Conneticuit ok's Same-Sex Marriage

[cch5432]

I read the other thread. Here's the question that you haven't answered. How is the state encouraging homosexual marriage? Is the state offering incentives for homosexuals to marry that heterosexuals can't qualify for? The way I read it, Conn. is giving the same rights to homosexual couples that you and I enjoy.

Like I said in the above post though, those rights are offered by the state because children bore by heterosexual couples are a financial incentive to the state.

 

The state is encouraging homosexual marriage just as much as the state encourages heterosexual marriage. Considering that homosexual marriage:

 

A) Is against natural law (what should be the basis of civil law)

B) Is against my religion

C) Adds nothing to society

D) Has no future tax revenue

E) Through added time, documents, etc. puts more of a burden on elected representatives and therefore more of a burden on the taxpayers' wallets

 

I have no reason to support it.

[Pancake]

Like I said in the above post though, those rights are offered by the state because children bore by heterosexual couples are a financial incentive to the state.

 

The state is encouraging homosexual marriage just as much as the state encourages heterosexual marriage. Considering that homosexual marriage:

 

A) Is against natural law (what should be the basis of civil law)

B) Is against my religion

C) Adds nothing to society

D) Has no future tax revenue

E) Through added time, documents, etc. puts more of a burden on elected representatives and therefore more of a burden on the taxpayers' wallets

 

I have no reason to support it.

 

I see no negative reason to let two people who love each other get married... Which I am not about telling people what they should do with their life either.

[cch5432]

I see no negative reason to let two people who love each other get married... Which I am not about telling people what they should do with their life either.

 

I assume you are steadfast in your support for a father to marry his daughter? Or two brothers to get married? Or a man to marry his great-uncle? Or a woman to marry her cat?

 

I mean, you are not about telling people what to do with their life, and what is the harm?

 

I don't see what homosexual marriage does to benefit society.

[Mr.Network]

I see no negative reason to let two people who love each other get married... Which I am not about telling people what they should do with their life either.

 

What if my business partner and I are both of the same sex and are involved in scheme that gets one of us indicted and the government offers the other one immunity to testify against the first? We both divorce our opposite sex spouses and marry each other, thus invoking the well-settled law that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against another spouse.

 

Is that really any different than getting married to take advantage of a person health insurance or other benefit?

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think it makes sense to draw it at two otherwise unmarried people of opposite sex. No homosexuality, no polygamy, no bestiality, no ET's. Two humans of opposite sex.

[mexitucky]

Like I said in the above post though, those rights are offered by the state because children bore by heterosexual couples are a financial incentive to the state.

 

The state is encouraging homosexual marriage just as much as the state encourages heterosexual marriage. Considering that homosexual marriage:

 

A) Is against natural law (what should be the basis of civil law)

B) Is against my religion

C) Adds nothing to society

D) Has no future tax revenue

E) Through added time, documents, etc. puts more of a burden on elected representatives and therefore more of a burden on the taxpayers' wallets

 

I have no reason to support it.

 

Not saying that you do, nobody needs to support the lifestyle. You do however, have to support the right to choose which lifestyle that a person chooses to have. If you don't, you get on a slippery slope of allowing the majority to dictate which is right and which is wrong, instead of allowing justice to dictate.

[mexitucky]

Contrary to prevailing liberal wisdom, the fact that a panel of liberal judges ignores their oath and rules based on its members' political beliefs does not mean that the ruling was just or correct. As a matter of fact, the only restraint on the US Supreme Court is the remote possibility of impeachment. That is why placing a person such as Obama, who has shown little respect for the US Constitution as it is written, would be such a big mistake.

 

It's not prevailing liberal wisdom, it is the way the constitution was written. The state supreme courts use the power given to them by the US Supreme court to decide a constitutional question that the US Supreme Court has left to the states to decide. Nothing is more constitutional than that. They found that it infringed on their liberty rights. Have you read the opinion, or are you letting your personal beliefs cloud your judgment?

[mexitucky]

What if my business partner and I are both of the same sex and are involved in scheme that gets one of us indicted and the government offers the other one immunity to testify against the first? We both divorce our opposite sex spouses and marry each other, thus invoking the well-settled law that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against another spouse.

 

Is that really any different than getting married to take advantage of a person health insurance or other benefit?

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think it makes sense to draw it at two otherwise unmarried people of opposite sex. No homosexuality, no polygamy, no bestiality, no ET's. Two humans of opposite sex.

 

Are you serious? I'll give you the last paragraph as your opinion, however the top is just way too far out there.

[mexitucky]

I assume you are steadfast in your support for a father to marry his daughter? Or two brothers to get married? Or a man to marry his great-uncle? Or a woman to marry her cat?

 

I mean, you are not about telling people what to do with their life, and what is the harm?

 

I don't see what homosexual marriage does to benefit society.

 

In a way, you are ok w/ that b/c you want the government to be completely hands off of marriage, and allow a person's religion to decide.

 

Explain how homosexual marriage is detrimental to society other than those pugnant to your religious views.

1. Will it lead to an increase in crime?

2. Will it lead to an increase in health risks?

3. Will it cause a breakdown in our society?

4. Will it destroy the fabric of American family life?

 

Seperate your religious convictions, your personal emotions, and decide this on what the constitution asks people to decide this on. Does this person have a right to choose who to marry?

