What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[RandallFlagg]

Why do heterosexual people who never want to have children get married?

Answer that one, and you have what you are looking for.

^^^^that.

We want to marry for all the EXACT same reasons the ST8s do.

because our girlfriends tell us no more sex until we produce a ring

Pretty good one!


That's the deal with gay marriage. Hell, go ahead and marry. Find out what true misery is......

 

[RandallFlagg]

I have to respectfully ask. How old are you? I ask because (apparently) you did not live through the 50s and 60s. In those prehistoric times, and for the most part, if a woman was not married by the time she was sixteen, the neighbors would begin to "talk". It was uncommon for a young lady to NOT be well on her way to family life by then. What once was considered "normal" is now looked upon as child abuse. However, that having been stated, there was no "infringement" of anyone's rights, because it was an accepted societal norm.

Additionally, if a young, unmarried woman were to become pregnant, she would go to "visit" her Aunt in another city, have the child, put the child up for adoption and return home.

Everything changes over time and, usually as a direct result of other changes that preceded them. Again, homosexual marriage would have been a horror show as recently as the 80s. Stating that additional "changes" will not occur in society as a result of the ever-bending societal "norms" to satisfy every fringe group is short sighted.

Your correct on your assumption that I’m young, because I am (born in the 1980’s).

Too – I agree that these standards do change and I don’t object to that notion.

However, the point I’m making is that I don’t see the connection between gay marriage and society regressing backwards into thinking it’s OK for an adult to marry a child. Those are two unrelated things. We have to examine trends here…

Do you think it’s likely than in 20/30 years Americans are going to reverse their standards that children need to be protected, and will accept adults marrying 12 year olds? I don’t see any evidence supporting that notion and consider it highly, highly unlikely.

That was mostly my point. Gay marriage might pave the way for polygamy, but that’s about it. How we approach the rights of children is a completely, completely different argument.

.

But that IS the point. in the 50s and 60s, kids of 16 were usually considered adults (not necessarily legally, but by society). You may indeed, be right about polygamy but there is no measuring stick to tell us that so there is no way of predicting the future. However, as an old man who, in his humble opinion, has seen this country regress from a country of opportunity to a country of "dependence", I tend to look at it as a bad thing.

This country has always been a work in progress, but for the most part, the "progress" seems to more closely resemble George Orwell's 1984, than the country I grew up in.

I actually feel bad for you, growing up having never known the America I grew up in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

America is known for allowing it’s citizens to do what they want

Do you not see the difference between:

1) Me and my guy are in our own home engaging in a relationship which we desire between consenting adults and it's none of your freaking business, go away

2) I want to be left alone, which means government must validate my relationship, provide me with , tax breaks, ...

One of those meets the standard of allowing citizens to do what they want, the other doesn't. Doing what you want does not come with it the right do demand things of others.

Demanding equality is a legitimate demand to normal Americans.

 

[KevinWestern]

My point was focusing largely around how society validates relationships. We validate a gay relationship (or at very least accept it) because it’s two consenting adults. On the flipside, we don’t accept a pedophilia relationship because it’s one adult and an underdeveloped child. My “rights infringing” comment in that instance was simply with regards to the relationship itself, just want to clarify.

I think I asked Randall this (and he agreed to an extent), but what other “groups” would be asking for marriage equality other than gays? I can see polygamists, but that’s about it. Adults/children doesn’t fly because of the inherent exploitation of the child, and Adult/animal doesn’t fly because of the inherent exploitation of the animal.

I didn't take your point as flip. You got the point. The social right think marriage is between a man and a woman, and government should provide validation and benefits. Others say marriage is two "people," so government should provide recognition and benefits.

First, you ask what other groups there are, like polygamy. Sure, if you want to argue people defining their own marriage and demanding recognition and benefits isn't hurting anyone, you'd have to include their right to do the same for the same reason. But that's a relatively small group.

The bigger thing is if you can expand "marriage" from man/woman, why can't others say it doesn't have to be related to "marriage" at all? I'm an individual, I want government recognition of that. Oh, and I want tax benefits as well. Or we're a bowling team, we want government recognition and benefits.

You can't have it both ways. If you allow gays to remove the "man/woman relationships" from marriage and demand government recognize it and provide benefits, others can not only define their own marriage, but they can remove other constraints as well. Like sex, children, ...

Keep in mind I'm against all government marriage, I'm not arguing for man/woman. I also think people should be able to demand they be left alone if they aren't hurting anyone. But no one can demand things of others and claim that's being left alone.

It's a valid point to make. Here’s my response..

