solve the problem without a fight, I don't see why you want to go around pissing everyone off.

Howedar wrote:It wouldn't be appeasing them. They'd realize that gays were getting married, and they'd look for a way to curb it but find themselves with even less of a leg to stand on.

But they wouldn't be getting "married". Even though the word applies, they would be getting something that wouldn't be called marriage, solely because people didn't want to offend the bigots. This is appeasement. Why do you think they're up in arms over gay marriage, more so than extension of benefits to gay partners of workers etc?

Unless gays want to be married in every way including the word "marriage", I don't see that they'd lose anything. They get their legal rights and as far as I can tell everyone's happy.

Except that the word "marriage" fits, so they would be specifically denying the use of the most applicable word, hence making them feel like their union is somehow not legitimate.

Does this mean that every form in the world must now have categories for "single", "married", and "in a legally binding union"? I still don't see how this simplifies or solves anything. It appeases the bigots.

Personally, I don't get a hardon just by thinking about confronting people and having a fight.

Are you implying that I do, simply because I don't agree with your appeasement solution?

If you can solve the problem without a fight, I don't see why you want to go around pissing everyone off.

If they weren't being assholes, this wouldn't piss them off. It pisses off certain people when white and black people marry too; should they stop that as well, or invent new legally binding contracts for them to sign that don't have the word "marriage" in them, so that they can avoid offending the bigots?

EDIT: oh wait, I forgot; you do favour the appeasement approach to dealing with racists too, judging by your comments on interracial dating.

Sobbastchianno wrote:With the sodomy laws being deemed as unconstitutional, how close you do think we are, as a nation, to extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples?

We're getting there. Its gonna take a good while given how many fundies we have in power.

How do you feel about the idea of same-sex marriage (not Domestic Partnership or the Vermont separate by "equal" civil union, but marriage itself)?

Honestly, I don't really care. If they love eachother, why the hell not? Life is just too damn short.

Mike, I respect your opinion. I am not going to argue this one because it is just that, personal opinion. If you want to take my existance as a white christian heterosexual and use it to discredit me, go right ahead. If you want to post a gaudy "concession accepted" picture, you can do that as well. Debating this issue is only going to lead to hard feelings, as we don't have numbers to throw at each other.

Darth Wong, you have been reading my mind and articulating my thoughts percisely as I have had them. Are you psychic?

Anyway, I don't agree with ANY appeasement. I don't care if I piss the fundies off. Hell, it hasn't mattered to them that they have been pissing me off for over three decades.

Besides, if it pisses people off that laws are supposed to be based on a separation of church and state, then let them ammend the consitution (good luck). I don't know how many people I have informed over the years that this is NOT a Christian country and that many of the Founding Fathers weren't even Christian (though they were Diests). It urks me that they want to "Take America back for God."

Enough of that soapbox. Point is, Howedar, that I don't feel the need to make ANY of the fundies happy. It isn't about that. I don't care if it is palatable to them or not. Lord knows that not having these rights has left a bad taste in my mouth (kind of like a woman would).