Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

One of the stupidest and most flawed speeches I have ever read. So many assumptions based on emotion, without a single fact offered in support.

I hope that wasn't your reply to my challenge to demonstrate how gays are denied rights.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I think you misunderstand the definition of the word "fundamental." The judge points out that sex (or more correctly, gender) is a fundamental element of marriage, while race never could be.

And what is your counter to a simple statement, "We don't believe gender is a fundamental element of marriage."?

Quote by: Dirty Name Too bad heterosexuals don't have this "right" either.

In what way do they not? Oh, they can do it, but it's not because they have a "right" to? Right.... I think the primary problem here is that gays are just looking for the right to be recognized, to visit their partners in the hospital, to inherit their partner's property upon death, and you're hung up on the term "marriage". Just because straight people have biological children. Which isn't a great difference in the big picture.

Quote by: Dirty Name Are you going to make the case, or just point out flawed rulings based on flawed logic? There is ZERO similarity between interracial marriage and gay marriage, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

You posted one judge's opinion. I posted another's. I thought that line was pretty clear. And I find the logic of your judge's ruling as flawed as you find the logic of mine. So.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name One of the stupidest and most flawed speeches I have ever read. So many assumptions based on emotion, without a single fact offered in support. I hope that wasn't your reply to my challenge to demonstrate how gays are denied rights.

I merely stumbled across it and thought I'd put it up. Not everything is about you, you know. Speeches are supposed to be emotional, powerful. This is an emotional issue for many people, you know.

[Dirty Name]

And what is your counter to a simple statement, "We don't believe gender is a fundamental element of marriage."?

Simple. What other possible element exists under the current law? None. If you remove gender as the fundamental element, what do you replace it with? Love? Is it legally possible to define love? Even if there is, there's no way to test for it.

If not love, what other possible fundamental element could replace gender?

[Dirty Name]

I merely stumbled across it and thought I'd put it up. Not everything is about you, you know. Speeches are supposed to be emotional, powerful. This is an emotional issue for many people, you know.

That's why I asked. Don't get your panties in a wad.

[Dirty Name]

In what way do they not? Oh, they can do it, but it's not because they have a "right" to?

Show me the right, as enumerated in the Constitution (or anywhere else) where it states that heterosexuals can marry the person they love. Love is not a legal concept, and is certainly not a compelling government interest.

That is the whole problem with the gay desire to alter the basic definition of marriage - it is impossible to alter the law in the name of equality and still deny polygamists and incestuous couples the very rights that gays are demanding.

[belverron]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Quote by: Dirty Name That's why I asked. Don't get your panties in a wad.

I'm not wearing panties. I save those for special occasions.

[Dirty Name]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Fine. But to claim a right to marry based merely on "love" you are going to have to provide a source (and a legal definition of love).

As for the panties remark, I knew I was going to regret that comment. :)

[Old Blue Light]

This should never be an issue. It is entirely too silly to focus on in such a fashion. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoronic phrase. Hows about we make morality out of immorality. Certainly, any free-born human has a right to do with themselves and their genitalia what they wish, but the majority of human beings also have a right to live in a society based on decency. What is just and fair to everyone is what is important. Gay marriage? What is the point? The idiosyncrasies and jealousies of typical gay people would perpetuate a red-tape nightmare of paperwork. Is not love for its own sake well enough? Should you be so insecure as to need public opinion and acceptance for your transgressions? We owe it to our posterity, to our heirs, to always think ahead, not for ourselves, but for them. To set this precedent of gay marriage is to atrophy moral progression. We are responsible for the future, and they will hold us to that pledge. Is what I do personally going to benefit the children of tomorrow? If not, then my life is for nothing and that is unacceptable.

[Dirty Name]

Ah, but gays are of the opinion that the concept of "equality" should be liberally applied, no matter how unequal things really are. "Equality" is the rallying cry of these people, and it trumps reason and prudence.

