Jump to content
s92harrell

Had an interesting convo at work

Recommended Posts

So today at work, I got into what ended up as a very heated discussion with a coworker over happy marriage. He's a very...religious man, and thinks that happy marriage and all homosexual relationships are an abomination and should be illegal forever and blah blah blah. I'm sure we all know someone like that.

Here's the thing that bothers me: This country GUARANTEES equal rights for ALL citizens. Can I think of religious reasons that go against happy marriage and homosexuality? You betcha. I'm a Christian and as such, I disagree with all that. But here's my thing. Can I think of LEGAL reasons to deny happy couples the same rights that hetero couples enjoy? Not in the slightest. Am I crazy for that, or does it make sense to more people than just me?

 

Just noticed that the censor makes it say happy as opposed to g<AT>y...so yeah.

Edited by s92harrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an agnostic.

 

But let me ask: where in the Constitution of the United States does it say marriage is a right? I'm all for equal rights, yadda yadda yadda, but if it isn't a right guaranteed by the constitution or any of the subsequent amendments, then states can make up whatever laws about it all they want thanks to Amendment #10, whether supporters of homosexual marriage agreee with them or not.

 

My other issue with homosexual marriage is WHY does it have to be marriage? What's wrong with just a civil union with the same benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people who are taking a religious stance against non heterosexual marriage have to realize is that it is not an issue of religion anymore. It is now a legal issue. Those that wanted to keep marriage as a sacred union between man and woman only should have never allowed there to be a legal definition of marriage.

 

When marriage became an issue of the courts and legal system, it ceased to be something that was ruled upon by the church, it became something that is now decided by a secular system. Take baptism for example, if that became an issue in the courts, then a judge would be allowed to say whether someone was baptized or not, instead of the church and God. But as it stands, each religion can choose to have baptism or not and decide for themselves what constitutes being baptized.

 

But a judge can declare someone married or unmarried, and marriages can be done by a justice of the peace instead of a minister or other religious figure. This means that the institution of marriage is now a secular one and not for religious people to decide. If religions wanted to hold power over who can be married or not they should have never let there be things such as marriage licenses and divorce proceedings. I think that religious people who are opposed to nonheterosexual marriage should create a new word for it like "sacred union" or something like that. Because it is no longer up to the church to decide who can be married or not. It is up to the people of the United States of America to decide that for its citizens.

 

And if a majority of the people decide that is what they want then so be it I say, let people marry who they want. And why should they be limited to "civil unions"? If the people decide that you can marry anyone you want then who are we to tell them they can't? "Civil union" is like making black people drink out of separate but equal water fountains, no matter how "equal" they are it's gonna leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.... if getting married to a man makes a guy happy, I got no problem with it. Doesn't change my life one bit.

 

However they need to reevaluate what makes them happy, because I'm married and it totally sucks. :a-laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem if a church or synagogue says, "We're against homosexual marriages, we won't recognize them and we won't perform them." That's their right, as it's how they practice their version of religion. But at the same time, if a homosexual couple wants to be married by a justice of the peace in a legal, non-religious marriage- that's fine by me too.

 

What's happening now is there are some homosexuals who are saying, "My sexual orientation and gender identity doesn't change that I'm [insert religious faith /denomination] and I want to be married according to those customs." That's a trickier issue that I haven't been able to figure out a position on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's happening now is there are some homosexuals who are saying, "My sexual orientation and gender identity doesn't change that I'm [insert religious faith /denomination] and I want to be married according to those customs." That's a trickier issue that I haven't been able to figure out a position on.

Then they will probably have to find somewhere else to get married. Homosexual marriage will have the best chance of being allowed if intolerant jerks aren't forced to perform the weddings. I'm homosexual, and if a church or something didn't want me getting married, I'd just say "Screw you, I'm going somewhere else" Although being Agnostic and not liking the idea of marriage that much, I don't have to worry about it. Maybe it could work out where they see that the church/denomination/whatever isn't right for them, but it's got to suck for those that don't.

 

That filter is really annoying... It seems like most of the time the word G<AT>y is used in the correct way here at ASF, but it's being blocked anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only opposition I have towards happy Marriage is the system being abused. What will stop to best guy friends from marrying eachother for tax reasons while they still go on with their regular, heterosexual relationships and lives? Granted, it's a stretch but it's still there. No system is perfect anyway.

 

To be brutally honest, homosexuals kind of freak me out. I said, they bother me. Does that mean that they should have less rights than heterosexuals? Not in my book. Like Doc Peligro said, if it makes you happy, why not? (Unless it's narcotics, those will mess you up.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only opposition I have towards happy Marriage is the system being abused. What will stop to best guy friends from marrying eachother for tax reasons while they still go on with their regular, heterosexual relationships and lives? Granted, it's a stretch but it's still there. No system is perfect anyway.

