USA Biden signs gay marriage law

[Jazzy]

A celebratory crowd of thousands bundled up on a chilly Tuesday afternoon to watch President Joe Biden sign gay marriage legislation into law, a joyful ceremony that was tempered by the backdrop of an ongoing conservative backlash over gender issues.

Continue reading

---

What are your thoughts regarding this gay marriage law?

 

[1689Dave]

Continue reading

---

What are your thoughts regarding this gay marriage law?

Read Romans chapter 1.

 

[tango]

If the state would get out of our business there would be less need for this sort of thing.

As it stands the term "marriage" can mean two things. One is the relationship entered into before whatever god/s (if any) the two people worship. The other is a secular construct recognised by the state.

Whether any given god will bless a union is independent of what we might believe. Whether the state will grant secular benefits in recognition of a secular arrangement is nothing to do with any religion.

My marriage isn't changed in any way regardless of whether gay couples can call their relationship a "marriage". That said I do believe there needs to be clear protection for venues or wedding businesses that object and do not wish to provide their services, even if it is a tricky matter to determine how far those protections should go.

 

[1689Dave]

Gay marriage will no doubt be acceptable in most churches of tomorrow just as adulterous marriages are today. Both carried the same weight of penalty in the Old Testament. Churches are businesses and religious franchises that sell products and services to people of a certain mindset. So what we already see developing will entropy into its lowest forms in the years ahead. Jesus asks if he will find faith on earth when he returns which would coincide with the great apostasy and falling away of the Institutional Churches.

 

[Albion]

My marriage isn't changed in any way regardless of whether gay couples can call their relationship a "marriage".

It is that way in your own mind, you mean.

As soon as the concept of marriage is completely unhitched from its historic meaning, a lot more than authorized cohabitation with a person of the same sex will have been accomplished.

Polygamy will instantly become illogical...in the new way of thinking...and the state will also be asked to fund designated friends or associates or distant relatives, i.e. people who are NOT in any kind of intimate and exclusive relationship with the first person, since, after all, it would be discriminatory to limit the benefits we have historically afforded spouses simply because of our outmoded, religion-based, idea of "family."

And as for marriage being a special union of persons as it has traditionally been, the argument will be raised about two hypothetical persons who are, say, wheelchair bound or impotent or otherwise handicapped. "Would you deny them the right to be married in the eyes of the law, you crummy bigots!?"

It's the same argument that pro-abortion advocates use these days in pushing their own agenda ("What about the 10-year-old girl who is raped by her uncle, huh? What about that!?") The most extreme and rare example is used in order to drive a fundamental change affecting all of society.

Remember how it was when gay "marriage" was being debated and not yet settled in law. Then, pedophilia was still firmly disavowed by all, including by the spokesmen for gay marriage. It was an unthinkable violation of minors (!), after all. But that's no more the case.

The sooner that everybody is viewed as peas in a pod, having no standing of any sort that everyone else does not have, the sooner that the all-powerful state will have been created and no individual rights or what we still refer to as "human" rights will remain.

 

[Josiah]

Sad.... but I don't think we can do a thing about it. Until we boot out the Liberals from our government.

 

[tango]

As soon as the concept of marriage is completely unhitched from its historic meaning, a lot more than authorized cohabitation with a person of the same sex will have been accomplished.

Polygamy will instantly become illogical...in the new way of thinking...and the state will also be asked to fund designated friends or associates or what are currently termed "extended family" members, i.e. people who are NOT in any kind of intimate and exclusive relationship with the first person, since, after all, it would be discriminatory to confine all the benefits we traditionally have afforded spouses simply because of our outmoded, religion-based, idea of "family."

As far as the concept of a secular government allowing two people to enter into a secular arrangement that comes with secular benefits and obligations there is no reason to restrict it to two people. Whether the people involved have a sexual relationship or not is largely irrelevant. Whether children are produced is largely irrelevant. This is where I say that if the government were less involved in our lives and if what laws there are treated biological parents equally those secular benefits would be smaller and hence the concept of marriage would be less of an issue, except for those to whom it has a more spiritual significance.

To take some simple examples, if I could gift assets to someone else without the government stepping in to take a slice out of the middle, the benefit of being able to transfer assets tax-free would go away. If I could refuse to testify against anyone I identified as my friend that secular benefit of marriage would go away.


At least some people who hold to the traditional view of marriage refer to children and the sexual relationship between man and wife. That overlooks the couples who don't have children, whether through inability or disinclination. It overlooks the couples who choose not to have a sexual relationship. If the focus in on children perhaps the infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

And as for marriage being a special union of persons as it has traditionally been, the argument will be raised about two hypothetical persons who are, say, wheelchair bound or impotent or otherwise handicapped. "Would you deny them the right to be married in the eyes of the law, you crummy bigots!?"

It's the same argument that pro-abortion advocates use these days in pushing their own agenda ("What about the 10-year-old girl who is raped by her uncle, huh? What about that!?") The most extreme and rare example is used in order to drive a fundamental change affecting all of society.

