Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Merton

Does this not seem a reasonable policy? I'd think that the disadvantaged spouse would prefer to be self-sufficient, at which point continued payments are unnecessary.

It seems to me that you are dictating what someone ought to prefer. You would think she would like it that way, so you will make sure that she has no choice.

Of course the problem is that some people have more options for self sufficiency than others.

I'll give an example I have given in the past. A friend of mine, somewhere between 40 and 45 years old. She married young. Both of the members of the young couple were civil engineering students. She was also a very impressive artist. As marrieds, she wanted children. He didn't. She gave in to his wishes. He became an engineeriing professor. She pursued art, which meant she didn't make enough to make a living, and was dependent on him, which suited both of them just fine.

He dumped her for a young girl he had met at the university.

At that point, what is "fair"? What is "right"?

I don't have an answer to that question. However, I do know that she had every reason to expect that she would live a particular lifestyle that included love and financial security for the rest of her life. Instead, at 45 she was poor, unlikely to find a mate, and without the company of the children she had desired. She had made decisions, with his approval, based on the assumption that only death would separate them, but as her waistline increased, it turns out that his commitment was not quite as strong as she had expected. She cannot go back and live her life over, so now what?

I'm not going to say that there is one, correct, answer as to what is fair in that situation. I say that, as a society, we should be able to answer that question. And of course, we have. She was entitled to a portion of their joint savings (not much, but they had a house mostly paid for), and a temporary stipend, and then she was on her own, in every aspect of that phrase.

Let it be a warning to anyone who thinks her future is secure because she married a good man.

Quote:

have a real problem with denying separation or making separation more difficult because it infringes upon one's will and can create a poor environment for children.

I think "infringing on one's will" is part and parcel of being married.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'll give an example I have given in the past. A friend of mine, somewhere between 40 and 45 years old. She...

What on god's green earth does this have to do with arguments for and against gay marriage?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What on god's green earth does this have to do with arguments for and against gay marriage?

If you have to ask, the explanation would be wasted.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

If you have to ask, the explanation would be wasted.

The question was rhetorical and in fact it has little if anything to do with arguments for and against gay marriage. It's a red herring. But it would look like you were successful with it as now you are arguing about heterosexual couples divorcing. Yeah, THAT'S got a lot to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

[RandFan]

"8": A Play about the Fight for Marriage Equality

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The play consists primarily of selections from the transcripts of the trial.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It seems to me that you are dictating what someone ought to prefer. You would think she would like it that way, so you will make sure that she has no choice.

Not dictating, just hypothesizing. I'm sure that anyone, given the option to receive indefinite payments from another, would like it very much. That's not the issue. The issue is, as you asked, "what's fair?"

My point here is your statement that marriage should be between a future-childbearing, heterosexual couple seems to rely heavily on gender inequality: the female is either a stay-at-home mother or underpaid and must rely on her husband, the breadwinner, for support. To rectify this situation, I would say we need to do more for women's rights, rather than prohibit gay marriage. Furthermore, any parent, regardless of gender, has a financial obligation to his or her children. I just don't see how "traditional marriage" advocates have a leg on which to stand.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What on god's green earth does this have to do with arguments for and against gay marriage?

From my perspective, the relevance implied is that women must rely on men for financial support. Two women don't need marriage because neither will be able to support themselves after a divorce (and perhaps can't even do so while together?), and men don't need it because they will always be financially stable.

Meadmaker, I realize that this is probably an objectionable way to phrase your argument, ... but it really looks like a duck.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

If you have to ask, the explanation would be wasted.

Would you mind explaining it anyway?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Merton

From my perspective, the relevance implied is that women must rely on men for financial support. Two women don't need marriage because neither will be able to support themselves after a divorce (and perhaps can't even do so while together?), and men don't need it because they will always be financially stable.

Thanks. Granting the premise for sake of argument, why should the argument not be seen as simply ad hoc rationalization? I've watched the entire Prop 8 trial reenactment (some of the testimonies I've seen multiple times). Having seen both the plaintiffs and the defense mount arguments I get the rationale from both sides. I understand the logic even if I don't agree with those making the arguments. But how on earth some esoteric legal philosophy concerning divorce and women's accustomed standards of living has any bearing on whether or not gays and lesbians ought to be able to marry is simply beyond me.

Let me make myself clear if I'm not already. If this line of argument were presented at trial it would be thrown out post haste. The lifestyles and/or needs of married heterosexual women have zero relevance to the question. Zip. Nada.

