Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Hear that, everyone? The government does not encourage artificial insemination! All of you infertile men in heterosexual marriages, watch out. The government does not support your right to have a reproductive marriage.

What "right to a reproductive marriage?" You people sure like to invent new rights a lot.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name What "right to a reproductive marriage?" You people sure like to invent new rights a lot.

Couples with an infertile male do have the right to have children - with artificial insemination - correct?

And the government still encourages that right - correct?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Regardless, dig it up.

Nope. Don't have to now. You fessed-up right here:

Quote by: Dirty Name Get over this, already. I've changed jobs three times since you went ape on this last time.

For all I know, you're still in the same line of business. Are you?

Quote by: Dirty Name You might also want to review this: Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Why? It's fact. There's no fallacy in sight, dude. The fact that I point it out in later entries doesn't assign an ad hominem affect to my statement unless the reader infers one.

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm pretty sure you've inferred a few things that you can't support from what I told you.

Pretty sure? What, are you guessing now? You said what you said, nothing more, nothing less. Live up to it.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name No, there are ZERO. Every one of those "planned pregnancies" requires a third party.

Then write more clearly next time. Claiming...

Quote by: Dirty Name Such as the fact that they don't experience pregnancy and childbirth within their relationship - a glaring inequality.

...doesn't necessarily speak to the issue of third parties.

Quote by: Dirty Name Hardly. It's you that doesn't understand the definition of the word "couple" or the phrase "within the relationship." Are you now advocating polygamy? Sure sounds like it.

Oh don't be silly. Homosexual and heterosexual couples often allow the donor (sperm or egg) rights of visitation, care, and guardianship -- especially if the donor is a close friend. That's not polygamy.

Quote by: Dirty Name There is no compelling reason why such behavior should be encouraged.

Nor discouraged. It should be a neutral issue in the eyes of the law, and would be if not for the gloom-and-doom crowd.

Quote by: Dirty Name Out of my league. Hah. That's a good one. I presume you mean "encouragement" by the way. In effect, you are saying that we should encourage people to have children but don't allow them to be raised by their biological father.

I just got thru explaining the variations to you. Do pay attention, won't you?

Quote by: Dirty Name Why would we do this? I'm talking about the big picture here, as a society, not about the individual reasons one lesbian might feel compelled to do it.

Because society has no compelling interest to discourage children from being raised in a loving, nurturing environment.

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm not even sure what this means. I do know that I can produce studies showing that children benefit from the influence of having a fatherfigure in their lives, and that lesbian relationships exclude this.

If you're going to trot out NARTH effluvia, don't bother. They've been discredited by pretty much every branch of the social sciences and most government officials.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Dirty Name Tell that to my wife who had to jump through a number of hoops to get it done.

I am sure any hoops she had to jump through were NOT to have it changed legally, but to have it changed on documentation. (ie bank account, bills ect, drivers license ect.). Also, inorder to change these things, did she need anything other than a marriage certificate?? (besides two pieces of ID which is standard)

[satine]

When you think about it, allowing homosexual marraige doesn't truly affect the heterosexual population. It is their choice, and we don't have to answer for their choices in any religious sense. If one is Christian, that still doesn't mean one must superimpose their beliefs on others. In fact, i believe there's this thing called separation of religion and state? Correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as children are concerned, why does this matter as long as they have a loving family? Adoption especially gives homes to otherwise orphaned children. There's a case in Minnesota where a couple is suing an Athletic club for refusing to sell them a family membership. How can anyone even imagine the pain that child is going through, after being told that the only thing she's ever known is not a family?

While some may just be uncomfortable with the idea, that is not justification for blocking their ability to marry. Who gets to define marraige? Certainly not the Bible, especially when following Jefferson's (a fouding father of our government and laws) "separation" principle. In all honesty, what harm does it create? Oh wait - it doesn't.

[Dirty Name]

For all I know, you're still in the same line of business. Are you?

Politics, yes. Advocacy, no.

Oh don't be silly. Homosexual and heterosexual couples often allow the donor (sperm or egg) rights of visitation, care, and guardianship -- especially if the donor is a close friend. That's not polygamy.

What is the difference?

Why? It's fact. There's no fallacy in sight, dude. The fact that I point it out in later entries doesn't assign an ad hominem affect to my statement unless the reader infers one.

