Marriage

[Turner]

I guess you have not had the experiance on being picked on horibly that makes you dont want ot go to school nor socialize with other peersm.

Yes, because you know me so well. You know what my childhood was like. I remember you being there, and how you commented on what was happening.

Aside from children being 'the meanest people on the planet', I've also seen them be the kindest people on the planet. Yes, a child has the capacity in them to be 'the meanest', but they also have the same capacity for being 'the nicest'.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

This seems to come down to a question of if civil rights are being violated by not allowing homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.

If civil rights are being violated then the wishes of the general populace won't matter. Examples would be the majority who may not have approved of woman's suffrage or the pre-Civil War majority who may have been O.K. with slavery. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

If civil rights are not being violated then a vote or constitutional amendment, either for or against, would be a reasonable solution. The wishes of the majority in a democracy should decide any issue not specifically addressed in the Federal or State constitutions.

My guess is that this issue will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court and that the current effort to pass an amendment to the Constitution will not succeed.

 

[Truronian]

As if Tyranny of the minority is any better.

Excepts its not tyranny in this case, because the minority are the people that will be affected by any such law.

I suppose we should legalize drugs too since a tiny minority wants it. As long as politicians get elected by majorities, then keeping the majority happy is the goal.

Drugs affect everybody. Laws regardig homosexuality affect only homosexuals.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people. There is no reason why marriage should be restricted to 1 per person at any given time.

As Tina Turner sang: "What's love got to do with it?" - answer = "Nothing".

 

[blargh]

Do you not think the individual states have a right to have such a measure on their ballots?

Well I suppose that's up to them and as far as rights go, people take them one way or the other. Even states I guess. A referendum might be a good idea in a level playing field, which there is not and if the question did not involve civil rights and it does. What do you suppose might have been on this ballot in 1950 or 1850?

... he won the court case, along with the election...seems he won all the recounts as well as I recall...but lets not let facts stand in the way of good old paranoia

Paranoid? I thought it was the conservatives who thought the courts were out to get them!

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I would go for polygamy regardless of gender. So any 'combination'

 

[IglooDame]

I voted for the last option. Take marriage out of the purview of government entirely. If you want the sacrament/ceremony accorded by your church, they'll approve your 'marriage', and a "social corporation" legal filing will do for most of the various rights/privileges normally accorded to married couples now.

There are a few rights (the right to not testify against your spouse comes most quickly to mind) that aren't covered by either of those items, though, but maybe some of our legal-minded folks (Brian B? FredLC?) can address them?

 

[Che Guava]

what a funny poll....I'm not hot on polygamy but I don't mind SSM's. Where 's the option for that...?

 

[3 EMS]

Love is beautiful. If, though, you want to get married and have 5 children you should be penalized with higher taxes and not rewarded with lower ones.

 

[stormbind]

I chose the last choice, but more as a protest against omitting the reasonable solution.

Get rid of marriage as a legal institution. No one is married legally. Offer civil unions to every couple. Marriage then becomes strictly a religious institution and carries no legal weight outside of religion.

I probably agree with this, but being religious means I voted man & woman only.

 

[stormbind]

Love is beautiful. If, though, you want to get married and have 5 children you should be penalized with higher taxes and not rewarded with lower ones.

Sarcasm, I hope. The population in western countries is aging.

 

[classical_hero]

Yes, it is legal to discriminate because of age. Ever read a contract? Age minimum is 18 for almost all of them (among other restrictions like 'sound mind').

Discussions about adults is valid. The law prohibits children from entering into contracts because they are too young to understand and would be victimized.

Sorry, that's not crazy. It's common sense and it's the law.

You do know that once it was aginast the law and against most people's common sense for homosexuality.. My point is that relying on human law is often futlie because it often changes and thus we must be relying on a stronger set of foundations.

 

[3 EMS]

Sarcasm, I hope. The population in western countries is aging.

The more resources people consume the more they should pay. If the population drops then this can always be changed back.

 

[stormbind]

The more resources people consume the more they should pay. If the population drops then this can always be changed back.

Retired people use more resources. Your policy would result in a nation of retired people with insufficient numbers in their decendent generation.

 

[MobBoss]

Excepts its not tyranny in this case, because the minority are the people that will be affected by any such law.

Actually it redfines an accepted definition of a nationwide institution. It affects far more than just a minority.

Drugs affect everybody. Laws regardig homosexuality affect only homosexuals.

Ah, there are those that argue that drugs only affect those that use them. How is their arguement any different?

 

[MobBoss]

Love is beautiful. If, though, you want to get married and have 5 children you should be penalized with higher taxes and not rewarded with lower ones.

Uhm...I fail to see any true wisdom in this. Its hard enough to raise 5 kids, why should the government make it even harder?

 

[ComradeDavo]

As far as i'm concerned, humans can marry as many other humans as they want, be they same sex or not, as long as all parties consent and know the terms.

 

[Truronian]

Actually it redfines an accepted definition of a nationwide institution. It affects far more than just a minority.

The redefinition of this nationwaide institution doesn't affect you in the slightest, so far as I can see. Pray enlighten me as to how it can.

Ah, there are those that argue that drugs only affect those that use them. How is their arguement any different?

Anyone has the potntial to become a drug user. I'd say only homosexuals have the potential to enter into a homosexual marriage.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What do you think marriage should be in your country?
Please ignore the other thread.

Marriage is an institution from the Middle Ages, intended as an economic transaction of a woman from her father to her husband, for the purpose of providing children. We no longer treat women as commodities, so I say marriage should be dissolved as an institution. There's nothing stopping people from living together, or having sex, if they want to. People make arrangements to be together all the time without being formally married. Nowadays, people even have children without being married.

 

[IglooDame]

Anyone has the potntial to become a drug user. I'd say only homosexuals have the potential to enter into a homosexual marriage.

On the contrary, just as MobBoss & Co. say that homosexuals can marry the opposite sex just-like-anybody-else, likewise heterosexuals would be able to marry the same sex just-like-anybody-else.