Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage, what say u Too Hot Conservatives?

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Well said. Once you say that the State has no role in defining what is, and is not, a legally valid marriage, than how does one defend the prohibition on polygamy, incest, or any other union imaginable?

Why is it the State's responsibility to define marriage? Why should the State even recognize marriage?

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by gator10010

This is the problem, we have to different entities defining marriage two different ways.

Two entities that by law are supposed to be separate from each other, so who wins? Government or religion?

Marriage can already be separate from religion and be equal. I've been married almost 16 years. My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace, at a resort, with nary a mention of God. Our marriage is just as binding in all 50 states as any couple married by a clergy member in a church.

So to answer your question, Government already won. That doesn't mean that a church has to recognize gay couples as married. It's well within the church's right to deny gays as married and/or refuse to marry gay couples. But the state should not employ said discrimination.

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by RayGator

I support the concept of civil partnerships or unions between 2 adults just as a Rep. member of the Hillsborough Commission recently did.

But I don't support, and will not in the future, support homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one male and one female just as it has been in history.

My thoughts exactly...

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by gator10010

This is the problem, we have to different entities defining marriage two different ways.

Two entities that by law are supposed to be separate from each other, so who wins? Government or religion?

Doesn't the answer to that question matter on the purpose for which you are considering marriage?

For example, if the question is whether my wife and I can file a joint tax return, our marriage must be governmentally sanctioned, which, in our dual soverignty system, means that if I am married under state law, we can file a joint federal tax return.

On the other hand, if your religious belief is that you can only fulfill the biblical requirement of being fruitful and multiplying through marriage or if you believe that marriage is necessary to attain salvation, then your marriage must be religiously sanctioned.

Of course, for many people both are available. I don't know that one has to win over the other. It seems that the purpose for which you are considering whether you are married is dispositive.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

Doesn't the answer to that question matter on the purpose for which you are considering marriage?

For example, if the question is whether my wife and I can file a joint tax return, our marriage must be governmentally sanctioned, which, in our dual soverignty system, means that if I am married under state law, we can file a joint federal tax return.

On the other hand, if your religious belief is that you can only fulfill the biblical requirement of being fruitful and multiplying through marriage or if you believe that marriage is necessary to attain salvation, then your marriage must be religiously sanctioned.

Of course, for many people both are available. I don't know that one has to win over the other. It seems that the purpose for which you are considering whether you are married is dispositive.

Well in this either or scenario, gay marriage should be legal, in the government sanctioned sense.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Marriage can already be separate from religion and be equal. I've been married almost 16 years. My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace, at a resort, with nary a mention of God. Our marriage is just as binding in all 50 states as any couple married by a clergy member in a church.

So to answer your question, Government already won. That doesn't mean that a church has to recognize gay couples as married. It's well within the church's right to deny gays as married and/or refuse to marry gay couples. But the state should not employ said discrimination.

I realize that marriage in the religious and government sense can be separate today. The government has already won in certain states. My point is, as long as government is defining marriage, then gay marriage must be legal, along with a slew of other marriages.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by gator10010

I realize that marriage in the religious and government sense can be separate today. The government has already won in certain states. My point is, as long as government is defining marriage, then gay marriage must be legal, along with a slew of other marriages.

Gay marriages yes, but why a slew of other marriages? Gay marriage only seeks to end a gender requirement that both parties need to be of different gender. Remove gender, and does all other requirements go by the wayside? Precedent seems to be against your argument, as at one point, marriage had a racial requirement that both parties be of the same race. That was removed, and it did not open Pandora's marriage box.

[Lawdog88]

The common propaganda that those who reject the homosexual marriage imitation from a moral point of view is necessarily founded in hate, and those of that view are hate-filled bigots . . .

is hate-filled bigotry against a commonly held, moral point of view, steeped in religious and moral tradition and cultural history, since the dawn of time.

And . . . in addition to being a stupid argument (see, John Kerry in Germany), it is a logical fallacy.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, a Web site that analyzes Supreme Court cases, said the amicus filing “has the potential to break through and make a real difference.


He added: “The person who is going to decide this case, if it’s going to be close, is going to be a conservative justice who respects traditional marriage but nonetheless is sympathetic to the claims that this is just another form of hatred. If you’re trying to persuade someone like that, you can’t persuade them from the perspective of gay rights advocacy.”

