[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<Snip mindless drivel lacking any critical thought>

On what basis?

---------- Post added 05-14-2012 at 08:40 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Rationality To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. Once the government got involved in marriage for legal and financial reasons, the religious aspect became optional.

And the legal is also optional.

	Yes. They're a family and they share finances and life decisions.

Why would the government extend benefits for this?

[nowt]

Why, whatever basis the government used. Faggot religion, say--

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip an attempted rimjob>

Do you have any honest answer?

[Rationality]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And the legal is also optional.

The government presumably wanted an accurate and efficient method for handling the proper allocation of basic resources (taxes, welfare) and dealing with common issues such as hospitalization and ownership of property. Marriage is useful for that, it's a simple legal contract like a business partnership.

	Why would the government extend benefits for this?

The government's job is to manage society in a practical manner, not to enforce religious idealism upon it. Say you have a gay couple that lives together and one makes a salary of $500K/year, while his partner doesn't work. Should the partner be able to claim a $0 income and draw welfare? That would be unfair and unethical. They operate as a single economic unit, a "household", and the government should recognize that.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Rationality To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The government presumably wanted an accurate and efficient method for handling the proper allocation of basic resources (taxes, welfare) and dealing with common issues such as hospitalization and ownership of property. Marriage is useful for that, it's a simple legal contract like a business partnership.

You sure about that? Or is that just your own conjecture? Do you have a source for this claim?

	The government's job is to manage society in a practical manner, not to enforce religious idealism upon it.

It is? Why?

	Say you have a gay couple that lives together and one makes a salary of $500K/year, while his partner doesn't work. Should the partner be able to claim a $0 income and draw welfare? That would be unfair and unethical. They operate as a single economic unit, a "household", and the government should recognize that.

Again, on what basis? Have you even done any research unto why the government considers marriage to be important?

---------- Post added 05-14-2012 at 09:11 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why, whatever basis the government used.

Would depend on the reason.

	Faggot religion, say--

Nothing like being offensive in defense.

	Do you have any honest answer?

Are you capable of rational thought?

[nowt]

Say that the reasons were enough to get such a thing passed into state constitutional law--

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip herniated discussion>

Still no response, eh?

[Rationality]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You sure about that? Or is that just your own conjecture? Do you have a source for this claim?

Yes, I'm sure it is a legal contract that addresses legal and financial issues. It's more than just a religious ceremony and a piece of paper. We have "separation of Church and state" for a reason.

	Again, on what basis? Have you even done any research unto why the government considers marriage to be important?

It's considered to be a basic civil right. And it's useful legally, so we may as well apply it equally.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Say that the reasons were enough to get such a thing passed into state constitutional law--

Again, it would depend on the reasons.

No individual has a right to a driver's license, so it certainly is possible.

---------- Post added 05-14-2012 at 09:32 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Rationality To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, I'm sure it is a legal contract that addresses legal and financial issues. It's more than just a religious ceremony and a piece of paper. We have "separation of Church and state" for a reason.

Again, what's the legal/evidential basis for your claim? Just because it isn't religious doesn't mean it was created to make a legal contract. Perhaps marriage licenses were created to encourage/support behavior that only men and women can engage in together.

	It's considered to be a basic civil right. And it's useful legally, so we may as well apply it equally.

Well, this is a problem. Marriage existed before the government started writing licenses, so there cannot be a right to the license.

So, the "right" must exist in the social/religious real, which it does. And any two people are still able to go and take vows together, so the right isn't being violated.

[nowt]

If N. Carolina redefined the driving laws in such a way that only heterosexuals could drive, and for reasons N. Carolinians saw as legit [faggoty religion rearing its ugly head, say], would that be OK?--

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip continued prolapse of thought>

Are you not understanding the question?

[Rationality]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, what's the legal/evidential basis for your claim? Just because it isn't religious doesn't mean it was created to make a legal contract.

