Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

[MCHammer]

It is hard to imagine how the government can determine legit alternative marriages from benefit scams. The reality is the more alternative arrangements we legalize, the more such scams will proliferate. Over time marriage will just mean less and not count for much. It's already happening within the heterosexual community regardless of gay marriage.

I probably sound like a grumpy grandpa, but I just don't think this bodes well for the future.

And get off my lawn.

[D Rock]

I find it completely ridiculous to say this country is founded on religious freedom, then turn around and make sure that the freedom is only ok as long as it follows what the majority wants.


Who am I to say what religion someone else should follow, if any?

Who am I to say that because my religious book is against homosexuality, that no one should be allowed to engage in it? Or, as the question here asks, get married as gay people?

There is no acceptable basis, to me, to deny gay people the right to marry.

[MCHammer]

While many people form their opinions on this issue based on religion, the government does not. So the issue from a legal standpoint is more about the constitution and what it does or does not guarantee, versus religious freedom.

In other words, even if the the government recognizes gay marriage your church doesn't have to and vice versa.

And strictly speaking, marriage has not historically been considered a "right." That is why you have to get a marriage license and not that long ago, had to undergo blood tests in certain jurisdictions, etc. The state decided it had an interest in promoting marriage based on the benefits of marriage to society. So if you approach it through the state's historical view, the issue in theory comes down to whether gay marriage is in the state's interest.

I know this sounds silly, but again, once you say gay marriage is a "right" how can you deny that "right" to polygamists or even brothers/sisters and fathers/daughters? It may sound preposterous at first glance, but once you start making exceptions for one group it becomes a real life slippery slope pretty quickly unless you can find a way to constitutionally draw a new boundary.

[D Rock]

While many people form their opinions on this issue based on religion, the government does not. So the issue from a legal standpoint is more about the constitution and what it does or does not guarantee, versus religious freedom.

In other words, even if the the government recognizes gay marriage your church doesn't have to and vice versa.

And strictly speaking, marriage has not historically been considered a "right." That is why you have to get a marriage license and not that long ago, had to undergo blood tests in certain jurisdictions, etc. The state decided it had an interest in promoting marriage based on the benefits of marriage to society. So if you approach it through the state's historical view, the issue in theory comes down to whether gay marriage is in the state's interest.

I know this sounds silly, but again, once you say gay marriage is a "right" how can you deny that "right" to polygamists or even brothers/sisters and fathers/daughters? It may sound preposterous at first glance, but once you start making exceptions for one group it becomes a real life slippery slope pretty quickly unless you can find a way to constitutionally draw a new boundary.

inter-family marriage needs to be illegal in order to protect some people, and their future children, from themselves. It is genetically unsafe for a baby born to people too closely related genetically.


That is the only reason inter-family relations should be illegal. Otherwise, it's not for me, you, or anyone else to decide whether or not polygamy and incest are ok for people to engage in.

[MCHammer]

Fair enough - but gay marriage proponents usually deny that marriage is about raising children since they can't do so naturally. So if you are going to allow gay marriage how can you not allow intra-family marriage?

After all, you can still make it illegal for people to have kids born of incest without banning their "right" to marry.

I'm not trying to go all Rick Santorum on you. I just find the issue to be a lot more problematic than it seems at first glance. There used to be a big line drawn at 1 man, 1 woman. That line is now blurry to say the least. Where is the new line and how do we legally draw it. I think that question needs to be answered before we continue this experiment with alternative forms of marriage.

[RuthlessBurgher]

[brothervad]

Mostly I have no probem with it.

The only issue I will take on it is if the state starts infringing on religious beliefs with regards to gay marriage.

this may never happen but if the ACLU tries to force the Catholic church to marry a gay couple because they sue that it infringes on their (the gay couples) individual freedoms.

Maybe that never occurs...but in our litigous society can anyone really rule it out?

Finally, the cynic in me believes it is just another cash cow for divorce lawyers...hey you legalize now were gonna make you pay alimony, child support (adoption, and other options for women couples), divorce settlement.

So there you have it. In the end it's just another revenue stream.

Man I am cynical...aren't I.

btw, can someone tell me how I get to the football message board on this site?

brothervad

[D Rock]

Fair enough - but gay marriage proponents usually deny that marriage is about raising children since they can't do so naturally. So if you are going to allow gay marriage how can you not allow intra-family marriage?

After all, you can still make it illegal for people to have kids born of incest without banning their "right" to marry.

I'm not trying to go all Rick Santorum on you. I just find the issue to be a lot more problematic than it seems at first glance. There used to be a big line drawn at 1 man, 1 woman. That line is now blurry to say the least. Where is the new line and how do we legally draw it. I think that question needs to be answered before we continue this experiment with alternative forms of marriage.

I agree about the possibility of making it illegal to have incest-babies without the illegal marriage part. That would work just fine.

I guess now I'll say....Let people marry whoever they want. I don't care. Just don't let them ruin a child's life by being stupid with the birth process. Same goes for people who give birth to children affected by drugs and alcohol. Or families who have one child with a disability and then continue to tempt fate and have more children that end up being born with defects. I think there should be criminal punishments for these people, and if someone wanted to make it legal to sterilize them that would be just fine by me.

I work with kids with defects and disabilities every day in a health-related job. That's why I care about that part.


But gays? They can't even have children together, so I don't care what they do.

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

My wife and I have been married for a dozen years now. We know another couple who have been together for at least 20 years. Just because those two are both named "Dave" are they not supposed to be "married" any more than my wife and I are?
...

I'm sorry, call me old-fashioned, or traditional, or a pig-headed bigot , what you will, but I just have to say how I feel ... there is just something WRONG with that.

A couple where both are named Dave? Can't one of them go by their middle name or something???

[eniparadoxgma]

I know this sounds silly, but again, once you say gay marriage is a "right" how can you deny that "right" to polygamists or even brothers/sisters and fathers/daughters? It may sound preposterous at first glance, but once you start making exceptions for one group it becomes a real life slippery slope pretty quickly unless you can find a way to constitutionally draw a new boundary.

In my opinion, marriage/sexual relations between fathers/mothers and sons/daughters should definitely stay illegal. Has nothing to do with my religion or particular feelings concerning whether or not these types of relationships can be based on "romantic love" or what not. My problem with it (other than the biological basis concerning genetics) is that if you open up that can of worms then you will have people that have the ability to raise their children for 16-18 years and then marry them. I think that gives the parent an unnatural influence on their possible partner's mindset/paradigm and could very well take away the natural freedom people have (or should have) in regards to choosing someone.