Gay Marriage

[XoravaX]

Uhhh...

What else is a wedding other than a contract drawn up between two people to share their lives? What else is a divorce other than a termination of that contract?

What we've been talking about for a few days now is changing the contract from being only one recognised by the government to being a contract any two (or more) people can enter into, privately.

Government has a role as the third party of the contract. Government recognises it and grants special rights to those. Monetary benefits, heath insurance benefits etc.

Or do you really mean that there are none granted in the US? Like that some taxing doesn't go by the person's individual tax rates, but rather than a common one? That the persons aren't allowed for raised social security payments if both of them are poor, being a bit more than two's individual payments would be separately? That the state doesn't grant any interest-rate-less loans to help newly-weds to have children? If marriage really grants no rights except legal, why not it be just a contract. But in countries where it does, it's far more complicated.

 

[Famine]

Government has a role as the third party of the contract. Government recognises it and grants special rights to those. Monetary benefits, heath insurance benefits etc.

Or do you really mean that there are none granted in the US? Like that some taxing doesn't go by the person's individual tax rates, but rather than a common one? That the persons aren't allowed for raised social security payments if both of them are poor, being a bit more than two's individual payments would be separately? That the state doesn't grant any interest-rate-less loans to help newly-weds to have children? If marriage really grants no rights except legal, why not it be just a contract. But in countries where it does, it's far more complicated.

The point is that it does, but shouldn't.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Uhhh...

What else is a wedding other than a contract drawn up between two people to share their lives? What else is a divorce other than a termination of that contract?

What we've been talking about for a few days now is changing the contract from being only one recognised by the government to being a contract any two (or more) people can enter into, privately.

Termination is different from contesting.

 

[Famine]

Termination is different from contesting.

The low side of estimates for the divorce rate in the USA is 40% - 40% of marriage contracts are broken. 95% are uncontested - an amicable settlement is reached between the two parties - requiring no lengthy court action.

So...

Still waiting for that 2% of all private contracts that result in court action.

 

[Exorcet]

The clashes can be overcome, but they're better avoided. The casualties of an overcome clash are often high, as is the virtually complete destruction of the Native American cultures.
Until both of the cultures have reached a point there won't be a clash, they should be avoided if possible. That's basic respect of the local culture by the tourists/immigrants.

Gay couples aren't out to conquer land and start an empire. They want equal rights and treatment, just as minorities did. The casualties lost in a clash could be large (but probably no where near as much as you make it out to be in this case) but the casualties caused by avoiding the clash are infinite.

 

[ShobThaBob]

So...

Still waiting for that 2% of all private contracts that result in court action.

They're not in any way related. I'm waiting for a good reason why we should privatize something that has a good system set up already that's almost universally recognizable by lenders, hospitals, and other states.

 

[XoravaX]

Gay couples aren't out to conquer land and start an empire. They want equal rights and treatment, just as minorities did. The casualties lost in a clash could be large (but probably no where near as much as you make it out to be in this case) but the casualties caused by avoiding the clash are infinite.

But they can be found offending by different cultures.
Or rather calling it marriage could cause misconceptions amongst people, which could cause a cultural clash between the gay-liberal and conservative societies, which can be seen offending to the societies where it's not allowed (remember, we've got to respect them too). Thus it could cause problems, which was my initial point in that whole culture clash thing (which went slightly off-topic by that FoolKiller said a cultural clash isn't that bad thing as the US was built on one, to which I replied in that destruction of a lot of peoples is pretty bad IMO).

Only direct casualties are those who commit suicide because they can't/couldn't have a "marriage". Nitpicking, every death causes infinite casualties by the generations yet to come, but that's just ridiculous. And I bet there are no infinite amount of gays in the western world to commit a suicide till gay "marriage" is worldwide viewed as appropriate as a conventional marriage. It's just that the whole world isn't ready for it yet.

Especially when half of Western World countries already have a system that grants marriage-like rights (some w/o adoption, some with), I don't really see how many would die for it not being called marriage, in law books, if such a system came to the rest. People have the right to call it whatever they want.


And for God's sake, people already have equal rights. It's just that the law doesn't recognise a "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex. Who said people have to be gay to use the same-sex "marriage", two of my schoolmates wanted to exploit our social security system and as their girlfriends refused to marry them just to exploit the system, they went to register their "relationship" which is about the same as same-sex "marriage" minus adoption rights, in my country that is.

The point is that it does, but shouldn't.

I see. It can be exploited at its current state, like what those schoolmates of mine did.


However I wonder what people attending a "straight pride" parade would be called. Neo-nazis? Racists? Gay-haters? Right-wing extremists?

 

[Keef]

a good system

Well, your standards outlining good systems aren't very stringent, are they.

almost universally recognizable by lenders, hospitals, and other states.

By law, of course, not because they necessarily want to recognize it.

The problem with having our government involved in marriage is that discrimination is unconstitutional. Our government was established in part to protect the natural and civil liberties of all citizens, yet banning gay marriage is clearly a violation of gays' freedom to choose who to marry.

 

[ShobThaBob]

The problem with having our government involved in marriage is that discrimination is unconstitutional. Our government was established in part to protect the natural and civil liberties of all citizens, yet banning gay marriage is clearly a violation of gays' freedom to choose who to marry.

Which is why marriage rights aren't something that should be up to states to legislate.

 

[Exorcet]

But they can be found offending by different cultures.
Or rather calling it marriage could cause misconceptions amongst people, which could cause a cultural clash between the gay-liberal and conservative societies, which can be seen offending to the societies where it's not allowed (remember, we've got to respect them too).

If people take offense at something that's none of their business it's their problem. If they're confused, they should just ask and then listen to the explanation. One society doesn't need to live only for the sake of another.

Thus it could cause problems, which was my initial point in that whole culture clash thing (which went slightly off-topic by that FoolKiller said a cultural clash isn't that bad thing as the US was built on one, to which I replied in that destruction of a lot of peoples is pretty bad IMO).

I agree with him. I don't see a culture clash as a bad thing. The situation in the US just went sour in part of because of ignorance based on old ideas (white = the best, and it wasn't until populations assimilated that this way of thinking started to die).

Only direct casualties are those who commit suicide because they can't/couldn't have a "marriage". Nitpicking, every death causes infinite casualties by the generations yet to come, but that's just ridiculous. And I bet there are no infinite amount of gays in the western world to commit a suicide till gay "marriage" is worldwide viewed as appropriate as a conventional marriage. It's just that the whole world isn't ready for it yet.

I didn't mean casualties as in deaths. The idea that gays can't marry just leaves the door open to inequality and mistreatment. The adoption thing being an example. Marriage is the same whether it's between heterosexuals or homosexuals, there is no need for a different term to distinguish the two, and the term marriage has taken on a particular meaning in today's world, one that doesn't match up with union or other terms. The insistence on separating them will only make things worse.

And for God's sake, people already have equal rights. It's just that the law doesn't recognise a "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex. Who said people have to be gay to use the same-sex "marriage", two of my schoolmates wanted to exploit our social security system and as their girlfriends refused to marry them just to exploit the system, they went to register their "relationship" which is about the same as same-sex "marriage" minus adoption rights, in my country that is.

You've already said that gay couples can't adopt, and the thread has covered the difference in taxes that can exist between straight and gay couples. That's not equal.

However I wonder what people attending a "straight pride" parade would be called. Neo-nazis? Racists? Gay-haters? Right-wing extremists?

They have the right to have such a parade, though it would probably seem strange to onlookers. Heterosexuals haven't been repressed, nor have they been denied equality.

 

[XoravaX]

The problem with having our government involved in marriage is that discrimination is unconstitutional. Our government was established in part to protect the natural and civil liberties of all citizens, yet banning gay marriage is clearly a violation of gays' freedom to choose who to marry.

Marriage, as legal institution, can be completely defined by the government. If a government says a marriage is between a man and a woman, it's in no way legally wrong. They decide who are able to marry each other, as the whole institution is regulated by them.

A violation of freedom, maybe, but not against any laws. Specifically not discrimination.

However if that's a violation of freedom, then I might call any legal limitations as violations of freedom.

What if marriage would be changed to "extra benefits for a couple that are getting children"? That couldn't possibly be seen as discriminative as it wouldn't limit anything out, just that it would be extra that's available for anyone.
See, it's not limiting gays out. It's a legal institution of some sort, and such tend to be regulated.

Saying it's discrimination is overreacting.


Also, what would be a marriage without legal rights & governmental benefits? Isn't the main point of gay "marriage" the legal rights indeed?

If people take offense at something that's none of their business it's their problem. If they're confused, they should just ask and then listen to the explanation. One society doesn't need to live only for the sake of another.

If only people did understand other cultures there would be no problem with the clashes. But at least people should avoid doing things that can be seen offensive by the others, as if people see something offensive they don't usually understand it either, explanation or not.

You've already said that gay couples can't adopt, and the thread has covered the difference in taxes that can exist between straight and gay couples. That's not equal.

Individuals have equal rights. Law is about the rights of an individual, mostly.
However my gripe is with calling it marriage. I'm not against the legal rights for gay couples. Not calling it marriage isn't against the individuals' equality either, as everyone has equal chance to marry, as law doesn't look into one's sexual orientation.

Just because it's the law doesn't mean that it's constitutional. Speak for your country, not for ours.

As above. I believe your constitution says every individual is equal, not that every couple is equal.
I grant you that the system couple-wise is unequal, but not at individual level.


Generally this post may be a bit hard to understand, as I feel like I'll fall asleep at any moment. But my point is that at individual level everyone is equal, be there gay "marriage" or not.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Marriage, as legal institution, can be completely defined by the government. If a government says a marriage is between a man and a woman, it's in no way legally wrong. They decide who are able to marry each other, as the whole institution is regulated by them.

