Simple question about gay marriage.

[KingMerv00]

If gay marriage is legalized, who will be harmed and in what way?

(Sorry for starting yet another gay marriage thread but someone really needs to answer this.)

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

As Stephen Colbert said on my TV just a few minutes ago: They will infringe on our rights. How? Shhhh, did you see all that lightning?

(Not an exact quote)

[plumjam]

I can't think of anyone (in a purely individual sense) it would harm.
Seems to me to be a power thing. The... what should I call it?.. 'heterosexual establishment' has had a power monopoly on the institution of marriage since...always. That establishment resents having some of its power taken away.

[KingMerv00]

I can't think of anyone (in a purely individual sense) it would harm.
Seems to me to be a power thing. The... what should I call it?.. 'heterosexual establishment' has had a power monopoly on the institution of marriage since...always. That establishment resents having some of its power taken away.

But what power does the "heterosexual establishment" lose? Losing a monopoly is not the same as loss of power.

[arthwollipot]

What kind of "power" can the "heterosexual establishment" reasonably be claimed to have in the first place?

[plumjam]

But what power does the "heterosexual establishment" lose? Losing a monopoly is not the same as loss of power.
It loses some of its power to dictate the way society is going to be structured.. i.e. previously only heterosexual pairings could be married and therefore receive whatever legal benefits society decides is right. With gay marriage those legal benefits are being distributed in a different way. So it's a slight shift in power.
It probably loses some of its moral/ethical power too. If an establishment which argued the immorality of A for centuries, and then A is made legal, then I'd say that that legalisation somewhat undermines the moral/ethical authority of that particular establishment. "Why should we listen to them anymore? They were against A all along."
And yeah, a monopoly is a form of power. How could it not be? (unless you say something like a monopoly on powerlessness or some such)

[plumjam]

What kind of "power" can the "heterosexual establishment" reasonably be claimed to have in the first place?
Moral/ethical authority, the feeling that they are entitled to dictate how society should be made up. What is acceptable, what isn't, who should be praised, who should be marginalised, what attitudes should be promoted across society, what attitudes should be resisted. What lifestyles are ok, what aren't..
How such issues should be presented in education and the media.

All that kind of stuff.

[The Atheist]

If gay marriage is legalized, who will be harmed and in what way?

Children will see a gay lifestyle as desirable, because gay men are of higher average net worth and disposable income than breeders and they will all want to be gay.

People will stop having babies and the entire human species will die out.

Some species see this as a benefit.

[arthwollipot]

Moral/ethical authority, the feeling that they are entitled to dictate how society should be made up. What is acceptable, what isn't, who should be praised, who should be marginalised, what attitudes should be promoted across society, what attitudes should be resisted. What lifestyles are ok, what aren't..
How such issues should be presented in education and the media.

All that kind of stuff.So why is it the heterosexual establishment that has all this power? Seems to me that this could also describe the power that the white establishment has. Or maybe the male establishment. How then is this relevant to gay marriage?

[quixotecoyote]

So why is it the heterosexual establishment that has all this power? Seems to me that this could also describe the power that the white establishment has. Or maybe the male establishment. How then is this relevant to gay marriage?

Right now heterosexuality is about as normative as maleness or whiteness.

[arthwollipot]

"Normative"?

[Oliver]

If gay marriage is legalized, who will be harmed and in what way?


Once again something would undermine the scriptures and those fighting for the written crap.

Simple as that.

[quixotecoyote]

"Normative"?

Currently serving as the basis for social and cultural normative standards with all the power and influence that suggests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative#Social_sciences_and_economics

[KellyG]

I don't know how many times i've been told about the gay agenda, and how gays have a mission to make your kids gay. Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay heterosexual.

[arthwollipot]

Currently serving as the basis for social and cultural normative standards with all the power and influence that suggests.Well, isn't that what I was just saying?

[quixotecoyote]

Well, isn't that what I was just saying?

Well yes. I read your question as asking whether heterosexuality belongs in the same category as whiteness and maleness, rather than as a rhetorical question.

[arthwollipot]

Well yes. I read your question as asking whether heterosexuality belongs in the same category as whiteness and maleness, rather than as a rhetorical question.Fair enough.

[Alt+F4]

If gay marriage is legalized, who will be harmed and in what way?

I wish President Obama would answer this question.

[DC]

you will see gay couples kissing eachother on the streets.
when they are 2 man, i find it totaly abhorrent. but its their right to do :)

but still I dont feel harmed.

[TragicMonkey]

Because more than half of all straight people will turn gay immediately, because they were only pretending to be straight to get a tax benefit.

[KingMerv00]

It loses some of its power to dictate the way society is going to be structured.. i.e. previously only heterosexual pairings could be married and therefore receive whatever legal benefits society decides is right.

Having the legal benefits of marriage does not give you the power to dictate how society will be structured. Yes, the heterosexual majority currently has the power but only because they are in the majority, NOT because they are heterosexual. Their power comes from being American citizens not from being straight.

With gay marriage those legal benefits are being distributed in a different way. So it's a slight shift in power.

But heterosexual people would lose nothing. They would have the same benefits if homosexuals were allowed to get married.

It probably loses some of its moral/ethical power too. If an establishment which argued the immorality of A for centuries, and then A is made legal, then I'd say that that legalisation somewhat undermines the moral/ethical authority of that particular establishment. "Why should we listen to them anymore? They were against A all along."

A better answer but IMHO, they never had that authority to start with.

And yeah, a monopoly is a form of power. How could it not be? (unless you say something like a monopoly on powerlessness or some such)

Nevermind. Semantics.

[Starthinker]

http://www.starthinker.com/images/n584013041_1064341_6171.jpg

After the gays people will find someone else to persecute. It's an endless cycle.

[pgwenthold]

If gay marriage is legalized, who will be harmed and in what way?

(Sorry for starting yet another gay marriage thread but someone really needs to answer this.)

Oh, it's been answered plenty of times. It's just that the answers are not very satisfactory.

One answer, for example, is, "If gay marriage, then my children might get the message that homosexuality is acceptable, and that is against my religion."

Is that harm? In their mind it is, because it is goes against their religious teaching.

That you or I don't think their religious teaching has anything to do with it does not mean they haven't answered the question.

[arthwollipot]

you will see gay couples kissing eachother on the streets.
when they are 2 man, i find it totaly abhorrent.Why?

but its their right to do :)

but still I dont feel harmed.You feel it is "abhorrent" and yet you don't feel harmed?

[DC]

Why?

You feel it is "abhorrent" and yet you don't feel harmed?

because i see it as disgusting and unnatural(I know it is natural somehow :) and also an old tradition in civilisation). And i dont really know why this is. (only with man)


but i have no problem accepting it. I belive every human has a right to choose his sexual orientation totaly out of free will. and they should have the same rights as hetero couples. I even dont really see a problem with adoptions of children.

I also know several gay people and have no trouble with accepting how and what they are.

but when i see them kissing eachother i fell disgusted. on the same time i think my self why the hell am i such an idiot :blush:

[Alt+F4]

One answer, for example, is, "If gay marriage, then my children might get the message that homosexuality is acceptable, and that is against my religion."

Yes, this seems to be the argument they are going with these days. Arguing against religion (to the religious) isn't going to work so my question is where are they going to get this message that homosexuality is acceptable?

School? Public schools can't seem to get kids to read or write yet suddenly little Johnny gets 100% on the "gay is ok" test?

Popular Culture? It's 2009, where are the gays NOT?

Their argument seems to boil down to the belief that a straight child can be "made gay" by factors outside the parent's influence.

[quarky]

It brings anal sex into the gestalt of normalcy. It used to be something we could pretend didn't exist.

[DC]

It brings anal sex into the gestalt of normalcy. It used to be something we could pretend didn't exist.

:confused::confused::confused:
as if heteros are not .......

[Foster Zygote]

But heterosexual people would lose nothing. They would have the same benefits if homosexuals were allowed to get married.

Plumjam has me on ignore rather than have to admit to an error, so I see no point in responding directly to him. But to you and others I would say that it seems to be far more about religion than about a "heterosexual monopoly". There have been a number of cultures in which homosexuality has been accepted as normal and harmless. What such cultures seemed to lack was a priest class claiming that a supernatural power told them that momosexuality was an affront to a god or gods. Today the majority of opposition to homosexuality seems to be religiously based. Not that there aren't religious people who reject the idea that homosexuals are a threat to family and morality etcetera, but I've found the idea that homosexuals are threatening is some way to be far more common among the religious than the secular.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If gay marriage is legalized, who will be harmed and in what way?

(Sorry for starting yet another gay marriage thread but someone really needs to answer this.)

Families. Kids will be taught that it is ok for gay people to be happy.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the perceived attack on marriage that some people think needs to be defended is the result of church/state entanglement. For some marriage means a religious ritual and/or sacrament. For the state, it's a legal thing with lots of actual benefits. The problem is that the state recognizes the former kind as being the latter.

I think we should just separate the church and state versions of marriage altogether. The state ought not recognize any religious ritual as having legal standing. You can do what you want in your church, but that has nothing to do with the state marriage.

We have models for this already. At one time christening ceremonies or baptisms in churches was how a baby was legally named. Not so anymore. Since Catholics don't recognize divorce, ending a marriage is another example where the separation has already happened. If a Catholic wants out of a marriage, he or she must get a divorce granted by the state and an anullment granted by the Church.

I further think we could do away with the ceremony for the state/legal marriage. It could all be a matter of paperwork, and you're free to do any ceremony you like on your own.

I think this separation would show the religious people that their idea of marriage is not under attack. It is protected by the First Amendment. I don't think such people would have any more reason to refuse anyone a marriage license than they would to refuse them a driver's license, fishing license, business license, etc.

Questions of what sexual practices are considered "normal" are really beside the point. Even among heterosexuals, some sex practices are widely accepted by many but considered aberrant by others. That has nothing to do with whether or not we grant them marriage licenses.

[pgwenthold]

Families. Kids will be taught that it is ok for gay people to be happy.

You forgot to mention how that is harming anything. Of course the answer is, "It undermines my teaching them that gay people are evil sinners."

[ponderingturtle]

It brings anal sex into the gestalt of normalcy. It used to be something we could pretend didn't exist.

Anal sex is already getting into the gestalt of normalcy though. Straight people have more anal sex in total than homosexual.

I see trying to explain pegging in school now...

[ponderingturtle]

I think the perceived attack on marriage that some people think needs to be defended is the result of church/state entanglement. For some marriage means a religious ritual and/or sacrament. For the state, it's a legal thing with lots of actual benefits. The problem is that the state recognizes the former kind as being the latter.

I think we should just separate the church and state versions of marriage altogether. The state ought not recognize any religious ritual as having legal standing. You can do what you want in your church, but that has nothing to do with the state marriage.

Does the state recognize religious ritual though? To be legaly married I thought you needed a license and all of the state paperwork regardless of what religious ceremonies you do.

[INRM]

I think there are a number of reasons people object to gay marriage.

I think first of all they believe that if men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women, it will somehow make a mockery of their marriage or at the very least make their marriage not seem sacred or special. I think there may also be some who feel that marriage is the only sacred thing left, and if that's gone then nothing is sacred.

I don't think it's a good idea to live in a world where nothing is sacred, but I don't think gay men and lesbians allowed to marry will bring this about. There are many other things I can think of which can do that.

I think there's also worries about abuse. That the spousal privilege and confidentiality could be misused, and other spousal privileges will be exploited by straight people just trying to get around certain laws.

I think some people believe that if marriage between men will be allowed, then soon people will start marrying animals. I don't think that's actually even remotely true. Bestiality and homosexuality have nothing in common. Homosexuals are attracted to other humans, just humans of the same gender.

As for abuse, we already have some people who abuse marriage laws all the time. Whether it be gold-diggers marrying a rich spouse to have a better lifestyle, immigrants marrying citizens to gain citizenship as well, or other various manipulative tricks.

As for sacredness, marriage has long lost it's sacred status. When you have shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" which is a show which glorified gold-digging, marriage somehow just doesn't seem all that sacred. Not that all marriages aren't for ethical and reasonable purposes.


INRM

[Foster Zygote]

Families. Kids will be taught that it is ok for gay people to be happy.

I think you've just won the thread.

[D'rok]

I think the perceived attack on marriage that some people think needs to be defended is the result of church/state entanglement. For some marriage means a religious ritual and/or sacrament. For the state, it's a legal thing with lots of actual benefits. The problem is that the state recognizes the former kind as being the latter.

I don't buy this argument. I live in a country that has no separation of church and state (God is acknowledged as supreme right in our constitution, and our head of state is head of the Anglican church) yet gay marriage was legalized with relatively minimal fuss.

There's something else going on in the USA. It's cultural, not structural. Increasing the existing formal church/state separation isn't going to help, IMO. It just further divides everyone into warring camps. It creates an "us vs. them" culture-wars mentality.

I think we should just separate the church and state versions of marriage altogether. The state ought not recognize any religious ritual as having legal standing. You can do what you want in your church, but that has nothing to do with the state marriage.Sounds reasonable, but, for the reasons above, I don't think it would work. Alienating religious folks is not a good tactic. You need a more inclusive culture, not a more exclusive structure of governance.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does the state recognize religious ritual though? To be legaly married I thought you needed a license and all of the state paperwork regardless of what religious ceremonies you do.

The way it works now, in most states, is that you first get a license from the state, but then you execute that license either in a civil court ceremony (conducted by a judge or "justice of the peace") OR in a religious ritual. That ritual (often a religious rite or sacrament) is granted legal recognition equivalent to the civil ceremony. The priests, ministers and rabbis are acting as agents of the state.

To me, that's entanglement.

No religious ritual should ever be given any kind of legal recognition.

[supercorgi]

I think we should just separate the church and state versions of marriage altogether. The state ought not recognize any religious ritual as having legal standing. You can do what you want in your church, but that has nothing to do with the state marriage.

That approach makes so much sense to me, especially since I learned last year that's how it is in other countries. My boss lived in Belgium and had a big Catholic ceremony to marry his wife. I was surprised that they weren't actually married until they underwent the civil proceeding. They were "spiritually" married but not legally married.

[Segnosaur]

This may not be an issue in the U.S. (where you actually care about protecting personal freedoms), but up here in the People's Republic of Canuckistan, I can see there being problems where gay marriage could infringe upon freedom of religion. Not necessarily for existing marriages, but for future ones.

You see, there is a risk (probably small, but certainly not non-existant) where a homosexual couple could force the use of a church (or other religous property) to be used for a ceremony even if the religion itself was against gay marriage.

So far, we've had 2 precidents. In one case, a gay student at a catholic school managed to successfully sue because he was forbidden from taking a date to a dance. (This isn't exactly a perfect precident, since the school was partly taxpayer funded.) In a second case, a lesbian couple had booked a knights-of-columbus hall, before finding out that the Knights of Columbus had rules against the use of property for homosexual weddings. (Again, this wasn't a perfect precident, since there were issues of contract law involved, etc.)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-87210398.html
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129

Now, I know some people might argue "Why would a gay person want to get married in a church which opposes their wedding"? True, I figure most homosexuals would probably avoid putting themselves in such a situation. But all you would need is one couple who decides to 'challenge' the religion in order to cause significant problems. (After all, you could also question why a gay student would want to attend a catholic high school...)

For the record, I have no problem with gay marriage myself. And I am an athiest, so I'd be happy if the churches would just disappear (although I do believe in freedom of religion, regardless if such a belief is, well, stupid.) I just recognize that there is the potential for a situation where freedom of religion gets over-ridden.

[D'rok]

You see, there is a risk (probably small, but certainly not non-existant) where a homosexual couple could force the use of a church (or other religous property) to be used for a ceremony even if the religion itself was against gay marriage.

Not bloody likely. This is a red herring. Freedom of Religion plus this...

"WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;"

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2005-c-33/latest/sc-2005-c-33.html

...makes it extremely unlikely that a gay couple could force a church to host their marriage ceremony. Churches are not public property and are not required to be strictly neutral.

However, a complaint to one of the human rights commissions is a remote but non-zero possibility. Even if that happened, I doubt the complaint would get very far.

[Segnosaur]

Not bloody likely.

Keep in mind that in my original post, I DID stress that the chance was small, but is still there...

This is a red herring. Freedom of Religion plus this...

"WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;"

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2005-c-33/latest/sc-2005-c-33.html

...makes it extremely unlikely that a gay couple could force a church to host their marriage ceremony. Churches are not public property and are not required to be strictly neutral.

First of all, keep in mind that the legal section you pointed out prevents forcing officials from performing ceremonies, but it does not prevent the use of church property from being used. (In fact, I specifically avoided suggesting that priests or ministers would be forced to perform ceremonies, and restricted the argument to property.)

Secondly, you are right in that churches are not public property. Problem is, in Canada, property rights were never included in our constitution. However, what is in our consitution are sections that allow certain freedoms to be supressed if its deemed to be for the 'greater good'.

However, a complaint to one of the human rights commissions is a remote but non-zero possibility. Even if that happened, I doubt the complaint would get very far.

Well, I already pointed to the one precident, where the human rights commision ruled in favor of the lesbian couple. Looks like it did get pretty far.

[The Atheist]

..., and our head of state is head of the Anglican church) ....

Anglicans? Hardly True ChristiansTM.

Rowan Williams has even said you can not believe in the immaculate conception and the resurrection and still be an Anglican. Sodom and Gomorrah would have merely had gay bishops under Anglicanism's god.

If all christians were Anglican, there would be no atheists.

Roman Catholicism as state religion is a minimum standard of christianness for gay rulings. You just can't count dear old Queenie and Uncle Rowie.

[D'rok]

Keep in mind that in my original post, I DID stress that the chance was small, but is still there...

First of all, keep in mind that the legal section you pointed out prevents forcing officials from performing ceremonies, but it does not prevent the use of church property from being used. (In fact, I specifically avoided suggesting that priests or ministers would be forced to perform ceremonies, and restricted the argument to property.)

You are interpreting the statute in a way that is incompatible with established Canadian jurisprudence. This is the established principle for statutory interpretation in Canada:

"The words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament"

In other words, the Civil Marriage Act cannot be interpreted as a tool to force religious groups to allow their property to be used for purposes that violate their core religious beliefs. That is a misreading of the statute.



Well, I already pointed to the one precident, where the human rights commision ruled in favor of the lesbian couple. Looks like it did get pretty far.You didn't read very closely. The Commission upheld the Knights of Columbus' right to refuse to host the wedding on their property. They were fined $1000 for being jerks about it and denigrating the dignity of the couple. I think that is a little bit silly, but the legal result is this:

1) A religious organization can refuse to allow a same-sex couple to be married on that organization's property
2) They must do so in a respectful manner

You can quibble about 2) if you want, but the meat of the matter is 1). Your assessment of the precedent is wrong.

