Legalised Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Twocky61, Mar 29, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Twocky61

    Twocky61 Banned Member

    From midnight last night the uk legalised gay marriage putting it on par with hetrasexual marriage

    The church are exempt from marrying same sex couples as by definition such a union is against religious doctrine

    Until today gay couples were allowed to have a civil ceremony to show their love for each other but now they really can be legally married

    A day of celebration or a step backwards

    I see no problem but then I am not religious and you may take the opposite view
     
  2. Cat of Spades

    Cat of Spades Well-Known Member

    I'm not religious and never have been, but I've always opposed homosexuals infringing on the marriage contract.

    In any case, most people are pretty liberal these days so it is understandable that things will swing that way over time.

    Oh well, hopefully my country will continue to support the family and if it doesn't, I will just not partake in the contract, so if it happens it happens, I won't pout or complain but rather just vote with my actions by not participating in the altered contract.

    I respect your belief and the belief of other homosexuals like you, but likewise I expect you to respect mine.
     
  3. Raven

    Raven Guest

    Ya,
    Have people tell you that your sexual orientation is wrong, you must have been abused, you are broken.
    That is what you are saying, I fell into that trap, I debased myself because I felt I was broken and maybe that I could be fixed.

    Marriage will never affect me, but to those you deny it for, you are saying they are so fundamentally broken they are refused by law that thing they ask for the most. To be treated as humans.
     
  4. Cat of Spades

    Cat of Spades Well-Known Member

    Or they could just make an entirely new contract tailor made for homosexuals...?

    If you know anything about contracts, you'll know that no two contracts for different types of parties are ever the same.
    What sense does it make to infringe upon the current contract instead of making a new one that is better suited for the new parties that want to utilize it?
    I don't see the need to infringe on others when homosexuals could have exactly the same thing without infringing on others...
     
  5. flowers

    flowers Senior Member

    cat of spades. you wrote "hopefully my country will continue to support..." I am curious what country you live in
     
  6. Unknown_111

    Unknown_111 Forum Buddy Staff Alumni SF Supporter

    Gay Marriage in a modern world means equality.
     
  7. Kairo

    Kairo Well-Known Member

    Oh, I didn't know about this. That's awesome :)
     
  8. NYJmpMaster

    NYJmpMaster Have a question? Message Me Staff Member Forum Owner ADMIN

    Well, I think history has shown very clearly that the "separate but equal" is a farce. I think the point is that is does NOT infringe on anything at all with anybody unless you are a sexist or homophobe. Unless you are part of the couple being married it has nothing to do with you - and if you believe the marriage of somebody else diminishes your own marriage then really need to spend time working on your own marriage as clearly it holds little value.
     
  9. Twocky61

    Twocky61 Banned Member

    ///////////////
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 30, 2014
  10. Twocky61

    Twocky61 Banned Member

    Exactly Ben



    :shake:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 30, 2014
  11. Flip

    Flip Member

    Couldn't agree more. Well said!
     
  12. flowers

    flowers Senior Member

    Well said, as far as I am concerned.
     
  13. Xaos

    Xaos Well-Known Member

  14. SillyOldBear

    SillyOldBear Teddy Bear Fanatic Staff Member Safety & Support

    I totally support gay marriage. I wish it were accepted everywhere. While I will never understand how two people of the same sex can share that kind of live, I cannot doubt that they do. I have seen it. And I cannot be critical of two adults in love.
     
  15. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Guest

    Gay marriage is also gaining ground in the USA, with several states recognizing it. In 2013 the Supreme Court overturned parts of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. This means that although states are not required to recognize gay marriage, those gay couples who marry in a state which does allow it must be entitled to the same federal benefits that married couples receive. This includes Social Security and joint tax return.

    The DOMA had passed the year after then-House speaker Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" Republican Party had swept into control of Congress. President Clinton had signed it, even though he was the supposedly liberal Democrat, probably because he had just lost major battles with Congress on health care and welfare reform issues and didn't want to see his presidency go down the drain. I only mention this history because I think the 104th Congress (1995-97) was the last big social conservative push in the USA before a libertarian trend set in. Possibly the USA will stay "conservative" on economic issues and welfare statism, but become tolerant on social issues. The State of Colorado recently legalized marijuana for personal use, and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration hasn't raided the state's marijuana dispensaries, for instance.