 

To be brutally honest, homosexuals kind of freak me out. I said, they bother me. Does that mean that they should have less rights than heterosexuals? Not in my book. Like Doc Peligro said, if it makes you happy, why not? (Unless it's narcotics, those will mess you up.)

 

Two guys in some state got same-sex married but let everyone know that they were both 100% straight, and the state approved it.

 

About the Plessy v. Ferguson argument regarding my 'civil unions with equal rights', let me clarify. I think 'marriage' oughta be left to those who want it done in a place of worship (except the Scientologists, because I respect Xenu for what he did and would vote for him again, lol). But seriously, let civil unions with equal benefits be available for BOTH heterosexuals and homosexuals just so the religious-groups can pipe down.

 

But still, WHY does it have to be marriage and not a civil union with the same benefits? It's like buying one of two cartons of milk with different brand names. One's by Mayfield, one's a generic grocery store milk. Both are 100% the same chemically and in taste. The generic, though, is less expensive. WHY buy the brand then? Same with marriage. If you could have the civil unions with equal benefits, WHY would you not want that? It's the same. You're still husband and husband or wife and wife. You still get the same tax breaks (well, I have issues with some of that, but I'm too tired to talk about that right now). You still get the same insurance benefits. WHY would have to make things more bothersome to have it be officially a marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% of divorce is caused by marriage, true fact. Same Sex Marriage is just another ploy for Lawyers to make money. I rarely see a life long marriages anymore.

 

I really don't care about either, sure eventually I do want to get married. I can see the Gays stand point of getting married. They want to be able to have the benefits as the straight couples get. however I think they should be happy with the words Civil-Union. I also think that all the overly religious people need to shut up about "Sanctity of Marriage", That went out with the first Divorce.

 

It is up to the people of the United States of America to decide that for its citizens.

And if a majority of the people decide that is what they want then so be it I say, let people marry who they want.

State Of California voted for Prop 8 instead of voting against. therefore they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think that all the overly religious people need to shut up about "Sanctity of Marriage", That went out with the first Divorce.

ADD Moment: I enjoy being both a Christian and a libertarian. Makes for interesting conversation with people who are equally religious but want to regulate me based on that.

Edited by TheAirsoftLoki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What all these religious people fail to realize is that if their god truly does think that a homosexual marriage is wrong, then they wont get into heaven. So what do they have to worry about? All they are doing is shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats for their own good.

 

Religion has no place in politics and should be kept out, but to many people don't think that way and only think the way their religion tells them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK...here's the gist.

 

He's talking marriage in the religious sense, and equating it with marriage in the legal sense. Two different things.

 

The nation does, indeed, guarantee equal rights, and I don't see a blessed thing, anywhere, where it says "except for GLBT people"...but that is, again legal equality.

 

The issue with calling it anything other than "same-sex marriage" is that there are hundreds of years of legal precedents regarding duties, benefits, and so on in legal "marriage", but none for "civil union". Even for marriages not sanctioned by religion, recognized by government (common law marriages). Without the same legal term, and thus the same precedents applying to it, it opens a whole new can of worms for such legal relationships.

 

For instance "adultery" is still legal grounds for divorce. And in most states, if that is the reason cited for a divorce action, it has a fair impact on custody rulings, asset division, continued support, and such. But look up the legal meaning of "adultery". It can't apply to a "civil union". So those guidelines, and the associated precedents, can't be applied.

 

I'm not "happy", but I don't intend to have a "happy" marriage. So what's to get under my skin if someone else does, under law? My church won't recognize such a relationship as "correct"...so what? What does that have to do with law? My church also supports the idea that abortion and any form of birth control except rhythm method or abstinence are wrong, and the former is only OK for married folks. Does the law reflect this? No.

 

I approach most things the same way: If I don't like it, but you're hurting nobody, damaging no property, or interfering with anyone else's rights, without their consent, then have fun. If I don't like guns, I won't buy one. If I don't like abortions, I won't have one, and will try to talk my daughter out of one, if circumstances arrive. If I don't like smoking, I won't smoke, and I'll just step upwind of anyone who smokes, or tolerate it.

 

Much like hating, or holding a grudge, there's too much useless expenditure of energy involved in DENYING anyone something that makes them happy and gives them equal rights, if they aren't actively damaging you, your property, or preventing you exercising your rights.