ETA: I just noticed that the event was the wedding reception, not the wedding itself. That is even more of a victory for religious groups.

[D'rok]

Anglicans? Hardly True ChristiansTM.

Rowan Williams has even said you can not believe in the immaculate conception and the resurrection and still be an Anglican. Sodom and Gomorrah would have merely had gay bishops under Anglicanism's god.

If all christians were Anglican, there would be no atheists.

Roman Catholicism as state religion is a minimum standard of christianness for gay rulings. You just can't count dear old Queenie and Uncle Rowie.

This is the point I'm trying to make. Church and State are structurally merged in the Commonwealth, but gay marriage is accepted (more so than in the USA). The different acceptance of gay marriage is cultural, not structural. (Unless someone wants to argue that we accept gay marriage because of our merged church/state structure. But that would just be silly). To the extent that we are a Christian culture, we are culturally moderate Christians. I don't think adjusting the structure is going to change much for the Americans. They need to adjust their culture.

[ponderingturtle]

In other words, the Civil Marriage Act cannot be interpreted as a tool to force religious groups to allow their property to be used for purposes that violate their core religious beliefs. That is a misreading of the statute.

Why is it so wrong to force them to rent out their space, but it is not wrong for say hotels to discriminate in the same manner? When can people be bigots and when should they be prevented?

[D'rok]

Why is it so wrong to force them to rent out their space, but it is not wrong for say hotels to discriminate in the same manner? When can people be bigots and when should they be prevented?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you for forcing religious groups not to discriminate but against forcing hotels? Why?

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you for forcing religious groups not to discriminate but against forcing hotels? Why?


I think he's saying why does religion get a free pass when it comes to bigotry (and other issues).


It's kind of like how you have to wear a stetson when you are in your RCMP uniform, unless your religion requires you to wear some other kind of hat. If you wanted to wear a ball cap because it's more comfortable, that's too bad. You need to have a religious reason. Then it's usually fine.

[themusicteacher]

To the OP:

Didn't you hear? If we allow gay marriage, all straight marriages will be annulled and everyone will be assigned a same-sex partner to marry. Gay porn will be broadcast on network TV, people will ask to marry their horses and children will gouge their eyes out whilst screaming, "WHY, WHY, WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!"

There is no reasonable argument against gay marriage other than it's "different." Everything you hear is bigotry, fear and hate dressed up as concern, nothing more.

[D'rok]

I think he's saying why does religion get a free pass when it comes to bigotry (and other issues).

He seems to be asking why hotels get a free pass. It is a strange question. From the wording, he is saying it is is not wrong for hotels to discriminate, but it should be wrong for religious groups to discriminate. Not a very consistent position.

Anyways, religion doesn't get a free pass. Canadians have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. The devil is in the details, especially when accommodating that right bumps up against other protected rights.

[cwalner]

I've noticed that most the serious answers are about the harm in undermining what people want to teach thier children.

So the answer essentially boils down to people who are intollerant of homosexuality will be harmed because it will undermine their ability to teach that intollerance to their children.

From where I'm sitting (in my pink triangular room with rainbow flags) the 'harm' will actually be an overall benefit to society.

[Foster Zygote]

I've noticed that most the serious answers are about the harm in undermining what people want to teach thier children.

So the answer essentially boils down to people who are intollerant of homosexuality will be harmed because it will undermine their ability to teach that intollerance to their children.

From where I'm sitting (in my pink triangular room with rainbow flags) the 'harm' will actually be an overall benefit to society.

I heard Mike Huckabee rationalizing his opposition to homosexual marriage based on the "fact" that they can't reproduce. The BS of this argument is exposed by Huckabee's apparent lack of concern for heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children. Why isn't he just as adamant that couples who seek a marriage license must promise to have at least one child? Where is his concern regarding heterosexual couples who are unable to have children?

[Segnosaur]

First of all, keep in mind that the legal section you pointed out prevents forcing officials from performing ceremonies, but it does not prevent the use of church property from being used.
You are interpreting the statute in a way that is incompatible with established Canadian jurisprudence. This is the established principle for statutory interpretation in Canada:

"The words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament"

In other words, the Civil Marriage Act cannot be interpreted as a tool to force religious groups to allow their property to be used for purposes that violate their core religious beliefs. That is a misreading of the statute.

Again, the problem is that phrase like 'object of the Act' and 'intention of Parliament' require that any and all judges (or, alternatively, human rights commissions) who might deal with this situation are willing to go beyond the actual text of the document. Remember, personal eligous freedom is something written into the constitution, property rights are not; its not a guarantee that everyone ruling on such cases will assume the act applies to both.

Did YOU know exactly what was going through the minds of each and every MPs voting for the law? Can you point to something like a Hansard commons debate where the MPs voting for the law talked about use of church property?

Well, I already pointed to the one precident, where the human rights commision ruled in favor of the lesbian couple. Looks like it did get pretty far.
You didn't read very closely.
[/quote]
Actually, I did read it closely... and in fact I already pointed out that this was not a perfect precident. (If I remember correctly, I also pointed out that there may have been issues of contract law involved.) I didn't get too deep into the issue because a complete discussion of the issue is almost a topic of its own.

The Commission upheld the Knights of Columbus' right to refuse to host the wedding on their property. They were fined $1000 for being jerks about it and denigrating the dignity of the couple. I think that is a little bit silly, but the legal result is this:

1) A religious organization can refuse to allow a same-sex couple to be married on that organization's property
2) They must do so in a respectful manner

Yes, they upheld the right to refuse use of property, but the 'respectful manner' reference is what was troubling. Why was that necessary? In the future, could that be modified to "Because you weren't respectful you must allow them to use your property"?


ETA: I just noticed that the event was the wedding reception, not the wedding itself. That is even more of a victory for religious groups.
You're right, it was for the reception. And hey, you could even argue that it was a Knights of Columbus hall, not even an actual 'catholic church'.

So, are you going to suggest that its OK to override the rights of religious groups to control their property as long as its not for the main wedding itself?

Frankly, I would have been happier if either:
- They had actually added that section to the law
- The constitution cared about property rights
- We actually had some more direct precidents to go under

[Bob Blaylock]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.

[Rasmus]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.

Right. Them damn ******* have no right to marry our wimminfolk!

ETA: It seems the word I used to describe people of dark skin colour got editet out. It was meant to be sarcams, but if the software says I mustn't say it ...

[Cleon]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.

Er...No. Marriage has not always been defined that way. Given that you are LDS, you should already know that.

[The Atheist]

The BS of this argument is exposed by Huckabee's apparent lack of concern for heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children.

No.

People who choose not to have children are confirming that god exists, because they use their god-given free will to make that choice. Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's an illness.

[D'rok]

Again, the problem is that phrase like 'object of the Act' and 'intention of Parliament' require that any and all judges (or, alternatively, human rights commissions) who might deal with this situation are willing to go beyond the actual text of the document. Remember, personal eligous freedom is something written into the constitution, property rights are not; its not a guarantee that everyone ruling on such cases will assume the act applies to both.

Did YOU know exactly what was going through the minds of each and every MPs voting for the law? Can you point to something like a Hansard commons debate where the MPs voting for the law talked about use of church property?

You're really reaching here. This was one of the most publicly and openly debated issues in Canadian history. Things like "intent" and "purpose" are not mysteries in this case. Also, the Civil Marriage Act does not override section 2 of the Charter. It can't. It is only ordinary legislation and the notwithstanding clause (even if it was usable politcally) does not apply to section 2. For a good overview of the scope of the freedom of religion right, see here:
http://canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-2-a.html

It is strange that you are bemoaning the lack of explicit property protection (for which there are good and appropriate reasons - but that is another thread) by adverting to a quasi-judicial proceeding that had the effect of protecting property rights.


Yes, they upheld the right to refuse use of property, but the 'respectful manner' reference is what was troubling. Why was that necessary? In the future, could that be modified to "Because you weren't respectful you must allow them to use your property"?No. Only the appropriateness and amount of damages would be at issue.


You're right, it was for the reception. And hey, you could even argue that it was a Knights of Columbus hall, not even an actual 'catholic church'.

So, are you going to suggest that its OK to override the rights of religious groups to control their property as long as its not for the main wedding itself?Ummm....no. What gave you that idea? I am pointing out that the Commission decided that it is not OK to override the rights of religious groups to control their property, even for something as innocous as a wedding reception. (I happen to agree with that part of the result, but that is not relevant) This case stands for exactly the opposite proposition than the one you for which you cited it for support.

[D'rok]

No.

People who choose not to have children are confirming that god exists, because they use their god-given free will to make that choice. Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's an illness.

I assume this is your interpretation of Huckabee's position? You might want to make this clear before old Bob there starts agreeing with you.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you for forcing religious groups not to discriminate but against forcing hotels? Why?

It has to do with people renting space, when can they discriminate and when can they not. Are the nights of Columbus a church?

So what makes their rental space so special that they can discriminate but renting a room at a hotel can not discriminate for exactly the same reasons? You wouldn't be able to discriminate against a gay couple on their honey moon at your bed and breakfast even if you were a member of the knights of columbus.

[ponderingturtle]

He seems to be asking why hotels get a free pass. It is a strange question. From the wording, he is saying it is is not wrong for hotels to discriminate, but it should be wrong for religious groups to discriminate. Not a very consistent position.

No I am saying that I don't see why one group gets to discriminate but the other can't. So either any rental of space should be able to be discriminated against or none should.

Anyways, religion doesn't get a free pass. Canadians have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. The devil is in the details, especially when accommodating that right bumps up against other protected rights.

OF course it does, any private group that was not religious would not be permitted to discriminate in that fashion, they get their bigotry supported because it is religious.

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.

Of course when there are too men it becomes so vague about who owns who, unless they have a 24/7 BDSM relationship I suppose.

Marriage is about the transfer of ownership of a woman after all.

[KingMerv00]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.

And this addresses the OP how exactly?

[D'rok]

It has to do with people renting space, when can they discriminate and when can they not. Are the nights of Columbus a church?

So what makes their rental space so special that they can discriminate but renting a room at a hotel can not discriminate for exactly the same reasons? You wouldn't be able to discriminate against a gay couple on their honey moon at your bed and breakfast even if you were a member of the knights of columbus.

I'm not sure if the bolded bit is true in Canada. My best guess is that it is not true in all cases, but I am only making an informed guess - I don't actually know. There would be strong legal arguments on both sides of that issue.

Situations like these are complicated because the Charter of Rights doesn't directly apply.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure if the bolded bit is true in Canada. My best guess is that it is not true in all cases, but I am only making an informed guess - I don't actually know. There would be strong legal arguments on both sides of that issue.

So canada has very weak anti-discrimination laws.

[D'rok]

So canada has very weak anti-discrimination laws.
If you say so.

[ponderingturtle]

If you say so.

It seems that businesses are free to discriminate.

[D'rok]

I'm not sure if the bolded bit is true in Canada. My best guess is that it is not true in all cases, but I am only making an informed guess - I don't actually know. There would be strong legal arguments on both sides of that issue.

Situations like these are complicated because the Charter of Rights doesn't directly apply.

Just to expand on this a little.

The situation where Mr. Knights of Columbus, B&B owner, refuses to rent a room to a gay couple on their honeymoon would be a direct violation of most (or all) provincial human rights codes. (e.g. Section 1 and 2 of the Ontario Human Rights Code: http://canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html)

The gay couple could then complain to the appropriate provincial human rights commission. Mr. Knights of Columbus may then get smacked by a human rights tribunal. At that point, he can challenge the ruling based on his freedom of religion rights in the Charter (i.e. the rights portion of the Canadian constitution). That's where the rubber really hits the road. I don't really know what the result would be in that kind of appeal.

[D'rok]

It seems that businesses are free to discriminate.
See my post above. It's more complicated than that.

[Segnosaur]

Did YOU know exactly what was going through the minds of each and every MPs voting for the law? Can you point to something like a Hansard commons debate where the MPs voting for the law talked about use of church property?
You're really reaching here. This was one of the most publicly and openly debated issues in Canadian history. Things like "intent" and "purpose" are not mysteries in this case.

First of all, while the subject was debated in both society and in the house of commons, the 'intent' may not be as clear cut as you might think. Remember, the initial draft version of the bill didn't even include protections for religious organizations who didn't want to perform ceremonies.. In fact, the debate over the final version of the bill took place after only a few hours (and that time was cut short).

I browsed through some of the debates on the final reading of C-38. Plenty of talk about about protecting the freedom of religion of people, didn't see any discussion about how they wanted it applied to property. Maybe I overlooked it. Maybe it was debated by the house of commons some other time. If so, by all means point it out to me.


Also, the Civil Marriage Act does not override section 2 of the Charter.

Never said it would.

The problem is, the Charter overrides itself.

Our charter has the following clause in it: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.. Its that same clause that is used to justify legislation against hate speech and obscenity.

Can you guaratee that some judge, at some point in time, assume that the religious rights of churches to discriminate won't be seen as being a 'reasonable right'?

Yes, they upheld the right to refuse use of property, but the 'respectful manner' reference is what was troubling. Why was that necessary? In the future, could that be modified to "Because you weren't respectful you must allow them to use your property"?
No.
Nice to see that at least some of us can see into the future.


Only the appropriateness and amount of damages would be at issue.

Which is another significant issue... Even if a religious group had the right to prevent people from using its property, the fact that they could be assessed damages because they were exercising their freedom of religion/freedom of speech is not exactly what I'd call a good idea.

So, are you going to suggest that its OK to override the rights of religious groups to control their property as long as its not for the main wedding itself?
Ummm....no. What gave you that idea?

Ummm... because you said in a previous post: the event was the wedding reception, not the wedding itself. That is even more of a victory for religious groups. From the sounds of things you were putting the use of an actual church in a different category than the use of other religious property.

[themusicteacher]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.

I'm giong to go ahead and call BS on that. Marriage was established by those in power as a means of property transfer, that property being women, and to ensure that children (the conduit through which all ancient property ownerwhip flowed) were of "legitimate" status. Besides, your analogy is ridiculous. Grass is green via it's physical properties as are gay people and grass is a physical entity with certain properties. Marriages are institutions created and proped up by man. Your arguments are patently false and silly. You may disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds and that is your right but we live in a nation of laws under the principal of equality under the law. If marriage is going to be sponsored and recognized by the states, all consenting adults of sound mind have the right to marry each other.

[bruto]

In a hurry, away from home, not reading every word in thread yet, but two points, sorry if someone else has said it already:

I doubt very much whether any church would be obligated to perform gay marriages. There is no obligation for churches to perform any marriage for anyone whose union they do not endorse.

I think what is really at stake for the opponents of gay marriage is the completion of what they consider the "gay agenda," which is, in short, the recognition of homosexuality as acceptable and normal. This was one of the major arguments in the original civil union debate. As long as gay couples were denied civil recognition, it was still possible for homophobic persons and organizations to label the "gay lifestyle" as immoral, deviant, and so forth, and to discriminate and campaign against gays in various ways, subtle and not so subtle. It was still possible to do this even when homosexuality and its consummation had been decriminalized, as long as it was not officially recognized. It is much more difficult to do this when their status is given legal sanction. Normalization is very offensive to those who consider homosexuality as a sinful perversion.

[D'rok]

The problem is, the Charter overrides itself.

Our charter has the following clause in it: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.. Its that same clause that is used to justify legislation against hate speech and obscenity.

Can you guaratee that some judge, at some point in time, assume that the religious rights of churches to discriminate won't be seen as being a 'reasonable right'?
You are phrasing the question in a way that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the function of Section 1. That section is the mechanism by which the government must justify to the court that a piece of legislation limits the scope of a particular protected right (i.e., it cannot take away a right) in a manner that is consistent with a free and democratic society.

For example, imagine that the government amended the Civil Marriage Act to say that religious groups had to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex marriages or related events (like wedding receptions). This would inevitably be challenged in court as a limit on the right to religious freedom. The government would then have the burden of proof to justify this limitation under Section 1. There is a specific legal test by which this is done. (Oakes test)

As an aside, you strike me as the sort of person who would appreciate this kind of constitutional instrument. (Not an insult. I, too, am this sort of person). It is meant to allow some degree of parliamentary supremacy to remain even in a regime of formal constitutional supremacy. Parliament still has wiggle room where the Charter is concerned. Given that they are our democratically elected representatives, isn't this a good thing?


Which is another significant issue... Even if a religious group had the right to prevent people from using its property, the fact that they could be assessed damages because they were exercising their freedom of religion/freedom of speech is not exactly what I'd call a good idea.I'm not crazy about that part of the ruling either.

[bruto]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.Holy matrimony, maybe, but this is not the subject here. Civil marriage is whatever a civil society decides it should be. Once upon a time, and not so long ago at all, one of the functions of marriage in some supposedly civilized countries was to strip a woman of rights to her own property. Do you think this cannot, or should not, be changed?

[jloxton]

McGill University bioethicist Margret Sommerville has made the most rigorous and intelligent defense of bans on gay marriage that I have heard. I still disagree, but her defense is rational and non-religious, unlike most of what you read on the topic. Her submission to the Supreme Court of Canada when they took up the issue can be read here:

www DOT marriageinstitute DOT ca/images/somerville.pdf

(Sorry for the brokeness, the forum won't let me post URLs)

Her defense is based largely on her belief that heterosexual marriage plays an crucial societal role: celebrating the procreative relationship. She has strong opinions against most reproductive technologies, as well as a belief in a right of sorts for children to be raised, if possible, by biological parents (because of our nearly universal desire to understand our genetic identity, i.e., "where we come from"). Taken together, it is a reasonable, but (to me) not convincing argument, for societal harm resulting from institutionalizing gay marriage.

[D'rok]

McGill University bioethicist Margret Sommerville has made the most rigorous and intelligent defense of bans on gay marriage that I have heard. I still disagree, but her defense is rational and non-religious, unlike most of what you read on the topic. Her submission to the Supreme Court of Canada when they took up the issue can be read here:

www DOT marriageinstitute DOT ca/images/somerville.pdf

(Sorry for the brokeness, the forum won't let me post URLs)

Her defense is based largely on her belief that heterosexual marriage plays an crucial societal role: celebrating the procreative relationship. She has strong opinions against most reproductive technologies, as well as a belief in a right of sorts for children to be raised, if possible, by biological parents (because of our nearly universal desire to understand our genetic identity, i.e., "where we come from"). Taken together, it is a reasonable, but (to me) not convincing argument, for societal harm resulting from institutionalizing gay marriage.

