(May 26, 2011 at 9:28 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 26, 2011 at 6:18 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Unfortunately, a majority of states have put anti-same-sex amendments into their constitutions. It will take it a while to make it legal across the country.

Not really. The state amendments are blatantly unconstitutional. The federal constitution trumps the state amendments. All we need is a supreme court that will rule on the 14th amendment as it should be.

I wouldn't rely on the bunch of shitstains we have in there now.

Thats the kind of progress I like to hear.

(May 26, 2011 at 7:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I have never understood why atheism is so closely tied to political liberalism. You call this progress, but progress towards what? Progress alone means nothing.

Translation: Why do atheists disagree with my bronze age religion?!? We need to regress back to the bronze age! My book of myths should be legislated.

(May 26, 2011 at 7:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I don't support gay marriage because the legal benefits given to married couples are not designed for a gay marriage. Couples are given those benefits as a way of rewarding them for creating a more solid platform to raise new upcoming citizens within. Kind of a "you are helping us all my being married and raising your children in a marriage so here is some financial help." Since gay couples do not raise children the perks should not apply to them. I look at it like the fact that I can't get maternity leave from my work. Is this unfair, I don't believe so because it is designed for moms, not guys like me. If gays want to have a marriage ceremony, there is no law stopping them from doing that (although I think forcing churches to do it crosses the line between church and state). Though I would rather the government just get out of the marriage business as well rather than open it up to homosexual and multiple partner marriages.

Im calling you out on this right now..how can gay parents not be able to raise children?

That is, unless, Christians like yourself make laws where gays cannothave children (wether from a previous hetero marriage or adoption).. your argument is such crap! Sure, gays can have the ceremony, but because of hateful deluded fucks like you they dont get legal standing like straight marriages.

Also, please dont act like the only reason you oppose it is to be in favor of the insurance companies... that is so lame..its so..WALDORK!

(May 26, 2011 at 7:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I have never understood why atheism is so closely tied to political liberalism.

I've never understood why Christians are so tied to conservatism since Jesus himself was so liberal. He wanted people to pay their taxes and give money to the poor, yet modern conservatives are against these principles.

Quote:I don't support gay marriage because the legal benefits given to married couples are not designed for a gay marriage.

This is a pretty stupid statement. Not sure which benefits you're talking about, but what gay people are fighting for is to have equal benefits with married heterosexual couples. But what you're basically saying is that, "I'm against gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, because then they'll have equal rights."

Quote: Couples are given those benefits as a way of rewarding them for creating a more solid platform to raise new upcoming citizens within. Kind of a "you are helping us all my being married and raising your children in a marriage so here is some financial help." Since gay couples do not raise children the perks should not apply to them.

Ahh, the old, "marriage is for raising children" argument. What about heterosexual couples who can't have kids? What about allowing gay couples to adopt kids? What about lesbian couples who get artificially inseminated? You seem to be reverting to the "them filthy queers and dykes shouldn't be allowed to raise kids" idea.

Quote: I think forcing churches to do it crosses the line between church and state).

At last we agree on something, but I'll take it one step further: Churches shouldn't be allowed to fund ballot proposals to ban gay marriage. And are you actually admitting there should be a wall of separation between church & state?

Quote: Though I would rather the government just get out of the marriage business as well rather than open it up to homosexual and multiple partner marriages.

To have legal marriages, the government can't just get out of the marriage business, but if they could guarantee that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples, then I'm all for it. But I think the only real way to guarantee it is to allow legal gay marriage.

(May 26, 2011 at 7:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Since gay couples do not raise children..

False. Even as far back as 2000.

(May 26, 2011 at 7:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I look at it like the fact that I can't get maternity leave from my work.

That's just your employer. I've known people, in the US, who have taken paternity leave & it's fairly common in other countries.

(May 26, 2011 at 7:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If gays want to have a marriage ceremony, there is no law stopping them from doing that (although I think forcing churches to do it crosses the line between church and state).

If the ceremony can't create a legal kinship between to previously unrelated people, then it's just a dog & pony show.

---

(May 26, 2011 at 8:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: 41% of Americans also think that jesus is "coming back" within the next 40 years and 40% are fucking creationists, Adrian, so don't put too much stock in American public opinion.

Good point. Horrible point, but good point.

(May 27, 2011 at 10:26 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: To have legal marriages, the government can't just get out of the marriage business, but if they could guarantee that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples, then I'm all for it. But I think the only real way to guarantee it is to allow legal gay marriage.

