First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Why

United States

#1 Dec 12, 2012
Once again the topic of same-sex marriage is entering the courts again, so I would once again like to survey those that are opposed to allowing same-sex marriage to be legal to find out why they hold their stance. Like any discussion, if I feel your answer is too vague or incomplete then I will ask you to elaborate. If I feel that there is any points missed or gaps in logic, I will point them out. This is not to start a flame war, it is simply to allow me, and others, to try and understand the views of the opposite side. Everyone, try to be respectful of each other.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#2 Dec 12, 2012
I don't have a problem with same sex marriage as long as no one has a problem with my sister and I getting married. And no, I do not have sex with my sister and there's nothing sexual about our relationship. She's my sister for Gods sake! It's just that she has a medical condition that requires expensive long term treatment and she doesn't have medical insurance. Neither of us are married so if we were allowed to marry each other then her medical expenses would be covered in full by the insurance policy i have through my employer. I see no reason to deny any two people from being legally wed in order to take advantage of benefits that are only available to someone's spouse. I hope This explanation wasn't too vague for you.
Why

United States

#3 Dec 12, 2012
Banned wrote:
I don't have a problem with same sex marriage as long as no one has a problem with my sister and I getting married. And no, I do not have sex with my sister and there's nothing sexual about our relationship. She's my sister for Gods sake! It's just that she has a medical condition that requires expensive long term treatment and she doesn't have medical insurance. Neither of us are married so if we were allowed to marry each other then her medical expenses would be covered in full by the insurance policy i have through my employer. I see no reason to deny any two people from being legally wed in order to take advantage of benefits that are only available to someone's spouse. I hope This explanation wasn't too vague for you.
Actually that is logical and I agree.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#4 Dec 12, 2012
Why wrote:
<quoted text>Actually that is logical and I agree.
Thank you.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#5 Dec 12, 2012
Why wrote:
<quoted text>Actually that is logical and I agree.
But do you understand the ramifications of It? We're talking about the potential collapse of the entire foundation of insurance in this country.
Why

Batesville, AR

#6 Dec 12, 2012
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>But do you understand the ramifications of It? We're talking about the potential collapse of the entire foundation of insurance in this country.
This is true as well; however, perhaps that indicates that the insurance policies need to be changed. I have heard someone else mention something about insurance collapse (or similar economic downfall) as a result of allowing same-sex marriage, but when it is really looked at, that indicates a problem with the current benefits system and not with the concept of offering it equally.

If allowing same-sex couples to marry would break the system, then the same would occur if there were only straight people and a greater number than the current found and married a spouse. The fact that thus is true means that either not enough thought was put into making the system if benefits and that it needs to be edited, or that it was intentionally made with the mindset of applying it discriminatorily and only allowing certain kinds of people to utilize it. The latter scenario would indicate an even greater need for change since it is both a faulty system and goes against the American ideal of equality.
Why

Batesville, AR

#7 Dec 12, 2012
Please other people reply as well. I would like a variety of input.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#8 Dec 12, 2012
I guess the insurance companies could change their policies to allow each policy holder to add a second person to their coverage but I think it's safe to say that they will also double the price of that policy which will effectively nullify what you are trying to accomplish by legalizing same sex marriage. Let's be clear about what the real issue is here. No one cares if two men or two women want to profess their love to one another and take a certificate home with them to hang on the wall. What they want is to redefine what constitutes a marriage in this country in order to access the benefits of being someone's legal spouse. The problem with doing that will be finding a stopping point. If two men can be legally married then why not a brother and sister and whoever else decides that they should get those benefits as well. Everyone will get married to someone if they can gain from it financially. Except for the fact that those organizations who stand to take a loss because of what's happening will be forced to take actions to offset those losses, namely, increasing everyones premiums. If that happens then nothing will be gained by legalizing same sex marriages.
Why