Good post.

The Supreme Court reference case itself is also a good read on the subject.

http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc79/2004scc79.html

[Segnosaur]

Our charter has the following clause in it: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.. Its that same clause that is used to justify legislation against hate speech and obscenity.

You are phrasing the question in a way that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the function of Section 1. That section is the mechanism by which the government must justify to the court that a piece of legislation limits the scope of a particular protected right (i.e., it cannot take away a right) in a manner that is consistent with a free and democratic society.

For example, imagine that the government amended the Civil Marriage Act to say that religious groups had to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex marriages or related events (like wedding receptions). This would inevitably be challenged in court as a limit on the right to religious freedom. The government would then have the burden of proof to justify this limitation under Section 1. There is a specific legal test by which this is done. (Oakes test)

But the problem is, there are more laws in play here than just the civil marriages act. For example, you've also pointed out provincial laws that are used to prevent discrimination. In theory this violates the idea of freedom of association, but such anti-discrimination laws are probably acceptable due to the clause I referred to.


As an aside, you strike me as the sort of person who would appreciate this kind of constitutional instrument.

Not following you. What 'instrument' are you referring to? The Oakes test? Or the clause allowing limits to be set?

The problem is, I don't really trust anybody over this. My cynicism comes over the whole Little Sister's bookstore fiasco. To me, what seemed as such a clear-cut case of the government violating freedom of speech ended up (to me) illustrating that the court's rulings don't always go towards protecting freedom. Since then, I've been exceptionally wary of any ability of the courts to do anything to protect personal freedom.

Which is another significant issue... Even if a religious group had the right to prevent people from using its property, the fact that they could be assessed damages because they were exercising their freedom of religion/freedom of speech is not exactly what I'd call a good idea.
I'm not crazy about that part of the ruling either.
[quote]
So, are you conceding that there may be at least a partial problem with the whole freedom of religion thing (even if its not to the degree I originally stated)? Or is it more a 'freedom of speech' thing you're concerned about?

[boloboffin]

If America allows a person to marry a person the same sex as he or she is, then God may begin punishing America. Opponents of gay marriage are trying to save America from being attacked by God.

Some will decide that God has given them permission to attack America if America allows a person to marry a person the same sex as he or she is. These people are torn between saving America from themselves and storing up ammunition for the day of wrath.

Others will begin tabulating every bad thing that happens to America after America allows gay marriage as proof that God is punishing America.

Secular organizations connected to religious ones may get hit with discriminatory lawsuits of various kinds connected to benefits, employment, etc. Some churches will withdraw their support of these organizations as a result.

Some enterprising gay couple will get married in another state, go back to their home state, and sue it for recognition based on the contract clause and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. I'm not sure it would work, though, because only states are bound by the contract clause, not Congress, and Congress passed DOMA. I think the same holds true for the full faith and credit clause -- the states can't violate it, but Congress can. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, though.

So the harm from gay marriage -- we risk incurring the wrath of God which some religious nuts will only be all to happy to unleash, some churches will find secular organizations they have set up to be liable to discrimination laws, and trial lawyers will rack up some cash and Supreme Court-bound cases. I think that may be the extent of the damage of gay marriage.

[D'rok]

McGill University bioethicist Margret Sommerville has made the most rigorous and intelligent defense of bans on gay marriage that I have heard. I still disagree, but her defense is rational and non-religious, unlike most of what you read on the topic. Her submission to the Supreme Court of Canada when they took up the issue can be read here:

www DOT marriageinstitute DOT ca/images/somerville.pdf

(Sorry for the brokeness, the forum won't let me post URLs)

Her defense is based largely on her belief that heterosexual marriage plays an crucial societal role: celebrating the procreative relationship. She has strong opinions against most reproductive technologies, as well as a belief in a right of sorts for children to be raised, if possible, by biological parents (because of our nearly universal desire to understand our genetic identity, i.e., "where we come from"). Taken together, it is a reasonable, but (to me) not convincing argument, for societal harm resulting from institutionalizing gay marriage.

Had a quick read. It was well presented, if a little short on legal arguments and evidence, but wholly unconvincing. Her argument really just boils down to an objection to reproductive technology. Not a very compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage rights.

[Rasmus]

Marriage is not about reproduction. If it was, there would at least be a single law on the books to support that notion.

On the contrary,
some people will only be allowed to marry if they cannot produce children together, and there is no requirement to have children, plan on having children or the mere ability to have children to get married.

I believe there is a court ruling in Germany that mandates that children of unmarried parents must not suffer any disadvantages vs. children of married parents (or couples, to be more precisely).

Marriage is not in any way about children.

[D'rok]

But the problem is, there are more laws in play here than just the civil marriages act. For example, you've also pointed out provincial laws that are used to prevent discrimination. In theory this violates the idea of freedom of association, but such anti-discrimination laws are probably acceptable due to the clause I referred to. But those laws are arguably acceptable based on s. 15 of the Charter (equality). What to do when two Charter rights are in conflict with each other? Which right trumps the other? How is this to be determined?


Not following you. What 'instrument' are you referring to? The Oakes test? Or the clause allowing limits to be set?Both. There is a meta-constitutional debate about the legitimacy of judicial review. In a democratic society, is an appointed judiciary the appropriate institution to determine the content of our rights? Shouldn't our elected representatives have a role? That is part of the purpose of Section 1 of the Charter.

The problem is, I don't really trust anybody over this. My cynicism comes over the whole Little Sister's bookstore fiasco. To me, what seemed as such a clear-cut case of the government violating freedom of speech ended up (to me) illustrating that the court's rulings don't always go towards protecting freedom. Since then, I've been exceptionally wary of any ability of the courts to do anything to protect personal freedom.That case sucked. But it wasn't a total wash. It did find that the burden of proof on the importer to disprove the charge of obscenity was unconstitutional. The government has the burden to prove its case now. It also established that freedom of expression encompasses the right to receive expressive material as well as to express it. Also, there are plenty of cases where the Court denied the government's attempt at justification under section 1. The Morgenthaler abortion case, for example.



So, are you conceding that there may be at least a partial problem with the whole freedom of religion thing (even if its not to the degree I originally stated)? Or is it more a 'freedom of speech' thing you're concerned about?In my initial response, I said that I thought that the damages were silly. But on the core issue, I think the Commission got it right (for a change).

The whole idea of rights protection and legislation is tricky. Freedom of religion is one of the trickiest. It potentially conflicts with so many other protected rights.

[quarky]

Anal sex is already getting into the gestalt of normalcy though. Straight people have more anal sex in total than homosexual.

I see trying to explain pegging in school now...

I was making a guess as to one of the reasons why some people are slow to accept it. For prudish types, it brings the subject of gay sex to the forefront.
They don't know how to explain it to their kids. Its like they need a new birds and bees talk.

When i was a kid, we had no idea that gay existed. Not that that was good, but it was innocent, from our end of it.
When aids first hit, and was mostly associated with gay men, at least in the media, and it was also sexually transmitted, suddenly a whole bunch of taboo subjects became mainstream. And for straight conservatives, it was too much to handle. Guys having sex was causing a plague in their view.

It takes awhile to adjust.

btw, I'm fine w/ gay marriage. But I know people who aren't.

[TragicMonkey]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.

I agree completely. The law has no business definining marriage in any way.

And because it cannot define marriage, it has no business recognizing it, either.

Let marriage, a religious or cultural practice, be totally separate from the law. Who's shacking up with whom is nobody's business, no matter what ceremonies they may have indulged in. End the strange practices of treating two people as one entity in some cases, simply because they cohabit, or do each other, or reproduce, or some combination of the three or none of them at all.

Let the law recognize individuals as individuals only, and ignore their relationships. That would be far more fair than merely granting special treatment to more people by expanding the ranks of those eligible for special treatment.

[jloxton]

I had a brief exchange with Dr. Somerville that I will reproduce below. Her comments on my email are prefaced with a double arrow: >>

She was extraordinarily nice, and I was impressed that she actually replied given her stature and the number of cranks who must write her daily. She also attached a longer essay explaining her views on gay marriage and children's rights. I have not had the chance to read it. This link to my inbox might take you there:

https://my4.dal.ca/webmail/imp/view.php?popup_view=1&thismailbox=INBOX&mailbox=**search&index=1171&actionID=view_attach&id=3&mimecache=3b71d5a8de1118c869bc2e32db9af755

Or it might require a password. Anyone interested can try the link, it might work. Again, I don't find this stuff convincing, but anyone who finds the debates interesting might want to follow up the link. I can also email the PDF to anyone who requests it.

-------------------------------
>>Dear Jason,
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful email. I try to answer your questions below. I'm also attaching a segment of my upcoming Massey Lectures that addresses some of the issues you raise.

Kind regards,
Margo S.

First, it is obvious that your argument on restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, regardless of their desire or ability to reproduce, to protect the symbolism of marriage as "an inherently procreative" relationship, is untenable without your blanket rejection of emerging and potential technologies allowing same sex genetic patrimony.

>>Yes that is correct.

Without this rejection, same sex marriage becomes an institution with the potential for the production of biological offspring, and non-procreative same sex unions would be protected by the same privacy and other arguments you make to protect non-procreative opposite sex marriages.

>>It's not just privacy issues (indeed not even privacy issues) that concern me, it's the ethics of the transmission of life using new reproductive technologies and the resulting children's rights in these regards.

I am hoping that you can point me to an argument defending your blanket rejection of technologies allowing same sex genetic patrimony (e.g., the production of sperm from stem cells), assuming that these technologies were as safe as either traditional reproductive technologies or unassisted opposite sex reproduction.

>>It's not just an issue of safety, that comes second. The first question is it inherently wrong to transmit human life in this way, in particular is it inherently wrong with respect to the resulting child. I believe that it is. My Massey Lectures look at this issue in more depth but it is founded on a presumption in favour of the natural.

Second, you refer to your belief that offspring have a "right" to be raised by their biological parents, if possible. Now this is not as integral to your argument, but I am curious as to it implications. What sort of right do you have in mind?

>>A natural right that should also be enshrined in positive law.

If a positive right, how should this right be balanced against parents' desires (rights?) to free themselves from the obligation of childrearing through adoption or divorce.

>>They have no such right, although in certain circumstances, as an exception to their obligations that otherwise apply, they might be able to do so.

Assuming that the child's is a strong positive right, it seems to me that this has fairly important implications for other aspects of marriage and divorce law, implications that many advocates of the traditional definition of marriage may not find appealing. If society an obligation not to promote non-traditional families, then surely we need to seriously reconsider things like no-fault divorce.

>>Absolutely. But it raises different ethical considerations when the child's right is intentionally negated from the beginning as compared with when it results from unplanned circumstances.

Anyway... These are just a couple of things that I hope you could clarify by pointing me towards more complete explanation of the justifications for your position. Please continue making intelligent and important contributions to this debate. We share the opinion that this is a massive social experiment, one that necessitates profound and thoughtful reflection on its consequences, a process that is hindered by the "Adam and Steve" style objections one frequently finds.

>>Thank you for your kind words - and again for contacting me.
Best
MAS

[KingMerv00]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

Grass is green. A court cannot change the color of grass by ruling that it is red. A legislative body, by passing a law that says grass is red, cannot change the fact that it is green. Neither can they, in any similar manner, change what marriage is.

Would that be the Christian God, the Native American gods, or the Greek gods.

Also...

And this addresses the OP how exactly?

[Dorian Gray]

I think old men will be happy when gay marriage is legalized, because then they can get back to bitching about women getting the right to vote.

[Dorian Gray]

I agree completely. The law has no business definining marriage in any way.

And because it cannot define marriage, it has no business recognizing it, either.

Let marriage, a religious or cultural practice, be totally separate from the law. Who's shacking up with whom is nobody's business, no matter what ceremonies they may have indulged in. End the strange practices of treating two people as one entity in some cases, simply because they cohabit, or do each other, or reproduce, or some combination of the three or none of them at all.

Let the law recognize individuals as individuals only, and ignore their relationships. That would be far more fair than merely granting special treatment to more people by expanding the ranks of those eligible for special treatment. I don't have a problem with limiting marriage to two consenting adults. Beyond that, marriage is also a legal practice, because it intertwines the finances, dwellings, possessions and children of two people, so it's a business arrangement and should be regulated.

Slippery slope idiots should be forced to write 500 times "Marriage itself didn't lead to bestial marriage, bestiality, necrophilia or inanimate marriage, so why would gay marriage?"

[Dorian Gray]

Oh, and what gets me is that people who are against gay marriage between two law-abiding and upstanding gay citizens don't have a problem with murderers, rapists and child molesters getting married and having children, as long as it's hetero. AS though being gay is worse than molesting children or raping grandmothers. Nice Family Values, you stupid overgeneralized strawman group of people I set up for this post.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't have a problem with limiting marriage to two consenting adults. Beyond that, marriage is also a legal practice, because it intertwines the finances, dwellings, possessions and children of two people, so it's a business arrangement and should be regulated.

Why should a modern secular state be recognizing informal religious practices of this nature? Let them pursue their own "business" without state regulation or benefits or protection. If they want to cosign a mortgage, or slather each other's naughty bits in reproductive juices, fine. But why should the state and their fellow citizens be obliged to "recognize" these tawdry affairs?

Let them conduct their "business arrangements" in whatever seedy dive they first propose them, without offending the eyes and sensibilities of more practical people!

[ponderingturtle]

See my post above. It's more complicated than that.

So the answer is maybe.

[ponderingturtle]

In a hurry, away from home, not reading every word in thread yet, but two points, sorry if someone else has said it already:

I doubt very much whether any church would be obligated to perform gay marriages. There is no obligation for churches to perform any marriage for anyone whose union they do not endorse.

There is a difference between performing a marriage and renting the space though. It seems that it is perfectly legal for the owners of any hall to forbid a homosexual reception there because of their religion.

[ponderingturtle]

You are phrasing the question in a way that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the function of Section 1. That section is the mechanism by which the government must justify to the court that a piece of legislation limits the scope of a particular protected right (i.e., it cannot take away a right) in a manner that is consistent with a free and democratic society.

For example, imagine that the government amended the Civil Marriage Act to say that religious groups had to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex marriages or related events (like wedding receptions). This would inevitably be challenged in court as a limit on the right to religious freedom. The government would then have the burden of proof to justify this limitation under Section 1. There is a specific legal test by which this is done. (Oakes test)

Do religious groups have a different legal status than religious individuals?

[D'rok]

Do religious groups have a different legal status than religious individuals?
Constitutionally? Yes and no. There are no explicit group rights in the Canadian Charter with two partial exceptions: s. 25, which enshrines pre-existing aboriginal treaty rights; and s. 15(2), which explicitly allows for affirmative action policies. But all of the various individual rights (especially including the freedom of association right) add up to protection for groups. Groups are made up of rights-bearing individuals with the right to associate with one another. There is de facto protection of group rights when an individual in that group succesfully invokes Charter protection for an activity or core value of that group.

Also, anti-discrmination measures are individual rights based on group memberhsip.

So, a religious group enjoys constitutionally protected rights for all of the above reasons.

[arthwollipot]

From Rev. J Huber (http://www.jhuger.com/learn) (author of Kissing Hank's Ass, which some here may be familiar with):

In the late 1700s some people wanted democratic rule. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that the king ruled by God's will.

In the mid 1800s some people wanted to end slavery. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God approved of slavery.

In the early 1900s some people wanted to give women the vote. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God made women inferior to men.

In the mid 1900s some people wanted to end segregation. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved God wanted to keep the races separate.

When you look back at how your parents and grandparents dealt with these things, are you ashamed or proud?

Now some people want to allow gay marriage. Conservative elements of the church are pointing to the Bible and saying it proves God hates homosexuality.

When your children and grandchildren look back at how you deal with this, will they be ashamed or proud?

[D'rok]

So the answer is maybe.
Over-simplification. The answer is yes, but there are competing rights claims.

Also, I'm a legal student, not a legal expert. My opinion is informed, not authoritative.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree completely. The law has no business definining marriage in any way.

And because it cannot define marriage, it has no business recognizing it, either.

So deport all those with marriage visa's.

[TragicMonkey]

So deport all those with marriage visa's.

Or grant everyone "I'm f***ing a citizen" visas. Why should the state recognize some couplings and not others?

[ponderingturtle]

Constitutionally? Yes and no. There are no explicit group rights in the Canadian Charter with two partial exceptions: s. 25, which enshrines pre-existing aboriginal treaty rights; and s. 15(2), which explicitly allows for affirmative action policies. But all of the various individual rights (especially including the freedom of association right) add up to protection for groups. Groups are made up of rights-bearing individuals with the right to associate with one another. There is de facto protection of group rights when an individual in that group succesfully invokes Charter protection for an activity or core value of that group.

Also, anti-discrmination measures are individual rights based on group memberhsip.

So, a religious group enjoys constitutionally protected rights for all of the above reasons.

So can any business owned by an religious individual discriminate how ever they want as long as they can back it up with religion? This could be refusing to rent to non married hetero couples as well as homosexual couples.

In the US you do have the freedom to discriminate in your customers in this fashion, it seems that you do in canada.

[ponderingturtle]

Over-simplification. The answer is yes, but there are competing rights claims.

Also, I'm a legal student, not a legal expert. My opinion is informed, not authoritative.

So it seems that as long as someone can show a religious group that shows the discriminatory idea they can discriminate based on anything that they want.

[pgwenthold]

Re: Somerville

I have friends who just went through IVF with an egg donor.

I am trying to understand, does she think they should allowed to be married or not?

Applying the "reproductive technology is wrong" argument only against gay marriage sounds like special pleading to me.

And this is the BEST non-religious argument that can be made?

[The Atheist]

Or grant everyone "I'm f***ing a citizen" visas. Why should the state recognize some couplings and not others?

Because the majority of voters want it.

[applecorped]

frickin democracy

[KingMerv00]

Or grant everyone "I'm f***ing a citizen" visas. Why should the state recognize some couplings and not others?

Technically, you don't have to have sex to be married so marriage isn't really about sex. It is about two people getting together and agreeing to share legal responsibilities.

[bruto]

Technically, you don't have to have sex to be married so marriage isn't really about sex. It is about two people getting together and agreeing to share legal responsibilities.I would have to disagree to some extent about this. I think marriage is at least in part about sexual relationships, even if it also involves other agreements of shared responsibilities. We cannot marry our parents or our siblings or some guy who lives down the street but thinks it would be cool to save on health insurance.