A violation of freedom, maybe, but not against any laws. Specifically not discrimination.

However if that's a violation of freedom, then I might call any legal limitations as violations of freedom.

What if marriage would be changed to "extra benefits for couples that are getting children"? That couldn't possibly be seen as discriminative as it wouldn't limit anything out, just that it would be extra that's available for anyone.
See, it's not limiting gays out.

Saying it's discrimination is overreacting.

Just because it's the law doesn't mean that it's constitutional. Speak for your country, not for ours.

 

[FoolKiller]

At least we didn't destroy a dozen peoples and their cultures and steal their land. The only one wiped off so far has been Byzantine, in 1453. Oh and nowadays it's more between the US and Middle East than us and them.

Who is we? You are in Finland and your example was the Middle East and I contrasted that to the US, which has many cultures mixed in and managed to get beyond their major issues that you described.

Europe isn't a whole nation as it self, but filled of more than 50 separate nations, each of them with their own culture. No wonder there hasn't been a peace longer than 50 years due to the constant clashes. Would you like a different people (looking all the same as you but with different manners) coming to expand all over your neighbourhood (by force sometimes) and surrounding areas and trying to force their culture to you, just because there are little room in their original place? Or just behaving differently (ie. in a way something mustn't be done in your society) compared to you in some annoying matters (eg. loudness, littering, rudeness and selfishness)? No wonder the heavier cultural clashes start wars.

Take away the war part and you just described one side of the US immigration debate.

The clashes can be overcome, but they're better avoided. The casualties of an overcome clash are often high, as is the virtually complete destruction of the Native American cultures.
Until both of the cultures have reached a point there won't be a clash, they should be avoided if possible. That's basic respect of the local culture by the tourists/immigrants.

Well, in the gay marriage debate it is the homosexual couples being harmed. So, how do you avoid a cultural clash when not having the debate openly is what is causing the harm?

I can't really link it, as I read it from Science.

You mean this Science? Feel free to just link the free annotation. You'll need to find it as you have been too vague for me to find it.

It was of single parents whose children had problems of either understanding, or growing as a person of the gender of the missing parent. Therefore I understand that applies to some extent to same-sex couples as well. However, some of it might have been caused by lack of attention by the single parent who is twice as busy as a couple.

While I wait for you to back your opinion, I will present links to research backing mine.

American Psychological Association study on lesbian and gay parenting

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Discovery report on a study in the Journal of Marriage and Family on the impact on children of their parents' genders

In a finding that confronts deeply rooted beliefs about parenting, a new study concludes that parents' genders have little impact on children -- suggesting that same-sex couples are as effective at raising children as heterosexual couples.

On average, children succeed most when raised by two parents rather than one. The parents' genders, however, make little difference in terms of a child's development, according to a landmark study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

I wouldn't suggest it was fine if there was empirical evidence that it could harm the child in any way.

If something can be done to avoid it, it should be always done. Not ban, but prioritisation. I can't possibly see a situation where there would be more children available to adopt than there are straight couples that can't get a child but would want to have one, and are steady enough.

The Adoption Institute seems to think otherwise.

Nearly Half of Children Adopted from Foster Care Waited More Than a Year After Termination of Parental Rights
Children in foster care with a case goal of adoption may wait years for adoptive placement. First, courts must terminate the birth parents' parental rights, making the children legally eligible for adoption. Children wait again for an adoptive placement (unless they are adopted by their foster parents or a relative). Finally, they wait for the legal adoption process to be completed.

Recent data shows that children's experiences vary widely. Of the 46,000 foster children adopted in 1999, half waited less than one year for adoption after their birth parents' rights were terminated, and nearly half waited a year or more. Six percent waited three to four years.

Many Children Spend Years in Foster Care
Almost 70 percent of the children waiting to be adopted had been in continuous foster care for two years or more; twenty-five percent for five years or more.

Many More Adoptive Homes Needed
Even with the recent increases in adoptions from foster care, the number of children waiting for adoption on September 30, 1999 was more than two-and-a-half times the number of children adopted during that year.

Also, lesbian women can also use artificial insemination without it being a problem to them (as "natural way" might be), so the infertile should be prioritised anyway. However, that doesn't solve the issues in my arguments, but a birth rate rise in a country where it's less than 2 per woman is always welcome.

So, because they are gay they should have to use an invasive medical procedure that is also very expensive? And what of homosexual men?

Oh, and odd names are forbidden in my country. It's up to the priest/government official to decide if it's normal enough. As such, "girl's names" can't be given to boys and vice versa.

Wow, you guys must think Penn Jillette is a horrible criminal with his kid named Moxie Crimefighter. When asked about it he said, "It's only the losers named Dave that think having an unusual name is bad. Who cares what they think? Their name is Dave."

And only five people born the same year as my daughter have her name. My stance is that it is my daughter and it is none of the government's gorram business what her name is. She can go by a different name and even legally change it if she doesn't like it. But outside of her, my wife, and myself it is no one's business. If I were in your country I would fight to have that law repealed as a very far overreach of government.

Should the third party (government) it affects be forced to comply without signing, as it is a contract signed by two people alone? As far as I understand, that isn't possible without a drastic change of laws and maybe even constitution (as it violates the basic contract laws, to make one without a party's consent). Also, how does the system know if a contract has been revoked, and an ex-husband wants his share of the deceased wife's belongings, by supplying an old copy of the now-revoked contract, or even a faked one?

Divorce would be different as normally revoking a contract requires consent of all parties. In a normal divorce it goes uncontested, but in majority of cases it's just either of the two parties who seeks it in the beginning. As of that, the person seeking divorce has to address it directly to the another party instead of government, which can lead to getting pressed to not to really do it.

How is its abuse prevented if no authority would watch after such contracts?

Governmental records of contracts with such importance should always be kept, as otherwise there'll be one hell of a contract tangle to solve.

If you want to go the contract way, why have any extra governmental support (insurance, funding etc.) when the government clearly isn't a consenting party of the contract?

Did you read the whole discussion on this? The proposal was that we remove government and these unjust benefits from the process altogether and deregulate our systems to allow any two consenting adults to merge legal and financial standings.

They're not in any way related. I'm waiting for a good reason why we should privatize something that has a good system set up already that's almost universally recognizable by lenders, hospitals, and other states.

If it is a good system why is this a national debate?

But they can be found offending by different cultures.

I find your name regulation and France's burqa ban offensive. Can you remove those now?

Or rather calling it marriage could cause misconceptions amongst people, which could cause a cultural clash between the gay-liberal and conservative societies, which can be seen offending to the societies where it's not allowed (remember, we've got to respect them too). Thus it could cause problems, which was my initial point in that whole culture clash thing.

Are you suggesting allowing gay marriage in one country will create international friction with more conservative societies? Would it be any worse than giving women the right to vote, positions of power, or serving certain types of meat on every street corner?

It's just that the whole world isn't ready for it yet.

Some of them aren't ready for things I do daily. So?

However I wonder what people attending a "straight pride" parade would be called. Neo-nazis? Racists? Gay-haters? Right-wing extremists?

What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?

Which is why marriage rights aren't something that should be up to government to legislate.

Fixed.

Marriage, as legal institution, can be completely defined by the government.

It doesn't mean it should.

If a government says a marriage is between a man and a woman, it's in no way legally wrong. They decide who are able to marry each other, as the whole institution is regulated by them.

Which is why I propose getting government out of it.

I might add that the cultural clashes early in the US' history you presented were not legally wrong by your definition. I am not saying you support oppression, but that clearly it is obvious that something being legally allowed does not mean it is OK or just.

A violation of freedom, maybe, but not against any laws. Specifically not discrimination.

However if that's a violation of freedom, then I might call any legal limitations as violations of freedom.

What if marriage would be changed to "extra benefits for a couple that are getting children"? That couldn't possibly be seen as discriminative as it wouldn't limit anything out, just that it would be extra that's available for anyone.
See, it's not limiting gays out. It's a legal institution of some sort, and such tend to be regulated.

Saying it's discrimination is overreacting.

Someone who defended their opinion by giving a dictionary definition of marriage may want to be careful of how they describe specific terms.

Discrimination is not defined by law.

noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

Also, what would be a marriage without legal rights & governmental benefits?

Are you married? If so, don't utter this statement to your wife if you value your relationship.

As a married man, my marriage is a lifelong commitment, made before God and our friends and family, to the woman I love near unconditionally through good and bad, trust explicitly to the point of giving her full access to all finances and legal decisions in my absence, bear a child with, and would die to protect. The fact that I had to take time between the ceremony and pictures to sign a piece of paper from the government to make it official meant nothing more than a $32 intrusion into my personal relationship.

Isn't the main point of gay "marriage" the legal rights indeed?

Yes, and I offered a proposal to allow all legal advantages to be 100% equal, grant other firms of financial dependence access, and let marriage be the religious, personal and/or intimate thing that it is supposed to be.

But unfortunately people can't believe we can do something without government dipping their nasty little fingers into it.

If only people did understand other cultures there would be no problem with the clashes. But at least people should avoid doing things that can be seen offensive by the others, as if people see something offensive they don't usually understand it either, explanation or not.

Um, that would require not practicing religion unless everyone becomes part of the same religion. This is virtually impossible. Eating meat offends people. Your stance on gay adoption offends gay people. Gay adoption offends certain religious groups. Who has to change?

Sorry, but we aren't automatons. Some of us like being individuals with our own personalities. Some of us want to name our kids Moxie Crimefighter and some people are gay and want to be treated just like the rest of us without changing who they are.

Individuals have equal rights. Law is about the rights of an individual, mostly.
However my gripe is with calling it marriage. I'm not against the legal rights for gay couples. Not calling it marriage isn't against the individuals' equality either, as everyone has equal chance to marry, as law doesn't look into one's sexual orientation.

