Maryland recognises same sex marriages?

[Chasey_Lane]

How is the effect on society "between two individuals"?

Way to avoid a simple question.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

You don't. But, if you, as a society, are going to offer benefits based on a relationship status, you should know if there are any benefits to society from that relationship status.

What exactly are the benefits to society in a man/woman marriage?

 

[Baja28]

So Tilted, I wonder if the AG would also answer in the affirmative if a Senator asked for an opinion on whether Concealed Carry Permits issued in other States had to be honored in Maryland? Especially since this is a Right protected by the Constitution. If McDonald is decided in our favor, would this be a good inquiry to make of the AG and could it possibly be answered in the affirmative?

I think if McDonald is affirmed through the P&I clause of Ammendment XIV section 1, the AG would have no choice but to say Maryland would have to recognise all other States CCW permits.

Excellent post!

 

[This_person]

I think that it is less of "it doesn't effect ME" and more of, "It doesn't affect anybody outside of an extremely limited group of people".

That may be, but that wasn't the point being made, nor defended.

And, as I've stated, I think in the long run it effects a lot more people (ie, society in general) than an extremely limited group of people.

Well, I am sure you're entitled to your opinion. The problem is that laws should not be based on opinion. Especially laws which are discriminatory in nature.

1. I don't think laws should be based on opinion, either. I think there should be a good fact trail, or need, etc., to determine what laws should be passed and not passed. Currently, there is neither a need nor a good fact trail to suggest that same-gendered relationships offer society the perceived benefits of opposite gendered relationships, and therefore there should be no acceptance of this apple as an orange.
2. The laws are currenlty non-discriminatory. No man, heterosexual, homosexual, nor bisexual, may join in "marriage" to another man. Same for women. No man, hetersosexual, homosexual, nor bisexual, is deprived of entering into "marriage" with a consenting, of age woman with whom he is not currently already too closely related. There is no sexual orientation discrimination involved.

 

[This_person]

Okay.

So, then, you agree that there need be demonstrated benefit to society before society provides benefits to this new category of legally recognized relationship?

 

[This_person]

I can't believe this is still out of your grasp.

It's not.

 

[This_person]

And when a straight couple asks the state to recognize it, the state should say, "not our job." :shrug:

I would be much more for that than having other relationships arbitrarily receive similar benefits.

 

[Toxick]

To me, it's much more than semantics.

It sounds to me like semantics.

Becaue a few posts ago, it seemed an awful lot like you were saying that you're in favor of giving civil unions all the same rights and privileges that come with marriage - such as tax incentives and insurance incentives and such.

I use the analogy of semis and motorcycles for a reason - there are many differences in what it takes to obtain and retain these licenses.

Well, you were also using rape as an analogy, so....

Exactly what sort of differences do you believe should be imposed in obtaining and retaining a 'gay union' license as opposed to a marriage license?

Differences in what you have to do when you have them.

Such as?

Because, as similar as they are (both just driving vehicles on the road), they are also different, and are treated differently because of the potential impact they have on society at large.

Thats' the thing...

And what sort of impact is a gay union going to have on society at large? The fact that Lawrence has poo-poo on the tip of his weiner has ABSOLUTELY no impact on society at large.



And I'm not talking about "tradition" and "bazillions of years of wisdom" and all that crap. I'm talking about real tangible unadaptable effects.

The only one I can think of is that no children are produced from gay unions.



And that actually sounds like a benefit to our society, rather than a detriment.

So, no, it's not JUST semantics.

Again, without examples of what differences should be imposed between gay civil unions and bonafide marriages, it still sounds to me like it's just semantics.

 

[This_person]

Way to avoid a simple question.

The stem of the question was invalid.

 

[mAlice]

So, then, you agree that there need be demonstrated benefit to society before society provides benefits to this new category of legally recognized relationship?

No, I do not agree, and furthermore, I'll no longer discuss this with you. You refuse to accept anyone else's thoughts on the matter, and continue to insist that your "opinion" is the only correct opinion, you make comparisons of things that cannot possibly be compared, and then you change your tactic when you don't get the response that you desire.

 

[This_person]

What exactly are the benefits to society in a man/woman marriage?

Already established, as the state benefits currently are provided. In my opinion, they establish the core of the stability in society. As the status of "marriage" goes, so goes society. The last 40 years should easily demonstrate that presumption (and, yes, it is admittedly a presumption, as no direct link to a societal norm can really be established).

 

[Chasey_Lane]

The stem of the question was invalid.

How was it invalid when it was your post that prompted my post for an explanation? Are you saying your comments are just gibberish? They have no benefit? :shrug:

 

[ImnoMensa]

No, I do not agree, and furthermore, I'll no longer discuss this with you. You refuse to accept anyone else's thoughts on the matter, and continue to insist that your "opinion" is the only correct opinion, you make comparisons of things that cannot possibly be compared, and then you change your tactic when you don't get the response that you desire.

You are right about one thing, there is little sense in arguing about this, no one here is going to change their minds.