Batesville, AR

#9 Dec 13, 2012
Banned wrote:
I guess the insurance companies could change their policies to allow each policy holder to add a second person to their coverage but I think it's safe to say that they will also double the price of that policy which will effectively nullify what you are trying to accomplish by legalizing same sex marriage. Let's be clear about what the real issue is here. No one cares if two men or two women want to profess their love to one another and take a certificate home with them to hang on the wall. What they want is to redefine what constitutes a marriage in this country in order to access the benefits of being someone's legal spouse. The problem with doing that will be finding a stopping point. If two men can be legally married then why not a brother and sister and whoever else decides that they should get those benefits as well. Everyone will get married to someone if they can gain from it financially. Except for the fact that those organizations who stand to take a loss because of what's happening will be forced to take actions to offset those losses, namely, increasing everyones premiums. If that happens then nothing will be gained by legalizing same sex marriages.
Obviously there are people that care. Otherwise were wouldn't wouldn't have people protesting it saying it is a sin and will bring the downfall of America. We also wouldn't have people being secretly barred from holding certain jobs because they are gay/bi and the employer is against that (nor would there have been kept out of the military until recently).

There are plenty of other benefits bestowed by marriage that are not determined by a third-party not affiliated with the government that don't have an effect on the economy. This benefits can often be gained if a civil union is allowed but require court proceedings which require court and money. Mean while the majority enjoy these benefits automatically when they get married. Some of these benefits include being able to visit their significant other in the hospital, inheritance, durable power of attorney, and others.

I disagree though that everyone would get married. After all, I'm straight, I have the right to get married and receive benefits, yet I am not. The same is true for thousands of straight people in the United States. They all have the right to marry yet not all of them are married. Why would allowing same-sex couples to marry suddenly change that.

Finally, while the certificate itself is rather worthless it has a greater value. Being able to obtain it is like being able to sit at the front of a bus. Both are rights that were not enjoyed by some groups of people. A person can still be transported while sitting on the back of a bus and a couple canbe together without a piece of paper. However, having the right to sit where you please and to be able get that piece of paper mean the difference between being a true citizen and be second-class.
Why

Batesville, AR

#10 Dec 13, 2012
Once again, would like to see a variety of responses. Banned is providing a wonderful debate but I would like to hear from others as well.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#11 Dec 13, 2012
Why wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously there are people that care. Otherwise were wouldn't wouldn't have people protesting it saying it is a sin and will bring the downfall of America. We also wouldn't have people being secretly barred from holding certain jobs because they are gay/bi and the employer is against that (nor would there have been kept out of the military until recently).

There are plenty of other benefits bestowed by marriage that are not determined by a third-party not affiliated with the government that don't have an effect on the economy. This benefits can often be gained if a civil union is allowed but require court proceedings which require court and money. Mean while the majority enjoy these benefits automatically when they get married. Some of these benefits include being able to visit their significant other in the hospital, inheritance, durable power of attorney, and others.

I disagree though that everyone would get married. After all, I'm straight, I have the right to get married and receive benefits, yet I am not. The same is true for thousands of straight people in the United States. They all have the right to marry yet not all of them are married. Why would allowing same-sex couples to marry suddenly change that.

Finally, while the certificate itself is rather worthless it has a greater value. Being able to obtain it is like being able to sit at the front of a bus. Both are rights that were not enjoyed by some groups of people. A person can still be transported while sitting on the back of a bus and a couple canbe together without a piece of paper. However, having the right to sit where you please and to be able get that piece of paper mean the difference between being a true citizen and be second-class.
I'm not saying that you're wrong about any of that but none of the other reasons you mention for allowing same sex marriage are at play in this debate. The single issue for both sides is the matter of benefits which only one's legal spouse can enjoy. That's not to say that there aren't some far right nut jobs out there waiving their bibles in the air and screaming sin at the top of their lungs. But they don't understand the issue for what it is because they're blinded by the religion they've been force fed since they were too young to have a say in the matter, as they are with most everything else in life. I have no problem with same sex marriage but I do take issue with changing the definition of marriage because of the impact it could have on the country.
3rd angle

Batesville, AR

#12 Dec 13, 2012
Well then I want to marry three women all purely for sexual reasone and would like them covered under my insurance too.......where do we draw the line??????
Why

United States

#13 Dec 13, 2012
3rd angle wrote:
Well then I want to marry three women all purely for sexual reasone and would like them covered under my insurance too.......where do we draw the line??????
If you can have sex without marriage. Your reason for it here is your desire to and the shared insurance. This is a valid point. However, perhaps this indicates a problem with the insurance policy and not the marriage itself. I see no reason to deny you the right to marry the person(s) you choose nor to have the rights that that grants. Perhaps we need to change how government insurance works. It may be that we can't extend it to more than one person. However to say that we cannot allow certain types of people to benefit from it would be different.

