Slashdot Mirror
Google Launches International Campaign For Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
Apple and many other tech companies have offered benefits to same-sex couples (and sometimes made them a sticking point) for quite some time now, but Google is taking its position of inclusion for sexual minorities outside the company itself; the company has announced an international campaign to promote legal marriage equality for same-sex couples, called "Legalize Love." According to CNN's version of the story, while this represents Google's policies overall, the campaign will at first "focus on countries like Singapore, where certain homosexual activities are illegal, and Poland, which has no legal recognition of same-sex couples." dot429 quotes
Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe of Google, speaking in London Saturday at a summit where the initiative was announced: "We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work."
Also at CNET.
See corporations are people without gender. They want to be able to marry each other.
Then they can file a joint tax return and have children.
Possibly worth noting that on Saturday in London was World Pride 2012, and representatives from Google were among the groups in the parade (photo)
Why so much hate? So what if some dudes like penis and anus (male variety)?
Because the mind of a 7-year-old is not mature enough to know whether or not it really wants to marry anyone, let alone a 68-year old. I don't see why that's relevant.
Google needs to start this campaign in Afghanistan, Iran and downtown Cairo. See how far they get there.
Would a homophobe rather Google or Bing someone anyway?
The US still has a long way to go for full LGBT equality. I can understand stuff like trying to stop stoning of homosexuals in countries where it is illegal, but as for the same-sex marriage fight, it hasn't even been won on the home front yet. I hate to call it a war... but why expand the territory of a war when you're still losing battles in disputed territory you're trying to occupy?
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Google promoting same sex marriage is great and all, but what about ladyboys and the so called third gender? No, you cannot lump it under homosexuality as it's a different issue. Same sex marriage is old thing, everyone should fight for people's right to be whatever gender - or a third gender - if they so want to. Even on Slashdot I always get modded down when I mention ladyboys, and I hope not this time because this issue needs to see some daylight.
Yeah, it's like those companies that hired those black people, trying to make life easier for their employees by campaigning against racism. Stupid evil companies, trying to get rid of all that great benevolent bigotry we've fought so hard for.
I'm not sure what being natural has to do with a man-made institution like marriage, but homosexuality is indeed natural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals
Also, the difference between homosexuals marrying and children marrying is consent. The same goes for marrying animals as that is another argument that is often brought up by homophobic people like yourself in this kind of debate.
> Or is that somehow not OK whereas the most unnatural thing in the world is?
Well, call me a radical deviant, but I just love the feel of a long hard polycotton trouser-leg.
Corporations should stick to their core mandate, and not get into 'social engineering'.
Be it a 'worthy' cause or not, its not their place to stick their noses into it and 'pick sides'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why shouldn't gays have the right to live in misery like the rest of us?
As far as the government is concerned marriage should be treated like any other contract. They should have no say in the contents. If there is a breech take it to court and let a jury decide. Then purge out of law any benefits or tax considerations based on material status and just people as individuals.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I'll be the last to say that Google can do nothing wrong (and avoid using their services as much as I can for privacy reasons), but it's things like this that in my eyes put them a step above their competition ethically. Do we see Facebook do this? Microsoft? Apple? Same thing with withdrawing from China rather than censoring on behalf of their government, and a bunch of other examples.
Corporations aren't people, but as Google demonstrates, they can occasionally show their human face.
Yeah, but you probably also said black people warped our society back in the 60s, so whatever.
"We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work."
And what about those employees who (for whatever reason) are against same-sex marriage? If Google wants to support their employees does Google also support those people? Or are they just lying about wanting to support employees - Google only wants to support SOME employees who have corporate-approved beliefs and it wants to advocate against views by other employees?
If Google is anti-anti same-sex marriage then it could create a hostile environment who hold views that aren't corporate-approved, no?
the company has announced an international campaign to promote legal marriage equality for same-sex couples, called "Legalize Love."
FTA:
Some news reports said the 'Legalize Love' campaign would push for worldwide legalization of same-sex marriage, but a Google spokesman called that inaccurate. The campaign's focus is on human rights and employment discrimination, he said.
Google has spoken out before on same-sex marriage issues, most prominently when it came out in 2008 against California's "Proposition 8" ban on same-sex marriage.
2 Percent of Americans Identify as Gay
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Wow only two comments in and some idiot managed to compare a consensual relationship between adults to pedophilia. Next up, some ignoramus saying "but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
OK, I am not promoting the original commenter view, but then how about 3 or more mature adults who love each other?
Why do corporations and governments have any say in who we love, live with, and raise together?
The whole gay marriage issue seems like such a tiny specific issue to have a problem with.
And the how they always bring love into it, always bugs me. Love has nothing to do with legal marriage or what homosexuals want. Homosexuals, in general, want one thing to legalise marriage and gay sex. They do not want to legalise pedo-love, bestiality, or polygamy.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
large corporations (and the rich business owners before them) have been intentionally modifying the cultures they operate in for, well ever. At least in this case Google is on the side of equality rather than profit taking.
Other prime examples of corp's modifying culture:
Diamonds, they used to be considered trash gems. thanks to debeers, they're now very expensive and a large percentage of women have been brainwashed into thinking diamonds=love.
Any transportation other than cars in north america, until the rise of the auto super corps there were a multiple of ways to travel between your destinations, from train, plane, boat etc. now, you NEED a car to be a real citizen. they did such a good job that they even convinced cities to design themselves around cars rather than around people. (an anthropologist might conclude that we worshipped cars so much that they were the center of our society)
A slashdot favourite: Intellectual property laws. a more recent example is the current day corps convincing everybody that file sharing is theft.
A political favourite: Fox news. It has successfully managed to manipulate the state of political discourse in the US. while politics has always been full of rhetoric, It has in no small part been able to assist in the election of more of a type of politician which is only interested in my way or go to hell.
In short, Corps modify culture, all that money lets them do it pretty much scott free. Some use it to increase their profits, some for political ends. In google's case, the optics of it seem to support them wanting to influence equality.
I'm fine with Google being free to promote homosexuality as long as I am free to disagree with them and promote heterosexuality. Vive la difference!
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Butt out. Persons decide how and why and when human society will change, adapt, and evolve. Google the company is not a person. It has no standing and has no voice in this debate. Its employees, yes. Its owners, yes. But Google the company should stick to selling ads and STFU.
polygamy
Just wanted to say that... if wages are as stagnant for the next 40 years as they have been for the last 40, then having more than 2 adults living together may become a necessity if you wish to have a household with children.
A variant of this has already happened with so many of the under-30 crowd being out of work and having to live with their parents.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I generally support gay rights, but I've always been a little meh on the idea of gay marriage. What I'd really like to hear is for a gay marriage advocate to explain to me why polygamy should be illegal yet gay marriage should be legal. If we should let two guys or two girls get married because they really love each other and want to be together forever and all of that, then why shouldn't we let a guy marry two or three or more girls (or whatever other combination you can think of) if they all really love each other and want to be together in that way? It isn't something completely absurd like marrying dogs or cars or something - there have been and still are many societies where polygamy is normal and accepted and widely practiced. So why not?
I don't reply to ACs
Now what are they going to do? Sexual slurs were their primary ammo against iPhone users.
Google isn't saying we need marriage for gays, exactly, they are saying that we need equal treatment. If the government is giving preferential treatment to heterosexuals and denying it to everyone else, then that's wrong.
So then the question of whether or not "marriage" should be a legally recognized thing at all is another question. It may or may not be. But, consider that if children also need protection from government, then it actually could be in a government's interest to control the environment they're raised in to some extent.
That's right. And we, you and I, get to say what is deviant and what isn't. Isn't that convenient? Bring back Adolf Hitler! He wasn't so bad. Hallelujah!
Marriage is a religious rite [...]
This is not true for instance in Germany and many other european countries. There marriage is a legal procedure, performed by a municipal clerk. You can only go to your church, synagoge, mosque or whatever the sacred place is called in your religion to celebrate your marriage if you can show the official document sealing your marriage. Also the legal implications coming with marriage require the official procedure and the accompagnying paperwork.
"but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
He'd have to train the Great Dane to say "I do" first.
If you can manage that feat, then it would ok.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
it was you who said it!
Why? WHY? Why no one seems to make the next natural step??? ...i wonder what it would be!!!
Step 1: One man with One woman
Step 2: One Man with One Man, or One Woman with One Woman
Step 3: One Man/Woman with Many Women/Men.
Step 4: Many Men/Women with Many Women/Men.
Step 5:
They are quite literate enough to sue the pants off everyone for harassment. Some say that's how they make money, effectively a major scam.
Marriage to parrots should be a snap, then. Seriously, though, I don't see how anyone can oppose something like polygamy among adults if they're trying to "legalize love." If 3 or more adults want to be in a union, how can monogamists be so close minded?
Don't forget, it is natural only if it is about in 10% of the cases. If it becomes 100%, then it is pretty much unnatural.
"but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
He'd have to train the Great Dane to say "I do" first.
If you can manage that feat, then it would ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWXMJP1J-3Y
So if people who are getting married, they get married by the government. If they want to undergo a ritual somewhere else, like in a church, that can be done separately.
That is how it is done in at least Belgium and Germany and probably other countries as well.
It should then be extremely easy to allow same sex marriage as government should not discriminate on gender.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
There is *no* reason that "marriage" needs to be defined in law at all.
Just let people love and live however they see fit. If:
- two men
- two women
- a man and 5 women
- a woman and 3 guys
- a group of people
- or any other combination
choose to live together, so be it. Who is anyone to say how someone else can love and choose to live with one or more other people?
Let religions define marriage each in their own way, if they want to--but preserve the separation of church and state.
Let everyone regardless of religion, live with whomever they want.
There is *no* reason to have to declare your relationships to the state. Seems very silly to do so, and is really just another form of tax:
- marriage license
- marriage certificate
- lawyers bills
- divorce filing
- divorce decree
- alimony
(note I don't include child support in this list--a separate matter entirely)
Why bother with all that. Just cohabitate. Stay together happily, or split up and go separate ways. Don't bother filing and updating your status with the government each time your life changes. It's none of their business.
I think these people should read the other bits of their precious Leviticus, it would be an eye opener.
They do not want to legalise pedo-love, bestiality, or polygamy.
Marriage confers rights that the state blocks from others. The issue isn't who can get married, but why the right to be "next of kin" is banned from private contracts, and only allowed in contracts "blessed" but the state. beastiality isn't marriage. That's like saying you should be able to marry your hand. Or poligimatically marry both hands. You hand can't consent, and can't own land, so the right of "next of kin" is denied to it already. Same as animals. You can form a trust to hold land on behalf of your favorite cat, but the cat can't own land. It's not about marying whoever you want. It's a rights issue about why some people can't enter into a legal contract with others on the same framework as other people.
That, and Congress has written a law explicitly contradicting the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act contradicts the "full faith and credit" clause. State A marries two gays, then they are married in all 50 states, as per the Constitution. Why Congress would pass an unconstitutional law explicitly against gay marriage, then take it upon themselves to champion the cause is beyond me. Just go back to Constitutional law. Let one state recognize it (say, New Hampshire) and then the gays can go there to get married, and then that "contract" will be recognized in the other 49. Problem solved. You can live in a place that doesn't recognize gay marriage, but still follows the Constitution, right?
Learn to love Alaska
Why doesn't Google send a delegation to Riyadh or Tehran?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
How is "equal rights" evil?
Learn to love Alaska
the campaign will at first "focus on countries like Singapore, where certain homosexual activities are illegal
Mountain View is 13,680 km from Singapore --- the cultural distance can be far greater still. The question then becomes whether pressure for change from so distant a source will be ignored or resisted on instinct alone.
The same set of religious laws that prohibit and call two of the same sex 'an abomination' also call two consenting Heterosexual adults marrying if they happen to be of the wrong religion.
It's called the Un-equal Yoking Doctrine. There are still Christian Fanatics calling for it's enforcement today and say that a Jew and a Christian, or a Atheist and a Christian should not be permitted to marry because of issues of unequal Yoking.
This has been seen as a way of promoting racial apartheid in marriage as well. (in previous centuries, whites and blacks were supposed to be unequally yoked.) But that's not what the doctrine actually says.
Christians don't want to just prevent homosexual marriage from taking place, they want to say what heterosexual couples can marry as well.
I support Marriage and Plural Marriage with any combination of consenting adults. It looks like Heinlein did too with all he wrote about them all the time. "Friday" and other books.
I do not think it matters as marriage has typically been of religious control. The state got involved because many were being excluded from marriage and it was more or less a power struggle between the ruling powers and religious authorities. Eventually, marriage carried legal ramifications when widowers rights, automatic transfer of ownerships and other legal benefits started being assigned automatically because of marital status.
In the debate on gay marriage, if those assigned legal rights were to be removed and separated- say applied for and consented to separately, the gay marriage debate would likely disappear. The big problem is mostly the mixing of religious born rituals with legal procedures.
and in mexico you might get trial marriage certs that self expire after 2 years or can be renewed. if they passed the law, stupid google can list 10 pages of the same story and no followups.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
You can only go to your church, synagoge, mosque or whatever the sacred place is called in your religion to celebrate your marriage if you can show the official document sealing your marriage.
At least in Germany you can freely do any marriage rite you want without any paperwork. It just doesn't count anything (tax benefits, ...) as long as you didn't do the official paperwork from your municipality.
If you find a typo, you may keep it.
If you're preventing him from being a dick, bigot, racist and a homophobe.
Literally, their argument is always "you can't punish me, my religion says I can be a dick and you can't outlaw religion"!
Why does no-one ever promote equality for *everyone*, including single people, and campaign to just abolish marriage altogether? Then all these silly arguments go away.
Marriage is certainly not about love in any legal sense. In terms of family law in most jurisdictions, marriage has almost completely lost its original meaning anyway. (Marriage was about inheritance, and everything else simply followed from that. Not saying that that's good or bad, just that when people talk about 'traditional' marriage, that's what they're referring to, whether they realize it or not.)
Poles come to the UK to work and earn money, go back to Poland...and then come back to the UK because now Poland is a backward country for them. The Polish Government needs to start thinking like a modern, liberal Western democracy because it is in the interests, not only of the younger generation, but of the old and backward who will benefit if the economy improves. Sometimes you just have to kick people around the head (metaphorically) for their own good.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
i got no problem with gay people whatso ever, but I think google should stick to gooogle things, and not political things.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No problem with that.. but only if would stop recognizing marriage at all.
Scrap it from law all together. That way we would still end up with equallity for all.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
It's a multinational corporation that happens to have its headquarters in one of the States of the USA which has a pretty good record on progressive values. Poland has a much smaller population than California. Google is not responsible for what happens in Washington.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It causes 100% of divorce, makes children objects to be fought over and causes depression and bankruptcy - just to note a few problems.
It should be banned!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
one could argue everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no preferential treatment. But when we have the "gay olympics" or the "gay this" or "gay that" it is actually more exclusionary than one would think. People make the argument that so and so was persecuted and whatever for xx years in the past, but it isnt the past. One cant argue for equal treatment, and still seek preferential treatment. Example, If a straight man hits a gay man, he can be charged with a hate crime, when a gay man atackes a straight man, he must have provoked it. where is the equality?
I am sure I will burn off some karma with this post, but I honestly believe that equality is there, but as long as communities continue to differentiate and not assimilate, than it is only preferential treatment that is being sought after.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Again, no, it isn't. Monogamous marriages were a secular Roman practice (most societies before that were polygamous.) The Catholic church may have interpreted some scripture to turn a civil practice into a sacrament, but the civil practice preceded it historically and structurally.
The etymology of "marriage" is from the Latin "maritare."
Calling it "gay marriage" it's actually a problem, here in Argentina, the existing marriage law was modified to remove gender specific words, and that was it, the conservative and catholic oposition presented an alternative project to call it something like "civil union", thus opening the doors to all kinds of differentiation. During the discussion the proposal was informally refered as "marriage for all".
Google should not be meddling with this. What happened to 'not be evil' This reeks of evil.
i don't think this is "evil", but i agree, google doesn't really need to be advertising one way or the other. Offering it to employees in same sex relationships is up to them, but to advertise? That's pushing it too far. What's next, abortion? I don't like seeing companies get political
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
every country can improve
by your logic, no one can ever criticize any other country in the world outside of their own, because their own country still has problems and always will
fucking bullshit
i can criticize any country i want, including my own, and it's not hypocrisy. because i am first and foremost a human being, concerned with human rights, and with a human conscience. nationalist silos may confine your thinking, but not mine
don't think the parameters of your own self-chosen provincialism has any bearing on me
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I love the way well-meaning corporations jump on the gay bandwagon which affects just 1-2% of their workforce and ride roughshod over the beliefs of their Jewish, Muslim and Catholic staff.
You obviously aren't from the US. Legal marriage and religious marriage are quite different.
Legal marriage requires a marriage license and is a binding legal contract.
Superstitious marriage is whatever the superstitionists say it is.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I don't know about the hate, but I will say that this is a divisive area and will create disdain with a portion of their user base. The country is about half split on the issue with alternatives to google popping up all the time.
This is a corporation getting involved in politics which seems to be the greatest evil that most people can agree on over the last 30 or more years. Of course some people will be shallow enough to excuse their favorite company getting into politics that do not directly involve their operation because it is something they want to support, but it doesn't change anything.