I'm not sure to what extent I buy meadmaker's assertions but it really doesn't matter. It's a non-starter that cannot elucidate the discussion. A.) There is little if any evidence that gay marriage has any effect on the marriage or divorce of heterosexual women. B.) This is the 21st century. Assuming there ever was a designed and implemented plan for the cohesion and procreative success of heterosexuals and/or the protection of women, a plan known as marriage, well, that is no longer at issue. And it won't be so long as we allow divorce. Prohibiting or allowing gay marriage will have zero impact on any of that.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks. Granting the premise for sake of argument, why should the argument not be seen as simply ad hoc rationalization?

Seeing as how I agree with you, I'll let Meadmaker answer this; I really don't understand how any rational person can oppose gay marriage.

[Foster Zygote]

Here's an example that is perhaps more relevant to the subject at hand:

My wife and I are friends with two happily married couples consisting of a "white" man and a "black" woman. Both couples have a few adorable kids. Neither union would have been permitted under South Carolina law prior to 1967. In fact my own marriage would have been prohibited as well because my wife is Puerto Rican.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Merton

Quote:

Thanks. Granting the premise for sake of argument, why should the argument not be seen as simply ad hoc rationalization?

Seeing as how I agree with you, I'll let Meadmaker answer this; I really don't understand how any rational person can oppose gay marriage.

David Boies has pointed out on numerous occasions that many of the claims during pre-trial discovery never made it to the final trial. In fact, many of the witnesses never made it to trial. There was a reason for that. The claims could not stand to scrutiny. Under cross examination such claims are exposed as silly. Meadmaker's claim is one of those. It's fatuous as it relates to the OP. And for those who don't understand what I'm talking about please watch the play "8" starting at 1:09:00. Keep watching until 1:13:50 when Boies (played by George Clooney) explains why so few claims and so few witnesses showed up.

It's easy to get on a social networking site and make claims and hold forth on some absurd point but in a court of law there are rules of evidence and the opposing attorneys are allowed to expose red herring and pop psychology for what it is.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Merton

My point here is your statement that marriage should be between a future-childbearing, heterosexual couple

I made no such statement.

Quote:

... seems to rely heavily on gender inequality:

but yes, gender inequality is a very important fact and very relevant to marriage.

Quote:

the female is either a stay-at-home mother or underpaid and must rely on her husband, the breadwinner, for support.

That was once true, but is no longer true. On the other hand, many people voluntarily accept this condition on the assumption that their spouse, still usually but not always the husband, will be reliable.

Quote:

To rectify this situation, I would say we need to do more for women's rights, rather than prohibit gay marriage.

But in my example, how would doing more for women's rights help? Which rights are you talking about? She had both the right and the ability to pursue a lucrative career, but chose not to based on certain promises made by her husband, which promises were not kept.

Quote:

Furthermore, any parent, regardless of gender, has a financial obligation to his or her children. I just don't see how "traditional marriage" advocates have a leg on which to stand.

This is true, although not applicable to my example either, as they were a childless couple. On the other hand, the issue of children was not absent from their marriage, nor from their divorce.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Originally Posted by Merton

My point here is your statement that marriage should be between a future-childbearing, heterosexual couple

I made no such statement.

Then I seem to have misunderstood. Could you explain what you meant by the following?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I still think marriage needs to be a condition in which a woman who is about to have a man's baby can be confident that he will share his wealth for life, and that she need not fear economic harm if he eventually decides to pursue a younger or prettier mate.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Merton

Then I seem to have misunderstood. Could you explain what you meant by the following?

Quote:

I still think marriage needs to be a condition in which a woman who is about to have a man's baby can be confident that he will share his wealth for life, and that she need not fear economic harm if he eventually decides to pursue a younger or prettier mate.

While you are at it, could you tell us how gay marriage would alter that dynamic for the worse?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Would you mind explaining it anyway?

Ok. My example of a divorcing, childless, heterosexual, couple is relevant to the gay marriage debate for two reasons.

First, for those of you who do not care what marriage is, what it ought to be, or why we have it, I must concede that it is not relevant in the least. Regardless of what happens to any married couple as a consequence of their marriage or divorce, the only thing that matters to such people is that the law ignores gender.

On the other hand, if you actually care what will happen to gay people as a result of getting married, then the laws regarding marriage matter.

Second, let us call the people from my anecdote Bob and Janet. They are real people, although those are not their real names. Think about how those people are affected by the events of their marriage and their divorce.