As far as multiple person marriages go, there could be a policy of allowing the marriage with all of it's benefits but under the understanding that each person can only extend there marriage to one of the spouses. After all, if there were in a monogamous person marriage, that is all they would be able to do anyways. This would make the policy of insurance equal. There isn't really much reason to have it extend to multiple spouses anyways since that would give multiple person couples greater extension rights and therefore be unequal.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#14 Dec 13, 2012
Why wrote:
<quoted text>If you can have sex without marriage. Your reason for it here is your desire to and the shared insurance. This is a valid point. However, perhaps this indicates a problem with the insurance policy and not the marriage itself. I see no reason to deny you the right to marry the person(s) you choose nor to have the rights that that grants. Perhaps we need to change how government insurance works. It may be that we can't extend it to more than one person. However to say that we cannot allow certain types of people to benefit from it would be different.

As far as multiple person marriages go, there could be a policy of allowing the marriage with all of it's benefits but under the understanding that each person can only extend there marriage to one of the spouses. After all, if there were in a monogamous person marriage, that is all they would be able to do anyways. This would make the policy of insurance equal. There isn't really much reason to have it extend to multiple spouses anyways since that would give multiple person couples greater extension rights and therefore be unequal.
I respect your opinions on this issue but by suggesting that there is a problem with the policies of insurance companies suggests to me that you do not have a good understanding of how insurance works. You must understand that insurance may be the last legal racquet left in the world. Everyone must have it because it's not worth the risk of not having it and the insurance provider must be profitable or no one has insurance. If you add people to policies just because you can then they will be forced to raise the cost of everyone's policy to insure their profitability. If they do not then they risk going under which would make all of their policies worthless. Insurance companies must always take in more than they pay out or none of us have insurance. You can't change anything about that.
Toby

Cave City, AR

#15 Dec 13, 2012
Honestly I believe that any two people should have the right to marry. The Declaration of Independence was built on Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness so how can the government deny someone a happy marriage? What they do behind closed doors is their own business and none of ours. They are just as human as the rest of us and should be treated as equals. I myself have several gay friends and I hold nothing against them for their chosen life style. We hold a certain respect for each other. I am straight and they respect that.
Why

United States

#16 Dec 14, 2012
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>I respect your opinions on this issue but by suggesting that there is a problem with the policies of insurance companies suggests to me that you do not have a good understanding of how insurance works. You must understand that insurance may be the last legal racquet left in the world. Everyone must have it because it's not worth the risk of not having it and the insurance provider must be profitable or no one has insurance. If you add people to policies just because you can then they will be forced to raise the cost of everyone's policy to insure their profitability. If they do not then they risk going under which would make all of their policies worthless. Insurance companies must always take in more than they pay out or none of us have insurance. You can't change anything about that.
If nothing can change about how insurance policies work then why do insurance policies so routinely change or have new ones created? Secondly, why have they not collapsed in spite of all these changes? If a change in business causes your business to collapse because you refuse to renovate, then it was likely the companies fault for not renovating. As pointed out before all straight/bi people can currently marry a non-relative (the gay people could still marry someone of the opposite sex) and receive the benefits of shared insurance. Yet, this hasn't happened. Also since this is a possibility then the companies must be ready to deal with this if it were to occur. Gay and bi people are a minority so allowing them equal rights would make less of an impact (even if they all married and shared insurance) than if all the people who already have that right were to utilize it.
Toby

