The question was not directed at me but I can answer it easily.
I believe a legal marriage in the United States should be one man and one woman. The definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman for all of recorded human history even when polygamy was the norm.
The purpose of marriage has always been to establish familial bloodlines and presumes that there could be children. It creates a legal bond that protects both the married couple and any children produced from the union as well as right of inheritance, ability to make decisions for an incapacitated mate, visitation rights, etc.
As a gay union establishes no familial bloodlines and does not presume that there could be children, in my opinion it is not a marriage. In general gay unions do not produce the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does though reasonably gay people who establish unions intended to be permanent do need some accommodation by society.
I do think the law should provide necessary protections for gay couples--right of inheritance, visitation rights, right to make financial or healthcare decisions for an incapacitated mate, etc. But don't call it marriage. It isn't. Give it its own designation.
As a society the many should not have to change their culture to accommodate a very few other than to protect the unalienable rights of all. The very few should have to accommodate and adapt to the culture of the many.
Just a few random thoughts on your flimsy Gish Gallop attempt to justify discrimination:
1, Your belief about marriage being a man and a woman is just that. Your belief which you are entitled to but have no right to impose it on others
2. “
The purpose of marriage has always been to establish familial bloodlines and presumes that there could be children”?
Perhaps and perhaps not
. The purpose of marriage can be debated ad nauseum, but that fact is that same sex couples do have children
, and they are often biological children that were conceived by one of the partners in the relationship.
For instance, child who was conceived in a prior relationship and brought to the current union. Or, the same sex couple may produce a child via IVF , surrogacy or others means used by heterosexuals who cannot conceive on their own
3. Gay people with children who are able to marry do in fact have legal bonds with children. If a lesbian gives birth to a child, there is a presumption of parenthood bestowed upon that woman’s wife. The same is true of a gay man who has a child by surrogacy- his husband becomes a legal parent as well, In any case, gay couples can jointly adopt children which also provides legal protections and rights for those children
Legal relationships are just as important as blood lines, if not more so.
4. “As a gay union establishes no familial bloodlines and does not presume that there could be children, in my opinion it is not a marriage”
?
Heterosexual unions do not presume -any longer=that there will be children either. Many heterosexual couples get married with no intention of having children- so, I assume that you would not consider that a real marriage either. I will also point out that throughout the protracted court cases leading up to and including the SCOTUS case, all those opposing same sex marriage were at least smart enough to steer clear of the issue of reproduction. Apparently your are not.
5. “In general gay unions do not produce the same benefits to society” ?
Really?? Gay couples function in society in the same ways that others do, to the extent that they are allowed to . They work. They pay taxes. They are neighbors and are part of the fabric of their communities. They maintain homes . They have families and rais children . Thery wait at the school bus stop with other parents who could care less about their sexual orientation
6. “I do think the law should provide necessary protections for gay couples……. but don’t call it marriage?
Separate but supposedly equal does not work as we know from the civil rights movement,.
I will assume that you’re ok with civil unions? I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all.
Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic.
As with citizenship, marriage is universally recognized to have a certain meaning
7. “
As a society the many should not have to change their culture to accommodate a very few other than to protect the unalienable rights of all. The very few should have to accommodate and adapt to the culture of the many.”?
First all, no one is suggesting that you change your culture – except the culture of bigotry, ignorance and exclusion. That culture has already change, but you, apparently , have been left behind, Aside from that, how is anyone being asked to change or accommodate gay people ?
If they are allowed to call their union marriage, how does it effect that institution of marriage, or your marriage? If they are afforded respect and acceptance, how does that impact you? Your comment reflects a mentality that it is a zero sum game where there has to be winners and losers . That is not true. I a society of diversity acptence and inclusion we can all be winners
Another question is, if it is necessary to accommodate a minority in some way, why the resistance. ? Is a tyranny of the majority acceptable?? . Do you also oppose teaching English as a second language Latinos children, or parking for the disabled ? How about special ed for the autistic? What percentage of the population must a minority be, before they are afforded to level of accommodation, and a level of respect?
Lets see how easily you can answer now.
~S~
