NY Times Editorial: Marriage, A Basic Civil Right

  • metta

    Posts: 39166

    Jun 11, 2010 7:07 AM GMT
    NY Times Editorial: Marriage, A Basic Civil Right http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11fri1.html


    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/ny-times-editorial-marriage-a-basic-civil-right/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 1:16 AM GMT
    Homosexuals currently have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry in California and in most of the United States.

    The current laws in California and most of the United States state that a man can only be married to a woman. This applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. No person can be married to a person of the same sex. This also applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    Now homosexuals want to change these long standing laws and allow men to marry men and women to marry women. This has never been allowed before in the United States and in most of the world for most of history (with some small exclusions).

    It is no wonder that many people are uncomfortable with these proposed changes. Remember that in some places in the world homosexual activity is still against the law. Remember that 40 years ago homosexuaity was classified as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 1:30 AM GMT
    fastfreddie saidHomosexuals currently have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry in California and in most of the United States.

    The current laws in California and most of the United States state that a man can only be married to a woman. This applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. No person can be married to a person of the same sex. This also applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    Now homosexuals want to change these long standing laws and allow men to marry men and women to marry women. This has never been allowed before in the United States and in most of the world for most of history (with some small exclusions).

    It is no wonder that many people are uncomfortable with these proposed changes. Remember that in some places in the world homosexual activity is still against the law. Remember that 40 years ago homosexuaity was classified as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association.



    For most of history divorce was illegal, even punishable by death. For most of history women were (and, in some places, still are) denied basic human rights. For most of history interracial marriage was illegal. For most of history slavery was legal.

    I see your logic, even understand it to an extent, but it's very flawed. The 'but this is how it's always been' argument has a multitude of examples that shatter it without any effort.

    Marriage is not an individual right, but civil contract between two consenting adults.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 1:30 AM GMT

    "Now homosexuals want to change these long standing laws and allow men to marry men and women to marry women."


    ..actually a whole lot of straight people want to see these laws change too. They'd be the loving friends and families of gay people.

    As well, a bit of an interesting spin you put on this, as gay men and women want to marry the person they're in love with. Most people who get married do it for that reason.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 2:06 AM GMT
    In fact many heterosexual's marry to give their children a name, and because it's the rule of the religion they belong to as well.

    For those who just love one another, there is no need for marriage. It doesn't help pay the mortgage, or any other bills, nor make you happy ever after. Many homosexuals only want it because of the benefits attached, and I ask well where is the love?

    To me the term "marriage" belongs to heterosexuals, as it's roots are in religion. As a pure homosexual I would want something that belongs to me and not a hand me down.

    Oh is the New York Times not a biased left wing paper too?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 2:52 AM GMT
    The roots of marriage lie in property rights NOT religion. It has been a contract of sorts from the beginning. And yes, the marriage contract does help pay the mortgage because unmarried couples cannot inherit the property of their partners BY DEFAULT without possibly incurring taxes or having other family members trying to take it. Marriage simply gives couples higher standing when it comes to property rights.

    There are many legal protections marriage gives automatically (without the need for lawyers and contracts that don't always hold up in court anyway) that ensure that a couple can care for each other without as much outside interference.

    Anyone that thinks that marriage began as a religious institution is just misinformed, uneducated on the matter, or willfully ignorant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 4:00 AM GMT
    Pattison, you go tell that to some straight married atheists.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 4:15 AM GMT
    Pattison saidIn fact many heterosexual's marry to give their children a name, and because it's the rule of the religion they belong to as well.

    For those who just love one another, there is no need for marriage. It doesn't help pay the mortgage, or any other bills, nor make you happy ever after. Many homosexuals only want it because of the benefits attached, and I ask well where is the love?

    To me the term "marriage" belongs to heterosexuals, as it's roots are in religion. As a pure homosexual I would want something that belongs to me and not a hand me down.

    Oh is the New York Times not a biased left wing paper too?


    Although I know the intention of your post is not humor, I always get a good laugh out of your twisted logic. Is there something selfish about wanting the benefits attached to marriage? Maybe it matters more to me, since my boyfriend is not imaginary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 5:18 AM GMT
    fastfreddie saidHomosexuals currently have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry in California and in most of the United States.

    The current laws in California and most of the United States state that a man can only be married to a woman. This applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. No person can be married to a person of the same sex. This also applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    Now homosexuals want to change these long standing laws and allow men to marry men and women to marry women. This has never been allowed before in the United States and in most of the world for most of history (with some small exclusions).

    It is no wonder that many people are uncomfortable with these proposed changes. Remember that in some places in the world homosexual activity is still against the law. Remember that 40 years ago homosexuaity was classified as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association.



    That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard, based on a definitional fallacy. There is no valid constitutional reason to keep two people apart if they are consenting adults of legal age. Ever heard of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Unless the government can demonstrate a strong and overriding interest in not allowing gays to marry (public order, general welfare of the state, etc.) , then it has no business keeping two consenting adults apart.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 5:32 AM GMT
    Pattison saidOh is the New York Times not a biased left wing paper too?


    No, Pattison. This is an editorial, not a news article. Editorials are supposed to express a point of view. "Bias" does not apply to editorials.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 5:40 AM GMT
    Pattison saidFor those who just love one another, there is no need for marriage. It doesn't help pay the mortgage, or any other bills, nor make you happy ever after. Many homosexuals only want it because of the benefits attached, and I ask well where is the love?


    Excuse me, what? Who are these homosexuals you mention who want to get married but DON'T love each other?? You say there are "many" of them? Show me.

  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Jun 12, 2010 5:42 AM GMT
    Gays arguing against equality for gays? Jesus F'in Christ.

    Read the damn editorial.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2010 5:44 AM GMT
    fastfreddie saidIt is no wonder that many people are uncomfortable with these proposed changes.


    Some are, but the majority is getting over it. :-)

    It will happen sooner or later.
  • metta

    Posts: 39166

    Jun 12, 2010 5:50 PM GMT
    30192_441938799391_637239391_5682039_323
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2010 4:52 AM GMT
    metta8 said30192_441938799391_637239391_5682039_323
    The moral of the story is that those heterosexuals are always redefining marriage! God Forbid! icon_lol.gif