Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 211 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So what are your thoughts on gay marriage? This topic is very big. In my personal opinion, i think marriage should be extended to ANYONE who would want it. Even if how you feel about someone shouldnt be classified by a title. In todays society marriage gives you different benefits as far as taxes and property goes. There is a separation of church and state and marriage should not be negated to homosexuals just because "its not moral". They are Americans as well and deserve the same benefits as everyone else. Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
This should get good... where's Sharky when you need him? :)

My opinion is they should be allowed to marry and benefit from the same laws that cover hetero couples. A couple is a couple.

If your religion has a problem with it, you don't need to let them get married in your church/temple/etc.

Marriage in this case is a government institution.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
I've always thought governments should get out of the marriage business completly. Civil unions for all and marriages from your choice of faith.

The flip side of what's coming though is other nontraditional marriages will be recognized one day. The same arguments that work for same sex marriages are just as pertinent and valid to polygamist marriages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,237 Posts
Pro. Because you're life and whom you choose to love is none of my business. Marriage should not be discriminatory if it's involving two consenting adults, whether they be men or women, gay or straight. Even if a religion preaches against gay marriage, a chosen religion is not a license to control the lives of others. If your god does not like it, then let your god judge them when the time comes. Until then, worry about your own life and how you choose to live it, not others.

Bill Hicks spoke about gays in the military: "Anyone dumb enough to want to be in the military, should be allowed."... I think the same applies to marriage.

for what it's worth, i'm a 33 year old, straight male, that's been married twice. neither of my marriages would've been any different whether gays had the same rights to it or not. marriage is not under attack. social norms and how they fit into our laws, constitution and evolving society is what's really being debated. if homosexuality is not illegal (nor should it be), then why would we discriminate when it comes to legally recognizing those relationships by giving them the same status and access to federal perks that heterosexual marriages get?

it's all or nothing. the courts have ruled in past cases that a law deemed constitutional can become unconstitutional if implemented in a discriminatory fashion. either we give legal relationships between gay couples the same marital rights as straight couples, or we don't give anyone marital rights. i'm sure a lot of people would take issue with that logic, but if we are so concerned these days with honoring the constitution when it comes to gun controls, then why not do the same when it comes to discriminatory issues?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,237 Posts
gay marriage is not a gateway to polygamy. polygamy is illegal, homosexual relationships are not. if the arguement is that gays deserve the same benefits that married couples get, then I highly doubt that it will lead into polygamous marriages getting those benefits as well. Perhaps they will decriminalize it since the law against it is based on an old ruling that compared it to legalizing religious-based human sacrifice, but they will not be so quick to offer up federal benefits to polygamous marriages. they can decriminalize it and allow for religions to honor those types of bonds, but only the 1st wife would likely get the benefits if we had to cross that bridge.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
gay marriage is not a gateway to polygamy. polygamy is illegal, homosexual relationships are not. if the arguement is that gays deserve the same benefits that married couples get, then I highly doubt that it will lead into polygamous marriages getting those benefits as well. Perhaps they will decriminalize it since the law against it is based on an old ruling that compared it to legalizing religious-based human sacrifice, but they will not be so quick to offer up federal benefits to polygamous marriages. they can decriminalize it and allow for religions to honor those types of bonds, but only the 1st wife would likely get the benefits if we had to cross that bridge.
On what basis would you see the courts succesfully disallowing polygamy when it's brought before them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
On what basis would you see the courts succesfully disallowing polygamy when it's brought before them?
The same legal basis that prevents a married person from remarrying without a separation/divorce. As far as I know, if you're already married you cannot legally go out and marry another person without nullifying the first marriage. Marriage will still remain a union between two people as it always has.

I'm pro gay marriage because marriage is now a civil union and has little to do with religion at this point. Marriage predates most religion if not all of them.

I really don't understand why we are discussing polygamy anyway.. Usually the next go-to argument here will be "should someone be able to marry this inanimate object?"
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
Law isn't a reason, judges have thrown law out for same sex marriages already. Right now it's illegal because the Supreme Court ruled in the Reynolds decision that polygamy is "an offense against society." That doesn't cut it anymore, many would say the same thing about same sex unions but that argument isn't even considered by the courts.

The inanimate object or animal stuff is easy....consent can't be given by both parties. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
971 Posts
Law isn't a reason, judges have thrown law out for same sex marriages already. Right now it's illegal because the Supreme Court ruled in the Reynolds decision that polygamy is "an offense against society." That doesn't cut it anymore, many would say the same thing about same sex unions but that argument isn't even considered by the courts.

The inanimate object or animal stuff is easy....consent can't be given by both parties. :D
I think one of the problems with polygamy is that there is a power imbalance between the husband and his "wives". The way in which polygamists typically operate calls into question the idea of "consent". In many cases young, sheltered girls enter an arranged marriage to an older man already married to other women.

