BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in California

Dilbert_X wrote:

Recognised legally - fine. Thats pretty much the case in many places already.

Demanding the legal and religious definition of marriage be changed to include gays is as dumb as a vegetarian demanding the definition of carnivore be changed to include people who don't eat meat. Its beyond retarded.
Instead of wasting everyone's time and money on this bullshit, perhaps gays should spend their efforts on fixing more pressing and more important issues.

How exactly is marriage a strictly religious institution? Last I checked, the preacher still has to say "by the power vested in me by the state of (enter state of choice here). Not to mention marriage licenses, getting married outside of a church setting, and atheist marriages. Besides, why would marriage need to be changed to include gays? As it stands (unless legislated otherwise) marriage is between two people who want to get married. Obviously incest and bestiality are excluded here.

The war on marriage began when same-sex marriage was outlawed.

but you realize the reason the legal definition has to be changed, right?  that IS a pressing and important issue.  Yes, the government probably shouldn't be involved.  Pointing that doesn't remove the governments involvement.

Or instead of changing the header of a marriage license to civil union license, we can just let everyone use the marriage license.

But just changing The headers to civil union and letting everyone call their union whatever is a good compromise. Too bad the NC law bans civil unions between people of the same sex. It is also too bad the that almost all of the same sex civil unions don't carry the same legal weight.

Then all thats left to do is convince all the major religions to go along with the plan....

ROGUEDD wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Or instead of changing the header of a marriage license to civil union license, we can just let everyone use the marriage license.

But just changing The headers to civil union and letting everyone call their union whatever is a good compromise. Too bad the NC law bans civil unions between people of the same sex. It is also too bad the that almost all of the same sex civil unions don't carry the same legal weight.

Exactly.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its been a religious institution since time began, its only very recently that govts started to get involved - typically around the time there was a tax benefit.

Are you saying atheist and non-religious marriages are should be illegal?  If you're objecting on religious grounds, that would seem to be an additional consequence.

Macbeth wrote:

Marriage has always been a legal matter. It has been about property rights since forever. I don't get where you guys are getting this idea that marriage has just been a religious event.

coz dilbert hates gays and thinks preventing gays getting married will stop gayness in this world.

i think christianity really started the whole anti-sex thingy. romans had lots of sex and orgy parties and what not.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Marriage has always been a legal matter. It has been about property rights since forever. I don't get where you guys are getting this idea that marriage has just been a religious event.

coz dilbert hates gays and thinks preventing gays getting married will stop gayness in this world.

Not especially. I do object to:

Government time being wasted on this trivial rubbish. If they're really hung up on demanding the word 'marriage' be used instead of 'union' then thats going to take a hell of a long time to get past the various religions, not to mention a proportion of middle-of-the-road hetersexual couples who object to 'marriage' being hijacked.
Clogging up govt time with this crap is both gay and retarded.

Special interest groups demanding their lifestyle be subsidised by my taxes. I don't really see why any couple should get a tax subsidy, less so gays.

First off I would like to point out that the fact that this debate continues and still reaches the ferocity it does is because this is a matter that means something to people. It may be trivial to you but your own apathy has no impact on anyone else's feelings. I know there are lots of people who see marriage and civil unions and ask "what's the big deal?" The problem is that the homosexual community want equal rights with every other person and 'same-but-different' has been proven to be inadequate. How can I tell? Because the debate is continuing.

What's more I don't think it will take much to get past the religious aspect or even old societal unease about same-sex marriage. Opinions differ among those with faith as it does among those without which is remarkable when you consider that the faithful are supposed to be singing from the same song book. Meanwhile Obama was openly and widely praised for his recent announcement while Aussie PM and winner of 2010 most unconvincing heterosexual kiss award Julia Gillard has been openly criticised for her refusal to move on the issue. While this doesn't confirm that there is a majority supporting same-sex marriage it does reflect that the stigma has changed and is now attached to those that object to same-sex marriage.

And your concentration on tax matters is, to be honest, insulting. To suggest that a group would fight and face persecution for decades because they want a tax cut is too cynical even for me.

Otherwise I'd like the government to legislate for my right to have a bar-mitvah in a mosque and all the tax subsidies which go with having three children seeing as I have a cat.

You're again missing the point, marriage is both a civil and religious institution. A Bar Mitzvah is simply a coming-of-age ceremony. They are not comparable. Furthermore your argument is dangerously close to the "slippery slope' argument which does you no favours. You're smarter than that Dilbert.

Shahter wrote:

Ty wrote:

And your concentration on tax matters is, to be honest, insulting. To suggest that a group would fight and face persecution for decades because they want a tax cut is too cynical even for me.

"too cynical"? maybe. but the benefits that go with marriage is exactly the point for most of these people, you can be sure of that. the fact of the matter is in the modern world the whole institute of marriage is steadily becoming outdated and is only there because of government support. without that there would be no "gay marriage" issue at all.

Any data or study to back that statement?

I've known an Australian gay couple who travelled to Cali just to get married and then returned, despite it not being recognised here at the time. I know they're not the only ones either.

Ah, disappointing.

Cybargs wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Ty wrote:

And your concentration on tax matters is, to be honest, insulting. To suggest that a group would fight and face persecution for decades because they want a tax cut is too cynical even for me.

"too cynical"? maybe. but the benefits that go with marriage is exactly the point for most of these people, you can be sure of that. the fact of the matter is in the modern world the whole institute of marriage is steadily becoming outdated and is only there because of government support. without that there would be no "gay marriage" issue at all.

In Aus interdependent relationships/ De Facto relationships (gays allowed too) have pretty much the same tax benefits as marriage. So any tax arguments for Australia at least (which is what dilb is getting at) is nil and void.

orly? kewl. now, if there was a way to compare the "gay marriage" issue in aus and in other places (apart from one couple mentioned by jaekus) we'd be all set.