Should the US legalize Gay marriage?

What do you think?

[white87911]

Well for starts.

I do not think that the Goverment should have anything to do with "marriage", marriage is a "relgious" term and should only be recognized by a church or other religous institution. If a church wants to say "no we will not perform gay marriages or recognize them" then they have every right to do so. The goverment, our goverment, who most of us on the board (left, right or center) feel is the best govement in the world (not administration, goverment) should be more concened with what is fair, just and equal for all american regardless of what, sexual prefference of what some groups, or some churches sayabout that preferrence.

Hows that !?!?!?

[genrex]

This subject came up at the dinner table recently, when my mother-in-law was over. I said that I didn't have an opinion really, since my gay sister is in a union that is recognized and her partner gets health benefits and etc, so they're already getting the same benefits that we are.

Apparently that was the wrong thing to say. My mother-in-law is a social worker, my wife is a psychologist, and I found out that they both have strong opinions on this subject. They deal with a lot of children who are in the foster-care system, and who are not doing well. The basis of their argument in support of gay marraige is that that would allow gay couples to adopt children and get them into a loving home and out of foster care, and the children would have much better lives. I have to concede that in most cases that is very likely.

There are indications that gay marraige is going to be legalized soon, at least in some states in the US, so I expect that we will soon see what happens. Let's hope for the best.

[white87911]

genrex?
I take it that your wife and mother-in-law support gay marriage?

I agree with the addoption idea.

It is way to F**ing complicated to adopt a child in this country.

[pbs911]

O
I do not think that the Goverment should have anything to do with "marriage", marriage is a "relgious" term and should only be recognized by a church or other religous institution.

A marriage is a legal doctrine recognized by the state and federal government. The legal impact, which is at issue with recognizing gay marriages, is what is at issue. Whether or not the church will recognize a gay marriage is irrelevant to whether the govt will.

The sole reason the gays want to have a recognized marriage is so the benefits that are afforded to marriaged couples can run tho them. This is a bad business decision. Evberyone will pay in increase prices and taxes.

The whole thing sounds like a 14th amendment equal protection issue being that gays are a semi-protected class.

One side of me say let the gays have legal marriages and let them be as miserable as everyone else.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by pbs911

One side of me say let the gays have legal marriages and let them be as miserable as everyone else.

ouch!

[Joeaksa]

Agree that gays should have the legal rights and health benefits but marriage is one step too far. Next someone will want to marry his sheep...

Joe A

[mikester]

Well - I agree - Marriage began as a religious institution between a man and a woman right? Well - we have what is commonly refered to a seperation of church and state in this land. That being the case - NO MARRIAGE ever should be recognized by the government. Every single union between two people should be called a "civil union" and should be given rights associated with that union. Sex or sexual preference are irrelevant.

IF legalized 'marriage' were to come about then those companies that give benefits to 'domestic partners' will likely stop doing so because that whole benefit was for the gay employees anyway though it can be extended to heterosexual couples as well.

I do not support discrimination based no sexual preference under any pretense.

[mikester]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Agree that gays should have the legal rights and health benefits but marriage is one step too far. Next someone will want to marry his sheep...

Joe A

I doubt that will happen as sheep are not given inalienable rights in our constitution - at least not the same way people are.

Besides - this isn't scotland.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by mikester
I doubt that will happen as sheep are not given inalienable rights in our constitution - at least not the same way people are.

Besides - this isn't scotland.

or New Zealand (sorry Cam )

[mikester]

I thought about putting that in there too...

[mikester]

When is it okay to discriminate against someone simply because of the economics of the situtation?

Economics being bad does not make discrimination right, it does not make discrimination constitutionally okay and it certainly doesn't make a case for the legality of the situation.

Personally I don't see how it will hurt anything econmically with the exception of Social Security.

[white87911]

Originally posted by mikester
Well - I agree - Marriage began as a religious institution between a man and a woman right? Well - we have what is commonly refered to a seperation of church and state in this land. That being the case - NO MARRIAGE ever should be recognized by the government. Every single union between two people should be called a "civil union" and should be given rights associated with that union. Sex or sexual preference are irrelevant.

IF legalized 'marriage' were to come about then those companies that give benefits to 'domestic partners' will likely stop doing so because that whole benefit was for the gay employees anyway though it can be extended to heterosexual couples as well.

I do not support discrimination based no sexual preference under any pretense.

This is the nub of my jist!

This seems so simple to me but is not often discussed on more bias media. (either way bais)

[island911]

Originally posted by mikester
When is it okay to discriminate against someone simply because of the economics of the situtation?

Economics being bad does not make discrimination right, it does not make discrimination constitutionally okay and it certainly doesn't make a case for the legality of the situation.

Ya mean like how rich people have to pay more percentage tax than poorer people?

There's some discrimination base completely on the economics of the situtation.

[island911]

Originally posted by mikester
. . .
I do not support discrimination based on sexual preference under any pretense.

Yeah . . .

Michael Jackson has a RIGHT to little boys.

Those who discriminate, based on sexual preference, are bad bad people.

[theFONZ]

So could someone just say they are married to thier buddy and get all of the marriage benefits? Seems pretty easy.

[Don 944 LA]

legalize ???

I never knew it was " Illegal "

I think the issue is that if it should be recognized as a union / marriage. This would of course affect spousal healthcare, survivor benefits, anything that a spouse is entitled to and has a right of...

[pbs911]

The people who wish to enter into gay marriages are not discriminated against. They are free to marry anyone they wish of the opposite sex. Personally, I don't see any validity to a discrimination argument.

[white87911]

Originally posted by pbs911
The people who wish to enter into gay marriages are not discriminated against. They are free to marry anyone they wish of the opposite sex. Personally, I don't see any validity to a discrimination argument.

Just a question....

How are they not descriminated against when compared to a "1 man, 1 women" realtionship.

a) No benefits when it comes to healthcare
b) no benefit when filing taxes ( I agree this may be stickey depending on where you live and how much you make)
c) no rights to inheritance
d) no right when it comes to medical / health decisions
e) no rights that any "family" member might have.

Just to name a few.

[island911]

How can ANY of you pro-gay-marriage people claim it's okay . . . when you don't/won't recognize the PURPOSE of marriage?


. . or are y'all just showing the world that you are straight, but not narrow. ?