This conversation is closed.

Gay Marriage Rights

Obviously this is an extremely significant issue that has become a daily topic in many households. I am pretty young, starting high school next fall, and I have always been curious to listen to people's opinions on the topic of Gay Marriage, because it is an important part of my life.

I am a triplet, with a sister and a brother, and I suppose one could say I have a unique lifestyle. My siblings and I have been raised in two households our entire lives, the reason being that we have four parents. All of them are gay, meaning my mom's live together, and my dad's live together.

Both of my biological parents are in law enforcement, while my other dad and mom are stay-at-home parents. My mom's have been together for 20 years, and my dad's have been together for 19. We live in California, but my parents live 100 miles apart, with one house being located by the beach, and the other in the countryside. My dad's raise all kinds of animals, and they always teach us important values, along with my mom's as well.

My mom's got married a few years back, when gay marriage was okay in California for that short period of time. My dad's have not gotten married, but with the new laws, they are engaged now and hope to be married as soon as possible.

One of my dads is from Mexico, and he has been here for about 25 years. He is not a citizen, and now that he can get married to the person he loves, he will finally be recognized in the country he loves. My parents have always taught me to accept everyone, and I find it easy to get along with many different varieties of people.

I am starting this debate mainly because I am aware of the religious standpoints, and want to hear more about others outlooks and perspectives on gay marriage, and equality. I am open to all opinions and would like to hear all and every reason as to why you feel that way.

  • Jul 2 2013: The solution is simple:

    If you believe gay marriage is wrong, don't get "gay married".
    If you're a church/organization and your religion says gay marriage is wrong, then don't perform gay marriages.

    "Oh, no, but then we can't stop cousins from marrying each other or a woman marrying her brother!"
    Unfortunately it's not your place to stop them in the first place.

    "Oh, no, it will corrupt the minds of our children! It will disrupt the meaning of a family!"
    Im pretty sure divorce has a higher chance of doing this than gay marriage, and it's been legal for years..

    "Oh, no, they can't reproduce alone so they shouldn't be married!!"
    Seriously, the world is over-populated as it is, let the gays soar with open wings.
    • Jul 2 2013: The solution IS simple, but conservatives and others that oppose gay marriage always feel like they need to change something, or leave something as is, even if it doesn't affect them. I appreciate the way you expressed your opinion. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2013: Paul and all,
    This question has gotten way off base. We are discussing a situation that is mostly applicable. to California state law and US federal laws.
    I did the research on this subject when prop 8 first came out. US marriage law/philosophy is based on the European model from the middle ages.
    I brought up the history of spousal contracts that go back.... 10,000 years, and that most cultures have civil and spiritual unions is acknowledged.
    My point is and has been that US culture and law got into the marriage business way back when and blurred the lines between civil and religious unions.
    I have come to conclusion that civil authority should recognize all spousal contracts and provide equality under the laws.

    Civil authority should not use the term marriage as they, by our constitution, are not to promote any religious

    Marriage was a Roman Catholic ceremony held in the highest sanctity from the middle ages and adapted by other Christian religions.

    Religious organizations are private and should be able to provide marriage ceremonies as applicable to their beliefs and standards.

  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: Jessica, This like many issues is not as simple as it appears. It has become a political issue .... some support it only for votes .... and some are sincere ... some are honest in their rejection of it for various reasons. Religions speak of the "Bibles" stand on the issue and have labeled it a sin to cohabitate with the same sex. Finally what I think is the major objection and the bases for some of the other objections .... money.

    If legitimacy is granted in a legally accepted marriage ... that the rights of a spouse is granted ... that includes insurance and legal claims.

    What you see is people .... what most others see is issues.

    I wish you well. Bob.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2013: Marriage, which seemed like a simple concept for many hundreds of years, has clearly become more complex, and we're in the middle of a process of reevaluation that may take a long time to get through.

    Some in this thread have wondered what the church has to do with marriage. Historically it has had everything to do with marriage. For many centuries, European governments left "moral" issues, including marriage, to the church. You could not get married outside the church, which also made rules about divorce. Some have wondered what the state has to do with marriage. As soon as governments decided to make special tax and inheritance rules for married couples, in order to protect the wife who was financially dependent on her husband, the state also needed to determine who were married.