Interestingly, also, after the civil union law was passed in Vermont, some of its most vehement opponents began lobbying to extend it to include such non-sexual partnerships. This would have removed the explicitly sexual aspect of what had been authorized, and I suspect, though it was never said outright as far as I know, by decoupling sex from the union it would have allowed the state to meet its constitional obligation while still allowing the opponents of homosexuality to lobby against social acceptance or even to push for regressive laws against certain sexual practices. A civil union law that allows, for example, siblings to become partners without overturning laws against incest, would also make homosexual partnerships compatible with sodomy laws.

[ThunderChunky]

I agree with some of the previous posts...Why should the government recognize marriage in any form? Let the private sector handle contracts between individuals.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I agree with some of the previous posts...Why should the government recognize marriage in any form? Let the private sector handle contracts between individuals.

Yes, let the private sector handle power of attorney, adoption rights, etc. I'm sure everything will work out fine...

[KingMerv00]

I would have to disagree to some extent about this. I think marriage is at least in part about sexual relationships, even if it also involves other agreements of shared responsibilities. We cannot marry our parents or our siblings or some guy who lives down the street but thinks it would be cool to save on health insurance.

Interestingly, also, after the civil union law was passed in Vermont, some of its most vehement opponents began lobbying to extend it to include such non-sexual partnerships. This would have removed the explicitly sexual aspect of what had been authorized, and I suspect, though it was never said outright as far as I know, by decoupling sex from the union it would have allowed the state to meet its constitional obligation while still allowing the opponents of homosexuality to lobby against social acceptance or even to push for regressive laws against certain sexual practices. A civil union law that allows, for example, siblings to become partners without overturning laws against incest, would also make homosexual partnerships compatible with sodomy laws.

But you still don't need to have sex to get married. The requirement of consummation is a religious issue not a legal one. (I think.)

[six7s]

What kind of "power" can the "heterosexual establishment" reasonably be claimed to have in the first place?Please note there's no disrespect intended, to you arth, when I say 'Huh? Since when did reason enter the debate?'

[The Atheist]

But you still don't need to have sex to get married. The requirement of consummation is a religious issue not a legal one. (I think.)

You'd be 100% correct.

[plumjam]

But you still don't need to have sex to get married. The requirement of consummation is a religious issue not a legal one. (I think.)
Reminds me of an argument we had on our wedding night. :(

[Cavemonster]

Marriage is a certain type of union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been, and that is what it always will be. It was established this way by a much higher power than any court, legislature, or government of mortal mankind, and I reject the idea that any mortal government has the least bit of authority to define it otherwise.

This is historically false. Marriage has in the past at times been a union between a man and many women. In ancient Rome, Marriage could be between two men. The same in some native American Tribes.

So it only holds that marriage has always been between a man and a woman if you mean within Christian circles. Since we are not a Christian nation, this is a non-issue.

[Erigena]

Yes, this seems to be the argument they are going with these days. Arguing against religion (to the religious) isn't going to work so my question is where are they going to get this message that homosexuality is acceptable?

School? Public schools can't seem to get kids to read or write yet suddenly little Johnny gets 100% on the "gay is ok" test?

Popular Culture? It's 2009, where are the gays NOT?

Their argument seems to boil down to the belief that a straight child can be "made gay" by factors outside the parent's influence.
I agree. There are a lot of people that believe exposure to homosexuality translates to learned behavior and all the kids will want to be gay. The reality is the reason homosexuality exists cannot be accurately determined by one factor and that makes people very uncomfortable. They forget that as natural as it is for heterosexual people to be attracted to each other, it is as natural for homosexual people to be attracted to each other. They are fearful of what they can't understand. Fear stems from an inability to control a situation. To lose control is to lose power. It's unfortunate that ignorance breeds intolerance. In 50 years we're going to wonder what the big deal was.

[thull]

"It is degenerate in that it tends to reverse the existing order. It is essentially immoral in that it will undignify marriage. It is ruinous to the progress of civilization in that it conduces to undermine religion."
- Dr. Cyrus Townsend Brady, arguing against women's suffrage, 1915.

arthwollipot already hit on this point. I just find it enjoyable that they are at least consistent in their reasons for discrimination.

[bruto]

But you still don't need to have sex to get married. The requirement of consummation is a religious issue not a legal one. (I think.)Yes, indeed, but I think the legal option of consummation is required: you can't marry someone with whom you are not legally allowed consensual sex, and it's in that sense that I mean marriage has a distinctly and specifically sexual component.

[thull]

"legally allowed consensual sex"

isn't that all sex that isn't rape?

[KingMerv00]

Yes, indeed, but I think the legal option of consummation is required: you can't marry someone with whom you are not legally allowed consensual sex, and it's in that sense that I mean marriage has a distinctly and specifically sexual component.

We don't require sex for marriage so how can we logically use it as a defining characteristic?

"legally allowed consensual sex"

isn't that all sex that isn't rape?

He is referring to incest I believe. Incest could be consensual but illegal. Sodomy used to be illegal too.

[arthwollipot]

Please note there's no disrespect intended, to you arth, when I say 'Huh? Since when did reason enter the debate?'Fair point.

Why should reason not enter the debate now?

[six7s]

Fair point.

Why should reason not enter the debate now?Another fair point :)

Seriously, I think its less a question of shouldn't and more a case of can't, simply because homophobia is - like any ignorance-fueled fear - unreasonable

Of course, if the ignorance is not willful, education and self-help can reduce the phobia to the point where reasoned debate is possible

[Alt+F4]

- Dr. Cyrus Townsend Brady, arguing against women's suffrage, 1915.

arthwollipot already hit on this point. I just find it enjoyable that they are at least consistent in their reasons for discrimination.

Someone read my sig. and got the connection. Thank you!

[Arus808]

No.
Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's an illness.

No, it isn't. I currently have a friend who just "came" out of the closet to say the least (he was in a 7 year straight relationship) and was pretty much miserable.

He is now going through a sex-reorientation process, and he is now a much happier person to finally come to terms with his sexual orientation.

He doesn't consider it an illness. what he considers to be an "illness" is those who think they can consider homosexuality as an illness when it is not, and is supported by medical fact that it isn't.

[DC]

No, it isn't. I currently have a friend who just "came" out of the closet to say the least (he was in a 7 year straight relationship) and was pretty much miserable.

He is now going through a sex-reorientation process, and he is now a much happier person to finally come to terms with his sexual orientation.

He doesn't consider it an illness. what he considers to be an "illness" is those who think they can consider homosexuality as an illness when it is not, and is supported by medical fact that it isn't.

really? not that i belive it is an illness, but i have no clue about it :)

[Arus808]

Re: Somerville

I have friends who just went through IVF with an egg donor.

I am trying to understand, does she think they should allowed to be married or not?

Applying the "reproductive technology is wrong" argument only against gay marriage sounds like special pleading to me.

And this is the BEST non-religious argument that can be made?


Agreed. if that is the best they can come up with, it only shows again, how weak their argument is in the first place.

[The Atheist]

No, it isn't.

I know - I was taking the piss.

[Arus808]

I know - I was taking the piss.

Yeah I know.. Just wanted to share what a close friend of mines is going through and what he feels today.

He was unhappy in a straight relationship, because society "forced" him to be straight, when all along he is actually gay. Now going through the sex reorientation (or reclassification) process, he is definitely a happier person. and sees all these arguments against gay marriage as just the ignorance and hatred of those who dont understand.

[Dorian Gray]

Why should a modern secular state be recognizing informal religious practices of this nature? Let them pursue their own "business" without state regulation or benefits or protection. If they want to cosign a mortgage, or slather each other's naughty bits in reproductive juices, fine. But why should the state and their fellow citizens be obliged to "recognize" these tawdry affairs?

Let them conduct their "business arrangements" in whatever seedy dive they first propose them, without offending the eyes and sensibilities of more practical people!Perhaps you, I don't know, completely failed whatsoever to read my earlier post?

But I'm fairly certain you're confusing 'sex' with 'marriage', since sex can happen without any state recognition or involvement whatsoever, provided it's legal. On the other hand, the state SHOULD be obliged to recognize two people cosigning on a mortgage, since it's a business arrangement that doesn't even require the partners to be married, and can hardly be considered a 'tawdry affair', as you put it.

Finally, I'd like to kick the last nail in on your argument: One not need be religious, nor even believe in any sort of deity, to get married. Thus, marriage isn't necessarily even a religious practice, formal or informal. It is, as I have stated, a business arrangement.

Why should a capitalist state be recognizing business arrangements, including merging finances, legal partnerships involving personal property, real estate, vehicles, businesses, and arrangements involving child care versus future earnings, inheritance and benefits, legal arrangements all?

Gosh, I don't know. :rolleyes:

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps you, I don't know, completely failed whatsoever to read my earlier post?

But I'm fairly certain you're confusing 'sex' with 'marriage', since sex can happen without any state recognition or involvement whatsoever, provided it's legal. On the other hand, the state SHOULD be obliged to recognize two people cosigning on a mortgage, since it's a business arrangement that doesn't even require the partners to be married, and can hardly be considered a 'tawdry affair', as you put it.

Finally, I'd like to kick the last nail in on your argument: One not need be religious, nor even believe in any sort of deity, to get married. Thus, marriage isn't necessarily even a religious practice, formal or informal. It is, as I have stated, a business arrangement.

Why should a capitalist state be recognizing business arrangements, including merging finances, legal partnerships involving personal property, real estate, vehicles, businesses, and arrangements involving child care versus future earnings, inheritance and benefits, legal arrangements all?

Gosh, I don't know. :rolleyes:

No, I just don't agree with your post, or your assumptions. Marriage is an ancient custom, a holdover from primitive times. So what if you're not religious? Congrats--you kicked one obsolete practice. Did you think that was the only one?

Why on earth is formalizing a mating relationship so necessary? Why is it a given that every society and every government, no matter how enlightened, should kowtow to this ancient and ridiculous custom?

As for the business matters, those are incidental to the marriage. Benefits tacked on to marriage can hardly be used to justify marriage to begin with--that's backwards. It's like giving benefits to people who have children because they need help raising them, then saying the reason people have the children is to get the benefits!

As has been frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, there is no legal matter that can be arranged by marrieds that cannot be arranged by a pair of singles.

Marriage isn't necessary to the state or society. If you wish to pair up, feel free. But why should special treatment follow? To make it easier for some people? Why should that happen?

[ponderingturtle]

No, I just don't agree with your post, or your assumptions. Marriage is an ancient custom, a holdover from primitive times. So what if you're not religious? Congrats--you kicked one obsolete practice. Did you think that was the only one?

Why on earth is formalizing a mating relationship so necessary? Why is it a given that every society and every government, no matter how enlightened, should kowtow to this ancient and ridiculous custom?

So you ignored the whole issue I raised with immigration. That is one of many reasons why having govermental recognition of a relationship is something many people want. Now maybe you want everyone who ever got a marriage visa deported, I don't know.

As for the business matters, those are incidental to the marriage. Benefits tacked on to marriage can hardly be used to justify marriage to begin with--that's backwards. It's like giving benefits to people who have children because they need help raising them, then saying the reason people have the children is to get the benefits!

People get married to have recognition of their relationship. This creates many legal changes, well over a thousand.

As has been frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, there is no legal matter that can be arranged by marrieds that cannot be arranged by a pair of singles.

This is simply a lie. How do singles get a marriage visa? How do you arrainge for legal standing for two singles?

Some of them can be arranged, but many can not. So the only way to can say that is to ignore or reject the rights and effects that can not be arranged. If you reject them you should still acknowledge them.

[bruto]

As has been frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, there is no legal matter that can be arranged by marrieds that cannot be arranged by a pair of singles.



What country are you in? If you are in the United States, I don't think you've looked very carefully at this.

Many things are frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, but unfortunately opponents of gay marriage are frequently either ignorant, disingenuous, or both.

[pgwenthold]

As has been frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, there is no legal matter that can be arranged by marrieds that cannot be arranged by a pair of singles.

OK, so we have a pair of singles who create a legal agreement to share certain benefits and properties.

Others see that legal agreement and think, "I like that, we want to do what they did."

In fact, so many people are doing this, that the government just creates a standard contract that people can opt into, just to save the hassle of everyone having to do it themselves. Now, no one has to chose to use that contract, and is perfectly able to customize one for themselves, but few chose to do it.

Whether you call it "marriage" or not, what's the difference? A rose by any other name...

Is that standard contract available to all couples, or just certain ones? That's the issue at hand in gay marriage.

Standard format contracts are common all over the place. For example, Major League Baseball has an agreed upon contract format for new players who are called up from the minor leagues in the middle of the season, because it is a real hassle and cost for every player to have to negotiate the details of their major league contract in the short time required in order to play, and ultimately the contracts that result are pretty much the same anyway. So why require each individual to reinvent the wheel, when they are going to end up with pretty much the same wheel, anyway? Yes, they still have the option of including various particulars into their contract if they want, but most don't do it.

[ponderingturtle]

Whether you call it "marriage" or not, what's the difference? A rose by any other name...

Would have to meet different legal standards when shipped to a different country. The international benefits of marriage are significant to. For example I would suspect that a Canadian or Dutch homosexual marriage has more international legal weight than a British Civil Union.

[Autolite]

If gay marriage is legalized, who will be harmed and in what way?

I'm bettin' it's going to be lawyers who will suffer financially. The majority of heterosexual marriages end in divorce... :D

[KingMerv00]

As has been frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, there is no legal matter that can be arranged by marrieds that cannot be arranged by a pair of singles.

That's simply not accurate (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm).

One right that tends to get overlooked is the right to legal recourse (#15 on the list). If a woman is killed due to negligence, a husband can sue for all sorts of things but her girlfriend cannot. What private arrangement between singles would correct that?

[Senex]

If gay marriage is legalized, who will be harmed and in what way?


OK, I didn't want to say but since you've been pressing and pressing the point I'll tell you who is harmed. ME! Who did you think?

I'm not against gay marriage but if gays can marry then on some level I think marriage has served its purpose and we should all be on a level playing field from now on.

Marriage has been a societal economic scam since day one to encourage male and females to procreate. Do you know why gay people want to marry? I'll tell you why -- because you get extra benefits/rights if you are married. Yes, see the light and and realize they want rights a single person like me doesn't possess. It's all greed.

Society has previously tried to give financial/psychological incentives to procreate. You can deduct children from your taxes and get advantages by filling out a dual 1040 form. You can have social security surviver benefits if you are married. You can share health benefits if you are married. Society tried to give advantages to the procreaters because we need children. Who is going to take care of me in my old age and allow me to oogle young girls in bikinis if people don't procreate? I'm a single guy who isn't procreating so I'll let that one go. I agree to give the procreaters a break.

OK, gay people are like me who don't procreate (we don't procreate for different reasons -- not that there is anything wrong with that :rolleyes: ) don't get these advantages. I agree gay people should be treated equal -- but if gay people get the rights of married people than I think i should be able to pick someone at random to pick and share benefits with. Now the haves are married heterosexuals and the have nots non-married whatever --- soon the haves will be people with partners and the have nots people without partners. Well screw that! In this situation I'm a have not (always have, I guess always will). I don't want to sit here and see gay people (who can't procreate anymore than I can by myself see biology 101) jump over me on the have scale.

If gay people can marry than marriage is no longer relevant to our community as a method of economic incentive.

I have nothing against gay marriage -- just realize when they can marry I should also be allowed to drink at the rights of the married economic trough. I don't wish to be screwed still being a second class citizen when other non-procreaters can drink at the trough. No sir. Sign me up for those marital right although I'm not procreating.

[KingMerv00]

As has been frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, there is no legal matter that can be arranged by marrieds that cannot be arranged by a pair of singles.

I just noticed a logical disconnect here.

You seem to be OK with the idea of contracting legal benefits between two people. Why do you care if the two people MAYBE have sex and we call those benefits "marriage"?

[ponderingturtle]

I have nothing against gay marriage -- just realize when they can marry I should also be allowed to drink at the rights of the married economic trough. I don't wish to be screwed still being a second class citizen when other non-procreaters can drink at the trough. No sir. Sign me up for those marital right although I'm not procreating.

You know you don't need to have kids to get married, just find some woman and convince her to marry you. Marriage is not very much about children at all, and you also totally ignore homosexuals with children.

[TragicMonkey]

I just noticed a logical disconnect here.

You seem to be OK with the idea of contracting legal benefits between two people. Why do you care if the two people MAYBE have sex and we call those benefits "marriage"?

Because, as a skeptic, I don't hold something holy just because it's very old. "Tradition". That's what marriage is. People get married because they want to get married, and as long as the state is handing out perks for doing so, yeah, people are going to accept them. Who turns down free stuff? But the underlying assumption is that marriage is necessary, that the state has an interest in it, and that for some reason this is all so essential and fundamental to civilization that nobody questions it.

Well, I do. The question isn't should another class of people be allowed to partake of this wonderful institution, it's why should this institution continue to exist? What benefit does it provide to the civilization, that it merits recognition?

I don't think the answer is "it's a shortcut on paperwork for some people who want to buy a house and stuff".

And sorry, but I can't keep up the pace of this thread, so I can't argue back and forth with everybody. I'm sure that means I lose a million points or something. My position is quite simple, it's that marriage is a voluntary arrangement private between the parties involved, and there is no compelling reason for state interest, recognition, codifying, acknowledgement, or other.

And I'd say that most of the "perks", involving property and insurance and such, is holdover from the days when every married couple had one provider and one homemaker. This seems outdated.

[Senex]

You know you don't need to have kids to get married, just find some woman and convince her to marry you. Marriage is not very much about children at all, and you also totally ignore homosexuals with children.

You seem to have missed my point. I could have found a woman to marry me a number of times -- and I have experience with homosexuals with children.

You've embarrassed yourself guessing I'm an uninformed idiot. I may be an informed idiot who can defend his at first look uninformed opinion.

[ponderingturtle]

You seem to have missed my point. I could have found a woman to marry me a number of times -- and I have experience with homosexuals with children.

You've embarrassed yourself guessing I'm an uninformed idiot. I may be an informed idiot who can defend his at first look uninformed opinion.

Then what are you complaining about? You have access to everything.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think the answer is "it's a shortcut on paperwork for some people who want to buy a house and stuff".

And jumping the que for immigration is also so wrong, people need to be willing to wait for years to live with their partners, how else would you know that they love them.

And I'd say that most of the "perks", involving property and insurance and such, is holdover from the days when every married couple had one provider and one homemaker. This seems outdated.

Just like living in the same country.

[Senex]

Then what are you complaining about? You have access to everything.