I guess the next question might be, what if Microsoft and GM decided to advocate the pro life argument and IBM all the sudden threw in support for teaching creation in schools. I'm assuming there would be differences in how that is viewed but in reality it is no different. These are just places that no corporation should be involved in- especially if they claim to do no evil which they are clearly participating in.
Eventually? The legal benefits of marriage have existed for millennia. Which came first? Who knows, you might as well argue that the first writing was religious, or the first calendar, or the first government. It's way too lost in the unrecorded annals of history.
If you want to argue marriage shouldn't exist, you can, but try for a better argument than it being once a religious institution. Here's what happened in the real world: The government stopped being a theocracy, and started operating under other principles.
Because we liked it better that way.
No, RELIGION reeks of evil.
Thanks for your post as an example thereof.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Cohabitation has its own problems in law, especially regarding property rights and children.
I wish that Google would 'butt out'.
This campaign will do nothing but antagonize 'the right' in the US. The GOP will hate us even more.
I'm transgendered. I've known that since the mid 1960's. I've been dressing ever since but I'm realistic enough to realise that I can never live as a woman. How many 6ft 7in 280lb women do you see in real life. So I dress in my own home with the full approval of my wife of 30years. She knew about me before we got serious. It is a shame that more people can't seem to understand that there are many amongst us that really were born into the wrong body.
My brain thinks like a woman. That is why my wife loves me so much. She sees me as not only her husband but as her best friend in whom she can confide in just like another woman.
If I were to come out in many places on this planet, I'd risk being killed. Pure and simple.
This campaign by Google will do nothing to change the opinions in a good few counties in this world. Their fundamentalist beliefs preclude them from accepting us. In their eyes, we are worse than alduterers. They get stoned to death so what would happen to us.
Some do not see it as equal rights. They see it as extra rights. Right now, everyone who is capable of making decisions for themselves has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex if they are capable of the same and agree to the marriage. Two men or two women marrying each other is extra to those rights and it's something they want to be included because of choices they made in their life and perceived benefits extended through law.
Some of those 'Google things' are things like open data, and open formats, something that is somewhat political, but a bit more technology related. Some of these things are in their best interests and some are not, but I like it when a corporation takes a stand on what it thinks is right. I like it better when those stands align with my own views, but as long as it's not against them, I think it's a good thing. It's pretty obvious that most countries are ruled these corporations these days anyway, so we might as well get the politics out into the open.
I'm all for gay couples having the same kinds of rights as straight couples, but I don't understand why they have to use the term marriage. There are all kinds of examples where very similar products can only be called by a certain name under certain conditions...champagne versus sparkling wine is a good example. Why can't they keep marriage as referring to a man and a woman, like hundreds of years of tradition, and simply have a legally identical "civil union" or some other name? I don't see why they need to debase the term marriage to achieve their ends.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Perhaps according to your Superstition, but your Imaginary Friend carries less and less weight every year.
Your post is an example of why ALL Superstition is toxic and unworthy of modern man.
Prove your Sky Fairie exists, NOW, and I'll recant and kiss his/her/its Noodly Appendage. Otherwise, fuck off.
To espouse Superstition is to espouse spiritual slavery. That makes all Superstionists enemies of humanity, and is why any of their protests otherwise should be considered delusions or deliberate lies.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
If companies publicly show support for certain things, I can avoid them. If they quietly throw millions of dollars at those causes, I won't know that I should.
I'm sorry for that, white catholic heterosexuals have really bad PR this days. I would say we are screwed.
I disagree with you that the concept of marriage is religious, but anyway there are religious beliefs and communities that are completely fine with same sex marraige. By the establishment clause, the federal government can't favor those religious traditions, beliefs, or communities which do not approve of same-sex marriage over those that do. Religious freedom is an argument for legal recognition of same-sex marriage, not against it. You could appeal to religious freedom to avoid being forced to carry out the ceremony yourself or recognizing same-sex marriages in your own religious institution, but not to force somebody else to follow your rules.
It makes sense to fix gay marriage first, because that's so quick and easy, compared to legalizing polygamy in marriages.
Your religious objection is duly noted, that we may appreciate raw religion unvarnished with political correctness.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Only in Mexico City, where gay marriage is already legal.
But Mexico City is a lonely island of liberality in an ocean of conservatism, as the recent elections have proven.
No sig for the moment.
All you that go ra ra google are useful idiots. Google/NSA are exploiting LGBT's to steer the conversation about google away from privacy.
And onto a topic which not even the AC's have taken the devil's side.
Here in Norway you can go to a municipal clerk, but churches, mosques and other organizations like humanitarians can get a "license to marry" if they do their paperwork. So the priest is the one actually marrying you both in the legal and religious sense, but the paperwork will be exactly the same. Unlike the municipal clerk they are not required to marry anyone though, so they can have their own rules on who they'll marry and not. I think those two varieties cover pretty much all of Europe, it's a legal procedure in some way not just a marriage contract.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I support Freedom, and support the Support of Freedom wherever it comes from.
Google fights a good fight here.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The biggest benefit of going to hell: Assholes like you will apparently all be in heaven.
Plus, the music is way better.
Really google, work first, play and have fun later.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Yes, I've never understood the conflation by the "Religious Right" of "marriage" in a secular sense versus "marriage" in a religious sense. Their stance equating the two seems to imply either a) God can be "forced" to recognize gay marriage in a -religious- sense by a vote of politicians, or b) the validity of marriage in a religious sense (and God per se, to some extent) is contingent upon public agreement.
Neither of which seems to be a stance a theist would actually want to take. Seems much more reasonable to leave the secular and religious scope of "marriage" to the sphere at hand, and not doing so seems much more indicative of political gamesmanship than dedication to one's religion.
As an aside, it's actually quite debatable whether the primary reason for censure of "gay sex" (not "homosexuality", as gay -orientation- in itself has not a single censure anywhere in the bible), is because it is homosexual, or whether it is because by definition as of the historical context, it would be unmarried, promiscuous sex, which is equally condemned for heterosexuals. But that, again, would be a debate for the religious sense of "marriage", and distinct from secular issues...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
In my state, they tried to make it illegal for companies to offer domestic partner benefits. While this would have affected all unmarried couples, it was targeted at gays. The biggest employers in the state came out against it, because they know they can't attract the best employees if they can't offer those types of benefits that are attractive to employees. The same is true of a good city to live in: these companies know that by making their locations more attractive, they will get better employees. Google is trying to make their locations more attractive, and who can blame them? It's business, plain and simple, and in my opinion it's a nice example that shows that the interests of companies and individuals can indeed be aligned, though they often are not.
Can I mod something +1 Scary if it's true but I wish it weren't?
Thank you for your post demonstrating the toxicity of Superstition.
Prove your Imaginary Friend exists, NOW, and I'll recant and kiss his/her/its Noodly Appendage.
No proof? Fuck off and take your doctrine of spiritual slavery with you.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Can someone explain to me what's the big deal with gay marriage? What's the hang up against letting two people marry? Who cares, it doesn't affect you. What's the harm in letting two guys or girls marry? There are more important things to be angry about, like the banks defrauding taxpayers out of billions.
I'm a proponent for civil unions as a replacement for the legal institute of marriage. It is as simple as changing the name, but returns the term "marriage" to organized religion.
After all, the term "gay civil union" is much easier for the public to digest than "gay marriage". It would be functionally the same, but would be written into law much faster.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
No, we let people with speech impediments marry... so there's no need for the Dane to say "I Do"
We all believe in evolution here, so we can surely all agree that neither man nor dog is more or less "valuable"... we are simply all evolved animals. Forbidding the marriage of a person and an animal is therefore only another form of bigotry. By participating in a relationship to the degree that it is capable, the animal is giving its consent, right?
If we are going to be serious about tearing down all the traditional norms of western civilization, we ought to be consistent about it and get on with the task of normalizing all behaviors... in trying to be "edgy", people like the policy makers at Google simply seek to replace one set of "arbitrary" social limits with another set that are at least as arbitrary and far less logical
The concept of marriage is not strictly religious. Many cultures have had marriage but not necessarily tied to any religion. Buddhism for example considers marriage a matter for the state and not the religion. Those who are opposing gay marriage want to thrust their religious beliefs into the definition. Predominantly the religion they want to define marriage is a Protestant Christian one. Marriage existed in some form long before Christianity. As an legal institution, marriage has been used to convey inheritance and transfer of property. Women were the property being transferred and children born in wedlock were considered true heirs to any wealth whereas other children were not.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
They don't. You are free to love, live with and raise together (sic) anyone you wish. Government provides benefits to married couples because households comprised of people in committed relationships contribute to social and economic stability. Personally, I don't believe it matters whether those relationships are between members of the opposite sex or not - they still contribute to social and economic stability.
On the other hand, outside of strict religious contexts, I don't believe that marital units comprised of more than 2 adults has the same effect of promoting stability. It's why you mainly see polygamy in strict religious cultures. Outside of strict religious cultures, you don't see polygamy working so well, for some reason.
Pair bonding of same-sex couples occurs in nature, as does, of course, pair bonding of opposite sex couples. I don't know if polygamous sexual bonding occurs in nature or not.
Pair bonding is good for society, regardless of the respective genders of the couple. It's healthy that society promotes it. As far as I can tell there are only two reasons to oppose same-sex marriage: on religious grounds or because of homophobia, and neither should enter into the law. Nobody's going to force anyone to engage in gay sex (Penn State locker rooms and rectories notwithstanding). I have yet to hear a legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A lot of people are crypto-theocrats of religions where homosexuality is a sin (mostly variants of Christianity), but most won't openly admit that they wish to force their religious rules on others, so they make up all the pretzel-logic bullshit reasons that confuse us today.
That's the whole thing in a nutshell. Get enough of those crypto-theocrats in a room together and they'll drop the facade and talk about how they want their government to follow Biblical rules and how it would be a sin to support same-sex marriage.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's entirely true. Personally, I've no care about what two(or more) concenting adults do on their own time. The only issue /should/ be how to handle tax breaks, child support and whatnot... which, in a sane world, should be trivial to do and be 100% fair to any and all parties involved.
But hey, that wouldn't be good for business(Just think how many people make money off having things the way they are) and so it won't happen.
Corporations should not be involved in things like this... These are independent, sovereign nations and while I may agree to compaigning against capital punishment for minor offences I totally disagree with foreign corporations trying to redefine what marriage is in given country...
I think ignorant twats like yourself, with no idea about what western civilization or evolution consists of should be banned from procreation...of course, I doubt that's really an issue in your case.
Two men or two women marrying each other is extra to those rights and it's something they want to be included because of choices they made in their life and perceived benefits extended through law.
Two people is two people. It's the bigots who want to make sure that the pairings match their preconceptions. That bigotry has persisted long enough to be though of as "natural" doesn't make the bigotry the default position, just the intermediate position of familiarity and comfort for the bigots.
Learn to love Alaska
I don't know if polygamous sexual bonding occurs in nature or not.
Let me introduce you to gorillas :).
Every end has half a stick.
I was at a town meeting where a religious man (deacon or other church-involved person not of a professional theological background) claimed that laws protecting on race are ok because you can test for race at birth, but there's no test for gay. I had already spoken, or I'd have pointed out there's no test for Baptist or Methodist either, so he just argued that religion should not be protected by law.
I understand their thinking. They just aren't consistent. And the funny thing is that they'll argue all day that I can't understand their position if I don't agree with them. A further insight into their thinking process, but understanding isn't necessary for being "more right" than someone else.
Learn to love Alaska
In our language, 'equal rights' means 'the same rights'. 'Equal but different' was deemed 'not equal rights'. Banning same sex marriage is like the old segregated water fountains. Saying, "Anyone can drink from a water fountain that is listed for use by their race is equal rights.", and "Blacks wanting to drink from white water fountains is asking for extra rights." is absurd. The same applies to marriage. Even if Joe is willing, Mike cannot marry Joe. Sharron can marry Joe. That is not equal.
Why do gay folks want to get married? that is a union between a man and a women. Why don't they get garried and have garriages? ... stick with garriages and getting garried.
Should lesbians then get larried? - no doesn't sound right
Monogamous marriages were a secular Roman practice
There was no such thing as secular Roman anything. The roman state was a religion in and of itself. The senate had the power to confer godhood on people. The claim to power of the roman state was a religious one. Rome was a Theocratic Republic. It is a lot like claiming any laws in Vatican City are secular. Try to realise that the Catholic Church was, in a lot of ways, just Zombie Rome shambling around europe devouring the brains of its victims.
Excellent but scary explanation. I still don't understand their motivation for wanting to impose their beliefs on society. It's not like the law prevents them from practising their religion. If they're right they go to heaven, the rest of us go to hell. Woohoo! Now why can't they just leave everyone else alone? This type of thinking baffles me.
one could argue everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no preferential treatment.
And if you were only allowed to marry someone of the same sex, would you consider that preferential treatment?
Example, If a straight man hits a gay man, he can be charged with a hate crime, when a gay man atackes a straight man, he must have provoked it. where is the equality?
That's not how it works. If a straight man seeks out a gay man to threaten, assault or kill, that's a hate crime. The "must have provoked it" sounds like something you just made up.
As I understand it, hate crime legislation has two parts - harsher sentences and federal involvement. The reason for harsher sentences is that the attack is on a group, not just the individual. Picking a random gay person to beat up, or burning a cross on a lawn or lynching someone is terrorism against a group. Federal involvement is sometimes needed because local police and legal systems don't protect the rights of those protected classes.
I want to have and keep a cute sweet little girl as my own.
Pedo marraige with little nice girl.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29, in the original hebrew, shows that concent of a young girl (even if such can be given), is not necessary for keeping a girl, in the Deuteronomic Law tradition. (Nor her father's concent either): Rape a young girl virgin who is unespoused: keep her and pay her father.
Google made it clear that these sorts of laws affect its ability to keep the best talent in their company. Also, in the legal sense, being able to apply the term "married" to two people shortcuts a lot of overhead for establishing employee benefits. It defines a legal contract between the two people which does not need to be reviewed in extreme detail by the HR department. Without it, each couple could have entirely different sets of contracts that define their relationship. This could lead to two things: 1) very lenient interpretations of who can get benefits, leaving a lot of room for abuse by fake life-partners; or 2) the need for costly legal fees to determine which side of the line each contract falls.
The result of all of this is that Google's bottom line is negatively affected by laws created by religious zealots, and making money, like with any other corporation, is a Google thing.
I didn't see any hate in kubusja's post...you probably see hate because you disagree. I think Google should focus on the business and not in politics. Curious what their stock holders think about the wasted man-hours and money Google's invested in this already.
There are two examples given of nations that do not tread gays etc. equal and Google wants to direct their efforts first on these nations.
I appreciate it when an employer also supports their employees outside of the company gates.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
"They don't. You are free to love, live with and raise together (sic) anyone you wish"
Except, if it is more than a pair of people, interspecies, or outside of strict age limits.
And you use the exact same language as homophobes and have the same misguided believes. If anything I believe polygamy is more common in nature between animals, and I see no reason to believe that 2 adults living together has any more or less "stabilizing effect", whatever that means, than 3 or 4.
Also it is hard to judge if polygamy naturally just does not work out as well as "normal" marriage when it has been illegal for the entire history of the US.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Marriage is a joke nowadays anyway. I think it's time for the Government to just get out of the practice entirely. If 2, 3, 5, or 99 people want to call themselves married then fine, whatever. It's become a joke anyway. People marry "forever" then 6 days later they're humping someone else and getting a divorce. In modern society it's become a pointless joke. The State should give it up and get out of the business. Let people call themselves husband and wife or buddy and buddy or whatever they want to. I don't care if they marry a fire hydrant just leave the State out of it and let's move on to real problems like the trillions of dollars of debt we're rolling up.
n/t
Because the mind of a 7-year-old is not mature enough to know whether or not it really wants to marry anyone, let alone a 68-year old. I don't see why that's relevant.
I know a few 27-year-olds who are not mature enough to know whether or not it really wants to marry anyone.
What 14 or 16? That's the age of consent in many places.
Same in The Netherlands, in a church you can marry all you want but only the registration ceremony in city hall will make it a legal contract.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
It came from the Pro-Life league because Google is anti-family.
I support Freedom, and support the Support of Freedom wherever it comes from.
Google fights a good fight here.
The Koch brothers and Fox (News) think they fight the good fight as well.
God says man who lie with man is an abomination.
Are you a mindless follower of the bible? How many people have you stoned? If you can muster enough independent thought to reject some parts of the bible, then you can choose to be homophobic or not.
Dude, it's a basic issue of human rights. In twenty or thirty years time we're going to look back on people who oppose same sex marriage the same way we now look upon those who opposed mixed race marriages. As bigots.
> i got no problem with gay people whatso ever, but I think google should stick to gooogle things, and not political things.
It is a pretty strong confirmation of Derbyshire's Law:
"Any organization that admits frank and open homosexuals into its higher levels will sooner or later abandon its original purpose and give itself over to propagating and celebrating the homosexualist ethos, and to excluding heterosexuals and denigrating heterosexuality."
See Andrew Sullivan for a personification of the law in action. Apparently, there is no such thing as a X-gay, all you ever get is gay-X, i.e. they are gay before anything else. Once they come out of the closet, being homosexual almost instantly overrides any other considerations. Or more bluntly, the old handbooks probably had it right, mental disorder.