Extreme examples don't make for good laws, that much is true. There's a big difference between granting something in an extreme situation and granting it in every situation. I'm not sure what a wheelchair user getting married has to do with a 10-year-old rape victim getting an abortion.

Remember how it was when gay "marriage" was being debated and not yet settled in law. Then, pedophilia was still firmly disavowed by all, including by the spokesmen for gay marriage. It was an unthinkable violation of minors (!), after all. But that's no more the case.

The issue of informed consent is still key. I think it's safe to say the majority of gay people are seeking consenting adult partners, just like the majority of straight people. The "slippery slope" argument is worth considering but I'm struggling to see how the name we give a long-standing gay relationship inherently affects the acceptance or otherwise of pedophilia.

The sooner that everybody is viewed as peas in a pod, having no standing of any sort that everyone else does not have, the sooner that the all-powerful state will have been created and no individual rights or what we still refer to as "human" rights will remain.

How does allowing gay people to call their relationship a "marriage" turn us into "peas in a pod" and do away with human rights?

 

[Albion]

Sad.... but I don't think we can do a thing about it. Until we boot out the Liberals from our government.

Unfortunately, that's not likely, given that they have gotten away with legalizing, usually by fiat, a new electoral system in which non-voters can vote, votes don't need to be recorded at any particular time either before or after Election Day, any Party worker can round up votes from unknown or misinformed voters and have these ballots counted, and "one man, one vote" is further impaired by other such tinkerings.

Included are these: 1) changing the primaries so that the general election can have all the candidates be from a single party, and 2) installing the "top four" gimmick by which each voter gets to vote for his choice BUT ALSO for a second choice, a third best choice, and his least favorite candidate, often resulting in the election going to a candidate who is not the one receiving the most first-place votes.

And guess what? The Party that is responsible for all of this is the one that likes to accuse the opposition of being against "democracy." It's the same one that accuses the other party's candidates of being Russian agents (or "assets"), of being "election deniers," and, more recently, of being anti-Semitic. When you hear such accusations and they are worrisome, look more closely at the speakers, not at the people they are accusing.

 

[Albion]

As far as the concept of a secular government allowing two people to enter into a secular arrangement that comes with secular benefits and obligations there is no reason to restrict it to two people.

Well, sure there is. For one thing, society still thinks in traditional terms of some situations being more appropriate than other ones, and this perception is rooted in our society's history. And that is what the radicals who want a different society need to overcome.

However, if someone is saying that group marriage, or marriage to minors, or forced marriage, or marriage to animals should be authorized in law...then that's a personal opinion. What I've mainly been pointing to in these several replies are the long-term consequences of such legal changes and why the professional, political, proponents REALLY want to break down all traditional social mores.

Whether the people involved have a sexual relationship or not is largely irrelevant. Whether children are produced is largely irrelevant.

I cannot agree. That may not be essential, but it's not "irrelevant."

This is where I say that if the government were less involved in our lives

Wait a mo. Your proposition does not foresee a government that is LESS involved. On the contrary, the suggestion was for MORE involvement. That's what expanding the concept of marriage, in law, would mean.

How does allowing gay people to call their relationship a "marriage" turn us into "peas in a pod" and do away with human rights?

What they "call" it doesn't matter. No one is saying that they should be prohibited from referring to their same-sex unions as "marriages" or to their partners as "wife" or "husband." And certainly this new law doesn't address any alleged injustice in that area.

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm waiting for when the real freedom from reality comes. The union of man and horse. Or dog. Or cat.

Bring it to the damn Supreme Court of the US and let them determine that it's not Constitutional to say a human can't be legally wed to his or her pet, a doll, a robot, a stuffed animal or even their piano. God knows I touch those keys often with great affection and they sing back. Let us be legally recognized!

Wait? Does that all seem absurd? But of course it does. What we need, what we really really need, is a whole bunch of propaganda centering on the HATE for non male-female relationships. Just like the gays did. Then, and only then....when they see that people like me are beaten up, discriminated against and hated for loving my dear piano, can we overcome the "ignorance" of the mindless haters and become one under the law!

 

[Josiah]

I think this is simply what will happen in our secular, post-Christian, relativistic world.

But I think it's absurd. As Strav pointed out, why not legally declare that two horses are "Marriage" or an old lady and her pekingese? If they "love" each other, that's "marriage." How silly.

While there is a tiny embrace of a man and multiple women (polygamy embrace both genders) has some history, for thousands of years in all cultures, "marriage" has been one man and one woman (and generally adult, post-puberty at that). "Marriage" has meaning! And it's not just "love each other." And in most cultures, "marriage" has a religious connotation - it's often understood as a sacred, religious thing. Just just "two or more love each other." Heck, I love my sons and they love me, is that "MARRIAGE?" I love my Dad, is that "MARRIAGE?"

But in this society, GOVERNMENT determines truth. It defines "life" as "wherever the other person is wanted." And "marriage" is just "two people who can vote for me want us to call them married."

