Gay Marriage (Again)

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gay Marriage (Again)

I beg to differ. I used to live in Santa Rosa, Ca. which municipality had the dubious honour of being the only city to prosecute a couple for incest. They prosecuted the case because the woman was pregnant by her son for the third time. The first two children each had problems which occurred in a very low percentage of the population and which would have had a very low likely hood of occurence if the traits had only been passed on by one parent.

But you can't form a rational opinion based on an isolated incident. Normal, everyday heterosexual relationships are no stranger to tragedy either.

I have serious issues with people who knowingly take this kind of risk with their children.

I agree, but a) stopping relatives from marrying won't stop them from living together, having sex, or getting pregnant, and b) I don't really think allowing them to marry would particularly encourage it. I mean, who wants to sleep with their brother anyway? *shudder*

I must say that if I knew that there was a good chance that my children would have Cystic Fibrosis or ALD I would get my tubes tied.

Hell, I considered telling my doctor I was a CF carrier because that was the only way he'd consider performing a vasectomy at my age.

Obviously children are not a requirement for a marraige but once we start having children, everything changes. We have responsibilities to our children which are unique. Often their rights trump their parents'.

I agree it's a tricky situation. I'm probably a bad person to talk to because as someone who is very firm about never wanting kids, I get frustrated when people automatically assume that a marriage entails children, or vice versa. I just think about how I would feel if I had been forbidden from getting married because of some reason that couldn't possibly apply to me.

Jeremy

 

[Upchurch]

Incidently, I don't buy the slippery slope argument that, if you let guys marry, you have to let polygammy and incest marriages too. The difference between homosexuality and the other two are children. In the one, legal custody of the children becomes monsterously complex and in the other, the health risks for a child are at issue.

Homosexuals, being a two parent couple (either through adoption or artificial insemination or whatever) could easily follow the same laws of custody that heterosexual couples do and do not present any more risks to a child's welfare than a heterosexual couple. If anything, opening adoption to stable married homosexual couples could provide a wonderful source of homes and families for children who have none.

edited to add:
I suppose that an incestual couple who adopts could use the same argument, but we're not talking about incest, we're talking about homosexuality.

 

[EvilYeti]

Ok, I think I have a solution to this problem.

First of all, I assume the only reason the gay community want legal marriages is for the benefits. Second, I'm exactly sure what these benefits would be, as I'm not married, so if someone could fill me in I would appreciate it.

Here's my idea, why doesn't the gay community, as a whole unite and create their own marriage system? They could have legal contracts to enforce the union and estate, gay marriage licenses would be issued for a cost that would be matched by gay charities to create a benefits pool the couples could draw from.

It seems to me it wouldn't take much for the gay community to put something like this together, I wonder why they haven't done so already.

 

[toddjh]

Here's my idea, why doesn't the gay community, as a whole unite and create their own marriage system? They could have legal contracts to enforce the union and estate, gay marriage licenses would be issued for a cost that would be matched by gay charities to create a benefits pool the couples could draw from.

It seems to me it wouldn't take much for the gay community to put something like this together, I wonder why they haven't done so already.

The problem is that third parties would need to recognize the union in order for it to confer the benefits. Two people can sign anything they want, it still won't give them tax breaks, or automatic property transfer, or the ability to make legal and medical decisions for each other, or even the ability to open each other's mail.

Jeremy

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Good Christian arguments against gay marriage

as taught to a young Christian in a Christian school by parents and teachers, demonstrating the value system imposed on these young minds


the letter as posted by a grade 6 student on a Christian school's Social Studies bulletin board in my community



Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, On
K1A 02A

My name is X***** X*******. I am in grade 6. I attend X*** X******* School. The only reason I'm writing to you is because I have to.


Why did you sign the Kyoto accord. All it will do is raise taxes for Canadians. If you were making Canada a better country you shouldn't have let the gay's try and pass a law so that they could get married it shouldn't even be in the courts. Its like you almost wanted the gays to be married but you weren't quite sure if you should. You should have had Canada go to war with Iraq than maybe the boarders would have been open for Alberta beef to go across and our farmers wouldn''t have to suffer.


I'd like to congratulate you on the award of "Stubborn Prime Minister". You didn't have to leave a trail behind toshow that you were a Prime Minister of Canada, all that does is make a mess to clean up. Thanks for your time.


