Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

Thorn · February 25, 2004, 17:32

There are other threads to discuss this, but how about a poll?

SlowwHand · February 25, 2004, 17:50

Foreigners. And I'm the one that gets called a redneck.

yavoon · February 25, 2004, 17:57

I'd keep marriage between man and a women. and hand out civil union rights to any loving committed and consenting adults.

as far I haven't seen an intellectually valid redefining of marriage that lets gay ppl in but no1 else.

chequita guevara · February 25, 2004, 17:58

I haven't seen any intellectually valid reason we should let 5,000 year old sheep hearders tell us what to do.

Q Classic · February 25, 2004, 17:59

thus far i haven't seen a reason not to allow full gay marriage rights.

rah · February 25, 2004, 18:01

I see BK voted.

yavoon · February 25, 2004, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I haven't seen any intellectually valid reason we should let 5,000 year old sheep hearders tell us what to do.

we could have an argument, or a war of quips. obviously u much prefer the latter. but I recommend the former every once in a while.

JohnT · February 25, 2004, 18:02

Actually, he hasn't. Doesn't he live in Canada?

chequita guevara · February 25, 2004, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

we could have an argument, or a war of quips. obviously u much prefer the latter. but I recommend the former every once in a while.

I definately prefer a war of quips. I did the argument thing in another thread. I refuse to be serious all or even most of the time. Life's too short.

JohnT · February 25, 2004, 18:04

Given that marriage is supposed to be kept for hetero's only "'cause of the kids", I would support a ban on gay marriage if we can pass a law forcing the dissolution of any marriage under the following conditions:

1. The woman hits menopause.
2. The kids move out of the house.
3. One of the spouses is determined to be infertile.
4. There are no children within a reasonable time frame... say, 2 years?

And I'll be nice and say "whichever comes later."

Imran Siddiqui · February 25, 2004, 18:08

Gay marriage and Polygamy is ok to me.

SpencerH · February 25, 2004, 18:08

The fourth option. Once you've done away with it for one group, I see no reason to allow Judeo-Christian bias to enter into the argument.

Dauphin · February 25, 2004, 18:10

All legal rights and benefits associated with marriage should be electable to whomever you choose. In a legal sense isn't marriage just a contract between two consenting participants?

As far as ceremonies and weddings if you want a public display of commitment then by all means do it, and do it as many times and with as many people as you want.

Aeson · February 25, 2004, 18:10

I would prefer the government not involve itself in recognizing marriages at all.

As examples:

If an issue like giving birth and/or raising children is deemed benefitial to society, then parents should be given the tax breaks based directly on whether or not they are raising children instead of being tied to something that is a seperate issue. If relationship stability is deemed beneficial to society, then maybe tax breaks based on how long you've been together.

Just awarding tax breaks to married couples who may or may not accomplish the things the tax breaks are meant to reward (whatever they are), while other couples who don't get married may or may not accomplish those same things seems nonsensical to me.

Of the options present, "I live in USA: #3 + Further Extend Rights to Polygamy" would be my view. I live in rural Utah, and know first hand that not having state recognition of Polygamist marriages doesn't stop them from living together, marrying themselves in their own religious ways. All it really does is allow the 'wives' to collect welfare as if they were single mothers, ignoring the fact that all this money is going to one man building his compound. At least if the state recognized those marriages, then it could also recognize that the 'family' isn't a no-income or one-income family.

Chemical Ollie · February 25, 2004, 18:13

As long as they don't marry me, let them.

yavoon · February 25, 2004, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
All legal rights and benefits associated with marriage should be electable to whomever you choose. In a legal sense isn't marriage just a contract between two consenting participants?

As far as ceremonies and weddings if you want a public display of commitment then by all means do it, and do it as many times and with as many people as you want.

why just 2? I hardly think the number 2 is less arbitrary than "man and women"

Q Classic · February 25, 2004, 18:14

andorians require groups of 4 to marry and mate.

Dauphin · February 25, 2004, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

why just 2? I hardly think the number 2 is less arbitrary than "man and women"

I never said just two. Reread my post.

There are of course tax and other legal complications with extending rights and benefits currently associated with marriage to more than one other person.

For example, here in the UK, if you could marry as many people as you liked you could conceivably negate, in its entirety, inheritance tax.

chequita guevara · February 25, 2004, 18:20

I'm with Imran.

Thorn · February 25, 2004, 18:23

If Marriage is a union between 1 man and 1 woman, then why can people remarry? Isn't that some sort of Heavenly Polygmy when the last person finally dies?

chequita guevara · February 25, 2004, 18:24

No. When you get to heaven you're all married to god. So saith Rabbi Jeshua.

yavoon · February 25, 2004, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

I never said just two. Reread my post.

There are of course tax and other legal complications with extending rights and benefits currently associated with marriage to more than one other person.

For example, here in the UK, if you could marry as many people as you liked you could conceivably negate, in its entirety, inheritance tax.

lotsa ppl sue over "why other ppl marry." especially when they get divorced. thats just one more thing to sue over.

Drogue · February 25, 2004, 18:27

"Elsewhere: Homosexual Civil Unions Only"
Marriage is a religious ceremony, IMHO. Civil Unions should be a non-religious alternative, with rights from the state. No-one should be able to deny the rights of two people to be recognised as a couple, however no-one should be able to force a religion to accept something it sees as an abomination.

Whoha · February 25, 2004, 18:27

the government should be fully removed from all aspects of marriage.

Ramo · February 25, 2004, 18:30

Gay polygamy.

Neutrino · February 25, 2004, 18:31

I voted #4: Full homosexual rights + polygamy.

Dauphin · February 25, 2004, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

lotsa ppl sue over "why other ppl marry." especially when they get divorced. thats just one more thing to sue over.

Let me put it another way, if you don't limit the number of people you can marry you essentially reduce the value of the institution from a legal sense. I would suggest therefore that you remove the legal institution and replace it with electable rights, which you can elect to anyone you choose whether you are romantically, physically or otherwise involved with them or not. Where rights are not exclusive there would be no limit on how many people you choose to give them to.

chequita guevara · February 25, 2004, 18:41

Should gay people be allowed to get divorced?

pchang · February 25, 2004, 18:44

What I really want is for marriage to be a religious thing and completely removed from the political arena. I want marriage laws to be rewritten in a gender neutral civil union type of way. That way, religions can say to gays "no, you cannot be married within our church", but gays would still get the same legal rights and benefits that married people get today (tax, insurance, decision making, survivor stuff, etc.).

Capt Dizle · February 25, 2004, 18:56

Bananas have rights too!