Obviously, men and women currently can enter into these sort of non-love, pure financial/tax benefit relationships – right? Yet, I don’t think we see that very often (nor is it a huge problem) and this is primarily because legal marriage is a very intimate thing. I don’t think many individuals would trust giving another individual (even their closest friends) all of the access that comes from entering into the marriage contract (whether it be a will, or sharing property, or medical records, ect). It’s too big of a risk, and one that I would only take with someone I love and trust – like my wife.

This vulnerability is a special exception we as humans agree to partake in because we love another individual and would trust them with our lives. I can’t see business partners or friends partaking in such a huge risk and hassle.

Would a bowling team want to share all these intimate legal vulnerabilities with one another? Doubt it.

Not sure if this answers your question..

 

[ScreamingEagle]

you mean like the societal harm of denying children their real mother or their real father....?

if you hurt just one child.....you hurt the world....

So we can assume you are against adoption, sperm donation for infertile couples, and IVF for infertile couples because it denies children their real mother and real father?


>>>>

No....i'm against CHOOSING to have a child and discarding one parent in the process....

why is it that secular progressive CHOICE always winds up hurting children....?

 

[kaz]

This vulnerability is a special exception we as humans agree to partake in because we love another individual and would trust them with our lives. I can’t see business partners or friends partaking in such a huge risk and hassle.

Would a bowling team want to share all these intimate legal vulnerabilities with one another? Doubt it.

Not sure if this answers your question..

You're still putting rules in, like trusting with our lives. If "government marriage," comes with government validation and benefits like tax breaks, like it does now. And if it can be defined by the participants, like you're advocating, it's not a man woman as government defined, it's two "people," then other people can change ANY rule themselves as well. Or, your definition is as arbitrary as theirs.

If a gay couple says man/man is marriage, why can't a bowling team say a Thursday night commitment is marriage? I'm not seriously advocating that, I'm saying you're going down the same rat hole they are. You just don't realize it. It's the inherent problem with government solutions which involve inequity. Every fix makes the problem worse.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This vulnerability is a special exception we as humans agree to partake in because we love another individual and would trust them with our lives. I can’t see business partners or friends partaking in such a huge risk and hassle.

Would a bowling team want to share all these intimate legal vulnerabilities with one another? Doubt it.

Not sure if this answers your question..

You're still putting rules in, like trusting with our lives. If "government marriage," comes with government validation and benefits like tax breaks, like it does now. And if it can be defined by the participants, like you're advocating, it's not a man woman as government defined, it's two "people," then other people can change ANY rule themselves as well. Or, your definition is as arbitrary as theirs.

If a gay couple says man/man is marriage, why can't a bowling team say a Thursday night commitment is marriage? I'm not seriously advocating that, I'm saying you're going down the same rat hole they are. You just don't realize it. It's the inherent problem with government solutions which involve inequity. Every fix makes the problem worse.

Absolutely agree. And, in terms of government intervention, generally opens the pandora box of litigation. Nearly ALWAYS the case.

 

[KevinWestern]

This vulnerability is a special exception we as humans agree to partake in because we love another individual and would trust them with our lives. I can’t see business partners or friends partaking in such a huge risk and hassle.

Would a bowling team want to share all these intimate legal vulnerabilities with one another? Doubt it.

Not sure if this answers your question..

You're still putting rules in, like trusting with our lives. If "government marriage," comes with government validation and benefits like tax breaks, like it does now. And if it can be defined by the participants, like you're advocating, it's not a man woman as government defined, it's two "people," then other people can change ANY rule themselves as well. Or, your definition is as arbitrary as theirs.

If a gay couple says man/man is marriage, why can't a bowling team say a Thursday night commitment is marriage? I'm not seriously advocating that, I'm saying you're going down the same rat hole they are. You just don't realize it. It's the inherent problem with government solutions which involve inequity. Every fix makes the problem worse.

See Kaz I think that argument doesn’t apply here.

So we have this thing called marriage, and all of the benefits that come with it. It’s a package. What we’re arguing here is who is allowed to enter into this package. The package stays the same in every respect accept now two gay adults can enter into it (obviously there will be some addendums with regards to gender terminology, but that’s about it). The package is the same for gays (for all intents and purposes) and it’s the same for straight people.

So, to move from a scenario where we have a one-size-fits all marriage to a custom tailored marriage for each group is a completely different argument. Agree?

 

[Seawytch]

you mean like the societal harm of denying children their real mother or their real father....?

if you hurt just one child.....you hurt the world....

So we can assume you are against adoption, sperm donation for infertile couples, and IVF for infertile couples because it denies children their real mother and real father?


