Public support solidly for gay marriage

Marriage has been established for much of mankinds history. As the tail should not wag the dog I think it best to keep marriage as it is. Civil unions, domestic partnerships etc. sound like a viable alternative for the 1400 but why must marriage be changed? Why take away its common meaning?

 

...I'm a Darwinist, I don't agree with cheating nature...if you can't reproduce yourself, then you should die off...it's the law of nature...


Kabuki Joe

 

...but I thought you said you are a conservative and people like me are liberals?...



Kabuki Joe

 

True, but they meet history's and biblical standards to be married. It is a natural union. I'm not trying to stand in the way of your happiness, you are living with your partner enjoying your home life...is it really such a problem for you (yes, other than the 1400) that an authority hasn't blessed your living arrangement?

 

I said I am more conservative than people who claim to be conservative but I would never associate myself with what people consider modern conservationism. What does you being more liberal than conservative have to do with what I posted?

 

...got it, you just like to hear yourself talk...



Kabuki Joe

 

You got schooled son.

 

Why would one declare a committment to buggery on a "dude" (does dude imply consensual or at least one inclined to such a practice?) and at the same time declare that he is not a homosexual?!

 

To irritate the bigots.

 

The fact that someone's life wishes can be negated as a result of a flaw is a concern.

First off most of it is their wealth to start with and beyond that the custom is personal. I'm a Humanist the "custom" of my marriage is not altered in anyway if same-sex couples' right to marry is recognised.

This is a question of law and the law cannot discriminate between persons who are similarly (and in many cases identically) situated.

Non-adults are limited from partaking in any contractual arrangements; they are therefore, by default, not similarly situated with regard to contract law.

Yes it is arbitrary and based on many factors. Hundreds of years ago people married many years earlier because they died a lot earlier too. Who knows in the future we may live until 350 and the age of consent will be raised to 78? We just do the best we can with what we have at the time or to put it another way: just because something's been one way for a long time does not mean it will or has to stay that way for ever.

What arguments would these minors need to present to be able to persuade you? Obviously they would need to be able to work and pay taxes, own property, be responsible for their own debts etc. If they could prove a capacity to handle all of this they might be on the starting gate.

They can have their day in court same as everybody else.

Why search for a different solution when a perfectly feasible and practically applicable way already exists? What's the point? What are you trying to prove?

Well, in fairness, he did try to introduce a low-cost public option insurance but lot's of people called him a fascist, marxist, communist, socialist puppy torturer as a result so I guess he kind of gave up after that.

Seeing as how this is a forum, perhaps you'd like to share.

Again, why the need to find another way when a perfectly workable and easily applicable way already exists? What's the point, what aim does if serve?

 

...BLAH BLAH BLAH...


Kabuki Joe

 

I don't want to be "part of the club" I don't care if you invite me to a BBQ. My friends and family accept me, and I have a great social circle of both hetero, and homosexual friends. I don't need your approval. Get over yourself.

 

The history of marriage in the US has changed many times, and "biblical" anything has nothing to do with the laws of this country.

 

I don't believe in gay marriage.

I question why in historical terms it has been fought against with furious passion. Societies greater and smaller than ours have not allowed it. Societies back in history where the birth of philosophy have risen, the humble beginnings to our science have not allowed it.

Until the reason for this is explained. It is not a good idea to whimly allow it.

 

Societies great and small allowed an old man to marry a young girl, should we go back to this standard?
Societies in the past, and present allow women to be treated as property, should we go back to this standard?
Historically marriage was used to consolidate power, and property between families should we go back to this?
We learn from history, but we are not limited by it.

 

Learn from history?

Do we really? If that was true, this gay marriage issue would not be an issue at all. It is a slow process learning millenias worth of information passed down by previous generations.

And history is very limiting, ie culteral behaviour, nationalistic norms, country tradition.

 

Example of america.

It has not allowed gay marriage since its creation, neither was it allowed in the mother nations to which the americans left. And the societies that created them did not allow it either. Over a thousand years of resistance.

To which now that historical complexity is trying to be reviewed. A difficult task.

 

Currently several states in America do allow same sex marriage, so your statement on America not allowing it since its creation are wrong. England does currently allow same sex unions with all the rights and privileges of marriage, so the mother nation does allow it.
In countries where same sex marriage has been legal for years nothing has happened. The culture has not collapsed. One country has allowed same sex marriage for 23 years, nothing has happened except same sex couples can marry.
To continue living our lives based on ancient cultures is absurd.

Do you think that we should stop progressing towards being a nation in which ALL men are equal?

 

Idealism is a different subject matter. To which i am also troubled by. As ideals are rarely lived up to and they turn into irrelevant sound bites without the respect they deserve.

The word 'culture' is important. To which you did well to point out. This is what we are trying to learn, our own culture and the progression from historical past.

 

But a primary reason we encourage and support and sanction it.

 

But not something society has chosen to encourage as we do the heterosexual nuclear family.

The only tax break is the same tax break everyone gets, each citizen is allowed a standard deduction, if that citizen is dependent on another citizen that citizen takes the deduction on their income.

 

Yes marriage is a contractual agreement.

The point your are making about it, so what. If you are not married you can leave your assets to whomever you want nothing prevents you from doing so, you just have a different contract, your will.

Yes and when you get a drivers license you get the "right" to use public roads.

Yes and so what? Did you both fail to learn in your education that rights are NOT given by the government but derive from the people?

Encourage heterosexuality, marriage is just one way we do it.

Yeah like every one is equally allowed to marry someone of the other sex if they can find one who will agree to it. You aren't allowed to do anything and everything you want declaring you have a right to do so.

Sure and the would be a heterosexual marriage. A man and a woman.

ROFLMAO, it takes a study to convince you that a primary mainstay of our beings is a benefit? How inane you must get.

Yes there are privileges that come with marriage also burdens and restrictions.

 

...wow, I didn't realize I had that much power that I could single handedly control the destiny of gays in America...I really am somebody!!!...excuse me, I can't talk right now, I'm all choked up...sniff...



Kabuki Joe

 

...I am 110% for same-sex unions with the same benefits as marrige but I am not for same-sex marriage...marriage has already been defined...



Kabuki Joe

 

Yes, marriage has been defined as two consenting adults choosing to get married.