Under their logic, cars are the legal equivalent of boats and airplanes because they all transport people from one point to another. Who are we to judge the method one selects for locomotion?

[Libertarian]

Quote by: Old Blue Light Is not love for its own sake well enough? Should you be so insecure as to need public opinion and acceptance for your transgressions?

Love is why people marry(usually). But the reason that GLBT's want to be able to marry is to be able to get the benfits of marrage. Benfits of taxes, child cusdoy (sp?), inhertariance just to name a few of many. If this country cannot grant people the basic rights afforded to others in this same country, than are we really the true and free democracy that we say we are?

[Gilligan]

I would have an opinion of gay marriage if a gay person proposed to me; at which point I would be against it. I think all marriage is between God and the two people who want to get married. Meaning if a civil ceremony is performed between two women, that is there problem when they have to answer to God. I wish the rest of the world would butt out of other peoples lives, I have never met anyone who's backyard was immaculate that had nothing better to do than to critisize other peoples backyards.

Your either busy tending your own, or you should be.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Libertarian But the reason that GLBT's want to be able to marry is to be able to get the benfits of marrage

Of course it is. Gays want to be considered equal, even though in the eyes of the government, gay coupless can't possibly contribute to society in an equal way, no matter how hard they try.

[Dirty Name]

I would have an opinion of gay marriage if a gay person proposed to me; at which point I would be against it. I think all marriage is between God and the two people who want to get married. Meaning if a civil ceremony is performed between two women, that is there problem when they have to answer to God. I wish the rest of the world would butt out of other peoples lives, I have never met anyone who's backyard was immaculate that had nothing better to do than to critisize other peoples backyards.

And nobody would care if that's all gay couples were asking for. But they wish to be considered the legal equivalent of heterosexual couples, when they simply are not. Such a change in the law would open the door to all manner of other forms of marriage, which in turn would result in the loss of benefits for heterosexual couples (or a colossal drain on resources due to the unlimited combinations of couples that would file for benefits).

So I'm curious, Gilligan, if you are a married heterosexual, are you in favor of losing your federal tax break and social security survivor benefits?

If you are a business owner, do you like the idea of being forced to pay extra for medical benefits so that the life partner of one of your gay employees won't sue you for discrimination?

If you are listed as a dependant on your spouse's insurance, would you like the idea of losing those benefits when your spouse's employer decides to cancel all dependent benefits in order to avoid being forced to pay for "life partner" benefits?

Finally, regardless of how you answer these questions, keep in mind that such drastic changes in the law will indeed have an impact on future generations and how they view the instution of marriage. A strong case can be made that such changes would reduce the importance of marriage and cause a significant reduction in the level of committment between mates in future generations - something that doesn't bode well for the concept of the nuclear family.

So you may not care about the nuclear family, you may not care about the loss of benefits, you may not care about the long term impact, but there is no way you can make the case that gay marriage isn't anyone else's business. It very clearly has an impact on society as a whole.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name If you are a business owner, do you like the idea of being forced to pay extra for medical benefits so that the life partner of one of your gay employees won't sue you for discrimination?

Quote by: HRC HRC Foundation's 2003 edition of the "The State of the Workplace" report found that the number of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partner benefits almost tripled in five years, from 69 in 1998 to 200 by the end of 2003. The trend among the Fortune 500 suggests that the higher a company's rank, the more likely it is to offer domestic partner benefits. While 40 percent of the Fortune 500 companies provide the benefits, 68 percent of those in Fortune 50 do so.... Research by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies Research Director M.V. Lee Badgett found that most employers that offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners find expenses rise no more than 1 percent. For employers that offer them to same- and opposite-sex partners, expenses tend to rise no more than 2 percent. A 1997 study by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 85 percent of employers experience no cost increase as a result of providing domestic partner benefits.

Quote by: Dirty Name Finally, regardless of how you answer these questions, keep in mind that such drastic changes in the law will indeed have an impact on future generations and how they view the instution of marriage. A strong case can be made that such changes would reduce the importance of marriage and cause a significant reduction in the level of committment between mates in future generations - something that doesn't bode well for the concept of the nuclear family.