>>>>

No....i'm against CHOOSING to have a child and discarding one parent in the process....

why is it that secular progressive CHOICE always winds up hurting children....?

We aren't discarding anything. The child still has both its parents.

 

[kaz]

This vulnerability is a special exception we as humans agree to partake in because we love another individual and would trust them with our lives. I can’t see business partners or friends partaking in such a huge risk and hassle.

Would a bowling team want to share all these intimate legal vulnerabilities with one another? Doubt it.

Not sure if this answers your question..

You're still putting rules in, like trusting with our lives. If "government marriage," comes with government validation and benefits like tax breaks, like it does now. And if it can be defined by the participants, like you're advocating, it's not a man woman as government defined, it's two "people," then other people can change ANY rule themselves as well. Or, your definition is as arbitrary as theirs.

If a gay couple says man/man is marriage, why can't a bowling team say a Thursday night commitment is marriage? I'm not seriously advocating that, I'm saying you're going down the same rat hole they are. You just don't realize it. It's the inherent problem with government solutions which involve inequity. Every fix makes the problem worse.

See Kaz I think that argument doesn’t apply here.

So we have this thing called marriage, and all of the benefits that come with it. It’s a package. What we’re arguing here is who is allowed to enter into this package. The package stays the same in every respect accept now two gay adults can enter into it (obviously there will be some addendums with regards to gender terminology, but that’s about it). The package is the same for gays (for all intents and purposes) and it’s the same for straight people.

So, to move from a scenario where we have a one-size-fits all marriage to a custom tailored marriage for each group is a completely different argument. Agree?

If you're arguing that legislatures should redefine government marriage to be two people and not a man and a woman, then I at least agree you're logical even if I disagree they should do that. Again meaning I think they should eliminate all government marriage. There is no reason government needs to recognize "marriage." Other than that it could be a contract which two parties enter into.

If you're arguing screw the legislature, two people have the right to be married, then you're not being logical because you're saying that you get to decide which parameters of marriage are and are not in play. You're being as arbitrary as the people you oppose.

 

[thereisnospoon]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

So they say they can...get married.
Good luck to them.
Arguing over finances, arguing over ....anything and everything.
Domestic violence. Divorces....

 

[Dante]

The purpose is something the OP or the Conservative Nanny Government doesn't get to decide. The purpose is decided by two consenting adults - who shall be judged by God not by a radical rightwing nutjob who wants to post a government agent at the foot of every bed.

 

[sfcalifornia]

This vulnerability is a special exception we as humans agree to partake in because we love another individual and would trust them with our lives. I can’t see business partners or friends partaking in such a huge risk and hassle.

Would a bowling team want to share all these intimate legal vulnerabilities with one another? Doubt it.

Not sure if this answers your question..

You're still putting rules in, like trusting with our lives. If "government marriage," comes with government validation and benefits like tax breaks, like it does now. And if it can be defined by the participants, like you're advocating, it's not a man woman as government defined, it's two "people," then other people can change ANY rule themselves as well. Or, your definition is as arbitrary as theirs.

If a gay couple says man/man is marriage, why can't a bowling team say a Thursday night commitment is marriage? I'm not seriously advocating that, I'm saying you're going down the same rat hole they are. You just don't realize it. It's the inherent problem with government solutions which involve inequity. Every fix makes the problem worse.

Absolutely agree. And, in terms of government intervention, generally opens the pandora box of litigation. Nearly ALWAYS the case.

It's because of litigation the government had to get involved. People keep divorcing and suing each other. Spouses keep dying off. So many financial responsibilities come with marriage as well as custodial issues. Best to have the rules clearly established from the get go.

 

[WorldWatcher]

you mean like the societal harm of denying children their real mother or their real father....?

if you hurt just one child.....you hurt the world....

So we can assume you are against adoption, sperm donation for infertile couples, and IVF for infertile couples because it denies children their real mother and real father?


>>>>

No....i'm against CHOOSING to have a child and discarding one parent in the process....

That's what I asked, you are against adoption because the result is not having the real mother and real father.

Logically speaking you are also against sperm donation to infertile couples because it means not having the real mother and real father in the home.

And logically speaking you are against IVF where sperm donation or egg donation are normally used resulting in not having the real mother and real father in the home.

why is it that secular progressive CHOICE always winds up hurting children....?

There is no evidence that being raised in a loving household be two people of the same gender "hurts" children.

The reports normally touting the superiority of mixed gender parents: (a) include adoptive parents (so there goes your real mother and real father position), and (b) compare mixed gender parents to single parent homes (not same-sex parental homes).


(I'm not a "secular progressive", I've been a member of the Republican party since 1978.)