Cave City, AR

#18 Dec 17, 2012
concerned wrote:
question if you allow a same sex couple to get married and you change marriage. Is it ok for a woman to marry 3 men or a man to marry 4 woman or a man to marry say his dog? Where does it stop? You are on a slipprey slope. Societies that have open a door and allowing this are clumbling. When you turn your back on traditional marriage it clumbles. God knows best and since our society has decided to turn their back on god and the traditional marriage he created, it is falling apart, friday's school shooting is proof. Marriage is for procreation and when you mess with the family unit you get a messup society.
If you want to get technical god said it was better to not marry at all
guest2

Batesville, AR

#20 Dec 18, 2012
concerned wrote:
question if you allow a same sex couple to get married and you change marriage. Is it ok for a woman to marry 3 men or a man to marry 4 woman or a man to marry say his dog? Where does it stop? You are on a slipprey slope. Societies that have open a door and allowing this are clumbling. When you turn your back on traditional marriage it clumbles. God knows best and since our society has decided to turn their back on god and the traditional marriage he created, it is falling apart, friday's school shooting is proof. Marriage is for procreation and when you mess with the family unit you get a messup society.
Your questions were already addressed previously aside from the one concerning the dog, but thus is a discussion concerning human rights and not animal rights. However, since marriage requires consent from both parties that in itself will tell you why marrying your dog would be off limits. There is no way a dog could consent to a marriage. Also, took a further look at some of the places that have legalized same-sex marriage, some not only are not "clumbling" but are actually flourishing. A smaller example of this can be seen with New York. They experienced a economic boost when that allowed for equality of marriage.

Also, if your god is shooting little kids in the face in front of their classmates because society is not lynching or otherwise forcibly intervening in the lives of those with different religious beliefs, then I have have some serious questions as to why you would continue to worship him.

Finally, I have heard many people say that marriage is for procreation. Yet they typically have no problem with with sterile people, those that can't bear children for medical reasons and old people marrying. Are you against those people marrying? Will you get a divorce/stop looking for marriage if you become sterile, you spouse become incapable of producing children for medical reasons, or you become to old to produce children? Or are you a hipocrit to your own statement toward to purpose of marriage?
Why

Batesville, AR

#21 Dec 18, 2012
guest2 wrote:
<quoted text>Your questions were already addressed previously aside from the one concerning the dog, but thus is a discussion concerning human rights and not animal rights. However, since marriage requires consent from both parties that in itself will tell you why marrying your dog would be off limits. There is no way a dog could consent to a marriage. Also, took a further look at some of the places that have legalized same-sex marriage, some not only are not "clumbling" but are actually flourishing. A smaller example of this can be seen with New York. They experienced a economic boost when that allowed for equality of marriage.

Also, if your god is shooting little kids in the face in front of their classmates because society is not lynching or otherwise forcibly intervening in the lives of those with different religious beliefs, then I have have some serious questions as to why you would continue to worship him.

Finally, I have heard many people say that marriage is for procreation. Yet they typically have no problem with with sterile people, those that can't bear children for medical reasons and old people marrying. Are you against those people marrying? Will you get a divorce/stop looking for marriage if you become sterile, you spouse become incapable of producing children for medical reasons, or you become to old to produce children? Or are you a hipocrit to your own statement toward to purpose of marriage?
You...you actually managed to sum up exactly what I was going to say. Thanks.
guest2

Batesville, AR

#22 Dec 18, 2012
Why wrote:
<quoted text>You...you actually managed to sum up exactly what I was going to say. Thanks.
No problem. I actually didn't intend on replying here originally. I just hate it when people start spouting off saying that a bunch of innocent people died because that don't follow that particular individuals religious beliefs. Yet I guarantee if something happens to the or someone else of the sane faith, it was simply a unfortunate event, not their god's punishment.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Batesville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Did you vote today? (Jun '10) 26 min guest 38,813
Most shocking divorce of ppl married a long time 2 hr Tin toes 13
Hot Couple looking for a women to join 2 hr rufus 5
Man shot in arm and leg. 2 hr wondering 1
Cupped Up closing ? 3 hr guest 6
God bless our president 3 hr Guest 35
Several statues are being removed 4 hr Guest 40

Batesville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Batesville Mortgages