mersenneforum.org - Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)

- Soap Box (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10163)

[quote=Jwb52z;131084]Cheesehead, my friend I hope by now around here, why do you feel the need to speak for me or retranslate my posts now? I mean, I appreciate that you notice that some people might misunderstand me, but I don't know why you've decided to do it all of a sudden.[/quote]

Apparently "bigoted crap" translates as "constitutional law".
Quite possible to someone who's observing from the other side of the Atlantic. :smile:

[QUOTE=crash893;130996]Should gay marriage be [B]legal[/B]?

Incest slippery slope = irrelevant
Beastality slippery slope = irrelevant
age of consent = irrelevant
[/QUOTE]I would have to say no to the irrelevance of some of those.

People bring up the idea that they love someone and that because of this they should be allowed to marry. There are also brought up the "marrying gives us full inheritance, insurance, funerary, imagration, etc. rights" cries.
If I have a close friend that is of the same gender, my employer will allow me to declare a domestic partnership, and then they would be covered by medical insurance. Yet, if I have a brother that lives with me, that is unable to work, they won't cover him. Why should I not be allowed to "marry" him to get him covered. There are no genetic issues, nor is there a requirement in law for intercourse to take place. If love is the determining factor, this fits. Same application to an aunt that is 65+, my employer's insurance is better than the stuff that the government can provide.

Why shouldn't a 17 year old and a 14 year old be allowed to marry? The laws amongst various levels of government are not consistant as is. Two 17 year olds can get married in many areas.

Koko, the gorilla, did in fact convey interest to one of the human males that she knew, while showing no interest in the male gorilla that she shared a facility with.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;131149]I would have to say no to the irrelevance of some of those.

People bring up the idea that they love someone and that because of this they should be allowed to marry. There are also brought up the "marrying gives us full inheritance, insurance, funerary, imagration, etc. rights" cries.
If I have a close friend that is of the same gender, my employer will allow me to declare a domestic partnership, and then they would be covered by medical insurance. Yet, if I have a brother that lives with me, that is unable to work, they won't cover him. Why should I not be allowed to "marry" him to get him covered. There are no genetic issues, nor is there a requirement in law for intercourse to take place. If love is the determining factor, this fits. Same application to an aunt that is 65+, my employer's insurance is better than the stuff that the government can provide.

Why shouldn't a 17 year old and a 14 year old be allowed to marry? The laws amongst various levels of government are not consistant as is. Two 17 year olds can get married in many areas.

Koko, the gorilla, did in fact convey interest to one of the human males that she knew, while showing no interest in the male gorilla that she shared a facility with.[/QUOTE]

1) so your telling me that there are no marriages of convenience now?

I think that the argument is invalid because it is present in the current system. There is no test to prove that two people love each other. I think you'll find that marriages for better conditions (health care, property, power, citizenship) are much more common that you think among straight marriages. so im not sure why it would suddenly become a problem

also what about someone who is gay who cant marry who he wants marrying some women to get her heathcare. If i understand your argument correctly gay marriage would avoid this and there for be a good idea.

2)what about arranged marriages that are just as valid they have a much higher probability of not having the individuals "love" each other.

3)i think that the 17 and the 14 year old are a little beyond the scope of the question posed. but again lets try to apply the same logic. Straight people are allowed to marry now but not until they are of consenting age. how would this be any different if two adults of the same sex wanted to get married?

conclusion:
I hate to say it but i cant think of one socially unacceptable act that is not already present in straight marriages ( except homosexuality of course) that would be brought down about the people of earth if a minority of people were willing to except wedding vows. [B]and lets keep in mind that the homosexuals that would be getting married are most likely already living together anyway so for all intents and purposes except legal they are already married.[/B] and yet rapture is not upon us

(please excuse my crappy spelling)

[quote=Uncwilly;131149]I would have to say no to the irrelevance of some of those.

People bring up the idea that they love someone and that because of this they should be allowed to marry...[/quote]

With this latest posting and several other similar ones from you earlier, I think you are saying something on the following lines. I'll spell it out here for the clarity and ask you if I'm right or, if not, where I am misrepresenting you. Once we have your views clearly stated then we can tackle those instead of your innuendo which Jwb52z and crash893 have been forced to deal with.

