|
On February 09 2012 17:10 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 16:52 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 09 2012 16:50 xM(Z wrote:
i would delegalize the marriage between a man and a woman and leave it at that. it would still be equality.
one can argue now that married ppl are more equal then the other ones. Totally makes sense. Entirely unrealistic, and therefore solves nothing. there are a vast number of unmarried people that pay their taxes in full, without a 'marriage discount'. way more then the number of gay people. people see this as a victory for the oppressed few, i see it as increasing the privileged, by a small amount.
Well, there are also a lot of people that pay more taxes because they're married (somewhere around 40% of married couples). These people tend to be in higher tax brackets anyhow, and thus contribute more to taxes. My wife and I get to pay $24,000 more (as in, on top of what we already would have paid) this year than if we had not gotten married (rich man's problems, I know). We actually talked about whether we should get divorced, for the tax benefits. I kid you not. It cuts both ways.
|
On February 09 2012 17:20 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 17:02 Rannasha wrote:
As a liberally minded person from the first country ever to allow for gays to get married, it saddens me that this is still such a major issue / point of debate.
Equal rights for everyone and separation of state and church should be a given, not a goal. Curiously, the marriage rate by homosexuals has been declining each year since it was introduced, with only ~5000 married homosexual couples, about half of which are lesbian couples, even though lesbian couples only make up 20% of the homosexual population in the netherlands, out of a total of ~350,000 homosexuals, meaning that only 0.33% of the homosexual population being married, as opposed to some 60% of the straight population.
I don't really see what the point of these statistics are. Gay marriage hasn't been around for very long, so it stands to reason that the marriage percentage isn't nearly up to the same level as for the group that has been able to get married since pretty much forever.
In one sense, it seems that gay marriage is no big deal, and even homosexuals don't really want to get married (not that I blame them, who wants to get married for a year and lose half your stuff, and you don't even have your own children to soften the blow).
Even if most homosexuals don't want to get married, we should allow those that do want it the opportunity to do so. Equal rights. Also, you don't "lose half your stuff" when you get married. A common way to get married in the Netherlands is not to share all posessions. In case of divorce, each keeps their own belongings.
On the other hand, marriage rates started to fall among the heterosexual population in 1989, when the gay marriage debate was first introduced there, with the rate of fall accelerating when it was enacted.
So it appears that gay marriage did serve to undermine marriage after all, making the conservative fears somewhat justified.
Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causality.
To claim that the decline in marriage rates is due to the gay marriage debate and legalisation in the Netherlands just because they happened in the same timeframe without offering any further evidence is quite far fetched. Many people of my generation (I'm from '85) don't really want to get married because they consider it old fashioned.
I oppose gay marriage on ideological grounds, as opposed to abortion, which i support on pragmatic grounds.
I oppose of someones personal beliefs restricting the freedoms of others.
|
Another step to a brighter future! Still, 43 against 55 votes is still a bit disheartening.
|
Proud to be from Washington State! I live in capital hill in seattle which has a very large gay community, you should just see the smiles everywhere.
|
On February 09 2012 17:22 Rainmaker21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 17:10 xM(Z wrote:On February 09 2012 16:52 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 09 2012 16:50 xM(Z wrote:
i would delegalize the marriage between a man and a woman and leave it at that. it would still be equality.
one can argue now that married ppl are more equal then the other ones. Totally makes sense. Entirely unrealistic, and therefore solves nothing. there are a vast number of unmarried people that pay their taxes in full, without a 'marriage discount'. way more then the number of gay people. people see this as a victory for the oppressed few, i see it as increasing the privileged, by a small amount. Well, there are also a lot of people that pay more taxes because they're married (somewhere around 40% of married couples). These people tend to be in higher tax brackets anyhow, and thus contribute more to taxes. My wife and I get to pay $24,000 more (as in, on top of what we already would have paid) this year than if we had not gotten married (rich man's problems, I know). We actually talked about whether we should get divorced, for the tax benefits. I kid you not. It cuts both ways.
hmm, so basically marriage has nothing (under some circumstances) on singles and gays want to be married to pay more taxes...?
someone gets the shaft here imo.
|
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige.
|
On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige.
Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds.
|
Good for them! And at the same time a boot in the face to religious bigotry and stupidity.
|
On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds.
Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise 
And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage.
I don't see what's wrong with a kid having 2 moms or 2 dads. Yeah, it's pretty uncommon and it's obvious that the combination will not generate offspring without third party help, but what matters is that the child gets loving and caring parents. Regardless of which combination of moms and dads that is.