    Back to the present: Other than religious motivations against permitting same-sex marriage, it seems to me that the main objection comes from the tax benefits mentioned above. But times have changed, and a wife is no longer dependent on her husband, so these benefits ought to be canceled. Then there will be no tax consequences of marriage.

    What I see in the future is a change to a kind of secular union based on contract, where any number of persons can contract together on self-selected terms. These could include specific financial or other responsibilities, a dissolution clause and even a termination date if that's desired. In other words, people in charge of their own relations, which would be nobody else's business. (There would be some official interest in minor children.)

    With such a system, the contracted parties would neither expect nor get any particular legal benefits, other than those they award one another in the contract. We could call such a group of people "married" if we want, though I suspect another term would develop. We might leave "marriage", "wedding", etc on the religious scrapheap, letting the churches continue to perform whatever ceremonies they please.
  • Jul 9 2013: There's only one non-religious argument against gay marriage that I am aware of - but it is actually an argument against all marriage.

    Basically it is the idea that the state should not be involved in your private choices about love, sex or commitment at all.
  • Jul 8 2013: Really, honestly, who cares??

    What is so wrong with humanity, that we have to label and box everyone, or question everyone's sexuality, like it even matters.

    What is wrong with the mentality of authors and readers who demand to know if a "fictional" character is gay. Think about that.

    Why do you need or require or even seek the "state's permission" with something that has nothing to do with the state. This is YOUR life, not the governments.

    I think humanity is still in it's teenage years, it sniggers at sex and does not understand that sex is not love, it's scared at the sight of naked flesh, it shy's away from issues, it titalizes them instead of rationalizing them, it tries to label people, and people want to be labeled, it falls back onto beliefs systems, instead of realizing, the most important part of a person is (quite crudely) not what's between their legs, but what's in their hearts.

    Me for one, i just don't care, simply put - I've elevated my thinking.
  • thumb
    Jul 8 2013: here is the libertarian point of view:

    any two persons can decide if they want to live together or not, have sex with each other or not, or engage in any kind of activities as long as they don't damage or take other people's property or threat or harm them.

    no couple have the right to have recognition from any 3rd party. they don't have the right to be treated as a married couple by any hotel, church, transport company or any other person or organization. it is because recognition exists in said 3rd parties' minds, and nobody has a claim on other people's minds.

    nowhere in my analysis i used the fact that said couple would be gay or not. it has no relevance whatsoever. any 3rd parties can recognize or not recognize a couple's status based on any arbitrary properties, like age, skin color, religion, details or existence of a ceremony, etc. if a hotel refuses to treat couples of mixed color (like white-black) as married couples, it is its right to do. it is also okay for people to boycott the hotel for being racist.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: It seems that "the libertarian point of view" is limited to "any two persons" and "couples" in your recitation.

      Surely the right of non-recognition extends to live-in groups of whatever size and composition.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: your logic is faulty. "any two persons can" does not imply "any three persons can not".
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: Cute, Kris.
          Specifying 2 usually means 2.
          You didn't come clean about what we should conclude. I illogically concluded that when you said 2 you meant 2. Did you mean to include 3, 4, or 20? Help us out.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: i exactly meant two. i said any two people can do this and that. i did not say anything about 3 or more people. thus you can not deduce my position on what triples can do. modus tollens?
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: I know I can't deduce it, and I didn't deduce it. That's why I asked. Does "the libertarian point of view" include the same rights for married groups of greater than two persons? Like polygamists.

          There's a clear question.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: where i came from, questions end with a question mark. this is not a question: "It seems".

        if you meant to ask a question: quite logically, the libertarian position is that any number of men and women can form any kind of relationship as they see fit.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Good answer, though it took a little while.

          (You're right, of course, that semantic customs vary. Where I come from implied questions are usually understood, while in other places a question mark is needed. Just differences in custom.)

  • Jul 8 2013: Jessica.
    I know that peaches come in varieties and so do apples.
    I guess I never thought of using that word in regard to people.
    What variety am I?