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Gay marriages yes, but why a slew of other marriages? Gay marriage only seeks to end a gender requirement that both parties need to be of different gender. Remove gender, and does all other requirements go by the wayside? Precedent seems to be against your argument, as at one point, marriage had a racial requirement that both parties be of the same race. That was removed, and it did not open Pandora's marriage box.

Do you really think the line will be held once gay marriage is legal?

Say a man has two women, of legally age, both wanting to marry him, why can't the 3 of them marry? They are only seeking to remove the number of wives a man can legally have. How are you not discriminating against this man's right to have more than 1 wife? How are you not discriminating against one of these women's right to marry the individual they "love"? This man can not pursue happiness in his life because the government is dictating how many wives he can have.

If the government is operating marriage under the umbrella of equality then marriage, in the government sanctioned sense, must be open to every and all individuals of legal age....or does the age requirement fall under the umbrella of marriage inequality?

[108]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

The common propaganda that those who reject the homosexual marriage imitation from a moral point of view is necessarily founded in hate, and those of that view are hate-filled bigots . . .

is hate-filled bigotry against a commonly held, moral point of view, steeped in religious and moral tradition and cultural history, since the dawn of time.

And . . . in addition to being a stupid argument (see, John Kerry in Germany), it is a logical fallacy.

like racism, tradition and history doesn't make bigotry acceptable

people can disagree with it, not support it, but if you back laws that prohibit it by force of the government, then you are a bigot

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by 108

like racism, tradition and history doesn't make bigotry acceptable

people can disagree with it, not support it, but if you back laws that prohibit it by force of the government, then you are a bigot

So AzCatFan is a bigot because he does not believe the government should support polygamy?

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by 108

like racism, tradition and history doesn't make bigotry acceptable

people can disagree with it, not support it, but if you back laws that prohibit it by force of the government, then you are a bigot

You have simply regurgitated yet another commonly held, simplistic variant on the above-described logical fallacy, i.e., that if you take a moral position that opposes the spread of opprobrious and deviant behavior, that you must - and can only - be opposing it because of personal bigotry and hate.

Sorry, your stereotypically wrong opinion about folks who oppose homosexuality, doesn't make logical sense.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Actually, removing gender assignment to whom can become one's spouse doesn't change anything else regarding marriage laws. Right now, a person can only have 1 spouse at a time, said spouse must be previously unrelated (to a degree depending on state), must be at least 18 (or younger with permission, again, depending on state), and both parties must enter willingly. And according to the government, "spouse" is the highest form of familial relationship possible, superseding all other family. It's why a spouse has right of survivorship, power of attorney (where otherwise not noted), visitation rights, and all other rights/responsibilities afforded to legally married couples.

Right now, there is also a requirement that both parties be of different gender. The question is why should gender make a difference? To those that say tradition, and marriage has always been between one man and one woman, I say tradition should never be used as a reason to deny others their rights. Traditionally, marriage also had a racial requirement.

To those that say this is a state issue, I disagree. Marriage licenses are legal, binding contracts that are recognized by other states. Yes, marriage laws vary from state to state, but all marriage licenses are valid, and a married couple living in Florida but married in Washington St. have the same rights as a married couple living in Florida, married in any other 49 states. Would the same hold true for a gay married couple?

It is well accepted that historically the State has had a vested interest in promoting marriage, as it was seen as a means to ensure a stable society and promoted procreation of the species (we need future citizens if we are going to survive). The State was, and is, a function of the society that creates it. Society has held the view for many hundreds of years that it is in the best interest of children to be raised in a two parent household. Now, we can debate whether that is true, but it is not debatable that that was one of the primary reasons marriage has been institutionalized by the State.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by gator10010

Do you really think the line will be held once gay marriage is legal?

Say a man has two women, of legally age, both wanting to marry him, why can't the 3 of them marry? They are only seeking to remove the number of wives a man can legally have. How are you not discriminating against this man's right to have more than 1 wife? How are you not discriminating against one of these women's right to marry the individual they "love"? This man can not pursue happiness in his life because the government is dictating how many wives he can have.

If the government is operating marriage under the umbrella of equality then marriage, in the government sanctioned sense, must be open to every and all individuals of legal age....or does the age requirement fall under the umbrella of marriage inequality?