Is Uncwilly saying:
- that gay relationships are not based on genuine love in the way that straight relationships are?
- that gay relationships are always based on convenience such as health insurance, tax considerations, etc (whereas straight relationships are based on romantic love)?
- that gay relationships are always trivial and comparible with a passing interest such as Koko the gorilla might show to her keeper (whereas straight relationships are important)?
- that the partners involved in gay relationships are typically immature and therefore their relationships are unwise and comparible with under-age relationships (unlike straight relationships)?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;131179]Is Uncwilly saying:
- that gay relationships are not based on genuine love in the way that straight relationships are?
.............
[/QUOTE]

[B]No, I never [/B]said or implied those things.

My main question is: Should love should be a/the creteria for allowing (any) people to marry?

If so, and if it is also about the benefits accorded to married people, why not make it even more open than what many are currently suggesting?

My arguement is, if there are changes to be made, why not look at it even more broadly? If the arguements are made because of "feelings" (which is what love is), let's explore it more, before passing any new law, so that the new law will better serve even more people. If I have a business partner, we can enter into a contract that affords some of these benefits, and with additions (like medical power of attorney) more, but can not under current law achieve a true "blood brother" status. While expanding marriage, this would be the time to codify these other sacred bonds.

BTW, Cheesehead's arguements about the 19th and ERA are fairly sound. The existing laws cover so many things. Assualt and Battery are crimes, if they are not being enforced by local prosecutors in hate crime situations, that does not mean that the law is bad.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;131188][B]No, I never [/B]said or implied those things.

My main question is: Should love should be a/the creteria (sic) for allowing (any) people to marry?

If so, and if it is also about the benefits accorded to married people, why not make it even more open than what many are currently suggesting?

My arguement (sic) is, if there are changes to be made, why not look at it even more broadly? [/QUOTE]

Not "any", but "adults of sound mind". The law recognizes that minors
do not have the same full rights as adults. They can not enter contracts,
for example. And marriage is a contract.

Otherwise, I agree. If people want polyandrous or other marriages, I see
no reason not to accomodate them.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;131195]Not "any", but "adults of sound mind". The law recognizes that minors
do not have the same full rights as adults. They can not enter contracts,
for example. And marriage is a contract.[/QUOTE]
By "any", I was refering to LGBT or S, not those in a vegitative state, the wholly incompetent, etc.

[quote=Uncwilly;131188][B]No, I never [/B]said or implied those things.

My main question is: Should love should be a/the creteria for allowing (any) people to marry?

If so, and if it is also about the benefits accorded to married people, why not make it even more open than what many are currently suggesting?

My arguement is, if there are changes to be made, why not look at it even more broadly? If the arguements are made because of "feelings" (which is what love is), let's explore it more, before passing any new law, so that the new law will better serve even more people. If I have a business partner, we can enter into a contract that affords some of these benefits, and with additions (like medical power of attorney) more, but can not under current law achieve a true "blood brother" status. While expanding marriage, this would be the time to codify these other sacred bonds.

BTW, Cheesehead's arguements about the 19th and ERA are fairly sound. The existing laws cover so many things. Assualt and Battery are crimes, if they are not being enforced by local prosecutors in hate crime situations, that does not mean that the law is bad.[/quote]

My apologies to you. I thought you were ridiculing the opening of marriage to same sex couples by comparing that with extending "marriage" to all sorts of other cases which would be ludicrous to most people, but you weren't doing that at all.

If the law in the USA is inadequate to deal with certain types of business partnership - and I have no idea of the status of American law on this - then that has to be a legitimate issue in itself. I've never heard it suggested before that marriage law could be used and I am impressed by the idea. However, if this broadening of marriage to business partnerships is unlikely to find favour with public opinion and law makers, as I suspect would be the case, then I would say don't let gay marriage falter on this issue, just open it up for lesbian and gay couples for now because the discrimination has gone on long enough.

Has anyone been able to give a decent reason why any marriage ( a religious institution) should any business of the government what so ever?

and if so should the government be able to regulate other religious activities like baptisms of homosexuals as well?

I think as far as the US government is concerned all "marriages" should be civil unions.

[quote=Jwb52z;131084]Cheesehead, my friend I hope by now around here, why do you feel the need to speak for me or retranslate my posts now?[/quote]No, no -- that's just one of my ways of responding, showing that I could say the same thing except for certain substitutions.

I'm sorry.

I've been doing that for years, but never before noticed that possibility of misinterpretation as you note. I'll try to be careful about that in the future.