From a real Canadian

X*****

 

[Ian Perez]

I hear a lot of people talking about "if gays can marry it will lessen the value of marriage in general."

Frankly, I find it would cause no degredation in my marriage and anyone who feels their marriage would be lessened, probably doesn't take their marraige seriously enough in my opinion.

And, personally, I find the following quote more of a danger to the sanctity of marriage than anything the "gay agenda" could possibly do.

Here's an easier counterargument. Britney Spears.

 

[Ladyhawk]

Skeptic;

While I respect your opinion, let's be honest. You're agenda isn't that hidden. You say you're opposed to the "lousy arguments" posed by the pro-gay marriage constituency. Well. Have you listened to some of the lousy arguments posed by the anti-gay marriage camp? If not, go back and read your post. It bears a striking resemblance.

It's a fact that there are a lot of paranoid heterosexuals out there who are terrified that gay marriage will destroy our society, remove the sanctity of marriage and damage our children. And why? Because those same folks just can't/won't believe or accept that there are human beings on this planet who are sexually and emotionally attracted to the same sex. Period. That's just the way it is.

Heterosexuals have already given marriage a LOUSY reputation with a divorce rate in the 50%+ bracket. What possible further damage could gay marriages do? So much for the sanctity of marriage.... (yawn). As for destroying society, same argument. Gay couples have been cohabitating for years among us and I fail to see where society has been damaged by it. Corrupt our children? Yeah, it's far better to encourage our young people to beat up and murder gay people because they're 'different' or 'going to hell'. That's a healthy environment to grow up in. There is no proof, that I know of, that indicates that a child raised by a gay couple will be gay. And, even if that were the case, so f*ckn what? Who cares?????

Gay marriage will be a reality in the not too distant future,... as it should be. It's not going to open the door to legal polygamy. Marriage is still recognized as a bond between two people , not a dozen. What dictates that those 2 people have to be straight? Polygamy would be the administrative nightmare for the probate courts....not gay marriage. Do the math.

As for those who believe that gay marriage defys the laws of god...well, that's a whole 'nother post, isn't it?

Society has to stop treating homosexuality as a disease that has to be cured. It's not a disease. It's a sexual orientation. A gay person can no more turn off their attraction to someone of their same sex than a heterosexual can turn off their attraction to someone of the opposite sex.

If gays want the right to marry, raise children, and have legal divorces and separation of property, than give it to 'em and be done with it.

Skeptic, do yourself a favor. Seriously. Relax. Take a deep breath, have a drink and remind yourself from time to time: "Gay marriage has nothing to do with my personal success or happiness"

.....because it doesn't.

 

[WildCat]

Skeptic, you completely miss the most pressing reason for gay marriages. And that is the legal rights that go w/ a marriage - inheritance, hospital visitation, tax benefits, etc.

I don't see how it degrades anyone's hetero marriage in any way. It seems to me people oppose it simply because they think it will somehow curtail gayness, a ridiculous proposition. No one is going to "turn gay" simply because marriage was allowed or ther was more societal acceptance.

Why anyone would get a hair up their a$$ over this is beyond me, the arguments are weak at best. In fact, you could substitute "interacial" for "gay" in them and it's just the same rehashed crap arguments used years ago. Get over it already.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.

So why shouldn’t there be a legal recognition of the specialty of a life-long same-sex relationship?

I think the bottom line is that there are people of the same sex who form life-long loving/sexual relationships who are as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple. I don’t see any reason why there should not be legal recognition of these relationships. Further, I don’t see why they should not be afforded the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

I think you’re right in saying that many of the arguments for gay marriage don’t make a lot of sense, but the argument that does make sense is simply that it’s fair.

 

[Zero]

Saying that gay marriage negatively affects striaght marriage is like saying that you drinking Pepsi negatively affects my enjoyment of Mountain Dew.

 

[Dorian Gray]

How about this. Gay Marriage would cost too much. Think about how this new marriage would cause more court traffic (porbate, family) it'd effect taxes, medicare, health insurances, financial aid, medical rights and responsibilites, rights of survivorship, immgration on on and on.. Lawsuits being brought forth against compaines who were not recognizing the union like they do all marriges.

So TMY, what you are saying is that we should abolish marriage entirely? Think about how this new abolition of marriage would reduce the court traffic........