Now repeat the anecdote with Bob and Steve, and with Susan and Janet, and with Bob and Janet, but with the roles reversed. Janet, who never wanted children, runs off with a 21 year old man, while Bob, who always wanted children is left alone.

The consequences to the people involved vary a great deal with the gender of those people. Gender inequality is real, and no legislature can change it. A particularly significant aspect of the case is the desire for children. A 45 year old man can still have children. A 45 year old woman cannot. (Or at best is in the very late period of possible pregnancy, with low probability of success.)

We can choose to ignore those gender differences in our legal system. I am not saying we shouldn't. However, by doing so, we guarantee a disparity of outcome. Inherent in the assertion that a marriage between two people of the same sex should be treated identically to a marriage between people of opposite sex is the assertion that the gender of the two people getting married does not matter.

In reality, their gender does matter. As a society, we need to decide whether we will acknowledge those differences. Right now, we don't, but I'm not absolutely certain that's a good idea. I am absolutely certain that divorce affects the average woman differently than the average man, whether or not we treat them differently in the legal system.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Merton

Then I seem to have misunderstood. Could you explain what you meant by the following?

Quote:

I still think marriage needs to be a condition in which a woman who is about to have a man's baby can be confident that he will share his wealth for life, and that she need not fear economic harm if he eventually decides to pursue a younger or prettier mate.

One way to accomplish the goal that I described would be to ensure that any spouse who breaks off a marriage is liable for the financial security of the divorced spouse, regardless of gender. Mission accomplished. If Bob abandons Steve, and Bob is required by law to support Steve, then he would also be required to support his heterosexual spouse that had his baby.

The way I have expressed it in the past is that the "rules" of marriage, i.e. our system of laws regarding marriage, divorce, and child support, should be written in such a way that they make sense for young, healthy, heterosexual couples. Then, anyone else who wants to play by the same rules should be allowed to do so.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

One way to accomplish the goal that I described would be to ensure that any spouse who breaks off a marriage is liable for the financial security of the divorced spouse, regardless of gender.

It sounds like we are mostly in agreement then. The way you phrased your statement initially, it seemed to imply that you still thought marriage should only be permitted for heterosexuals who intend on raising children. Thanks for explaining!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Ok. My example of a divorcing, childless, heterosexual, couple is relevant to the gay marriage debate for two reasons.

First, for those of you who do not care what marriage is, what it ought to be, or why we have it, I must concede that it is not relevant in the least. Regardless of what happens to any married couple as a consequence of their marriage or divorce, the only thing that matters to such people is that the law ignores gender.

On the other hand, if you actually care what will happen to gay people as a result of getting married, then the laws regarding marriage matter.

Second, let us call the people from my anecdote Bob and Janet. They are real people, although those are not their real names. Think about how those people are affected by the events of their marriage and their divorce.

Okay.... and? We should spare gay people?

Quote:

Now repeat the anecdote with Bob and Steve, and with Susan and Janet, and with Bob and Janet, but with the roles reversed. Janet, who never wanted children, runs off with a 21 year old man, while Bob, who always wanted children is left alone.

??? Hang on, what does this have to do with gay marriage? Is the scenario not possible if all 4 are not married?

Quote:

The consequences to the people involved vary a great deal with the gender of those people. Gender inequality is real, and no legislature can change it. A particularly significant aspect of the case is the desire for children. A 45 year old man can still have children. A 45 year old woman cannot. (Or at best is in the very late period of possible pregnancy, with low probability of success.)

I still don't understand your point. So what and what does this have to do with gay marriage?

Quote:

We can choose to ignore those gender differences in our legal system. I am not saying we shouldn't. However, by doing so, we guarantee a disparity of outcome. Inherent in the assertion that a marriage between two people of the same sex should be treated identically to a marriage between people of opposite sex is the assertion that the gender of the two people getting married does not matter.

Okay, so what is the down side of saying the gender of the two people does not matter (please don't refer to the examples above)?

Quote:

In reality, their gender does matter. As a society, we need to decide whether we will acknowledge those differences. Right now, we don't, but I'm not absolutely certain that's a good idea. I am absolutely certain that divorce affects the average woman differently than the average man, whether or not we treat them differently in the legal system.

I'm so lost. You are saying that if gays and lesbians are allowed to get married that it will harm women? How (please don't refer to the examples above)?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

One way to accomplish the goal that I described would be to ensure that any spouse who breaks off a marriage is liable for the financial security of the divorced spouse, regardless of gender. Mission accomplished. If Bob abandons Steve, and Bob is required by law to support Steve, then he would also be required to support his heterosexual spouse that had his baby.

