Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! - Page 5
   

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court!

This is a discussion on Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category

    Like Tree127Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        03-27-2013, 01:00 AM
      #41
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Muppetgirl    
    Oh blah....I wasn't starting anything either.......I've just heard a lot of rantings from religious relatives about this subject, and that was THEIR view, not mine, they believe marriage is a biblical principal only to be undertaken by man and woman who are equally yoked.....(seriously my MIL nearly laid an egg when she discovered I was not what she hoped....but what DIL is?) ....like I say, I'm a great big sinner and plan to stay that way, because no ones perfect. If TWO HUMAN BEINGS wish to marry, then let them do it.....all sins are created equal, if homosexuals are going to be sent to hell for having relations, then I will be right there with them dancing on coals for any number of 'sins' I've committed.
    OH, I knew you weren't. I totally agree with you!!!
    Muppetgirl likes this.
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        03-27-2013, 03:24 AM
      #42
    Trained
    I don't see how religion has a monopoly on marriage. One is not required to be of any particular faith to get married in the US.

    And, one is not required to be anything other than an adult to enter into a legal and binding partnership that gives them every legal right to property, hospital visits, etc., that marriage would. The ONLY thing marriage would "allow" that cannot be obtained by any other binding contract between two people is spousal benefits. This is not limited to gays. No two heterosexuals of the same sex can marry - either. So the "can't access spousal benefit" thing is NOT "unequal" treatment.

    So, to me the question isn't why should it matter if gays can marry...it is why does it matter to gays (reportedly 3.5 is percent of the population) that they can't???

    And, the second there was a new pope, the immediate response was people sure hoped he was pro-gay marriage. Hello? For whose sake? Gays in Iran? Or, did they mean for the sake of anti-christian folks living in predominately christian countries?? There is no end to this "we demand" from gays dominating the airwaves. Meanwhile the national debt is beyond out of control, and there are plenty of "real places" that rather draconian treatment of gays IS actually dictated by religion (e.g., Iran), yet not a PEEP about it.

    As far as "people should be allowed to marry the one they love" - really? Even if it involves incest?
         
        03-27-2013, 06:39 AM
      #43
    Super Moderator
    .

    Not saying I am for it. Just curious.....

    In the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" why cannot a man have two wives or a woman have two husbands?

    As long as it is a committed relationship, it should be OK, correct?

    .
         
        03-27-2013, 06:47 AM
      #44
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SouthernTrailsGA    
    .

    Not saying I am for it. Just curious.....

    In the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" why cannot a man have two wives or a woman have two husbands?

    As long as it is a committed relationship, it should be OK, correct?

    .
    Just to play devils advocate......... why not? Sure, marriage has traditionally been between two, but three (or more) could be beneficial. Two people out making money, someone home with the kids. These "ways of life" are nothing new, only taboo for OUR culture. Plenty of animals live this way and I'm sure humans didn't always live by the pair mentality. I'm not for, but not against it either.

    Honestly, I feel like the argument of "Well if we allow gays to marry then people can marry their dogs, cousins (another cultural taboo), and children". We are talking about two consenting adults. Not a dog who doesn't can't understand the higher concept of what it is to me in a committed, romantic relationship, not a child who can't give consent, and not two people who will produce children with various genetic mutations.

    It's like coming at horse slaughter with the idea of "Wow, if they allow horse slaughter I bet dogs and cats are next!!!". I doubt in 1000 years dogs or cats will EVER be slaughtered. Why, because there will be such a HUGE out cry. It's not within out cultural norms, just like incest, having sex with children and marry your cousins violate or sense of what is right.

    Also, I don't see ANY out cry from ANYONE in that area. Why? Because it's wrong, not just wrong for religious reasons, just morally wrong by any standard in the United states. Untillpeople start fighting for those rights I DOUBT we will have to worry about them.
         
        03-27-2013, 06:55 AM
      #45
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PurpleMonkeyWrench    
    very good post with a great point.

    Here's your response...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsms
    Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?

    Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.

    My response: Just like the bible, you can't take that saying literally. Obviously it has to be within reason, so no murderers can't murder and people can't molest children. That's saying entitles you to life of doing what makes you happy. You want to be a farmer, farm. Want a big house, buy a big house. Want 15 kids, have 15 kids. Plus you need to understand the PERIOD this was coming from. If you were born a poor farmer you would most likely stay a poor farmer. If you were born a wealth business man you would stay a wealth business man. That saying or "right" was created to tell the people of broke and struggling America they your not stuck being a poor person, if you have a dream of being a wealth man go for it! Pretty much what this country was founded on, people leaving oppression seeking a better life.
         
        03-27-2013, 08:48 AM
      #46
    Trained
    MY point was simply that the "pursuit of happiness" (from the Declaration of Independence) is hardly a constitutional mandate requiring homosexual marriage. All laws interfere with someone's happiness.

    Nor do I think much of the "if they love each other" argument. If a married man comes to love another woman, I think he has an obligation to his WIFE and KIDS to work on his marriage, rather than dump her and them and "follow his heart". That is why marriage became a contract to begin with - to protect women and kids, and support a family that builds a society.

    My brother teaches in Tucson. Almost none of his kids come from a traditional two-parent home, living with the father who helped create them. It seems to me our society has already degraded marriage to the point that we, as a society, don't believe in traditional marriage at all. But judging from the results in schools where most kids come from non-traditional marriage homes versus those with a large percentage of original, two parent homes...that comes with a high price to society.

    I would argue we should be trying to reverse the trend, and put more emphasis on 'traditional marriage' - but I also think that part of the culture war is long gone, and my side lost. I think there will be a price to pay, and America will inevitably pay it.
         
        03-27-2013, 08:57 AM
      #47
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Missy May    
    I don't see how religion has a monopoly on marriage. One is not required to be of any particular faith to get married in the US.

    And, one is not required to be anything other than an adult to enter into a legal and binding partnership that gives them every legal right to property, hospital visits, etc., that marriage would. The ONLY thing marriage would "allow" that cannot be obtained by any other binding contract between two people is spousal benefits. This is not limited to gays. No two heterosexuals of the same sex can marry - either. So the "can't access spousal benefit" thing is NOT "unequal" treatment.

    So, to me the question isn't why should it matter if gays can marry...it is why does it matter to gays (reportedly 3.5 is percent of the population) that they can't???
    Marriage and religion are intertwined. It's one of the biggest reasons preventing it. Why do people think its wrong? Because their religion tells them so. Not for nothing, religion has also taught people we were the dependence of two people and the earth is the center of earth. Oh, these are old principles? So is the thought*of homosexuality as a disease.

    If gays are not "unequal" then can we "demote" heterosexual marriage to the same standing as "gay marriage"? There are BENEFITS to being legally married. Obviously this website does not outline them all, but it gives a good broad overview http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson

    How would YOU feel is you were denied visitation to your dying spouse or couldn't get time off for bereavement? If you couldn't cover your children with insurance? And there are hundreds of other reasons marriage benefits a person. And many people marry just to reap these benefits.

    3.5% is still equivalent to 4 million people, gay people are not a small cult. That doesn't include people who are in denial, afraid to come out for fear of ostracized and the discrimination and hate gay people are up against. Hell, I knew my whole life but I didn't know what a lesbian was until 8th grade and I have a very "real world" upbringing. There is a researcher who estimates the homosexual to heterosexual ratio at 1 to 10.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-27-2013, 08:59 AM
      #48
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SlideStop    
    ...I doubt in 1000 years dogs or cats will EVER be slaughtered. Why, because there will be such a HUGE out cry. It's not within out cultural norms, just like incest, having sex with children and marry your cousins violate or sense of what is right...
    I'm old enough to see how "cultural norms" have changed in the last 20, 30 and 40 years. The culture of tolerance uber alles is a culture that rejects cultural norms. It would be a serious mistake to think you can predict cultural norms in America 20 years from now...let alone 1000!

