Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

Something along these lines?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


One of the proposals up before the legislature, in Canada, where we do have gay marriage, is to do away with marriage altogether. There would be a civil union recognised by the state and marriages performed in churches.

Secondly, we get this drivel stuffed down our throats on a day set aside by some of the conservatives to honour traditional marriage. Now, the CBC is funded by the government, so this is what our taxes are paying for.

Event: CBC hosts same-sex marriage
2004-02-15


Canada-wide

CBC News Sunday will broadcast the marriage of Douglass Drozdow-St. Christian (50) and his partner Stephen Drozdow-St. Christian (33) live to the nation on Feb 15 . The couple plan to shorten their hyphenated surname to "St. Christian" after their marriage. The hour-long ceremony will be augmented with edited portions of pre-recorded(Feb. 13) edited debates.. Rev. Deana Dudley of Christos MCC will be the officiant. More details to-follow

So, in terms of how this would negatively impact your life, you're entire objection comes down to

1. I don't like a piece of proposed legislation.
2. I'm tired of seeing this crap on TV.

?

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, that's the most appealing legislation, but that also means that there are no tax benefits for marriage anymore.

I could say plenty more, but those are two concrete ways that it has already affected my life.

They are also secular reasons. Do you really want me to get into other ways?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by yavoon


if u ask me why I want to marry its to show love and commitment to the same person and raise a family.

neither of which requires the gov't.

In case you haven't noticed, gays are not given those same protections that you take for granted.


DUH

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So, what about state's rights, MtG?

And BTW,

Keep this up, along with the other thread about rape victims being denied their own dignity, and I might respect you about as much as I have respected Park Avenue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mr. Fun:

You respect me as much as you do Park Avenue?


I guess I am turning liberal.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mr. Fun:

You respect me as much as you do Park Avenue?


I guess I am turning liberal.

No -- I meant, in the past, I have respected you more than Park Avenue, because (IMO) your attitude towards gays was not as arrogant and as hateful as Park Avenue.

I really don't think you're becoming more liberal.

[Ben Kenobi]

Humourous as ever, Mr. Fun.

You're even straighter-laced than I!

[Agathon]

Ben how come you think it is wrong for two God fearing gays to be married and love each other with respect and adopt children and dress and act like the Osmonds; but you think it would be fine if you had your foul and bestial way with young Ms. Carey? I'm not sure I can see the man upstairs being terribly happy with the latter, or even with you thinking about it, according to his rulebook.

Just thought I'd mention it... I can't understand for the life of me what you see in her - does she have a novelty pube-trim I haven't seen?

[General Ludd]

nevermind - too early for me to be posting.


Monkey head?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Actually, that's the most appealing legislation, but that also means that there are no tax benefits for marriage anymore.

Sounds like you are concerned over loosing marital tax benefits. Just think if you were losing the entire institution.

Then you would know how we feel.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye


Because it does not carry equal recognition. Like it or not, having two categories implies they are different - or else there would just be one category. It wouldn't make sense to have two categories for something unless there was some kind of difference.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, it's just a finer form of discrimination. If you have all the rights, but not the title, there is an implication that for some reason you still don't qualify.

We've already seen how "seperate but equal" works in real life. It doesn't

To use an anlogy of Ramo's, what if there were two classes of US citizenship ("citizens" and "members") legally equal in every way, and that all black people were asked to accept United States "membership". How do you think they would feel about that?

creating a distinction w/o a difference seems like an effective compromise to me. I do have some sympathy for the christians. marriage came into our culture through them. it came into our law as a combination of democracy(most ppl were xtian), and pragmatism(the state found it good to support the institution of marriage). and we've taken it and hijacked it continuously. we've made divorce exceptionally easy and now we want it to include "two ppl of the same sex" in the definition of marriage. whether u think this is the right thing or not it is most assuredly not the original intent.

I'm all for gay couples getting rights, but if u asked me the definition of marriage I would still include a man and a woman in it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just think if you were losing the entire institution.

Red herring. How can you lose what you have never had?

Secondly, for me there is no division between the religious aspects of marriage, and the secular. I deliberately confine myself to the secular. In the religious sense I feel as if we are losing the entire institution, what it means, what people stand for, to the point where I would be more comfortable not getting married than to have my marriage recognised by the state.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by yavoon


we've made divorce exceptionally easy and now we want it to include "two ppl of the same sex" in the definition of marriage. whether u think this is the right thing or not it is most assuredly not the original intent.

What does original intent have to do with it? Our society is vastly different from that of the early Christians. It was never original intent to allow slaves to marry, either.

I'm all for gay couples getting rights, but if u asked me the definition of marriage I would still include a man and a woman in it.

Would you restrict the rights, benefits, and responsibilities to a male-female couple as well?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Red herring. How can you lose what you have never had?