Requiring someone to act against their nature or desire to access their rights is equal?

As above. I believe your constitution says every individual is equal, not that every couple is equal.
I grant you that the system couple-wise is unequal, but not at individual level.

How is it equal for a gay man to have to make a fiduciary and legal commitment to a female to receive the same treatment?

But my point is that at individual level everyone is equal, be there gay "marriage" or not.

And my point is that the whole problem is in government being allowed to dictate who can and cannot get married.

 

[Famine]

They're not in any way related.

Yes they are.

You stated that if we changed the requirements for a marriage contract to be the same as any other private contract, there'd be no protection under law. I pointed out contract law.

You then stated that if we changed the requirements for a marriage contract to be the same as any other private contract, there would be more instances of marriage contracts being dragged through courts. I simply asked you to demonstrate or provide evidence that other private contracts are dragged through the courts at a higher rate than present marriage contracts. After some obfuscating I provided you with a start point - showing that private home loan contracts end in court action at a rate half that of marriage contracts.

If you cannot support your point, withdraw it.

I'm waiting for a good reason why we should privatize something that has a good system set up already that's almost universally recognizable by lenders, hospitals, and other states.

Funnily I don't remember you asking that, or I'd have answered it. As chance would have it though, the post above mine says:

Did you read the whole discussion on this? The proposal was that we remove government and these unjust benefits from the process altogether and deregulate our systems to allow any two consenting adults to merge legal and financial standings.

There is no good reason for government to be involved in the first place, but boy has it made itself at home. In doing so it tramples on the rights of people - like homosexuals - in preventing them from merging their lives.

 

[Keef]

Marriage, as legal institution, can be completely defined by the government. If a government says a marriage is between a man and a woman, it's in no way legally wrong. They decide who are able to marry each other, as the whole institution is regulated by them.

The only reason it's a legal matter is because government made it a legal matter. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years. In Ancient Greece it was nothing more than a mutual agreement, not even overseen by a private church or organization.

A violation of freedom, maybe, but not against any laws. Specifically not discrimination.

So it's unconstitutional...but not illegal. How do you gather that exactly?

However if that's a violation of freedom, then I might call any legal limitations as violations of freedom.

Most are. Our government's job is to defend the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. Speeding - and even drunk driving - doesn't violate any of those things.

 

[XoravaX]

Who is we? You are in Finland and your example was the Middle East and I contrasted that to the US, which has many cultures mixed in and managed to get beyond their major issues that you described.

By "we" I meant Christian Europeans as whole. Finland has never had any dispute with Middle East other than that we've got troops in Afghanistan. As much as Europe is divided to different nations, the history is common, and the peoples are united by having been over thousand years under the same authority, the Catholic Church, that even before reformation.

By the way, Finland isn't a cultural entity either. There are two main cultural divides which are easily recognisable for us. There are Swedish-speaking and Finnish-speaking, then there are clear social differences between the east and west. Then there are also another indigenous people, the Sami in the north. Also, we've had a several-hundred-year-old rivalry to the Russians who've tried to destroy our own culture now five times in the last 200 years and make us a part of them. We had also a bitter civil war, and there is envy between the different parts of the country, because the north and east aren't doing as well as the south and west.

Take away the war part and you just described one side of the US immigration debate.

Indeed. But people living on their ancestral lands are pretty eager to defend their rights to stay as the majority there. The cultural clashes have caused the largest wars in Europe. There is also a clear difference between (continental) Europeans and Americans, that due to constant warring continental Europeans are pretty reserved towards other neighbouring nations, which is in no way an example of a successful cultural clash. A successful one would happen without wars.

You mean this Science? Feel free to just link the free annotation. You'll need to find it as you have been too vague for me to find it.

I'm conservative enough to have read the physical magazine (thus can't find it from the site). But I know it doesn't quite well apply to the case of two parents of the same sex as it was only of single parents. I think it is a bit applicable to that too, but it might not be.

I wouldn't suggest it was fine if there was empirical evidence that it could harm the child in any way.

Why not actually test it, as a governmental test? Let some steady same-sex couples adopt a child and see what happens. If it causes no more problems than the conventional adoption, it should be made completely legal. That would require a 20-year observation period, but at least it would give a definite answer to the whole debate.

So, because they are gay they should have to use an invasive medical procedure that is also very expensive? And what of homosexual men?

Medical procedure or not, it'd be their biological child. Also, at least here it's far easier to get to artificial insemination than to adopt a child, and it's available to any woman unlike adoption (also being mostly government paid).

And only five people born the same year as my daughter have her name. My stance is that it is my daughter and it is none of the government's gorram business what her name is. She can go by a different name and even legally change it if she doesn't like it. But outside of her, my wife, and myself it is no one's business. If I were in your country I would fight to have that law repealed as a very far overreach of government.

Oddly enough no-one has tried to repeal it. Any name that has existed here, is also able to be given to anyone, so it just forbids creating new weird names or combinations. Like, there is a surname that is the same as would be "Wash". The law would prevent naming a child with a given name that's "Morning" (which exists by the way).

Also surnames are regulated in a way that old surnames that belong to one family line only can't be taken by others than their direct descendants, and names of noble families can't be taken if more than two generations have been in between with a different name.

Did you read the whole discussion on this? The proposal was that we remove government and these unjust benefits from the process altogether and deregulate our systems to allow any two consenting adults to merge legal and financial standings.

Government wants children to keep the society stable and prevent the population from declining, which would lead to a collapse of the whole governmental and financial system. I find it difficult to change so that there would be no benefits.

I find your name regulation and France's burqa ban offensive. Can you remove those now?

We don't force them in your country.

Are you suggesting allowing gay marriage in one country will create international friction with more conservative societies? Would it be any worse than giving women the right to vote, positions of power, or serving certain types of meat on every street corner?

It would surely create friction, which would lead to being suspicious of the other. Or at least that happens in Europe a lot, that a country chooses a different path than the neighbouring and they become suspicious of each other because they see the other wanting to force their views to them. Even if that wouldn't be the case.

I might add that the cultural clashes early in the US' history you presented were not legally wrong by your definition. I am not saying you support oppression, but that clearly it is obvious that something being legally allowed does not mean it is OK or just.

Starting a war and a genocide weren't illegal in the States? By law, the Native Americans didn't own the land, but an invasion and genocide surely are against it. Also, such actions are unconstitutional as it violates the property rights of an individual.

Or if it wasn't a declared war, all offensive operations towards the Native Americans were illegal and the deaths murders.

Discrimination is not defined by law.

Did you read to what I replied that to? My point was that it is not unconstitutional, that it isn't discrimination by the constitution.

Are you married? If so, don't utter this statement to your wife if you value your relationship.

As a married man, my marriage is a lifelong commitment, made before God and our friends and family, to the woman I love near unconditionally through good and bad, trust explicitly to the point of giving her full access to all finances and legal decisions in my absence, bear a child with, and would die to protect. The fact that I had to take time between the ceremony and pictures to sign a piece of paper from the government to make it official meant nothing more than a $32 intrusion into my personal relationship.

Yeah, and I can love my girlfriend without being married to her. Not being (yet) married doesn't mean that it can't be life-long or something.

The main point here is that everything except the religious approach and governmental benefits (financial and adoption) can be already got without marriage. We could have a common bank account and grant each other the rights to make legal decisions on behalf of each other, based on the contract laws. What you are suggesting is that the whole "marriage" would be just religious/spiritual and all other would be based on contracts.

Yes, and I offered a proposal to allow all legal advantages to be 100% equal, grant other firms of financial dependence access, and let marriage be the religious, personal and/or intimate thing that it is supposed to be.

If that, I could just call me and my girlfriend married (if it wasn't for that by our religion we wouldn't be). Wouldn't that somewhat devalue the word?
It would just change the meaning of it to like "being in love with someone".

Which is my main gripe with the whole change. That the word "marriage" would be somewhat devalued.

Um, that would require not practicing religion unless everyone becomes part of the same religion. This is virtually impossible. Eating meat offends people. Your stance on gay adoption offends gay people. Gay adoption offends certain religious groups. Who has to change?

No, it wouldn't, at least I think people are able to tolerate other religions as long as they don't try to force their views to each other. I tolerate vegetarians and for that I want them to tolerate me. I tolerate gay couples as long as they don't try to force me their views (and as long as they tolerate me). And in a gay majority I wouldn't start preaching how I couldn't love a man like they do. To explain my point calmly but not to be fanatic.

The problem here is that the ignorant usually do just the other way. Rub their views in the others' face. They also might not understand others' points at all and be seriously offended by them.

The cultural clashes wouldn't be a problem if everyone behaved themselves (didn't try to force their views/culture to others) and tolerated each others' views enough (be they conservative or liberal). But as there are people who don't, such clashes create friction between the groups that can ignite problems.

Now I'm not completely sure if every gay couple that would marry themselves would be wise enough to keep it to themselves enough, especially while abroad.

Requiring someone to act against their nature or desire to access their rights is equal?

How is it equal for a gay man to have to make a fiduciary and legal commitment to a female to receive the same treatment?

Of course it's not morally right/equal, but at an individual level it is. Law doesn't look into one's sexual orientation, instead it just recognises an individual. Or should we go back to the days when it viewed people differently by default, I don't think anyone would want that as it, if anything, is discriminative.

And my point is that the whole problem is in government being allowed to dictate who can and cannot get married.

The whole system of a government requires them being able to dictate what is possible and what isn't, as long as it's supported by the majority.
You seem to support a minimal government system, which would work in the US as it's large enough for it.
I don't support it because it just wouldn't work where I live. Imagine there being a neighbour 25-fold your population which would want to annex you (or have you in their sphere of influence). A strong government is needed to be strong enough to resist that, as otherwise you'd be too weak to stand against it. I hope you get it why I support a government-regulated system, as I wouldn't like to live in Russia.