Yes, I think the line will be held at gay marriage. Marriage licenses are a legal contract between exactly two people for many reasons. For example, right of survivorship, power of attorney, and visitation rights. Changing the gender requirement doesn't alter these one iota. Changing the number of spouses allowed, however, does.

That's not to say I'm against polygamy per se. While there is often a misogynist element to polygamy, I do not believe it should be illegal. If that is someone's pursuit of happiness, then why should I stop it. However, allowing for polygamous marriages is going to be difficult, as it would require all 50 states to write polygamy marriage laws. Allowing gay marriage? That just requires someone switching "Bride" and "Groom" on a license to "Party 1" and "Party 2", or "Groom" and "Groom".

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gator10010

Why is it the State's responsibility to define marriage? Why should the State even recognize marriage?

because it's very much a legal partnership

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

It is well accepted that historically the State has had a vested interest in promoting marriage, as it was seen as a means to ensure a stable society and promoted procreation of the species (we need future citizens if we are going to survive). The State was, and is, a function of the society that creates it. Society has held the view for many hundreds of years that it is in the best interest of children to be raised in a two parent household. Now, we can debate whether that is true, but it is not debatable that that was one of the primary reasons marriage has been institutionalized by the State.

Nice revionist history. But it just isn't true that marriage was created to promote procreation. Marriages were arranged in history to merge/blend families. Children were yes, expected, but at no time were they a requirement. Today, children aren't also a requirement for marriage, as post-menopausal women have as much right to marry as their younger, more fertile sisters.

[HudsonGator]

Here's a question, so what happens if in figuring out the human genome, scientists identify the gene that makes some people attracted to members of the same sex, and by identifying it they also discover the ability to "fix" it.

Then what happens?

We already let parents give hormone treatments to their kids to make them taller.

How many parents are going to want to give their kids a medical treatment that can make them "normal?” A little modern medicine and suddenly Mom and Dad have a future where they get to watch little Johnny marry Jenny instead of Frank and give them lots of grandkids.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Nice revionist history. But it just isn't true that marriage was created to promote procreation. Marriages were arranged in history to merge/blend families. Children were yes, expected, but at no time were they a requirement. Today, children aren't also a requirement for marriage, as post-menopausal women have as much right to marry as their younger, more fertile sisters.

There is nothing revisionist about it. Marriage between a man and a woman actually predates history. The earliest records we have a species speaks of it. Now of course many of those same historical records also include refrerences to polygamy, but no homosexual marriages, that’s relatively new.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Nice revionist history. But it just isn't true that marriage was created to promote procreation. Marriages were arranged in history to merge/blend families. Children were yes, expected, but at no time were they a requirement. Today, children aren't also a requirement for marriage, as post-menopausal women have as much right to marry as their younger, more fertile sisters.

AzCatFan, within our country, I believe his "revisionist history" is actually pretty accurate. The main reasons our states recognize or reward benefits to people in marriages is because it ultimately will benefit the state by those people having children in most cases, and those children having children, etc. It prolongs society, consumers, and tax-payers. If it had no benefit to the state or to society, why would the government even want to be involved? If homosexuals can't, by their own nature, produce children and etc, what point is it to give their marriages the same benefits? Would homosexuals take governmental-recognized marriages if it didn't come with benefits?

There's really no point in looking back to the beginning of why marriages were created through human history, what really only matters is why they were given benefits in our specific country in the first place. It wasn't to pat couples on the back for falling in love, I can assure you that.

[AzCatFan]

Okay, Hudson and Tim, please find me evidence that marriage in the US was recognized to be only about children. Or any marriage was born simply out of the need or desire for procreation. In the meantime, take a quick read at this:

Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments.

Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.

While the article deals more with marrying for love, the points remain true. Marriage was about family, power, and money, and not just for children. Anyone who attempts to refute this point, in my opinion, is engaging in revisionist history at best, or is attempting to hide his/her prejudice at worst.

But then you don't have to believe me. I am not an expert on such matters. But then Harvard Professor Nancy Cott can be considered one, having written a book on the History of Marriage in the US. And according to her:

Harvard professor Nancy Cott, who has written a book about the history of marriage in the United States, told a federal court in San Francisco that child rearing was only one of several purposes of marriage, not "the central or defining purpose."

"There has never been a requirement that a couple produce children in order to have a valid marriage," Cott testified, adding that George Washington, the father of the nation, was sterile.