The way I have expressed it in the past is that the "rules" of marriage, i.e. our system of laws regarding marriage, divorce, and child support, should be written in such a way that they make sense for young, healthy, heterosexual couples. Then, anyone else who wants to play by the same rules should be allowed to do so.

I'm not opposed to your ideas I'm just not sure what the hell it has to do with gay marriage. You don't give a damn if Bob abandons Steve so long as they are not married? Seriously?

Somebody please to explain this to me?

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What on god's green earth does this have to do with arguments for and against gay marriage?

It almost sounds like they are in favor of gay marriage but they do not want the gay couples to be subjected to divorce or other unpleasant events that can result from a failed marriage.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Joecool

Originally Posted by RandFan

What on god's green earth does this have to do with arguments for and against gay marriage?

It almost sounds like they are in favor of gay marriage but they do not want the gay couples to be subjected to divorce or other unpleasant events that can result from a failed marriage.

I'm beginning to think this is true. Spare the gays.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

One way to accomplish the goal that I described would be to ensure that any spouse who breaks off a marriage is liable for the financial security of the divorced spouse, regardless of gender. Mission accomplished. If Bob abandons Steve, and Bob is required by law to support Steve, then he would also be required to support his heterosexual spouse that had his baby.

The way I have expressed it in the past is that the "rules" of marriage, i.e. our system of laws regarding marriage, divorce, and child support, should be written in such a way that they make sense for young, healthy, heterosexual couples. Then, anyone else who wants to play by the same rules should be allowed to do so.

Unless it's an abused spouse ending a relationship, right?

I think we can all agree that gays should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, can't we.

What we've somehow stumbled into is the question of if marriage should exist at all. It's pretty off-topic but ok....

Marriage forms a very useful contract when it comes to property, progeny and the ability to make medical decisions for someone, to name but a few aspects. While I think scrapping that would be foolish I also think there should be a similar contract for others. Eg siblings who live together. It seems unfair that they have to pay things like inheritance taxes just because they aren't married. I would argue that their bond is closer than spouses in that example.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

Unless it's an abused spouse ending a relationship, right?

I'm not going to say that there is one, correct, answer. I'll just give my answer, that fits with my previous statements.

Abuse and violence are prohibited by the marriage contract. Violence against a spouse is a violation of the "rules". It gives the right for the abused spouse to break off the relationship, but she (and let's be real, it's usually she) is still entitled to the financial support promised as part of the agreement. Similarly for adultery and other violations of the marriage agreement.

Exact rules, regulations, judicial guidelines, etc. are beyond the scope of this discussion, but in broad terms, it should be possible to enter into a marriage agreement in which you take the text of the traditional church wedding vows, and treat them not merely as sentimental wishes, but as actual, legally binding contracts, complete with penalties for failing to follow the contract.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'm not going to say that there is one, correct, answer. I'll just give my answer, that fits with my previous statements.

Abuse and violence are prohibited by the marriage contract. Violence against a spouse is a violation of the "rules". It gives the right for the abused spouse to break off the relationship, but she (and let's be real, it's usually she) is still entitled to the financial support promised as part of the agreement. Similarly for adultery and other violations of the marriage agreement.

Exact rules, regulations, judicial guidelines, etc. are beyond the scope of this discussion, but in broad terms, it should be possible to enter into a marriage agreement in which you take the text of the traditional church wedding vows, and treat them not merely as sentimental wishes, but as actual, legally binding contracts, complete with penalties for failing to follow the contract.

A.) Granting the premises for sake of advancing the discussion. None of this is impacted by allowing gays and lesbians to marry. B.) Humans are evolved problem solvers and we can craft solutions whether we rely on religious tradition or not. In short, to the extent religion has has played a role in marriage, it's not necessary. C.) Evidence that traditional church wedding vows have a positive impact on marriages in a way that secular ones don't?

Here's my problem. Reading through this thread it seems to me that instead of starting with the null hypothesis some people start with the notion that traditional religious matrimonial ceremonies are beneficial to humans in a way that secular ones are not. I'm skeptical of that and I find it lazy to make such claims without any sociological evidence. How far would I get if stated categorically that secular marriages were better than traditional religious ones? How far would that fly without evidence? Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is still a skeptics forum, right?