EDIT:

So it's unconstitutional...but not illegal. How do you gather that exactly?

How can you define it clearly as a violation of freedom unlike several other limitations? Such law's interpretation is pretty hard.

Just for such issues the laws should be made as clear as possible.

 

[Famine]

A strong government is one which ferociously protects its citizens' rights, both domestically and internationally, against those that would trample on them - not one that does the trampling.

The whole system of a government requires them being able to dictate what is possible and what isn't, as long as it's supported by the majority.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)

You'll see this particular phrase a lot in this forum.

 

[XoravaX]

Government is a legal authority of some sort and has the right to designate its funding to whatever they want as long as the citizens support it. If a government wants to pour money for newly-weds and is supported, there is little for you to change it.

The court then decides if it's against the constitution/laws or not, not the people.

A strong government is one which ferociously protects its citizens' rights, both domestically and internationally, against those that would trample on them - not one that does the trampling.

There are sacrifices that have to be made, something that cause small discomfort for the greater good (see the anti-terrorism laws for example, they trample on individuals' rights). There is no mind keeping laws that protect everyone's rights directly if they don't protect everyone collectively.

But I don't see how this strong vs. minimal government debate any more applies to gay marriage. It's not a question of a strong or minimal government, as it works as a principle in either one. I don't support a government that tramples one people's rights, but a government that is a legal authority. As long as human rights aren't trampled on any more than they are defended by the laws, the government works right.

I just tried to get you to understand why I support government as an authority instead of taking all its power more directly to the citizens. If government is nearly to being stripped from its power to decide what can and what can't be done, it's a minimal government. Of course it shouldn't be as invasive as a totalitarian government, but you see, a government that is no authority can't effectively force things like mandatory conscription that are necessary for the whole existence of my country.

What do you think is more important, the whole nation and its right to exist and live on its homeland or the rights of individuals that would cease to be if there wouldn't be a homeland any more? In my county the matter is as grave as that, we've been militarily attacked by Russians twice since 1917 (granted, once it was because we allowed Germany to attack them through our land), been de facto at war thrice, and threatened more than we can count (last time a month ago when their chief-in-general said that Finland belongs to Russia's sphere of influence and questioned our rights to perform a war exercise our own soil). The right to exist or other rights, tell me this.

If our government lost its respect as a legal authority or declined into a minimum government (without enough power/authority and wits to resist through military action) the Russians would come and say "it looks like no-one governs you, we've came to fix it" and there would be no more Finland.

And the people here seem to be content enough with such a government, why would all the Nordic countries have had similar governments for over 50 years?

But this is pretty much off-topic.

 

[Famine]

Government is a legal authority of some sort and has the right to designate its funding to whatever they want as long as the citizens support it.

That'll be a mandate, not a right and again you describe a majority. Do we need that quote about rights not being voted away by a majority?

If a government wants to pour money for newly-weds and is supported, there is little for you to change it.

And that makes it not wrong... because..?

There are sacrifices that have to be made, something that cause small discomfort for the greater good (see the anti-terrorism laws for example, they trample on individuals' rights). There is no mind keeping laws that protect everyone's rights directly if they don't protect everyone collectively.

There is no justification for any government to ignore the rights of any one of its citizens.

But I don't see how this strong vs. minimal government debate any more applies to gay marriage. It's not a question of a strong or minimal government, as it works as a principle in either one.

Then I'm kind of scratching my head as to why you brought it up. There are other, more appropriate threads if you wish to continue the questions you posed in the three paragraphs you posted after this sentiment...


Governmentally-required recognition of marriage in my country, your country and Foolkiller's country - and in fact the majority of countries (if not all) - ignores the rights of some of its citizens. This is part of the problem the prevents those citizens' rights being recognised. Reminding government that it may not discriminate against (or for) any of its citizens may rectify this problem. Removing the requirement of any marriage to be recognised by the government removes this problem.

 

[XoravaX]

Then I'm kind of scratching my head as to why you brought it up. There are other, more appropriate threads if you wish to continue the questions you posed in the three paragraphs you posted after this sentiment...

I brought it up because I supported government having the mandate to designate money to whom they view appropriate. That is, to give monetary benefits to married couples (in this case be they conventional or same-sex). A minimal government couldn't, due to self-regulation that removes the most of social security system and taxes.

And that makes it not wrong... because..?

What makes it wrong, to be honest? Government has the mandate for that, given by the people in the elections.

Governmentally-required recognition of marriage in my country, your country and Foolkiller's country - and in fact the majority of countries (if not all) - ignores the rights of some of its citizens. This is part of the problem the prevents those citizens' rights being recognised. Reminding government that it may not discriminate against (or for) any of its citizens may rectify this problem. Removing the requirement of any marriage to be recognised by the government removes this problem.

You are right, but I don't see it as the best option to remove governmentally-recognised marriage. That civil union system discussed a few pages earlier is a lot better one in my opinion.

The contract system would cause a problem with adoption, see: a state consists of three parties, parliament/government, judiciary and police (of which only the first two are now taken into account). If the judiciary doesn't recognise a marriage as it'd be nothing more than a contract between two people only, such couples couldn't be given any specific legal benefits, as the benefits of the contract would be regulated by contract law alone. This would lead to that the government can't limit adoption to only couples, as there wouldn't be anything the judiciary could regard as a couple, if the contract isn't anything more than between two people alone. Anyone, any single person could then adopt a child at will.

Or do you mean that it should be state-recognised in a way that the judiciary would recognise the contract between the two as something specific? That way government could also designate money to them, so if some parties supporting it gained enough support in the parliament they could return the monetary aid to those couples who have signed the contract.

There is no justification for any government to ignore the rights of any one of its citizens.

So you disagree with the counter-terrorism laws, which violate privacy rights? They still are for the greater good, and I see little harm in them compared to the possibility of saving innocent people's lives.

 

[Famine]

I brought it up because I supported government having the mandate to designate money to whom they view appropriate. That is, to give monetary benefits to married couples (in this case be they conventional or same-sex). A minimal government couldn't, due to self-regulation that removes the most of social security system and taxes.

So you brought a point up that you think was relevant to then say that it's not relevant?

What makes it wrong, to be honest? Government has the mandate for that, given by the people in the elections.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

You are right, but I don't see it as the best option to remove governmentally-recognised marriage. That civil union system discussed a few pages earlier is a lot better one in my opinion.

Except you're keen to avoid offence, and that route offends all those who hold "marriage" dear...

So you disagree with the counter-terrorism laws, which violate privacy rights? They still are for the greater good, and I see little harm in them compared to the possibility of saving innocent people's lives.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Trampling rights is never for the greater good. It's for convenience. Terrorists seek to destroy our way of life - but they have no need to when our governments do it for them!

 

[XoravaX]

So you brought a point up that you think was relevant to then say that it's not relevant?

It is relevant in the debate between a government-recognised and a private contract marriage, but it is not important in the existence of gay "marriage". Thus, important to the debate there is going on here but not the main topic of the thread.


It isn't about individual rights if married (conventional or gay) couples are given monetary support. A couple is not an individual. It therefore doesn't create inequality at an individual level nor it violates individual rights.

Except you're keen to avoid offence, and that route offends all those who hold "marriage" dear...

It doesn't do it any more than your and Foolkiller's system.

Trampling rights is never for the greater good. It's for convenience. Terrorists seek to destroy our way of life - but they have no need to when our governments do it for them!

You can hardly say surveillance and state intelligence agencies do any harm to you, do they, by violating the privacy rights?

Or don't you hold the lives of innocent people at a higher value than some privacy? A few people shall die but privacy rights stay intact, huh?

No innocent deaths = greater good than idealistically holding to individual rights.

 

[Exorcet]

If only people did understand other cultures there would be no problem with the clashes. But at least people should avoid doing things that can be seen offensive by the others, as if people see something offensive they don't usually understand it either, explanation or not.

If I remember the Saudi's were too keen on women in the military during GW1. That would be the worst reason to restrict women from serving in the military. Saudi Arabia just needs to get into the modern era.

There is a difference between being polite and being stupid. When you're keeping people from exercising their rights for the sake of avoiding a clash, it's the latter.

Individuals have equal rights. Law is about the rights of an individual, mostly. However my gripe is with calling it marriage. I'm not against the legal rights for gay couples. Not calling it marriage isn't against the individuals' equality either, as everyone has equal chance to marry, as law doesn't look into one's sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is looked into since a woman can marry a man, but a man can't and vice versa. The issue with marriage also branches into the financial and then there is the adoption issue.

Then there is the discrediting of gay marriage by not allowing to be called marriage. I've heard people respond to news of legalized gay marriage with phrases such as "it's not marriage, those are just two sick men/women", "Don't call it marriage" etc. Then they label civil unions as that unacceptable thing that gays do. The idea that gay couples are different from straight ones needs to be stomped out. It will only cause problems.

 

[Famine]

It is relevant in the debate between a government-recognised and a private contract marriage, but it is not important in the existence of gay "marriage". Thus, important to the debate there is going on here but not the main topic of the thread.

So why tell me it's not relevant?

I'll go back to the points I wasn't going to make because you told me it wasn't relevant then.

Your government tramples on your rights. They ignore your privacy - you let them. They ignore your right to property - you let them. They pass laws to deny you your rights - you let them. Moreover, the majority of you keep telling them to do it!

No wonder other countries threaten you - your people are weak and allow themselves to be ruled by people who should be serving them. Guess what - mine too. The majority of people don't waste their time thinking of what's right and wrong, they think of what they can get in terms of money (benefits) and power (taking money and rights off other people).