I have mod points, but I'm going to resist the urge to assume you're trolling.
I hope nobody mods you down. In fact, I hope you get modded up to 5, just so the entire world can see how fucked up some people's beliefs actually are. Hopefully, this will make it clear why Google and other more insightful elements of human society actually do have to get on a podium and shout that being gay is as natural a part of human nature as red hair or left-handedness.
I for one take comfort from the fact that Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Alan Turing and countless other giants on whose shoulder we now stand would have a safe, affirming environment in which to work, rather than being forced to conceal, to hide their nature, even to be punished -effectively murdered- by the state simply for being the way God made them.
Now that I'm done with my rational argument, allow me to close with a sincere, heartfelt, Fuck You to you and to all neanderthals who love nothing more than to single out scapegoats and punish them for their own inadequacies.
HTH HAND
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Most religious folks with which I have spoken seem only to care that the LGBT community does not get to call it marriage because to them marriage is a religious term. The LGBT community wants nothing to do with the religious definition and only wants the privileges the state bestows to H couples. I think a lot of religious types think the LGBT is trying to subvert their religion by using the term marriage.
I see two solutions to this issue.
That's not how it works. If a straight man seeks out a gay man to threaten, assault or kill, that's a hate crime. The "must have provoked it" sounds like something you just made up.
You are naive if you think that's actually how it works in practice. Hate crimes are one of the worst things to ever grace lawbooks. You just can't prove that a straight man beating a gay man wan't a hate crime unless the straight man has some sort of iron clad evidence to support the opposite (lots of gay friends, supports gay charity, etc). You can bet your ass the lawyer of the gay individual is going to press for hate crime.
Can someone explain to me what's the big deal with gay marriage? What's the hang up against letting two people marry? Who cares, it doesn't affect you. What's the harm in letting two guys or girls marry? There are more important things to be angry about, like the banks defrauding taxpayers out of billions.
The issue for those against same sex unions is that if it is ever legalized nationally, it will be taught in school to children as something that is ok and good. But there are several major world religions that teach it is evil. That is the issue. Those people don't want the state telling their kids that something they believe that is evil should be ok to do.
Just like how many people get upset that the schools show the kids how to use condoms and then send them home with them. I think a lot of gay's don't realize this.
Also, what about churches who will not marry same sex couples. Those churches will then be forced to do this and if they don't, they will lose their marriage licenses. It's about forcing those against the issue to comply. It's less about restricting gays.
Just a reminder, since I obviously missed it too, to change the subject of your comment when replying in a thread like this.
The concept of marriage is religious.
Nope, for the longest period of time marriage was a practical or political arrangement, it was a way to ensure the continuation of your linage. It had more to do with the political aspects of medieval life than it had to do with the religious aspects of it.
It served as a handy way to not only ensure children but also cement political alliances and inheritance.
The church's role in the whole deal was simply that it was the only organization that could perform the marriages, which is how the church maintained its base of power in medieval Europe. In many cases the medieval catholic church was a political organization more than a religious one.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Modifying the biologically-oriented meaning of marriage to 'people who love each', is not a move towards equality. Its simply a stupid, illogical, unscientific change to the contents of a legal and social contract. Are there things that need to be changed for equality? Sure. That has nothing to do with this illogical, pandering idea.
Those who are opposing gay marriage want to thrust their religious beliefs into the definition.
And, oddly enough, they constantly accuse the other side of wanting to "redefine" marriage.
The whole gay marriage issue seems like such a tiny specific issue to have a problem with.
For a person who is gay, it's probably the most important issue in the entire world.
Suppose we enact a law prohibiting people from eating meat. Vegetarians would not complain since they're not affected. Yet the meat banning law is applicable to the entire population - equal treatment. No discrimination against meat eaters at all...
If it's not working as intended, then you should provide some evidence of that.
In my 2 minutes of research I found this on Wikipedia: of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007, 9 murders and 2 rapes were considered hate crimes. That doesn't seem like it's being over-applied.
Honestly, I see no reason why polygamy should be illegal.
We have no way of knowing whether or not an animal has given consent. And there are several mentally unstable patients who would be unable to give consent to marriage as well.
Good fight? Or good PR? 'Gay' money ain't just peanuts
That's not how the "full faith and credit" clause works. It's an evidentiary rule. It doesn't mean an official record has effect in another state. It means if one state says a record is valid, a court in another state has to treat that record as reliable evidence (unless proof can be shown otherwise).
That's exactly what I want.
Call my old fashioned, but I oppose legalization of gay marriage; its a religious sacrament (raised Catholic) that the government has no business regulating. Make everything we associate with marriage BY LAW be exclusive to civil union, make marriages the domain of religions, and make civil unions be exclusive between two consenting adults. Gay marriage, polygamy, etc all just become non-issues; they will happen, they will be legal, but they can be ignored by those who do not approve of marriages between two people of that race, religion, sex, etc.
In the end, my oppositions to gay marriage ensures that it will happen and will be legal, but that's better than having the government interfere with my religion.
...what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?
Do you, Shaggy, take this...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Right now, everyone who is capable of making decisions for themselves has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex if they are capable of the same and agree to the marriage.
In the old days, everyone who was capable of making decisions for themselves had the right to marry a person of the same race if they were capable of the same and agreed to the marriage. I don't know why they needed to go and give people "extra rights" to marry across racial boundaries. Things were perfectly equal back then.
Let's phrase your statement in another way: "Right now, everyone who is capable of making decisions for themselves has the right to marry the person they love if they are capable of the same and agree to the marriage". Hmm, suddenly it's no longer accurate.
It's easy to phrase things in such a way so as to sound "equal". It doesn't make it so, however.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
I don't know about the hate, but I will say that this is a divisive area and will create disdain with a portion of their user base. The country is about half split on the issue with alternatives to google popping up all the time.
The split isn't quite as pronounced as you think... of the overall total population, yeah, I'd believe a 50/50 split. Of the demographics that Google is going after, however, I'd think it's closer to 80% in support of equal rights, if not higher. The younger generation, by and large, just doesn't care what happens in your bedroom. Give it a few more years, and the most vocal anti-gay activists will either be outed as gay themselves, or will die off, and 20 years from now it will be a complete non-issue. That's not even considering the rest of the civilized world, where it's already a complete non-issue.... at the end of the day, this will probably earn them more customers than it will cost them.
...the ruling powers and religious authorities...
Now that's a marriage made in heaven
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Like it or not, corporations have been given carte blanche to buy elections. That ship has already sailed. We're an oligarchy now, and will remain such until some SCOTUS judges die off while a Democrat is in office. And if we must have our country ruled by corporations, I'd prefer to be ruled by corporations that care about human equality, rather than a bunch of plundering banks and hedge funds.
You can hem and haw all you want about how awful it is that it's come to this, but it won't do a damn bit of good. Either we take what we can get, or we lay down and die.
returns the term "marriage" to organized religion.
It doesn't belong to them.
The record of "marriage" is valid. They don't have to call the contract "marriage", but the contract is still valid. Otherwise, you could break any contract you wanted by moving states. Oops, they didn't pass an explicit law to recognize mobile phone contracts? Then no fees for breaking contracts by moving. "Full faith and credit" is designed to stop that shit. If you enter into a legally binding contract in NH that makes you the next-of-kin to someone, and you theirs, and all the other "hidden" terms in the marriage contract, then that contract is still valid in the other 49 states. Contracts aren't invalid just because you move states, and that's exactly and explicitly what that clause is about.
You can pass a state law to call NH marriages "illegal non-marriage fag unions" in your state if you like, but the terms are binding in all 50 states, according to the Constitution.
Learn to love Alaska
Some do not see it as equal rights. They see it as extra rights. Right now, everyone who is capable of making decisions for themselves has the right to marry a person of the same race if they are capable of the same and agree to the marriage. A colored and a white marrying each other is extra to those rights and it's something they want to be included because of choices they made in their life and perceived benefits extended through law.
Yeah, google has a good browser, phone OS, car that drives themselves and advertising framework, and now a good political movement.
Pity their ad display engine (the one people use for searches) sucks.
Not if they can marry little girls of a generation younger and more numerous than themselves.
Those who are opposing gay marriage want to thrust their religious beliefs into the definition. Predominantly the religion they want to define marriage is a Protestant Christian one.
Whoa, now! The most vitriolic marriage arguments I hear seem to stem from the Catholics I know. While I'll admit that the party line for Christianity in general is anti gay marriage, it does seem that there are a number of Protestant members that are at least open to progressive thinking.
Should split up the concepts across the board. Civil unions requiring official registrations and marriage as a religious, social, or ethnic rite. If you get married in a church but don't fulfill the civil union part of it then you don't get the legal protections (except as common-law marriage after a period of time cohabiting). It's somewhat that way now, as you get marriage certificate signed by the person who officiates at the wedding.
Problems come when employees of a company don't agree with the CEOs political stance, or that the profits they help to produce are spent in ways they are opposed to. You can even worry about losing your job if a boycott takes off. This happens on both sides of an issue as well and it can happen to just about anyone.
So...segregating bathrooms by gender violates equality? Maybe "equal" does not mean "same" in "our language" because of an arbitrary court decision that has no philosophical, semantic, or lexicographical validity...
then half the gays should change their name to Sharon and the other half Joe. problem solved!
No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry same-sex couples if they're against it. There are plenty of other people who are willing to perform the ceremony.
The difference being that an animal (or a 7 year old human for that matter) is not legally competent to give informed consent. That is why there will never be legal marriage between humans and animals.
The problem is you will never see "civil unions" being equal to "marriage".
What they need to do is eliminate marriage from the law and create "legal unions" whereby any person can create a legal union with any other person(s) for tax, family / legal rights, etc. There shouldn't be a restriction on the union. You should be able to have 10 people in one union if so desired (think polygamists: Islam, The Community of Christ which broke away from Mormon church, etc). There should be no sex or age restrictions. Again- it's not giving anybody the right to rape or anything like that. It's just a legal codeword for certain rights between people for family such as having the right to see a sick person in hospital, the right to claim assets during a separation, the right to inherit assets, etc, etc. This could be a union between mother and son, gay lovers, elderly people, wife and husband, or a bunch of straight people for all we care, etc.
Marriage can be used by whomever however to describe whatever. If I decide I'm in a marriage to my gay lover it's my business what I call that union. If you don't like it stfu and don't hang with me after work. Now you would have to be careful what words you use in certain contexts to describe that union as it could be discrimination. You can't go into work and start using the word marriage between persons of opposite sex and then civil union for same sex. You could only say "joe is union'd with Sarah" or something to that end. After work you could say whatever you damm well please as long as you are not in a context of work.
Why do corporations and governments have any say in who we love, live with, and raise together?
The political/economic aspect of marriage.Strong incentives are given for the traditional family, politicians, priests, and rich merchants understand the power and financial relationships in it. Different family structures are not as clear cut, for a start the "head of the houshold" is already difficult to identify compared to what I grew up with in the 60's. That sort of social upheaval scares a lot of people who firmly believe variety is NOT the spice of life.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I'll make my choice by NOT using any of their products. I will not be using an Android phone I will not use google (haven't for a while anyway). Google has a right to do what they want, and I have the right to do what I want. Pretty cut & dry if you ask me. I don't believe in homosexual marriage, as I believe that the intention of marriage, at its BASIC level is for procreation. The term marriage, has been diluted over the decades to the point that a lot of people don't even get married any more. But, my belief system says that marriage is between a man & a woman. I don't push my views on anyone. If someone comes up and asks my opinion of something, I tell them, but I don't protest, I don't carry signs, I don't try to tell someone else how to live. If more people did that, the world would be better off. We have a minority of people trying to tell the majority of people how to live.
I don't like seeing companies get political
Then I hope you're not living in the USA
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I think marriage is a natural development of the human tendency to pair bond. That religions incorporated it into their theology is not surprising.
Making other people do what you want to do
Preventing other people from doing what they want to do
Sending other people the bill for your life choices
Nobody would have a legitimate concern about gay marriage if the gay community and its supporters would stop trying to force their morality on other people.
The Obama administration blew it for gay marriage with his contraceptives mandate. It is abundantly clear from places that have already permitted gay marriage that those who oppose it themselves (even if they don't give a shit what you do), are going to be forced to materially support or even participate. A photographer from Arkansas was successfully sued because she didn't want to offer her services at a gay wedding. That's the kind of stupid that keeps gay marriage illegal.
If a business wants to turn you down for what you think are stupid reasons, who cares? That's a business opportunity for someone else.
We have fights in this country because it's no longer good enough to have the freedom to do what you want to do, you want to oppress others so they have to do what you want to do.
Work Safe Porn
pedophile or beastophile(?)
Animals and children are not adults and connot give consent. So what part of "between consenting adults" do you not understand?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Not most Christians, but Islam.
There are sect of Christianity that have no issue with gays, even some of the larger ones. Catholics do have the Newman society, although the formal position is that it does not. Lutheran, angelician and presbyterians come to mind.
List the Muslim sects that do, there is only one i can confirm, and it is tiny.
Muslims match or exceed Christians in number, and there are plenty of Islamic theocraticies, so the focus is on Islam.
Prehaps then you will realize how far of a struggle it will be. Convincing Catholics will seem a breeze by comparison.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
the government's already giving preferential treatment to non whites and women, so there's plenty of precedent..
it's too bad the feds don't protect with equal vigor the groups who do not have large political lobbies backing them...thus the feds become part of the problem.
Their religion says to convert all people to their religion. Funny thing is their God is supposed to be all powerful but he sure is insecure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Pair bonding is good for society, regardless of the respective genders of the couple. It's healthy that society promotes it.
Thought this might interest you: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/09/in_defense_of_single_people/
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
being gay is as natural a part of human nature as red hair or left-handedness.
perhaps it is, but that doesn't justify political protections that cross the line into entitlements. A lot of left wing groups have these, and it discriminates against those who are not in these groups. in the case of marriage, the state really shouldn't be involved. if it wasn't, gay marriage would be a non issue.
I for one take comfort from the fact that Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Alan Turing and countless other giants on whose shoulder we now stand would have a safe, affirming environment in which to work, rather than being forced to conceal, to hide their nature, even to be punished -effectively murdered- by the state simply for being the way God made them.
when is society going to get over this? life isn't about 'affirmation' or 'discrimination' of peoples' feelings. it's about being truthful in the first place, and building societal structures that ensure the truth comes out regardless of feelings. Whether it's a scientist burned as a warlock for 'heretical' statements or the censorious treatment of someone questioning the idea of kids raised by two gay dads, it's the the same problem. the components of the truth supporting the politics are trumpeted while the parts that don't are repressed. We have to get over this.
Now that I'm done with my rational argument, allow me to close with a sincere, heartfelt, Fuck You to you and to all neanderthals who love nothing more than to single out scapegoats and punish them for their own inadequacies.
ad hominem doesn't help your argument.
In France, there are two different levels. Pact Civil de Solidarite or PACS is roughly equivalent to a civil union. You can then go further and get _married_ in a church.
As I understand it, the US government doesn't recognize a PACS, so if one of the members is a US citizen and the other desires a Green Card, they need to get married.
It came up recently in the Canadian courts. The court left the law as is as it was clearly shown, at least in the case of the quasi-Mormon group that the case was about, that it was abusive to the young women who were forced to participate in the polygamous marriages. As a side issue it was also abusive to the young males who were exiled from the group to make sure that only a few dominant males got all the females.
In a society with roughly equal numbers of male and female, polygamy (and polyandry) does not scale up very well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Because separate but equal works.
Then I guess the law should be against coercion and against being "exiled". Polygamy per se is hardly hurting anyone if everything is voluntary.
That is the correct and obvious and logical solution. Most of the objections against gay marriage are religious. And most of the arguments for gay marriage are civil -- two men or two women should have the right to be eachothers desigate etc for legal, banking, insurance, benefits, etc.
And marriage can be the realm of the churches. They can allow or disallow or regcognize or ignore whatever whatever they like.
So why will this never fly? The religious freak out and call it a "war on religion" ... and it just gets no political support.
The other solution tossed about to this semantic nonsense, is to have the term marriage reserved for a civil union between a man and a woman, and have another term for one between same sex couples... but have them legally equivalent. This solves a lot of the problems as well.
The only downside there is the gays (rightfully I think) want to be equal not equivalent. Even so, i think this approach has a better shot at getting passed as legislation.
I need no law or court to claim the rights of this earth,
nor is it a duty to disclose this notice
17 girls and I
Not Me.Not You,But At Her Service
As soon as a problem with this earth is reported to The Crown,
no-one holds any rights.
The Crown cannot move and all order are carried from one
location held by The Crown.
It is against the law to use the word homosexual on Crown documents except herein
homosexual is against the law
It is against the law to turn someone into a fantasy figure
At Her Majesty's Service
I'm not gay. If 2 guys or 2 girls want to get married to each other, fine. It doesn't hurt me, it doesn't help me, it doesn't make any difference in my life. Everybody needs to stop making such a big deal about the whole issue! WHO FUCKING CARES???? Seriously people, how do same-sex marriages affect ANYBODY outside of the marriage?
Did you have a group in mind that's being underserved due to insufficient political power?