    Incest and marrying cousins is already allowed, even 'traditional', in some parts of the world. Indeed, those things are actually more 'traditional', in the sense of having been done regularly during the last 5,000 years, than homosexual marriage is. If you think marrying your cousin is taboo in America, wait 20 years. Every argument being used for homosexual marriage can also apply to marrying cousins, marrying multiple women and men, and marrying adult children.
    "In 1991, when the relationship started, Allen was 56 and Previn was approximately 19. Asked whether their age difference was conducive to "a healthy, equal relationship," Allen said equality is not necessarily a requirement in a relationship and "The heart wants what it wants. There's no logic to those things. You meet someone and you fall in love and that's that."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_...Soon-Yi_Previn
         
        03-27-2013, 09:12 AM
      #49
    Banned
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SouthernTrailsGA    
    .

    Not saying I am for it. Just curious.....

    In the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" why cannot a man have two wives or a woman have two husbands?

    As long as it is a committed relationship, it should be OK, correct?

    .
    Actually some very strong communities have been created through the multiple spouse way of life. I'm not for it, kind of seems creepy, but that is how I was raised, ie. Man does not take more than one wife....
    Warren Geoffs (Jeffs?) found out eventually that having more than one wife just doesn't get you in good standing with the law....he must be seething that gays would be potentially getting the option to marry and he couldn't have his 20 wives and 100 offspring. Again taking biblical principals to a whole new extreme.
         
        03-27-2013, 09:27 AM
      #50
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsms    
    MY point was simply that the "pursuit of happiness" (from the Declaration of Independence) is hardly a constitutional mandate requiring homosexual marriage. All laws interfere with someone's happiness.

    Nor do I think much of the "if they love each other" argument. If a married man comes to love another woman, I think he has an obligation to his WIFE and KIDS to work on his marriage, rather than dump her and them and "follow his heart". That is why marriage became a contract to begin with - to protect women and kids, and support a family that builds a society.

    My brother teaches in Tucson. Almost none of his kids come from a traditional two-parent home, living with the father who helped create them. It seems to me our society has already degraded marriage to the point that we, as a society, don't believe in traditional marriage at all. But judging from the results in schools where most kids come from non-traditional marriage homes versus those with a large percentage of original, two parent homes...that comes with a high price to society.

    I would argue we should be trying to reverse the trend, and put more emphasis on 'traditional marriage' - but I also think that part of the culture war is long gone, and my side lost. I think there will be a price to pay, and America will inevitably pay it.
    Marriage is to do exactly what you said, SUPPORT FAMILY. That's what these movements are about! You have an obligation to your family, gay or straight, if your raising children your obligation is to your partner and kids! Disallowing equality prevents this from happening. How are you supposed to support your family if you can't provide them with insurance? Get time off for having a baby? Take time off for family leave (serious illness, etc)? Get child support incase one partner leaves? Your employer comes back with "well, by law, that's not your family". And by law, right now, it is very difficult to act as a family even though you are emotionally just a connected as a "legal" family.

    How can we hold such high value to "traditional" marriage when you have a divorce rate of 50%, that doesnt include people who cannot afford divorce and are separated. Then you have the likes of people like Brittany Spears and Kim Kardashian who marry for money & fame. Or people like my girlfriends aunt who married a man so he can gain citizenship in this country. It's all over the place and its disgraceful! Now I think THAT is insulting to values and benefits marriage. Not two humans who love each other who just so happen to be homosexual.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Supreme Court upholds health care law kitten_Val General Off Topic Discussion 151 07-04-2012 07:40 PM
    Marriage described through a horse race - Warning, vulgar language!! mliponoga Jokes and Funnies 10 12-21-2010 09:49 PM
    Pre arranged marriage? LOL Heybird Horse Pictures 7 12-21-2009 06:56 PM
    Court Venue rider4life422 Horse Law 5 06-22-2009 06:16 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 PM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0