Gay Marriage - Politics Forum

Your argument that the government shouldn't have a role in legislating on gay marriage is flawed. In a secular state, marriage exists as a legal, binding contract between two (or more, if polygamy is legal) people and religion doesn't have to come into it- otherwise atheists would never get married, and there would be no specific status within the law for married people. Therefore, the secular state has to have laws regarding marriage, to provide legal protection and recognition, apart from canon or other religious laws.

I am a supporter of both polygamy (completely consensual, over-age polygamy that is legally biased neither towards men or women) and gay marriage. Or, to be more specific, I favour the availability of legal, binding contracts for homosexual partners so that they are allowed the same legal protections as their married counterparts. To be honest, the term 'marriage' is probably loaded, therefore I would say I support civil unions for homosexual couples- a legal recognition of their union, with next-of-kin, inheritance rights, guardianship rights, etc., rather than marriage in the religious sense of the word.

#2 Apr 21st, 2:13am

Hopeless Romantic90

How in God's name can you support Polygamy?

#3 Apr 21st, 2:55pm

If all the people involved are consenting, I don't really see why it should be a problem for a man or a woman to have more than one spouse. I'm not supporting child marriage in any way, shape or form, or coercion into marriage, or those cults that engage in plural marriage. And marriage to animals, or anything else that can't give definite consent, is right out.

#4 Apr 21st, 5:05pm . Edited Apr 21st, 5:06pm

1. Marriage started and remains a religious constitution, with legal status.

2. The concept of Marriage being legal and not religious started with Athiests quite recently

3. The reason everybody wants to get married (as I understand) is that married couples get benefits. But some people don't seem to realize that the reason that married couples get tax benefits is because, at the time these laws were established, married couples would more or less end up making little future taxpayers.

4. The entire problem with gay marriage is that Marriage started as a religious act and in most religions (as a part of our behavioral evolution) reject homosexuality.

#5 Apr 22nd, 6:29pm

Which is why I haven't said I support homosexual 'marriage' per se, simply legal recognition. Call it whatever the hell you want, forbid couples from getting rings or having a ceremony, it's just the legal rights I care about.

#6 Apr 22nd, 11:50pm

Why does it matter? I don't plan on ever being gay, but I don't scorn against gays because they're different. If they want to get married, why does it bother me? It doesn't infringe upon my rights.

#7 Apr 24th, 7:56pm

Why does it matter? I don't plan on ever being gay, but I don't scorn against gays because they're different. If they want to get married, why does it bother me? It doesn't infringe upon my rights.

#8 Apr 24th, 7:58pm

Hmm... be a bit more patient when submitting a post.

It wouldn't have affected my life if Hitler had wiped out the Jewish. (Not to compare gay marriage to Hitler).

#9 Apr 25th, 6:22pm

I didn't plan on ever being gay either, yet here I am.

Also, huh? Care to elucidate your point there, Onetrackmind?

#10 Apr 28th, 1:58am . Edited Apr 28th, 2:37am

I think there was some misinterpretation here. I said Gays SHOULD have the right to get married, because it didn't do anything to me or my rights. (plus, you can't compare the Holocaust to Gay Marriage. Gays aren't going to start a genocide...)

#11 Apr 29th, 7:26pm

That to some people, 'it doesn't affect my life' isn't a good enough response.

#12 Apr 30th, 1:24pm

How not? Why should we infringe upon other people's way of life for (Most of the time) religious reasons? That's why we have separation of church and state.

#13 Apr 30th, 6:34pm

Please quote the constitution on this 'Separation of Church and State', please.

#14 May 01st, 4:21am

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

and there you go. NO law RESPECTING an establishment of religion. Banning gay marriage would respect the establishment of the christian church.

#15 May 01st, 5:15am

Disturbly

^Not necessarily. If the Christian church itself enacted the legislation, that would be respecting the establishment of the religion. On the other hand, if the majority of the people want to vote for representatives who promise to ban gay marriage, that's democracy. Maybe they vote that way because they happen to be Christian, but there's nothing you can do about that.

#16 May 02nd, 9:35am

The popular vote thing is true, but, as "The land of the Free" it would be kind of hypocritical to restrict the freedoms of a subgroup of american citizens.

#17 May 04th, 11:43am

Land of the free my **.

#18 May 08th, 6:02pm

Disturbly

^Valid point. One of the key aspects of rule by majority is that the rights of a minority won't be infringed upon. No slaves, even if the majority happened to be in favor of slavery, for example. Of course, the question then becomes, is marriage a right or a privilege? Do gays have the inaliable right to get married? Of course, then you have to apply the same question to every other unusual relationship; polygamy, consensual incest (if the intent isn't to procreate). Everyone draws the line somewhere; who's to say what's the right place?

#19 May 09th, 4:58am

Disturbly

Personally, I say let it ride; let's let any consenting adults do what they will to other consenting adults. Whatever a man and a woman and her sister and a midget want to do to a horse, that's their business. And if I want to watch the video online, that's my business...

#20 May 09th, 5:02am

No comment

#21 May 09th, 5:50am

Midnight In Eden

Marriage pre-dates Abrahamic religions and the word only came into use during 14th century England. I wish the three major religions would realise that they don't have a monopoly on the word and its origins.

#22 Jun 01st, 6:47pm