If it wasn't created to make a legal contract, then why is it a legal contract?

	Perhaps marriage licenses were created to encourage/support behavior that only men and women can engage in together.

Maybe.

	Well, this is a problem. Marriage existed before the government started writing licenses, so there cannot be a right to the license.

Take it up with the Supreme Court I guess. Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Warren delivering the opinion of the court:

	The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"...

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Rationality To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If it wasn't created to make a legal contract, then why is it a legal contract?

Perhaps this is how the state decided to implement licenses to accomplish its purpose.

	Maybe.

Actually, definitely.

	Take it up with the Supreme Court I guess. Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Warren delivering the opinion of the court:

You need to actually study Loving v. Virginia, then.

That was a case of a couple who was legally married in DC, but living in Virginia, where living together as a married couple was illegal. That case called upon Oklahoma v. Skinner, a sterilization case, where the majority opinion stated, that marriage and procreation were essential for the continuance of the [human] race.

So, from the government's perspective, marriage and procreation are inextricably tied together, and the legal prohibition against a man and a woman living as a married couple together came down to the necessity of procreation in marriage, and thus this couple's right to do so.

Virginia still wasn't required to extend marriage licenses. They could have and still can dissolve their marriage license laws altogether. So, getting said license isn't a right, nor are states required to recognize said licenses.

Or, as they do presently, the license those relationships likely to result in procreating together, namely marriages, and not including gay unions.

[Rationality]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps this is how the state decided to implement licenses to accomplish its purpose.

The government has never stated that the sole valid purpose of marriage is to make babies if that's what you're getting at. Even if it was, gays can make babies through various creative methods and raise it as a couple these days. Considering that our President supports gay marriage now, "the government" seems to be undecided on the purpose of marriage.

	That case called upon Oklahoma v. Skinner, a sterilization case, where the majority opinion stated, that marriage and procreation were essential for the continuance of the [human] race.

I agree that procreation is essential for the continuance of the human race. That really doesn't address the issue of marriage with depth though. That was 1942. A few years after that, they also ruled that blacks and whites had to ride in separate train cars. I like to think we've progressed somewhat.

	So, from the government's perspective, marriage and procreation are inextricably tied together, and the legal prohibition against a man and a woman living as a married couple together came down to the necessity of procreation in marriage, and thus this couple's right to do so.

You're reaching with that one, it just said you can't sterilize criminals because we have the fundamental right to procreate.

	They could have and still can dissolve their marriage license laws altogether. So, getting said license isn't a right, nor are states required to recognize said licenses.

They could decide that people no longer need a permit to marry one another. I don't think they could forbid marriage without subsequent legal challenges (like what's happening now).

Ultimately the government is unclear on the issue, which is why they need to take the case and rule one way or another on it.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Rationality To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The government has never stated that the sole valid purpose of marriage is to make babies if that's what you're getting at. Even if it was, gays can make babies through various creative methods and raise it as a couple these days.

One of them can. They can't together.

	Considering that our President supports gay marriage now, "the government" seems to be undecided on the purpose of marriage.

What the president believes is irrelevant.

	I agree that procreation is essential for the continuance of the human race. That really doesn't address the issue of marriage with depth though.

But it does for the question of why the government licenses it. The rest is social, not legal.

	That was 1942. A few years after that, they also ruled that blacks and whites had to ride in separate train cars. I like to think we've progressed somewhat.

Which has nothing to do with the present issue.

	You're reaching with that one, it just said you can't sterilize criminals because we have the fundamental right to procreate.

And the court specifically tied marriage to procreation unbidden. That makes it of particular importance, especially as it is used in Loving v. Virginia.

	They could decide that people no longer need a permit to marry one another. I don't think they could forbid marriage without subsequent legal challenges (like what's happening now).

No permit is required to marry.

	Ultimately the government is unclear on the issue, which is why they need to take the case and rule one way or another on it.