What is your point in attacking me or my line of work? It has zero to do with the argument at hand, and is also a clear violation of the Volconvo rules.

It would be one thing if we were just shooting the breeze, but you bring it up here as though it has some bearing on the relevance of my argument.

Nor discouraged. It should be a neutral issue in the eyes of the law, and would be if not for the gloom-and-doom crowd.

It IS neutral in the eyes of the law. Were it discouraged, there would be some sort of PENALTY applied to the behavior. Looks like you trapped yourself there.

Because society has no compelling interest to discourage children from being raised in a loving, nurturing environment.

Once again, lack of encouragement is NOT discouragement.

[Dirty Name]

When you think about it, allowing homosexual marraige doesn't truly affect the heterosexual population.

That isn't the argument, Satine.

As far as children are concerned, why does this matter as long as they have a loving family?

I wish I was clear on how your statement related to the debate.

There's a case in Minnesota where a couple is suing an Athletic club for refusing to sell them a family membership. How can anyone even imagine the pain that child is going through, after being told that the only thing she's ever known is not a family?

HAHA. That's a good one. It's almost as though you want us to believe that the child's self-worth is wrapped up entirely in the Athletic Club's membership policy.

Sorry, but my children are raised with a bit more self-esteem than that, and I have to believe that most children, regardless of their parents sexual preference-of-the-moment, are also raised with a bit more self-respect than how you would like to portray it here.

In all honesty, what harm does it create?

Do a little reading before you post next time, will ya?

From this post, it is unclear if you support an "any combination of adults" definition of marriage or what. But the bottom line is that you need to decide exactly how you are going to regulate marriage (if at all) before you come in here and make the blanket statement that it isn't going to cause any harm.

[Dirty Name]

I am sure any hoops she had to jump through were NOT to have it changed legally, but to have it changed on documentation. (ie bank account, bills ect, drivers license ect.). Also, inorder to change these things, did she need anything other than a marriage certificate?? (besides two pieces of ID which is standard)

And so your complaint would be, what? That in addition to getting the name changed on all the legal documents necessary for life, a person wishing to take the name of his gay lover has to go through the extra step of going to the courthouse, whereas a straight woman has to get a marriage license go through the ceremony, and then make sure the minister files the paperwork before she starts the official name changes on her personal legal documents?

And all this so you can point out that in the extremely unlikely scenario that a gay person should choose to change his name to that of his gay lover, an extra step is required to do so.

Again, big freaking deal. What are you people REALLY upset about, anyway? Will someone point out one or two significant (and common) benefits that are lacking because the GOVERNMENT won't legally recognize gay marriage?

I am aware of the Married, filing jointly tax break and social security survivor benefits. Are there other significant benefits that are common to a large segment of the population?

Please don't say hospital visitation rights. That's a matter of bad hospital policy, and certainly not something worthy of altering the fundamental definition of marriage when altering hospital policy would be sufficient.

[Captain Chaos]

It is not about the money.

I believe that, in gay people's hearts, it is about social recognition of their marriages.


This is why I maintain that legal recognition should come AFTER people's hearts have been opened up. In order for social conservatives to recognize that gay marriages are just as deep and meaningful as straight marriages, they need to be exposed to such unions, and see for themselves.

This is also why I maintain that homosexuals should get married, and call themselves married, rather than just referring to 'life partners' or similar terms.

[ZNFYRH]

I guess I just don't understand it.

Religious marriage is a formality. If you say you're married you're married. Some people just choose to do so in a manner that follows traditions of a religion.

Legally, if two people want to bind their lives together in such a way, it shouldn't matter who they are.

I find it ironic that a single mother with a child who also lives with her mother (grandmother, mother, child in one house) can arrange for the two of them to have a certain type of civil union.

I looked into it, after reading this entire thread and did some research, and noticed that legal marriage is nothing more than a certain type of legal arrangement that is easy to replicate for non-married people.

I don't remember who first suggested it in the thread, but it truly is just a certain type of power of attorney that takes a little more effort to set up.

But each state specifies the legal rights of a spouse, so it isn't hard for a couple committed to each other to take the time to actually get it done.

So I guess the question to ask is what are gays fighting for?

The right to a legal privilege that they already have?

[Captain Chaos]

They are fighting for acceptance. Legal recognition of their marriages would give them a form of acceptance.

I think it is kind of nutty for people to look to government for recognition of marriage, but they do.

