Thread updated as states legalize same-sex marriage *USA*

[Socks]

Once there are legal benefits to marriage(taxes, visitation in hospitals, adoption, etc) it becomes a civil right.

i must be missing my fuzzy lobe because i only get a 'lol wat' response to that

You can't give one group an opportunity for protections but exclude another.

vague, vague, vague, general, general. general, obscure, obscure, obscure, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, subjective, subjective, subjective, moral, moral, moral,

[Daddy]

i must be missing my fuzzy lobe because i only get a 'lol wat' response to that

It's not that hard to read.

There are tax incentives to marriage.
There are insurance benefits related to marriage
There are adoption related issues related to marriage
There is quite a bit of stuff that is dependent on marriage.

You agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, according to your vote in that other poll, so denying equal protections that the person did not choose to give up violates civil rights.

vague, vague, vague, general, general. general, obscure, obscure, obscure, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, subjective, subjective, subjective, moral, moral, moral,

How is that vague, general, obscure, or subjective? And there are laws to enforce that "moral".


The problem is that marriage should either be opened to 2 consenting adults, regardless of sexuality, or that it should carry no legal significance and be a private matter up to individual churches leaving civil unions as a legal gateway to those benefits open to all.

I get that you don't agree with homosexuality or gay marriage but that isn't the issue, Socks. Don't pretend you can't read and just post "lol words words hurrrrrrrrr" and ignore the fact that you allowing your bigotry to deny a class of people equality under the law.

[ncba93ivyase]

The problem is that marriage should either be opened to 2 consenting adults

Why limit it to adults?

[Daddy]

Why limit it to adults?

Uh well technically you can get married at 14 in some states but if you're arguing that children should be able to marry then you're being stupid.

Minors cannot enter into a contract, which marriage is. Children are not fully developed physically or mentally.  It would only serve to allow pedophiles a legal excuse to fuck children: "BUT SHE'S MY WIFE". Mormons and muslims have shown a tendency towards childfucking, with the latter greatly abusing such in countries where it's legal.

[ncba93ivyase]

Minors cannot enter into a contract

I was just being silly but technically minors can enter contracts, but only contracts of nominal value.

buying food involves a contract, and i do believe kids are allowed to buy lunches at school and are required to fulfill certain duties in class as well

But yes I think only stable minded adults should be allowed to marry, and gender and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

[Hiro]

I think marriages should be a purely religious ceremony and not officially recognized by the state, while civil unions are allowed for heteros and homos and have all the benefits a marriage currently has.

A church can choose not to marry someone if they choose, but the government shouldn't be allowed to deny gays something because of their sexuality.

[ncba93ivyase]

I think marriages should be a purely religious ceremony

why does everyone say this

Atheists have been getting married for thousands of years.

[Hiro]

why does everyone say this

Atheists have been getting married for thousands of years.

I didn't say they are purely religious, I said they should be.

My grandma has the funniest view on gay marriage. She thinks gay marriage should be illegal, as marriage should be between a man and a woman, but they should be allowed to have civil unions. He reasoning is that at a wedding, somebody has to wear a dress and one person has to wear a tux, and that guys don't look right in dresses, nor girls in tuxedos.

[ncba93ivyase]

I didn't say they are purely religious, I said they should be.

why should they be when atheists have been allowed to get married since the dawn of time

[Hiro]

why should they be when atheists have been allowed to get married since the dawn of time

civil union
Same thing, just a different word and without religious connotations 

[ncba93ivyase]

civil union
Same thing, just a different word and without religious connotations 

why remove rights people have had forever

[Hiro]

why remove rights people have had forever

uh what lol
call it marriage if you want I don't care lol

[Socks]

It's not that hard to read.

how dare you, sir

There are tax incentives to marriage.

there are tax incentives to own a business (owning a business is NOT a civil right)

There are insurance benefits related to marriage

there are insurance benefits related to being a good driver (to be considered a good driver is NOT a civil right)