Giving two names for the same institution is not a solution, it is a well known method to cover up discrimination. Religious zealots always deffend civil union laws as having the same rights as a mariage, but in practice they use it as a discrimination method. There are plenty of example of same sex partners been denied hospital visitation rights by hospital staff because they are "not really maried".
Funny that you bring up churches that would refuse to officiate a "union" that, in many religious belief systems, is considered to be a sin and an evil side of our nature. It is funny(well, not that funny) because... http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2012/06/elaine-photography-punished-for-failure.html Title is "Elaine Photography Punished For Failure To Photograph Same-Sex "Commitment Ceremony".
So, everyone is supposed to just accept the homosexual lifestyle, but forget about some homosexuals accepting that a private company(actually, any private(i.e. non-government entity) entity) has the right to refuse business to anyone they wish. When someone calls homosexuals (or heterosexuals supporting the cause) out on doing things like this, those people tend to get smeared for being "hatemongers", or worse.
Frankly, I don't care what people do in their private lives. That is between them and God. I have no business judging people, or the issue(s). I just refuse to support the issue of "homosexual marriage" due to the fact that (mainly) I refuse to support causes that attempt to beat me over the head and force me to accept the cause.
Of course, I am against government licensing of marriage(and most other things), so there is that.
Google isn't saying we need marriage for gays, exactly, they are saying that we need equal treatment. If the government is giving preferential treatment to heterosexuals and denying it to everyone else, then that's wrong.
The question is whether or not the government is actually giving preferential treatment to heterosexuals and denying it to everyone else.
For instance a homosexual has all the same rights as a heterosexual. However, marriage isn't a right. Nobody has a right to marriage. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, a legal contract. What does that contract get you? Inheritance, and a say in legal and medical matters, along with the right to be held legally accountable for the spouses actions in certain situations.
Without marriage, you can have all of the same "rights:" Inheritance - use a will, set up a trust with both people as trustees or buy and own things jointly. Legal issues - sign a durable power of attorney. Medical issues a health care power of attorney (different names in different states). The concept of marriage just gets you those things without having to do the separate steps.
Since all of the benefits or "rights" granted through marriage are legal issues, marriage is in effect a civil contract between two people. If the state of being married is really a civil convention of a union between two people that grants a number or legal benefits without having to enter into separate legal proceedings with the other individual, then the government should just clear up the language and refer to civil unions for all people and get out of the marriage business all together.
Marriage doesn't give any of these rights, in and of itself. It does provide a packaged deal of benefits, but they are still available individually.
Why would the government pass a law prohibiting people from eating meat? Besides, there is no law prohibiting gays from getting married. There is, or has been, an understanding that marriage, at least in the US, has always been between a man and a woman. That is not the same as the government prohibiting an action, but instead an attempt of a minority to redefine what has tradtionally been the understanding.
Whether that is right or wrong is open to debate. But if we ever want a solution to a complex social problem, we can't be confusing the issue by inserting unrelated concepts (such as prohibiting) into the actual reality.
So lets see the Govn't decides to put it's 2 cents into all the "unnecessary wars" and the coorporations seem to follow suit in putting their 2cents where it doesn't belong.
on another note....
interesting that when gay or lesbian get together and still want a child it still requires the OPPOSITE SEX. Think there was a reason for this and also stated in the bible(if you actually believe in G-d(which i do)). yes even if your Baptist or Catholic or what not the commandement still exists.
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 18:1-30 ...
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.
(This would include the aspect of same sex whatever and when it was spoken to PEOPLE OF ISRAEL it included woman not to lay with woman. )
Oh but wait you say that's the old testament and we have a new covenant and we go by the new testament
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(Sexually Immoral is those that would cover same sex. Man or Woman)
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills or you can purchase property jointly, etc. Marriage is just one way to confer the right of inheritance, it is not the only way, nor is it even a good way (if it was, there wouldn''t be all those case going to probate court). For having a legal say while one is alive, there is the durable power of attorney and for medical decisions a medical power of attorney. With the exception of purchasing something jointly, all of these "rights" granted through the normal means are easier to rescind than through the dissoultuion of a marriage. Even heterosexuals realize that marriage is not the best way to grant rights which is why pre-nuptual agreements have become so popular. Marriage is simply a civil construct to grant a package of legal rights instead of having to grant them individually.
That, my friend, is the position being fought against by equal marriage advocates. "Marriage" is a well accepted social norm that spans across all religions, and indeed, people outside of religion. The fact that the public doesn't "digest" the concept of "gay marriage" is a very succinct illustration of the inequality that exists.
Why should religions be given this special word of "marriage" to describe the bond between two partners? Why is it good enough for them, but not for those who are non-religious?
We shall legalize gay money. I mean gay marriage.
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills
Yes, they exist, they also don't do all the work necessary. Children can't be handed down via will without court permission. That isn't required with marriage. Also, wills can be challenged, but marriage is almost never challenged, though in some high profile cases, marriage and the will are contested. And my father had a will and it's in probate court, so apparently a will isn't a good thing either.
There are hundreds of rights conferred via marriage that are in one easy and common contract. Some of which aren't transferrable, as hospitals allow in "family" only in many cases, and legal power of attorney apparently doesn't suffice for all such regulations.
Learn to love Alaska
The guy who wrote the book that article is based on is a professor of English at the University of Toronto.
As an English professor for 26 years, I can ask with confidence, what the fuck does an English professor know about anything, especially about what makes for successful human relationships?
But it is a pretty interesting article, in all seriousness. Here's the deal: married people like me like to defend the importance of marriage to society. Otherwise, I'd have to face the fact that I've only had sex with one woman for the past 23 years and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why are we still care about the opinions of 2000 year old texts that were so obviously made up by a bunch of iron age goat herders? Why don't we make our laws according to rationality, according to the evolved morals of our modern times, not according to the morals of a bunch of so called "holy books" that openly promote slavery, misogyny, and genocide? Why don't we accept equality for all?
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in the hebrew shows that concent of the little girl is not neccessary.
Little girls make good brides.
I agree, but traditionally polygamy is frowned upon, the legislature has no interest in changing the laws and so far the only argument that has been made before the courts is that banning it infringes on freedom of religion which was thrown out as freedom of religion does not include the freedom to be abusive or coercive.
If someone makes a good argument about polygamy and/or polyandry based on freedom of association the courts should throw out the law against polygamy as unconstitutional but so far only religious nuts have argued for polygamy.
Gay marriage is legal here partly due to the courts ruling that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation (8 out of 10 provinces had the courts rule it was legal no matter what the feds said and when Parliament legalized it they first asked the Supreme Court about constitutionality. The Court ruled it was constitutional, the Federal government could pass a law legalizing it but due to freedom of religion, churches can not be forced to perform same sex marriages)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills
Yes, they exist, they also don't do all the work necessary. Children can't be handed down via will without court permission. That isn't required with marriage. Also, wills can be challenged, but marriage is almost never challenged, though in some high profile cases, marriage and the will are contested. And my father had a will and it's in probate court, so apparently a will isn't a good thing either.
There are hundreds of rights conferred via marriage that are in one easy and common contract. Some of which aren't transferrable, as hospitals allow in "family" only in many cases, and legal power of attorney apparently doesn't suffice for all such regulations.
Will or not, you will end up in probate court. Only way around that is to set up a trust. It doesn't matter if you are married or not. For children, if you are not a biological parent, you do not have a legal "right" to the children, unless you previously adopted them. Again, the same situation whether homosexual or heterosexual, married or unmarried. A court, of course, in such cases can grant custody, but again, that is no difference depending on your status. As for hospital visitations, if you have medical power of attorney you cannot be refused, unless the patient refuses to see you. A medical power of attorney actually gets you more rights than marriage. Durable power of attorney handles most other legal issues and also grants more rights than marriage.
The hundreds of other so called rights, if they aren't covered by the above (wills, adoption, durable power of attorney and medical power of attorney) probably aren't actual rights granted through the marriage contract, but instead perceived rights, which aren't really rights, but customs. In short, whether gay or straight, if you don't want to get married or aren't allowed, to have the same rights as marriage, 1) draw up a will or purchase thing jointly or form a trust with both as the trustees, adopt any children involved in the relations, both partners sign a durable power of attorney for the other one and both sign a medical power of attorney for the other one. What doesn't that get you? Well, you can't say you were married, but you do have all the same legal rights.
That's not true.
And if you can demonstrate a successful polygamist relationship outside of fundamentalist religious or patriarchal societies, I'm willing to take another look at it. Patriarchy is not good for society, in my opinion, and polygamy always seems to involve one man and many women which is inherently patriarchal.
Regarding pair bonding with children, again, it's almost always patriarchal. As a father, I can well understand why societies (except the extremely patriarchal) tend to frown upon it.
Regarding interspecies pair bonding, again, it seems entirely exploitative. I am opposed to exploitation in pair bonding, and generally in human relationships. Wait, did you add "interspecies" because you're a furry? If so, please post photos. Nothing is funnier than a guy in a bunny suit with his willie hanging out (although I am ashamed of the exploitation involved in my requesting that you post pictures, you sick fuck, so I can have a laugh).
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just because you see nothing wrong with a loveless marriage, I would prefer to marry the person I love and cherish and want to spend my life with. That person would be another male. I am currently not allowed to do that by law. And yet, you see no inequality there? You are sorely blinded by ignorance.
No, those benefits are not available equally, regardless of legal documents. Sure, my partner could will me his estate, but I would pay very high taxes on that. A legal spouse, however, would inherit the estate without incurring taxes. My partner could include me on his health insurance from his employer. But, unlike the legally married couple, my benefit would be treated as additional income and taxed at an exorbitant rate where the legally married couple gets the benefit tax-free. The Congressional Accounting Office (a non-partisan office) denoted 1049 Federal benefits and privileges that are automatically afforded to heterosexual married couples that are either denied to or otherwise unavailable to homosexual couples. Many of those have no alternative way to obtain legally. So, why should STRAIGHT couples be afforded special rights that are denied to gay couples? Why do you support discrimination?
I don't know if polygamous sexual bonding occurs in nature or not.
Bonobo chimps do this, polygamous lesbian sex is used to climb the social ladder in their matriarchal 'tribes'. Being seen to have sex with another higher status female by other females (publically polishing the teachers apple so to speak), confers a higher status onto the apple polisher. Unlike regular chimps, Bonobo's avoid violent confrontations as a means to determine social status. Political relationships are formed and maintained using homo and hetro sex, daugters are born into the same social level as their mother but can screw their way to the top in adulthood.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is often brought up in this sort of argument:
You might say current state marriage laws are equal--gay guys can marry women if they want to, for instance--but that line of reasoning was rejected by the courts in interracial marriage debates many years ago. Both of these apply specifically to states--I'm not sure what the constitution-based pro-gay-marriage arguments are at the federal level.
Federal hate crime laws were the only way black populations could be protected in many states. It may not be an ideal situation but they have served a powerful aim; to assure justice for minorities when local authorities have been quite happy to look the other way.
Just how successful do you think the Civil Rights movement would have been if prosecutions had been left up to prosecutors in places like Alabama or Mississippi?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I didn't say there was nothing wrong with a loveless marriage. However, it is not up to the government to promote love. There is nothing stopping you from spending your life with the person you love and cherish, whether male or female. I live in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage. It does not change one way how I live my life with my partner (who is the same sex, btw). The government can define marriage however they want, it is just a silly word without any real meaning. Legally, which is what rights are about, my partner and I have all of the positive benefits and rights of marriage without any of the negative ones and getting the various paperwork was a lot cheaper than a wedding. Why in the world would I want to change that? My partner and I are secure in our love for each other and don't need outside affirmation for it. Our friends are supportive, why do we care if we can say we are legally married or not? Love is not required for marriage nor is marriage required for love.
If marriage isn't a right then why were mixed race marriage bans overturned? Equal protection before the law means just that. You cannot deprive one group of the privileges of another.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes, it is true there are some federal benefits and privileges that my partner and I don't have, but for most of them we wouldn't qualify anyway, so big deal. Our home is jointly owned. Our vehicles are jointly owned, our banking and investment is likewise. So, all of our major assets are held jointly. Health insurance is a non issue as we both work and have our insurance through our employers, which is significanlty cheaper than having him on my insurance or vice versa.
As for inheritance issues, I suggest you contact a good estate planner, most heterosexual couples pay way too much in inheritance taxes thinking that being married makes it easier. It doesn't. Estate planning should be able to get you an inheritance from your significant other tax free. There is a reason that most wealthy people don't rely on wills for their estates. Those same strategies are available for normal people, gay or straight, too.
Again speaking from actual experience, there isn't one real right of any significance that can't be accomplished legally without having to get married. I don't support discrimination, but I do have a distaste for claiming discrimination, were none actually exists.
The 1883 Supreme Court case Pace v. Alabama dealt with basically this issue, but in the context of interracial marriage. The Court interpreted Alabama's anti-miscegenation laws as punishing blacks and whites equally, so they said it satisfied the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. This was overturned in the 1967 case Loving v. Virginian, where the Court completely revised its stance:
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
With that in mind, I would suggest the "extra rights" argument won't stand the test of time.
Are you referring to Brown v Board of Education? or Plessy v Ferguson?
If you really think that Brown had no validity, then you are an idiot.
If marriage isn't a right then why were mixed race marriage bans overturned? Equal protection before the law means just that. You cannot deprive one group of the privileges of another.
Those were state laws that specifically said that people of different races could not marry. No state has a law that says two men or two women cannot get married. The problem is that until recently, the states always assumed marriage was between a man and a women, so it was understood. As such, when they said a black man couldn't marry a white woman or vice-versa, that was a violation of the due process clause. Specificaly, in the Virginia case, the state did not say the couple was not married. The objection was with they were forced to leave the state because the state banned interracial marriages.
In regards to same sex marriages, there are no laws forcing same sex couples to leave the state if they get married. As for access to the rights conferred in marriage, they are all available through other legal means and have been discussed throughout this /. discussion.
As for denying privileges, well, I'm 5'7" and allways wanted to be a fighter pilot, but I was denied that. Does that mean that the air force deprived me of my right? The courts woud see it that way. BTW, my partner and I are both commercial pilots, so where as I couldn't fly military jets, commercial ones are just fine.
Well I hardly see it being constructive to go looking for a singular example of a successful polygamist relationship. Our closest ancestors do it, and in fact most mammals do it. Therefore, I cannot see how it can be considered absolutely wrong or impossible to work.
And I do not think it is fair to say it in inherently Patriarchy, Inherently it makes women more in demand and outnumber the man in the marriage where one man with many women is practiced. It would seem that in a democratic society it would inherently put women first in the home. And you cannot say that three women marrying is inherently Patriarchy. If we just outlawed men from marrying anyone, would that solve your issues with this?
"Regarding pair bonding with children, again, it's almost always patriarchal."??? Why would the boy be in charge of the adult woman? And of course patriarchal does not make sense in same sex relationships. I do not see how patriarchal has anything to do with this issue. The issues include: is sex inherently bad at some age, or is it always significantly similar to playing or masturbation. And consent.
Well the issue with other species is that they are away exploited. They are our slaves with worthless lives, they have no legal rights and are property. There are a few abuse laws that exist in most countries, but you cannot really talk about interspecies bonding in a legal sense, because they do not exist as thinking beings in the law. So keeping the law out of the discussion: Animals are concious beings that are able to make decisions and tell others what those are. Also all Mammals, at least (to the best of my knowledge), do not rely completely on rape to propagate the species. Therefore they all make the decision of who to mate with and then let him or her know that they want it. There is no reason that an animal cannot give consent (and there is no reason that an animal cannot be a friend or partner in life). And while I am sure we can both imagine exploitive relationships, there is no way to ever completely prevent them. And it is not like we ban intelligently people from marrying retarded people (or strong men from marrying the weaker females) because the one can take advantage of the other. Also imagine having a relationship with a tiger, it could kill you in an instant if it wanted to.
Also on a similar note. Wild Dogs have been known to raise human children, to look after them. So there is no reason, beyond the shear bizarreness that both our cultures feel towards that idea, that interspecies partnerships between a human and another mammal could not raise a child together (if they can do it all by themselves, then adding a human into the mix can only help matters).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The solution to that is simple - more gay marriage
And gay sex. Lots of gay sex.
Make love, not war.
So really, the gays and advocates of gay marriage should be very pro-polygamy (polygyny specifically) as that will result in more available men for the gay community.
Don't believe what anyone tells you - sexuality is much more fluid than commonly asserted.
Would also help to reduce the overpopulation problem.
ironic captcha: killjoy
Your appeal to ignorance is not fascinating anyone here. Marriage is between a man and a women in almost every state and country in the world. In some of those areas, it is between two men or two women or perhaps even more also. To think that the concept of a man and women being stopped from marrying because of their race or ethnicity is equal to the same of gender is a bit ridiculous. The concept of opposite genders being needed for marriage goes way back in time that confusing two people who otherwise meet those definitions other then their race is simply not comparable or even close to the same as two men or two women not being able to be married.
I guess your failure is also in the concept of love. No marriage law that I know of (certainly not within the US) holds love as a requirement for marriage. Love has nothing to do with it. You will find people who marry who never even pretended to love each other.