Also, your definition of marriage "between a man and a woman supposed to give birth" excludes infertile people from getting married, which was already mentioned several times in this thread.
But what it basically boils down to is that you want your restrictions on who can get married enforced for everyone, including people that do not share your views or beliefs.
And I still don't see how allowing gay marriage is going to immoralise society. Even unmarried gays can show their sexuality to everyone, which you objected to. The marriage almost exclusively affects the couple themselves (it can strengthen their bond) and how they're treated by the government (tax benefits for married couples, stuff like that). In neither of these two aspects I see any reason how a random stranger would be negatively affected by 2 gays getting married.
|
I think what makes the discussion so complicated is, that the same term, marriage, is used for the partnership endorsed by a religion and the partnership supported by the state.
I think that couples of whatever kind should have the same rights before the state, whereas each religious group should have the freedom to choose what they endorse and support. So I applaud the decision of the State of Washington.
In Christianity, the major religion in the region involved here and the region where I'm coming from, there are so many different interpretations of what's right according to their believes, that I ask myself that how a chrisitan can be so sure of his own position.
But I want to encourage everyone to not bash religion in general: In Germany the 'Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland', essentially the big protestant denomination to which almost 29% of the german population belong (at least on paper), gay persons of both genders can become ordained and in nearly half of the regional branches gay couples can get a so called 'Segnung' (blessing) but no marriage. So essentially this denomination sees homo- and heterosexuals as equal, but reserves the term marriage for different sex couples.
|
Its far more than tax benefits. Things like insurance and even being able to visit your partner in the hospital in some cases. It's completely fucked up that this is even an issue.
|
On February 09 2012 18:34 fiveop wrote:
I think what makes the discussion so complicated is, that the same term, marriage, is used for the partnership endorsed by a religion and the partnership supported by the state.
I think that couples of whatever kind should have the same rights before the state, whereas each religious group should have the freedom to choose what they endorse and support. So I applaud the decision of the State of Washington.
In Christianity, the major religion in the region involved here and the region where I'm coming from, there are so many different interpretations of what's right according to their believes, that I ask myself that how a chrisitan can be so sure of his own position.
But I want to encourage everyone to not bash religion in general: In Germany the 'Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland', essentially the big protestant denomination to which almost 29% of the german population belong (at least on paper), gay persons of both genders can become ordained and in nearly half of the regional branches gay couples can get a so called 'Segnung' (blessing) but no marriage. So essentially this denomination sees homo- and heterosexuals as equal, but reserves the term marriage for different sex couples.
That's why the government should only recognize unions period. You don't apply for a marriage license, the government doesn't recognize anyone as married. You apply for a union and it only recognizes people as being in unions.
Religions can call them marriages if they want, they can "keep" their term. They can recognize their kept term as whatever configuration of males per female they like. They don't have to allow any gays in their church.
But the government has to recognize everyone as exactly, 100% the same. We've had this "Separate but equal" thing before.
|
On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage.
Stop contradicting yourself one sentence later. If you consider approving gay marriage wrong then you are indeed against gay people by trying to deny them their rights. Also, I've never seen any scientific study or evidence that suggests having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is harmful to a child. Are you against single parents? Is that right for a child? Oh my mistake, you don't actually care about a healthy environment for a child, you're just a bigot.
Now, you say that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. This is a ridiculous statement, by this logic you are against sterile people marrying too?
It's not marriage in the eyes of some religions, but in the legal sense it has to be viewed as equally valid as a heterosexual marriage, or else it sends the message that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones.
|
On February 09 2012 18:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:34 fiveop wrote:
I think what makes the discussion so complicated is, that the same term, marriage, is used for the partnership endorsed by a religion and the partnership supported by the state.
I think that couples of whatever kind should have the same rights before the state, whereas each religious group should have the freedom to choose what they endorse and support. So I applaud the decision of the State of Washington.
In Christianity, the major religion in the region involved here and the region where I'm coming from, there are so many different interpretations of what's right according to their believes, that I ask myself that how a chrisitan can be so sure of his own position.
But I want to encourage everyone to not bash religion in general: In Germany the 'Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland', essentially the big protestant denomination to which almost 29% of the german population belong (at least on paper), gay persons of both genders can become ordained and in nearly half of the regional branches gay couples can get a so called 'Segnung' (blessing) but no marriage. So essentially this denomination sees homo- and heterosexuals as equal, but reserves the term marriage for different sex couples. That's why the government should only recognize unions period. You don't apply for a marriage license, the government doesn't recognize anyone as married. You apply for a union and it only recognizes people as being in unions. Religions can call them marriages if they want, they can "keep" their term. They can recognize their kept term as whatever configuration of males per female they like. They don't have to allow any gays in their church. But the government has to recognize everyone as exactly, 100% the same. We've had this "Separate but equal" thing before.
