Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

Therefore, your situation would be the same as gays, i.e. marriage would not be an option for you.

I could get married but the state would not recognise my marriage. Same situation.

gays wanting to get the benefits of marriage without paying for them.

It's an analogy. Society recieves compensation for marriage benefits in the form of greater productivity, and children.

[Kuciwalker]

Then why not remove the benefits from "marriage" and attach them to children?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I could get married but the state would not recognise my marriage. Same situation.



It's an analogy. Society recieves compensation for marriage benefits in the form of greater productivity, and children.

So heterosexual marriages in which they do not have any children should be denied the privleges and rights other couples can have??

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's an analogy. Society recieves compensation for marriage benefits in the form of greater productivity, and children.

And how would that not apply to gay marriages as well?

Gay marriages can, and do, produce children. More importantly, gay couples are more likely to adopt. That doesn't benefit society?


Do you have any relevant objections left?

[Drake Tungsten]

Good article on gay marriage in Time this week.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040216-588870,00.html?cnn=yes

Sounds like this is going to turn in Roe v. Wade 2. Thanks a lot, Massachusetts. Why couldn't you have just let this issue sort itself out democratically? Now I'm going to have to hear people ***** about it for the rest of my natural life...

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye

Originally posted by yavoon


we've made divorce exceptionally easy and now we want it to include "two ppl of the same sex" in the definition of marriage. whether u think this is the right thing or not it is most assuredly not the original intent.

What does original intent have to do with it? Our society is vastly different from that of the early Christians. It was never original intent to allow slaves to marry, either.

I'm all for gay couples getting rights, but if u asked me the definition of marriage I would still include a man and a woman in it.

Would you restrict the rights, benefits, and responsibilities to a male-female couple as well?

no idea what ur last point was. since at no time did I mention restricting rights.

also I believe the waters are getting very muddy here on "rights and benefits." you keep making them sound like "life liberty and property" but its just not. in society we parse up rights and benefits in many different ways. to say that there exist ppl who have different ones than you is not to really have a point.

[Ben Kenobi]

foul and bestial way with young Ms. Carey? I'm not sure I can see the man upstairs being terribly happy with the latter, or even with you thinking about it, according to his rulebook.

My way is neither foul, nor bestial.

Just thought I'd mention it... I can't understand for the life of me what you see in her - does she have a novelty pube-trim I haven't seen?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MrFun


So heterosexual marriages in which they do not have any children should be denied the privleges and rights other couples can have??

Given this "marriage is for the children" argument, I wonder why they don't argue for the automatic dissolution of marriage at

a. Menopause

or...

b. Graduation of the last child in a household from High School.

Whichever comes later, of course.

[Ben Kenobi]

Given this "marriage is for the children" argument, I wonder why they don't argue for the automatic dissolution of marriage at

That would be like forcing people to get married, to force them to divorce.

[MrFun]

So marriage between heterosexuals who do not produce any children at all, should be illegal too?

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
So marriage between heterosexuals who do not produce any children at all, should be illegal too?

That's what he seems to be implying... that to get married, you need to prove to the state that not only you can have children, but swear that you will have children

So all those couples who can't, or won't, shouldn't be allowed to get married either based on his warped logic

[Rogan Josh]

I must confess, I don't really understand this issue. What is to stop a gay couple drawing up a contract which gives them the same rights as a married couple? Other than missing out on the tax breaks, what's the difference?

[Ramo]

It doesn't have anything to do with missing out on tax breaks in the US (there's actually a "marriage penalty" in the tax code over here). But it does have to do with things like hospital visitation rights, insurance coverage, simplifying inheritance, and the like. Also the state is saying that gay relationships are inferior to straight relationships by denying them the right to marry.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ramo
It doesn't have anything to do with missing out on tax breaks in the US (there's actually a "marriage penalty" in the tax code over here). But it does have to do with things like hospital visitation rights, insurance coverage, simplifying inheritance, and the like. Also the state is saying that gay relationships are inferior to straight relationships by denying them the right to marry.

But can't these things sinply be contracted? I mean, visit your lawyer and make a legal document which gives you the right to visit your partner in hospital etc?

[Ramo]

No, a hospital can deny a gay partner the right to visit - as well as the right to make medical decisions for one's partner (as with insurance coverage).