[ZNFYRH]

Gays get their own special classification any time they are a victim of a crime. How is that not accepting of them?

Do they want legal recognition of marriage or the legal benefits of marriage?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Gays get their own special classification any time they are a victim of a crime. How is that not accepting of them? Do they want legal recognition of marriage or the legal benefits of marriage?

I think, for the large majority, it is about recognition. The arguments are all about benefits, because that is something tangible they can point to in court. However, I think what really matters is the recognition. Not special recognition, just having their marriages regarded as equal.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I think, for the large majority, it is about recognition. The arguments are all about benefits, because that is something tangible they can point to in court. However, I think what really matters is the recognition. Not special recognition, just having their marriages regarded as equal.

So in other words the minority in the community is seeking to enact laws to compel the majority to recognize their way of life and hence to redefine a domestic institution which was borne out of agreed recognition by the general community?

Gee I dunno. Doesn't sound right to me.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: tinybear So in other words the minority in the community is seeking to enact laws to compel the majority to recognize their way of life and hence to redefine a domestic institution which was borne out of agreed recognition by the general community? Gee I dunno. Doesn't sound right to me.

That is certainly one way of looking at it.

I think the community should change its mind first, then let the recognition thing follow.

I acknowledge that there are a variety of convenience factors involved in simulating legal marriage with contracts, and that they cannot cover everything, but...

I do not feel that the amount of money or difficulty involved is sufficient to warrant forcing recognition.

I would be curious to get some feedback from any of our gay members on that opinion?

[ZNFYRH]

I would also be curious.

A gay person once asked me if I would still have married my wife if there were no legal benefits. I answered yes.

They told me I wouldn't feel the same about it if the benefits weren't there, and I said that if the benefits weren't there I wouldn't be as bitter as he is.

I think the gay community, as it is being portrayed at this time, is fighting hard for something that needs to go at a slower pace.

In the short short 230 years of its existence, America has come to recognize equality for gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. Most countries in the world aren't even that far along yet.

Things will change, they always do. I just happen to think a more patient and tolerant attitude (from the gays) is the best way to win people over.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I would also be curious. A gay person once asked me if I would still have married my wife if there were no legal benefits. I answered yes. They told me I wouldn't feel the same about it if the benefits weren't there, and I said that if the benefits weren't there I wouldn't be as bitter as he is. I think the gay community, as it is being portrayed at this time, is fighting hard for something that needs to go at a slower pace. In the short short 230 years of its existence, America has come to recognize equality for gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. Most countries in the world aren't even that far along yet. Things will change, they always do. I just happen to think a more patient and tolerant attitude (from the gays) is the best way to win people over.

I see what you are saying, but I have to disagree.

Of all the groups who have sought and been awarded recognition, how many of them asked nicely, or have been patient about it?

No, nothing happens over night, but if no one speaks up and demands a change, its way too easy to ignore the problem.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Nikkums I see what you are saying, but I have to disagree. Of all the groups who have sought and been awarded recognition, how many of them asked nicely, or have been patient about it? No, nothing happens over night, but if no one speaks up and demands a change, its way too easy to ignore the problem.

It is not a question of ignoring it, but of strategy.

Committed gay couples need to get married (if they are ready for it) and proclaim themselves to be married far and wide. They need to raise kids (if they desire it) and be as open about it in the community as they can possibly be.

The also need to engage in information campaigns to make sure everyone sees the truth about their relationships - both good and bad.


This is not ignoring the problem, it is fighting very hard. I believe, however, that it is the only way to acquire the acceptance they seek. Using the courts has led to a severe backlash.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I looked into it, after reading this entire thread and did some research, and noticed that legal marriage is nothing more than a certain type of legal arrangement that is easy to replicate for non-married people. I don't remember who first suggested it in the thread, but it truly is just a certain type of power of attorney that takes a little more effort to set up.

Did you read the articles I posted? While money can solve things, homosexual couples need more money to subsist as a legal couple, or to be domestically recognised.

Social security, tax filing, insurance, etc. all has to be filed seperately at seperate charge. That is not cheap, and not a luxury some middle class gay couples(such as the one who wound up homeless on the streets after her wife's death) can afford.

Edit: Married couples inherit from each other TAX FREE. That is a huge benefit that would effect a gay partner quickly when their SO dies, as without a upper-class budget there is little to no chance they can inherit the bigger things, such as their partner's house or car.