Actually, I think you are confusing hereditary benefits and not marital benefits. It wasn't all that long ago that women could even own property. Starting in the 1800's or so, widows had a common law right to live in the home of their deceased spouse as long as they wanted until they died themselves.
Now, inherent in marriage are rights known as widower's rights that guarantee certain amounts of ownership in property and rights outside of that too. Entire last will and testament can be challenged and tossed out because widows did not receive enough of the estate according to law. But to that extend, automatic extensions of government benefits and other legal benefits are included with a marriage automatically. That started shortly after WWII. Marriage had been around a lot longer then that.
The hundreds of other so called rights, if they aren't covered by the above (wills, adoption, durable power of attorney and medical power of attorney) probably aren't actual rights granted through the marriage contract, but instead perceived rights, which aren't really rights, but customs.
None of them are "rights", just automatic contracts. If you draw up your own contract that mimics marriage, it would likely be legal, but still not recognized by custom.
What doesn't that get you? Well, you can't say you were married, but you do have all the same legal rights.
So you do have the right to not testify against your "spouse" included in that? How about being able to file jointly married? I'm glad there are *no* rights missed out in your little scheme. Not to mention that getting married grants them all for about $100, but doing so separately costs thousands of dollars (I got a quote on an uncontested adoption for $2000, where if it were contested - and any relative could do so - it'd be $10,000 or more). And you'd have to use trusts with rights of survivorship to get close to the marriage level of seamlessness. The odd thing about marriage (And why polygamy doesn't work in the legal framework) is that both people own 100%. You don't own something 50/50 with them. Both people are legally sole owner of joint property. Either can, without permission of the other, sell it or otherwise dispose of it. Because it's theirs 100%.
Polygamy, which is always tossed up as the "why not" when someone talks about gay rights, would make an already confusing thing so confused that nobody would understand. If couple 1 jointly own everything, and she marries another guy (who is married to two other women), then the 5 of them all own everything the other owns. Even if one disagrees, their "share" is diluted. And if there's a dissolution of the marriage, how do things get split? For that reason alone, polygamy should be illegal, though in practice it was much easier, as it was almost always polygyny (one man, multiple wives) which simplifies things, as it also generally went hand in hand with reduced legal protections for women.
Learn to love Alaska
The concept of marriage is religious.
There was marriage before there was Christianity and Islam. In Ancient Rome, marriage was not religious*. You are only saying that the concept of marriage is religious because what you know of marriage is religious. You only know of the Western Christian concept - yes, in Christianity and Islam, marriage is a religious concept. But not everywhere.
On these grounds I refuse to recognize every legal union as "marriage," especially those exclusively secular.
The important thing here is not whether you, or Southern Baptists, "recognize" legal unions. The important thing is that you, Southern Baptists, et al, don't tell other free people what they can and cannot do as long as such actions don't hurt anyone.
* There were actually more than one type of legally recognized marriage, and some of them did include religious rites. But the concept of marriage was not in and of itself religious in Ancient Rome - it was a very legalese type of contract.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
True. The problem stems from the fact that, in most contracts, people form a contract to own a certain percentage of whatever it is. Say, 30%/30%/40% voting rights in a corporation. But in a marriage, it's a contract where two people own 100% of the assets jointly, which is a bitch to break (i.e. how to split up children).
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Absolutely! You said it quite truthfully and succinctly. Well done.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Yes. In the end it really comes down to what compromises we are willing to make as a society, and our innate sense of justice and compassion. The veneer of logic achieved by comparing gay marriage to pedophilia by one side and interracial marriage by the other is just a veneer.
That is true - but such people are making the wrong arguments. I presume you know that being gay isn't a choice - I think most people that say that don't even believe it themselves. However, the fact of the matter is that there are extra benefits extended to opposite sex couples that aren't extended to same sex couples. The government should have no say in denying that. And, if we go down that path, it would be smart to not even include marriage in such laws - just give tax breaks to those with children, regardless of their marriage status, their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, etc.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
In germany they did it that way - men and women can be married, while all other combinations can only have a life-long-partnership, but that one grants about the same rights. Still there is some ongoing fights on the few deficits left. But it was a first good step.
The interesting thing is the civil rights legislation that happened 3 years before that at the behest of yet another case based upon which race was an issue.
You may be right, but I do not think for the reasons you see. I also think time might be close to the end of or beyond both of our times.
Unilaterally deciding something like this on a federal/national level is wrong and illegal, just as was the income tax, Obamacare, No Child Left behind, etc etc.
These issues aren't defined in the constitution as powers of the federal government and thus should have and should be left to the states and their subsets to decide.
I think this shows that you are thinking of it as an abstract concept rather than something that people will actually live and use.
If not what do you imagine people will say instead of "They got married on the weekend" or "Is he married?".
"They got civilly unified on the weekend".
"Is he in a civil union?"
Not in a million years is a real person going to say such a thing. In reality people will just keep use the perfectly good word we already have for the scenario, ie some derivative of "married".
It might seem like a reasonable sop to offer to the "definitionist" crowd but in reality it's an entirely illusory one (and as such a dishonest one).
You might argue that a distinction in law is different than a distinction in common speech but I'd argue that as a social construct it would make no sense (and in fact be harmful) for it to be called something different in law.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Or browser error...but in the US at least, this isn't something that should be decided by the federal government, just like many other things. Our retarded federal government has a long history of deciding things for everyone in it's bounds instead of following the constitution (the law of the land!) and allowing states and their subsets to determine rules and laws regarding things not specifically delegated as powers of the federal government.
In the US at least, this isn't something that should be decided by the federal government, just like many other things. Our retarded federal government has a long history of deciding things for everyone in it's bounds instead of following the constitution (the law of the land!) and allowing states and their subsets to determine rules and laws regarding things not specifically delegated as powers of the federal government.
Well, it is a legitimate function of society to encourage family or population growth which can be done through it's laws like with some of the benefits of marriage.
However, tax breaks and advantages for having kids occur without regard to marital status so I think we might be past that point. I don't disagree with with what you posted other then government having a role in crafting it's laws to the benefit of society. It's sort of the purpose of government even if we do not agree with the end laws.
Marriage is a right, see Loving vs Virgina
There are sect of Christianity that have no issue with gays, even some of the larger ones. ... angelician ... come to mind.
Anglicans aren't "OK" with gay marriage. The UK is having the debate at the moment, and the CofE is firmly on the "Don't do it" side of the argument,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405318
And don't get me started on the Catholics...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17329902
The campaign is not about same sex-marriage, something clearly stated in the article:
"Some news reports said the 'Legalize Love' campaign would push for worldwide legalization of same-sex marriage, but a Google spokesman called that inaccurate. The campaign's focus is on human rights and employment discrimination, he said."
Regarding the rights of LGBT people in these countries, there are so many other human rights violations in the world today which I consider to be more pressing & urgent (sex slavery, child labour, child soldiers etc). It'd be great to see Google campaigning against some of those aswell. (Or is this only about supporting issues which directly affect their own employees?)
Damn it, Google, could you please stick to being consistently evil or consistently good? This constant flip-flopping just leaves everyone unsure whether to get out the ticker tape or the flaming torches.
I would be more impressed when Google tries to right the wrongs they have done.
*sigh* Non sequitur.
The concept of marriage is religious.
That some secular governments have managed to supersede and subdue the religious clique and its superstitious regulations is a completely different matter. The fact stands: what secular law recognizes is a legal union, sometimes limited to pairs of people of opposite sexes, which tradition stems from religious superstition.
On these grounds I refuse to recognize every legal union as "marriage," especially those exclusively secular.
Good for you- but that makes you on the fringes of society, not the mainstream.
I'm not religious, and I'm due to be married next month. It'll be a religion-free civil ceremony. I'll then be married, my wife will be a "Mrs", and we're be known as married to anyone who meets us, and the law will treat us as married. You might decide that, if you knew the details, that you know better- but who cares? I care about as much as you'd care if some Zoroastrian told you he thought your Christian marriage was invalid.
There's no evidence that marriage was invented by religion, as opposed to being a pre-existing tradition that has been incorporated into marriage. As a 21st century man in a modern democracy, it is of little interest to me what the majority of people 1000 years ago would have thought. It is what the majority of people now want that matters.
Looks like a plan to steal some of major part of Apple user base...
As I was reading through the first hundred or so replies it slowly dawned on me...most of you /. readers apparently support the idea of homosexuality being somehow morally acceptable. I have personally noted in my admittedly rather short 40 years on this planet that our country (USA) has been on the path of moral stagnation (at best) for at least as long as I've been alive. Most certainly longer.
What I find discouraging is that apparently many intellectuals are blindly equating their so called societal advancement with what is actually moral regression. This is probably not the best forum for intellectual discussion of religious issues, but many of you are entirely correct: homosexuality is an entirely religious issue. Bottom line: God said it's wrong so it's wrong. Period.
Should I be made to feel like a mentally incompetent hillbilly for adhering to that belief? Fortunately for my faith I do not. I have used my God given intellect to make a determination based on a combination of my life's experiences, my studies, and of course my faith. At it's simplest that consists of: looking out the window + Israel for the first, reading the bible and other religious works for the second, and well, faith is faith.
But perhaps more on the subject: do we really want to start tearing our morality away, strip by strip, until we descend into something like what the Roman Empire (and no doubt many others before it) became? There is a reason for morality, and there are consequences for ignoring or purposefully avoiding it.
Touchy subject.
Take care.
> Google Launches International Campaign For Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
Google is founded and owned by jewish people, genetically jewish people, even if they care not about the religion of their fathers and father's fathers. The jewish God, whom jews (and muslims and christians) claim to be the one and only God of Abraham, clearly prescribes death by stoning for those who "sleep with man, like it is usual to sleep with a woman" and those who copulate wih animals. It is spelled out word by word in Moses's fifth book of laws.
One must wonder if the Holy Name will punish the Google founders, just like he punished Steve Jobs? Man has the free will to contravene God, but the consequences are terrible and may extend all the way to the seventh generation of descendants as has been clearly stated in the Book. Lord has stated that he is jealous in his love for mankind and terrible in his anger against sin. Better obey his commandments, because neither mega-wealth, nor political power can stop the angel His Mightyness sends to strike with the flaiming sword!
The daily prayer states: Hear o' people of Israel, the Almighty is our god, the Almighty is the one and only! The Holy Name has granted exceptional high IQ, wisdom, financial wealth and unmatched worldwide influence to his chosen nation. Is it too much that he asks complete refrainment from unnatural acts of sexuality in return?
Funny you bring up churches and then cite an example that isn't a church.
The same way a church is forced to marry two atheists, the same way a church is forced to marry two Jews, the same way churches are forced to marry anyone at all.
Oh wait, none of that happens you FUD spreading, piece of shit, needle dicked little bigot.
Which part of "They are not fighting for" did you not understand?
But actually animals don't give consent to be killed for food, or kept as pets either. You know if you own a dog or a horse, you have basically the same rights as a slave owner? And more... because it's fine to kill the animal and sell its body parts, which was considered a bit much even before the Civil War.
If your consenting adult can buy a pig and turn it into delicious bacon, why can't he do anything else to it first? Hmm? All the adults involved have consented, so what's the problem?
Joking aside, the progressive policy on pig-buggering is similar to the progressive policy on pig-eating, i.e. that it's bad, and nobody should be doing it, leave those pigs alone. Same for pedophiles. But you can't go instantly from a society where most people eat bacon to a society where nobody eats bacon. And that's the point.
Your Gramscian predecessors knew that it does no good to reveal their hand and go head to head on all the issues at once. So they fought them one at a time. One winnable battle at a time. It's worked pretty well so far.
I'm sorry if the mechanism of progress seems a bit Machiavellian once it is revealed, and I'm sorry if that upsets you and whoever modded the post down, but if you can't cope with the reality of how social progress is achieved, then maybe you are not really a progressive at all.
Pro tip: When your privilege is cut back to normal size, you are not oppressed, you are just a whiny bigot with a sense of entitlement larger than your brain.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Sorry but organized religion has no right to dictate to the rest of us what a marriage is. Society decides that. For example society has decided that a marriage is between two people only, and Muslims who believe a maximum of four wives is acceptable are barred from following that belief.
The issue isn't gay marriage, it is secular marriage. Not calling it marriage when it has the same legal standing is stupid and discriminatory, and affects all non-Christians. People who object to same sex marriage should just avoid marrying someone of the same sex.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And we Americans sit here scratching our heads wondering why people in other countries hate us....
There is literally nothing in your post that is correct.
Literally every "gay" event I have ever heard of has been more than happy to have straight people there; the term "gay" is often used to say its a safe space, not that it is exclusionary. Do you really think that straight people who are behaving themselves (not being hateful assholes) are being asked to leave or barred from entry? Contrast that with many groups that emphatically will refuse to have gay folk there and will remove them if they're outed. I have literally never heard of someone being removed from a "gay" event for being straight, but even if such things do happen, it's vastly more likely to be the other way around, with gay folk being excluded.
And as for hate crimes, you are ignorant and wrong on that as well. "Gay" is not the protected class, but sexual orientation is. This means that if a black, Muslim lesbian in a wheelchair were to scream "die, breeder, Christian, white man!" while attacking a straight white able-bodied Christian male, she would absolutely be able to be charged with a hate crime.
It isn't the risk of burning off karma you should be worried about, but the fact that you have just demonstrated yourself to be completely ignorant of how the things you are so bothered by actually work. I suggest you take some time to educate yourself rather than remain ignorant and angry.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
In the UK you can get many of the benefits of marriage by simply living with someone in a stable relationship. For many legal and government purposes co-habitation with a partner is treated the same as being married to them.
The differences are mainly due to thinks like automatic transfer of property and wealth on death, particularly if there is no will or the family contests. In Scotland recently there was a case where a woman lived with a many for a number of years and sold her own home, then when they split up wanted compensation in the same manner as someone who divorced. She won her case and there are calls for similar laws in England and Wales.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Freedom for who?
To correct your read on hate crimes: the protected class isn't a specific minority, but rather an entire class of behavior.
Sexual orientation is the protected class in this case, so anyone who seeks out a victim based on that victims sexual orientation and who makes it clear that is the reason for the attack can be charged with the aggravated offense.
Same for race, gender and religion - what matters is not the race, gender or religion of the victim, but that the victim was targeted for their race, gender or religion, whatever it may be, and that the attacker demonstrated some evidence to show that it was motivating the attack.
You can have hate crimes perpetrated against someone by a member of the same group; a black guy can be charged with a hate crime if it's shown he was attacking another black guy because of race. Harder to prove, but it has happened.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I support freedom and the promotion of freedom, and if a large corporation wants to put support into advocating freedom, I'm good with it.
What I am not good with is when corporations use their clout to reduce freedoms.
In this case, then, I'm fine with Google doing this. Hell, if Fox news or Haliburton were to promote marriage equality I would be fine with it.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Fuckin Faggots!
And "birds do it, bees do it..." I'm sorry, but the fact that "other large primates do it" is not an argument in favor of a particular behavior.
Pair bonding with women and underage boys is much less common than the other way 'round.
Look, you seem like a nice guy, but can we not "leave the law out of the discussion" as long as we are in the same proximity?
My border collie helped my wife and I raise our daughter, but that doesn't mean she now has parental rights. And even as a parent I can tell you that there is more to pair bonding than raising children.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This isn't Google being "political" it is instead Google promoting freedom that does not impinge on the rights of others.
I like it when companies promote freedoms that do not impinge on the rights of others. I do not like it when companies try to restrict the rights of others when those rights would do no harm.
So, try seeing a bit of nuance rather than just ominously saying it's political as if it were some kind of monolithic behavior that can't be judged on its own merits.
Just like individual humans, so, too, are corporations able to behave in a myriad of ways, sometimes good, sometimes bad, and sometimes both in the same individual or corporation.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I wish people would stop saying that this is just a corporation getting involved in politics, as if, de facto, that is bad.
A company getting involved in politics in order to trample individual rights is bad, but a company getting involved in politics to promote individual rits is good. Just getting political without any differentiation as to why is not inherently a good or bad thing, but HOW they get involved can be good or bad.
An example: I like it when companies give money to groups that help build up the communities they live in and thus promote a better environment for all. So, I like, for example, that Chik Fillet (or however they spell it) gives some money, from what I understand, to schools in their various communities.
But what I find abhorrent is that Chik Fillet gives money to groups fighting against marriage equality.
Gosh, what to do? Well, I could say I don't like it when corporations get political, but that would be dumb. So instead I say "hey, Chik Fillet - keep giving money to schools, but stop giving money to hate groups! If you do that, I will probably become a customer again!"
If you don't like *how* a specific corporation is being political, then tell them, publicize the things they do wrong or that you don't like, and try to get them to change that specific behavior.
But just being all bothered by them being political in the first place seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
How about "legalizing love" when it comes to 68-year-old men wanting to marry 7-year-old girls as well? Or is that somehow not OK whereas the most unnatural thing in the world is?
Sir, I believe your argument has a false premise. Homosexuality is not the most unnatural thing in the world.
That would be Cher.
(Ever since Michael Jackson died.)
The opposite argument holds true - this is an augmentation of everyone's rights: now straight people will have more options because whereas before they could only marry a member of the opposite sex, now they can marry anyone who is consenting and capable of consent.
Yay! More freedom for everybody!