First and foremost, incest carries the risk of bad babies and that is plenty reason for it to be outlawed.

So Glory, what you are saying is that anyone with a high risk of having "bad babies" should be prohibited from reproducing, even if they are married or living together? Think about how this would reduce numbers of disabled and stillborn babies....... Oh yeah, one more thing. "Incest" is defined as having sexual intercourse with a close relative. Incest doesn't even necessarily carry a higher risk of having ANY babies, if proper precautions are taken.

In the one, legal custody of the children becomes monsterously complex and in the other, the health risks for a child are at issue.

Upchurch, please refer to the two quotes above. No, I mean my quotes. Regular white-bread custody battles can be monstrously complex, and there can be health risks for children of regular white-bread couples as well.

Protesting homo marriages will eventually be as passe as protesting interracial marriages, and people will have a good laugh over how stupid and backwards everyone was 'back then'. Well, it's 'back then' right now. Don't be stupid and backwards, people.

 

[specious_reasons]

Seriously, what is the compelling government interest in treating them so differently?

I think the realpolitik question is: Does the government have a compelling interest in allowing gay marriage?

As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of political will.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
So Glory, what you are saying is that anyone with a high risk of having "bad babies" should be prohibited from reproducing, even if they are married or living together? Think about how this would reduce numbers of disabled and stillborn babies....... Oh yeah, one more thing. "Incest" is defined as having sexual intercourse with a close relative. Incest doesn't even necessarily carry a higher risk of having ANY babies, if proper precautions are taken.

Don't discount the stupidity factor. Just because someone could take precautions doesn't mean they will.

 

[hammegk]

..... It's not a disease. It's a sexual orientation. A gay person can no more turn off their attraction to someone of their same sex than a heterosexual can turn off their attraction to someone of the opposite sex.

If genetic, homosexuality could be considered a disease I'd say. The link to genetics rather than choices is not that clearcut, and abstinence is a possibility.

Anybody here who would argue "race" being a choice rather than genetic? The assertion that race & sexual orientation are similar reasons to require equal protection is not a good argument to me.


A real question is does government have any over-riding social interest in promoting individual morality.

 

[toddjh]

If genetic, homosexuality could be considered a disease I'd say.

...

Anybody here who would argue "race" being a choice rather than genetic?

Why would you argue homosexuality is a disease if genetic? To use your example, is race a sign of disease?

Jeremy

 

[karl]

[...]This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

If I may take the liberty to shift the burden of proof for a minute, your post boils down to this as your principal argument against gay marriages -- they would make traditional marriages feel "less special." Yeah, it'd be a doggone shame if us heterosexuals couldn't take pride in all the hard work we've put into being straight.

Seriously, I live in a country where gay marriages have been legal for almost a decade. Although I'm somewhat less than thrilled about the concept myself, it doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of our society just yet. But since you're so knowledgeable about the topic, please enlighten me -- what horrible repercussions of this law have I missed?

 

[hammegk]

Why would you argue homosexuality is a disease if genetic?

dis·ease n.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

See also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/

To use your example, is race a sign of disease?

No. Is it to you?

 

[toddjh]

dis·ease n.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

So which is homosexuality? Pathological? Clearly not. Abnormal and harmful? Abnormal, maybe. But with 10% of the population gay (and with a hell of a lot more people who could be described as bisexual), you'd be hard pressed to make that case. Harmful? Only because of the social context. Unless you're arguing for the existence of "social diseases" (euphemism aside), I don't see how homosexuality falls into those categories.

No. Is it to you?

Of course not. Although, using your definitions above, I think you could make just as good a case that being black in the U.S. is a disease as you could for homosexuality: blacks are a minority (i.e. abnormal) and tend to be economically disadvantaged and sometimes discriminated against (i.e. harmful). You are interpreting your definitions overly broadly.

Jeremy

 

[Dorian Gray]

I would add to Todd's comments by asking you to define the baseline that we would compare everyone to genetically. In other words, what genetic makeup would constitute 'normal', so we could determine what constituted a 'disease'?

 

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.

The only "speciality" I can think of that applies here is procreation between the two partners in the marriage, which is obviously a pants claim of "speciality", because if true it would render all marriages between couples who, by choice, situation or biology, don't procreate as illegal. But I don't remember that in the marriage contract I signed.