It's a state issue. And many states have made it clear.

[Rationality]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	One of them can. They can't together.

Fertility or intent to reproduce isn't a current requirement of marriage. Families created through non-traditional methods are still considered families.

	What the president believes is irrelevant.

My point was that the government is divided on the issue because it hasn't been addressed properly in historical documents.

	But it does for the question of why the government licenses it. The rest is social, not legal.

If the quote is "marriage and procreation were essential for the continuance of the [human] race" that sentence doesn't specifically address licenses or why exactly the government regulates marriage.

	Which has nothing to do with the present issue.

With regards to civil rights issues and trying to make predictions on future cases, the timeline is relevant. The laws change over time and adapt to fit the society.

	And the court specifically tied marriage to procreation unbidden. That makes it of particular importance, especially as it is used in Loving v. Virginia.

It mentions it in the same sentence but otherwise it really doesn't go into any depth on the issue.

	No permit is required to marry.

You currently need a permit to get a legal marriage.

	It's a state issue. And many states have made it clear.

Yeah, the Supreme Court might avoid taking the issue and leave it up to the states. I think they'll take it sooner rather than later but that's just a guess.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You need to actually study Loving v. Virginia, then. That was a case of a couple who was legally married in DC, but living in Virginia, where living together as a married couple was illegal. That case called upon Oklahoma v. Skinner, a sterilization case, where the majority opinion stated, that marriage and procreation were essential for the continuance of the [human] race. So, from the government's perspective, marriage and procreation are inextricably tied together, and the legal prohibition against a man and a woman living as a married couple together came down to the necessity of procreation in marriage, and thus this couple's right to do so. Virginia still wasn't required to extend marriage licenses. They could have and still can dissolve their marriage license laws altogether. So, getting said license isn't a right, nor are states required to recognize said licenses. [...] Or, as they do presently, the license those relationships likely to result in procreating together, namely marriages, and not including gay unions.

You're the one who needs the refresher on Loving - or more specifically, a less selective interpretation of the clear case law.

Loving referenced Skinner as a precedent, which had nothing to do with marriage; it didn't rely on it. And even Skinner didn't establish marriage as being solely about procreation, it said they were both "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" - but not necessarily together.

More importantly, the more recent precedent Loving established marriage (yeah, that's right, a license) as a civil right. Without qualification, and certainly not reliant on procreation. A fact in all your "context" you repeatedly ignore.

So maybe you believe that anyone married and fucking better be doing so to have them some babies. But the government doesn't, and never has.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Rationality To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fertility or intent to reproduce isn't a current requirement of marriage. Families created through non-traditional methods are still considered families.

Which is fine. Fertility is pervasive enough that the man-woman standard is sufficient. The raising of children falls under a different set of rules.

	My point was that the government is divided on the issue because it hasn't been addressed properly in historical documents.

In one sense, it was inherited from when the Church was the state, and in that sense, it was specifically for procreation. And Supreme court cases confirm that this is still the case.

	If the quote is "marriage and procreation were essential for the continuance of the [human] race" that sentence doesn't specifically address licenses or why exactly the government regulates marriage.

Sure it does. It lays the foundation for why the state considers marriage important, namely its ties to procreation.

	With regards to civil rights issues and trying to make predictions on future cases, the timeline is relevant. The laws change over time and adapt to fit the society.

OK, but then a new case has to be made for issuing licenses. That case hasn't yet been made.

	It mentions it in the same sentence but otherwise it really doesn't go into any depth on the issue.

Loving v. Virginia helps us to make that connection, as Skinner is foundation for Loving.

	You currently need a permit to get a legal marriage.

But you can get married without a license, and that's perfectly legal. The only thing the license does for you is give you access to the benefits.

	Yeah, the Supreme Court might avoid taking the issue and leave it up to the states. I think they'll take it sooner rather than later but that's just a guess.

