Same sex marriage.

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Okay this is what I believe about same sex marriage. I do not support it, but I believe that it should be legal. I see this as freedom of religion issue because religion is the only logical reason to be against it. Basically, I am prochoice about same sex marriage because I believe in freedom of religion. Thank you for listening.

 

[Darkness]

Okay this is what I believe about same sex marriage. I do not support it, but I believe that it should be legal. I see this as freedom of religion issue because religion is the only logical reason to be against it. Basically, I am prochoice about same sex marriage because I believe in freedom of religion. Thank you for listening.

Let's dig a little deeper. If there is no reason (i.e. no logical reason) but a religious to be against same-sex marriage, why don't you support it?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I am a Christian so I do not support it. Is it not enough that I am prochoice about it?

 

[blackout]

That you do not actively come against it,
is enough for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay this is what I believe about same sex marriage. I do not support it, but I believe that it should be legal. I see this as freedom of religion issue because religion is the only logical reason to be against it. Basically, I am prochoice about same sex marriage because I believe in freedom of religion. Thank you for listening.

I'm guessing from the OP that you're a fan of Constitutional liberties, eh?

 

[TheKnight]

Let's dig a little deeper. If there is no reason (i.e. no logical reason) but a religious to be against same-sex marriage, why don't you support it?

I hope you don't mind if I, as someone who also doesn't support it, answers.

There are two answers to this question. The first is that I don't believe that marriage should be an institution that is controlled and regulated by the government. I also don't believe that marriage should afford you any privileges that are special and unique to the marriage agreement that are not also available to everyone by other similar agreements.

The second answer is that based on my belief that government shouldn't be involved in marriage, the marriage process is entirely a religious one or personal one.

The fact of the matter is that we all have different traditions and ceremonies associated with marriage and we all apply our own significance and meaning to the ceremony. That being said, a marriage between two people of the same sex cannot, by any religious beliefs I subscribe to, happen.

It's not that I think they should be illegal, law should not even be written concerning it as I see it as a religious or, if you're not religious, something that is done in accordance with one's personal beliefs to sanctify/beautify/glorify/etc the union between two people.

I don't believe that marriage belongs in the domain of law, but in the domain of personal behavior and beliefs. If one feels they need to be married, it is because of some personal significance that they apply to it and nothing more. For me, the significance I give to a marriage between a man and woman simply cannot be applied to two people of the same sex. Not because of bias or discrimination, but because of the definition of marriage that I have and the very nature of the significance I give to it.

 

[Skwim]

I don't believe that marriage belongs in the domain of law, but in the domain of personal behavior and beliefs.

But it's precisely because of law that marriage is a significant arrangement. It confers rights to spouses they would otherwise not have, such as deathbed issues (confers the right to decide to pull the plug or not), and many inheritance matters.

 

[Nerthus]

Not supporting gay marriage, will not change the fact that people are gay and want to be
married to the person they love.

Why not just let people be happy? You don't need to go out and actively support, but why try and stop it from being legal - do gay people not deserve to be happy?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Not supporting gay marriage, will not change the fact that people are gay and want to be
married to the person they love.

Why not just let people be happy? You don't need to go out and actively support, but why try and stop it from being legal - do gay people not deserve to be happy?

Like I said, I do not support same sex marriage, but I am prochoice about it. Basically I would allow gays to do their thing and get married if that is what they want.

 

[TheKnight]

But it's precisely because of law that marriage is a significant arrangement.

Wrong. The significance of "marriage" is entirely dependent on how you view the relationship and the ceremony of marriage.

It confers rights to spouses they would otherwise not have, such as deathbed issues (confers the right to decide to pull the plug or not), and many inheritance matters.

Again, this often comes with marriage, but for many, such as myself, it is not what makes a marriage a marriage.

 

[Jainarayan]

But it's precisely because of law that marriage is a significant arrangement. It confers rights to spouses they would otherwise not have, such as deathbed issues (confers the right to decide to pull the plug or not), and many inheritance matters.

^ This.

The "government shouldn't be involved in marriage" argument is full of holes. Marriage is a legal contract, carrying certain rights, duties and benefits. Something has to regulate those.

There are ~1,041 benefits and rights under US marriage laws. They include immigration, Social Security survivor benefits, child custody matters.

Marriage is not a religious matter except as a tradition and custom, as no marriage in any house of worship is legal or valid without a civil license issued by the state. A couple can take their vows on a beach in the name of Poseidon, but if one of them dies, the other gets squat.

Take vows in front of a municipal judge who signs the marriage certificate, and now we're talking legal. There wasn't a clergyperson in sight and this marriage is valid.

Wills and powers-of-attorney don't cut it either. Wills can be contested by family, and p.o.a. ceases upon death.

 

[Jainarayan]

Again, this often comes with marriage, but for many, such as myself, it is not what makes a marriage a marriage.

It's true most people marry for love. But when you stand to lose your possessions and life's work to someone else or the state, and you've lost right-of-survivorship because your marriage is something other than a legal contract, you'll understand. Your marriage will have been for nought, except for the memories. If you and your spouse are willing to see it that way, more power to you.

 

[Skwim]

Wrong. The significance of "marriage" is entirely dependent on how you view the relationship and the ceremony of marriage.

I wasn't addressing the significance of marriage per se, but the significance wrought by it's legal aspect. Don't marry and see how insignificant marriage is when you go to assert your perceived legal/moral rights.