A strong government, as I said, isn't one that overreaches its powers and invades your life in the name of safety and liberty. It's one that defends your rights ferociously, both domestically and internationally. It can't do that by stealing from you and monitoring you, but by respecting you.

It isn't about individual rights if married (conventional or gay) couples are given monetary support. A couple is not an individual. It therefore doesn't create inequality at an individual level nor it violates individual rights.

This is a meaningless paragraph. Everything is about individual rights - the rights of any individual discriminated for or against.

It doesn't do it any more than your and Foolkiller's system.

Really?

There are approximately 150 million people in the USA who are married. Please feel free to tell them they are not married but civil unioned, that they didn't ask each other to marry them but to civil union them, do not possess a marriage certificate but a civil union certificate. See how much offence you cause then...

For someone trying to avoid causing offence, you've sure picked an odd path.

You can hardly say surveillance and state intelligence agencies do any harm to you, do they, by violating the privacy rights?

Yes. They have no business knowing where I am or what I am doing or saying at any time. No-one does.

The price of eternal vigilance is freedom.

Or don't you hold the lives of innocent people at a higher value than some privacy? A few people shall die but privacy rights stay intact, huh?

That sounds curiously close to the logic slavers used to deny the rights of their slaves. Sure they weren't "free", but they got food and water. It was for the greater good to trample on their rights so that slightly fewer of them died. Right?

 

[XoravaX]

Sexual orientation is looked into since a woman can marry a man, but a man can't and vice versa. The issue with marriage also branches into the financial and then there is the adoption issue.

Then there is the discrediting of gay marriage by not allowing to be called marriage. I've heard people respond to news of legalized gay marriage with phrases such as "it's not marriage, those are just two sick men/women", "Don't call it marriage" etc. Then they label civil unions as that unacceptable thing that gays do. The idea that gay couples are different from straight ones needs to be stomped out. It will only cause problems.

No, sexual orientation isn't looked into, as that way there would be preconditions for each sexual orientation, making the law inequal. Instead, the law just doesn't recognise a union between two persons of the same sex (they don't necessarily have to be homosexual, and a conventional male-female union doesn't have to be between two straight people).

Of course if looked ethically it is inequal, but not legally. Unless the constitution says all couples have equal rights.

But saying gay couples aren't different from straight couples has a single problem. That they physically are different (but nothing more I suppose).


What if all kinds of marriage/union would be called "civil union" but the law itself "marriage law"? That way it would cause minimum discomfort IMO.

Your government tramples on your rights. They ignore your privacy - you let them. They ignore your right to property - you let them. They pass laws to deny you your rights - you let them. Moreover, the majority of you keep telling them to do it!

No wonder other countries threaten you - your people are weak and allow themselves to be ruled by people who should be serving them. Guess what - mine too. The majority of people don't waste their time thinking of what's right and wrong, they think of what they can get in terms of money (benefits) and power (taking money and rights off other people).

Those who lead us are supported by the people, because they are strong enough to stand against the threat and threaten back. I could never support a politician who gave in to Russia's claims.

But the weakness is the main point. I know my people are weak. Only if there were five-fold amount of people here, just 25 million. But a mere 5.4 million compared to Russia's 130 million isn't really enough for us to feel completely safe (just look at the numbers, who is the one with less people). However our government hasn't given in to them in any matter since Soviet Union fell, and that's why they are annoyed by us.
The foreign relations have been such of a cock-fight since our independence, since they say we threaten them, which also shows how weak they are (even with their 130 million). A paranoid relationship at its finest, eg. they were really pissed off by the 60 thousand strong offensive exercise carried out near the eastern border last year.

You don't understand my society well enough though. We've always have to had to cooperate and make compromises on our individual rights for the community. We've always stood up for each other, for if we didn't we would be long destroyed.
For example, trespassing lands is allowed and it's seen as a right of an individual. Our system isn't quite identical to yours and some things are valued differently.

It's the cooperation that is power here. Even the socialists and conservatives can sit in the same governing cabinet, like currently.

Also, such limiting laws haven't been passed lately, but most of them were there in the beginning while Finland was still strictly Christian society that frowned upon being different. Some of them were even constitutional, which were corrected as late as 2000 when the constitution was updated to match current situation. But things like the matter with the state religion are still in the constitution and also deep in the society. The church's position hasn't even been questioned as it's a kind of a default value in my society.

Really?

There are approximately 150 million people in the USA who are married. Please feel free to tell them they are not married but civil unioned, that they didn't ask each other to marry them but to civil union them, do not possess a marriage certificate but a civil union certificate. See how much offence you cause then...

For someone trying to avoid causing offence, you've sure picked an odd path.

Getting both rid of the term "marriage" AND removing extra monetary support from them doesn't? The old marriage certificates wouldn't have to be made redundant, like how the old US dollars are still valid.

Or should I be against the "gay marriage" concept?

Yes. They have no business knowing where I am or what I am doing or saying at any time. No-one does.

The price of eternal vigilance is freedom.

They don't, but if all surveillance would be ceased it would be almost impossible to track criminals, for example.
Oh, and by the way, your mobile can be tracked if you just have power and connections on. Considered keeping it offline/turned off?

That sounds curiously close to the logic slavers used to deny the rights of their slaves. Sure they weren't "free", but they got food and water. It was for the greater good to trample on their rights so that slightly fewer of them died. Right?

It's not like our privacy is completely destroyed, such as there are government observers in your bedroom or something. Or like 1984. What you are suggesting is extreme violation, while these in our societies are minor violations.

Also you failed to follow my principle that as long as the rights acquired by violating other rights are more important than those violated, it's okay. Violating the slaves' right of freedom (as their independence of others) is far more serious than the gain by supplying them with food. They could probably supply it themselves.

But are you serious you value almost meaningless things over people's lives? I know that giving in in such matters is weak, but no-one has the right to decide over another person's life. Being stubborn and holding desperately onto ideals is really stupid. If a terrorist threatened to carry out an attack and placed an ultimatum, of course you shouldn't comply. But if you can, by not giving in, prevent deaths, of course that is done.

If your child was killed in a shooting that would have been able to be prevented by surveillance, would you still think surveillance is wrong?

In your opinion your right to privacy is more valuable than someone's right to live?


You didn't answer to me last time about my suspicions of the contract-based marriage:

The contract system would cause a problem with adoption, see: a state consists of three parties, parliament/government, judiciary and police (of which only the first two are now taken into account). If the judiciary doesn't recognise a marriage as it'd be nothing more than a contract between two people only, such couples couldn't be given any specific legal benefits, as the benefits of the contract would be regulated by contract law alone. This would lead to that the government can't limit adoption to only couples, as there wouldn't be anything the judiciary could regard as a couple, if the contract isn't anything more than between two people alone. Anyone, any single person could then adopt a child at will.

Or do you mean that it should be state-recognised in a way that the judiciary would recognise the contract between the two as something specific? That way government could also designate money to them, so if some parties supporting it gained enough support in the parliament they could return the monetary aid to those couples who have signed the contract.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm conservative enough to have read the physical magazine (thus can't find it from the site).

They have a search feature. I can't give you the exact link to this thread if I'm not currently on the site, but I sure know how to Google it.

But I know it doesn't quite well apply to the case of two parents of the same sex as it was only of single parents. I think it is a bit applicable to that too, but it might not be.

How does single parent home apply to homosexual parent couple? Did you even read what I linked and quoted? Ignoring scientific data and then continuing to state your assumptions doesn't back up your point.

Why not actually test it, as a governmental test? Let some steady same-sex couples adopt a child and see what happens. If it causes no more problems than the conventional adoption, it should be made completely legal. That would require a 20-year observation period, but at least it would give a definite answer to the whole debate.

Did I link to and quote studies that examined data from the past 20-30 years and found no difference in outcomes based on gender or sexual preference of the parents?

American Psychological Association study on lesbian and gay parenting

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Discovery report on a study in the Journal of Marriage and Family on the impact on children of their parents' genders

In a finding that confronts deeply rooted beliefs about parenting, a new study concludes that parents' genders have little impact on children -- suggesting that same-sex couples are as effective at raising children as heterosexual couples.

On average, children succeed most when raised by two parents rather than one. The parents' genders, however, make little difference in terms of a child's development, according to a landmark study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

Definitely looks like it.

You may also recall that I mentioned my cousin and her wife participating in the foster to adopt program.
Before you use this as an example that gay marriage is unnecessary to give them this right, it is important to note that they are in the system through a law allowing a single guardian, that was implemented due to the shortage of adoptive homes. They don't both get to become legal guardian, so if there is an accident one of them will not be recognized to give medical consent for the child.

Medical procedure or not, it'd be their biological child.

One state here tried to pass a law requiring an internal ultrasound before an abortion could be performed. It was ridiculed as intrusive and ordering on legally enforced sexual assault. How would saying, "You only get to raise kids if you let us put sperm in you," any different?

Also, at least here it's far easier to get to artificial insemination than to adopt a child, and it's available to any woman unlike adoption (also being mostly government paid).

It is easier and quicker here too, but that doesn't make it comfortable or non-intrusive. Nevermind that in some quest to maintain genetic lineage you cause one of the couple to have less of a link to the child. My daughter already clings to my wife to the point of causing me to occasionally feel jealous (of whom depends on the situation) and I can only imagine how much worse I would feel if I had no genetic connection to my daughter.

Oddly enough no-one has tried to repeal it. Any name that has existed here, is also able to be given to anyone, so it just forbids creating new weird names or combinations. Like, there is a surname that is the same as would be "Wash". The law would prevent naming a child with a given name that's "Morning" (which exists by the way).

Could an adult change their own name to Tyrannosaurus Rex?

Government wants children to keep the society stable and prevent the population from declining, which would lead to a collapse of the whole governmental and financial system. I find it difficult to change so that there would be no benefits.