There are adoption related issues related to marriage

there are coverage related issues related to being healthy (to be healthy is NOT a civil right)

There is quite a bit of stuff that is dependent on marriage.

there is quite a bit of stuff that is dependent on you being above the age of 62, but not dead (to be above the age of 62, but not dead, is NOT a civil right)

You agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, according to your vote in that other poll, so denying equal protections that the person did not choose to give up violates civil rights.

marriage is not a civil right, it is a civil liberty, BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, HUGE. because it is a civil liberty, and thus open to greater and varying definition/restriction, the people of the society that the person did not choose to give up made their definition of marriage and who is eligible for it, law. as such, there is essentially nothing to discuss as far as that goes. and so your fuzzy logic is still relatively fuzzy in relation to fuzzyness

How is that vague, general, obscure, or subjective?

You can't give one group an opportunity for protections but exclude another.

I get that you don't agree with homosexuality or gay marriage but that isn't the issue, Socks.

yes it is the issue. and i happen to agree with murder and letting felons vote.

Don't pretend you can't read and just post "lol words words hurrrrrrrrr" and ignore the fact that you allowing your bigotry to deny a class of people equality under the law.

i can read perfectly well. but i will not acknowledge vague bullshit that seeks to generalize and find some compelling argument in the goodness and fairness of things to impose some false sense of universal understanding and agreement.

also, the law is what decides if a class of people are or were wronged. in this case it is the law itself that is authorizing a denial of service for homosexuals toward marriage. so really, as far as the law is concerned, everything is hunky dory.

[Daddy]

there are tax incentives to own a business (owning a business is NOT a civil right)

I'm pretty sure they don't discriminate based on who can own a business either.

there are insurance benefits related to being a good driver (to be considered a good driver is NOT a civil right)

I'm talking about carrying a policy. You can carry your spouse on your policy. If you are gay and you can't marry you have to carry two policies for a household. Furthermore, a good driver can be white, black, gay, straight, male, female, muslim, christian, republican, or democrat. There is no discrimination, just risk assessment.

there are coverage related issues related to being healthy (to be healthy is NOT a civil right)

Read above.

there is quite a bit of stuff that is dependent on you being above the age of 62, but not dead (to be above the age of 62, but not dead, is NOT a civil right)

Yet that is available to everyone who needs such and doesn't discriminate against a class of people.

marriage is not a civil right, it is a civil liberty, BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, HUGE. because it is a civil liberty, and thus open to greater and varying definition/restriction, the people of the society that the person did not choose to give up made their definition of marriage and who is eligible for it, law. as such, there is essentially nothing to discuss as far as that goes. and so your fuzzy logic is still relatively fuzzy in relation to fuzzyness

Civil rights include:
Ensuring peoples' physical integrity and safety and to make sure people were not forced into labor.
Protection from discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)
Equal access to health care, education, culture, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights

The rights are listed in the UDHR which the US adopted.

Are you slow?
There is nothing vague or obscure about that.

yes it is the issue.

"i hate fags so they don't deserve equality under the law"

and i happen to agree with murder and letting felons vote.

you agree with murder but not a woman's right to choose.
and ok i think felons should have the right to vote too, they're american citizens. i'd think being born here makes them more eligible for such than SOME people.

i can read perfectly well. but i will not acknowledge vague bullshit that seeks to generalize and find some compelling argument in the goodness and fairness of things to impose some false sense of universal understanding and agreement.

Except that it wasn't vague and it was pretty specific.

also, the law is what decides if a class of people are or were wronged. in this case it is the law itself that is authorizing a denial of service for homosexuals toward marriage. so really, as far as the law is concerned, everything is hunky dory.

Except that anti-discrimination laws and certain protections of equality are more important and/or in the constitution.

[Sam]

civil union
Same thing, just a different word and without religious connotations 

They aren't the same thing.