Maybe. But gays need to actually establish a case first.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In one sense, it was inherited from when the Church was the state, and in that sense, it was specifically for procreation. And Supreme court cases confirm that this is still the case. [...] Sure it does. It lays the foundation for why the state considers marriage important, namely its ties to procreation. [...] Loving v. Virginia helps us to make that connection, as Skinner is foundation for Loving.

Skinner does no such thing (see above); it doesn't do anything more than mention them in the same sentence. And there is exactly zero case law to support your assertions. The most relevant precedent is Loving v. Virginia, which explicitly establishes marriage as a civil right, without qualification, in direct contradiction to your wholly invented argument. You can't cite a single fucking example in the whole of U.S. legal history that makes procreation a requirement for marriage. Big surprise - because it never has been.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The only thing the license does for you is give you access to the benefits. [...] Maybe. But gays need to actually establish a case first.

Oh, that's all it does? And newsflash - teh gays don't need to do shit for you. Any more than anyone else who wants to get married does. The day heterosexual couples are required to provide certification showing their intent and ability to "naturally" procreate for a marriage license, your argument will be marginally less ludicrous. Until then, it will remain as absurd and embarassing excuse for an "argument" as it always has been.

[Rationality]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But gays need to actually establish a case first.

They have a case. Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriage, was overruled as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the dissenting judge (quoted from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
):

	The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.

The notion that civil marriage is only for baby-making isn't agreed upon by everyone in society and there's no evidence that a straight couple is superior to a gay couple. The government lacks a solid non-religious reason for giving preferential treatment to certain citizens on the basis of fertility or sexual orientation.

[zibber]

Well,

Fuck North Carolina.

[Nick86]

Question One: Do you support the definition of marriage as defined by this bill? Why or why not?

Yes, marriage is a political and religious union between man and woman in order to procreate and start families which all societies are based on, nuclear families.

Question Two: Do you believe that LGBT couples should have the same benefits (I.E. tax breaks, end of life decision making for spouses, job insurance coverage for S/O, etc...) as a heterosexual couple? Why?

They should not have the same rights because they dont benefit society as much as the nuclear family

Question Three: If you do not believe that they should be allowed to be "married" to be able to have the privileges listed in question 2, then what measure would you support to grant LGBT couples said benefits?

they can have civil unions

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Nick86
	They should not have the same rights because they dont benefit society as much as the nuclear family

How do you define 'benefit' in context of your statement ?

[Bevan]

	Originally Posted by The Frozen One To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Question Two: Do you believe that LGBT couples should have the same benefits (I.E. tax breaks, end of life decision making for spouses, job insurance coverage for S/O, etc...) as a heterosexual couple? Why?

Yes. Why not? Legal benefits need not be tied to the traditional definition of marriage. I see no reason for gay people to demand a heterosexual model for ourselves in all respects, but legal recognition of homosexual relationships would ease tensions, and contribute to a more orderly society and firmer foundation for civilisation.

[Valiyn]

	Originally Posted by Nick86 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, marriage is a political and religious union between man and woman in order to procreate and start families which all societies are based on, nuclear families.

Citation needed for the claim nuclear families are the basis for all societies are build on. Good luck with that, because that's a modern myth.

	They should not have the same rights because they dont benefit society as much as the nuclear family

Citation needed. We raise children, have family, loved ones, have legal needs, and are still contributing American citizens. What makes your family better then mine?

	they can have civil unions

Civil unions are not equal, they are inferior, and marriage is a right afforded to all citizens. You don't get to say no because you don't like the race, sex, fertility, or religion of our partner so get your big government fascism out of our lives and out of our bedroom. You, third party stranger, are not important enough for us to consult when selecting a significant other too start a family with.

[Bevan]

I am caring for my mother in her old age, my nephews are very dear to me and I will do anything I can for them, and I am always there for my sister. She says I would be a good daddy, and takes my advice on raising children seriously.