For whatever reason I have decided to be a single heterosexual non-procreating person. Why should I have less rights than other people who live a non-procreating lifestyle? Why should I be a second/third class citizen? Why can't I find someone on the internet who I can merge health and social security future with if it it isn't about procreating?

[ponderingturtle]

For whatever reason I have decided to be a single heterosexual non-procreating person. Why should I have less rights than other people who live a non-procreating lifestyle?

You don't.

Why can't I find someone on the internet who I can merge health and social security future with if it it isn't about procreating?

Then find that person and marry them. Marriage is not about procreation, it is about two people merging their lives together in a permanent fashion.

[bruto]

Because, as a skeptic, I don't hold something holy just because it's very old. "Tradition". That's what marriage is. People get married because they want to get married, and as long as the state is handing out perks for doing so, yeah, people are going to accept them. Who turns down free stuff? But the underlying assumption is that marriage is necessary, that the state has an interest in it, and that for some reason this is all so essential and fundamental to civilization that nobody questions it.

Well, I do. The question isn't should another class of people be allowed to partake of this wonderful institution, it's why should this institution continue to exist? What benefit does it provide to the civilization, that it merits recognition?

I don't think the answer is "it's a shortcut on paperwork for some people who want to buy a house and stuff".

And sorry, but I can't keep up the pace of this thread, so I can't argue back and forth with everybody. I'm sure that means I lose a million points or something. My position is quite simple, it's that marriage is a voluntary arrangement private between the parties involved, and there is no compelling reason for state interest, recognition, codifying, acknowledgement, or other.

And I'd say that most of the "perks", involving property and insurance and such, is holdover from the days when every married couple had one provider and one homemaker. This seems outdated.

Granted, there might be other ways to implement the various perks and obligations of marriage, if one wanted to address them individually. Laws could be passed to redefine and redraw pretty much anything if needed, but since these laws have not been passed, we still have a package that comes with marriage: joint tax payment, rights of survivorship, estate tax exemptions, joint tenancy by the entirety, medical decision making, preferential conservatorship, access to information, public assistance, immigration issues, the privilege of non-incrimination, and so forth. Go ahead and try to change those laws, and abolish civil marriage if you can. Take the rights away from everyone if you can. But until then, it's a civil rights issue for families centered around a gay couple, because until then those families are denied equal protection by law, and that is true whether or not you like the law.

[Cavemonster]

You don't.



Then find that person and marry them. Marriage is not about procreation, it is about two people merging their lives together in a permanent fashion.

Well the one problem is that (at least in the US) we sort of legislate an "emotional" or "social" element to it. For instance, if there is suspicion that a marriage is undertaken solely for certain legal benefit (such as a greencard).

This makes sense, in that it's a reasonable thing for the government to allow a couple to live together even if one member is not a citizen. And allowing anyone to transfer the benefit of citizenship would subvert government control of immigration (and even though there are severe problems, there is still some control at least)

I know a lot of people would have a problem with the government evaluating the sincerity of an emotional bond as a pre-requisite for a contract, but as shown with the example above, it's an unavoidable expedient for many of the important rights assosiated with marriage.

[Senex]

Then find that person and marry them. Marriage is not about procreation, it is about two people merging their lives together in a permanent fashion.

I don't want to marry them. I want someone to negotiate my health/life insurance just like if I was married. Why am I a second class citizen? Gay people can't procreate. They are looking for extra benefits like I am. What's the difference if I get to pick someone random off the internet?

[KingMerv00]

I just noticed a logical disconnect here.

You seem to be OK with the idea of contracting legal benefits between two people. Why do you care if the two people MAYBE have sex and we call those benefits "marriage"?

Because, as a skeptic, I don't hold something holy just because it's very old. "Tradition". That's what marriage is. People get married because they want to get married, and as long as the state is handing out perks for doing so, yeah, people are going to accept them. Who turns down free stuff? But the underlying assumption is that marriage is necessary, that the state has an interest in it, and that for some reason this is all so essential and fundamental to civilization that nobody questions it.

Well, I do. The question isn't should another class of people be allowed to partake of this wonderful institution, it's why should this institution continue to exist? What benefit does it provide to the civilization, that it merits recognition?

I don't think the answer is "it's a shortcut on paperwork for some people who want to buy a house and stuff".

And sorry, but I can't keep up the pace of this thread, so I can't argue back and forth with everybody. I'm sure that means I lose a million points or something. My position is quite simple, it's that marriage is a voluntary arrangement private between the parties involved, and there is no compelling reason for state interest, recognition, codifying, acknowledgement, or other.

And I'd say that most of the "perks", involving property and insurance and such, is holdover from the days when every married couple had one provider and one homemaker. This seems outdated.

I don't think you answered my question. You are ok with individuals contracting for the perks so long as they don't have sex and call the process "marriage". That doesn't make sense. What if we just called the contract "financial entanglement". Would that be better?

Also, you didn't answer this:

That's simply not accurate (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm).

One right that tends to get overlooked is the right to legal recourse (#15 on the list). If a woman is killed due to negligence, a husband can sue for all sorts of things but her girlfriend cannot. What private arrangement between singles would correct that?

[Cavemonster]

I don't want to marry them. I want someone to negotiate my health/life insurance just like if I was married. Why am I a second class citizen? Gay people can't procreate. They are looking for extra benefits like I am. What's the difference if I get to pick someone random off the internet?

I believe you can assign anyone you want as your life insurance beneficiary. And as for health insurance, if you live in the US, that's between you and your employer, it isn't a right given by the government, but a decision taken by your employer to recognize marriage. Take it up with your company.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't want to marry them. I want someone to negotiate my health/life insurance just like if I was married. Why am I a second class citizen? Gay people can't procreate. They are looking for extra benefits like I am. What's the difference if I get to pick someone random off the internet?

And I would like to be able to make tax deductions like people who donate lots of money to non profit organizations. For some reason that is not taken seriously.

[Cavemonster]

I don't think you answered my question. You are ok with individuals contracting for the perks so long as they don't have sex and call the process "marriage". That doesn't make sense. What if we just called the contract "financial entanglement". Would that be better?

Also, you didn't answer this:

I think his issue is that he doesn't want the sex/emotion to be required for the contract, which it sort of isn't but in some ways sort of is (see above)

[Senex]

I believe you can assign anyone you want as your life insurance beneficiary. And as for health insurance, if you live in the US, that's between you and your employer, it isn't a right given by the government, but a decision taken by your employer to recognize marriage. Take it up with your company.

You miss the point. I'm a single guy pissing against the wind. Face it -- gay people with a partner want to become one of the haves and are ready to leave me and my kind in the dust of the have nots. Don't try and put a kind face on it. You think you are better than me. Yes, you got a partner, good for you. I guees it's time to financially exploit me. Go for it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There are three interests in a marriage, each of the two people, and society. People who pretend it is just between the two private people are from the start working with a new definition.

Why have marriage? Because the institution benefits society and both of the individuals. Our laws have to take into account family relations, and marriage is the way in which new families are started, even if only the partners are the ones in it. This is why the partners benefit from societal recognition. Married people also are happier, healthier, better off financially, and live longer. Cohabitants don't show all these, they are in a different institution. This is why society benefits by recognizing marriage.

As for children, both gay and straight couples are equally good at raising children. A stable married couple is the best environment for the new members of society to grow up in.

[Cavemonster]

You miss the point. I'm a single guy pissing against the wind. Face it -- gay people with a partner want to become one of the haves and are ready to leave me and my kind in the dust of the have nots. Don't try and put a kind face on it. You think you are better than me. Yes, you got a partner, good for you. I guees it's time to financially exploit me. Go for it.

What are you talking about? You named life and health insurance as two things you wish you had the same rights for as married people. I pointed out that in the eyes of the law, you do have the right to pick a random guy from the internet and share those benefits you mentioned.

Who do you imagine is screwing you over?

[Dorian Gray]

Because, as a skeptic, I don't hold something holy just because it's very old. "Tradition". That's what marriage is. People get married because they want to get married, and as long as the state is handing out perks for doing so, yeah, people are going to accept them. Who turns down free stuff? But the underlying assumption is that marriage is necessary, that the state has an interest in it, and that for some reason this is all so essential and fundamental to civilization that nobody questions it.

Well, I do. The question isn't should another class of people be allowed to partake of this wonderful institution, it's why should this institution continue to exist? What benefit does it provide to the civilization, that it merits recognition?

I don't think the answer is "it's a shortcut on paperwork for some people who want to buy a house and stuff".

And sorry, but I can't keep up the pace of this thread, so I can't argue back and forth with everybody. I'm sure that means I lose a million points or something. My position is quite simple, it's that marriage is a voluntary arrangement private between the parties involved, and there is no compelling reason for state interest, recognition, codifying, acknowledgement, or other.

And I'd say that most of the "perks", involving property and insurance and such, is holdover from the days when every married couple had one provider and one homemaker. This seems outdated. MANY laws are based on tradition and are very old. Do you feel that way about laws on everything from owning property to owning a business to not murdering people to not stealing from people? And if not, why not?

Also, there are legal benefits for a whole host of different situations, from being black, to being a woman, to taking a loss on a house, to owing interest on student loans, etc., and marriage is just one of those. Do you have a problem with all of those being legally recognized by the government? And again, if not, why not?

If you don't like marriage, don't do it. But the vast majority of people on the planet like it, seek it, and want it. Just because there's some sort of disconnect in your brain that causes you to detest marriage, that's no reason for you to defy logic, reason and sense in your arguments.

You're not being a skeptic, either. You're basically just saying you don't like marriage. I've already ruled out marriage as being necessarily religious or holy, and there are no false or unproven claims being made. Skepticism doesn't really apply.

[Senex]

What are you talking about? You named life and health insurance as two things you wish you had the same rights for as married people. I pointed out that in the eyes of the law, you do have the right to pick a random guy from the internet and share those benefits you mentioned.

Who do you imagine is screwing you over?

I don't imagine anyone is screwing me over (well maybe Cindy Crawford, but that's only during REM).

I do think that those rascal gay people are trying to have surviver benefits I don't have access to. Let's just call the whole thing equal. ;)

[Arus808]

I do think that those rascal gay people are trying to have surviver benefits I don't have access to. Let's just call the whole thing equal. ;)

no they want the same protection afforded to them that married couples have, like being able to give opinions on the health care of their partner. Survivor benefits (should the partner pass away, or die accidentally), and determine best course of medical care (ie take them off of life support, VISITATION in the hospital, etc).

Say you spend 35 years with your wife, and she's on her death bed (and there is no Will). Cannot be saved, and she passes away; as her husband, you are entitled to her property upon her death, should there be no other parties involved to send her property into probate. You get everything. Also being a survivor, you are also entitled to her get her Social Security benefits.

Currently, gay couples (without that legal document stating they are together) cannot do this, in many states. If a gay couple has been together for 35 years, the property of the person who died, goes automatically into probate, and the Social SEcurity benefts are not given to the surviving partner.

How is this equal and fair?

[Soapy Sam]

Historically, most law is conservative- an attempt to regulate change in favour of a status quo suitable to the power group of the day. Occasional reform in favour of the less powerful tends to be a last minute attempt to stave off a far worse social revolution.

Most laws are about the defense of property rights of the wealthy.

It's hard to see how this applies to something like homosexuality which cuts across lines of power and wealth.
Had the Barons put a clause in Magna Carta permitting gay marriage, who would have been hurt?
The Barons.
If property defaults to a first son , who marries another man, who inherits in the next generation?

There would seem to be easy solutions- a cousin, a younger brother etc. Is it so important to a man for his son to inherit his lands and titles? I don't know. I never had any sons, but nor do I hold land or title. It certainly doesn't matter to me- but perhaps I'm not warlord material.

I am, however at least as homophobic as most straight males of my generation, in that I was raised thinking of "queers" as perverts and homosexual sex as "wrong". This took some shaking off and I honestly don't think I will ever accept a gay marriage as being "normal" in the way I view a heterosexual one. Younger people, with less conditioning to unlearn may have no trouble with this- but in later life they may face similar dilemmas over (say) multiple marriage, polyandrous marriage, marriage to animals, children, AIs or whatever society throws up next.

Society is about conditioning and conditioning has inertia. The intriguing thing about homosexual marriage is that there seems no obvious reason why it might not have been permitted at any time in the past- and yet it either was not, or it died out.

My gut suspicion is that while we may flirt with the idea for a generation or two, it will briefly flourish, then go the way that marriage in general appears to be going.

[TragicMonkey]

MANY laws are based on tradition and are very old. Do you feel that way about laws on everything from owning property to owning a business to not murdering people to not stealing from people? And if not, why not?

Do you have a problem with female genital mutilation and spousal rape? After all, those are traditional and very old.

As I thought I already said, we should keep the traditions that make sense and serve a purpose. I don't see marriage as having met those requirements.

Also, there are legal benefits for a whole host of different situations, from being black, to being a woman, to taking a loss on a house, to owing interest on student loans, etc., and marriage is just one of those. Do you have a problem with all of those being legally recognized by the government? And again, if not, why not?

Actually, yes. It does seem unfair to grant priveleges to people based on their sex or race. As for buying a house or having loans, why should personal property acquisition on your part necessitate perks and benefits from the rest of us? You bought yourself a house, here's some free money! Nevermind the people who don't own houses because they are too poor. They're fine as they are, and happy to contribute to your happiness.


If you don't like marriage, don't do it. But the vast majority of people on the planet like it, seek it, and want it. Just because there's some sort of disconnect in your brain that causes you to detest marriage, that's no reason for you to defy logic, reason and sense in your arguments.

Belief in God: the vast majority of people on the planet like it, seek it, and want it. Just because there's some sort of disconnect in your brain that causes you to detest theism, that's no reason for you to defy logic, reason and sense in your arguments.


You're not being a skeptic, either. You're basically just saying you don't like marriage. I've already ruled out marriage as being necessarily religious or holy, and there are no false or unproven claims being made. Skepticism doesn't really apply.

And I think you're just saying you like marriage. And that's fine. If people like it and want to get married, they should be able to. But the rest of society shouldn't have to endorse it and reward it. Why should it? What's in it for everybody else? The only arguments I'm seeing are "oh, they live longer!" and "it's easier to buy a house" and "it makes immigration simpler". Which are all wonderful perks...for the people in the marriage. What does it benefit the rest of the society?

[bruto]

Why should it? What's in it for everybody else? The only arguments I'm seeing are "oh, they live longer!" and "it's easier to buy a house" and "it makes immigration simpler". Which are all wonderful perks...for the people in the marriage. What does it benefit the rest of the society?If those are the only arguments you're seeing, you are ignoring some.

I also wonder what kind of view of society you have if the rights of citizens and their families must always be filtered through the question of "what's in it for everybody else?" You are on a dangerously slippery utilitarian slope here with a question that could be cut and pasted into any argument about any minority right or privilege.

[TragicMonkey]

Sigh. Yes, yes, murder and Gestapo. Because I find fault with this:

The perks are there because the married deserve them.
And people get married because they want the perks.

The question is, why does the agency distributing perks (in this case, the state) want to promote marriage? It clearly is, although not so strongly as it used to in that it no longer legally restricts behaviors to only the married.

Let's take two couples. Couple One is Ahitabel and Begasueris. They live in the same house, which they bought together, share a joint bank account, and have lots of sex which resulted in two children, which they are raising together. Couple Two is Cacofotonius and Dulahallanab. They live in the same house, which they bought together, share a joint bank account, and have lots of sex which resulted in two children, which they are raising together.

Couple One is married, Couple Two is not. Explain why Couple One has more legal rights, perks, and benefits under the law than Couple Two.



Because the state, by distributing perks, wishes to engage in social engineering to make marriage the preferable choice. Why? The behaviors of the two couples are identical. What benefit is the state deriving from this course of action, that it pursues it?

I think the perks are all holdovers from earlier times. Traditional marriage used to involve several key activities: a financial safety net for a small group of people (the spouse and children), the encouragement of the production of children (at the same time the discouragement of the production of children outside marriage--hence "bastardy"), the encouragement of limiting sex partners, the encouragement of sex itself (marriage used to be invalidated if it wasn't "consummated", and even today one of the few reasons that bastion of progressive thinking the Catholic Church allows for annulment is failure to consummate), the pooling of property, delineating inheritance (not just property, remember, if you're going to rely on tradition then it goes all the way back to titles and land as well), and yes, religious purposes because most religions encourage marriage as the will of deities.

All of these have been superceded by now. The wife is no longer dependent on her husband for support. The children don't have to be born in wedlock to have a claim on their parents' support. Sex is not required between the spouses, nor are children. Nobody has to get married because they have sex, or children, or because their father orders them to, or because God wants it, or because the duchy needs an heir. There is nothing the married can do that the single can't, and there's nothing the single can do that the married can't, except enjoy the perks granted to the married.

People like to say that marriage makes for a stable society. If that were true, then both divorce and the cohabitation/fornication combo wouldn't be permitted. Not only are the marriage perks social engineering, but they are failed social engineering.

So why different treatment? What's the point?

And if the remaining answer is "to cut through bureaucratic paperwork in achieving certain legal goals", then wouldn't the more logical approach be to simply the bureaucracy rather than keep it complex and invest another institution with its own bureaucracy for the purpose of combatting the rest?

[ponderingturtle]

Couple One is married, Couple Two is not. Explain why Couple One has more legal rights, perks, and benefits under the law than Couple Two.

Because couple one entered into the legal status of marriage.

You seem to be arguing for some sort of common law marriage here. I am against that because I think that marriage should come with rights and responsibilities and that it should not be forced on people. So for common law marriage it would be an opt in as opposed to an opt out system.

But the point is that couple two in your example chose to organize their lives in a way that does not use the legal status of marriage.

[six7s]

Because couple one entered into the legal status of marriage...

...marriage should come with rights and responsibilitiesPlease describe the relevant responsibilities that complement the rights enjoyed by Couple #1

[quixotecoyote]

Please describe the relevant responsibilities that complement the rights enjoyed by Couple #1

Off the top of my head, they are responsible for debts incurred by the other. Alimony and child support come to mind as well.

[Senex]

no they want the same protection afforded to them that married couples have, like being able to give opinions on the health care of their partner. Survivor benefits (should the partner pass away, or die accidentally), and determine best course of medical care (ie take them off of life support, VISITATION in the hospital, etc...

How is this equal and fair?

If you spend 35 years with someone and don't get a legal agreement than the shame is on you, no?

I live in CT and we have gay marriage and that's fine. It's no skin off my nose. However, I agree with Tragicmonkey that when society comes to term with gay marriage it has come to term that marriage is no longer needed.