How, exactly, did you reach the conclusion that allowing more committed couples to the institution of marriage would weaken it? Your argument, if I recall, is that because gay people will be able to get married, so will polygamists (which I do not believe is sound reasoning, though I see nothing inherently wrong with polygamy). The resulting nightmare of sorting out benefits will result in the stripping of some benefits from marriage, which will keep people from marriage despite the excellent role marriage plays in protecting relationships. Gays want marriage so that their relationship will be protected, not for some tax break. After all, the average gay person is supposed to make more money (though I believe those statistics are probably BS). Incidentally, I've always found it interesting when conservative groups use that argument. "Gay people make more money, anyway, why are they complaining?" a few lines after "Gay people are unfit to parent/get married because of their mental disorder." Right.... Anyhoo, back on topic, having the government respect your relationship is a lot more important than the damned tax breaks. It's degrading when you've just lost the love of your life and his/her family takes you to court over a very clear will... and wins, just because you're gay. Yes, that has happened.

And the fact that someone's in a heterosexual relationship doesn't mean they're contributing more to society. My mother precipitated her divorce from my father by coming out when I was eight, and I have as good of a family life as anyone I know. I'm also at a university on a full ride. So, how exactly are gay parenting and relationships inferior to straight ones? At least when a gay couple has a child you know they've planned for it. And since I'm guessing they also adopt at a much higher rate than straight couples, you could argue that they're providing something even more vital for society. They're taking kids that already need homes instead of just pumping out more. Just thinking about it makes me mad at the breeders

[belverron]

Quote by: Old Blue Light Gay marriage? What is the point? The idiosyncrasies and jealousies of typical gay people would perpetuate a red-tape nightmare of paperwork.

What does that even mean? Are you simply making the tired accusation that gays are too promiscuous for marriage? I can assure you that, while I revel in my idiosyncracies, I do not differ so greatly from the straighties.

[Dirty Name]

It's degrading when you've just lost the love of your life and his/her family takes you to court over a very clear will... and wins, just because you're gay. Yes, that has happened.

Marriage does not have to be the solution for this. And if a court of law ruled in favor of the family rather than the gay person's lover, that simply means one of two things:

1) There was just cause for it
2) The ruling was based entirely on prejudice against gays.

Regardless, I would simply like to point your attention to the case of Anna Nicole Smith, who was married for YEARS to some old codger and she lost her case. Things like that don't just happen to gays. As such, I roundly reject your anecdote as a reason to fundamentally alter one of the pillars of our society.

[belverron]

It would only strengthen that pillar.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Old Blue Light Gay marriage? What is the point? The idiosyncrasies and jealousies of typical gay people would perpetuate a red-tape nightmare of paperwork.

Not a valid argument.

[Dirty Name]

It would only strengthen that pillar.

Oh really? How? When you say "that pillar," I hope you are referring strictly to heterosexual relationships.

At least when a gay couple has a child you know they've planned for it.

First of all, gays don't "have" children, they aquire them. There isn't a single gay couple in the history of the world that has ever had a child within their relationship.

Second, the fact that gays have the exclusive privelege of "planning" a family makes my case yet again. You see, heterosexuals make up the overwhelming majority of the population in the United States - without question at least 85% (and I'm being conservative here). Heterosexual relationships have a tendency to result in children - totally naturally - regardless if they were planned for or not.

Pregnancy CANNOT always be planned. Sometimes it occurs without notice. And when that happens, society has a compelling interest in the individual life of the new citizen. When that happens, our society believes (as it has for the last 229 years) that the biological parents are the best legal and social solution for the welfare of that child. Thus, the legal recognition of marriage exists to advance the compelling interest of the state.

By the way, have you ever attempted to list a single compelling interest that the government might have in legally recognizing the relationship of a homosexual couple?