Can Someone Explain this Gay Marriage Thingy?
 

What benefit do you get from being married except collecting your lovers social security if they die or if you were married for ten years?

they get to antagonize society :thumbsup

You could have just asked "whats this marriage thing?" for the same list I guess? Maybe a married person will chime in on the benefits of marriage.

If you toss out the weddings that happen because a girl gets knocked up, the reasons for getting married are probably 99.9% the same for gay couples as they are for straight couples. Love, money, security, commitment, yadda yadda. It's really not that complicated.

Resentment ...

Estates, taxes, children, next of kin type of decisions, etc.

Many of the rights enjoyed automatically by married couples can be approximated with additional preparations by gay and lesbian couples, but do not hold the same strength legally. So, even if a couple put both their names on a mortgage, for example, if one party dies their surviving family members can still make a legal claim to part of the estate. Or custody of a child, for that matter. Leaving it in a will can still be contested, and would require the survivor to pay substantial inheritance taxes, which surviving spouses do not.

This just occurred to me: gay and lesbian couples have no spousal privilege (protection from being forced to testify against the other) as do legally recognized married couples. I predict an upcoming Law & Order that addresses this.

I don't see why it bothers people if gay couples get married, it seems like bigotry to me.

Im marries, all it is, is just one more step in securing your realation ship, in reality it means nothing, why gay people cant be married , its simple and our typical issue, religion!

In highschool i knew a girl who's mother was a lesbian and had her butch lover move in with them and she was one fucked up chick. She turned into the school slut fucking every guy around.

You could ask "what benefit does someone get by trying to keep someone from getting married?"

Thats a major problem - A lot of gay men/women are at odds with each other.

Some are fighting the State and others are fighting the Church.

Are there states that also ban gay civil unions?

What's the difference between a civil union, and marriage?

Where a difference doesn't exist, does the word used still matter to a gay couple?

There are over 1,000 rights and benefits afforded to married people in the US.

It's not a religious thing as it didn't start out as a religious act and atheists are not barred from getting married.

Religion just uses it to block it, like Southern Pastors tried to do with integration in the 60s.

Heres my quesion

Why is the government, federal or state, inserting itself in a legal contract between consenting adults?

Because fear motivates votes.

.. Because they like " small " government ...

The same people that were all arms up about Obam Care ( do you want the gov. between you and your doctor ) are promoting getting involved ( inserted ) in the " gay marriage" thing ...:2 cents:

Marriage violates the separation of church and state and also violates prostitution laws, but its a cash cow for the state and the lawyers.

He's gotta admit men fap onto a black hole but he cant say his wife he does that too.

It's not about "gay marriage" per se. It's about not being discriminated against for being gay. If it was purely about "marriage" as far as rights of married couples are concerned, civil unions and clearly defined rights would be a solution to not forcing people to redefine the concept of marriage and actually pushing it through, but thats not what people are fighting about or for.

It's amazing to think that with the world's problems today, this is even a big issue!

Let the gays be gay, but just keep them the fuck away from me...

civil union is the legal part of the marriage and must accompany the 'religious marriage' in other words you may have a civil union with out a religious marriage however all religious marriages must also have a civil union.

the 'preacher' handles the civil paperwork unobtrusively for church weddings

It's a completely pointless issue.

People should have the rights to do what they want and love who they want and declare it if they want, and thats it.

Bible Thumpers on the other hand think this is evil, and are attempting to influence the weak minded in government. Mittens Romney is the weakest of all weak minded so they easily won him over.

There are so many more important things in the world. It's ridiculous that this has become any kind of political discussion.

If this appeals to you more go live in Somalia.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5_PcHUa3j5...00/somalia.jpg

I would imagine the list of benefits would be staggering. Everything from taxes to home ownership to next of kin to being able to legally visit your partner / spouse when they are in the ICU, etc.

I don't understand what the issue is. If gays want to get married, let them. Doesn't affect anyone at all.

Pirates, man. Pirates!

Because they basically have no govt?

No, you want a world without govt and I pointed out what happens when there is no govt or a weak one. You readily admit how fucked up people are so you either get controlled fucked up or chaotic fucked up. Pick your poison.

Are you an alien from another planet, lol?

And your solution is?

Law and Order takes place in NY. We're past that shit.

Yes.