    I have no idea. My parents, excuse me, my enemies, the two people who raised me and tried to destroy my entire identity, would never tell me what I am.

    Anyway, "in all the places we were hiding love, what was it we were thinking of?"

    It is people like you who will help bring about the greatest change in the world, that the world needs so desperately.
    That change is the prejudice against others, for whatever reason.

    Americans still conduct witch-hunts, a la Salem.
    They still demonize others, hunt them, lock them up and turn millions upon millions into robotic-hating machines that don't think. They only do what they have been told to do based on what they were told to think, based on what they were told to believe and they say what they were told to say. A common refrain of theirs is, "what was I supposed to think?"
    Well, the answer was that they, "were supposed to think," for themselves, based on real, factual information and not lies they've had embedded in their psyches.

    Racism. A lie. One of the most evil lies embedded into the human psyche along with Catholicism.
    Homosexuality. Another lie. Heterosexuality. Another lie. What's the lie? That it is a moral issue to begin with. It isn't.
    Sex doesn't have an inherent, essential and intrinsic moral nature. Virtually nothing does, except for one.
    That one, that moral nature, is in how we treat one another and the moral majority and those of their ilk, thirst for blood-letting, torture, imprisonment, control and oppression.

    "In all the places we were hiding love, what was it we were thinking of?" Peter Gabriel

    Jessica: To thine own self be true

    The world as it is now, will change as it will, but the change is for you and those of your age, experiences, reality and desire for peace (I hope), and love (I wish) and union between all people.

    It isn't for older fucks
  • Jul 6 2013: Why do some of you call Jessica's family having "Issues"? She has stated she now finds it easy to get along others because of it.
    She has a wonderful balance in her life. That's a lot more then most families have.
    History is loaded with all sorts of marriages/joinings/partnerships/unions, etc. that list goes on & on.I feel most of those have been because of love. And that is the key word here- Love!
    For those of you who are NOT Gay, think about this: Would you knowingly, allow most of society to ridicule you all of your life because of your sexual feelings? To be thrown in jail, beat up, & even killed for your feelings? Of course not!
    But that's what been happening to Gays in this country for far too long.
    People with disabilities get married & some of those can't have children either.
    Gays can adopt and do so, even children that have disabilities. There are way too many children in foster care that have been tossed off and need loving homes. Lesbians can have artificial insemination (know lots about this) & do so, to have a child.
    In a nut shell: Let those who wish to marry do so and I speak about all peoples. Let them all have equal rights as the laws are written (or changed as need be).
    It's not up to any church or government to say who what where. It's about the 2 people (or more) who are involved & not anyone else.
    P.S. I have an adopted son who is TOPS in his classes at school, great personality, opened minded, and he has lots of friends. I am not the birth mother but my name is on his birth certificate as the other mom. It was well worth living through years of hell to see Gay marriage bill pass. Now I can die happy!
  • Jul 5 2013: Jeff, I will start by saying that I don't have a dog in this fight. I have some personal opinions, but I won't be found standing on a line supporting either side of it.

    What I have found interesting is the issue over "marriage" versus "civil union". Obviously the conservative church holds a view that marriage is between a man and a woman, add to that "in front of God". They have a strong opinion about the wording, and based on those beliefs, rightly so. No value judgement, it just is.

    The language of "civil union" came up as a substitute for "marriage" during this debate. Surprisingly, the strongest opponents to using "civil union" were those who supported gay marriage. The argument basically went "I don't want to be in a civil union I want to be in a marriage". That cry was far louder than the conservative church over the issue of marriage.

    Today, if we base the language on the church view, anyone married outside of the church is in a civil union not necessarily a "marriage" based on that definition. If the ultimate goal of the "gay marriage" folks is to seek the benefits of married couples, then it doesn't matter whether it is called a civil union or a marriage, they are both the same under the law and mean the same thing. It appeared to me that the issue was a redefinition of the word as much as an issue of equality and fairness.