    The 2nd comment above shows not all opposition to homosexuality or gay marriage is religious. Respect for other's beliefs is part of etiquette, but unfortunately not part of politics. In the USA, votes are what ultimately weigh in deciding on social issues.

    Take it or leave it. It doesn't seem that a ban on gays can be enforced anymore. I just don't see any reason to exclude them from society and its benefits as we used to do here.

    Separate but equal doctrine emitted from the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 case on education for black people in the USA. The Court overturned this in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and the era of schooling black children in shacks drew to a close afterward.

    Nonetheless there may have to be some extra provisions about marriages for gays. In conventional marriage, there are usually legal defaults, such as custody and financial settlements, that apply in divorce, or if partners die. Much of this might not make sense for a gay couple. So, it's reasonable to require that gay marriage applicants do indeed draw up a contract stating what they want done about their money and children if breakup or death occurs.
    ,
    .... :drama:
     
  16. youRprecious!

    youRprecious! Antiquities Friend

    Someone once said: "If humans can, humans will......" And I realise that this applies..... However, I think it's short-sighted to believe that in the long term there will be no negative side-effects from doing this, which will affect us all.

    To expand on my reasons for this would involve explaining things which many don't believe, and do not want to believe in this instance, and would be likely to attract a lot of ire..... (offended anger). This does not make me a homophobe (a term I consider a whip-word). I just believe that societies (governments) are unable to see the big picture long term results for reasons they prefer not to take the trouble to fully understand.
     
  17. Forget2Trust

    Forget2Trust Active Member

    I agree with you 100%. I will never vote for gay marriage in my state, and it is VERY sad to see other states (this country, thanks OBAMA) destroy the foundation of family.
     
  18. Forget2Trust

    Forget2Trust Active Member

    What do you mean by infringing on others? I don't know anything about contracts or the marriage contract, but will it affect the current marriage contract? I still will never agree with gay marriage.
     
  19. Forget2Trust

    Forget2Trust Active Member

    Wow. FINALLY, someone is actually using their brain ! I'd love to hear your thoughts or theory in a private message. I couldn't agree with you more here.
     
  20. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Guest

    Negative side effects are guaranteed with any social policy or law.

    So, part of evaluating whether to have gay marriage is deciding whether the effects of banning it are worse. Gay people will continue to live together, and to support minor child dependents within their households, as they have long been doing in fact, whether it's legal or not.

    We could say, "Well, people will keep doing heroin whether it's legal or not, and that's no reason for legalizing heroin." True. But gay domestic partnerships are not heroin. Most gay who want to marry, at least now, are affluent professionals or skilled workers. With legalization, this will change and gay couples lower on the socioeconomic scales will also marry and adopt or bring their own children into these unions. In both high and low socioeconomic gay unions, domestic failure or breakups will happen, and some children will be hurt. But this already happens in the gay households that cohabit without recognition. And it has always happened in traditional households.

    There will be some public financial consequences, such as Social Security survivor benefits that weren't awarded under previous arrangements. I'm unmarried and hold doubts that I'll get Social Security of any kind, yet I'm not opposing it. Social Security has big actuarial troubles that won't resolve without tax hikes or benefit cuts as it is, and gay marriage will add only a pretty modest increment to the demands, I think.

    Those who oppose gay marriage need to state a case. They haven't really shown how or why the great social harms they often claim will come about.

    According to our constitution, the legislative case against gay marriage cannot explicitly base upon religious premises, with good reason, as religions themselves disagree with each other on the issues.

    Opposition could legitimately base on community values. This suggests a substantial unanimity, say 80% or better of adults willing to declare that they view gay marriage as morally or ethically repugnant. This level of opposition applied until recent decades, when it began dropping. I doubt the required community consensus is there.
    ,
    .. .. :yield:
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.