If you lost "the entire institution" of marriage, you couldn't get married. Gays currently can't get married. Therefore, your situation would be the same as gays, i.e. marriage would not be an option for you.

Was that hard to follow?

Secondly, for me there is no division between the religious aspects of marriage, and the secular.

That's wonderful, but for many other citizens, there is a division between the two. That's a key difference between our form of government and that of, say Iran.

Hey, twice earlier in this thread you made comments about gays wanting to get the benefits of marriage without paying for them. Twice I asked you about it. No explanation yet. What were you talking about?

[Ben Kenobi]

Therefore, your situation would be the same as gays, i.e. marriage would not be an option for you.

I could get married but the state would not recognise my marriage. Same situation.

gays wanting to get the benefits of marriage without paying for them.

It's an analogy. Society recieves compensation for marriage benefits in the form of greater productivity, and children.

[Kuciwalker]

Then why not remove the benefits from "marriage" and attach them to children?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I could get married but the state would not recognise my marriage. Same situation.



It's an analogy. Society recieves compensation for marriage benefits in the form of greater productivity, and children.

So heterosexual marriages in which they do not have any children should be denied the privleges and rights other couples can have??

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's an analogy. Society recieves compensation for marriage benefits in the form of greater productivity, and children.

And how would that not apply to gay marriages as well?

Gay marriages can, and do, produce children. More importantly, gay couples are more likely to adopt. That doesn't benefit society?


Do you have any relevant objections left?

[Drake Tungsten]

Good article on gay marriage in Time this week.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...0.html?cnn=yes

Sounds like this is going to turn in Roe v. Wade 2. Thanks a lot, Massachusetts. Why couldn't you have just let this issue sort itself out democratically? Now I'm going to have to hear people ***** about it for the rest of my natural life...

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon we've made divorce exceptionally easy and now we want it to include "two ppl of the same sex" in the definition of marriage. whether u think this is the right thing or not it is most assuredly not the original intent.

What does original intent have to do with it? Our society is vastly different from that of the early Christians. It was never original intent to allow slaves to marry, either.

Quote:

I'm all for gay couples getting rights, but if u asked me the definition of marriage I would still include a man and a woman in it.

Would you restrict the rights, benefits, and responsibilities to a male-female couple as well?

no idea what ur last point was. since at no time did I mention restricting rights.

also I believe the waters are getting very muddy here on "rights and benefits." you keep making them sound like "life liberty and property" but its just not. in society we parse up rights and benefits in many different ways. to say that there exist ppl who have different ones than you is not to really have a point.

[Ben Kenobi]

foul and bestial way with young Ms. Carey? I'm not sure I can see the man upstairs being terribly happy with the latter, or even with you thinking about it, according to his rulebook.

My way is neither foul, nor bestial.

Just thought I'd mention it... I can't understand for the life of me what you see in her - does she have a novelty pube-trim I haven't seen?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MrFun


So heterosexual marriages in which they do not have any children should be denied the privleges and rights other couples can have??

Given this "marriage is for the children" argument, I wonder why they don't argue for the automatic dissolution of marriage at

a. Menopause

or...

b. Graduation of the last child in a household from High School.

Whichever comes later, of course.

[Ben Kenobi]

Given this "marriage is for the children" argument, I wonder why they don't argue for the automatic dissolution of marriage at

That would be like forcing people to get married, to force them to divorce.

[MrFun]

So marriage between heterosexuals who do not produce any children at all, should be illegal too?

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
So marriage between heterosexuals who do not produce any children at all, should be illegal too?

That's what he seems to be implying... that to get married, you need to prove to the state that not only you can have children, but swear that you will have children

So all those couples who can't, or won't, shouldn't be allowed to get married either based on his warped logic

[Rogan Josh]

I must confess, I don't really understand this issue. What is to stop a gay couple drawing up a contract which gives them the same rights as a married couple? Other than missing out on the tax breaks, what's the difference?

[Ramo]

It doesn't have anything to do with missing out on tax breaks in the US (there's actually a "marriage penalty" in the tax code over here). But it does have to do with things like hospital visitation rights, insurance coverage, simplifying inheritance, and the like. Also the state is saying that gay relationships are inferior to straight relationships by denying them the right to marry.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ramo
It doesn't have anything to do with missing out on tax breaks in the US (there's actually a "marriage penalty" in the tax code over here). But it does have to do with things like hospital visitation rights, insurance coverage, simplifying inheritance, and the like. Also the state is saying that gay relationships are inferior to straight relationships by denying them the right to marry.

But can't these things sinply be contracted? I mean, visit your lawyer and make a legal document which gives you the right to visit your partner in hospital etc?

[Ramo]

No, a hospital can deny a gay partner the right to visit - as well as the right to make medical decisions for one's partner (as with insurance coverage).