Is banning gay's rights to marry wrong?

[ArmenianKid]

in my opinion yes. in america say all citizens are created equal but if a certin group of citizens are banned from praticing the same rights as others wouldnt it violate there constitutional rights? i would like to hear other points of veiw on this. please refrain from homophobic rants.

[ArmoBarbi]

Homophonic rants? I wonder who he could mean? lol

In the last "election", eleven states had a vote on putting this into the Constitution (as if that would make a difference).... Needless to say, I voted "No". The whole idea was nothing but a ploy to motivate the conservatives to come out and vote.

Obviously we have no right to tell anyone else who to marry. Its a joke.

[winoman]

Well Ak - its a bit more complicated then that - what constitutes a "right" and the whole concept over who it is acceptable to marry - but I essentally agree with you (maybe a first eh?).

The institution of marriage is both a social and legal function. Socially it brings 2 (ussually previoulsy unrelated) families together in a kinship bond - and this is perhaps the most sacred and important social relationship that exists among humans (with the specific relationship of the man and women being at the center and most significant [of course] - but certainly then extending to all the kin relationships that are created). The legal aspect has many ramifications - first and formost is in terms of property trights - which is at the very heart of our capitalist (legal) system. A married couple is legally seen as a single entity ofr such - and this is a very important legal distinction. Secondly (and related) there are the various issue of spousal rights and benefits - and so on and so forth.

So why should two people who love each other and live (in all ways basically) as a married couple - as any other married couple - be denied offical recognition of the legal and kinship bonds - purly based on the fact that they are biologically the same sex. Well - IMO - the only reason to deny such is tradition (and perhaps the various legal and otherwise prohibitions against such emanating from religious beliefs and practice). Well - obviously homosexual relations and homosexuality have become more accepted then they were in the past - by most (but not all) people in our society. Our acceptance of such is certaionly changing as well as other social arrangements and manners of living (like moving away from ones village etc etc) and things once considered as abberrations or at least unusual/uncommon are now consider as (more or less) "normal" (or relatively so..again at least acceptable to a certain degree...ie at least not punishble by death or banishment etc). So obviously (IMO) legal recognition of such should follow. To not do so does amount to discrimination. Our society has matured to the point where we can finally accept that there is and always has been a percentage of humanity (as in most all species it seems) that is sexually/emotionally or otherwise attracted to memebers of the same sex. Strange as it may seem to many of us - it is just a fact of life. And to recognize and not be prejudical towards folks who have made such a choice (if indeed it is such...funny how many of the biological determinists among us tend to discount such in the case of homosexuals...curious isn't it) - and regardless - choice or not - makes no difference IMO - it has not proven harmful to others and these folks live in and contribute in our society and always have - and deserve to be able to do such without persecution and with full and EQUAL rights!

So there!

[ArmenianKid]

Well Ak - its a bit more complicated then that - what constitutes a "right" and the whole concept over who it is acceptable to marry - but I essentally agree with you (maybe a first eh?).

The institution of marriage is both a social and legal function. Socially it brings 2 (ussually previoulsy unrelated) families together in a kinship bond - and this is perhaps the most sacred and important social relationship that exists among humans (with the specific relationship of the man and women being at the center and most significant [of course] - but certainly then extending to all the kin relationships that are created). The legal aspect has many ramifications - first and formost is in terms of property trights - which is at the very heart of our capitalist (legal) system. A married couple is legally seen as a single entity ofr such - and this is a very important legal distinction. Secondly (and related) there are the various issue of spousal rights and benefits - and so on and so forth.

So why should two people who love each other and live (in all ways basically) as a married couple - as any other married couple - be denied offical recognition of the legal and kinship bonds - purly based on the fact that they are biologically the same sex. Well - IMO - the only reason to deny such is tradition (and perhaps the various legal and otherwise prohibitions against such emanating from religious beliefs and practice). Well - obviously homosexual relations and homosexuality have become more accepted then they were in the past - by most (but not all) people in our society. Our acceptance of such is certaionly changing as well as other social arrangements and manners of living (like moving away from ones village etc etc) and things once considered as abberrations or at least unusual/uncommon are now consider as (more or less) "normal" (or relatively so..again at least acceptable to a certain degree...ie at least not punishble by death or banishment etc). So obviously (IMO) legal recognition of such should follow. To not do so does amount to discrimination. Our society has matured to the point where we can finally accept that there is and always has been a percentage of humanity (as in most all species it seems) that is sexually/emotionally or otherwise attracted to memebers of the same sex. Strange as it may seem to many of us - it is just a fact of life. And to recognize and not be prejudical towards folks who have made such a choice (if indeed it is such...funny how many of the biological determinists among us tend to discount such in the case of homosexuals...curious isn't it) - and regardless - choice or not - makes no difference IMO - it has not proven harmful to others and these folks live in and contribute in our society and always have - and deserve to be able to do such without persecution and with full and EQUAL rights!