Oh, wait, it's a freedom straight people don't want, just like gay people don't want to be able to marry members of the opposite sex? Well, I guess that kind of thing is only a problem when it's something straight people aren't happy about.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Huh, and I was taught that humans are NOT supposed to pair in the wild, but that pairing is a religious restriction of our natural tendencies.
Sports should be segregated based on try-outs and ability, not on gender or sex. While there will be some tendency to stratify based on sex or gender, outliers will be able to find a spot that works for them and gender/sex are removed from the equation.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Michael Sandel in his Reith Lecture makes the point that if the objection to homosexual marriage really sprang from the standpoint usually claimed - that marriage is a Christian practice and that Christianity only supports marriage between a man and a woman - there would be a very simple solution: the state could get out of marriage entirely and offer only "civil unions"; marriage could then be a purely religious matter with no standing in law. That this solution is anathema to the vast majority of opponents of same-sex marriage betrays the real reason: state recognition confers a privileged status on people who marry. Opposition to same-sex marriage largely comes from people not wanting the state to acknowledge that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals.
Or to put it colloquially: they just don't like gays.
Again, show me the Muslim sects that support gays.
Heck, I will take some that don't have proclaimations to kill them.
Christianity is not the problem, it will always lag society but it will Eventually reform.
Islam? Unlikely.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Though I'm pro same-sex marriage and also pro-abortion, I have to agree that Google poking it's nose into such issues is creepy.
...
Except civil unions often don't count as marriages in many areas where it can really count on a personal level, for instance hospital visitation rights and counsel. If you're really for gay civil unions you MUST also be for gay marriage, as that choice should be up to the couple in question and not some religious belief that not everyone holds.
Though I'm not attracted to young-uns nor am I homosexual, if I had a time machine, I'd go back to when I was 12 or 13 and convince a forked off, alternate universe version of myself to seek out some of that. I bet it would be better than the complete lack of sex that actually took place during my teen years.
The whole shtick about under-18s not being able to give consent is a legal convention, without basis in reality. It exists so as to make law-making possible. Many if not most people are fully able to comprehend the consequences of sex at very early ages and give what anyone using common sense would consider to be consent. Only the law must largely operate like a computer without common sense.
I generally support gay rights, but I've always been a little meh on the idea of gay marriage. What I'd really like to hear is for a gay marriage advocate to explain to me why polygamy should be illegal yet gay marriage should be legal.
This is a classic troll argument: he assumes that gay marriage advocates believe polygamy should be illegal, and then tries to paint them as hypocrites, in order to deflect attention from his own anti-gay marriage beliefs. All of that ignores the fact that most gay marriage advocates are also fine with legal polygamy (provided laws get updates, as you and other posters note).
You mean Rover can't just shake on it?
If Google really cared, it would start by helping curbstomp Proposition 8 in its own back fucking yard, and focus in its home fucking country first, one would think.
Fuck you, Google.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Nice job guys. You didn't read the article before posting:
> Some news reports said the 'Legalize Love' campaign would push for worldwide legalization of same-sex marriage, but a Google spokesman called that inaccurate. The campaign's focus is on human rights and employment discrimination, he said.
Why do corporations and governments have any say in who we love, live with, and raise together?
Corporations don't have any say. They have an opinion, but that's different. You have a say (because you vote), they have an opinion.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
The amount of attention this topic receives in our society shows how great a quality of life we all have right now. We live in good times
one could argue everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no preferential treatment.
lol
Sharon can use bathroom A. Mike can use bathroom B. Sharon will be scolded for using bathroom B. Mike will be arrested and labeled a sex offender for life for using bathroom A.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Example, If a straight man hits a gay man, he can be charged with a hate crime, when a gay man atackes a straight man, he must have provoked it. where is the equality?
http://mattbors.com/archives/866.html
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Incorrect. Historically it was civil. "I marry thee" sufficed in the UK until the mid 1500s
If I may, it seems to me that the principal issue at hand is the legitimacy of same-sex couples and indeed of homosexuality in general. See, up til recently, there was no official recognition of gay families, they didn't exist in any legal sense. Only heterosexual marriage has the gold star of legal legitimacy. That is something that certain groups have held on to as a way of preserving what they see as their innate superiority. As long as heterosexual families are officially rcongized and protected and given all the attendant benefits thereof, and same-sex couples are not, they have something to hold over the gays. They have a formally acknowledged superiority, you might say.
As same-sex couples gain further and further recognition, that 'legitimacy gap' becomes smaller and smaller. When marriage equality becomes the law of the land, that gap will disappear altogether, so that in the eyes of society at large heterosexual and same-sex couples will be on an equal footing. I think this is the crux, here. The segments of society we're discussing here, having based their lives on an entirely subjective framework (that is, religion), are always seeking reinforcement and justification for their viewpoints, including through enshrinement of their POV in official circles. This is a case of their beliefs being taken 'off the books', so they are fighting to keep what they essentially see as *their* exclusive territory.
There's a bit more to it than that, but that's basically what I've come up with.
'Gay' money ain't just peanuts
I knew those guys were lying to me! Next time, they pay in cash, just like everyone else.
You'd never say that in other contexts. Imagine someone arguing "I support the right to vote, but only for people who vote for things beneficial to society".
We'd all immediately realize that's nonsense. Either you support it (and therefore support it being used both by people on your side and people not on your side), or you don't.
I support people or companies or anyone advocating for freedom. I do not support people or companies or anyone advocating for restricting freedoms unless those freedoms cause non consensual harm to others.
You are reading my "I support it" as a blanket covering everything, and that is emphatically not what I meant.
I don't get why this is so hard for people to get. Sometimes political action by a business can be good (pushing for more freedom) and sometimes bad (restricting freedom).
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Also, you seem to have some idea that advocating for freedoms can be mutually exclusive or oppositional. That is not the case when you take into issues of consent and harm.
If someone with a view I disagree with advocates for freedom and can show it does no harm, I would support their right to advocate since I'm not a hypocrite and in this case their goals and mine coincide.
Finally, stop telling people what they will and won't do.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Had to ask.
Excellent point.
Fornication is defined as sex outside of marriage. It is illegal in several states, though I am having difficulty finding a clear list. IANAL, etc.
Adultery is sex outside of marriage when at least one of the participants is married. It is illegal in 23 states according to this http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/is-adultery-illegal-map.
These laws are rarely enforced, but they are still on the books.
By keeping these laws on the books, those who wish to prohibit homosexual activity still have the means even when homosexual activity itself is no longer considered illegal. It's a "defense in depth" strategy to provide multiple layers to try to prevent an activity, in this case, homosexual sex.
Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples would, in effect, legally SANCTION homosexual activity. I suspect that is what really scares the religious opponents.
Interestingly enough, South Carolina law clearly defines both adultery and fornication as being between "a man and woman" http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=3530.0, while SC's sodomy laws were stuck down by the US Supreme court in 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States.
So - I'm really not sure what the religious opponents are trying to accomplish here anymore. Civil unions granting the same rights as marriage are also opposed, yet they do not change the definition of marriage. Homosexual acts are not outlawed due to the US Supreme Court. I don't see what they have to gain other than the fear of it being legally sanctioned, and thus legally protected.
I wonder if they're afraid of not being able to exclude homosexuals from church membership or church office (or even employment)?
One thing I like about Fox News is it is LBGT-Free!
Don't you think...? Or don't you?
This post doesn't belong here.
What? "Wrong" is a matter of opinion, to be sure, but "illegal...just as was the income tax"? That's...amusing.
Taxation is defined as a federal government -- specifically, Congressional -- power in Art. I, Sec. 8 ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"). There are limits in Art. I, Sec. 9 that require that direct taxes must be apportioned in accord with the census ("No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken"), but an exception for income taxes was created by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.")
I have no love for google. They are using advanced tax evasion techniques including the Irish double and Caribbean tax havens combined with aggressive tax exclusions in countries they operate in to avoid paying tax. Yet these folks think they have the right to set the poo political agenda?
How can you respect a company who is bankrupting the societies they operate in and whose owners are products of the freedoms and opportunities offered by this country, yet not returning anything back to the country except a political agenda which if it passes does zip to make even their home state more competitive? If anything google should perhaps pay back to society and help make sure schools become world class instead of closing down. They pay no taxes internationally as well. 2.4% tax rate in 2010, while they got to park their corporate jet on Moffet air naval station which is not open for civilians through another loophole.
I personally think these guys should pay their fare share b get to have an opinion about anything. Its ideas like this that kills countries; google only gets to benefit from the USA and never pay back.
I get the google guys strategy, cloak themselves in a campaign which people feel sympathetic towards in the home market so they won't be attacked by the one percent movement.
one could argue everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no preferential treatment
And anyone who would make that argument is a complete fucking retard.
Example, If a straight man hits a gay man, he can be charged with a hate crime, when a gay man atackes a straight man, he must have provoked it. where is the equality?
Maybe if you'd pull your head out of your ass, you could actually look at the circumstances surrounding it. A straight man hitting a gay man is not automatically a hate crime, despite what retarded biases you want to believe. Where hate crime legislation comes in is when the straight man is not hitting the other because he's a person, but specifically because he is a gay person, and he wants to send his message of hate to the gay community at large. A straight man hitting a gay man in a normal circumstance is not a hate crime.
It does not change one way how I live my life with my partner (who is the same sex, btw).
Yes, it does, actually. What do you think would happen should one of you die? Do you think the other will get the same benefits that a straight married couple would get? Absolutely not.
Why in the world would I want to change that?
And who the fuck are you to decide what other people may want? Who the fuck are you to say that, since you're fine without marriage, no one else should have it either?
Who does it belong to?
I would not call what Bees do polygamy, And birds tend to stick to pair bonding to the best of my knowledge. Not that this is helping my case. But I think it is the only important guide, the government job is not to oppress differences or promote "normal" behavior. If Polygamy does not inherently hurt others outside of polygamy then it should not be for the government to decide.
"Pair bonding with women and underage boys is much less common than the other way 'round." I disagree. It has been suggested that it is in fact more common, no one can really say with any certainty. And the argument that, men more often then women prefer underage lovers, is not an argument that shows inherent male dominate. I am not sure what the statistics are, or how they would change if it were legalized, but look at Lolita (the classic book or film); Just because a male is in a relationship does not automatically make it a male dominated relationship.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
No state has a law that says two men or two women cannot get married.
Clearly you're a fucking idiot, as there are many states that do have this.
As for access to the rights conferred in marriage, they are all available through other legal means and have been discussed throughout this /. discussion.
Bull fucking shit. Show me how a gay couple can get Social Security survivor benefits.
If we are going to enforce every prohibition in the book of Leviticus through civil law, things are going to get interesting.
On immigration, resident foreigners must have all the rights and privileges of native-born citizens. (Lv 19:33-34 "When a foreigner resides among you, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.")
On the labor-relations front, we need to outlaw monthly, biweekly, and other pay schedules -- employees must be paid daily, on the same day they work. (Lv 19:13 "[...]. Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.")
On the fashion front, we need to outlaw blended materials. (Lv 19:19 "[...]. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.")
Also on the fashion front, we need the government to regulate hairstyles. (Lev 19:37 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.")
Even more on the style front, we need to outlaw tatooing. (Lev 19:38 "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.")
You can't just focus on the one prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 and ignore the rest (Lv 19:37 "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD.")
Speaking as someone who has lived outside the hot bed of the liberal North American I can tell you this will not make Google more popular.
Actually the reaction will be - who the fuck does this Yank company think it is to tell us what to do.
You wonder why America is so hated in the world: here is a perfect example.
And it won't make a jot of difference.
Marriage is a religious rite [...]
This is not true for instance in Germany and many other european countries. There marriage is a legal procedure, performed by a municipal clerk. You can only go to your church, synagoge, mosque or whatever the sacred place is called in your religion to celebrate your marriage if you can show the official document sealing your marriage. Also the legal implications coming with marriage require the official procedure and the accompagnying paperwork.
It's also not true in North America, no matter what the right-wing would have you believe.
When I was married, the pastor was authorized to do the legal paperwork, but it was a separate part of the ceremony, and there's no requirement that the religious and legal aspects happen at the same time or by the same people. My sister-in-law was married last year and wanted the same pastor, but he had retired (and hadn't renewed his paperwork to do the legal marrying part). So they went to a Justice of the Peace for the marriage license the day before, and the pastor did the religious portion the day after. Sure, for most people they considered the service to be the "wedding", but legally they'd already been married a day.
I think I've also figured out the other part of this. When they say "redefine marriage" and "protecting families" they are really talking about gay men and women in hetero marriages, who will supposedly get divorced and go off and get gay-married when that becomes legit. They are potentially right for an incredibly small number of families, but long term more gays would be less likely to enter into sham hetero marriages and add kids to the mix just for society.
Google isn't promoting homosexuality, they are promoting equal rights for homosexuals. They aren't the same thing, any more than promoting equal rights for racial minorities is the same thing is promoting people deciding to be racial minorities.
You are, of course, free both to promote heterosexuality and to do what is actually parallel to what Google is doing, which would be promoting equal rights for heterosexuals.
Of course, the thing with equality is that promoting equal rights for group X is exactly the same thing as promoting equal rights from group defined as not-X.
From a govt prospect...call them all civil unions.
What you and your partner call it is 100% up to you....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Google did oppose Prop 8 for most of the same reasons cited for the new campaign.
Google is over stepping its bounds. They should stay focussed on making better products and not mess around with lame things like same sex marriage. Are they after brownie points with minorities now, have they stooped low enough to play the games of politicians ? This is disappointing.
This sort of thing makes me wonder why we have legal marriage in the first place. Obviously there should not be any reason to stop people having religious (or secular) ceremonies, with fancy clothes, speeches, explicit declarations of love and promises of commitment and so on, but why legal marriage? In most places, legal marriage consists of a bundle of things designed to make it easier for people to live together (presumptions about ownership of property, inheritance stuff, tax breaks, next of kin things - although the specifics vary with jurisdiction). It seems to be the state's way of encouraging and rewarding stable long-term relationships, with the idea that stable long-term relationships are good for society in general. Whether or not marriage does that is another matter, and something that probably needs looking in to.
So, then you have the issue of what sort of marriage to allow... and that is a matter for society to determine (via elected officials), although it seems illogical and inequitable to deny it to certain groups of people simply because of historical/cultural prejudices. [As an aside, it is worth noting that the "marriage = man + woman" idea is fairly limited both geographically and temporally; already in many places "marriage = man/woman + man/woman" and in some "marriage = man + women". Interestingly, some parts of the US still had "marriage = white man + white woman, or non-white man + non-white woman" on the statute books until 2000; however unconstitutional it was. It's amusing to see people in those places complain about same-sex marriage "redefining" a centuries-old definition of marriage...]
I imagine quite a few homosexuals want love... however the issue with legal marriage is probably related to the way you have the state very publicly and firmly telling you that you do not have the same rights as other people; that somehow your relationship, your love etc. are not as important or worth as other people's. Given that, I think it is quite understandable that they would want to fix the law. Again, a comparison with the "anti-miscegenation" laws the US used to have is interesting; nowadays in many places it would be unthinkable to have such restrictions on marriage.
As another aside, I imagine that not all people who want same-sex marriage are homosexual, and suggesting so is a bit narrow-minded. There is a good percentage of the population that is bi-, and they should not be ignored or dismissed. Plus then you have issues of gender-reassignment, or unclear gender etc., which is one of the motivations for the proposed change in law in the UK. Under the current law, iirc, gender at birth is the determining factor for marriage, which can cause issues.
It's interesting how those three issues polyamoury, paedophilia and bestiality seem to always come up eventually in discussions of same-sex marriage. Of course, one of those things is not like the other, but they are all quite easy to "deal" with:
Polyamoury - I have no problem with this and see it as the next step after legalising same-sex marriage. There are some practical issues with defining it (such as transitivity, does A m B, B m C => A m C?) but on the whole it seems to have the same potential problems as other types of marriage. The only difference with "normal" marriage is the number of people involved. This is obviously different from the other two, in that polyamorous sexual relationships are perfectly legal in many places, unlike paedophilic or beastial ones (again, in most places).
Paedophilia - This is a bit problematic as the definition varies with jurisdiction. Afaik most places do not actually have laws against paedophilic relationships, onl
I am one of the members of a christian religion. I support the right of gays to get married. Why? Two main reasons:
1) The first amendment states that the no law will enforce one religion upon the people. All the real arguments against gay marriage are religious and thus invalid under the constitution for a law (I fully support the rights of religious institutions to deny performing/not recognize any marriage they deem wrong).
2) The same book of the Bible that speaks of how gay sex is an abomination is also the one that says that pig is unclean and should not be eaten. I love pork, and Paul wrote that, under Christ, no one would be condemned for what they put into their mouth (he was speaking to pork eating Christians that were being told that God forbid pork by formerly-Jewish Christians). Since this law was apparently amended by Christ it calls into question anything else that was said in the same book.
Personally, I think that marriage should be redefined as between any two consenting adults.
Agreed, although I prefer the analogy with marrying a table (or plant) as, in many places, non-human animals are generally regarded as property. I don't know about the US, but in English law it is surprisingly hard to leave property on trust to cats (or other pets) as they do not have legal personality to hold even the equitable title in the property. You end up having to create a purpose trust, which leads to all sorts of complications and stuff. Apparently it gives pet-rescue charities no end of problems (as, being charities, they are usually trusts themselves).
