Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

I've been kinda thinking this whole thing over and here's what I came up with.

Hetero marriage:
Man + Woman = married. Create babies, form family. Life goes on.

Gay marriage:
Man + Man = married. Adopt babies, form famly. Life goes on.
Woman + Woman = married. Adopt babies, form famly. Life goes on.

Thats great. Sounds good. In one case you have a man and woman Creating babies and continuing human life. In the other case you have man and man or woman and woman raising babies that were Created by a heterosexual relationship.

Again: It really doesn't matter one way or another to me what people do, but the fact of the matter is that it's pointless for gays to get married. They can't Create babies, therefore they shouldn't get the same rights as those who can. Their intentions are noble, but nonetheless the point remains.

Ok then,.. with that said, I'm sure someone will post arguing my conservatism on this topic. So lets look at the other side of the coin.

No matter who you are, you should be allowed to get married. In fact a man should be able to marry a sheep, a group of lesbians should be allowed to get married, brother and sister, father and daughter, etc. etc. Isn't that what we're saying here? Basically F' it,.. lets all get married cuz we're all equal and besides we're nice people with good intentions? I don't think so.

In a perfect world, man and woman would fall in love, then get married, THEN create babies. In theory that would be the basis to continue the human race. In a gay relationship,.. you have basically put a cap on each of the individuals bloodline. The family tree will grow no more.

Marriage is a religious and political concept. I believe it has been in place for so many years because it acts as a foundation for a man and a woman to come together out of love and to create new life which is a contribution to society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WebHead

Again: It really doesn't matter one way or another to me what people do, but the fact of the matter is that it's pointless for gays to get married. They can't Create babies, therefore they shouldn't get the same rights as those who can. Their intentions are noble, but nonetheless the point remains.


In a perfect world, man and woman would fall in love, then get married, THEN create babies. In theory that would be the basis to continue the human race. In a gay relationship,.. you have basically put a cap on each of the individuals bloodline. The family tree will grow no more.

Marriage is a religious and political concept. I believe it has been in place for so many years because it acts as a foundation for a man and a woman to come together out of love and to create new life which is a contribution to society.

---

So by your way of thinking, childless couples or couples that do not intend to have children should not have the same rights as married couples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoscomp

So by your way of thinking, childless couples or couples that do not intend to have children should not have the same rights as married couples?

---

Pretty much. Yup. I mean if you are a man and woman and do not plan on having kids,.. then why get married anyway? A couple like that can get married, not have kids and still get benefits which is also kinda jacked up imo.

No webby, in a perfect world I would have a never ending stream of large breasted hot Hooters waitresses and strippers that are all experienced and want to spend the night with me then we never have to talk again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

No webby, in a perfect world I would have a never ending stream of large breasted hot Hooters waitresses and strippers that are all experienced and want to spend the night with me then we never have to talk again.

---

Well I can't argue with that. Case rested. :D

I was gonna stay out of this one but I gotta agree with WebHead.

I don't agree that marriage is a union based on the creation of children. Having kids & raising a family is just one of the perks that come along with it, but that's not the entire purpose of the union. If it was, we'd do like most animals do - just mate with any old random member of the opposite sex once a year, and let the female rear the offspring on their own.

Marriage is a union between two people who care about each other deeply, and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Sure, they can live together unmarried, and make a promise to each other to stay together, but for various reasons, be it religious beliefs, moral values, opinions of family members, it often isn't that simple. And that's not even getting into the all the legal protection & precedents set by being recognized as legally married. If I marry, and later find out that either my wife or I are incapable of producing children, does that mean we should get divorced, and the sterile one has to be alone for the rest of their life?

Marriage is more than just creating/raising children, and if you write it off as such, you're in for a pretty damn lame existence when the time finally does come that you decide to travel down that road, IMO.

It's one thing you as an individual don't condone gay marriage, but for our government to outright tell gay people that they can't legally commit to each other is flat out unsettling to think about. As said, the constitution is there to protect freedoms, not alienate an entire group of people and piss all over their rights.

