prop 8 overturned

ryan1 · **Posted:** February 18th, 2012, 3:08 am

Duke Juker wrote:

Alright, so assuming all the rights and privileges that came with being married were taken away, what other reason(s) would same-sex couples have to get married?

Assuming that legal marriage would even still exist at that point, then it would be for the same reason any heterosexual couple gets married. They love each other, and they want the society to know that they intend to be together until they die

Adbot · **Posted:** February 18th, 2012, 3:08 am

Warren · **Posted:** February 18th, 2012, 12:07 pm

Driving is a privilege not a right too; though, I dunno why it would be okay not to extend the privilege to certain groups for no reason. What reason should they want to drive anyways, they've got buses, taxis, friends with the privilege to drive, bikes, planes, boats, etc!! Nothing's stopping them from getting around.

Why not ask why people in a hetero relationship would want to get married if all rights granted to the status were taken away. People still would have their reasons. Either way, they'd be none to happy if the whole thing was abolished anyhow.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

ryan1 wrote:

Duke Juker wrote:

Alright, so assuming all the rights and privileges that came with being married were taken away, what other reason(s) would same-sex couples have to get married?

Assuming that legal marriage would even still exist at that point, then it would be for the same reason any heterosexual couple gets married. They love each other, and they want the society to know that they intend to be together until they die

I believe the reason most heterosexual couples get married is to have children and start a family with their own children (not talking about adoption). Couldn't you not get married and just tell someone who asked that the reason you and someone else are together is because you love each other? It's not love that solidifies a marriage because love is simply a feeling. Children are what solidify a marriage. That's why it's so difficult to go through a divorce. The love has already disappeared, but the children are still there and have to be dealt with.

trekkie · **Posted:** February 18th, 2012, 3:36 pm

Duke Juker wrote:

It's not love that solidifies a marriage because love is simply a feeling. Children are what solidify a marriage.

Then what about couples who are incapable of having children? many men are infertile where they are incapable of producing good quality sperm to have a child. many men and woman also have physical problems which makes them incapable having a child, yet they are able to marry.
there is a reason why there are so many infertility clinics in the world, mostly because many couples just cannot have a child.

also many couples themselves choose not to have children but they can still get married. i knew 3 teachers who were married, but they did not want to have children for whatever reason. one just got married to her long time friend, just to save tax money.

Warren · **Posted:** February 18th, 2012, 7:52 pm

Why can't you have children without getting married? I don't get it.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

trekkie wrote:

Duke Juker wrote:

It's not love that solidifies a marriage because love is simply a feeling. Children are what solidify a marriage.

Then what about couples who are incapable of having children? many men are infertile where they are incapable of producing good quality sperm to have a child. many men and woman also have physical problems which makes them incapable having a child, yet they are able to marry.
there is a reason why there are so many infertility clinics in the world, mostly because many couples just cannot have a child.

also many couples themselves choose not to have children but they can still get married. i knew 3 teachers who were married, but they did not want to have children for whatever reason. one just got married to her long time friend, just to save tax money.

I'm not saying you can't get married. Simply, that it is children that really make a marriage concrete. I guess what I'm saying is that my guess is that most people who get married but don't/can't have children don't have as solid of a marriage as people who do have children.

@Warren
Sure, you can have children without getting married. But why would you want to? I believe that most the time when a child is born outside of a marriage, it is unexpected and unplanned for.

Adbot · **Posted:** February 19th, 2012, 3:45 am

ryan1 · **Posted:** February 19th, 2012, 4:02 am

Duke Juker wrote:

trekkie wrote:

Duke Juker wrote:

It's not love that solidifies a marriage because love is simply a feeling. Children are what solidify a marriage.

Then what about couples who are incapable of having children? many men are infertile where they are incapable of producing good quality sperm to have a child. many men and woman also have physical problems which makes them incapable having a child, yet they are able to marry.
there is a reason why there are so many infertility clinics in the world, mostly because many couples just cannot have a child.

also many couples themselves choose not to have children but they can still get married. i knew 3 teachers who were married, but they did not want to have children for whatever reason. one just got married to her long time friend, just to save tax money.

I'm not saying you can't get married. Simply, that it is children that really make a marriage concrete. I guess what I'm saying is that my guess is that most people who get married but don't/can't have children don't have as solid of a marriage as people who do have children.

@Warren
Sure, you can have children without getting married. But why would you want to? I believe that most the time when a child is born outside of a marriage, it is unexpected and unplanned for.

There's always adoption for same-sex couples. It's been found in studies that children raised by same-sex couples are indistinguishable from children raised by heterosexual couples.

Shane · **Posted:** February 19th, 2012, 7:00 am

It's time that I jump in here. Before I begin I want to say that I am not against the persecution of homosexual individuals.

First things first, let me state that the mere idea that a government needs to decide if same *** marriage is legal or not is a prime example of how government is implanting its tendrils everywhere it does not need to be. The whole idea of marriage should be left up to whatever church you associate with. If a church doesn't want to carry out a certain type of ceremony, all the power to them. If they want to carry out a certain type of ceremony all the power to them. Something similar to this is the idea of arranged marriages or racially locked marriages given that the family or church decides whether or not these types of marriages are valid.

Sadly the part where government has to get involved is when it comes to benefits as Trekkie highlighted.

The way I see it is that government is there to protect the rights of people. Government has laws regarding murder to protect those victims of violent acts. Government has laws to prevent the exploitation of children. The government has to protect the rights of as many people as possible. Rights of some people are infringed upon by allowing same *** marriage.