Question: Why does marriage have to have some kind of "legal" aspect in the first place? Why can't it simply be a celebration of love? Drop the "legal" aspects of marriage, remove all benefits given to married couples, and the problem solves itself. There is no reason why married couples should have more benefits than unmarried couples in the first place. You could make an argument for supporting "child benefits" when the couple produce or look after a child, but I don't see anything that "married" couples can do that "unmarried" couples cannot. Ergo, if you really want to be fair, you have to have equal rights between married and unmarried couples.

(May 27, 2011 at 10:49 am)Jaysyn Wrote: If the ceremony can't create a legal kinship between to previously unrelated people, then it's just a dog & pony show.

It's this kind of attitude towards marriage that really annoys me. You really believe that without some legal aspect, marriage is some kind of show? What happened to marriage being about love? Why can't marriages just be about love and nothing else? Honestly, what's the most important part of the ceremony for you, the kiss or the signing of the register? Marriage has become polluted by government interference; people get married for the wrong reasons, often to scam the state and get more money.

So I ask you, name one valid reason why marriages have to have some kind of "legal" aspect.

(May 27, 2011 at 12:10 pm)Tiberius Wrote: So I ask you, name one valid reason why marriages have to have some kind of "legal" aspect.

This isn't a new thought. They have had a legal aspect since we've had government in any form whatsoever.

And in return I ask you how your system would work for tax codes, the census, estates, insurance, inheritance, etc, etc...

Getting rid of all of the above & going to a fairy-tale society isn't a valid answer. I don't think you understand the full repercussions of marriage.

Quote:What happened to marriage being about love?

Actually, that is a rather modern concept. Marriage used to be ( and in much of the world still is ) an alliance between families. It is about money. One could easily do away with the religious mumbo-jumbo ( which is of course horseshit to begin with ) but the legal aspect of marriage is reasonable in a property-rights sense. You, of all people, should be in favor of "property rights!"

(May 27, 2011 at 12:20 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: And in return I ask you how your system would work for tax codes, the census, estates, insurance, inheritance, etc, etc...

Tax Codes? Simple: treat everyone as individuals, exactly as they are now. Just because two people get married is no reason to give them state benefits. If a child is in the mix, then give benefits to both parents.

Census? I don't see how this would be affected. Taking the state out of marriage doesn't affect the ability of people who are married to write "married" on a census form...

Estates? Could you elaborate on any problems here?

Insurance? Simple again, treat everyone as individuals.

Inheritance? The concept of a "will" would still exist, and taking the state out of marriage does not mean no record of the marriage could not exist.

(May 27, 2011 at 12:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: but the legal aspect of marriage is reasonable in a property-rights sense. You, of all people, should be in favor of "property rights!"

Again, the state doesn't have to be involved here. I own a computer, and I have proof that I own it, but the government doesn't know about it. The same can apply to any type of property right.

Actually, where I live its more profitable to have children unmarried, lots of couples stay unmarried, because the woman being an 'unmarried mother' receives much more help from the government. They still live together haha, how is that for an irony Statler?

---

PS - Wanna find the holes in a legislation? Apply it to the Portuguese

(May 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 27, 2011 at 12:20 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: And in return I ask you how your system would work for tax codes, the census, estates, insurance, inheritance, etc, etc...

Tax Codes? Simple: treat everyone as individuals, exactly as they are now. Just because two people get married is no reason to give them state benefits. If a child is in the mix, then give benefits to both parents.

Maybe. Never thought I'd hear you argue to making people pay more taxes.

(May 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Estates? Could you elaborate on any problems here?

Inheritance? The concept of a "will" would still exist, and taking the state out of marriage does not mean no record of the marriage could not exist.

Spouses get first dibs where I live, regardless of a will. Might be different in the UK.

(May 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Insurance? Simple again, treat everyone as individuals.

So we can pay even more to insurance companies? No thanks.

(May 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Census? I don't see how this would be affected. Taking the state out of marriage doesn't affect the ability of people who are married to write "married" on a census form...

You've got a point here.

(May 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Again, the state doesn't have to be involved here. I own a computer, and I have proof that I own it, but the government doesn't know about it. The same can apply to any type of property right.

Oh ho ho, I bet the do Adrian, I bet they do.

Your main problem here is that you are part of a small minority who thinks marriage should work this way. Everyone else doesn't think it's a very good idea. Also, over the course of two threads dealing with this subject you still never have answered the legal kinship part of the equation with anything that would work in the real world.