    Personally, I don't care what you call it. Marriage, civil union, etc. it does not matter to me. Ultimately, you are committing yourself to another person for a long period of time under the eyes of the law. That value, of itself, has broken down in our country and commitment is based on perspective. If we want marriage to have some value, maybe we should do something about the divorce rate and lack of commitment. That is a more important point to discuss than the language to me.
    • thumb
      Jul 5 2013: I have to agree. If government is interested in spousal contracts for census or tax purposes, so be it. For whatever reason, religious organizations have seemed to grasp the term marriage, so be it. Here is my question, isn't there a church that would provide a marriage ceremony for gay couples? As I have said, European countries have sidestepped this problem by having a "civil union" with all the legal issues resolved and then the religious ceremony. Would some gay couples would be satisfies with legal union and others want a religious ceremony? I can't see any question as why that shouldn't be a choice.
      • Jul 8 2013: Mike, I believe that you are right. The main issue is the "legal" side of "marriage" for the tax benefits and such. There are also churches that are willing to provide a "religious" marriage ceremony for gay couples. So, I see no problem with this separation of civil union versus marriage. Others, well, don't think so openly about this topic.

        What I am waiting for is the couple, and it will happen, that sues a church because the church won't marry them. Then the ensuing legal battle where, at some point, a court will say the church can't discriminate against the couple. In which case it turns into a 3 ring circus rather than a legitimate issue.

        This issue does not directly affect me on a personal level so I don't get to hung up with it. I would be satisfied with the system in Europe or some version of it if the US were to go with it. We shall see how this plays out in the long - term though.
        • Jul 9 2013: The U. S. Constitution said the equal rights is granted to marriage, and it should be extended to gay marriage, interpreted by the Supreme Court recently. But there is no stipulations on why the church has to perform the marriage ceremony or issue the marriage certificate. Since a court judge can also perform the marriage certification, therefore the supreme court can't order the church to do it if the church doesn't want to do it. Otherwise it would be interference of religious activities by the government. Is that so?
      • Jul 9 2013: Bart, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that equal rights are granted to marriage and thus extended to gay marriage. The interpretation of the Constitution has stated that.

        Just because there is a separation of church and state does not mean that someone would not bring it to court in a lawsuit. And, a court would hear it in the right place in the states. Doesn't mean that they would win, but it is not a pipe dream that this could occur.
  • thumb
    Jul 4 2013: Gay marriage rules.
    But to satisfy those against it, and to pint out to the real fact, it needs to be named Gayrriage!
  • Jul 4 2013: Government should just not get involved in marriage to begin with. What is marriage.. it has become reduced only to a legally binding contract. forget it why does the state need to get involved in everything anyways..
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: I can agree with you, Keith, that government ought to stay out of marriage, and it obviously follows that government shouldn't write tax laws to benefit married persons. Each person pays his/her own tax. Simple.
  • thumb
    Jul 4 2013: Before you get to involved about marriage and all a little history will put things into perspective. In the old days it was about spouses. It seems at first, if you had some land and wanted to farm, the cheapest labor were children, so you took a couple of goats down the road to an old farmer who had daughters. You traded your goats and in time you had help on the farm. As we became more civilized these arrangements where finally recognized. In ancient Rome, unions were announced, big parties were held and the spousal unions were recognized by all. there were gay unions at this time.

    Marriages really didn't come until about 600 years ago. Europe was a bunch of little kingdoms at constant war with each other. The Roman church wanted to stop all this mayhem. So, they came up with a brilliant solution. If a prince is married to the princess next door, in-laws wouldn't go to war. So, they established marriage, gave it a very high place in the church's religious order and proceeded to marry royalty all over Europe and most of the small wars stopped.
    There were no gay marriages in this scenario, as children were to bind the kingdoms together. So, now there is the USA. In the beginning marriages were religious ceremonies. There were some states that had spousal ordinances.
    But somewhere along the line states got into the marriage business. It had to be the worse violation of church and state
    ever, but....
    To make matters worse, the states began to give married couples special benefits and tax breaks. Now gay couples saw the marriage rules as discriminatory and here we are.
    I attended a marriage in France some years ago. It was not a gay couple but the rules are the same for all.
    The couple goes to the city hall and applies for a license. Then they return and complete a spousal contract before a legal official giving oaths and signatures, etc. This couple is now recognized by the state and have all rights and privileges..Church weddings are optional
    • Jul 4 2013: I saw an issue being tackled in C-span a long time ago and one of the panelist did give a good argument protecting against Gay marriage. He argued that because marriages produces children.. to put in simply... children generate markets, as workers, employees, buyers etc... so the state does prioritize heterosexual marriages. Although this is of course just less than half of the total picture. Focusing on this issue, I wonder if somebody ever did a study the effects of homosexual couples without children on the world economy... my opinion is... i doubt of if any effects exist at all given the small number of gay couples.
      • thumb
        Jul 4 2013: In our conversation, there seems to be children to bolster economic concerns.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: "Marriages really didn't come until about 600 years ago."