[RandFan]

Didn't this all start out with the idea that marriage was a failed and meaningless institution? Do I need to go dig up those posts?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by RandFan

??? Hang on, what does this have to do with gay marriage?

...I still don't understand your point. So what and what does this have to do with gay marriage?

I'm so lost.

You seem to have two scripts. People are supposed to use the "for" script or the "against" script.

You are confused because I'm off script, and you can't follow it.

This shows most clearly in your most recent post:

Originally Posted by RandFan

B.) Humans are evolved problem solvers and we can craft solutions whether we rely on religious tradition or not. In short, to the extent religion has has played a role in marriage, it's not necessary. C.) Evidence that traditional church wedding vows have a positive impact on marriages in a way that secular ones don't?....

It's like you seized on the fact that I said "church", and figured you had recognized part of a script you could go after. However, think about the vows. You know them. I think I've probably got them memorized pretty well. ZI'll have a go at it.

"Do you Bob, take Janet, to have and to hold, to love, honor, and cherish,for better and for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, and, forsaking all others keeping yourself only unto Janet, til death do you part?"

It's secular. There's nothing religious about it. No God. No soul. No miracles. No religion. I'm pretty sure they say the same thing at a Justice of the Peace, if that's what the couple wants. I'm not sure, because I've never been to one.

So, sorry, but I wasn't using a "religion" script. Your response isn't applicable.


Meanwhile, you asked a question.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm not opposed to your ideas I'm just not sure what the hell it has to do with gay marriage. You don't give a damn if Bob abandons Steve so long as they are not married? Seriously?

Marriage is the means by which private relationships are made public. If Bob and Steve choose to keep their relationship private, then it's none of my business. If they didn't accept any publicly avowed obligation toward each other, then it's their business. No, I don't care about Bob abondoning Steve unless they are married. Seriously.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's like you seized on the fact that I said "church", and figured you had recognized part of a script you could go after.

No. You are wrong.

Quote:

It's secular. There's nothing religious about it. No God. No soul. No miracles. No religion. I'm pretty sure they say the same thing at a Justice of the Peace, if that's what the couple wants. I'm not sure, because I've never been to one.

I never made a point about god, soul, miracles, etc.. My usage of the word religious was to find out what your point was (YOU used the word religious). Honestly I have no idea what your point is.

Quote:

Marriage is the means by which private relationships are made public. If Bob and Steve choose to keep their relationship private, then it's none of my business. If they didn't accept any publicly avowed obligation toward each other, then it's their business. No, I don't care about Bob abondoning Steve unless they are married. Seriously.

So you care if they are married? Why?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by RandFan

So you care if they are married? Why?

If they are married, then they have made a public, legally binding, commitment. They are obligated by law to honor that commitment, or to provide such compensation to the injured party as the law provides.

The existence of that provision to provide compensation creates an environment of security, in which a spouse can be reasonably certain that she, or he, can make important life decisions based on the assumption that her, or his, spouse, will at least be obligated to some minimal level of support, even if their blissful love affair gets tired and dull.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by corybluefire

What are the best arguments FOR and AGAINST (lol) gay marriage???

My argument for gay marriage is this. Gay people deserve to be happy like anyone else. If they can find happiness in a union with a person of the same gender then let them marry.

My only objection would be is that straight couples will marry t get their buddy on their companys health insurance.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

My argument for gay marriage is this. Gay people deserve to be happy like anyone else. If they can find happiness in a union with a person of the same gender then let them marry.

My only objection would be is that straight couples will marry t get their buddy on their companys health insurance.

People can do that now as long as one is a man and the other a woman.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I’ll be honest and admit I have not read this entire thread, but my opinion – for what it’s worth:

In the UK gay couples can get married in legally binding civil partnership ceremonies which grant them the same rights and considerations as straight couples. Which is just as it should be.

What they CAN’T do is get married in a Christian Church; which is fair enough in my opinion – them’s the church rules, and if you want to be a member of the club you have to abide by the rules. Nowhere in The Bible does it advocate homosexuality…

So, I’m not really seeing what all the fuss is about.

[Croydon Bob]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Here's my problem. Reading through this thread it seems to me that instead of starting with the null hypothesis some people start with the notion that traditional religious matrimonial ceremonies are beneficial to humans in a way that secular ones are not.

Agreed, but the very nature of this debate is wrong. We shouldn't be discussing for and against GAY marriage. We should be discussing marriage and why some people should or shouldn't be excluded. The often made comparison with inter-ethnic marriage is apt.