Views on this subject come from a variety of views such as iron clad traditions, personal moral views, religious views, or some combination of both. My personal views on the matter come from traditions I was raised on and my own moral views. For me the idea of same-sex marriage would decrease the value of my own marriage. Marriage is something special, something that can be the highlight of ones life. Throughout modern civilization marriage has been a way for two people, a man and a woman, to lay down roots and start a family. Through this family they are seeding future generations, they are passing down their wisdom, their experiences, to the future which ultimately is the cause of evolution for society and the global population. Marriage is supposed to be a union from the taking of vows until death, a life long commitment.

Two people of the same *** can't accomplish the above without third party help. At the point where third party help is required we have to ask, is it really the same thing as an actual marriage between two people given my definition of what marriage is from above? No.

Going back to how I started (I'll know if you read the whole thing based on this) it's the job of government to protect the rights of as many people as possible. The best way to accomplish this is by permitting civil unions. With civil unions heterosexual couples can have marriage as it has always been and two same *** individuals can live together and enjoy the benefits of being a couple.

With regard to the aforementioned article on same *** parenting it might be worth looking at the actual research before any conclusions are drawn here. The story is highlighted in a newspaper (USA Today) and newspapers aren't always the best places to find summaries of research. The fact that a few researchers have proposed criticism of the technique is enough for me to need to look at the actual paper before putting any weight on it (no bias from me even though the critiques come from the university I went to). Personally I am content to wait until a different source is brought up to discuss adoption but if the issue is forced I will look into finding the research in question. I personally don't believe the same level of parenting can be achieved but if the research showed otherwise I would have a look into the subject matter.

Also in regards to the analogy about driving, driving is somewhat minor compared to the societal and cultural impact that marriage can have on a population.

I'll end with saying that people who want to limit the rights of homosexuals in other ways are no better than those who championed slavery. The idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one that embodies my whole discussion. All three of these are being trampled in some way at either extreme. "Pursuit of happiness" would be trampled by the act of homosexual marriage for heterosexual couples and once more the "pursuit of happiness" would be trampled by allowing only heterosexual marriage. The right course of action is to allow civil unions which in turn will allow the institution of marriage to persist for another few centuries and not trample the right to the pursuit of happiness of homosexual couples.

My most preferred course of action would be for the issue to just go away. Disappear from the governments radar as it was in the last third of the 20th century. Let the church institutions handle marriage, the government has bigger fish to fry. Though it seems today that the government has to take a position one way or another which is rather unfortunate hence why I prefer a middle of the road approach rather than a full on approach one way or the other.

ryan1 · **Posted:** February 19th, 2012, 8:27 am

If all you're arguing against is the usage of the word (ie. we should allow "civil unions" but not same-sex marriage), then you and I aren't in disagreement over the core issue (though I would say there's not really any reason for the government to have two words for what is procedurally the same thing). No one is suggesting that we force churches to do marriages for same-sex couples. It's just a fight for the legal rights associated with legal marriages.

Warren · **Posted:** February 19th, 2012, 11:38 am

Remember when my parents were married when me and my sister were born oh I don't. YOU WANNA TELL ME WE'RE ILLEGITIMATE? GO AHEAD. DO IT, I DARE YOU. SAY IT TO MY FACE EH But yeah, if your point that marriage is for people seeking children and that's why same *** marriage shouldn't be allowed, then do you think it is a good idea to disallow marriage to people who don't plan to or can't have children? No reason for them to get married.

"Same *** marriages would devalue my marriage"
So you're saying the celebration of love of two people would devalue your marriage, a celebration of tradition? I really don't get it. The reasons you've put down is your individual life goal, and it is not a goal universal to every single person, nor is it the life plan of everyone who gets married. That might be the interpretation of your future marriage, but it isn't of everyone. To think people outside of that goal shouldn't be allowed to marry is kind of selfish.
That's been my understanding of marriage since the last one I went to. Until the pastor was like "but it is mostly a celebration of Jesus too" and I was like woah slow down buddy

If the government decided that they wanted nothing to do with marriage then I wouldn't care who each individual church or other entity decided could and couldn't marry. But it wouldn't mean anything as a legal status, there'd be no recognition or regulation of it. OH NO@ So yeah if by government concern in the matter changed marriage to "civil unions" and then said to the churches and other bodies "marry who you want we won't recognize it anyway" then it wouldn't matter. That could get a little elitist in society though... like where you went to school, but where you got married HA HA.
But I don't know why the terminology should be changed. Why call it a civil union when it is a marriage. If institutions have a problem with that, they can change their word. Or call it "marriage in pursuit of children", "marriage in pursuit of Jesus", "religious union", "traditional union", whatever. I think you can appreciate that if there is a problem with calling them things like that, then there is a problem calling them civil unions.

Of driving, it was a contrast of the privilege vs right thingy. But for driving, you can kill people. Lots of people. So I dunno how minor a societal impact it actually is.

Of parenting, I didn't read the article or anything so I'm not really going to argue anything relevant, but I find people think "if I was raised by same *** parents that'd be so weird blah blah". But that's because it's different. A kid raised by same *** parents would find it normal because it is what's normal to them. I think the biggest challenge to a kid like that would be how homophobic society can be, and that's where most if not all of any "damage" would come from - but this is not "damage" other children are void from. But "value of parenting" is an individual case basis, and father-mother parenting hasn't been good in this age in the first place. I can't even identify what the problems of being raised by same *** parents would be so not like I can argue anything anyhow.