But what makes all this... well... weird is that the ONLY advantage to this redefinition of "marriage" as just "they love each other" is psychological. In California anyway (I can't speak for other jurisdictions) ANY group of people can buy a house, adopt children, join their economics, see each other in the hospital, etc. There MAY not be the exact same tax advantages if they are not technically "married" but generally that isn't anything anyway and could be easily changed. So, is there a legal or economic advantage to persons being "married." Nope. And many (including me) are not opposed to "civil unions" where the legal and economic advantages (if any) would be identical to "marriage" but they reject this (passionate) they want to be CALLED "marriage". Pure psychology. "I want to be regarded as "MARRIED" just like my parents." Why? Well.... The price? Throw out thousands of years of marriage, the entire definition of marriage. As Liberals do with many things, tear down things to a level acceptable to everyone.

But this is where our secular, post-religion world is going. I don't think we can stop it. Soon, it will be expanded to include polygamy and we'll find the Cheerleaders at Harvard all being married to each other, union members being one big marriage, a mother and her infant son being married, "marriage" after all just means "love each other." And divorce will soon disappear too, when you fall out of love, you're no longer married. What absurdity - but it's coming (it can't be helped). It would make FAR more sense to leave "MARRIAGE" a matter of family and religion, and for the Government to simply embrace civil unions (or "personal corporations" as they are called in California) - a matter of incorporating under state law. But that would eliminate the psychological thing - the thing they want.




.

 

[tango]

(Not sure how I overlooked this earlier, the thread highlighted as having replies so only seeing it now)

Well, sure there is. For one thing, society still thinks in traditional terms of some situations being more appropriate than other ones, and this perception is rooted in our society's history. And that is what the radicals who want a different society need to overcome.

Our society's history also includes considering interracial marriages to be a bad thing and considering black people to be worth less than white people. The way we've always done it isn't necessarily the right way to keep doing it.

However, if someone is saying that group marriage, or marriage to minors, or forced marriage, or marriage to animals should be authorized in law...then that's a personal opinion. What I've mainly been pointing to in these several replies are the long-term consequences of such legal changes and why the professional, political, proponents REALLY want to break down all traditional social mores.

There's a difference between group marriage and marriage to minors or the non-consenting (which would logically include animals and inanimate objects). You know, the whole matter of free consent and all that.

I cannot agree. That may not be essential, but it's not "irrelevant."

It depends on which concept of "marriage" we are talking about. Part of the problem is that the word can mean a sacred arrangement before one's chosen deity or a secular arrangement before one's chosen government. The two aren't necessarily the same.

Wait a mo. Your proposition does not foresee a government that is LESS involved. On the contrary, the suggestion was for MORE involvement. That's what expanding the concept of marriage, in law, would mean.

What I want is less government involvement such that the secular benefits of marriage don't represent such a carrot to those seeking them out.

What they "call" it doesn't matter. No one is saying that they should be prohibited from referring to their same-sex unions as "marriages" or to their partners as "wife" or "husband." And certainly this new law doesn't address any alleged injustice in that area.

It does matter when the law treats people differently depending on whether they are legally considered to be married or not. Things like the right to refuse to incriminate your spouse, the right to transfer assets tax-free, the right to be lawful next-of-kin etc. It doesn't seem so unreasonable for long-term gay couples to want those benefits.

My earlier point about less state involvement in our lives in general referred largely to the level of tax take. I recall some years ago, back when civil partnerships were quite a new thing for gay couples, there was a story about two elderly sisters who lived together. Neither had ever married and they had inherited their shared home from their mother when she passed. Both knew that whichever died first would leave the other homeless, as they didn't have the means to pay the inheritance tax on the other's share. Had they not been sisters they could have registered a civil partnership to avoid the tax problem but, being sisters, they couldn't be considered a lesbian couple. So effectively a married couple could dodge the tax, a gay couple could dodge the tax, but two sisters were stuck with this issue hanging over them, knowing it was going to bite one of them sooner or later and with no apparent way to avoid it. Perhaps the best solution would be for the government to back off and not force people out of their homes with ever-more taxes.

 

[Albion]

(Not sure how I overlooked this earlier, the thread highlighted as having replies so only seeing it now)



Our society's history also includes considering interracial marriages to be a bad thing and considering black people to be worth less than white people. The way we've always done it isn't necessarily the right way to keep doing it.

I don't consider the legislation put into effect during the time period in which the slave trade was significant in certain areas to have defined our heritage as part of Western Civilization. That's really what the issue is about--the heritage that we call Western Civilization.

It depends on which concept of "marriage" we are talking about. Part of the problem is that the word can mean a sacred arrangement before one's chosen deity or a secular arrangement before one's chosen government. The two aren't necessarily the same.

In context, it doesn't matter what two individuals may say about their relationship. We're talking about society's standard, as enshrined in law, etc.

It does matter when the law treats people differently depending on whether they are legally considered to be married or not.

I'm not an advocate of anarchy, which is an illusion, practically speaking.

And that's where this line of argument is heading. No, it is not possible to accommodate every weirdo personal opinion and still have society. If a person insists that he married his dog, then he is allowed to say that...but society is under no obligation, as a result, to issue a marriage certificate to the happy couple or to permit the human to file his tax returns claiming the "married, filing jointly" deduction.