I am coming out

[Senator Napoleon]

Good for you, Simfan!!

[dead0man]

I don't really see the point to same sex marriage to be totally honest, other than to get the same tax goodies other non-child bearing people do. Basically I kind of agree with Milhouse's position on this one (where did he go anyway?).

Why do you need to "see the point" of something for it to be legal?  I don't "see the point" of eating celery or spending money to watch soccer, but that doesn't mean I think either shouldn't be allowed to be enjoyed by those that do.  And like gay marriage, they don't hurt me (or you or anybody else) so what gives you the chutzpah to tell them they can't?

(that sounds more confrontational than I want...take it as more of a thought exercise)

[ModerateCoward]

I don't really see the point to same sex marriage to be totally honest, other than to get the same tax goodies other non-child bearing people do. Basically I kind of agree with Milhouse's position on this one (where did he go anyway?).

People who don't want kids can't marry out of love?

Well I don't really see the point of government tax-favoritism otherwise, which is basically what state-sanctioned marriage is in the US. I mean I guess it might encourage monogamy somewhat but it's fairly easy to get a sham marriage and then sleep around. I'm the kind of person that would probably never marry anyway though even if I was straight. Especially with the divorce courts in this country.

[Simfan34]

-in support of gay marriage.

Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: 5.02

How did it go up, then?

I too was surprised.

[white trash heroes]

I don't really see the point to same sex marriage to be totally honest, other than to get the same tax goodies other non-child bearing people do. Basically I kind of agree with Milhouse's position on this one (where did he go anyway?).

Why do you need to "see the point" of something for it to be legal?  I don't "see the point" of eating celery or spending money to watch soccer, but that doesn't mean I think either shouldn't be allowed to be enjoyed by those that do.

It's not illegal. Nobody is busting down liberal churches for having ceremonies or people for going out on a date. It's just not being recognized by some places. There is a distinction there, and I find it more than a bit annoying that people miss it.

Anyway, again I don't really see why the government has a compelling interest in recognizing "same sex marriage." In fact the same is true of quite a few hetero relationships. The reasons for government involvement in marriage were and still to some extent are obviously eugenic in nature - i.e. they want to promote child bearing and monogamy. If that is the intent, are other ways to do that however. The government could continue to provide some form of childcare benefits, programs and outlaw abortion.  As apathetic as I am about people's sex lives I can get behind that agenda.

Supporting getting government out of marriage in general and perhaps continuing to offer "civil unions" for convenience is the position I believe we on The Right should move towards. It would cut out the middle man, kill the livelihood of the parasite divorce/"family court" lawyers and get rid of a needlessly divisive issue that has the potential to backfire spectacularly for all involved. I believe a lot of people are already coming around to this viewpoint and as the standard anti "gay marriage" arguments are shown to be not viable or not taken seriously by the public it will continue to pick up steam.

[Bacon King]

I do agree with you in principle, Ghost_white, that conducting marriages shouldn't really be the authority of government in the first place (but although it's neither here nor there, IIRC only like five states still require blood tests for newlyweds). The religious aspect should be left to the decisions of religious groups, and the personal aspect shouldn't be the business of anyone except the two who wish to be considered married (either through a religious ceremony, or otherwise).

However, that doesn't change the fact that blatant discrimination against homosexual couples exists in marriage laws throughout most of the country. If government is going to hold control over marriage, I think it's imperative, at the very least, that they stop imposing their own morality on gays that do wish to be officially married.

[Sibboleth]

Always amused that there's something like a forum consensus for a position that is, basically, openly stupid.

[opebo]

Why do so many of the young 'uns here write as though they're writing speeches for the telly?

Because they think people actually care about the crap they write.

In fairness, there is a way to make people care about what you write in a forum - entertain and amuse them (though obviously the op hasn't attempted that).  Alas, now that entertaining and amusing our fellow posters is against the rules (or for that matter showing our own 'personalities' at all), we are pretty much left with the kind of mild, bland, mealymouthed, pompous pap that seems to annoy Al so much.  Good job, Al, you've made your bed, now lie in it.

(final note - I don't mean you can only entertain and amuse: in fact once you have entertained and amused, then and only then can you get your point across, but alas as I said that all-important lubricant of understanding is disallowed here.. Humor.)

[dead0man]

You're like a guy standing on a street corner bitching that "they" won't let you stand on a street corner and bitch.

[Secretary Polnut]

I think the religious liberty question here is a red-herring to scare off potential support from the centre and soft-right.

Churches are not compelled now to marry anyone, why would this change?

[Simfan34]

Why do so many of the young 'uns here write as though they're writing speeches for the telly?

Because they think people actually care about the crap they write.

In fairness, there is a way to make people care about what you write in a forum - entertain and amuse them (though obviously the op hasn't attempted that).  Alas, now that entertaining and amusing our fellow posters is against the rules (or for that matter showing our own 'personalities' at all), we are pretty much left with the kind of mild, bland, mealymouthed, pompous pap that seems to annoy Al so much.  Good job, Al, you've made your bed, now lie in it.

(final note - I don't mean you can only entertain and amuse: in fact once you have entertained and amused, then and only then can you get your point across, but alas as I said that all-important lubricant of understanding is disallowed here.. Humor.)

Would you rather have a me a blathering bigot?

[shua]

I think the religious liberty question here is a red-herring to scare off potential support from the centre and soft-right.

Churches are not compelled now to marry anyone, why would this change?

The religious liberty concern has more to do with recognition of marriages than it does with actually marrying people.

[Simfan34]

I thought that this comment restated and reinforced my views quite well:

Well given what we know about the spectrum of human sexuality; knowing both what it is and most importantly what it isn't denying us the right to marry; the right to financial security with the people we love and the inheritance, next of kin, property, seperation and other such rights that straights can get through signing a bit of paper is to me bigoted.

It pains me to think all I want to do is to be able to have the right to marry, yet flick through newspapers and see divorces, forced marriages, passport scam marriages, moral preachers marrying for the 6th time and some two penny tart getting married yet again just so she can appear in the front page of magazine. Gays aren't responsible for running marriage into the ground, so what other 'damage' do you think we can do to something thats already been cheapened?