      I first though you were joking, Mike, but your discussion makes it clear you're not. In any case, by 600 years ago marriage had been a flourishing institution all over the world for many thousands of years, certainly back before the beginnings of written history.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: Paul,
        Marriage as it is commonly used today came from the Roman Church for reasons rendered. Even the wording of the vows by your local JP is ripped right out of the Sacrament of Marriage of the Church.

        Now as I also mentioned Spousal Contracts have been going on since... 10000 BC. A young man cleared some land, raised some sheep and took a couple down the road and traded them for an old farmers daughter... he traded for a spouse. ..... a contract. And if you read the history it's all there.

        After 12000 years, the price is gone way up past a couple of sheep, I speak only of my contract of fifty years ago....
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: Ah, you were talking about specific wording in the Roman Catholic vows. You're probably right that that language is not ancient. When you said "marriages" I thought you meant marriages.

          Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists today are still using the vows they've used for a thousand years. (Long before the Roman church.) They think they're married. Let's not tell them they're not.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: Paul, all sarcasm aside...
        the conversation is about this girl who lives in California. Marriage as of I speak is a European / Western Civilization/ Roman Church institution. The term comes from latin origins through middle english to us today. States have taken this ceremony and made it their own and that is the problem

        Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists have ceremonial spousal unions but I am not sure they are using latin terminology.
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: OK, Mike. We'll both just look up the "history of marriage" somewhere, and then we'll both be wiser. You're right that this is an irrelevant branch, but that's often how it goes here on TED conversations. Always good to talk with you.
  • Jul 3 2013: You have an unusual situation... What will gay marriage do to the world? I seriously doubt it would turn the whole world gay and make humans extinct. Is it evil and should be avoided at all cost? - probably a lot more people died of drinking alcohol and alcohol isn't evil. I don't know what the fuss about gay marriage is about.. some people push the issue into "incestous marriage", human extinction, Punishment from heaven, turning the entire world gay,.. yadda yadda..
    Its just binding two people together and recognizing that bind.
    Anyway, what matters is you have parents that will take care of you and love you. Gay or not it is what matters for human society.
    • Jul 4 2013: Every time I hear something like "God hates gay people" I think it is ridiculous. If two people love each other, then they have the right to be married and have the same benefits as anyone else. Its all the same love, and the way a person is shouldn't bother others, considering the fact that it probably doesn't affect them personally. Thank you for your opinion, I am glad that someone has similar thoughts to what I believe.
      • Jul 4 2013: People sometimes have a funny way of putting their thoughts into God's word.. For the most part, religion is mostly human ideas.. They read a few lines from the bible and think they know everything and preach everything. Sometimes I do wonder what does God really think about all this...
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: You seek non-religious viewpoints on this issue? OK, here goes: Two Dads? Two Moms? What is the definition which allows for having two of them simultaneously? I am curious, in a strictly lexicographical way. Also, how must the definition of marriage change? No longer can it be said, "one male and one female joined etc". Do we now say, "Two humans joined etc".? Then what do we do with Grandparents? With two Fathers are there two Paternal Grandparents and no Maternal Grandparents? In terms of genaeology it seems this issue is going to wreak havoc on the Family Tree. When the new definitions are established and legal how will we respond to the next challege when someone demands to know why marriage is limited to two humans? Why not three, or more, humans; or one human and one non-human; or two non-humans?" There seems to be a few associated words which are directly dependent upon the definition of the word "marriage".
    • Jul 8 2013: Edward,
      those seem like very frivolous concerns.
      Who cares about the definition in the long run? It doesn't matter.