In fact that is the case in NJ. Corporations are using the term "civil union" as a defense against providing the rights under the law. The argument goes "if the government intended you to have marriage rights they would have granted marital status." In the case of UPS, it required the governor to apply political pressure for them to abandon that argument.
If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?
And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?
Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?
Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"? Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?
Perhaps someone can explain why they want to shame others for their hate or homophobia when they themselves needed to advertise and promote their own "pride" well before anyone knew about gay pride?
ONE LAST POINT/QUESTION.
Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?
Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.
Gee i wonder what they have been doing for a few hundred thousand years there wasn't governments and lawyer. Just how did we get by is beyond me.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Yeah what you have is what Americans are debating about. No one is suggesting that a priest should be forced to marry two gay men against his will. Gays just want the same paper work. The ceremony can be whatever.
If you want to understand the debate you should read about it. No one cares about god here. Just equal rights. God can hate whomever he likes. :)
If the government comes out against incest, is that sticking their nose in other people's business? Is that the government opposing "free love"?
Just like how many people get upset that the schools show the kids how to use condoms and then send them home with them.
WTF?!?! There are a significant amount of people who get upset about this? This is 2012, right? I'm not an American, so please excuse my surprise.
Lolita was a work of fiction.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Correct, and that also is not equal. Pointing out another inequality is not an arguement that they are not inequal. You will also find that in many places no longer have gender specific bathrooms.
Yes, it does. And, the only reason that we segregate bathrooms based on gender is because people are in denial over the number of gay people in society. Segregated bathrooms are not some inherent moral standard that exists in isolation. The reason we have segregated bathrooms is because we consider it a problem to drop our pants in the presence of someone who might find it sexually titillating, and we are not wanting a sexual relations with.
The acceptance of group bathrooms at all are reliant on cognitive disassociation.
That's the problem. A marriage is not only an agreement between the couple but it represents the society's recognition of that union.
To claim equal rights to some conferred benefit you must be equally situated. That's the mistake made by judges in deciding these cases. Two men or two women are not equally situated to a man woman couple.
No One!! It's a freakin' word. Not copyrighted, trademarked by anyone. You don't have to pay Disney or the Catholic Church or the Government anything to use the word "marraige" (yet..)
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
I imagine you're referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though I'm not sure what court case you're referring to. Or perhaps you're just referring to the battle over school segregation Kennedy talked about eg. here.
You may be right, but I do not think for the reasons you see. I also think time might be close to the end of or beyond both of our times.
What reasons do you have in mind? (I'd like to note I listed none myself beyond a vague sort of analogy.) I also seriously doubt marriage equality will take as long as you suspect in the US, unless you're quite old (I am not).
That wasn't my point. I don't know if its just the US, but this country seems to have a lot of issues when it comes to equality, especially when it revolves around gender. Then when you go and stir up the entire notion of traditional gender roles, its like poking a hornet's nest.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Historically, that's not really true. Marriage historically has been about property rights, first and foremost, which are clearly within what is understood in the modern world as being part of the function of civil government. Its usually had both what, from a modern perspective, are "civil" and "religious" trappings, because the whole idea of a crisp boundary between religious institutions and civil government is extraordinarily modern.
You're exactly right that love is not a legal requirement for marriage because it is not necessarily even a part of it. Each individual couple has their own reason for marrying, and love may or may not be a part of it.
But that's pretty much exactly the point. If the law included a clause allowing marriage between "any two people who love each other", then that would be enforcing an arbitrary rule based on some individual's bias regarding what a marriage should, in their mind, be about. If there was a similar clause about "any two people of the same race", that would also be an arbitrary clause based on some individual's bias.
The thing is that the existing clause regarding "any two people of the opposite sex" is just as arbitrary, and is also based on some individual's bias. There is no basis for that clause. The fact that it has been that way for a long time is irrelevant. It's an arbitrary clause that simply doesn't fit today's reality.
Your entire argument seems to be "it should be the way it is because it is the way it is". I'm saying that the way it is is arbitrary and pointless. The only even vaguely decent attempt at defending the "opposite sex" clause that I've heard is that marriage is about creating children. But again, that's an attempt to apply an individual bias regarding what a marriage should be. In the same way that not every marriage is based on love, neither is every marriage about creating children. Plus, that argument falls flat when the fact is considered that there are infertile opposite sex couples allowed to marry.
Marriage is a personal thing, and people need to stop trying to define it for other people.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
They are not supporting freedom, they are supporting "lining their own pockets", and it works well for them.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
We actually know quite well - historically, marriage has been a civil arrangement long before religions had a say on the issue. Look up "common law marriage".
Anyone willing to marry.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. All religions confirm this, if same sex people want rights under the law, let them. This is not a religious issue.
So let me get this right...... here's company in a country that is dire straights:
The US is almost bankrupt and owes trillions of dollars to us in the rest of the world because it continues to live beyond its means. ....... and Google thinks it is a good thing to start telling other more successful countries what to do, that somehow, they must accept America's crappy values.
The unemployment rate is above 8%. The worst since the depression.Economic growth is only slightly above 1%
The country is led by the most incompetent president in history chosen for the colour of his skin and not his competence.
A president that lost his law license for lying, but this is hidden by the so-called media in the US
The country can no longer even send a man into space except by catching a lift with the Russians
It is bottom of the league for math and science education (25th to be exact). It excels only in the Dunning-Kruger category (true, check it out).
Tech companies rely on overseas skills because of the poorly educated workforce in the US
More than half of post graduate places in the US are filled with foreigners because US students are so poorly educated
US has the highest per capita prison population in the world
Invading Mexican peasant cannot be stopped and have already taken Southern California
The US has lost a war to a bunch of lawless Pathans in Afghanistan
6 billion people hate the US so much for exporting its decadence that they are prepared to die to kill Americans
Truly only mad crazy liberal Americans out of touch with the world could dream up such a thing. Instead of dealing with real issues closer to home the libs start worrying about gay marriage. Time to get real America. Time to get real Google. You are the laughing stock of the world. No one listens to you any more.
Realistically about 300 million condone gay marriage across the world. 6.7 billion don't. Guess who is going to win out in the end. Let's vote.
The National Organization for Women’s long campaign for same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on its face. Same-sex marriage has been the foremost long-term goal of the National Organization for Women (NOW) since January 1988 when feminist leader Sheila Cronin issued this mandate to feminists: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”
Feminists made feminist marriage their top long-term goal twenty-five years ago and invested tremendous resources in it, because they intend to convert marriage into a feminist-controlled government enterprise and subordinate the rest of America to fund it.
Feminist marriage is structurally designed to destroy equality. It establishes three classes of marriage, each with vastly different reproductive, social, and economic rights and protections under Constitutional law depending on the sex(es) of the participants.
Feminist marriage is a three-way contract between two women and government. Most women will have children, and few women can afford or will go to the extreme of using artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children born in these marriages.
Children will be born of extramarital affairs backed by welfare guarantees and child support entitlements. Feminist marriages are automatically entitled with many tax-free, governmental income sources for having children that hetero marriage cannot have. Of course, gay men are at the back of the bus and have to spend large sums adopting -- economically marginalizing them to the edge of society.
Feminist marriage is a marriage between any two women and the welfare state. It constitutes a powerful feminist takeover of marriage by government, and places the NOW in the position of dictating government policy as a matter of “feminist Constitutional rights.”
Any company supporting same-sex marriage is supporting the feminist institutionalization of American government as we know it. Those who believe in equality MUST uphold heterosexual marriage because it is the only marital arrangement guaranteeing equal economic, social, parental, and political rights.
David R. Usher, President
The Center for Marriage Policy
http://marriagepolicy.org/2011/11/why-same-sex-marriage-is-unconstitutional/
Perhaps you should know more about your own country before you post. Religious marriage is legal marriage. Any patriotic American should understand that the country is based on the belief in God. Where else in the world does it say even on the money "In God We Trust". If you as an American try to denounce that, you are denouncing your entire country and all that it stands for. And you wonder why it upsets people? Outspoken minorities in America have long tried to bully and push their views on the rest of society, and unfortunately society has caved too oft to everyone's detriment. This does not mean that you should not be tolerant, because you should be. It does mean however; that the very thing that the majority are being accused of, in most cases, is the very thing that the minority are in fact perpetrating.
It's amazing how far culture has come. Homosexuality didn't become federally legalized in America until '03 o_O Now everyone is trying to make a big push like it's the new hip pop thing. But _every_ trend has its end. So my question is after this, then what? If the argument, "that's just how I am", is going to make changes worldwide, then that same argument will work the same for incest, pedophilia(psychiatric disorder) :O, necrophilia, zoophilia, ect. The only reason it hasn't is because some people haven't fallen off the band wagon far enough yet, but they’re getting there.
I don't believe in hating someone because of what they do, but for the love of GOD, leave it in the bedroom.
you can choose to be homophobic or not.
You know... How is it, if you don’t condone something that there for you become afraid of it? Some people don’t condone alcoholism does that then mean they’re afraid of beer? This is kinda the most duh statement I hear a lot. You don’t have to be afraid of something to NOT like or agree with is.
But heterosexuals could marry their sex too. I don't see why they would want to, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Done and done:
Shaggy: Who's your best buddy?
Scooby Doo: Raggy
Shaggy: That's right. And who's my best buddy in the whole wide world?
Scooby Doo: Rooby Doo!!!!!
Yes, I was referring to the the school segregation case.
There are too many people within the US who think creationism is real. There are even more people who think God is real. And there are a lot of people who see this as a separate right as apposed to an equal right. Most of these people might be older but as the younger crowd grows older they tend to change their minds too. I know a lot of liberal hippies who in their youth protested the DNC, Nixon, participated in riots all across the country who are now quite conservatives claiming to be liberals but admit they vote republican or libertarian whenever possible.
The biggest reason I think it will take so long is that this is a state issue being attacked on a federal level and some people who do not even care if gays get married resent the federal government imposing conditions onto the states. We can look at recent politics and see this with the Obamacare legislation and how it is being rejected in some instances by people who would and do actually support a public medical care but do not like the mandates on the states or the federal government injecting themselves over what traditionally is a state right according to the 10th amendment. In short, they support the concept but not the implementation of it.
These types of situations will play out for quite a while in history and unless the supreme court gets stacked with political and ideological cronies, I think swaying public opinion and getting gay marriage will take a long time.
Well, no it isn't just as arbitrary to state people of the opposite sex. A role of government is to encourage the growth and stability of it's population and one way of doing that is by crafting it's laws to encourage behavior like starting a family with two parents.
Now, I will admit that with all the out of wedlock children and how the government treats them the same as in wedlock children, that goal is antiquated and probably negated by now. But it is a legitimate goal of government to attempt to do so.
But you seem to miss my argument entirely. You see, my argument is that marriage is actually a religious device that government got involved in at first to exert power over the church and allow marriages it denied, then to deny marriages like interracial marriages, and finally to disburse property, inheritance rights, and benefits (not necessarily in that order).
If you separate the government's role in marriage and recreate all that comes with it outside of marriage, the religions can have it back and gay marriage won't be necessary outside of those few who want to impose their lifestyle choices into religious institutions (and yes, choosing to get married is a choice).
I don't think we are all that far apart in opinions. Maybe we are just talking past each other and not hearing what is being said.
That may have been true XX years ago, that isnt the case now. shouldnt the laws reflect the reality? and that reality being that ALL men are equal, as intended??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Perhaps. I'm unsure. The states rights issue is certainly a large potential sticking point. Left to their own devices, I have no idea if say Alabama would ever legalize gay marriage. I do have some hope that SCOTUS will find gay marriage constitutionally mandated for each state by either the commerce clause or the equal protection clause. If they do nothing of the kind, I can potentially see a deeply divided country where the west and northeast allow gay marriage while the south(east) and most of the middle don't. I don't know about the federal situation--I hope the gross inequality at least leads to federal civil unions in the next few years if not marriage proper.
I am also unsure about the general support for it by generation. The 65+ crowd is by *far* the most anti-gay-marriage (here's a graph using somewhat old data; better evidence exists). I think that either support will continue growing overall as it has in the last few years, or that generation will mostly die off in the next decade, and either way there will be a "super majority" of support.
The key portions of the civil rights movement took like a decade after things got moving. My hope is that we're at about the same starting place (maybe a few years in?) with gay marriage.
Apparently it gives pet-rescue charities no end of problems (as, being charities, they are usually trusts themselves).
What, no one trusts a trust?
Learn to love Alaska
How is it, if you don’t condone something that there for you become afraid of it?
Ok, so give an alternative explanation. Why would someone block gay marriage if not fear of the wrath of god or the moral decay of society or some other nonsense? Simple spite, maybe? Sort of a "I know gay marriage is harmless, but let's mess with them anyway" thing?
If you don't like beer, don't drink it. But the people that instituted alcohol prohibition had the same sorts of religious, moral and practical fears about the demon alcohol that the people repressing gays have today.
I guess the biggest issue is that most do not see it as a civil rights issue. It hasn't been traditionaly presented as one until recently. Its as if a lite went off in someone's head and all the sudden the claim was made.
You will not see a federal civil union either. Marriage simply is not within the powers of the federal government. If the feds attempt to impose something like that there will be a revolt that will likely cause a constitutional amendment invalidating either the government powers or gay marriage itself. You have to remember that even in California which is probably the most gay friendly state, the voters supported multiple state wide bans on gay marriage. It took not one, but two state supreme court challenges and a federal challenge to make it legal.
Isn't everyone being able to do the same thing equal or equality? Marrying someone of the opposition sex would be equality as in the same thing. It isn't even close to divided abilities based on race.
Here are a few other things you can't do when marrying. A brother can't marry his sister. Most places bar marriage between relations closer the third cousins. Are those people being denied equality?
It is a little silly to pretend that religion is not a part of society. It is intermingled with the people making up the society.
Its as if a lite went off in someone's head and all the sudden the claim was made.
I've found myself wondering why this issue seems to be so popular all-of-a-sudden--perhaps this is part of it. I find myself quite biased, though, having come out and gotten interested in the whole thing only recently, so I can't speculate very effectively on reasons for increased general interest.
You will not see a federal civil union either. Marriage simply is not within the powers of the federal government.
I'm sorry (since I like this conversation), but this is just not true, depending on precisely what you meant. Marrying people is perhaps not within the powers of the federal government, but one of DOMA's main aims is to invalidate same-sex marriages for federal purposes, regardless of their recognition by state(s). To give one example, even a married lesbian couple from Massachusetts cannot file a joint federal tax return. There are many, many more. That said, I misspoke. By the phrase "federal civil unions", I just meant federal recognition of civil unions (performed who-knows-where, maybe states, maybe other countries) for the purposes of federal marriage rights and responsibilities.
You have to remember that even in California which is probably the most gay friendly state, the voters supported multiple state wide bans on gay marriage. It took not one, but two state supreme court challenges and a federal challenge to make it legal.
I lived in California during the Prop. 8 campaign. I suspect gay marriage supporters got somewhat complacent--it's California, after all; you'd just expect it to be legal. The reality is that California is not nearly as liberal as one might think. Some urban centers, notably San Francisco, are, but it's a huge state. This Prop. 8 voting map is instructive. California is certainly not the most gay friendly state either; Massachusetts might be.
While it doesn't matter much, your summary of same-sex marriage in California is perhaps misleading. Same-sex marriage is not currently legal in California. It was legal for a while in 2008 in the time between the State Supreme Court overturning Prop. 22 (a law) and the passage of Prop. 8 (a constitutional amendment). It should be noted that Prop. 8 barely passed--52% to 48%--and that federal constitutional challenges based on it are currently making their ways through the courts. I suspect that if it weren't for the potential Supreme Court rulings, a repeal of Prop. 8 would already have passed, considering it barely passed even before the recent general surge in same-sex marriage support. A federal judge and a three-judge panel of the relevant appellate court have both found it unconstitutional and those rulings are stayed until review by the Supreme Court. Either SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case next term in which case gay marriage will again be legal in California--this seems highly unlikely to me--or SCOTUS will hear it and rule, possibly at a national level depending on legal specifics--and if the lower courts are any indication, they will rule for gay marriage.
Next Supreme Court term will be very important for gay marriage in general. DOMA and Prop. 8 challenges will likely be heard and ruled upon. I suspect (hope) 2013 will be the "Brown v. Board of Education"-year for gay marriage.
That may have been true XX years ago, that isnt the case now. shouldnt the laws reflect the reality? and that reality being that ALL men are equal, as intended??
Clearly not all men are equal, hence Google's campaign.
It is a little silly to pretend that religion is not a part of society. It is intermingled with the people making up the society.
That isn't how democracy works. Minorities don't get to force their views on others. If the majority belonged to a particular religion they would get their way, but that isn't the case.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wow only two comments in and some idiot managed to compare a consensual relationship between adults to pedophilia. Next up, some ignoramus saying "but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
Im waiting for the argument that gay marriage will lead to gun control.
Ah, but therein lies the real problem. Your understanding of history is seriously flawed, because marriage is not a religious device that government later got involved in. Marriage has existed in many forms throughout history all over the world, and religion has not always been involved. From a Christian perspective, it was bishop Ignatius of Antioch who decided that the church should get involved in marriages and "make them holy". From the perspective of other cultures, some marriages were religious, some civil, some purely personal. At one point all it took was for two people to declare their marriage intentions to each other, and they were married. The state wasn't involved. The church wasn't involved.