If it comes up for referendum i will work against it and if my Representative votes for it I will vote against him/her.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

Already established, as the state benefits currently are provided. In my opinion, they establish the core of the stability in society. As the status of "marriage" goes, so goes society. The last 40 years should easily demonstrate that presumption (and, yes, it is admittedly a presumption, as no direct link to a societal norm can really be established).

 

[mAlice]

You are right about one thing, there is little sense in arguing about this, no one here is going to change their minds.

If it comes up for referendum i will work against it and if my Representative votes for it I will vote against him/her.

If there are a lot of people like me, who just don't care one way or the other, then you should be succesful in your endeavors.

 

[ImnoMensa]

So Tilted, I wonder if the AG would also answer in the affirmative if a Senator asked for an opinion on whether Concealed Carry Permits issued in other States had to be honored in Maryland? Especially since this is a Right protected by the Constitution. If McDonald is decided in our favor, would this be a good inquiry to make of the AG and could it possibly be answered in the affirmative?

I think if McDonald is affirmed through the P&I clause of Ammendment XIV section 1, the AG would have no choice but to say Maryland would have to recognise all other States CCW permits.

Post of the day.


Very good question and one I doubt the Attorney General would have the balls to answer.

 

[This_person]

It sounds to me like semantics.

Becaue a few posts ago, it seemed an awful lot like you were saying that you're in favor of giving civil unions all the same rights and privileges that come with marriage - such as tax incentives and insurance incentives and such.

But, that's not what I said at all. I said there should be a separate category of state recognized relationship, with it's own set of benefits.

Well, you were also using rape as an analogy, so....

Not to same-gendered unions.

Exactly what sort of differences do you believe should be imposed in obtaining and retaining a 'gay union' license as opposed to a marriage license?

Well, for one, I would continue to not require a sexual orientation status to obtain a same gendered union license. There's no sexual orientation discrimination in marriage licenses, so why impose one for civil unions? I mean, we all can name celebrities who are/were homosexuals who are/were married, so let's be realistic about sexual discrimination here.

As virtually all of the "benefits" of marriage are also obtainable through other means for two people of the same gender, I would provide those benefits that are attainable through other means (insurance, hospital visits, inheritence, etc.) to this union. When studies come out comparing the stabilizing effect on housing, job markets, tax roles, crime, etc., that currently exist for marriage to civil unions, I would provide the appropriate level of tax incentive to the civil union.

Thats' the thing...

And what sort of impact is a gay union going to have on society at large?

And I'm not talking about "tradition" and "bazillions of years of wisdom" and all that crap. I'm talking about real tangible unadaptable effects.

The only one I can think of is that no children are produced from gay unions.



And that actually sounds like a benefit to our society, rather than a detriment.

Actually, crime and unemployment and stable housing and welfare use and even health effects can all be directly corrolated with marriage. When the studies come out showing similar effects from civil unions, those same benefits may or may not present themselves.

Again, without examples of what differences should be imposed between gay civil unions and bonafide marriages, it still sounds to me like it's just semantics.

I hope this helps explain that it is not just semantics.

 

[This_person]

No, I do not agree, and furthermore, I'll no longer discuss this with you. You refuse to accept anyone else's thoughts on the matter, and continue to insist that your "opinion" is the only correct opinion, you make comparisons of things that cannot possibly be compared, and then you change your tactic when you don't get the response that you desire.

Why so angry? I'm just offering my opinion, and repeatedly stressing it is just my opinion. I'm answering questions and refuting or accepting what others say.

I think my opinion is correct the same way you think yours is correct. Except, I can answer the questions about my opinion.

 

[MMDad]

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

And your argument still doesn't explain how a same sex marriage personally impacts your life. It simply, in your opinion, makes something trivial.

In my opinion, there are a few effects:

• Dilutes the meaning of "marriage" by adding new unions it includes
• Dilutes the meaning of the union between two same gendered individuals, by calling their relationship something it is not
• "Slippery slopes" to adding in consensual, adult incest and polygamy as "marriage", since every argument used in favor of same gendered unions being redefined as "marriage" applies to those unions as well
• Will lead, over generations, to a lower societal standard and regard for what marriage is, which leads to worse parenting and more crime. This is evidenced in divorce becoming easy to obtain in the 1960's, lowering the societal regard for marriage, and the result increase in single parent homes, which is a strong contributing factor into most crime statistics and school problems. For the simple minded Nuck (not you, mAlice), this does not equate same gendered unions with divorce, it is used to show another example of how lowering the regard marriage is given effects society at large

Crime in the US peaked in 1991, and has dropped dramatically since then. Over the same period the single parent family rate has doubled.

Your argument tying marriage to crime fails.

 

[This_person]

How was it invalid when it was your post that prompted my post for an explanation? Are you saying your comments are just gibberish? They have no benefit? :shrug:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Let's go through this. You quoted me as saying

I've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages".

To this statement, you posed the question:

Why do you need a study regarding something that is consentual between two individuals?

So, I was talking about seeing a study demonstrating the societal effects of same-gendered unions, and you asked why there would need to be a study regarding two individuals.

My statement wasn't about two individuals, it was about the aggregate effects on society of state recognition of mass same-gendered unions.

Thus, your question was invalid, as it twisted my statement into something entirely it was not.