The Non-Religious Issues with gay Marriage

If the reason for having gay marriage is tax breaks, that is a flawed argument seeing that since President Bush has been in office he has worked to reduce the marriage penalty in the tax code. It is not gone. All tax breaks I have for children and such are available to everyone,married not married. Marriage is not a right it is a choice that is made by individuals. To say I should have the right to get married to whomever I want is not correct. we have rights in this country those rights allow us to make choices. We have the right of free speech, the right of religion, bear arms, Political participation, these are but a few of the rights. If you look at the constitution there is nothing that gives us the right of marriage so this is a social issue not a constitutional issue. Another argument is if my partner is in the hospital I can't visit or participate in any decisions. This is again flawed because whether an individual is married or not you can get a legal document that allows you access to the information and the ability to make decissions. Say we have a person who is single they are living with someone and they are straight they do not get to make decissions or get information unless they get the correct legal documents. Why should this be different for gay people? Society has decided that with marriage this legal work has been done, it is the same work as what would be needed to get a power of attorney. The biggest difference is the marraige license cost money getting a Power of Attorney can be done without that cost. We do not have the Right to Marriage, we have rights that allow us to choose Marriage.

Marriage needs to remain as it is... a union between a man and a woman. What need to happen is another category... civil union. A civil union could be between a man and a woman (currently it is called common law marriage) and between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The way I see it, marriage is becoming less and less popular to the world. It is much easier to "live" with each other instead of taking serious covenants and promises to each other. This may cause marriage to become a "religious institution". Many christians and muslins throughout the world will continue to support it.

This creates an issue with civil rights. If two people have lived together for 40 years, why shouldn't they have hospital visitation rights just like anybody who is a blood relative? If two women live together and one has a child or children from a previous marriage and happens to be a stay at home mother, why can't she receive death benefits if her partner dies. These are the two main questions that come to my mind when I think about this. As I said before, I totally agree with what lds.org says about marriage. There may be another way, but intil somebody lets us know what it is, then why not push for civil rights. These are civil rights, not religious rights.

Marriage may not be guaranteed by word in the Constitution, however, this country is a club that allows the same benefits to all... regardless of race, creed, religion, gender, and so forth. In our case, the government manages marriage by way of marriage license and right to perform marriage. Due to the current government of marriage, it is a civil matter and needs to be extended equally to all or the government need to retract itself from the managing of it and give it back to the various religions that it pertains to.

Desechado, you ask why can't she receive death benefits if her partner dies? what benefits should she get? currently if I were to die my wife would get my life insurance and a small amount of pension benfits because my company still has a pension but that is all. My children would get my social security until they are 21 if they go to college. Most companies don't offer a pension any more, 401k's, life insurance all require beneficiaries. So what benefits should she get?

The pension. Also, even with her listed as beneficiary, her partner's family filed a law suit against the life insurance and 401K benefits and won because she was not family and not legally married.

Also, if her partner were retired, she would not have received her SSI. I find it hard that I can marry a woman and be with her for a year or less and receive all these undisputed benefits and my friend who was with her partner for over 20 years couldn't.

As I am listening to my Celtic/Keltic music while working I think about my ancestors and that the plight that we are talking about today is, in a way, similar to theirs. The idea is that they were all tired of being 2nd class citizens. During the 14th century, my Scottish ancestors fought to gain their freedom from my English ancestors who couldn't stand anybody or anything that was not English. My Irish ancestors fought each other over religion. Once again, they couldn't stand that their neighbor was different than they were. Somehow they were threatened.

What does this have to do with our country? The same has been happening here for 200+ years. The plight of the negro. Womens rights. Irish emigrants. Chinese emigrants. Mormons in Missouri in the 1830's. At some time, all these groups were treated as 2nd class citizens and had to fight one way or another for certain rights. Unfortunatly, my early mormon ancestors lost the fight and were forced by bayonette out of Missouri and had their lands confiscated. Next they were driven out of Illinois. This country may have the mantra that all men are created equal. However, when it comes to differences, we are just as intollerant as anybody else.

Complete equality in every sense is Communism.  But even the Communists drew the line at homosexuality.  Desechado, you make a good point that, when the government stepped into the family and took the governance of marriage and family away from religion, it opened up Pandora's Box.  Good things have come of it.  Domestic violence can now be handled in civil court rather than religous courts (because some religions treat women as second class citizens).  

As this post is removing all religion from the debate of Gay Marriage, then I would have to agree with Desechado.  Two gay people who are in a monogamous relationship should be able to have the benefits that their straight counterparts do, providing that they are married.  Two people who are living together without being married (be they straight or gay) should not receive the benefits that married people do.  