Face it, marriage is/was a scam to get guys to settle down and procreate with one woman. If you let non-procreaters in on the scam there is no purpose to it. The scam has served its purpose. Don't marginalize the single person (that would be me :rolleyes:) I want as many rights as the next sonofagun. Don't try and jump over me to become one of the haves and think I will smile. I'm smarter than that.

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Senex:

I think you are merely being provocative, but I will play the game anyway.

Ok - so you want the same rights as married people (regardless of whether they are gay or straight), except you don't want to have to be obligated like "married" people. Even if a person marries for convenience (i.e., tax purposes, benefits, legal status in a country) - they are still legally obligated to that "one" person.

Seems to me you "want your cake and eat it too". You want all the rights and frills that married people get, but you don't want to actually have to be married in the sense that you might have to share a home, only have them for a partner, enduring
endless hours and years of the same person every frigging night and day...etc. etc. the monotony (which often leads to divorce and/or infidelity).

Senex, what happens if this person you choose as your "partner" happens to piss you off somewhere down the line - do you simply dump them and assign another person without having to go through any boring legal procedures (like divorce) or will you also be subject to legal hassles and all the problems that go with it?

Seems to me you just want to avoid the hassles associated with marriage yet reap the benefits (don't we all wish). If you ever succeed please tell me where I can sign up.

Sign me married since 1986.

[Senex]

Senex:

I think you are merely being provocative, but I will play the game anyway.
I love the game. You've been married since '86? hehehe... I was an undergraduate in '86. Remember that buff young early 20 year old mowing your neighbors' lawn? That was me and still is. This marriage thing hasn't worked perfectly has it? That young man is still available. (you are a girl, right?)

Seems to me you "want your cake and eat it too".
That's the way Disney might sum up my desires ;)

You want all the rights and frills that married people get, but you don't want to actually have to be married in the sense that you might have to share a home, only have them for a partner, enduring
endless hours and years of the same person every frigging night and day...etc. etc. the monotony (which often leads to divorce and/or infidelity).
Tell me more about the infidelity part.

Senex, what happens if this person you choose as your "partner" happens to piss you off somewhere down the line - do you simply dump them and assign another person without having to go through any boring legal procedures (like divorce) or will you also be subject to legal hassles and all the problems that go with it?
In Senex world you just sign a notarized piece of paper.

Seems to me you just want to avoid the hassles associated with marriage yet reap the benefits (don't we all wish). If you ever succeed please tell me where I can sign up.

Sign me married since 1986.

I just don't see why married people should reap benefits I don't have if procreation is off the table. just because you want to sign a marriage contract with someone shouldn't make them better than me (unless the contract tricks the guy into having children who will entertain and nurse me in my old age -- that's OK and has been the way all these years but now it is being changed).

[six7s]

Please describe the relevant responsibilities that complement the rights enjoyed by Couple #1Off the top of my head, they are responsible for debts incurred by the other. Alimony and child support come to mind as well.So... love, honour, passion, joy, companionship, etc... they're not relevant, huh? OK...

Makes the traditional vows seem somewhat misleading, don't you think?

[Dorian Gray]

Do you have a problem with female genital mutilation and spousal rape? After all, those are traditional and very old.As I thought I already said, we should keep the traditions that make sense and serve a purpose. I don't see marriage as having met those requirements. Thank you for comparing marriage to mutilation. They're so similar, and I'm glad you've decided to remain lucid and coherent.

I don't think I really need to go and point out all the multitude of ways in which marriage meets requirements of both making sense and serving a purpose, many of which appear in this thread - do I? You're not doing that thing where you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell 'LALALALALA laLALALALALA', are you?

Actually, yes. It does seem unfair to grant priveleges to people based on their sex or race. As for buying a house or having loans, why should personal property acquisition on your part necessitate perks and benefits from the rest of us? You bought yourself a house, here's some free money! Nevermind the people who don't own houses because they are too poor. They're fine as they are, and happy to contribute to your happiness. Ah, yes. I had forgotten how much people who don't have jobs and don't pay taxes, yet get a large kickback from the government, have contributed to my housing costs. Thank you for reminding me.

Belief in God: the vast majority of people on the planet like it, seek it, and want it. Just because there's some sort of disconnect in your brain that causes you to detest theism, that's no reason for you to defy logic, reason and sense in your arguments. There are scientific and empirical, i.e., fully supported, reasons to get married - again, many of which have been dropped on your thick skull like so many logic anvils.

And I think you're just saying you like marriage. And that's fine. If people like it and want to get married, they should be able to. But the rest of society shouldn't have to endorse it and reward it. Why should it? What's in it for everybody else? By saying 'if people like marriage and want to get married, they should be able to.' you are LITERALLY ENDORSING IT. The only arguments I'm seeing are "oh, they live longer!" and "it's easier to buy a house" and "it makes immigration simpler". Which are all wonderful perks...for the people in the marriage. What does it benefit the rest of the society? Well, finally you admit that you are ignoring the numerous other arguments that have been laid out before you, focusing on the three you believe you actually have a shot at arguing against.

Are you saying that nothing should be done by anyone unless it benefits all of society? Then you are an utter fool. And if you're not saying that, then you're allowing for some things to be done that do not benefit all of society. Why shouldn't marriage be one of them, since it benefits MOST of society?

[Dorian Gray]

Sigh. Yes, yes, murder and Gestapo. Because I find fault with this:

The perks are there because the married deserve them.
And people get married because they want the perks.

The question is, why does the agency distributing perks (in this case, the state) want to promote marriage? It clearly is, although not so strongly as it used to in that it no longer legally restricts behaviors to only the married.

Let's take two couples. Couple One is Ahitabel and Begasueris. They live in the same house, which they bought together, share a joint bank account, and have lots of sex which resulted in two children, which they are raising together. Couple Two is Cacofotonius and Dulahallanab. They live in the same house, which they bought together, share a joint bank account, and have lots of sex which resulted in two children, which they are raising together.

Couple One is married, Couple Two is not. Explain why Couple One has more legal rights, perks, and benefits under the law than Couple Two.



Because the state, by distributing perks, wishes to engage in social engineering to make marriage the preferable choice. Why? The behaviors of the two couples are identical. What benefit is the state deriving from this course of action, that it pursues it?

I think the perks are all holdovers from earlier times. Traditional marriage used to involve several key activities: a financial safety net for a small group of people (the spouse and children), the encouragement of the production of children (at the same time the discouragement of the production of children outside marriage--hence "bastardy"), the encouragement of limiting sex partners, the encouragement of sex itself (marriage used to be invalidated if it wasn't "consummated", and even today one of the few reasons that bastion of progressive thinking the Catholic Church allows for annulment is failure to consummate), the pooling of property, delineating inheritance (not just property, remember, if you're going to rely on tradition then it goes all the way back to titles and land as well), and yes, religious purposes because most religions encourage marriage as the will of deities.

All of these have been superceded by now. The wife is no longer dependent on her husband for support. The children don't have to be born in wedlock to have a claim on their parents' support. Sex is not required between the spouses, nor are children. Nobody has to get married because they have sex, or children, or because their father orders them to, or because God wants it, or because the duchy needs an heir. There is nothing the married can do that the single can't, and there's nothing the single can do that the married can't, except enjoy the perks granted to the married.

People like to say that marriage makes for a stable society. If that were true, then both divorce and the cohabitation/fornication combo wouldn't be permitted. Not only are the marriage perks social engineering, but they are failed social engineering.

So why different treatment? What's the point?

And if the remaining answer is "to cut through bureaucratic paperwork in achieving certain legal goals", then wouldn't the more logical approach be to simply the bureaucracy rather than keep it complex and invest another institution with its own bureaucracy for the purpose of combatting the rest?
To cut through all your crap, it's the same reason that a person who files corporate papers and runs a business gets rights and privileges that a person who sells crap on a street corner does not...because the first person has taken the extra step of making it legal.

Are you now going to start bitching about how people who have driver licenses get rights and privileges that other people don't get? Fishing licenses? Hey, why shouldn't a person without a pilot's license be allowed to fly a plane just like someone with a pilot's license can? It's just not fair. Why should the rest of society be forced to tolerate this egregious discrimination? :rolleyes:

[TragicMonkey]

Thank you for comparing marriage to mutilation. They're so similar, and I'm glad you've decided to remain lucid and coherent.

Dude, go back one page. You're the one who asked me if was against laws against murder and theft, because I don't believe in marriage. Am I not permitted to respond in kind?

I don't think I really need to go and point out all the multitude of ways in which marriage meets requirements of both making sense and serving a purpose, many of which appear in this thread - do I? You're not doing that thing where you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell 'LALALALALA laLALALALALA', are you?

I guess I must have just missed all the posts that conclusively proved me wrong, then.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten how much people who don't have jobs and don't pay taxes, yet get a large kickback from the government, have contributed to my housing costs. Thank you for reminding me.

Yes, that's true. Because everyone who doesn't own a house is unemployed and pays no taxes.


There are scientific and empirical, i.e., fully supported, reasons to get married - again, many of which have been dropped on your thick skull like so many logic anvils.

Thanks for keeping the civility. Just because you have a bee in your bonnet about marriage is no reason to get abusive.

And again, citing these elusive previously "proven" points. Do you mean the assertion that married people live longer? Even if that were true, and not a statistical anomaly brought on by the fact that most people get married and not taking the divorce rate into account, that doesn't "scientifically" prove that marriage is of benefit to society as a whole.

By saying 'if people like marriage and want to get married, they should be able to.' you are LITERALLY ENDORSING IT. Well, finally you admit that you are ignoring the numerous other arguments that have been laid out before you, focusing on the three you believe you actually have a shot at arguing against.

I don't know how many times I can say this. I don't care about marriage. Get married. Don't get married. But why should the state convey benefits upon those in the married state, and not upon other couples? I'm also supporting anyone who wishes to receive baptism, confirmation, First Communion, or be inducted into the International Harry Potter Fan Club. That's their choice. But I don't see justification for special rights and benefits to be bestowed as a result.

Are you saying that nothing should be done by anyone unless it benefits all of society? Then you are an utter fool.

I'm saying that if someone wants special treatment, they should be able to justify it. Otherwise everyone should be treated the same. Is that utterly foolish? I'd call that utter fairness.

And if you're not saying that, then you're allowing for some things to be done that do not benefit all of society. Why shouldn't marriage be one of them, since it benefits MOST of society?

Does it benefit most of society? Or is society granting benefits to most of its members, the ones who get married? If that's the case, why not grant those benefits to every couple?

[TragicMonkey]

To cut through all your crap, it's the same reason that a person who files corporate papers and runs a business gets rights and privileges that a person who sells crap on a street corner does not...because the first person has taken the extra step of making it legal.

Are you now going to start bitching about how people who have driver licenses get rights and privileges that other people don't get? Fishing licenses? Hey, why shouldn't a person without a pilot's license be allowed to fly a plane just like someone with a pilot's license can? It's just not fair. Why should the rest of society be forced to tolerate this egregious discrimination? :rolleyes:

Actually, I wish I had read this before I bothered responding to the other post. I guess you lost your temper and wanted to go back for another round of abuse? I don't think I deserve to be talked to like this, regardless of whether my opinion differs from yours. I know this is a divisive issue, and that I'm not taking a very popular position, but I did think that on this board of all places people could manage to remain civil.

[Harpyja]

I don't want to marry them. I want someone to negotiate my health/life insurance just like if I was married. Why am I a second class citizen? Gay people can't procreate. They are looking for extra benefits like I am. What's the difference if I get to pick someone random off the internet?

:eusa_boohoo:

So why does this only apply to gay people? What about heterosexual couples who for some reason or another choose not to procreate or can't? What about in cases where the woman has had a hysterectomy or the man has had a orchidectomy? What about in cases where the couple has decided not to reproduce because of genetic reasons? Since when do marriage benefits require that a couple reproduce?

The difference is that you have that option, whether you decide to procreate or not. You would still receive legal benefits. Gay people would not.

[ponderingturtle]

Off the top of my head, they are responsible for debts incurred by the other. Alimony and child support come to mind as well.

I don't think child support can be counted with marriage.

[ponderingturtle]

Face it, marriage is/was a scam to get guys to settle down and procreate with one woman. If you let non-procreaters in on the scam there is no purpose to it. The scam has served its purpose. Don't marginalize the single person (that would be me :rolleyes:) I want as many rights as the next sonofagun. Don't try and jump over me to become one of the haves and think I will smile. I'm smarter than that.
So people no longer have any need of any governmental recognition of their relationships, be they fifth amendment protections or privileged status of immigration.

[ponderingturtle]

I just don't see why married people should reap benefits I don't have if procreation is off the table. just because you want to sign a marriage contract with someone shouldn't make them better than me (unless the contract tricks the guy into having children who will entertain and nurse me in my old age -- that's OK and has been the way all these years but now it is being changed).

So you are against any sort of privileged status for immigration just because they want to marry a citizen. If they are unwilling to wait enough years to live with their lover they do not deserve the privilege.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, that's true. Because everyone who doesn't own a house is unemployed and pays no taxes.

Tax breaks for home owners are a separate issue as they apply to married and non married people. If you want to discuss them, start a new thread.

You never want people to be able to get their lovers more legal recognition than a roommate.

[six7s]

Gay people can't procreateYou do know that the old 'when two people love each other very much, they get married, and then they have children' is a lie we tell to innocents, don't you?

[Alt+F4]

Gay people can't procreate.

As a woman of a certain age, I probably can't procreate either. Does this mean I should be forbidden to marry?

[KingMerv00]

Well this thread has been completely derailed in a totally predictable way. Every marriage thread ends this way. Oh well.

[Bob Blaylock]

Let's take two couples. Couple One is Ahitabel and Begasueris. They live in the same house, which they bought together, share a joint bank account, and have lots of sex which resulted in two children, which they are raising together. Couple Two is Cacofotonius and Dulahallanab. They live in the same house, which they bought together, share a joint bank account, and have lots of sex which resulted in two children, which they are raising together.

Couple One is married, Couple Two is not. Explain why Couple One has more legal rights, perks, and benefits under the law than Couple Two.
·
·
·
People like to say that marriage makes for a stable society. If that were true, then both divorce and the cohabitation/fornication combo wouldn't be permitted. Not only are the marriage perks social engineering, but they are failed social engineering.

So why different treatment? What's the point?


I think you are seriously mistaken in so casually dismissing the “stable society” element. Marriage plays a vital role in making a stable society, based on stable families. It's not perfect, of course, but then nothing that involves us mortal, fallible humans is ever perfect.

Indisputably, the children in both your example families are best off if their parents stay together, and their family stays intact. Cacofotonius and Dulahallanab aren't married. They are “free”, at any time, to decide they no longer wish to be together. Where will that leave their children?

Ahitabel and Begasueris are married. If they want to break up, they have to go through a significant legal procedure to do so. In the course of that procedure, there will be considerably scrutiny of their children's situation, with a purpose toward seeing to it that the parents are held responsible for the needs on their children.

In either case, a breakup of the family remains a possibility, and in either case, the results for the children would be tragic and destructive. In the former case, where the parents are bound in marriage, the children have greater protection, both against the possible destruction of their family, and against the consequences should this destruction occur.

[arthwollipot]

Well this thread has been completely derailed in a totally predictable way. Every marriage thread ends this way. Oh well.Yeah. Sad that. Even I've lost interest and I'm an unmarried procreator.

[quixotecoyote]

So... love, honour, passion, joy, companionship, etc... they're not relevant, huh? OK...

Makes the traditional vows seem somewhat misleading, don't you think?

Those don't strike me as responsibilities. More like benefits.

[bruto]

Gay people can't procreate. They are looking for extra benefits like I am. You don't seem to be paying attention to the world around you. They can, and often do, either before or after joining into gay relationships, and they can adopt too.

[TragicMonkey]

I think you are seriously mistaken in so casually dismissing the “stable society” element. Marriage plays a vital role in making a stable society, based on stable families. It's not perfect, of course, but then nothing that involves us mortal, fallible humans is ever perfect.

Indisputably, the children in both your example families are best off if their parents stay together, and their family stays intact. Cacofotonius and Dulahallanab aren't married. They are “free”, at any time, to decide they no longer wish to be together. Where will that leave their children?

Ahitabel and Begasueris are married. If they want to break up, they have to go through a significant legal procedure to do so. In the course of that procedure, there will be considerably scrutiny of their children's situation, with a purpose toward seeing to it that the parents are held responsible for the needs on their children.

In either case, a breakup of the family remains a possibility, and in either case, the results for the children would be tragic and destructive. In the former case, where the parents are bound in marriage, the children have greater protection, both against the possible destruction of their family, and against the consequences should this destruction occur.

Then the special status of marriage is due to its perceived permanence, and for the good of society, and indeed for the children, divorce should be outlawed. Or at least restricted to provable cases of abuse or adultery, as it used to be.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Then the special status of marriage is due to its perceived permanence, and for the good of society, and indeed for the children, divorce should be outlawed. Or at least restricted to provable cases of abuse or adultery, as it used to be.

Except that studies show that there are no benefits to "staying together for the kids" instead of getting a divorce, the emotional et al tolls are the same.

[six7s]

Those don't strike me as responsibilities. More like benefits.Tell that to someone who has just changed their spouses Depends for the seven hundredth time

[Neally]

That's simply not accurate (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm).

One right that tends to get overlooked is the right to legal recourse (#15 on the list). If a woman is killed due to negligence, a husband can sue for all sorts of things but her girlfriend cannot. What private arrangement between singles would correct that?

In the context of two people agreeing to handle their affairs in a prescribed way, many of the so called "1,400 legal rights" of marriage, are not in fact dependent on being married. Some most definitely are only available to legally married couples.

Others have nothing to do with the law, i.e. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits. This is up to the hospital, not the law, and most every hospital will accommodate the declared partner, same sex or opposite.

Another example is bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children, which is up to the employer, not the law.

In short, this list created by the Lambda Legal Defense overstates the pure legal advantages of marriage that cannot be otherwise handled by alternative means.

Having said that, as far as I know, the countries that have permitted gay marriage on a national level, have not seen much change in terms of negative consequences that those opposed had feared, thus it's probably easier to go this route than trying to change all the individual laws to equalize things.

[quixotecoyote]

Tell that to someone who has just changed their spouses Depends for the seven hundredth time

That would seem to be slightly different than

love, honour, passion, joy, companionship


Perhaps its a behavior that person does because they love, honour and enjoy the companionship of their spouse, but I still see a distinction.