So, even your idea that marriage is religious is another arbitrary imposition of a particular individual bias. My marriage is not religious (I'm atheist). Nor is it about population growth (my wife and I have absolutely no intention of ever spawning children). So, even as a heterosexual male, I abhor the attempts that are constantly being made by the anti-same-sex-marriage crowd to cram all marriages into their own personal ideal of what it should be.
...the religions can have it back and gay marriage won't be necessary outside of those few who want to impose their lifestyle choices into religious institutions...
This is a fascinating quote. First, the religions can't "have back" what was never exclusively theirs. Second, it is not those who want same-sex marriage who are trying to impose anything on anyone, but those who oppose it who want to impose their personal biases on others. And third, if we keep the government's role in marriage, we allow the non-religious to have their marriages in their own manner, while still allowing the religions to create their own set of rules around it. If your church doesn't want to marry a same-sex couple, fine. But out here in the secular world, if a same-sex couple want to marry, your church and its members should have no authority to stop it.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Isn't that exactly what you are complaining about? The laws where written when the secular portions of the population was in the minority.
It can easily be said that they still are in the minority when you consider how many citizens claim a belief in creation and or a religion when asked anonymously. The numbers seem to grow quite large when the answer can't be directly tied to them. That is the exact situation with voting.
There is nothing flawed with my history. The marriage rituals in bumfuckistan or some extinct tribe or culture is not really representative of marriage as we know it in the us today. What we know today is largely the marriage created and controlled by the church. The terms used were largely created about 900 Years after the church got involved with it.
You not being religious or even of the right religion is exactly why government got involved in marriage inside the first place creating the modern precedent for the involvement today. Churches wouldn't marry you and the government decided it would eventually taking the control away from the churches.
Your mistake here is that we are not interested in the history of the world, just the history in which legal precedent gives the current state the legal jurisdiction over marriage. The only answer to that is a carry over of law on which the government took marriage from religion.
In the UK less than 5% of the population regularly attend religious worship. Clearly we deviated from the main religions decades ago when we legalized abortion and homosexuality. In poll after poll there is still widespread support for these laws, as there was at the time they were brought in.
It seems that even people who consider themselves Christian don't actually support many of the Church's beliefs. In the UK there is a majority in favour of gay marriage.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why does government need to give us a permission slip to be considered married? It's insulting. Marriage is a private contract.
The fact that I could marry your sister and you cannot certainly is discrimination. What you seem to miss is that 1) "family relationship" is not a protected class, and 2) There are serious health risks involved with marrying (under the presumption that this will more likely than not lead to children). So, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, it is banned. Thus, your analogy fails.
It is EXACTLY like dividing abilities based on race. Race AND gender are protected classes. Saying that you can marry someone of the opposite sex is the same as saying that you can drink from a water fountain that has been labeled for your race. Even more to the point, saying that you can only marry someone of a different gender is the same as telling people they can only marry someone from the same race. Claiming that it isn't inequality because everyone can marry someone of their own race EQUALLY simply doesn't fly.
You know, I wasn't really thinking of Europe. In the US we have a lot of closet religious people who for some reason act more secular in public and more religious when their peers won't know about it.
Being gay is not a prerequisite for gay marriage. I fail to see the connection you are trying to make. In fact, it is more like forcing minorities to use the same drinking fountains that everyone else has to use then separate.
Would it be proper in your opinion to legalize gay marriage with the conditions that no gay person could marry a straight person?
Why would limit the gay person from marrying a straight person? We don't restrict black people from drinking from from previously black only or previously white only fountains. They can drink from any fountain they want.
Could easily be made today on the subject of gay marriage.
Well, this is a global issue, not just a U.S. issue, but if you want to limit the discussion to the U.S., then I would point out that the state has had jurisdiction over marriage for as long as there has even been such a thing as the United States. There were state marriage laws before there was even a Federal Constitution.
Ultimately, this all comes back to my original point about arbitrarily imposing individual biases. You have taken a small, relatively recent subset of the much larger marriage institution, and want to force it on everyone. Unfortunately for you, your narrow view will die out eventually. You're going to lose this fight. A handful of countries have matured to the point of legalizing it, and the rest will, eventually. I expect the more theocratic countries like Iran and the U.S. to be some of the last countries to get with the program, but it will happen. Guaranteed.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Being left in peace to do whatever floats their boats in the privacy of their own homes, with whoever wants to be involved, that's a reasonable expectation. "Recognition" - whatever the hell that is - is not.
That's why this connection to segregation doesn't fit. When it became illegal to have blacks and whites only drinking fountains, all the the blacks or whites only were removed and what was left might have been the original drinking fountain but it wasn't allowed to be blacks or whites only just public drinking fountains.
So according to the same logic where all people, including gays, can drink from the same drinking fountain (marry someone of the opposite sex) doing away with that and giving them a special separate right (marrying someone of the same sex) would be gays only being able to marry gays of the same sex.
It's your attempt at making the connection that doesn't stand on it's own. I suggest you think it through a bit more.
Actually, I was referring to English law which is the predominate basis for most law in the western world. The state took the marriage away from religion sometime in the 1600s if memory serves me correct.
As far as a subset forcing something on someone, that is exactly how democracy works. Society has a say in it's government and how it governs. When that society is more religious then not, the laws governing that society will be more religiously inclined then not. When society wants to promote it's growth and expansion for wealth and security, it might also have the government make laws restricting who can marry to encourage childbearing and so on.
Whether or not you consider that mature or whatever is beside the point. Society is comfortable with the laws governing them- at least in the marriage part because democracy works sometimes.
My guess is that it is a strategy they think they can win with. By they, I mean supporters of gay marriage. They probably sat around brainstorming legal strategies for opening marriage up, it passed the smell test, and they ran with it. Of course it might have gained support for other reasons, but my guess is that no one really considered it to be a civil rights issue until it appeared they could get their way with the claim.
If I remember correctly, the Defense of Marriage Act was just recently struck down in a lower court case. Anyways, it is a different story saying the federal government does not recognize A in it's dealings, verses saying we are now creating A in substitute for all that the states are not doing.
You are right, I thought they resumed marrying after prop8 had been voted on but it appears it invalidated the state supreme court's ruling allowing gay marriage in the first place.
My understanding of the cases that will be in front of the US supreme court is that they are structured in a way that will only effect California law because of the start and stop on gay marriage. But I was wrong on the still doing it so I might be wrong on this.
Even if gay marriage prevails, I do not think it will be even close to a Brown v. Board of Education. The problem is that going to school is mandated by law. Segregating children based on skin color and forcing them to be separate is still a bit different then someone making a choice which no matter how you look at it, marriage is a choice. Now in contrast to brown v. education, private schools can still be segregated and people can choose to send their kids to all black schools or all male schools or all female schools and so on because it is a choice.
I think the entire choice part will burst the bubble of a lot of people.
Well, I error-ed a bit in limiting it to the US. It's the English law the US is modeled after. Marriage in most of Europe and about any country England occupied share the same history in which the government didn't give a squat about it until they started struggling over power and control. I think it was in the 1600's or so when the Marriage became common for the state to be involved.
You do realize that the USA existed before the federal constitution right? And that the constitution was actually the second attempt to outline the federal government? Before the USA was created, you had 13 individual countries who surrendered part of their sovereignty to a federal union in an attempt to manage conflicts between the countries and put a unified face on foreign policy.
No, US law is born of English law and it is a lot older and larger then it appears.
But here is your problem. If it was forced onto everyone by a minority, then through democracy, it could be changed. Almost every time gay marriage is brought up by proposition or voter referendum, it always results in either it being rejected or extra measures being put in place to prevent it from happening. That does not seem to be forcing as you put it. It seems to be the democratic will of the people under the jurisdiction of the governments enforcing the laws.
Ha.. unfortunately for you, the view you think I hold will be around a lot longer then you think. Why, because people like you cannot debate the issue and instead cry and attempt to insult others when you start losing your arguments. I personally do not care about gay marriage. But you ended up claiming I had narrow views and insinuating countries who do not support your view are not mature. All this will do is turn people away from you and your cause just like when all the flamers come out and "get in your face" turns people against gays. You simply do not win friends and influence the world around you by pissing off the very people you need to gain support from. Too many people like you exist which is why there will always be people, a good amount of them too, who do no want gay marriage.
English law is still a small, relatively recent subset of the much larger institution. You still want to pick and choose your own ideal of what this thing is and make everyone adhere to it.
The age-old problem of democracy is that it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. That's why the U.S. has a Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place. Because there are some things that should never, ever be decided by a vote. People voting on what other people are allowed to do within their own private lives is just pure evil. The only people who should ever have any say in the same-sex marriage issue are same-sex couples who want to marry. I'm sick of the world's religious thinking they get to dictate other people's lives.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
But it is the law you seem to be disappointed in and want changed. You simply cannot ignore it's history and impose your own over it else you are what you are decrying.
You are correct and it appear that being gay or getting married outside of how the representatives decided was the best for the common good is not a protected right in the bill of rights. It is a state issue and the states have their own constitutions to deal with.
Here is where there seems to be a disconnect. Mariage is not private in the least. All marriage records are open to public inspection because you are asking a public entity for a privilege it controls. However, people voting for what other do in their private lives is very much a part of modern society so you are even out of touch with reality on the premise alone. For instance, in oregon or Washington state, they voted in a law that allows for patient assisted suicide. In many local communities, they bar people from building too close to the property line or putting swimming pools in without certain safeguards like gates and locks. In New york, they barred transfats from being added to foods or even being sold to consumers to add themselves, limited the size of soft drinks, Maryland is trying to bar smoking entirely- even within the privacy of your own home. They have always barred brothers and sisters from getting married, most cousins within 3 degrees of relations, and father kids or mother kids from getting married.
You may not think it is right, but it's there and happening.
Dude, it is society at large, not just religions. Some of this is religion, some is other reasons, some might even be vindictive people who like to watch others suffer.
Even if gay marriage prevails, I do not think it will be even close to a Brown v. Board of Education. The problem is that going to school is mandated by law. Segregating children based on skin color and forcing them to be separate is still a bit different then someone making a choice which no matter how you look at it, marriage is a choice. Now in contrast to brown v. education, private schools can still be segregated and people can choose to send their kids to all black schools or all male schools or all female schools and so on because it is a choice.
I think the entire choice part will burst the bubble of a lot of people.
Gay marriage and access to unsegregated education are as you say not entirely analogous. Still, by far the biggest effect of gay marriage lies in its symbolism of the acceptance or lack thereof of homosexuality in our culture and not in its direct effects of creating marriages. I think every serious gay marriage supporter/opponent recognizes this. To illustrate by contrast, less serious people, Mitt Romney among them, rely primarily on silly, outdated arguments. For instance, "the best place to raise a child is with their mother and father"--even if that's true, it's irrelevant since gay married couples typically adopt or create children themselves through artificial insemination, so the choice isn't at all biological parents vs. gay parents, it's adoptive parents vs. gay parents or nothing vs. gay parents. By far the better argument to my mind is "straight people will behave badly if gay people can get married", particularly something like, "gay men tend to have open long term relationships and if they can marry, straight men may push for this in their own relationships, though experience shows it doesn't work well with straight people". The symbolic meaning of having gay married couples is at the heart of this type of argument, and analogously, the actual changes to gay people's lives are a relatively minor component of a possible Supreme Court ruling, at least in my mind. The biggest effect would be a general sense of "gay is okay".
It's interesting to see marriage patterns in countries like The Netherlands (first in the world) which have legalized gay marriage. As it turns out, at least in the current climate, not that many gay people even want marry, though that may well change with my generation not wanting to fight heteronormativity so much. I grew up expecting marriage someday and I still do.
Nobody's going to force anyone to engage in gay sex (Penn State locker rooms and rectories notwithstanding)
It's a common misconception that molesting boys = gay, but it's a rather viscous lie caused by equating boys with men. Gay men like men, which operationally means post-pubescent males--something like age 15-16+. Young boys on the other hand are essentially feminine and appeal to straight men if anyone. So while it may be penis-in-male-butt sex, it's not gay sex in the proper sense since the man is not gay and not attracted to men. Almost no child molesters are homosexual in their adult relationships (just around the fraction you'd expect), even those who have no reason to hide it. A more detailed account of this can be found here.
Interestingly the number of lesbian child molesters is essentially 0, which is lower than you'd expect based on the heterosexual female numbers. It's hard to measure such a tiny population though since women are so rarely child molesters anyway, and lesbian child molesters are then expected to be a small part of a small part of a small population.
You're absolutely right. I'm sorry that I misspoke. The sex that priests and Jerry Sandusky forced children to engage in is only "gay" in that sense that it is two males. It's much more accurate just to call it "rape".
It's pedophilia, it's messed up, but it's not gay in the sense that they are homosexuals. I get the idea that for those sickos it's more about power than sex anyway.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I never thought of it as the degradation of traditional marriage in which hetero men might want to assimilate the promiscuous male cross overs into their roles. That certainly is somewhat of a counter to the traditional marriage and has been a large ground for divorce in the past.
But I think you are over thinking the mother and father bit. You are right that gay couples will adopt and truthfully, a family of any kind has to be better then an institutional upbringing. But those situations are rare- or a small percentage of the norm when you consider the vast amounts of traditional childbearing. Of course with divorce and otherwise single parents being as common as it is (much larger percent then adoption or alternative methods of creating a baby), perhaps the norm is suboptimal to being with. Hell, even in traditional families with a mother and father, often one of them is a slave to the job and doesn't spend as much time with the kids as they would like.
I think it's sort of foolish to hold out for an ideal world. One where everything can be the best, the most productive, beneficial or whatever label someone wants to put on it. It simply isn't going to happen to a lot of people.
States absolutely do have different ideas about what is legally enforceable in a contract, and you can, in fact, move to another state and enjoy that state's views on how your contact should be enforced. See, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Out_of_state_agreements_are_not_enforceable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause
I think part of the confusion here is that you seem to think that things like deciding "next of kin" are things that we can change through private contracts. These are things that are decided as a matter of law, not contracts. If one marries in California, but moves to Texas and lives there until they die, do you think that Texas is going to defer to California's definition of "next of kin" to decide how to handle the estate (presumably without a will that would have made the matter moot by making it explicit)?
Personally, I think that marriage should be redefined as between any two consenting adults.
Why two? Seriously, once we separate the legal concept of "marriage" from the religious concept, you might as well keep taking things away, and redefine "marriage benefits" in more specific terms, until you can actually rationally defend what you have left. IMO, this will probably be easier to get everyone to accept because the final result will probably resemble marriage in no way whatsoever, which means there's no reason for the "OMG marriage is under attack" crowd to feel under attack.
If one marries in California, but moves to Texas and lives there until they die, do you think that Texas is going to defer to California's definition of "next of kin" to decide how to handle the estate (presumably without a will that would have made the matter moot by making it explicit)?
Yes, if not in law, then in practice. If you are married in CA and move to TX, then TX will honor the CA adjustment to next of kin. I understand your comments, and ignore them as irrelevant. It isn't that CA law trumps TX law, it's that a contract drawn in CA is valid in TX. Though I've heard about the out-of-state non-compete issue being raised in court. Perhaps because all of them I've been asked to sign had distance limits. Otherwise it could be (successfully) argued that you aren't competing if you are so far away, possibly invalidating other parts of the contract as well.
Learn to love Alaska
The big problem is you are basing your opinion on factually incorrect information.
Marriage wasn't a religious concept. It was originally a civil concept for the merger of familes. Love and Religion weren't even on the radar for a while.
Christianity specifically wanted nothing to do with marriage until the mid 6th Century. Prior to that, they washed their hands of it.
On the subject of same-sex marriage, well, that's only restoring rights that were taken away. Same-sex marriages exist throughout history prior to the involvement of the churches. In the Roman Empire, there are records that at least 2 emperors married men. One of them, Nero, married men twice, including taking the role of 'wife.'
As a divorced guy, I have to say that I think everyone has an equal right to the utter misery of marriage. =p
While you can think of marriage as a legal contract, you do not receive marriage benefits as a consequence of anything written in the "contract", but because the state provides special recognition for marriage per se. In fact, some types of marriage do not require any explicit act for it to be recognized as such (common law marriage). You cannot bestow status granted as a matter of a law by way of a private contract.
This is really the heart of the debate. If this were simply a matter of contract law, there would be no issue here. Contracts valid in one state are valid in all states (though if you need the state to enforce the contract, the state may decline to do so if it doesn't like the terms, such as non-competes), and states will make an attempt to interpret contracts according to the conventions of the state the contract was entered into. But the recognition issues with same-sex marriage have nothing to do with contract law, and everything to do with the state granting benefits to people that have entered into marriage (regardless of how it's entered into). Each state defines marriage differently, and bestows legal benefits based upon that definition. Nothing in the law or constitution says those definitions or benefits have to be consistent from state to state, just that state benefits cannot favor one protected class over another.
yeah, when I read the full faith and credit clause, marriage recognition is one of the first thing that comes to mind.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Why do you hate the Constitution?
Learn to love Alaska