I fully agree.
|
On February 09 2012 18:43 Olinimm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage. Stop contradicting yourself one sentence later. If you consider approving gay marriage wrong then you are indeed against gay people by trying to deny them their rights. Also, I've never seen any scientific study or evidence that suggests having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is harmful to a child. Are you against single parents? Is that right for a child? Oh my mistake, you don't actually care about a healthy environment for a child, you're just a bigot. Now, you say that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. This is a ridiculous statement, by this logic you are against sterile people marrying too? It's not marriage in the eyes of some religions, but in the legal sense it has to be viewed as equally valid as a heterosexual marriage, or else it sends the message that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones.
The only possible way to have missed the studies on single parenthood, absence of male role models, is by sticking your head in the sand. Children raised by single parents do worse on every possible measure than children raised by both parents . . .
As for marriage being for the purpose of raising children . . . do you seriously believe that it has been historically about anything other than the raising of children for the majority of people? In thousands of years of arranged marriages even between people who had basically nothing?
By the way, strictly speaking, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Gays have the right to marry one willing person of the opposite gender, exactly the same as straight people. If that's not equal rights, I don't know what is.
|
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether.
|
On February 09 2012 18:57 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:43 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage. Stop contradicting yourself one sentence later. If you consider approving gay marriage wrong then you are indeed against gay people by trying to deny them their rights. Also, I've never seen any scientific study or evidence that suggests having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is harmful to a child. Are you against single parents? Is that right for a child? Oh my mistake, you don't actually care about a healthy environment for a child, you're just a bigot. Now, you say that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. This is a ridiculous statement, by this logic you are against sterile people marrying too? It's not marriage in the eyes of some religions, but in the legal sense it has to be viewed as equally valid as a heterosexual marriage, or else it sends the message that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. The only possible way to have missed the studies on single parenthood, absence of male role models, is by sticking your head in the sand. Children raised by single parents do worse on every possible measure than children raised by both parents . . . As for marriage being for the purpose of raising children . . . do you seriously believe that it has been historically about anything other than the raising of children for the majority of people? In thousands of years of arranged marriages even between people who had basically nothing? By the way, strictly speaking, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Gays have the right to marry one willing person of the opposite gender, exactly the same as straight people. If that's not equal rights, I don't know what is.
Link me to them then. Also I didn't say children raised being raised by a single parent is preferable in most cases, but that doesn't mean I OPPOSE it.
As for marriage being for the purpose of raising children . . . do you seriously believe that it has been historically about anything other than the raising of children for the majority of people? In thousands of years of arranged marriages even between people who had basically nothing?
So? It doesn't mean you should have to be able to produce children to be married, it's not an argument against gay marriage.
By the way, strictly speaking, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Gays have the right to marry one willing person of the opposite gender, exactly the same as straight people. If that's not equal rights, I don't know what is.
Oh wow aren't you clever hurr. Ok let me rephrase, homosexual people don't have the right to marry any person they want to that is willing.
|
On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige.
Then we just have to update every dictionary to the 21th century
Marriage is about love, its a commitment to spend and share your life with someone. Genitals/gender should not be in the way for that.
Also, a marriage doesnt really have to involve having kids. And even if it did, there are a ton of alternate ways to get one.
|
On February 09 2012 18:57 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:43 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage. Stop contradicting yourself one sentence later. If you consider approving gay marriage wrong then you are indeed against gay people by trying to deny them their rights. Also, I've never seen any scientific study or evidence that suggests having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is harmful to a child. Are you against single parents? Is that right for a child? Oh my mistake, you don't actually care about a healthy environment for a child, you're just a bigot. Now, you say that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. This is a ridiculous statement, by this logic you are against sterile people marrying too? It's not marriage in the eyes of some religions, but in the legal sense it has to be viewed as equally valid as a heterosexual marriage, or else it sends the message that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. The only possible way to have missed the studies on single parenthood, absence of male role models, is by sticking your head in the sand. Children raised by single parents do worse on every possible measure than children raised by both parents . . . As for marriage being for the purpose of raising children . . . do you seriously believe that it has been historically about anything other than the raising of children for the majority of people? In thousands of years of arranged marriages even between people who had basically nothing? By the way, strictly speaking, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Gays have the right to marry one willing person of the opposite gender, exactly the same as straight people. If that's not equal rights, I don't know what is.
Except they don't have the same rights. Not by a long shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