Coming from an area where teen and unwed pregnancy is an issue, I don't think we need the government to unfairly give special incentives to married people to keep the population going. I mean, we have Octomom and the Duggers (18 kids, I think).

We don't force them in your country.

And we wouldn't force whatever our marriage laws are on any other country. I don't get your point.

Especially considering you go straight into this:

It would surely create friction, which would lead to being suspicious of the other. Or at least that happens in Europe a lot, that a country chooses a different path than the neighbouring and they become suspicious of each other because they see the other wanting to force their views to them. Even if that wouldn't be the case.

Yet if I say I don't like laws in your country that you have no problem with you brush it off. Which is it? Not forcing or constant tension?

Starting a war and a genocide weren't illegal in the States? By law, the Native Americans didn't own the land, but an invasion and genocide surely are against it.

You said:

If a government says a marriage is between a man and a woman, it's in no way legally wrong. They decide who are able to marry each other, as the whole institution is regulated by them.

By your logic;

If a government says a Native American't can't live on certain land, it's in no way legally wrong. They decide who are able to own and inhabit land, as the whole institution is regulated by them.

Also, such actions are unconstitutional as it violates the property rights of an individual.

The government at the time did not legally recognize constitutional rights of Native Americans as they were not US citizens. Even when the 14th Amendment was added it specifically says citizens, which were defined as naturally born or naturalized.

I don't agree with it, but that is why it was legal.

Or if it wasn't a declared war, all offensive operations towards the Native Americans were illegal and the deaths murders.

Not a declared war. So back to my above points.

Did you read to what I replied that to? My point was that it is not unconstitutional, that it isn't discrimination by the constitution.

The Constitution grants all citizens equal protection of the law. It does not define discrimination any more than it describes marriage. If the law discriminates equally it still discriminates.

Yeah, and I can love my girlfriend without being married to her. Not being (yet) married doesn't mean that it can't be life-long or something.

Do you need government to verify it or legitimize it for you? The point is that marriage, or any romantic relationship is not something that requires government enforcement or regulation.

The main point here is that everything except the religious approach and governmental benefits (financial and adoption) can be already got without marriage. We could have a common bank account and grant each other the rights to make legal decisions on behalf of each other, based on the contract laws.

And I say let all of it be allowable without marriage or special hoops to jump through.

What you are suggesting is that the whole "marriage" would be just religious/spiritual and all other would be based on contracts.

Religious, spiritual, or personal. But other than that, I think you get it.

If that, I could just call me and my girlfriend married (if it wasn't for that by our religion we wouldn't be).

Ding ding ding.

Wouldn't that somewhat devalue the word?

No more than filling out legal paperwork devalues the word. No more than high divorce rates. No more than men trying to have sex devalue the word love.

It would just change the meaning of it to like "being in love with someone".

How so? Would marriage cease to be a meaningful commitment? And let's review the definition of marriage again. At what point is government required for that?

Which is my main gripe with the whole change. That the word "marriage" would be somewhat devalued.

I find it is devalued by government involvement.

No, it wouldn't, at least I think people are able to tolerate other religions as long as they don't try to force their views to each other. I tolerate vegetarians and for that I want them to tolerate me. I tolerate gay couples as long as they don't try to force me their views (and as long as they tolerate me). And in a gay majority I wouldn't start preaching how I couldn't love a man like they do. To explain my point calmly but not to be fanatic.

The problem here is that the ignorant usually do just the other way. Rub their views in the others' face. They also might not understand others' points at all and be seriously offended by them.

Is it prohibitively offensive or just an issue among the ignorant? It's one or the other. Or are you saying that religion doesn't cause offense issues and cultural clashes but gay marriage would?

The cultural clashes wouldn't be a problem if everyone behaved themselves (didn't try to force their views/culture to others) and tolerated each others' views enough (be they conservative or liberal). But as there are people who don't, such clashes create friction between the groups that can ignite problems.

So who is being intolerant? The gay couple wishing to marry or the conservative/religious fundamentalists who don't believe they should? There is a disagreement and you could argue either side is forcing their views on others if you use the term force loosely enough.

Now I'm not completely sure if every gay couple that would marry themselves would be wise enough to keep it to themselves enough, especially while abroad.

Keep it to themselves? Not sure exactly what you mean.

So, what happens when a Jewish/Muslim couple go abroad? Or an interracial couple? Why is your offense policy only being applied to homosexuals?

The whole system of a government requires them being able to dictate what is possible and what isn't, as long as it's supported by the majority.
You seem to support a minimal government system, which would work in the US as it's large enough for it.
I don't support it because it just wouldn't work where I live. Imagine there being a neighbour 25-fold your population which would want to annex you (or have you in their sphere of influence). A strong government is needed to be strong enough to resist that, as otherwise you'd be too weak to stand against it. I hope you get it why I support a government-regulated system, as I wouldn't like to live in Russia.

Imagine breaking away from a massive empire with only 13 colonies and declaring limited government as the best way to go.

I brought it up because I supported government having the mandate to designate money to whom they view appropriate. That is, to give monetary benefits to married couples (in this case be they conventional or same-sex).

So to discriminate in favor of married people?

The contract system would cause a problem with adoption,

Again, I suggest to read my initial post explaining my proposal. I believe you will find a paragraph describing how adoption could be handled. I admit the whole thing is a quick summarization of what I think could work, but I did address all issues I could see.

So you disagree with the counter-terrorism laws, which violate privacy rights? They still are for the greater good, and I see little harm in them compared to the possibility of saving innocent people's lives.

Yes, I disagree with US citizens being assassinated on order of the president without being granted their due process.

 

[Famine]

Those who lead us are supported by the people

Those who lead you should be the people. Your government should serve.

because they are strong enough to stand against the threat and threaten back.

Apparently they threaten you more by overriding your rights and making you thankful of it!

But the weakness is the main point. I know my people are weak. Only if there were five-fold amount of people here, just 25 million. But a mere 5.4 million compared to Russia's 130 million isn't really enough for us to feel completely safe (just look at the numbers, who is the one with less people).

The weakness I refer to is not a lack of strength of numbers, but allowing yourselves to be lead and voting away each others' rights by pretending the majority gets to do that.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Populations everywhere do that.

You don't understand my society well enough though. We've always have to had to cooperate and make compromises on our individual rights for the community.

It's the individual's choice what to do with their rights, not the majority's.

Getting both rid of the term "marriage" AND removing extra monetary support from them doesn't?

You've lost me. YOU were supporting that. I am supporting getting government out of the business of saying what marriage is.

The old marriage certificates wouldn't have to be made redundant, like how the old US dollars are still valid.

The "Dollar" still exists. "Marriage" wouldn't if you got rid of it.

Or should I be against the "gay marriage" concept?

You should be in favour of marriage, regardless of who's doing it.

Ghost and horse can get married for all I care (if they can both demonstrate informed consent).

They don't, but if all surveillance would be ceased it would be almost impossible to track criminals, for example.

How fortunate that all of us get treated like criminals just so we have an excuse to track them.

Oh, and by the way, your mobile can be tracked if you just have power and connections on. Considered keeping it offline/turned off?

What mobile?

It's not like our privacy is completely destroyed, such as there are government observers in your bedroom or something. Or like 1984. What you are suggesting is extreme violation, while these in our societies are minor violations.

There is no such thing as a minor violation of rights.

Also you failed to follow my principle that as long as the rights acquired by violating other rights are more important than those violated, it's okay. Violating the slaves' right of freedom (as their independence of others) is far more serious than the gain by supplying them with food. They could probably supply it themselves.

The slavers thought they were doing them a favour. After all, who would want to live in Africa, with the disease, the dearth of food, the high death rate, the godlessness, the ravenous wild animals and the shortage of water?

No, far better to take them to England and the USA and provide them with a safe place to live, food and water in exchange for their lifetime of servitude. It's for their own protection, so their rights being violated is just a minor thing...

You're displaying a similar attitude.

But are you serious you value almost meaningless things over people's lives?

If rights are meaningless, the right to life is meaningless. Your move.

I know that giving in in such matters is weak, but no-one has the right to decide over another person's life.

Except, apparently, the government if the majority give them the mandate. Your move.

Being stubborn and holding desperately onto ideals is really stupid. If a terrorist threatened to carry out an attack and placed an ultimatum, of course you shouldn't comply. But if you can, by not giving in, prevent deaths, of course that is done.

If your child was killed in a shooting that would have been able to be prevented by surveillance, would you still think surveillance is wrong?

Yes.

In your opinion your right to privacy is more valuable than someone's right to live?

There is no necessity for them to conflict. If they conflict then the individual who has chosen to forfeit their rights by acting against another's forfeits their rights.

The right to life is not the right to be prevented from death and there is no possible way that retaining my right to privacy violates anyone's right to life.

You didn't answer to me last time about my suspicions of the contract-based marriage:

Oh no. Single people adopting. Single parents are just so horrible aren't they?

 

[XoravaX]

Those who lead you should be the people. Your government should serve.

Apparently they threaten you more by overriding your rights and making you thankful of it!

Currently they do serve. However, in 1918 after our civil war, this wasn't the case, and the victorious anti-socialist side dictated several laws to their will as the socialists were all jailed, to "prevent" another civil war from happening. Those laws are still in place, mostly.

The weakness I refer to is not a lack of strength of numbers, but allowing yourselves to be lead and voting away each others' rights by pretending the majority gets to do that.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Populations everywhere do that.

So as fear for the Russians, that leads us to allow our government to lead instead of serve? Yes, that exist here too, but it's either hid behind nationalism or seemingly being uninterested of the whole matter. Or then just being super-cynical of any actions of the Russians.

It's the individual's choice what to do with their rights, not the majority's.