 

You might think Jewish people are wrong in their religious convictions, or Muslims, or Buddhists...but no matter how strict a Christian you are, do you even TRY to say they should be treated differently under law? Do you insist a law be passed saying they eat pork, or that Kosher preparation of meats is illegal, or even that they must eat meat? That they be denied the right to build their places of worship, or enjoy the same tax-exempt status of your church, or enjoy the same tax write-off for donating to their house of worship or religious-based charities?

No? Then you need to stop getting your panties in a bunch over "happy" marriage, and pass the blasted laws allowing it. UNDER the name "marriage" in law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My other issue with homosexual marriage is WHY does it have to be marriage? What's wrong with just a civil union with the same benefits?

 

Because a lot of insurance companies do not recognize Civil Unions and as well as government legislation. This also applies to common law marriages too in some instances.

 

So, if you have a civil union, common law marriage and your benefits say spouse. Your "partner" get no benefits.

If you die and your life insurance policy says Spouse, the money does not go to the "partner".

 

Your relegating all these people to Second Class citizens.

 

You know...like Women in the late 19th century where they can't vote.

 

Or this:

 

NYC16266.jpg

 

ourmarriage.jpg

 

6a0128775d5666970c016305660c4c970d.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because a lot of insurance companies do not recognize Civil Unions and as well as government legislation. This also applies to common law marriages too in some instances.

 

So, if you have a civil union, common law marriage and your benefits say spouse. Your "partner" get no benefits.

If you die and your life insurance policy says Spouse, the money does not go to the "partner".

 

Your relegating all these people to Second Class citizens.

 

Dear god this got necro'd. I'll admit that back then that was my view. A year ago I realized what you mentioned just yesterday and now have a better understanding of things (including the insurance companies not respecting civil unions and such).

 

I'm all for it now. To paraphrase a friend of mine's sarcastic remark: "If g.ays want to be miserable in marriage like straights, LET THEM." In all seriousness though I say legalize it wherever possible. SCOTUS is going to rule on whether or not marriage is even a constitutional right this year, so we'll see where this goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legal reasons? Technically there are still laws present in some states & territories against sodomy....so yeah.

And they're enforced? Nope. Only reason they're still on the books is it hasn't created a situation requiring a law be passed to invalidate the earlier laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And they're enforced? Nope. Only reason they're still on the books is it hasn't created a situation requiring a law be passed to invalidate the earlier laws.

 

Not 100% true, it's often a tag on charge.

 

In my state if a 16 year old has sex with a 15 year old, it's a misdemeanor. But if a 16 year old gets a bj from a 15 year old, that's sodomy and it's now automatically a felony.

 

It's happened before lol

Edited by brettboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not 100% true, it's often a tag on charge.

 

In my state if a 16 year old has sex with a 15 year old, it's a misdemeanor. But if a 16 year old gets a bj from a 15 year old, that's sodomy and it's now automatically a felony.

 

It's happened before lol

True enough, I suppose, but not prosecuted as a primary charge, and not in cases of non-statutory consensual sex. Which means the law is already de facto not being enforced.

 

You're the best kind of person.

Not hardly. I just have a rabid sense of liberty and responsibility. Freedom comes with responsibility, and both should be hand in hand, legally. But individual responsibility should be limited to immediate damages such as hurting someone or destroying their property in a way immediately detectable, and having law re-enforce the responsibility of exercise of freedom.

 

In other words, I as a person shouldn't be liable if you get lung cancer, even if you can absolutely prove it was the smoking of myself and other individuals that caused it (ABSOLUTE proof), however a legal entity (like a corporation) should be held responsible for long term damages caused by its products, since it wouldn't exist at all without the production of those products, AND the allowance of such entity to be formed is based in part on its accrued responsibility unprotected by Constitutional law, only by statutory or admiralty law (to clarify that...if I'm born, I enjoy all the rights and freedoms applying to any person in the united states. For a company to exist, it has to be licensed, so does not enjoy those same rights, and must shoulder greater forms of responsibility).

 

To give an example of one of my more unpopular stances: If a girl gets pregnant, and keeps the baby, against the will of her partner, he is responsible for part of the associated medical bills, and for partial support of the baby for 18 years. If he wants to keep it, and she doesn't, he has no recourse. Inequality. If she doesn't want it, but he does, and you're going to be equal, she should be required (if health issues aren't involved) to have the kid, relinquish parental rights and responsibilities, and never have any further requirements. 9 months of completely invasive time is a fair trade in equality for 19 years of responsibility in the form of time spent to earn support payments. One or the other. If he can be held responsible that way, so should she. If she can't, neither should he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...