Poll: Proposition 8: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry in a fashion legally recognized by the state?

[JohnJacobJingle]

Specifically, what unions should the government endorse with the title of marriage, and how should said unions be treated? Should the government try to enforce or endorse these unions? Should the government get involved at all?

My person feelings are that if you want to have a state that does not have a religious or cultural agenda, then you should get out of the business of marriage entirely, since it means such different things to such different cultural/ethnic groups, and trying to accommodate such differing values will be very difficult without having to create in effect separate justice systems for those groups...e.g. I know of some ethnicities where a form of kidnapping is considered perfectly legal by the community at large, and others where spousal abuse and even rape is tolerated by the head of the household.

Thoughts? Trying to get the opinion of a community whose views have so far been rather diverse and thoughtful...and hopefully, this will correct that.

Also, if you are going to use evidence, please include a name or some kind of link so other people can see it...ty!

 

[j0z]

Keep the government out of it.
Unless it is an abusive relationship, in which case, lock the offender up.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Yes they bloody well should. Who the fuck cares if it's two dudes, or two women, or a bloke and woman? It's no one's business other than the people getting married.

 

[Ultress]

It's not gonna bother me so let them get married after all marriage is just a word.

 

[high_castle]

Keep the government out of it.
Unless it is an abusive relationship, in which case, lock the offender up.

But that's the thing. You can't have partial recognition with something like this. If there's no legal recognition of marriage, there's no spousal abuse. It would still be an assault charge, of course.

I see no problem at all with gay marriage. And it's definitely not the government's place to define marriage in any way. It's interesting that the Republican party in America is supposed to be one of small government, yet it's mostly the Republicans who are pushing for a definition of marriage act. I guess big government's alright if it's in line with their line of thinking, but it's just very hypocritical to me.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I can see no problem with any form of gay marriage or adoption.

/thread, unless anyone wishes to provoke my wrath.

 

[ThreeWords]

Marriage is either (or both) a spiritual and social event. The Law should take no part.

 

[walls of cetepedes]

Yes they bloody well should. Who the fuck cares if it's two dudes, or two women, or a bloke and woman? It's no one's business other than the people getting married.

What scares me here is that you used the exact same wording that I was about to use.

 

[j0z]

Keep the government out of it.
Unless it is an abusive relationship, in which case, lock the offender up.

But that's the thing. You can't have partial recognition with something like this. If there's no legal recognition of marriage, there's no spousal abuse. It would still be an assault charge, of course.

I see no problem at all with gay marriage. And it's definitely not the government's place to define marriage in any way. It's interesting that the Republican party in America is supposed to be one of small government, yet it's mostly the Republicans who are pushing for a definition of marriage act. I guess big government's alright if it's in line with their line of thinking, but it's just very hypocritical to me.

Your right, it wouldn't be "spousal abuse", it would be assault.

I agree with you about the Republican Party (although I guess I would be considered Republican). Most politicians are hypocrites.

 

[Jaythulhu]

I can see no problem with any form of gay marriage or adoption.

/thread, unless anyone wishes to provoke my wrath.

Don't quite get what you mean there.

What he means is, unless you want to subject yourself to months of flaming and psychological torture, don't spout any nonsense about marriage being between a man and a woman only. The comment about no problems with any form of gay marriage or adoption is the end of the thread. There is no need for further discussion. Unless you're a hypocrite, homophobic bigot, in which case, there would be a need of sorts to post contrary opinions.

Yes they bloody well should. Who the fuck cares if it's two dudes, or two women, or a bloke and woman? It's no one's business other than the people getting married.

What scares me here is that you used the exact same wording that I was about to use.

Occasionally, just occasionally, I'm not a complete and utter arsehole

 

[Doug]

I see no problem at all with gay marriage. And it's definitely not the government's place to define marriage in any way. It's interesting that the Republican party in America is supposed to be one of small government, yet it's mostly the Republicans who are pushing for a definition of marriage act. I guess big government's alright if it's in line with their line of thinking, but it's just very hypocritical to me.

Firstly, who else will define marriage if not the government? The churchs aren't going to allow gay marriage of their own free will, and financial issues are tied to marriage (especially if it ends in divorce). Further, in the event of death, legally reckonized marriage allows the spouse to try and keep the material and money of the dead partner, without the state or family members trying to cheat them out of it.

As for the Republicans, it is very true - they seem to think they have the right to force other people to live the way they choose. And yet, economically, they believe one person should be allowed to fuck up a national or international economy as much as they like without consequence. Crazy, really.

 

[Iron Mal]

One has got to ask why it is so important to be legally recognised as married?

If you are religious and part of your culture has wedding ceremonies etc. then fair enough, it is a part of your way of life and I cannot comment.

If it is two people who are sitting around and think that a piece of paper with their names on would be nice/handy then I don't quite see the significance.

 

[Alphavillain]

I think any consenting adults should be allowed to marry, whether they're gay or straight.
I think the operative thing regarding marriage actually relates to childcare: if one partner walks out on a marriage/co-habitation, then children should be provided for a.) in terms of financial upkeep and more trickily to define b.) emotionally by both parents (be they gay or straight).
I'm not sure if marriage in our time obliges people to stay together, or whether it ensures any children are cared for properly. And if it does, I feel it obliges people because of legal requiremenst rather than any sense of love or togetherness.

 

[pope_of_larry]

One has got to ask why it is so important to be legally recognised as married?

If you are religious and part of your culture has wedding ceremonies etc. then fair enough, it is a part of your way of life and I cannot comment.

If it is two people who are sitting around and think that a piece of paper with their names on would be nice/handy then I don't quite see the significance.

So you can visit them in the hospital.

 

[Kilaknux]

I have yet, in all my life, seen a competent argument for why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I can think of tons for, but I've yet to hear one good one against. So, yes, let them marry.

 

[Raven's Nest]

I can see no problem with any form of gay marriage or adoption.

/thread, unless anyone wishes to provoke my wrath.

Don't quite get what you mean there.

What he means is, unless you want to subject yourself to months of flaming and psychological torture, don't spout any nonsense about marriage being between a man and a woman only. The comment about no problems with any form of gay marriage or adoption is the end of the thread. There is no need for further discussion. Unless you're a hypocrite, homophobic bigot, in which case, there would be a need of sorts to post contrary opinions.

In other words he agrees with you Furburt, and thinks nothing else need be said.

As do I. Where is the option for 'what's the big f*ckin deal b*tch?'

 

[Jaythulhu]

As do I. Where is the option for 'what's the big f*ckin deal b*tch?'

It's too busy partying and having fun to hang around with any of the above options

 

[Epictank of Wintown]

The government should stay the hell out of this and leave it up to the individual religious institution as to whether or not gays should be married. They shouldn't be able to force anyone to do anything that's against their beliefs, nor should they be able to tell anyone that they can't get married because they're gay.