So there!

wow. for once we agree. and i agree with armobarbie also on this.

to block a group of people from marrying is a act of discrimination and what i see as a breach in a persons natrual born rights ( in the usa anyway). i cant belive the american population would do such a thing, i knew we were going down hill but this is just wrong.

[Sip]

Since when is marriage a "right"?

Marriage is a priviledge given by society and is by no means a right. So before gays start xxxxxing and crying about their "rights", they should first distinguish "rights" from "priviledges". No one is limiting their freedoms ... they can do as they please ... all this is for them to get certain socital benefits which eventually comes out of everyone's pockets. Well booo hooo hoooo society doesn't want to finance their way of life. Tough luck!

In the end, all this "love and marriage" hooplas come down to arguments about money and finances.

[winoman]

Since when is marriage a "right"?

Marriage is a priviledge given by society and is by no means a right. So before gays start xxxxxing and crying about their "rights", they should first distinguish "rights" from "priviledges". No one is limiting their freedoms ... they can do as they please ... all this is for them to get certain socital benefits which eventually comes out of everyone's pockets. Well booo hooo hoooo society doesn't want to finance their way of life. Tough luck!

In the end, all this "love and marriage" hooplas come down to arguments about money and finances.

Wrong - its integral to the whole concept of property rights in this country (read that R I G H T S) - yes - most certainly - so it is a right - you talk about societal benefits - aren't we all entitled to such? We are all memebers of this society - of equal status no? I mean since when was it a RIGHT to vote (when not owning property)? Ah yes - you see - its easy to make excuses to exclude people. I suggest expanding your perspective a bit (ie grow up/mature in your outlook) - and not just cling to your homophobe predjudices...

[ArmoBarbi]

Everything comes down to money with our government...

I dont argue that marriage is a "right", it doesnt matter. If straights can do it then gays should have the same chance. Anything different says something about our society.

[winoman]

Everything comes down to money with our government...

I dont argue that marriage is a "right", it doesnt matter. If straights can do it then gays should have the same chance. Anything different says something about our society.

Yes I agree...will we continue to discrimnate against an otherwise contributing and integral portion of our society - or we will grow a bit as we have been with expanded definitions of citizenship and ability to vote (to include women and blacks in addition to other non land owners) - etc. And because our laws have based so much upon marraige relationships - even just the idea of basic property ownership and inheritance - all fundemental rights within our capitalist society - cornerstones if you will - to deny such to an otherwise (essentially) married couple - just because of them being of the same gender - is clear discrimination. They are a family - or at least are partners - in every other sense. They are no different then any other couple (that cannot naturally concieve). We have no laws against other childless couples (being considered as married)...so....

[hyebruin]

Since when is marriage a "right"?

Marriage is a priviledge given by society and is by no means a right. So before gays start xxxxxing and crying about their "rights", they should first distinguish "rights" from "priviledges". No one is limiting their freedoms ... they can do as they please ... all this is for them to get certain socital benefits which eventually comes out of everyone's pockets. Well booo hooo hoooo society doesn't want to finance their way of life. Tough luck!

In the end, all this "love and marriage" hooplas come down to arguments about money and finances.

wow sip! i am amazed! i was expecting a typical 'relativistic response'; and furthermore, i am glad you think of it as a privilege and not a right! that's awesome

[Anonymouse]

in my opinion yes. in america say all citizens are created equal but if a certin group of citizens are banned from praticing the same rights as others wouldnt it violate there constitutional rights? i would like to hear other points of veiw on this. please refrain from homophobic rants.

I know you are a socialist, but first of all, let's get rid of the notion of equality. There is no such thing aside from an idea. In nature and in society there is a hierarchy of intellects, characters, and capacities. There is an inequality between mens intellects, characters and abilities.

On to the notion of rights. The Constitution is flawed. Do not use it as a measuring stick of what is a right or not. I think you, and most of the people responding to this thread have not mentioned this alternative point of view. Why should marriage be a part of the State's monopoly? In other words, why should marriage be a matter that the State deals with? Why should the State concern itself with marriage at all? It is a religous and sacred institution, which, through the monopoly of the State has acquired a secular meaning. The idea of marriage comes from religion, not the secular State. As such marriage should not be a part of the State.

This way we avoid the idea of one's rights being encroached. If a private church wants to marry a homosexual that is their business. I am just as much opposed to the lifestyle which homosexuality espouses, and I am the first to speak against their advertising their lifestyle. This issue is not one of such nature and marriage should be where it rightfully belongs - with the churches, not the State.