But yeah, I think it's pretty obvious from the responses here that it's not really much of a debate as far as public opinion on gay marriage goes. No one has attempted to argue against it. I think I saw somewhere that 70% of people born after 1981 are in favor, so I think we all know where its trending too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,237 Posts
if we're talking about decriminalizing polygamy next, then that's all well and good to me. marry all the folks you like. i can't say how or why the courts would uphold keeping polygamy as a crime. personally, i say it should be decriminalized. i just don't see the courts or the government granting benefits to anyone beyond the first husband/wife, as they do with non-polygamous marriages, if they are faced with that issue.

let the mormons be mormons without fear of prosecution, but the government likely has no interest in opening the door to recognizing another form of tax shelter by allowing all members within a polygamous marriage access to the benefits they provide. i'm not even sure if they'd like the idea of allowing the parties involved to be claimed as dependents (like children) let alone able to get the tax breaks and social benefits. think of how much more stressed SS alone would be. even if it's only given to the 1st wife, if the next wife is able to keep drawing those benefits after the 1st dies (and so one), it could be a very long draw on the system long after the first spouse has died depending on the age differences involved with each of the other spouses.

it's taken us this long just to get close with gay marriage. can you imagine the backlash if we start debating polygamous gay marriage? peoples heads would explode. not to mention those that would basically view this as a legally accepted and federally recognized orgy.
 

·
Moderate Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
I haven't followed the topic closely but I have noticed all the "NO" arguments I've heard are based on religious (God says no) or personal opinion (I don't like gay). Are there any legitimate "NO" arguments being offered?

What I mean by that is if the topic was something like "should we change the tax code", arguments based on someones assumption of Gods opinion or what someone thinks is "icky" wouldn't apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,237 Posts
I haven't followed the topic closely but I have noticed all the "NO" arguments I've heard are based on religious (God says no) or personal opinion (I don't like gay). Are there any legitimate "NO" arguments being offered?

What I mean by that is if the topic was something like "should we change the tax code", arguments based on someones assumption of Gods opinion or what someone thinks is "icky" wouldn't apply.
in terms of discrimination, equality and upholding the Constitution... no, there is no legitimate argument being issued to the courts.

the only argument being offered to the Supreme Court during these hearings was an advocation for maintaining the current status of "seperate but equal" in that the states can choose to allow for civil unions or gay marriage. the lawyer hired by republicans to defend the federal ban on gay marriage (DOMA) attempted to use states rights as a legitimate excuse to keep how the federal government views marriage the same as it always has. this argument does not address the core question of overall equality and discriminatory practices in accordance with Constitutional law. as with civil rights, a "seperate but equal" status is not in accordance with the Constitution, nor is continuing to deny state recognized civil unions or gay marriages the federal benefits of straight marriages "seperate but equal".

outside of religious and personal beliefs, there is no legitimate argument being waged at why a gay marriage should be viewed and/or treated any differently in the eyes of our laws and our government. not by the lawyers defending DOMA, and not by anyone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
Saying no to anyone due to religious or personal views about something that has no ill effect on others is un-american and unconstitutional. Same with Polygamy imo, it doesn't hurt anyone other than maybe the potential group of polygamists so there really is no reason to make it illegal. This can easily stretch to things like drug use as well. Why should any of us care or try and arrest people for doing harm to them selves beyond preserving life (suicide and such). Gay, Polygamist, so on and so forth marriage is not harmful to society, and not harmful to me or anyone I know so I don't see any possible reason they should be illegal at all? It doesn't matter what some book says, or what a group of people from a particular religion says, using that as an excuse is completely anti-american and against everything we supposedly stand for. The reason this country was formed was so that everyone would have freedom and equality.

Furthermore not all republicans are against gay marriage. Many are pro gay marriage and on top of that pro states rights as state rights according to the constitution should be looked at over all federal laws other than laws pertaining to national security and defense. It's amazing how far we've strayed from what the constitution entitles the federal government to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
The polygamy thing isn't going to happen any time soon. Outside of American society's view of it being a dirty hippie orgy, the extension of benefits issue is waaaaaay to huge to deal with. If you're worried about gay marriage being an avenue to abuse benefits, just imagine what polygamy could be...

Anyway, Feds need to get out of this argument if they truly want it to be a states rights issue. Extension of benefits to same-sex couples that work for the government is a policy issue.
 

·
Resident a-hole knowitall
Joined
·
15,715 Posts
pros - if you find the right one you could
- doubled your wardrobe
- have a drinking buddy
- have a fishing buddy
- have a garage buddy
- have a travel companion

cons
- well i can think of one...
 
1 - 20 of 211 Posts
Top