[six7s]

... I still see a distinction.And I still see that traditional vows mention love, honour and companionship a gazillion times more often than fiscal concerns

Although marriage has been hijacked by the state, it is nevertheless a tradition based on coupling; love, lust, romance, etc

Only the saddest, pocket-protector adorned accountants view marriage as a tax code

[ponderingturtle]

Well this thread has been completely derailed in a totally predictable way. Every marriage thread ends this way. Oh well.

Not really, some end here, some end in polygamy, some end in bestiality and so on. Slippery slopes are not a fallacy when talking about internet discussions.

[ponderingturtle]

You don't seem to be paying attention to the world around you. They can, and often do, either before or after joining into gay relationships, and they can adopt too.

But for the purposes of the internet such are straw children, and don't actually count.

I have asked on occasion why such children count less, but have not gotten an answer,

[ponderingturtle]

In the context of two people agreeing to handle their affairs in a prescribed way, many of the so called "1,400 legal rights" of marriage, are not in fact dependent on being married. Some most definitely are only available to legally married couples.

Others have nothing to do with the law, i.e. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits. This is up to the hospital, not the law, and most every hospital will accommodate the declared partner, same sex or opposite.

Another example is bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children, which is up to the employer, not the law.

In short, this list created by the Lambda Legal Defense overstates the pure legal advantages of marriage that cannot be otherwise handled by alternative means.

Having said that, as far as I know, the countries that have permitted gay marriage on a national level, have not seen much change in terms of negative consequences that those opposed had feared, thus it's probably easier to go this route than trying to change all the individual laws to equalize things.

Yes and no. You would have more legal issues with a legally defined marriage, in how to classify things.

[Bob Blaylock]

I think you are seriously mistaken in so casually dismissing the “stable society” element. Marriage plays a vital role in making a stable society, based on stable families. It's not perfect, of course, but then nothing that involves us mortal, fallible humans is ever perfect.

Indisputably, the children in both your example families are best off if their parents stay together, and their family stays intact. Cacofotonius and Dulahallanab aren't married. They are “free”, at any time, to decide they no longer wish to be together. Where will that leave their children?

Ahitabel and Begasueris are married. If they want to break up, they have to go through a significant legal procedure to do so. In the course of that procedure, there will be considerably scrutiny of their children's situation, with a purpose toward seeing to it that the parents are held responsible for the needs on their children.

In either case, a breakup of the family remains a possibility, and in either case, the results for the children would be tragic and destructive. In the former case, where the parents are bound in marriage, the children have greater protection, both against the possible destruction of their family, and against the consequences should this destruction occur.


Then the special status of marriage is due to its perceived permanence, and for the good of society, and indeed for the children, divorce should be outlawed. Or at least restricted to provable cases of abuse or adultery, as it used to be.


In a perfect society, divorce would never happen, and there would never be any reason for it to be allowed. We do not live in a perfect society. We are not capable of having a perfect society.

Yes, marriage needs to be seen as a permanent union. Where marriages are allowed to break up, it destabilizes the family, and it destabilizes society, to the detriment of all involved. Divorce is a tragic, destructive occurrence. However, sometimes we imperfect mortals create situations that make it necessary; where forcing a marriage to remain intact will be more destructive, to those involved, than breaking it up.

[TragicMonkey]

In a perfect society, divorce would never happen, and there would never be any reason for it to be allowed. We do not live in a perfect society. We are not capable of having a perfect society.

Yes, marriage needs to be seen as a permanent union. Where marriages are allowed to break up, it destabilizes the family, and it destabilizes society, to the detriment of all involved. Divorce is a tragic, destructive occurrence. However, sometimes we imperfect mortals create situations that make it necessary; where forcing a marriage to remain intact will be more destructive, to those involved, than breaking it up.

So not only does the state engage in social engineering attempts to promote marriage, but more often than not those attempts are failures. Look at all the people who don't get married, add all the people who did get married but got divorced, and compare that to the number who got married and stayed married.

Looks like we're wasting time promoting marriage if those attempts aren't very successful, and the ones that are are only temporarily so.

I'm not expecting a "perfect society", but I do expect a practical one. What's the acceptable failure rate before we stop trying? 99%?

[bruto]

So not only does the state engage in social engineering attempts to promote marriage, but more often than not those attempts are failures. Look at all the people who don't get married, add all the people who did get married but got divorced, and compare that to the number who got married and stayed married.

Looks like we're wasting time promoting marriage if those attempts aren't very successful, and the ones that are are only temporarily so.

I'm not expecting a "perfect society", but I do expect a practical one. What's the acceptable failure rate before we stop trying? 99%? 100 percent of lives end in death, but few of us would consider that unfortunate statistic as a sign that life is such a failure that we shouldn't bother to promote it or proliferate it.

[KingMerv00]

In short, this list created by the Lambda Legal Defense overstates the pure legal advantages of marriage that cannot be otherwise handled by alternative means.

I agree with that. The list was just meant to show that some marriage benefits cannot be created by private contracts.

The right to sue is a big one.

[KingMerv00]

Indisputably, the children in both your example families are best off if their parents stay together, and their family stays intact.

TB is disputing you.

Ahitabel and Begasueris are married. If they want to break up, they have to go through a significant legal procedure to do so.

Are you opposed to prenups? They make divorce considerably cheaper and easier.

In the course of that procedure, there will be considerably scrutiny of their children's situation, with a purpose toward seeing to it that the parents are held responsible for the needs on their children.

Child support is independent of marriage.

[TragicMonkey]

100 percent of lives end in death, but few of us would consider that unfortunate statistic as a sign that life is such a failure that we shouldn't bother to promote it or proliferate it.

And most applicants to "American Idol" will not make the show. Should everyone try anyway?

[ponderingturtle]

And most applicants to "American Idol" will not make the show. Should everyone try anyway?

No, clearly because of that no one should ever be allowed to try ever.

[johnHorn]

Can't we just agree that gay mariage is just wanting equality for gay’s who does it harm?
Well it gives gays a painful choice.
But, To be honest it seams that we consider that as a good choice… painful but good.

[Soapy Sam]

The interface between culture and biology is always interesting.

[six7s]

The interface between culture and biology is always interesting.Really?

How so?

[fatewilleatyou]

After the gays people will find someone else to persecute. It's an endless cycle.

I nominate flip-flop wearers. (except in cases of nearby ocean or within one's home)

I am a liberal.

[six7s]

I nominate flip-flop wearers
I nominate the sandalistas

uywIYQEHZLs

I am a liberal.
Ich bin ein Bethlehemer

[fatewilleatyou]

Marriage is not just a union between a man and a woman, it is an invitation to the community. Generally a married couple will settle into a house, which they purchase. They befriend the neighbors, start to pay local taxes, frequent local business, and improve their property. They mean to procreate and enlarge the tribe/community.
The unspoken agenda of gay marriage opposition is segregation.
"You can do what you want in America, but not in my community."
Homosexuals are free to ghettoize themselves, but the majority of the country would prefer to discriminate than have to face realities of sex and sexuality. Worse yet, have to explain them to their children.
Opposition to gay marriage has not stopped gay couples from living this brand of the American dream. Gay neighborhoods are increasingly diverse, with hetero couples moving in due to beautification, and gay couples feel free to live wherever they like.
This battle over marriage is just a fight about the word. The battle for the idea is over, it is shared by all who would embrace it.

[Senex]

Sorry for being away from the discussion for a few days. I was away at the protest march this weekend in Washington. We single people were protesting how we get cheated on taxes, benefits and societal standing. Hehehe... I know I can't fool you people who monitor this thread. You know darn well that single people don't protest -- we take it on the chin and just smile every time one group or another gets to become a have and we get further left behind.

Blame the victim is all I read on this thread. Allow me to recap the victim blaming I've suffered with my take on it including the chin smiling rebuttal...

:eusa_boohoo:

So why does this only apply to gay people? What about heterosexual couples who for some reason or another choose not to procreate or can't? What about in cases where the woman has had a hysterectomy or the man has had a orchidectomy? What about in cases where the couple has decided not to reproduce because of genetic reasons? Since when do marriage benefits require that a couple reproduce?


You have a good point that heterosexual couples who can't or are unwilling to procreate are beating the system. But having a procreation test is kind of Big Brotherish, don't you think? I think your ideas about government intervention are scary. Just leave it alone the way it is without the testing (jesus, you must have loved Bush's attack on our constitution :mad:)

So people no longer have any need of any governmental recognition of their relationships, be they fifth amendment protections or privileged status of immigration.

Hey, if I choose not to exploit Korean women to make them sex workers I don't see why the guy with less scruples should be able to.

However, if everyone gets to pick a foreign person to make a citizen I guess I want in on it (but I won't like the implications). I'll just choose mine out of one of the more Christian catatogs ;)

You do know that the old 'when two people love each other very much, they get married, and then they have children' is a lie we tell to innocents, don't you?

That's not always untrue. My parents have have been married 55 years and still love each other. And their children turned out perfect :rolleyes:

As a woman of a certain age, I probably can't procreate either. Does this mean I should be forbidden to marry?

Absolutely Not (see my reply to that Harpyja rascal)

However, you might want to practice a little before signing on the dotted line ;)

You don't seem to be paying attention to the world around you. They can, and often do, either before or after joining into gay relationships, and they can adopt too.

Hey, I belong to the Randi site. That story about the pregnant guy was all woo.

Adotion should allow all rights anyone else has who have children to apply.

[Safe-Keeper]

And most applicants to "American Idol" will not make the show. Should everyone try anyway? Given the nature and objective of American Idol and similar shows, no one should. But then again, in a world where pundits willingly offer themselves up for torture, I suppose their tenacity is to be expected...

[Safe-Keeper]

You have a good point that heterosexual couples who can't or are unwilling to procreate are beating the system. But having a procreation test is kind of Big Brotherish, don't you think?Absolutely not. If procreation was a requirement for marriage and not a colossal red herring, it would make every kind of sense to ensure the couple applying for marriage could, in fact, procreate. If the couple had kids, marriage would be a go. Otherwise, no-go.

But of course marriage isn't restricted to those who can procreate, so the entire argument is one big red herring.

I think your ideas about government intervention are scary. Just leave it alone the way it is without the testing (jesus, you must have loved Bush's attack on our constitution :mad:)Irrelevant strawman and personal attack.

[Senex]

Absolutely not. If procreation was a requirement for marriage and not a colossal red herring, it would make every kind of sense to ensure the couple applying for marriage could, in fact, procreate. If the couple had kids, marriage would be a go. Otherwise, no-go.
That would be difficult to enforce.
But of course marriage isn't restricted to those who can procreate, so the entire argument is one big red herring.
You are the rascal trying to digress this argument. My argument is this is the government's best way to coerce procreation. You are the one trying to muck it up with procreation tests.


Irrelevant strawman and personal attack.

And your point :confused:

[ponderingturtle]

Hey, if I choose not to exploit Korean women to make them sex workers I don't see why the guy with less scruples should be able to.

However, if everyone gets to pick a foreign person to make a citizen I guess I want in on it (but I won't like the implications). I'll just choose mine out of one of the more Christian catatogs ;)

Or you can start your deport Dr. Adequate demonstration at TAM.


And what about my desire to make deductions for charitable donations I didn't make?

[Senex]

Or you can start your deport Dr. Adequate demonstration at TAM.

I suspect he gets grandfathered in. You rascals miss my point. I'm not saying keep marriage for heterosexuals born in the USA -- I'm saying since our society has advanced to the point it realizes marriage is no longer about procreation and lets gay people in on the scam then marriage has advanced past the point of being useful/beneficial/fair/practical/proper.


And what about my desire to make deductions for charitable donations I didn't make?

File it as a single filer instead of joint filer. Just because the fraudulant marrige scams end doesn't mean all types of fraud ends.

[ponderingturtle]

I suspect he gets grandfathered in. You rascals miss my point. I'm not saying keep marriage for heterosexuals born in the USA -- I'm saying since our society has advanced to the point it realizes marriage is no longer about procreation and lets gay people in on the scam then marriage has advanced past the point of being useful/beneficial/fair/practical/proper.

And I am saying that you are wrong. It is still something people want, because people do want their lovers to be able to become a family in a legal sense and not just roommates with benefits. This is the point you are missing, that it makes sense and fits peoples sense of justice.

People think that if you fall in love and want to live with someone even if they live in a different country you should be able to do that, hence marriage and fiance visa's. But I don't support a ****buddy visa.

[Arus808]

If you spend 35 years with someone and don't get a legal agreement than the shame is on you, no?


if they are same sex, please provide the law and steps to make this "legal agreement" happen?

[Dorian Gray]

Make it two legal and consenting adults, and leave it alone. Banning polygamy is a fair law that affects everyone. Banning gay marriage is not a fair law, and it doesn't affect everyone.

[Senex]

And I am saying that you are wrong.
Hey, kind of harsh. Us 'people without partners,' 'PWP' going forward, have feelings too.

It is still something people want, because people do want their lovers to be able to become a family in a legal sense and not just roommates with benefits. This is the point you are missing, that it makes sense and fits peoples sense of justice.
Yes, the sense of justice one experiences from benefitting from the coercive power of the government. The sense of justice one experiences from being a have and talking down to the have-nots. The sense of justice of the oppressor (how soon some forget).

People think that if you fall in love and want to live with someone even if they live in a different country you should be able to do that, hence marriage and fiance visa's. But I don't support a ****buddy visa.
Hehehe... now you sound like someone with a vested interest in this marriage scam. Did you meet on-line or on vacation/business? I'm a bit puzzled with how this living with a person who lives in a different country works out in practice but i understand. You should join some defence of marriage organization :rolleyes:

if they are same sex, please provide the law and steps to make this "legal agreement" happen?

I live in CT and we had a state domestic partners agreement before we went to gay marriage. I believe this cookie cutter state agreement is something all gay partners should have. If one partner dies all assetts not covered by a will would go the the surviving partner. All medical decisions an incapacitated person has would be turned over to their partner to make. All benefits would default to the partner of a person who had such an agreement.

This domestic partner agreement isn't anything any couple in the US couldn't make through a personal contract. It's wrong to make a gay couple pay for a lawyer when a heterosexual couple gets the same contract from a less expensive marriage contract -- but it is shameful for a gay person with a long term partner to not have made legal arrangements for his/her partner if they knew their homophobic family members would be the default decision members and screw the domestic partner.

Make it two legal and consenting adults, and leave it alone. Banning polygamy is a fair law that affects everyone. Banning gay marriage is not a fair law, and it doesn't affect everyone.

Aauuuugh! You haven't read anything I wrote. It affects me. Let's say the Left Behind books are a true account of the future. How would you like it if the oppressing god (government for you people who need metaphors made plain) changed the rules during the game. Many sins no longer count. Now only being an atheist gets you left behind while other riff-raff gets raptured.

That would be BS for the unraptured like me. Why do I get left behind? Many of these raptured rascals are not more deserving than myself.

[Safe-Keeper]

So basically, if a man makes a woman pregnant and she gives birth to the child and raise it together, they should be able to marry.

If a man fails to make a woman pregnant and they adopt a child and raise it together, they should be able to marry, even though they can't procreate.

If two men adopt a child and raise it together, they should not be able to marry, because they can't procreate.

I fail to see the logic here.

[ponderingturtle]

Hey, kind of harsh. Us 'people without partners,' 'PWP' going forward, have feelings too.

Marriage rights are for couples. They don't makes sense for singles. How do you plan on inheriting your stuff after you die?

Yes, the sense of justice one experiences from benefitting from the coercive power of the government. The sense of justice one experiences from being a have and talking down to the have-nots. The sense of justice of the oppressor (how soon some forget).

Troll.

[Senex]

Marriage rights are for couples. They don't makes sense for singles. How do you plan on inheriting your stuff after you die?
My point is why should couples have more rights than single people. I have no idea why you thought I intended to inherit my own stuff.


Troll.

Here we go. I disagree with you and you call me the worst possible name you can. Calling me a troll after all the years I posted here is the equivalent of me calling someone who defends gay marriage a fag. It's disgusting. Shame on you ponderingturtle. Shame on you.

[ponderingturtle]

Here we go. I disagree with you and you call me the worst possible name you can. Calling me a troll after all the years I posted here is the equivalent of me calling someone who defends gay marriage a fag. It's disgusting. Shame on you ponderingturtle. Shame on you.

No it is that you seem to be dirrectly trolling, I am not going to play any more.

Your position is too ridiculus to consider, so you are trolling.

[Senex]

No it is that you seem to be dirrectly trolling, I am not going to play any more.
I'd like to read your definition of trolling. I don't believe I qualify under any reasonable definition.

Your position is too ridiculus to consider, so you are trolling.
Your position is too ridiculous to be moral, so you are a fag. Do you realize how ugly you have let your argument become? Insert fag for troll and you are the immoral poster. How did you let yourself become the person you hate?

Ridiculous positions are easily exposed through thoughtful dialogue. I had thought you possessed that ability to discern between the two. Maybe my position isn't as ridiculous as your own on this topic? Walk away and the troll wins.

[Rasmus]

My point is why should couples have more rights than single people. I have no idea why you thought I intended to inherit my own stuff.


So what are these rights that couples have and single people don't?

The above is one example of these rights: A (married) couple can jointly own property in ways that an individual cannot.

It is not simply illegal for an individual to do that, it is logically impossible. You cannot owe property in a way that you can keep the property after you die without having to pay taxes for it.

You could talk about what kind of couples should be allowed to enter that kind of relationship - but singles simply cannot.

[ponderingturtle]

It is not simply illegal for an individual to do that, it is logically impossible.

Thats the point, he has got to be trolling.

[Senex]

Thats the point, he has got to be trolling.

The point has become you look for reciprocation from some like minded poster instead of making your own point. You have lost your way. Calling me names hasn't worked and you should have known better about calling others names. Now you ask others to agree with you and that hasn't worked.

How about speaking to the person who challenged you directly? You have posted more posts for a longer period of time than I have. You should be experienced at handling people like myself.

You shouldn't have called me a troll.

[arthwollipot]

Make it two legal and consenting adults, and leave it alone. Banning polygamy is a fair law that affects everyone. Banning gay marriage is not a fair law, and it doesn't affect everyone.Why only two? Why ban legal and consensual relationships that involve more than two people?

[Rasmus]

Why only two? Why ban legal and consensual relationships that involve more than two people?

How many times do we have to do this?

Consensual relationships between more than two people are not in any sense of the word "banned".

A marriage between more than two people would be conceptually different - and drastically so - from the current two-people-model.

So, if anyone thinks it's a good idea to establish polygamy in a legal form, it's up to them to define what exactly that is and why it would be a good thing to have.