"They can have civil unions" has a tone suggesting inferiority, but I think that is a social more than legal issue. They, the others, are here among us! I have no feelings of inferiority about myself, but many gay people suffer from internalised homophobia.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Rationality To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They have a case. Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriage, was overruled as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the dissenting judge (quoted from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ):

By the 9th circus... (Yes, that's what it is called.)

	The notion that civil marriage is only for baby-making isn't agreed upon by everyone in society and there's no evidence that a straight couple is superior to a gay couple.

As far as I know, no gay couple have procreated together. So, the heterosexual couple absolutely is superior to the gay couple.

Are you not familiar with biology and human anatomy?

[Bevan]

	Originally Posted by Maybe to Dream To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This whole business of using amendments or the legal system to force things one way or another is *really* annoying tbh. LGBT couples are still people and I don't think there's a reason to deprive them of the provisions living in this society entails. Civil Unions are a movement I would back 110%.

Lawmaking, which evolves year-by-year, is implementation of consensus. If by "legal system" you mean the judicial branch of government, the function of the judicial branch is to enforce law. Implementation of consensus is an element of the legislative process because in the US we have the right, not the privilege, to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Thank you for informing us that LGTB couples are people. I think that clarification is needed.

	Originally Posted by Maybe to Dream To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	See I've grown up in that environment and for many religious individuals, they believe they're doing the right thing and that living out the faith means supporting certain political paradigms.

Politics has nothing to do with "paradigms". People who want their religious beliefs enacted into law must do so using political strategy.

	Originally Posted by Agent 00 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	4. The majority determining rights for minorities goes against equality.

Yes. Put simply, when considering rights conferred by the US Constitution, majority rule falls outside of the legal system. Laws enacted by consensus may be struck down if they are found to be in violation of constitutional principles. The principle that states are bound by constitutional law has been challenged many times in the past, most notably following the abolishment of slavery.

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OK, you can't get a license you don't actually have a right to. That's what governments do. No one's rights are being violated. You don't have the right to a government license. This is one of the things I dislike about liberals. They find something to feel guilty about, and declare their emotional outrage, invent some half-assed definition of a "right", redefine whatever terms they want to along the way, and then complain about intelligent people who point out their obvious errors.

Licensure is a privilege, not a right. The issue of licenses is governed by state and federal law; here again, consensus is the first step in defining what privileges will be granted to the citizenry, and any laws enacted may be challenged.

Personal animosity toward one political group or another is not an intelligent starting point in discussing law, nor is a vague and subjective description of a political group. Political factions are free to redefine and refine their objectives in formulating political strategy.

"They" find something to feel guilty about, declare "their" emotional outrage, redefine whatever terms "they" want and then complain. Who, specifically, are they? If you can find a number of individuals within a political faction who all share these particular behaviours, is it logical to assume the entire political faction thinks and behaves the same way?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Have you even done any research unto why the government considers marriage to be important?

No research can be done on the question as proposed. The "government" is not an entity which can express opinions about specific social issues.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Which is fine. Fertility is pervasive enough that the man-woman standard is sufficient. The raising of children falls under a different set of rules. It lays the foundation for why the state considers marriage important, namely its ties to procreation.

Again, it is impossible for the "state" to consider social issues in the manner of an individual. The incidence of homosexuality in the population has been estimated at anywhere from three to ten-percent. Assuming ten-percent is accurate, there would still not be enough homosexuals to have a negative effect on the viability of the survival of the human specie.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By the 9th circus... (Yes, that's what it is called.) As far as I know, no gay couple have procreated together. So, the heterosexual couple absolutely is superior to the gay couple.

(Called by whom?) I appreciate the profound insight that two persons of the same gender cannot procreate. Ultimately, however, an opinion that one group of people is superior to another carries no weight in public debate. I seriously doubt that any draft of a bill proposed for enactment into law anywhere in the US would explicitly argue superiority as a reason that it be enacted.