      The Family tree will take new roots, new shape, as trees do. That's looking for problems that don't really exist and sound more like sound bites you've been told to believe than any thing of real value or concern.

      Actually what does and would matter would be if we all, humanity, were in union, matrimonial or otherwise, with one another.

      If someone demands to know why marriage is limited to two humans, well then, explain it!
      And why not three, or four or more? Why not love between all of us?

      Isn't that what Jesus was ultimately about, wanted, preached and demonstrated?
      I completely believe Jesus was killed because he was gay and preached love.

      Believers and followers of God believe less in love and more in hate, in my opinion.
      All these things you mentioned. You're certainly grown up enough to handle them and to help others handle them just like Jessica Blue is doing, has done and continues to do.

      All the best
      • thumb
        Jul 8 2013: The OP asks for outlooks other than religious-based (" I am aware of the religious standpoints, and want to hear more about others outlooks."). I offered a non-religious contribution. You come along and impose your unsolicited and irrelevant rant against people who believe in God. Six paragraphs of your off-topic opinions in an effort to make this a religious issue in direct opposition to the posted request is a bit much. There might be some interest in what you believe about homosexual marriage, but I doubt there is any interest in what your assessment is of my personal opinion. Why not simply stick to the topic and keep your analysis of other people's opinions to yourself? Work on it.
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: And I thought I had a whacky family,If we were all the same we would probably be extinct by now.
  • Jul 2 2013: Jessica, you have an incredibly complex situation that you are facing with a myriad of challenges.

    My personal views have changed over time, and honestly, I am not sure I am completely comfortable with the whole idea of gay marriage. However, if the issue is primarily tax benefits and recognition as a "married" couple under the law, I have no issue with this. Well, personally I may have an issue with it, but professionally and from a public standpoint, I don't see this as a significant issue that affects me personally. At the end of the day, I work with some amazing people, who happen to be gay. They do great work and they deserve to be happy in their lives and relationships. That doesn't affect their work and it doesn't affect me personally.
    • Jul 2 2013: I suppose there are less worries when a gay couple has the same benefits as a heterosexual one, but I believe that gay people just want recognition. They want to be equal to other straight couples, to be accepted into society. Of course, I get this idea from listening to my gay parents converse about the issue so I wouldn't know otherwise. I admire that although you might not be okay with, or support gay marriage personally, you think that they deserve happiness. I really appreciate that. Thank you for your outlook.
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: religious zealots inbound
  • Jul 2 2013: Government does not belong in the marriage business. That is for religion, church, or non-government social groups to control.
    Marriage is a religious term long before it is a legal one. The legal governmental interests can be covered in Civil Union legislation which should be available to any two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation..
    By eliminating the word marriage we can build law for families that will be more realistic to the country's needs and less pushed out of balance by political considerations.
    • Jul 2 2013: David, the issue that keeps coming up, at least from what I have seen, is the desire to remake the word "marriage". The term "civil union" though completely appropriate and applicable, is not acceptable for those who want to be "married". I agree with your sentiments, I have just see the battle over the word "marriage" escalate.
      • Jul 3 2013: Everett, help me understand. Im curious as to why the need for distinction between "marriage" and "civil union"?
        Is it because most wish the term "marriage" be kept in sanctity and within the bounds of religion as a binding for life?....
        but if divorce in a country is legal and heterosexual couple have the capacity to utilize this.. wouldn't "marriage" be just the same as "civil union"? How can you have been married (for life) and yet underwent divorce?
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: It's a legal issue, with no connection to religion.

          All states (in the US) have laws giving certain financial benefits to "married" persons.
          The term "civil union" can be defined in law to give certain recognitions and benefits, without giving all the (tax) breaks that are automatically connected with "marriage." Thus same-sex "C.U." is permitted in a number of states that choose not to permit s-s marriage.
  • Jul 2 2013: This issue is about the proper power of government, and equal rights.

    If the government is given the power to prohibit gays from getting married, then the government has the power to prohibit anyone, any group, any individual, anyone from getting married, just for being who they are.

