What is REALLY at issue with the Same-Sex Marriage debate?

[Chrs]

you can't even SPELL color.




No can you seem to form grammatically correct sentences

You lose.

Also, that's a perfectly good sentence! "Because there is not reason [to do so]."

[Darth Executor]

The present review did not reveal evidence that children of lesbian mothers differed from other children on emotional adjustment, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, or cognitive functioning.

How did they differ on political ideology?

[SarahB]

sure they can. If they marry someone of the opposite sex. same rights as me.

You all realize that every one of your arguments can be used by people who want to marry objects, or siblings, or pets, or children, right?

Is there much of a call for that?

Why aren't you defending their rights? After all, someone who is living with their sister is not allowed to marry her and benefit from a monogamous union either.

No big deal.

And why should us single people be left out? Why don't WE get the benefits of a monogamous union. You can't get more monogamous than marrying yourself! I should get a tax break for that!

Now, there you go. I'm the best lover I've ever had -- always attentive to my needs and whenever I need me, there I am.

[Ansgar Seraph]

sure they can. If they marry someone of the opposite sex. same rights as me.

You all realize that every one of your arguments can be used by people who want to marry objects, or siblings, or pets, or children, right? Why aren't you defending their rights? After all, someone who is living with their sister is not allowed to marry her and benefit from a monogamous union either.

And why should us single people be left out? Why don't WE get the benefits of a monogamous union. You can't get more monogamous than marrying yourself! I should get a tax break for that!

No, those arguments can NOT be used to advocate marriage with pets or objects or children. Say it with me now: "Marriage is a legal contract and legal contracts require consenting adults." If you're trying to make up a contract with a non-adult, you're not making a legal contract.

<sigh> Good?

—Sam

[Cerebrum123]

No, those arguments can NOT be used to advocate marriage with pets or objects or children. Say it with me now: "Marriage is a legal contract and legal contracts require consenting adults." If you're trying to make up a contract with a non-adult, you're not making a legal contract.

<sigh> Good?

—Sam

If we can just redefine marriage, why can't we just redefine "legal contract"?

[Chrs]

Considering that Mohammed "married" a 6 year old when he was 53, and he is supposed to be the greatest example for humanity(according to Islam), then you would find that there are plenty of Muslims that would disagree about child "marriage". Anything Mohammed did is considered a great act that must be emulated if possible(I don't understand why anyone would believe that about Mohammed given his "Sira", but apparently many Muslims want to follow his "Sunna"), then you are going to find some Muslims who are going to want to marry little kids once they reach the age of 53.

See comment R.E. Contracts made by Ansgar.

I'm also not entirely sure why this is relevant to my post, but sure whatever.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Wills and POA's are not that expensive and just need to be notarized by a paralegal and your life insurance pay offs can be designated to anybody you want. It should be something married couples do as well (I have both for my husband he has them on me too). Legal documents are far more effective and prone to less scrutiny in court then a marriage license is and is something I have told heterosexual couples to make sure is in order since I have ran into a few horror cases in which a service member got a divorce, was re married, forgot to change their legal documents to their new spouse, got killed and their new spouses got nothing. That should be the first thing you do right after you are married, get your legal affairs in order.

Wills and POAs that sufficiently mimic the benefits of marriage are expensive, however, because that kind of in-depth coverage takes quite a few man-hours of labor and is almost certainly more securely done by a professional. So homosexual couples will be spending a good deal of money to pay a lawyer to make sure that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Whether an individual considers such material harm to be onerous doesn't really play into it. The question is whether the state has a compelling reason to institute such material harm in the first place.

—Sam

[Cerebrum123]

See comment R.E. Contracts made by Ansgar.

I'm also not entirely sure why this is relevant to my post, but sure whatever.

You said that there was no reason for people to be engaging in such acts(for Muslims there is a reason for the child "marriage", of course this doesn't apply to all of them, but who said that I needed to have a reason that all people agreed on). I also gave a response to his post on legal contracts.

[Chrs]

You said that there was no reason for people to be engaging in such acts(for Muslims there is a reason for the child "marriage", of course this doesn't apply to all of them, but who said that I needed to have a reason that all people agreed on). I also gave a response to his post on legal contracts.

I said there was no reason to not allow same-sex marriage.

I'll let Ansgar deal with that (you raised it to him a minute ago), it was his point to begin with. I'll jump in if I disagree. Don't want to step on any toes

[Ansgar Seraph]

If we can just redefine marriage, why can't we just redefine "legal contract"?

Oh, heavens. This has gone well beyond any semblance of legal practicality. Do you believe that we're in any danger of defining five year-old children or objects as having the ability to rationally consent to a contract? Even in cultures that practice child marriage, it's the parents who contract the marriage with the individual.

This simply isn't a rational, reality-based response to the issue.

—Sam

[Chrs]

Oh, heavens. This has gone well beyond any semblance of legal practicality. Do you believe that we're in any danger of defining five year-old children or objects as having the ability to rationally consent to a contract? Even in cultures that practice child marriage, it's the parents who contract the marriage with the individual.

This simply isn't a rational, reality-based response to the issue.

—Sam

I'd also note that society wouldn't function without some concept of an agreement made between adults - even if it was no longer called a contract. So the idea will always exist.

[lilpixieofterror]

Wills and POAs that sufficiently mimic the benefits of marriage are expensive, however, because that kind of in-depth coverage takes quite a few man-hours of labor and is almost certainly more securely done by a professional.

The paralegal did my POA's right before I left this time in under 15 minutes and I needed several and my will was done up in under an hour. They really are not all that difficult to do and again, it is something heterosexual couples should do as well regardless if they have a marriage license or not.

So homosexual couples will be spending a good deal of money to pay a lawyer to make sure that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I'm a married heterosexual couple and I still got mine done. Granted, I do have access to it though the military that does make it cheaper, but I've heard far too many horror stories from friends and family that didn't have their stuff in order and it caused quite an issue, even when their was a marriage involved. If you want to save your spouse trouble with dealing with legal battles, get your stuff in order before something big happens.

Whether an individual considers such material harm to be onerous doesn't really play into it. The question is whether the state has a compelling reason to institute such material harm in the first place.

I'm a big fan of getting the government of issuing marriage licenses to begin with and as I said above, even couples with a marriage license should keep their legal stuff in order. It is either the minor headache and legal cost now or larger ones down the road.

[Darth Executor]

Wills and POAs that sufficiently mimic the benefits of marriage are expensive, however, because that kind of in-depth coverage takes quite a few man-hours of labor and is almost certainly more securely done by a professional. So homosexual couples will be spending a good deal of money to pay a lawyer to make sure that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Don't need a lawyer to cut and paste from existing marriage contracts.

[Darth Executor]

No, those arguments can NOT be used to advocate marriage with pets or objects or children. Say it with me now: "Marriage is a legal contract and legal contracts require consenting adults." If you're trying to make up a contract with a non-adult, you're not making a legal contract.

<sigh> Good?

—Sam

This is only partially true. It's primarily a contract between individuals and the state. It's why it confers certain benefits on the married couple. In fact, your entire basis for support of gay marriage relies on the state-individual portion of the contract, which is why they can be used to support marriage with pets or objects or children.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Don't need a lawyer to cut and paste from existing marriage contracts.

You do need one to make sure all the terms and conditions are applicable to you and your spouse in your state, county, municipality, etc. What is standardized in statute for heterosexual couples would have to be individually verified for homosexual couples.

—Sam