North Carolina last week voted to ban gay marriage. The measure that passed also bans any kind of same sex domestic unions from having legal status so civil unions in that state are now also not allowed for gay people. Also, in Colorado they recently had a measure that would have allowed civil unions for gay couples and it didn't pass so technically they are illegal there as well.

I'm sure there are other states as well.

It is all idiocy. What are people so afraid of that they have make laws banning marriage from some just because they are different?

Was it just a joke on Letterman, or is it legal to marry a 16 yr old, and/or your cousin in north carolina?

and until recently it was illegal, the marriage contract was binding like any other and if you wanted to ditch your spouse you had to show cause.

From at least 2000 years ago until the 1970s, the commitment was taken seriously and divorce was allowed only if the other person was unfaithful or certain other reasons.

So right or wrong, the sanctity viewpoint is consistent.

I'm not taking a position for or against gay marriage, but the people who talk about the sanctity of marriage are consistent in that they feel that in marriage "they become one flesh". So they say divorce, like amputation, is to be avoided whenever possible, though sometimes it's necessary.

That's what some people feel, but marriage is simply a contract by definition. Any adult should be allowed to enter a contract with whomever they want.

You are assigning one groups definition of marriage to apply to everyone.

Answering own question, why the heck not I say.

I'm not assigning anyone's definition to everyone. I simply pointed to out that people who talk about the sanctity of marriage generally DO view it as a binding contract, so they would normally say you shouldn't get divorced without cause.

Again, I'm not taking sides (partly because it's no fun to agree with the majority here), simply pointing out the mistake in JohnnyClip's post. People who espouse sanctity of marriage" may be wrong, but they are not inconsistent on this point. They absolutely consistent in saying that marriage is sacred.

It's actually the progressives who are inconsistent regarding gay marriage / divorce in the way he implied. The progressives disagree with themselves because on the one hand they say marriage a civil contract, but then also say you can walk away whenever you want (divorce whenever you feel like it.) You're not allowed to ignore your contracts whenever it's convenient, so the progressives can't be right on both points. They could be right that it's a contract like any other, or they could be right that it's okay to break your vow at will, but they can't be right about both.

Incidently, that's one small reason that some people see gay marriage as yet another example of people not taking marriage seriously. Rightly or wrongly, that's the perception. I've known three gay couples who said they were married. In every case I saw, they were dating other people within a year. That's not marriage. Marriage is til death do we part, for better or worse. Certainly some gay couples take it seriously. The perception is that most do not.

I get what you are saying. Let me change it to 'they' want to assign one definition to everyone.

As for civil union vs marriage. I used to be perfectly content with civil unions but after the disrespect shown over the marriage issue with state constitutional changes and all, only support marriage now. I think a lot of gay people are like that and there is where the Jesus freaks dun goofed.

Marriage vs civil union is kind of like a water fountain for blacks and a water fountain for whites.

Very little difference. So is it right or wrong to say it's a fair solution?

When I was a kid in the 70's, I remember when a divorced lady moved into our small town of about 1500 people. It was a total scandal.. divorced!!

There used to be, and in some places still is, a social stigma for divorced people.

These days, all states basically just make you report your past marriages before issuing a new marriage license.

I know a girl now who just had a baby with a man she's not married to. She's still legally married but seperated from her last husband who beat her and refused to sign the paper for some reason. Nobody gives a damn really from a social standpoint.

So naturally this is not about protecting marriage in any way shape or form, it's all bullshit to disciminate against the "others" of our age. Some politicians even get up and state that allowing a man to marry a man will lead to allowing a man to marry a horse and they're arguing this shit with a straight face.

I tell ya, you dont need any sort of special powers to perceive the bullshit in this argument anymore. It's on it's last leg.

Agreed. They want the word to have a definition. Many people say "I think whether you're gay or straight, you should be able to (and already are able to?) will your estate to whomever you please. I'm happy for companies to pay for health coverage for their employees, spouse, boyfriend, or whoever else they want. I simply don't want to change the definition of the word 'marriage'".

I don't happen to agree with those people, but I think I understand their point of view. I happen to support gay marriage, though I do have some concerns that gay "marriage" could be like "medical" marijuana. 99% of the time, there's nothing medical about marijuana, people just like getting stoned. I think we need to take marriage MORE seriously, not less, so I would support a bill that said anyone can get married, there is a three month waiting period, and some sort of penalty for divorce, so people - gay or straight - take marriage seriously.