Explaining Same Sex Marriage

Least restrictive social benefit.

 

Works both ways. I'd say even if my husband and I don't get blessed with children our union will certainly be beneficial to society. Two people pledging to look after each other can save the state many responsibilities, regardless of the gender of those people.

 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

^^^ in bold

It does not say a dam thing about procreation.
It does not say a dam thing about love.
It says 'equal protection of the laws'.

That is what the goverment owes me period.

If gays cannot marry, that is NOT equal protection.

 

If it looks like BS and has all the trappings of BS, then it must be BS!

It's not even worth repeating.

 

Sure--but as rstones pointed out--Divorce is rampant and there is nothing intrinsic to the relationship that is beneficial. The site he sourced even attested to the divorce rate in childless couples is higher and 2nd and 3rd marriages have a significantly higher divorce rate.

The state has no interest in that mess. Frankly, I don't think the state has much interest in supporting 2nd marriages after divorce (unless there is some reason like infidelity perpetrated by the other spouse or abuse of some sort), but again--I suppose that goes to least restrictive.

If the government didn't support 2nd marriages after divorce, don't you think people would be more cautious about marriage and more likely to work out troubled marriages? --I suppose that's a different thread, but something to think about...

 

Sure they would, but then again, I think most Americans rathre have the FREEDOM to (*)(*)(*)(*)up over and over and over again

 

It doesn't say a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing about marriage, either.

You can get married. Who's stopping you from getting married? I can't marry a person of the same sex either! We are EQUAL, and equally protected by the law.

You have a mistaken idea of the purpose of government. Part of our country's myriad problems result from many who are deluded in the same way you seem to be concerning the role of government.

Gays can marry. There is no gay/straight test given at the JoftheP. I am straight and cannot marry a person of the same sex. A gay person can't either. A gay person CAN marry a person of a different sex, just like a straight person can.

Yes--you are right--it doesn't.

 

once is enough, IMO.

 

So if the divorce rate among heterosexual couples is so high why not abandon the concept of marriage all together?

While I agree with you from a religious point of view that divorce and second, third, fourth marriages are a problem, I don't see why a secular state should think it is. People enter contracts, dissolve them and enter new ones. That's all there is to it from a secular point of view.

 

If it were just a contract...then yeah, but again...the list posted by rstones shows that its something more than a mere contract. It is a social institution supported by the government.

 

Which word of "equal protection under the laws" is confusing you?

I cannot get married in 44 states and the states that do allow for gay marraige, the fed will not recognize the marriage.

And WHEN gay marriage is allowed in all 50 states, you will also be allowed to marry any adult that you wish too. Equal protection under the law.

No, it is you that is mistaken the purpose of government. Government is here to ensure my rights.

 

I would agree except there are 1400 legal rights the state and fed hand out with marriage.

 

The question is why a secular state should feel the need to restrict people's right to enter a marriage-contract along the lines of gender. There's no reason for that and it discriminates against people who would rather have a partner who happens to be of the same sex.

 

Sure you can--you just can't marry someone of the same sex--just like every other person who is gay or straight. It's EQUAL.

Where does the equal protection clause state that you must be allowed to do as you "wish?" It doesn't. Just as I can't insist on being allowed to speed because I wish to get to work faster--laws are set up for social order, not to get us what we "wish."

What right are you referring to?

 

intrinsically non-procreative. It's not an overt denial, it is rather a lack of interest. There is no reason to support SSmarriage--there is no intrinsic societal benefit.

 

A social institution that is unjustly reserved for heterosexual couples while it should be open to all.
And yeah, the marriage certificate my husband and I got from the register office is basically just a contract via which we subscribed to the benefits and responsibilities of that 'social institution'.

The certificate we got from the church is a slightly different matter, an 'extra' that holds deep personal meaning to us, but doesn't affect the social institution in the slightest.

 

LOL. This is awesome!!!!

 

It is NOT equal because it is the bleeding obvious that a homosexual can only love and commit to one of the same sex. Just as a heterosexual can only only love and commit to one of the opposite sex
This nonsense of 'its equal' is nothing more than a smoke screen period.

If you do not like gays, I could care less. But if you want your rights, you should hand those out to others to insure YOU don’t lose yours.

Who said anything about doing what you wish? Another failed smoke screen.

What rights? Never mind. You'll never get it.

 

We're moving in circles. I know couples who got married in their sixties and seventies and definitely were past the age of procreation. Procreation does not seem to be the deciding factor for the state's decision to allow marriages or not.

 

There is no intrinsic societal benefit to having a 50% divroce rate either.

Stop with the BS.

 

Its just one of the failed arguments the homophobes will cling too. A creature of the mind, that once is planet, no amount of evidence, logic or reasoning will kill that creature.

 

And yet there are benefits associated with that particular sort of contract. If it were "just a contract"--then gay couples could go to their lawyer and draw one up. It is a government supported social institution that is beyond the contract that denotes the relationship. It's different, and that's why just getting a contract drawn up isn't good enough for same-sex marriage proponents.

 

least restrictive. That would be ageist.

 

So why should I and my husband have the right to benefit (and bear responsibilities) from that institution, while same sex couples shouldn't? I have not yet comes across a single logical reason for that kind of discrimination.

 

WOW--what a stunted view of love!

you obviously have no argument against the facts.

Where do you get the idea a "don't like gays?"

You did.
RSTONES: "And WHEN gay marriage is allowed in all 50 states, you will also be allowed to marry any adult that you wish too."

yes...what rights do I have that you don't?

Do you even know what a right is in the social science sense?