abe smith

I infer from your posts here, BDS, that you wish to prevent same-sex marriage(s) from becoming legalized. Otherwise, what's to discuss?
: "Is it desirable to have STRAIGHT people be more staid, domestic, traditional" et tutti cuanti? In fact, they're apparently NOT. As there has not been LEGAL same-sex marriage up to this moment in the USA, all the observable EVILS of the (legally-) married state have been perpetrated by HETEROS. e.g. wifebeating, incest, child-abuse, murder, divorce and its sequelae, desertion, .....

But, as I've said; I don't care to spend time discussing the matter; w/ you nor w/ anyone. My impression is strong that it's a done deal. Just as all those other cruxes became done-deals. Ihave spent time here thus because you baited me. Enough of it.

BDS

Fair enough, although you are, evidently, incapable of preventing yourself from doing what you "don't care" to do.

Also, you infer wrongly.

trendkill

Well, that's your problem. Legal recognition of relationships is the reason at least some gays say they want to be allowed marriage, and I completely buy it, because legal recognition can make a big difference in your life. Personally I can see getting married for those reasons a lot easier than I can see "Let's get married, darling, so we can get a break on our taxes".

jenergy

I don't really think this holds water... And I must say I find it a bit presumptuous and condescending. I don't think it's the marriage that's the real issue. I think it's the equality. Why should hetero-marriages be legally recognized but same-sex marriages not? It's just not fair. Who cares what marriage IS or ISN'T. The point is who CAN or CAN'T.

BDS

Well, trend and j, if I had my druthers I'd eliminate state sanctioning of marriage altogether. Let marriage be a religious ceremony; let any contracts the couple wish to draw up between themseoves apply.

I'm aware, of course, that this will never happen. As I pointed out above, if (as j points out) it is unfair to legally recognize hetero marriage, but not homo marriage, it is also unfair to pay married people $3 or $4 thousand more dollars a year than single people, for doing the exact same job.

Single people arise! Picket the Las Vegas Wedding Chapels! Boycott wedding ceremonies to which you are invited! Fight for your rights, unfairly stripped from you by a vast, bigotted conspiracy, which once comprised only heterosexuals, but now embraces homosexuals as well!

Our gay brethren have betrayed us! Where now will we turn for solice?

jenergy

I'm not saying I don't see your point, BDS. I surely do. I tend to agree that the institution of marriage is rather an unnatural and awkward arrangement for humans... However, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, I don't think it comes down to WHAT marriage is, I think it comes down to WHOM it is granted. Your insistence that it's first and foremost a monetary scam is also shortsighted, I think. I believe many people get married for the other spiffs. The hospital visitation rights; the child custody rights, etc. Not to mention, perhaps, the publicly performed, federally recognized commitment to one another. Your argument that marriage discriminates agains single people is a bit of a paradox. Marriage, by definition, is a union of people. Whether it be 2, 3, or more. A single person can't be married. Your argument is sort of like saying the spiffs of adulthood discriminate against children. Well, adulthood is defined as the period of life that starts at age 18 (in our society), so it's simply not possible for children to be adults. Unless I misunderstand, your argument has a similar flaw in reason...

Newton Joseph

The ONLY reason for marriage is to be responsible for the children you make

abe smith

... I disagree w/ your here-immmediately-foregoing post: you say "The ONLY reason for marriage is to be responsible for the children you make."

As, similarly, the RC sect's argument is that (not quite so to them anymore) the only reason & purpose of marriage is the production and nurture of children.
This particular argument has been argued around extensively; I won't waste time recapping all-that...

Altho (I know) that i myself am not & will never be 'the marrying type", possibly i do recognize (if not "understand") that many other human beings DO want to marry, and that their reasons are not all the cynical ones about finances etc.

Given my own brutish attitudes about living-with other person(s), I'm not persuaded that marriage is even possible without laws nailing it in place....

And even perhaps, by now, given the marvels & options of present-day technology, "marriage" as we've known it to have been in the past (SO MANY VARIATIONS!) may not be um, necessary any longer.... Another opening; not to discuss/divagate here.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Yes, it's obviously discriminatory. Just as prohibiting same-sex marriage is obviously discriminatory. Both are technically just fair laws that happen to exclude a group "accidentally". The point is that making the claim that "gays are allowed equal marriage rights, they just want to marry the wrong people" is semantic bullshit at its very heart. It's a worthless point.

You seem to just not like marriage. Fine, you don't see reasons why someone would want to get married. But they DO want to get married. They DO find those 1000+ privileges of married couples to be important. They DO consider it a big deal that they could raise a child together, and then when one dies the child is taken away because they have no legal custody rights. It's not a minor thing. It's a very important thing to a very large number of people, and your personal opinion that it's not important is not very relevant.

When we talk about legalizing gay marriage, we're talking about the government's granting of specific rights to people. From what I hear, it's something like 1300-1400 specific special rights given to married couples. These are rights like chld custody, hospital visitation...important things. I'm not sure if your beef with married people getting benefits for their spouses from work applies or not. I do think it is a very minor reason for fighting for gay marriage. What is wrong here is that gays are not given these important special rights from the government. These rights aren't a matter of discriminating against single people- they are rights specific to couples. Single people aren't being denied the rights to child custody that we want granted for gay couples- those rights simply cannot apply to a single person. A single person isn't being denied the right to visit their significant other in the hospital- they don't have a significant other to visit in the first place.

On the idea that workplaces giving spousal benefits, I think you have a valid point- this is unfair to single people. I don't know if this applies to legal arguments, though. Does the government mandate these benefits? If so, then we have a problem. If not, then it's not a government problem, it's a problem with the company that's giving the benefits. We don't decide to have marriage illegal because people are giving benefits unfairly to married people...we make the unfair benefits illegal. That's the way to go. If it's a government mandate, then that's something that should be put to an end, but to hold up the huge benefits of allowing gay marriage simply because it adds to this minor negative seems like a bad idea to me.

What exactly do you find rotten about marriage? I'm not sure I understand here. I doubt you find custody rights to be rotten, so it must be something about the way married couples tend to be. I don't believe it logically follows that if we allow gay couples the same rights, they will act in the same way. All it means is they will have those rights. How they work out their relationship is unchanged, they just have some important legal rights and recognition now. This could be discussed better if you explained what you find rotten in marriage, and how you think legalizing gay marriage would add this rottenness to gay couples.

-B

deep6sleep

I gotta side with BDS on this issue. For the record, I am not anti gay. I have close friends who have alternative lifestyles, and I have no problems with that.

But equating the gay marriage issue with civil rights, and the struggles of african americans is insulting to african americans. This is not a civil rights issue, and as stated before homosexuals have the same civil rights as anyother US citizen.

As far as government being involved in helping to promote traditional family, it has done it for decades and has a vested interest in doing so. Like it or not, the best scenario for raising kids is having a mom and dad, and in allowing same sex marriages will diminish that formular for raising children. The evidence is overwhelming. If your goal is to provide the best possible enviroment to raise children, a mom and dad is obligatory.

And what about 2 brothers who want to marry and start a family. They may love each other enough and want to have kids. How does one exclude this type of "family" when dictating who can and cannot get married?