What is gay marriage about?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by francois, Jul 9, 2010.

  1. superstring01 Moderator

    It's ending sometime soon. I just did a google search and found out that the Navy plans on ending the ban.

    Most navies prohibit women onboard subs. Wiki Subs

    The old rationale was: Very small spaces and long, LONG, deployment under the sea. Subs are hideously expensive and extremely cramped. Space is at a premium and birthing is usually stacked three high and open for all eyes on-board. Facilities to handle mixed genders obviously compound the problem exponentially and were seen as a possible impetus of inappropriate behavior, especially if deployed for any length of time and were one of the female crew members to become pregnant (not altogether unknown on surface ships where women are permitted).

    But, the Navy--for good reasons--plans to end the ban.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    good. if someone can't even handle their own sexual desires, i don't think they should be handling an armed submarine either.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Emil Valued Senior Member


    I believe that marriage should not be viewed from the standpoint of those who marry.
    They,to free choice, can make a contract or not, what regulates their relationship.
    Marriage should cover child rights and duties of parents.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. soullust Registered Senior Member

    bum darts and fudge packing didn't you know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    that is the very least of what it covers.
  9. PieAreSquared Woo is resistant to reason Registered Senior Member

    it's more about medical coverage always has been??
  10. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    well you could argue that it's about the gay relationship being valued the same way and seen as equal to the straight relationship in society, but really, why the hell should they care what society thinks? so, it probably does come down to benefits.

    lots of straight people get married for the same benefits. health care is expensive.
  11. Emil Valued Senior Member


    You have medical coverage if you are married and if you are not married you do not have medical coverage??

  12. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    that depends on what you do for a living and what country you reside in. in the US you basically have to be employed in particular jobs in order to have affordable health insurance. if you have that affordable health insurance, then you are able to also cover your legal spouse and children under that insurance.

    and when i say affordable, i mean relative to purchasing a policy on your own and not through your employer.
  13. AJRelic Malformed Registered Senior Member

    That's exactly the problem. It's just a word. So why call it civil union instead of marriage? If the rights and benefits were the same, why would anyone care?

    Here's a question: Could I, being male, get a civil union with a female? If not, why?

    It's discrimination. Marriage holds a social status that we don't we feel comfortable giving to homosexuals.
  14. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Agreed...and what if that gay couple do want to adopt a child? They're human beings too for fuck's sake and they might want to have kids.
  15. Emil Valued Senior Member


    For me it is not correct.
    I think all citizens of a state should have access to basic health care.Without conditions.
    For me it is a social behavior and make difference between "people" and "nation."
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The brief summary

    I think it depends on the jurisdiction, or else I'm recalling the stopgap measure of domestic partner registries. In Vermont, no new civil unions have been recognized after September 1, 2009. As of that date, the state went with same-sex marriage. In Connecticut, civil unions existed for gays since 2005. In 2008, the state Supreme Court struck that separate but unequal recognition; same-sex marriages have been in effect and performed since November, 2008. Later this year, all existing civil unions in Connecticut will be recognized as marriages. In New Jersey, civil unions are available to both heterosexuals and homosexuals as of 2007. New Hampshire dispensed with civil unions on the first of this year; as of the first of next year, all existing civil unions will be recognized in New Hampshire as marriages. Nevada recognizes a domestic partnership registry that confers the rights of marriage to heterosexual or homosexual couples without obtaining a marriage license; federally-conferred marital rights are not transferred to these partnerships. California's situation is more complex; heterosexuals can obtain recognized domestic partnerships under certain conditions; likewise, Washington state. Oregon offers domestic partnerships instead of civil unions because homophobes are more comfortable with that term; it does not appear the arrangement is available to heterosexuals. A domestic partnership registry has existed in DC since 1992, but was not effective until 2002; it is available to both hetero- and homosexual couples; the District began issuing same-sex marriage licenses in March of this year, and performing same-sex marriages a week later. Maine has a domestic partnership law available to homosexuals. Hawaii offers reciprocal beneficiary relationship status to both hetero- and homosexuals. Colorado offers limited "beneficiary agreements" for homosexuals. Maryland offers domestic partnerships, but keeps no official registry.

    There are some cities and counties with their own domestic partnership registries, as well, but that whole situation, as you might imagine, is a complete mess.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  17. FREE2SPEAK Registered Member

    It would be a mockery

    Gay people what there cake but want to eat it as well. Marriage is the bringing together of male and female in holy matrimony for the purpose of the perpetuation of life. If Gays were allowed to get married in holy matrimony it would be a mockery of the entire ceremony and a mockery of God. God has condemn the act of homosexuality and called it a perversion an abomination he most certainly would not be sanctioning it in a church ceremony that brings together a man and a women. If the contrary were true then as well as there being an Adam and Eve there would also be an Adam and Steve
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    So barren couples shouldn't be allowed marry either?
    Nor people who don't intend ever to have children?

    God doesn't have a sense of humour? I would have thought godhood would include a pretty secure sense of self and the ability to put up with at least a little "mockery".

    Funny how god condemned a lot of things but somehow it never seems to arouse the ire of bigots when those are accepted by most people.

    Yeah well, if you want to use fairy stories as "justification" for bigotry that's up to you. Just don't expect to be taken very seriously.
  19. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    what i meant to say was...

    imo, this comment is off topic. if you would like to discuss the religious and/or spiritual implications of marriage, i think you should open or find a thread in the religion forum that addresses the topic.

    nobody here is talking about "holy matrimony" except you. we're talking about secular contracts, that btw, are entered into by heterosexual churchies all the time. it's probably the least adhered to secular contract in existence, and that goes for a respective percentage of religious people as well, who all end up in divorce court.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  20. Emil Valued Senior Member


    Tiassa,you quote,

    "Originally Posted by Emil
    Here's a question: Could I, being male, get a civil union with a female? If not, why?"

    I am stuck, I have never posted something like this.
    Please give the link.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2010
  21. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    I always wondered; if 2 men marry each other are they pronounced man and wife or man and man?
  22. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Yeah, it's discrimination, but it's not really stopping them from doing anything, if hypothetically civil union were the same thing.

    I'm not for or against gay marriage. I just think it's a dumb thing to be angry about--if all of the rights and benefits were the same.
  23. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Marriage confers significant financial benefits.

    When my father died & I was supporting my mother, it would have been helpful to file a joint income tax with her & have my employers medical insurance cover her.

    Fast forward many dcades, I was supporting my son. Once again, it would have been very helpful to file a joint income tx retrun & have my medical insurance cover him.

    It does not seem fair to me that I could not have the same benefits in the above situations as a married couple.

    Perhaps the special financial rights given to married couples should either be eliminated or extended to any pair of people committed to caring for eachother.

Share This Page