Again, this often comes with marriage, but for many, such as myself, it is not what makes a marriage a marriage.

Whatever pops your corn.

 

[Valjean]

I am a Christian so I do not support it. Is it not enough that I am prochoice about it?

The Bible supports slavery and forbids the eating of pork and the wearing of "mixed fabrics." It requires rapists to pay a fine to the victim's father, then marry her.


As a Christian, is this what you support?

 

[TheKnight]

But when you stand to lose your possessions and life's work to someone else or the state, and you've lost right-of-survivorship because your marriage is something other than a legal contract, you'll understand. Your marriage will have been for nought, except for the memories. If you and your spouse are willing to see it that way, more power to you.

Right. Because single people also have lost their right to survivorship, and their possessions and their life's work to someone else?

I fail to see how any of that relates to marriage.

I wasn't addressing the significance of marriage per se, but the significance wrought by it's legal aspect.

Hence the significance you give to marriage as a legal relationship.

Don't marry and see how insignificant marriage is when you go to assert your perceived legal/moral rights.

I don't believe in rights anyways.

But that's irrelevant. Marriage confers special rights and privileges to people just because of what? Because they've decided to be committed to each other? That should have nothing to do with it.

As I said in my first post, marriage should have nothing to do with what is basically a financial partnership between people. If two people want to combine their resources and receive whatever benefits come with marriage as a result, then they should be able to do so without something like marriage as the pre-requisite.

The laws pertaining to marriage function in a way that acknowledges the specific significance that a particular group gives the union. Law should have nothing to do with who you decide to spend your life with.

 

[Quagmire]

The Bible supports slavery

It doesn't support it in the sense of encouraging it. It lays down laws for the humane treatment of slaves. Slavery was a fact of life at the time. That being the case, better to take the Mosaic Law''s approach to it then the conventional one (which was usually "anything goes", "it's your property, do what you want").

and forbids the eating of pork

Not really a bad policy even today.

and the wearing of "mixed fabrics."

Lets face it: nobody looks good in poly-cotton.

It requires rapists to pay a fine to the victim's father, then marry her.

Which is a bit better than what happens to rapists 2 out of 3 times in our own society, which is nothing.

I understand the point your making: "If you've discarded these archaic ordinances, why hang on to this other one?", which is a good question, but I thought your presentation was a little unfair.

 

[Jainarayan]

Right. Because single people also have lost their right to survivorship, and their possessions and their life's work to someone else?

Yes. Not all states recognize common-law marriages, so for all intents and purposes they are single. I have relatives who have been together for over 30 years, with 5 children. They are not married, and NJ is not a common-law marriage state. If one of the two people die, the other inherits nothing. Everything goes to the State of NJ, to then be divvied up among the survivors. Nor does the surviving "spouse" get any Social Security survivor benefits.

Under state laws in the US, the surviving spouse in a legal marriage inherits the entire estate with or without a will from the deceased spouse. Neither a husband nor wife can cut the other out from a will. That is called right-of-survivorship and is incontestable. Right-of-survivorship is automatic.

The assets of a single person, or an unmarried couple, unless he or she makes a will specifying heirs, everything goes to the state to be determined who inherits what. That can take a very long time, especially if next of kin start fighting.

So who needs a piece of paper... all you need is love.

 

[Jainarayan]

Law should have nothing to do with who you decide to spend your life with.

Then be prepared to lose everything you've built together, to the point of getting kicked out of your house, condo, or apartment and losing your bank accounts, especially if your "spouse" has other family. They get at least half.

 

[Katzpur]

Okay this is what I believe about same sex marriage. I do not support it, but I believe that it should be legal. I see this as freedom of religion issue because religion is the only logical reason to be against it. Basically, I am prochoice about same sex marriage because I believe in freedom of religion. Thank you for listening.

I do not personally believe that God approves of sexual relations between two men or two woman. That said, I believe it's up to God to punish (if He so chooses) those individuals who engage in such relations. I don't believe it should be my business or my responsibility to deny consenting adults their civil rights. The behavior in question is going to continue whether we agree to let same-sex couples have the same rights as the rest of us or not, and it is flat out wrong for us to try to legislate the morals of other people based on our own religious beliefs.

 

[TheKnight]

Yes. Not all states recognize common-law marriages, so for all intents and purposes they are single. I have relatives who have been together for over 30 years, with 5 children. They are not married, and NJ is not a common-law marriage state. If one of the two people die, the other inherits nothing. Everything goes to the State of NJ, to then be divvied up among the survivors. Nor does the surviving "spouse" get any Social Security survivor benefits.

I agree that that is tragic, but I don't think it should have anything to do with marriage. I think you should be able to designate a person for those things regardless of why you did so or who they were to you. You should not be limited as to who you can designate in that manner.

So who needs a piece of paper... all you need is love.

So use the love and relationship you have as a modicum for your other agendas? Or, we could fix the actual problem, which is that someone somewhere thinks you don't actually own your stuff and cannot determine where it goes once you're gone.

It doesn't sound like a marriage issue to me. Making it a marriage issue is making an issue out of an unrelated topic because it's easy to do.

Then be prepared to lose everything you've built together, to the point of getting kicked out of your house, condo, or apartment and losing your bank accounts, especially if your "spouse" has other family. They get at least half.

You didn't say anything in contrast to my statement. You simply brought irrelevant materialistic needs.