Oh, I have to admit you won this one. But our society seems to think otherwise. There was a similar social (and governmental) pressure in the German Empire, to which we had close ties in 1917 and 1918 (and earlier unofficially, they had supported our separatist movement and trained them) and who intervened in our civil war and also expelled the Russian troops from here. We were even supposed to get a German king, but it all fell apart after their defeat in late 1918. However, the nationalistic mentality stayed and as our system didn't collapse later, in WWII like other German allies' did, so the same thought of common good over individual good is around here still to date. Blame Bismarck and Wilhelm II.

You've lost me. YOU were supporting that. I am supporting getting government out of the business of saying what marriage is.

It's all the same, there wouldn't be a legal definition of marriage. People could tell it whatever they want, just like in your system. But the marriage certificate could be valid. Or hell, then just call it all marriage. In the US that is.

The "Dollar" still exists. "Marriage" wouldn't if you got rid of it.

But the marriage certificate would, and it would still be valid. Which was my point in that Dollar analogy.

You should be in favour of marriage, regardless of who's doing it.

Ghost and horse can get married for all I care (if they can both demonstrate informed consent).

Ehh...
How would you get them to sign? Or how do they inform their consent?

How fortunate that all of us get treated like criminals just so we have an excuse to track them.

But people aren't normally tracked, as who would have enough time and people to do it? Maybe Stasi? Really, it's used only if someone is suspected of a crime (because tracking everyone would require too much). Which can be used to prove the person guilty in case there is enough evidence.

What mobile?

So you don't have a mobile phone? Respect for you for really knowing how to avoid being tracked.
But do you own a landline, or do you use VOIP, which is more secure?
Also, don't you use e-mail to avoid CIA (and others') filtering supercomputers?
If all this, I can't really nothing but respect you for really doing something to keep your privacy.

There is no such thing as a minor violation of rights.

Ok, there are different shades of violations. You can't possibly say taking all of a right away is as bad as partially losing it.

The slavers thought they were doing them a favour. After all, who would want to live in Africa, with the disease, the dearth of food, the high death rate, the godlessness, the ravenous wild animals and the shortage of water?

No, far better to take them to England and the USA and provide them with a safe place to live, food and water in exchange for their lifetime of servitude. It's for their own protection, so their rights being violated is just a minor thing...

You're displaying a similar attitude.

I have to agree people don't necessarily understand what is best for them, but my ethics would stop me from enslaving people for the "greater good". I know the whole concept of greater good through questionable means is a bit dodgy, but sometimes the best choice. And without such decisions some events would have been far worse. Like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while it was a war crime to kill civilians as a primary target, it probably killed less people than a full-scale landing and invasion.

But we may never know if it was for the worse. I would always choose the one with fewer (own) casualties, though.

If rights are meaningless, the right to life is meaningless. Your move.

The right to live is a value over everything. Taking it away is irreturnable, it's a thing that will never be back if taken away. All the other rights can be taken and returned, but life cannot. Also, the right to live is required to be able to enjoy any other rights. Taking it away will take all other rights away too.

Except, apparently, the government if the majority give them the mandate. Your move.

To me, it looked like that in your opinion the government was allowed to make a decision to let people die without the people's consent. Which they shouldn't. The less deaths the better.

And I don't support death penalty. A lifelong imprisonment is far better, being not completely irreturnable decision.

Only situation where government is allowed to make such a decision is when they have to choose between two bad, like two deaths versus 15 deaths. That is the worst case scenario though.
Also, not making a decision is effectively making it, as it's avoiding to take the responsibility, which is lowly.

There is no necessity for them to conflict. If they conflict then the individual who has chosen to forfeit their rights by acting against another's forfeits their rights.

The right to life is not the right to be prevented from death and there is no possible way that retaining my right to privacy violates anyone's right to life.

The families of the people died in cases that could have been prevented don't think so I suppose.

Also, making such a decision over the person itself is taking away their rights to decide of their life. Their blood is in the hands of the people who've let it happen.

However, in my system which tramples over people's rights, letting people die knowingly without trying to help them is a criminal offence (that is not punished if the now-dead wanted to die).

Oh no. Single people adopting. Single parents are just so horrible aren't they?

In this case it wouldn't be two loving parents, but just one. Which is enough, unless the person doesn't care. However, I think the system should try to give the children to the best homes possible, so single opiate addicts effectively couldn't, for example.

--
I looked into our Constitution and its chapter regarding the basic rights of an individual. The right to privacy had a subsection that allowed breaching it to protect the other rights, and was the only right that could be compromised for the sake of the others (unless there is a war or a state of emergency going on). Oh, and our government that tramples on our rights was fair enough to supply every household with one.

The only law of ours that the human rights organisations question is that people who object the military service are jailed if they also refuse the double-length civilian service, double-length being their problem. Not the several laws that violate privacy, as they are pretty common worldwide (I believe there are some in the UK too).

One state here tried to pass a law requiring an internal ultrasound before an abortion could be performed. It was ridiculed as intrusive and ordering on legally enforced sexual assault. How would saying, "You only get to raise kids if you let us put sperm in you," any different?

It wouldn't, actually. But is it fair to say to the infertile that "Sorry, there aren't enough children to adopt, so you can't get to raise one", while the fertile would be granted adoption. I think it should be prioritised, unless the biological parents specifically want to seek the couple themselves.

It is easier and quicker here too, but that doesn't make it comfortable or non-intrusive. Nevermind that in some quest to maintain genetic lineage you cause one of the couple to have less of a link to the child. My daughter already clings to my wife to the point of causing me to occasionally feel jealous (of whom depends on the situation) and I can only imagine how much worse I would feel if I had no genetic connection to my daughter.

That's a point I didn't think of. You made me to remember my own early childhood and how I preferred my father because he wasn't as strict as my mother, who later told me that she was a bit jealous. The child tracing biological lineage to only one of the parents might cause real problems, or then not.

Could an adult change their own name to Tyrannosaurus Rex?

Ehh, I can see Rex as possible but "Tyrannosaurus" might cause problems, if wanted as a given name. As a surname it might be easier.
But I can't say for sure.

Coming from an area where teen and unwed pregnancy is an issue, I don't think we need the government to unfairly give special incentives to married people to keep the population going. I mean, we have Octomom and the Duggers (18 kids, I think).

Well, here it's not a real issue, and if Wikipedia can be used to back up anything, look at this map here, Finland is the blank space (0,85%, should be the lightest shade instead of blank) in Northern Europe between Sweden and Russia. The education has worked pretty well, and our mainstream churches don't ban birth control either.

Also, our population would stop growing in the next 15 years and start to decline if it wasn't for the immigrants. That's really bad for the economy.

But as for the US, I see your point. I just have hard time supporting it because of my country's situation.

And we wouldn't force whatever our marriage laws are on any other country. I don't get your point.

Especially considering you go straight into this:


Yet if I say I don't like laws in your country that you have no problem with you brush it off. Which is it? Not forcing or constant tension?

I am here debating of a law that is yet to come (not trying to discuss about the existing laws), while that would be criticising already passed laws. I understand it might work better there.

We also have had similar debate here, because a minor fundamentalist Christian party who got in the cabinet (because the cabinet needed support to counter the major (ultra)nationalist/anti-EU party) wanted to limit things like the gays' rights. That lead to a debate at which pressured the Church to allow gay couples get their union blessed, but not quite same-sex marriage yet. It was also on the table, but parliament didn't get it further (due to more MEPs being against it than for).

That's why I'm having opinions of things regarding it, as I wouldn't otherwise have thought of this that much.

By your logic;

If a government says a Native American't can't live on certain land, it's in no way legally wrong. They decide who are able to own and inhabit land, as the whole institution is regulated by them.

If the constitution says so, that is the sad truth. At least expelling them is completely legal and constitutional, while it not morally wrong. And as no international judiciary systems didn't exist back then, it was pretty much up to your government.

The government at the time did not legally recognize constitutional rights of Native Americans as they were not US citizens. Even when the 14th Amendment was added it specifically says citizens, which were defined as naturally born or naturalized.

I don't agree with it, but that is why it was legal.


Not a declared war. So back to my above points.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

However the 14th amendment doesn't explicitly say it isn't applied to other than White Americans. If we want to go by the book, killing Native Americans is forbidden by that too. Of course this isn't how the law was applied (as it initially regarded White only), but it really says "any person" which is quite clear. I'm not the best to accuse your government's actions unconstitutional, but it doesn't say it was applicable to Whites only.

Do you need government to verify it or legitimize it for you? The point is that marriage, or any romantic relationship is not something that requires government enforcement or regulation.

Well, not, but I'd still like the financial benefits. But if it's okay for your people to be like that, be it so.

No more than filling out legal paperwork devalues the word. No more than high divorce rates. No more than men trying to have sex devalue the word love.

You have a point there, especially the one about divorce rates.



How so? Would marriage cease to be a meaningful commitment? And let's review the definition of marriage again. At what point is government required for that?


I find it is devalued by government involvement.

Is it prohibitively offensive or just an issue among the ignorant? It's one or the other. Or are you saying that religion doesn't cause offense issues and cultural clashes but gay marriage would?

Ehh, religion and gay marriage can cause them, equally, as long as the other culture takes a different approach. But what I was trying to imply is that people visiting Middle East (UAE, Bahrain, Saudi-Arabia) often forget that the locals view some things different to how the visitors, and they might seriously offend the locals. But that is caused only by the ignorance of both the visitors (who don't respect the locals) and the locals (who don't tolerate other views). The clash isn't bad unless these conditions are met, but when they are, problems occur.

So who is being intolerant? The gay couple wishing to marry or the conservative/religious fundamentalists who don't believe they should? There is a disagreement and you could argue either side is forcing their views on others if you use the term force loosely enough.