Ok then. Marriage for everyone. Beastiality, incest, group marriage, etc. Whatever. Anything goes. Complete anarachy for all because marriage says, "i love you and I want to commit to you." Tomorrow I'm going to marry my hamster.

Dictionary.com

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WebHead

Tomorrow I'm going to marry my hamster.

---

Oh big hairy deal! Richard Gere was in love with his Gerbil, or was it lust? :devil:

merriam websters online:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

This is getting tired but I'm going to post something that no one addressed before.

Since the marriage is a legal contract with the state under which you can enjoy protection of assets and potential tax breaks and insurance is typicaly extended to a spouse, doesn't this constitute something unfair for gay couples if they are not allowed to partake in the same legal contract?


In fact, how's it fair to anyone else that's not married? If you ask me I'm down with clammy and the whole thing should be abolished and marriage should be left up to religion and nothing more. That would solve a lot of issues right now.

this issue is about the rights gay and lesbian couples are denied by the federal government...

Quote:

---

1,049 Federal Rights

In 1997, the General Accounting Office of the Federal Government compiled a list of 1,049 rights and benefits which were related to civil marriage. The list includes thirteen categories of rights and benefits, including:

Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans' Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

You can view the entire GAO report here. (480k, PDF format)

---

and that's not even to count the rights they may or may not be afforded by their state. only a few even recognize same sex civil unions...

Quote:

---

These protections include custody provisions and child support obligations, authority to make decisions regarding funeral arrangements and community property, as well as mutual responsibility for debts and joint assessment of income for determining eligibility for state government assistance programs

---

To say that a marriage is a baby making contract is just plain silly.

Quote:

---

Marriage Is

Ultimately, civil marriage is a basic civil right as well as a private and public commitment of love and support by adult couples.

In personal terms, marriage is a celebration of love and commitment.

It means others can recognize the commitment the couple has made to one another.

The choice of whether or not to marry is a personal decision.
Yet civil marriage also provides a gateway to over 1,000 federal protections, responsibilities and benefits as well as many more provided by your state. It lets a spouse make decisions about the medical care of a partner who is disabled. It enables the couple to organize their financial affairs as a single unit for economic, tax and insurance purposes.

Marriage Isn’t

Marriage is not about procreation. Millions of couples choose not to or are unable to have children.

Marriage is not an institution chosen by every couple.

Marriage is not a religious institution, but a civil one. Although churches and synagogues do perform religious ceremonies, the government distinguishes the religious from the civil by requiring the signing of a marriage certificate, if that is what the couple chooses to do.
Religious and Civil Marriage: The Difference

In the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a marriage license. That is why many couples can go to a judge or any other public officiant and need not go to a church, synagogue or mosque. However, our government has made the process simpler by allowing priests, ministers, rabbis and other religious folk, to perform a couple's desire for a religious ceremony AND act as an officiant. This convenience does not mean that a purely religious ceremony would be legal. Each religious cleric must sign the license before witnesses and the couple. In Europe, couples MUST go before a public official to marry. A religious ceremony is 'secondary' and only needed if the couple wishes to have a church ceremony.

Moreover, churches retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage, just as they already do for every couple. No court decision or legislative enactment can change the basic tenets of religious faith. For example, some religions will not marry someone who has already been divorced, although the person is free to marry civilly.

---

To deny childless couples or same sex couples those rights outlined is simply fascist. :sad:

Yeah, this topic again..... :rolleyes:

Anywho. My thoughts about this have changed a bit. But as it comes to the federal government sticking their hands into this, I am against it. I agree that it should be left up to the states to decide if they are for or against gay marriages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WebHead

Ok then. Marriage for everyone. Beastiality, incest, group marriage, etc. Whatever. Anything goes. Complete anarachy for all because marriage says, "i love you and I want to commit to you." Tomorrow I'm going to marry my hamster.

---

You're missing the entire god damn point. I believe most people will call marriage a union between two consenting, of age, human adults. You want to through bestiality & incest and all that in there, you're just proving that you don't have a valid argument, and you're grabbing at straws.