There's no such thing as "gay marriage". If two bisexuals get married is that a bisexual marriage? It is all just marriage. If same-gender marriage has to be separated out then "gay marriage" is the wrong phrase when the participants may not be "gay" but "bi".

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

You are confused because I'm off script, and you can't follow it.

You are in a thread asking for the best arguments for and against gay marriage. Your rambling posts have made no coherent arguments for or against and you are accusing someone else of being confused?

[Croydon Bob]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

In the UK gay couples can get married in legally binding civil partnership ceremonies which grant them the same rights and considerations as straight couples. Which is just as it should be.

Yes but; there are subtle legal differences between marriage and civil partnership. There have been a number of cases of hetro couples challenging the law that refuses them the right to a civil partnership.

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

What they CAN’T do is get married in a Christian Church; which is fair enough in my opinion – them’s the church rules, and if you want to be a member of the club you have to abide by the rules.

Yes but; the law actually forbids religious same-gender wedding, even if the church wants to do it. It is not up to the particular religion or priest's rules, the Govt have banned it.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Croydon Bob

Yes but; there are subtle legal differences between marriage and civil partnership. There have been a number of cases of hetro couples challenging the law that refuses them the right to a civil partnership.

What are the differences, off the top of your head? Question from genuine interest and ignorance!

Originally Posted by Croydon Bob

Yes but; the law actually forbids religious same-gender wedding, even if the church wants to do it. It is not up to the particular religion or priest's rules, the Govt have banned it.

Really? I honestly didn't know that! I find it quite shocking that in this day and age the British Government would actually have the sack to do that. That said, it's a bit of a moot point at the moment because, as you just said, we don't know that the church wants to do it.

[Croydon Bob]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

What are the differences, off the top of your head? Question from genuine interest and ignorance!

They weren't important enough to me to stick in my head. Trivial stuff around either pensions or wills or something, and technical differences in the criteria for divorce. Important enough to some people. I tried a quick search but couldn't find anything concrete, just stuff like this which doesn't go into the detail: http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_ri...rimination.htm
And is from a source which is very much on one side of the argument.

And here's the application where a bunch of gay and straight people went to the European Court of Human Rights to try to get Marriage and Civil Partnerships as an option both ways around: http://www.petertatchellfoundation.o...pplication.pdf

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

Really? I honestly didn't know that! I find it quite shocking that in this day and age the British Government would actually have the sack to do that. That said, it's a bit of a moot point at the moment because, as you just said, we don't know that the church wants to do it.

There must be at least one denomination, and certain individual CofE churches, that would conduct same-sex marriages if they were allowed to.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

If they are married, then they have made a public, legally binding, commitment. They are obligated by law to honor that commitment, or to provide such compensation to the injured party as the law provides.

This tells me how the two instances are different. It does not tell me why you would care about an individual one moment and not the next. This is just special pleading.

Quote:

The existence of that provision to provide compensation creates an environment of security, in which a spouse can be reasonably certain that she, or he, can make important life decisions based on the assumption that her, or his, spouse, will at least be obligated to some minimal level of support, even if their blissful love affair gets tired and dull.

Let's be clear here what it is you are saying.

• Married: It's very important that Bob get spousal support from Steve.
• Not Married: Screw Steve.

That's it. I'm sorry but that is as inconsistent as anything I've ever heard.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Croydon Bob

Agreed, but the very nature of this debate is wrong. We shouldn't be discussing for and against GAY marriage. We should be discussing marriage and why some people should or shouldn't be excluded. The often made comparison with inter-ethnic marriage is apt.

There's no such thing as "gay marriage". If two bisexuals get married is that a bisexual marriage? It is all just marriage. If same-gender marriage has to be separated out then "gay marriage" is the wrong phrase when the participants may not be "gay" but "bi".

You are absolutely right, but, the term "gay marriage" is used not to set it apart but simply to make it clear what we are talking about. Otherwise, yes, there is only marriage.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

People can do that now as long as one is a man and the other a woman.

If not they CAN'T do that. That's a problem. If you can't marry the person you love then what good is marriage?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Let's be clear here what it is you are saying.

• Married: It's very important that Bob get spousal support from Steve.
• Not Married: Screw Steve.

Yes. That's correct. That's what I'm saying.


The rest of your post was a bit off, but when it comes to the above, it's accurate.

ETA: Of course, if society decides that marriage doesn't include a promise of spousal support, then I suppose that's ok, in which case society is saying:

Married: Screw Steve.
Not Married: Screw Steve.