That is just it. But I think the line goes where they want to affect the others lives/annoy them deliberately, or because of ignorance and/or disrespect.

Keep it to themselves? Not sure exactly what you mean.

Like, leave kissing and such inside their houses if the general public can be offended by it. Similar to what making out and such was in the old times.

So, what happens when a Jewish/Muslim couple go abroad? Or an interracial couple? Why is your offense policy only being applied to homosexuals?

It's not pretty wise for a Jew/Muslim couple (if you meant it was that one of them was a Jew and one Muslim) to tell others that one of them is a Jew and one a Muslim. Especially in Islamic countries, that can be dangerous for them, as fundamental Islam punishes such marriages by death if the Jew doesn't convert. But an interracial couple, well, they can't avoid it.

Imagine breaking away from a massive empire with only 13 colonies and declaring limited government as the best way to go.

You didn't have England or any other superpower as your neighbour, and supplying troops over Atlantic took ages back then. But not an ideal situation either, I've got to admit.

So to discriminate in favor of married people?

Not everything can be done that there is no discrimination. Why only children get free education, but not older immigrants who've not been educated as well?

Again, I suggest to read my initial post explaining my proposal. I believe you will find a paragraph describing how adoption could be handled. I admit the whole thing is a quick summarization of what I think could work, but I did address all issues I could see.

That is pretty good, but I still wouldn't support bringing it here. If it worked well for you, I could re-think my opinion.

Yes, I disagree with US citizens being assassinated on order of the president without being granted their due process.

No-one talked about assassinating US citizens. Only of laws violating privacy rights, like the government being able to eavesdrop phones and filter through internet traffic for suspicious topics, and such. Of course no-one should be assassinated, always arrested and trialled if they are suspected of criminal activity.

Your proposed system could possibly work, but I'd like to see how well it works before thinking of it coming here. But in the US, why not, it's not really that much my business.


Anyway, if the current system isn't fair and equal, so isn't life.

 

[Pako]

What would just calling it marriage take away? I attended a ceremony for my cousin in a church with my wife next to me. We lost nothing and while the state refuses to accept it as such I call them wives and refer to them as married. Why? Because what they have is just as good, if not better than what I share with my wife.

We are getting into some religious and moral belief systems, but marriage is between a man and a woman. If it is something that they want, they should each find a man if it is "marriage" that they want. No need to change what marriage is to satisfy a minority when it is recognition of being a couple for tax and other monetary benefits. They certainly don't need my approval to prove their love and commitment to each other nor do they need a marriage certificate from the state to prove their love and commitment. A union between a man and a woman is different than a union between two people of the same gender. This is neither bad nor good, it just is. We still have segregation in many parts of society because of differences. Neither bad nor good, it just is.

What would they be taking away? They would be taking away what I believe to be a sacred promise to a man and a woman in the presence of God.

Seems that most just want "marriage" just because they can't have it. I would guess there would still be those that would fight tooth and nail for the right to "marriage" even if same sex unions were recognized by the state. I think that's fine, whether I agree with them or not, I think they should fight for what ever they believe in.

 

[FoolKiller]

It wouldn't, actually. But is it fair to say to the infertile that "Sorry, there aren't enough children to adopt, so you can't get to raise one", while the fertile would be granted adoption. I think it should be prioritised, unless the biological parents specifically want to seek the couple themselves.

Um, the system is prioritized by best home situation based on background checks, finances, etc. But as I pointed out, there is no shortage of children in need of adoption in the US, and definitely not in the world. I know an interracial couple that has three children adopted from overseas because prejudiced views kept bumping them down the list.

The child tracing biological lineage to only one of the parents might cause real problems, or then not.

My wife was adopted. Biological lineage is always a question anytime any of the birth parents are not around. Putting one parent on uneven ground is problematic, never mind that there have been cases of sperm donors later bring sued for child support.

Ehh, I can see Rex as possible but "Tyrannosaurus" might cause problems, if wanted as a given name. As a surname it might be easier.
But I can't say for sure.

100% allowed in the US, because he thought it was cool. "Freedom means the right to make stupid decisions."

Well, here it's not a real issue,

If I ever find myself single again remind me to avoid Finland. I'll put it in the list of places where getting some is hard to the point of being detrimental to society.

and our mainstream churches don't ban birth control either.

It should be noted that of the many extreme examples we have on TV only one is a fundamentalist family. The rest have all been the results of fertility treatments.

I am here debating of a law that is yet to come (not trying to discuss about the existing laws), while that would be criticising already passed laws. I understand it might work better there.

Perhaps past laws can be an example of how new laws won't be the problem you predict. I am looking for a precedent to validate your suspicions of the effects this would have.

If the constitution says so, that is the sad truth. At least expelling them is completely legal and constitutional, while it not morally wrong. And as no international judiciary systems didn't exist back then, it was pretty much up to your government.

Keep in mind that almost all atrocities are sanctioned by a government.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

However the 14th amendment doesn't explicitly say it isn't applied to other than White Americans. If we want to go by the book, killing Native Americans is forbidden by that too. Of course this isn't how the law was applied (as it initially regarded White only), but it really says "any person" which is quite clear. I'm not the best to accuse your government's actions unconstitutional, but it doesn't say it was applicable to Whites only.

Um, should I point out that it says State? Where does it refer to Congress or the Federal government? States are separate entities with a local government separate from the Federal government. Last I checked it was federal government that worked against the Native Americans.

Well, not, but I'd still like the financial benefits.

Even without the gay marriage issue the financial benefits are why I want government out. They are unjust and discriminatory.

How so? Would marriage cease to be a meaningful commitment? And let's review the definition of marriage again. At what point is government required for that?

Government is not required to meet the definition of marriage. That is my point. Government getting involved makes part of it a matter if red tape, no more meaningful than getting a building permit (same office even).

Ehh, religion and gay marriage can cause them, equally, as long as the other culture takes a different approach. But what I was trying to imply is that people visiting Middle East (UAE, Bahrain, Saudi-Arabia) often forget that the locals view some things different to how the visitors, and they might seriously offend the locals.

They are called tourists.

But that is caused only by the ignorance of both the visitors (who don't respect the locals) and the locals (who don't tolerate other views). The clash isn't bad unless these conditions are met, but when they are, problems occur.

While being disrespectful of local views in someone else's country is bad, reacting to it aggressively is equally bad.

That is just it. But I think the line goes where they want to affect the others lives/annoy them deliberately, or because of ignorance and/or disrespect.

And I don't give two squirts about offending the intolerant or ignorant. Just ask my dad.

Like, leave kissing and such inside their houses if the general public can be offended by it. Similar to what making out and such was in the old times.

If it is taboo for anyone to kiss, OK. But if you want to only oppress one group that is bigoted.

You didn't have England or any other superpower as your neighbour, and supplying troops over Atlantic took ages back then. But not an ideal situation either, I've got to admit.

Global powers rarely have issues with attacking non-neighbors. We declared independence, shipped the document, and then prepared for the incoming fleets, which had what seemed like nonstop reinforcements. George Washington lost all but a couple of battles he commanded in the American Revolution. We were out outnumbered end outgunned. We even had to ask France for help.

Not everything can be done that there is no discrimination. Why only children get free education, but not older immigrants who've not been educated as well?

You all don't have adult learning classes?

No-one talked about assassinating US citizens. Only of laws violating privacy rights, like the government being able to eavesdrop phones and filter through internet traffic for suspicious topics, and such. Of course no-one should be assassinated, always arrested and trialled if they are suspected of criminal activity.

Um, the security laws that allowed privacy violations (Patriot Act) is also where Obama claims his power to assassinate US citizens, so long as they are overseas (he claims).

Anyway, if the current system isn't fair and equal, so isn't life.

I can't change life.

We are getting into some religious and moral belief systems, but marriage is between a man and a woman.

If that is what you believe then OK. But denying others to call their relationship a marriage oversteps the boundaries of personal belief.

I can state that Jesus is the son of God. I believe it. That does not remove the standing of every other religion. I can't even prevent joke religions like The Spaghetti Monster.

If it is something that they want, they should each find a man if it is "marriage" that they want. No need to change what marriage is to satisfy a minority when it is recognition of being a couple for tax and other monetary benefits.

No need to discriminate against a minority and create hurdles for them or ask them to use a separate water fountain use a different term that is open to separate treatment of regulation at any time the majority says so.

They certainly don't need my approval to prove their love and commitment to each other nor do they need a marriage certificate from the state to prove their love and commitment.

Which is why I suggest government get out completely. But if government must be involved then it must be 100% equal.

A union between a man and a woman is different than a union between two people of the same gender.

Really? How so? Keep in mind, a consenting adult is a consenting adult.

This is neither bad nor good, it just is. We still have segregation in many parts of society because of differences. Neither bad nor good, it just is.

When they are between consenting adults and institutionalized they are bad, always.

What would they be taking away? They would be taking away what I believe to be a sacred promise to a man and a woman in the presence of God.

I'm assuming the wording isn't quite right here, but I'll ask anyway. How does letting gay people be married take away that promise? I saw some gay people getting legally married in other states on TV but my marriage suffered no loss of promises or meaningfulness or anything. I have long held a belief that if any real, meaningful marriage could be affected in anyway by anyone else being married it says more about the first marriage than the second. Your own definition includes two people and one deity. Three parties. Did the gay couple jump in and disrupt the connection between those three? If it is that personal, that spiritual, that meaningful, that close knit that only those three parties matter in how you define it then how can any action of an outside party take that away?

Seems that most just want "marriage" just because they can't have it. I would guess there would still be those that would fight tooth and nail for the right to "marriage" even if same sex unions were recognized by the state. I think that's fine, whether I agree with them or not, I think they should fight for what ever they believe in.

100% equality. Anything less is, well less.