    Only a foolish population would give the government that power.
    • Jul 2 2013: Quote: "If the government is given the power to prohibit gays from getting married, then the government has the power to prohibit anyone, any group, any individual, anyone from getting married, just for being who they are".
      Your counter punch seems to be unreasonable. Who wants the government to ALLOW MARRIAGE BETWEEN ANY TWO PERSONS? That is just not realistic and makes no sense. Just like what I said in my post, how about if a brother and a sister from the same parents want to be married? Or, If two sisters want to be married to each other, what would you say?
      • Jul 2 2013: Let them get married. The real issue with incest is having children. There are methods available to assure that couples have no children.

        Society has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children. Society has no legitimate interest in regulating intimate relationships among adults.

        What many people thinks "makes sense" with respect to marriage is based in the past. When examined rationally, most of the traditional ideas about marriage no longer make sense.
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 2 2013: I completely understand why you might think that gay marriages are more about financial benefits, and in many cases that may be true. Although I believe with every part of me that my parents love each other. I have seen so many heterosexual couples divorce over the years, and I have seen many gay couples split up as well. But, my parents have been together for 20 years and I don't think they expected all of this change to occur 20 years ago. I suppose all I ask in an opinion is a valid reason as to why they believe something, and you gave me that. Thank you for your opinions
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: You have two loving families. It is only wonderful that your parents will be able to add the advantages of legal marriage to your lives.
    • Jul 2 2013: Thank you! I truly appreciate that.
  • Jul 1 2013: My opinion is completely "divorced" from religious consideration. I am also perfectly agreeable with the notion that if two people love each other, it's perfectly all right to live together and the community at large should pay no disrespect to them.
    I also believe that when a homosexual couple get married, the employer should treat them as other heterosexual couples. And homosexual couples should enjoy the same advantage of tax treatment and other rights such as hospital visiting rights and serious medical decisions.
    However, I do have a reservation about certain tax and retirement pension laws on homosexual couple . First of all, certain definition if tax laws are based on that the government should award certain tax advantages to a marriage between a man and a woman because they would procreate children for them to nurture and support. The law does not distinguish between a married couple of heterosexuals whether they have children or not, as far as tax advantages are concerned. This could be quite consequential about inheritance of the entire wealth of one sppouse to the other. For instance, the widow or widower will inherit the entire estate without paying taxes when one of them dies. Now if homosexual couples also going to enjoy the same tax treatment, theoretically it's OK. But now suppose there are two sisters who, of course, normally love each other, so there are no reason to deny them to marry each other. Then there will be lot of such marriages for the sake of the tax benefit. This "advantage" also applies to social security benefit as well. Now, if the "marriage" occurred to a brother and a sister, it can be denied because of the genetic defects to the potential offspring to such marriage, but it doesn't apply to homosexual (bro to bro, sis to sis) marriage. There is nothing morally wrong or unfair for this new problem, but it would cause a fiscal problem for the government, or actually for the ordinary taxpayers as a group.
    • Jul 2 2013: The government gains if a stable household is established period regardless if it can procreate or not.
      That is the reason for the tax breaks and other advantages given in law to families.
      It costs a society less per person to have more families than singles in its population mix
      They will be able to adopt and raise children We have more than enough in orphanages and foster care...
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: Good try but not so good history.

        All the laws that have given advantage to married couples - largely tax, pension and inheritance rules - have had one purpose: to protect the wife/mother who by social convention (and often by rules and laws) did not participate in a career outside the home. The husband was the breadwinner, and if he died the widow would be penurious, which would be a burden on society.

        These laws came about as a direct result of the financial dependency of the wife on the husband in the standard family when the laws were enacted. The women's revolution in the later part of the 20th century changed the financial workings of the standard family, and as a result many two-earner families are now getting tax breaks that were not intended for their situation. The need at present is to revise the codes to remove such benefits in situations that do not reflect the original reason for the laws, so that all are treated equally. The recent push by homosexuals to get in on these benefits illustrates the folly of allowing them to continue, at a public cost, and will probably motivate Congress and legislatures to make the needed revisions.