[Mr.Network]

Are you serious? I'll give you the last paragraph as your opinion, however the top is just way too far out there.

 

As serious as one can be discussing homosexual marriage with strangers on a message board.

 

My example is only one of many abuses that can be envisioned by devaluing the instituion of marriage. Many of our laws are based on a man-woman marriage. You can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Society and our laws that govern it have to be changed in order to allow the "normalization" of homosexual marriage.

 

You brought up the slippery slope. What is next? Polygamy? As long as it is with consenting adults we have no right to tell them what to do, right?

[Pancake]

What if my business partner and I are both of the same sex and are involved in scheme that gets one of us indicted and the government offers the other one immunity to testify against the first? We both divorce our opposite sex spouses and marry each other, thus invoking the well-settled law that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against another spouse.

 

Is that really any different than getting married to take advantage of a person health insurance or other benefit?

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think it makes sense to draw it at two otherwise unmarried people of opposite sex. No homosexuality, no polygamy, no bestiality, no ET's. Two humans of opposite sex.

 

What would be the difference if your business was a woman?

[Mr.Network]

What would be the difference if your business was a woman?

 

Would be the same but would still be manipulating the process. My point is that if we allow people who seemingly care about each other to get married just so they can get access to the other person's health care or other benefits then it is only factually different than my example. It is still a manipulation that wasn't envisioned by our society and its laws.

[Pancake]

Would be the same but would still be manipulating the process. My point is that if we allow people who care about each other get married so they can get access to the other person's health care or other benefits then it is only factually different than my example. It is still a manipulation that wasn't envisioned by our society and its laws.

 

Whats the difference when a man and woman uses manipulation?

[cch5432]

Not saying that you do, nobody needs to support the lifestyle. You do however, have to support the right to choose which lifestyle that a person chooses to have. If you don't, you get on a slippery slope of allowing the majority to dictate which is right and which is wrong, instead of allowing justice to dictate.

I agree very strongly with what you are saying about whether or not the majority would dictate what is right and wrong- very JS Mill-esque of you. The way to test democracy is to see how the weakest and most vulnerable members of society are treated.

 

However, homosexuality has not been outlawed in the US. Gays, as wrong as I find it, can live together and form a partnership or whatever. However, I don't think it is the place of any government to support and encourage something that provides no benefit to itself. Furthermore, American taxpayers should not foot the bill for something that they do not support.

In a way, you are ok w/ that b/c you want the government to be completely hands off of marriage, and allow a person's religion to decide.

 

Explain how homosexual marriage is detrimental to society other than those pugnant to your religious views.

1. Will it lead to an increase in crime?

2. Will it lead to an increase in health risks?

3. Will it cause a breakdown in our society?

4. Will it destroy the fabric of American family life?

 

Seperate your religious convictions, your personal emotions, and decide this on what the constitution asks people to decide this on. Does this person have a right to choose who to marry?

Like I said, marriage is not a constitutional right, and I don't think the gov't should be involved.

 

That being said, the only reason that the government does involve itself is because of the potential tax revenue that future children provide from heterosexual marriages. Homosexual marriages do not provide that same potential for future tax revenue.

 

As for your 4 listen scenarios, they sound like the stereotypical anti-gay marriage arguments. I hope you are not trying to project them on me. The only legitimate one in this debate, IMO, is number 2. I think that violating natural law leads to physical and mental health risks that American taxpayers should not be burdened with.

[Mr.Network]

Whats the difference when a man and woman uses manipulation?

 

It is a (man)ipulation. Get it?

 

Seriously, I used an extreme example to show how long-standing laws can be manipulated because we are attempting to change a society on which the laws are based.

 

Laws are a reflection of society and how the people in that society want to act and have others act.

 

If each, or any, state in this Country wants to make homosexual marriage legal, then that is their right. But, I think the people should have a say in it and not a panel of jurists.

 

This societal change is too wide-sweeping to be left up to a small number of politicians (State SC Justices included) to decide. Let the people decide by changing their state Constitutions to explicitly state who can be involved in a state-recognized marriage.

[mexitucky]

I agree very strongly with what you are saying about whether or not the majority would dictate what is right and wrong- very JS Mill-esque of you. The way to test democracy is to see how the weakest and most vulnerable members of society are treated.

 

However, homosexuality has not been outlawed in the US. Gays, as wrong as I find it, can live together and form a partnership or whatever. However, I don't think it is the place of any government to support and encourage something that provides no benefit to itself. Furthermore, American taxpayers should not foot the bill for something that they do not support.

 

Like I said, marriage is not a constitutional right, and I don't think the gov't should be involved.

 

That being said, the only reason that the government does involve itself is because of the potential tax revenue that future children provide from heterosexual marriages. Homosexual marriages do not provide that same potential for future tax revenue.

 

As for your 4 listen scenarios, they sound like the stereotypical anti-gay marriage arguments. I hope you are not trying to project them on me. The only legitimate one in this debate, IMO, is number 2. I think that violating natural law leads to physical and mental health risks that American taxpayers should not be burdened with.

 

Marriage very much is a constitutional right. Read Lovings v. Virginia. While not specifically cited in the Bill of Rights, it has been held that it falls within a person's fundamental Liberty right.

 

I'll respond to the second part next.