However, for me, looking at marriage through this "legal contract" sense is disturbing.  Marriage has always been about family.  It has always been about two people falling in love and creating a union, before God (because until modern times it has always been a priest, or a munk, or a shaman, or some other religious figure within the community that has performed the marriage.  If it was not done this way then it wasn't concidered to be a valid marriage); working together to build a life (whether your a goat hurder or a millionair); raising children that would grow up and become productive citizens.  Not to say that homosexuals don't fall in love and work together to build a life, or that they're incapable of raising children to be productive citizens.  

Truely the debate can not be free of religion because God is at the center of the debate whether people want to believe it or not.  Indeed, God is at the center of ever social debate that man has.  Man's tendency has always been to see what they can get away with, without being held accountable for breaking the law of God.  We deem it as being "legal" by a human rite, thus it is not in violation of God's law.  

When I lived in Ukraine I learned that the government there has total control of marriage.  Marriages performed in a church are not legally binding.  A marriage is frist done at the city or county building, the couple can then go to the church to have the union "blessed."  I hope that America NEVER removes God that far out of the equation of marriage.  

Good to hear from you goose. You took many words out of my mouth, but this was supposed to be a debate free from religion. As I stated earlier, I believe the same as you about marriage. My point is to have another category; some like to call it a civil union. I was also wondering when you would bring up communism. Communism believes in complete equality... no matter what you have to offer... whether rich or poor... smart or dumb. Nobody should go without just because somebody else is more capable than they are.

Our country is based on "all men are created equal". This brings on a different meaning. Men start out on their mortal experience equal. After that, they create their own life based on their own capabilities. This is what I am talking about when I say that if a right or benefit is given one person, then all should have the opportunity to partake despite our ethnic, religious, philosophical or whatever differences we may have. When we bring religion into the argument, the scope of partakers narrows. This is what has happened in the gay marriage debate.

By the way, while I am on my soap box of ethnic bigotry, during the middle ages, the catholics called their northern neighbors "Vikings". Why? I know the answer and I know that Goose knows. Who else knows?

A will can be contested this is true, the same can be done even with marriage, anyone can contest a will it happens all the time.

No one is saying gay people are 2nd class citizens. They have all the rights as any other person.

As far as social security goes it will go bankrupt and won't be around. Social Security is the only thing different but it is not a right. We all pay into Social Security but many of us will not see any of that money as it will be gone. it is a social program run by the government. with no guarantees. Anyone who thinks they can plan on Social Security has not been paying attention. in just 6 years Social Security will be paying more than it collects. This is really a complete issue on it own.

Couger, this is a good point. However, just because SSI will be bankrupt, do we continue excluding certain U.S. citizens from rights that other U.S. citizens have.

As far as contesting a will, what you say is true. Should somebody be able to contest a will based on sexual preference and win the contest? Or, should other reason be sought?

I have a question that I think strikes at the heart of this debate, and is non-religious.  Is marriage a social/ civil right or is it a social/ civil benefit?  There are many people who claim benefits as rights.  There was a post earlier where I said that I would like Paternity Leave, just as my wife gets Maternity Leave.  Is this a right that women have or is it a benefit?  I would say that it is a benefit because American Business knows that if women don't have that option then they would most likely quit their employment and not return.  So in me saying that I wanted "equal rights" I was actually saying that I wanted the equal benefit.  So, will someone answer that question for me?

I am going to switch rolls for a minute. The best reason for why we should not allow gay marriage would be because we live in a democratic republic that is not tollerant of this. Just like in New Jersey, the people have spoken and do not want this as part of their society. I agree with democracy and feel that the voice of the people is the ultimate ruler. Even when representatives are concerned, they should behave in Washington in a way that reflects their constituents wants instead of looking at special interests to gain influence or monetary support. I have been waiting for somebody to say this all day.

Goose, thanks to the Clintons us men do have paternity leave. It is called FMLA.

Just for those who were wondering what I was talking about with the Viking thing. The original form of the word was most likely "víkingr", an Old Norse word meaning "somebody from the bay". The Norse were great traders, trading as far as North Africa and Asia, using overland and river routes through Europe and Asia as well as the sea. Just like any people, there were some who believed they were entitled to what belongs to others. Therefore some became raiders instead of traders.

To spawn fear or suspicion, the Early European Christians coined the term "viking" as a derogatory word meaning "raider"; much the same way that the enemies of the early LDS Church used to term "mormon" to deride and persecute. We still do the same today with groups of people that see the world differently than we do. If you don't believe me, think of other terms people use to describe gay or ***.

So, I thought that Splitt and Hayduke wanted to battle this out.  Where are they?

Duke of the Hay is overseeing his relm and Splitt split.

Still nothing from Hayduke or Splitt on this.  Come on boys, this is your battle and so far you're both losing!