Why only two? Because what marriage is now only works with precisely two partners. It would work regardless of gender, sexual preferences, race, nationality, religion, fertility, age (mostly) etc pp. You can easily change the requirements for all of those factos without changing what a marriage is. Change the number of people involved and you have a completely different thing, though.

[KingMerv00]

Why only two? Why ban legal and consensual relationships that involve more than two people?

I'm not sure a marriage with three people could be constructed in a way that allows for the equal protection of law. For example, would they get more tax deductions? If a spouse dies due to negligence, do ALL of the surviving spouses get to sue? How would property be divided up if one partner wants a divorce?

If I saw a way to treat all marriages equally, then I'd support multi-marriages.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure a marriage with three people could be constructed in a way that allows for the equal protection of law. For example, would they get more tax deductions? If a spouse dies due to negligence, do ALL of the surviving spouses get to sue? How would property be divided up if one partner wants a divorce?

If I saw a way to treat all marriages equally, then I'd support multi-marriages.

Meadmaker had an interesting solution to this, and that is make multi-marriages a separate legal institution. So if two people were married and they wanted a multi-marriage they would have to get divorced first then enter into this separate and distinct legal framework.

Of course it creates a very different situation from extending marriage to cover more people.

[Rasmus]

Meadmaker had an interesting solution to this, and that is make multi-marriages a separate legal institution. So if two people were married and they wanted a multi-marriage they would have to get divorced first then enter into this separate and distinct legal framework.

Of course it creates a very different situation from extending marriage to cover more people.

And it doesn't solve the actual problem, either: What should a multi-marriage be like and why would it be a good idea to have one?

[arthwollipot]

And it doesn't solve the actual problem, either: What should a multi-marriage be like and why would it be a good idea to have one?Well, perhaps something like I've got? Four people who share legal responsibilities, are equally represented in our wills and in our financial transactions and are considered equivalent to marriage in all relevant legal senses (we actually had a solicitor draw this up for us to make sure).

As to why - how about because we all love each other equally and want to spend the rest of our lives together?

What we have cannot be described as "marriage" except in an operational sense. But it works, and it's what we wanted.

[truethat]

Ok let me just say that I am a big advocate of Gay Marriage and have been for about 20 years now. It is a vital right to build a family not just "get married" but to actually be related to one another. Family is a basic human right and denying people a legally recognized family is unfair.


However I do see a huge potential problem if we legalize gay marriage that has never been brought up at all. It is the only "real" problem with it but it is a doozey. I wonder if the anti's will ever think of it.

Basically religion and all that jazz aside allowing same sex marriage will cause a lot of problems in the immigration issue.

Right now a woman can marry a man and sponsor him for a green card. Once he has the green card she can divorce him and remarry another man and sponsor him for the greencard as well. Although it may be suspect as long as she can prove it is a legit marriage then it is fine.

For green card fraud it is opening up a total loophole. People already abuse this system and it is problematic. What is going to happen when the investigation of "sham" marriages is given an additional problem of lawsuits when a gay marriage is investigated with more scrutiny than a straight one?

This is the only real issue I can see.

[Senex]

Well, perhaps something like I've got? Four people who share legal responsibilities, are equally represented in our wills and in our financial transactions and are considered equivalent to marriage in all relevant legal senses (we actually had a solicitor draw this up for us to make sure).

As to why - how about because we all love each other equally and want to spend the rest of our lives together?

What we have cannot be described as "marriage" except in an operational sense. But it works, and it's what we wanted.

Are you living the Bill Paxton life like in Big Love? His three wives are all Hot! arthwollipot, you dog!! :D (there was a cautionary episode I should share -- too many blue pills aren't good for your health -- just a word to the wise ;))


Ok let me just say that I am a big advocate of Gay Marriage and have been for about 20 years now. It is a vital right to build a family not just "get married" but to actually be related to one another. Family is a basic human right and denying people a legally recognized family is unfair.
What about the people without partners (PWP)? We are constantly being denied. If we are cut do we not blead?

However I do see a huge potential problem if we legalize gay marriage that has never been brought up at all. It is the only "real" problem with it but it is a doozey. I wonder if the anti's will ever think of it...
...For green card fraud it is opening up a total loophole.

This was what the Korean sex worker post was about -- but I'm not an anti -gay marriage advocate -- I'm an anti-marriage advocate if the marriage gravy train grows leaving us PWP's further behind.

[Rasmus]

What about the people without partners (PWP)? We are constantly being denied. If we are cut do we not blead?

So, how do you intend to form a family not involving at least one other person besides you?

This was what the Korean sex worker post was about -- but I'm not an anti -gay marriage advocate -- I'm an anti-marriage advocate if the marriage gravy train grows leaving us PWP's further behind.

Yes, us poor singles are denied the right to form family units of one :roll:

[Rasmus]

Well, perhaps something like I've got? Four people who share legal responsibilities, are equally represented in our wills and in our financial transactions and are considered equivalent to marriage in all relevant legal senses (we actually had a solicitor draw this up for us to make sure).

I expect this will not take into account, e.g. who will be considered the parents of any children born into that group, right?

What happens if one or two of those involved want a partial divorce, i.e. no longer wish to keep the contract going with all of the others involved but would like to keep it with just one or two of the four?

As to why - how about because we all love each other equally and want to spend the rest of our lives together?

Well, obviously.

But I meant that for each individual law you would have to show that it is better for society and those involved.

I think that is a trivial excercise for gay marriages.

What we have cannot be described as "marriage" except in an operational sense. But it works, and it's what we wanted.

I have no doubts that this is what you wanted and I am glad if it works out for you. But I still don't see how it addresses certain issues (which you might not have) and how it would work as a general principole.

[Senex]

So what are these rights that couples have and single people don't?
Oops sorry I missed your post. That ponderingturtle really hurt my feelings when he called me a troll. The best places to read the rights enumerated are on progay marriage sites. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

The above is one example of these rights: A (married) couple can jointly own property in ways that an individual cannot.

It is not simply illegal for an individual to do that, it is logically impossible. You cannot owe property in a way that you can keep the property after you die without having to pay taxes for it.
I'm a little lost but I get your point. You are enumerating a marriage benefit. From where I sit I say why can't I be a property owner and find a guy on the internet who owns property and we agree to be property beneficiaries of each other. Why should we be excluded from the being handed down non-taxed property the people who have partners do? Why are we excluded from tax loopholes? Why are we screwed?

You could talk about what kind of couples should be allowed to enter that kind of relationship - but singles simply cannot.
Death property tax for one as explained above. How about if I am a contracter who makes money but doesn't have health insurance. Why can't I find a guy on the internet with good benefits who makes less money and agree to pay him money every month in order to get on his health insurance? That's a benefit of marriage denied to me right now.

I can condone marriage if it encourages procreation -- I'm all in favor of young people entertaining/helping/making life go on in my old age, but if marriage no longer is about tricking people to go through the trials of raising children then I think its point has past.

So, how do you intend to form a family not involving at least one other person besides you?
From people with reciprocal needs on the internet -- or people I meet in the food bank line (and I'm lucky enough to be on the volunteer side at the moment.)

Yes, us poor singles are denied the right to form family units of one :roll:

We are denied rights others take for granted and others covet and are trying to take and no one considers us. You are typical. You are one of us and don't understand how you are being screwed.

[Safe-Keeper]

I fail to see Senex's problem. Single people can marry just like people in relationships. Do you want some person to inherit your stuff, be able to sue if you get wrongfully treated, etc.? Does he/she agree? Marry him/her.

You don't want to? Well, that's kinda your problem, not ours.

[Senex]

I fail to see Senex's problem. Single people can marry just like people in relationships. Do you want some person to inherit your stuff, be able to sue if you get wrongfully treated, etc.? Does he/she agree? Marry him/her.

You don't want to? Well, that's kinda your problem, not ours.

I'm not trying to pass off my problems to anyone.

I'm saying I would have more respect for the gay rights position if they said marriage was bogus/immoral/exclusive/mean-spirited than saying they want in on it.

What's with you people who think I give a crap who inherits my stuff?

[Rasmus]

Oops sorry I missed your post. That ponderingturtle really hurt my feelings when he called me a troll. The best places to read the rights enumerated are on progay marriage sites. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

I'm a little lost but I get your point. You are enumerating a marriage benefit. From where I sit I say why can't I be a property owner and find a guy on the internet who owns property and we agree to be property beneficiaries of each other. Why should we be excluded from the being handed down non-taxed property the people who have partners do? Why are we excluded from tax loopholes? Why are we screwed?

You're not screwed. All you have to do is marry the guy from the internet. That's perfectly legal - well, currently it is perfectly legal as long as you don't both are of the same sex.

Death property tax for one as explained above. How about if I am a contracter who makes money but doesn't have health insurance. Why can't I find a guy on the internet with good benefits who makes less money and agree to pay him money every month in order to get on his health insurance? That's a benefit of marriage denied to me right now.

No, it's not. You can marry the guy from the internet.

What you want is to cherry pick some of the benefits that marriage offers without going the whole way - or so it seems.

I can condone marriage if it encourages procreation -- I'm all in favor of young people entertaining/helping/making life go on in my old age, but if marriage no longer is about tricking people to go through the trials of raising children then I think its point has past.

It hasn't been about procreation for years if not decades. Nobody claims it is about procreation other than some anti-gay bigots.

(Germany in fact has a rule [I am unsure about the nature, it might be a law or a supreme court ruling] that makes it illegal to give benefits to children within a marriage and not to those without a marriage.)

From people with reciprocal needs on the internet -- or people I meet in the food bank line (and I'm lucky enough to be on the volunteer side at the moment.)

What is stopping you from getting married to any one of these people?

We are denied rights others take for granted and others covet and are trying to take and no one considers us. You are typical. You are one of us and don't understand how you are being screwed.

No, I don't see how I am being screwed. If I did find someone who wanted to share all the obligations and benefits of marriage with me, I could simply marry them. Nobody denies me that right unless it happens to be another man.

[Alt+F4]

From where I sit I say why can't I be a property owner and find a guy on the internet who owns property and we agree to be property beneficiaries of each other.

You can. Marry him.

[Senex]

What is stopping you from getting married to any one of these people?
The question should be why should I desire to be married? I'm not the easily manipulated type you seem to be.

No, I don't see how I am being screwed. If I did find someone who wanted to share all the obligations and benefits of marriage with me, I could simply marry them. Nobody denies me that right unless it happens to be another man.
D'oh. you're not the deepest thinker.

Alt+F4:You can. Marry him.

As a rule my oppsition on this site isn't so simple minded.

[Alt+F4]

The question should be why should I desire to be married? I'm not the easily manipulated type you seem to be.

I gather that your definition of marriage involves love and/or sex? Marriage is a business arrangement, a contract. If love and/or sex happens to be involved, that might be great too, depending on the circumstances, but it's not a requirement.

[Senex]

I gather that your definition of marriage involves love and/or sex? Marriage is a business arrangement, a contract. If love and/or sex happens to be involved, that might be great too, depending on the circumstances, but it's not a requirement.

Now you are preaching to the choir. Marriage is a business arrangement. It is an arrangement with benefits. Some people benefit and some people pay for the people with benefits. I can go to sleep at night knowing I'm not someone who should have argued against marriage and instead argued for it in order to gain that advantage.

I can sleep with a clear conscience. How many others who posted on this thread can say the same?

[Safe-Keeper]

The question should be why should I desire to be married?Senex: I want the benefits of marriage.
Me: Then marry.
Senex: I don't want to.

Eh...?

[Senex]

Senex: I want the benefits of marriage.
Me: Then marry.
Senex: I don't want to.

Eh...?

The only excuse for marriage is to trick young people to procreate. If marriage isn't about procreation it has no purpose. We no longer need marriage if procreation isn't part of the equation.

If everyone gets to have the benefits of marriage I guess I should look on the internet and pick someone who I can cut a deal with like every other have who gets married. Maybe i'll start a website. "Potential economic marriage partners.com" I think you can even be married without ever even meeting. Let's make marriage an economic contract everyone can benefit from. Why should only people with partners get the government benefits?

[themusicteacher]

The only excuse for marriage is to trick young people to procreate. If marriage isn't about procreation it has no purpose. We no longer need marriage if procreation isn't part of the equation.

If everyone gets to have the benefits of marriage I guess I should look on the internet and pick someone who I can cut a deal with like every other have who gets married. Maybe i'll start a website. "Potential economic marriage partners.com" I think you can even be married without ever even meeting. Let's make marriage an economic contract everyone can benefit from. Why should only people with partners get the government benefits?

Which specific benefits that married couples get and singles don't get do you have a problem with?

Marriage is not simply a "trick" to get young people to have babies. People can have babies if they're not married but you probably already knew that. There is a certain amount of biology behind marriage that has to do with attraction, child-rearing and long-term happiness. Married's are, in general, happier and more satidfied with their lives. Since we are, at our core, social creatures, marriage provides for the type of deep social bonds we all crave. That's why successful marriages have to move beyond simple sexual cravings at some point.

I understand the disillusionment many have with marriage and I would never claim that there are negative underpinnings that exist beneath the structure of marriage that can make it a disdainful arrangement. However, I have a great marriage that stems from mutual respect, love, admiration and a true desire to live our lives together as long as we can. Now, we don't have to be married to experience that but it certainly is a signal of commitment to one another (and our son), yet another evolutionary piece of the puzzle. We share our lives and affirm that to one another by choosing to be married. Our marriage is about us; not the church, not the state, not anyone but us and the life we create for ourselves and our family. That is why I support gay marriage; because why should anyone be able to deny another couple that and why should the state (or religion) be able to cut someone off from their partner in certain instances? It is unjust, plain and simple.

Claim's of religious exclusivity to marriage are nonsense. Marriage existed before the Bible and in societies in which there was no knowledge of the Bible. Opposition to gay marriage is political and personal, not rational. Bigotry can hide behind religion, as it often does, but it has no place in a free and open society.

[Senex]

Which specific benefits that married couples get and singles don't get do you have a problem with?

OK, survivor benefits.

Marriage is not simply a "trick" to get young people to have babies. People can have babies if they're not married but you probably already knew that. There is a certain amount of biology behind marriage that has to do with attraction, child-rearing and long-term happiness. Married's are, in general, happier and more satidfied with their lives. Since we are, at our core, social creatures, marriage provides for the type of deep social bonds we all crave. That's why successful marriages have to move beyond simple sexual cravings at some point.

I understand the disillusionment many have with marriage and I would never claim that there are negative underpinnings that exist beneath the structure of marriage that can make it a disdainful arrangement. However, I have a great marriage that stems from mutual respect, love, admiration and a true desire to live our lives together as long as we can. Now, we don't have to be married to experience that but it certainly is a signal of commitment to one another (and our son), yet another evolutionary piece of the puzzle. We share our lives and affirm that to one another by choosing to be married. Our marriage is about us; not the church, not the state, not anyone but us and the life we create for ourselves and our family. That is why I support gay marriage; because why should anyone be able to deny another couple that and why should the state (or religion) be able to cut someone off from their partner in certain instances? It is unjust, plain and simple.

Claim's of religious exclusivity to marriage are nonsense. Marriage existed before the Bible and in societies in which there was no knowledge of the Bible. Opposition to gay marriage is political and personal, not rational. Bigotry can hide behind religion, as it often does, but it has no place in a free and open society.

You yack a lot and say little. :rolleyes:

[themusicteacher]

OK, survivor benefits.


You yack a lot and say little. :rolleyes:

You yack little and say even less. ;)

I was responding to your naked assertion that marriage is some sort of trick. Should I draw you a diagram on how dialogue works?

[Alt+F4]

The only excuse for marriage is to trick young people to procreate. If marriage isn't about procreation it has no purpose. We no longer need marriage if procreation isn't part of the equation.

If everyone gets to have the benefits of marriage I guess I should look on the internet and pick someone who I can cut a deal with like every other have who gets married. Maybe i'll start a website. "Potential economic marriage partners.com" I think you can even be married without ever even meeting. Let's make marriage an economic contract everyone can benefit from. Why should only people with partners get the government benefits?

Young people in the U.S. at least, do quite well procreating without marriage. I believe that the amount of babies born to unwed mothers is about 40%

Marriage is an economic contract, yes and anyone over 18 can benefit from it. Once you get married you have a partner, whether that involves love or sex is up to those in the marriage, but the benefits are still there one way or another.

Is your argument that those persons who can't find marriage for "traditional reasons" (a loving, lifelong committment) should not be discriminated against in regard to issues such as benefits and inheritance?

[Senex]

This makes no sence.

[Senex]

Young people in the U.S. at least, do quite well procreating without marriage. I believe that the amount of babies born to unwed mothers is about 40%

Marriage is an economic contract, yes and anyone over 18 can benefit from it. Once you get married you have a partner, whether that involves love or sex is up to those in the marriage, but the benefits are still there one way or another.

Is your argument that those persons who can't find marriage for "traditional reasons" (a loving, lifelong committment) should not be discriminated against in regard to issues such as benefits and inheritance?

The answer is not clear.

[Alt+F4]

The answer is not clear.

Did you get that from the Magic 8-Ball? :)

Seriously though, single people are not discriminated against because the law does allow them to marry, if they so choose. The discrimination is in not being allowing to marry the adult you want to for no other reason than they are the same sex as you are.

[bruto]

The only excuse for marriage is to trick young people to procreate. If marriage isn't about procreation it has no purpose. We no longer need marriage if procreation isn't part of the equation.

If everyone gets to have the benefits of marriage I guess I should look on the internet and pick someone who I can cut a deal with like every other have who gets married. Maybe i'll start a website. "Potential economic marriage partners.com" I think you can even be married without ever even meeting. Let's make marriage an economic contract everyone can benefit from. Why should only people with partners get the government benefits?I suppose that if you believe this, it goes a fair way toward explaining why you're not married.

[Safe-Keeper]

The only excuse for marriage is to trick young people to procreate. If marriage isn't about procreation it has no purpose. We no longer need marriage if procreation isn't part of the equation. Today, as I see it, marriage is an institution that helps couples raise kids, biological or adopted, and gives them economic benefits. You know, the ones you want. There seems to be far more to it than just procreation.

If everyone gets to have the benefits of marriage I guess I should look on the internet and pick someone who I can cut a deal with like every other have who gets married.Wow, what a thought. It's as if you've read my posts:p.

Maybe i'll start a website. "Potential economic marriage partners.com" I think you can even be married without ever even meeting. Let's make marriage an economic contract everyone can benefit from.That's... exactly how it works already. Never heard of pro-forma marriages (possibly called something else in English, but referring to a situation in which a person marries another, with a citizenship of a different nation, only for the benefit of said citizenship)?