>>>>

 

[KevinWestern]

You're still putting rules in, like trusting with our lives. If "government marriage," comes with government validation and benefits like tax breaks, like it does now. And if it can be defined by the participants, like you're advocating, it's not a man woman as government defined, it's two "people," then other people can change ANY rule themselves as well. Or, your definition is as arbitrary as theirs.

If a gay couple says man/man is marriage, why can't a bowling team say a Thursday night commitment is marriage? I'm not seriously advocating that, I'm saying you're going down the same rat hole they are. You just don't realize it. It's the inherent problem with government solutions which involve inequity. Every fix makes the problem worse.

See Kaz I think that argument doesn’t apply here.

So we have this thing called marriage, and all of the benefits that come with it. It’s a package. What we’re arguing here is who is allowed to enter into this package. The package stays the same in every respect accept now two gay adults can enter into it (obviously there will be some addendums with regards to gender terminology, but that’s about it). The package is the same for gays (for all intents and purposes) and it’s the same for straight people.

So, to move from a scenario where we have a one-size-fits all marriage to a custom tailored marriage for each group is a completely different argument. Agree?

If you're arguing that legislatures should redefine government marriage to be two people and not a man and a woman, then I at least agree you're logical even if I disagree they should do that. Again meaning I think they should eliminate all government marriage. There is no reason government needs to recognize "marriage." Other than that it could be a contract which two parties enter into.

If you're arguing screw the legislature, two people have the right to be married, then you're not being logical because you're saying that you get to decide which parameters of marriage are and are not in play. You're being as arbitrary as the people you oppose.

i think we're wasting time arguing.

I'm all for gov't getting out of the marriage business, and to only provide civil union contracts.

.

 

[kaz]

See Kaz I think that argument doesn’t apply here.

So we have this thing called marriage, and all of the benefits that come with it. It’s a package. What we’re arguing here is who is allowed to enter into this package. The package stays the same in every respect accept now two gay adults can enter into it (obviously there will be some addendums with regards to gender terminology, but that’s about it). The package is the same for gays (for all intents and purposes) and it’s the same for straight people.

So, to move from a scenario where we have a one-size-fits all marriage to a custom tailored marriage for each group is a completely different argument. Agree?

If you're arguing that legislatures should redefine government marriage to be two people and not a man and a woman, then I at least agree you're logical even if I disagree they should do that. Again meaning I think they should eliminate all government marriage. There is no reason government needs to recognize "marriage." Other than that it could be a contract which two parties enter into.

If you're arguing screw the legislature, two people have the right to be married, then you're not being logical because you're saying that you get to decide which parameters of marriage are and are not in play. You're being as arbitrary as the people you oppose.

i think we're wasting time arguing.

I'm all for gov't getting out of the marriage business, and to only provide civil union contracts.

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So we can assume you are against adoption, sperm donation for infertile couples, and IVF for infertile couples because it denies children their real mother and real father?


>>>>

No....i'm against CHOOSING to have a child and discarding one parent in the process....

That's what I asked, you are against adoption because the result is not having the real mother and real father.
No...you got it backwards....adoption is the result of not having a real mother and father....and i'm not against adoption...

Logically speaking you are also against sperm donation to infertile couples because it means not having the real mother and real father in the home.
Yes...i am against sperm donation from another source to infertile couples.....because this is an immoral replacement of the marriage act....

And logically speaking you are against IVF where sperm donation or egg donation are normally used resulting in not having the real mother and real father in the home.
Yes...children conceived in petri dishes is very immoral...this is a very technical process where children are subject to 'quality control' where they are eliminated if found defective....usually many eggs at once become fertilized embryos and some may be just eliminated because not that many children are wanted or the embryos may be frozen and used later for experimental purposes....this is simply playing with human life and/or snuffing it out....what gives man the right to decree life or death....?

why is it that secular progressive CHOICE always winds up hurting children....?

There is no evidence that being raised in a loving household be two people of the same gender "hurts" children.
being denied one of your parents or not even knowing who they are can be a painful thing for "test tube" children/adults....they are denied their heritage....children become "products" that are bought and paid for.....it is dehumanizing....

The reports normally touting the superiority of mixed gender parents: (a) include adoptive parents (so there goes your real mother and real father position), and (b) compare mixed gender parents to single parent homes (not same-sex parental homes).
a) male/female adoptive parents are the ideal for children who lost their real parents
b) single parent homes are NOT ideal for children....many studies have been done that show negative results...

(I'm not a "secular progressive", I've been a member of the Republican party since 1978.)
glad you are...
>>>>

.

 

[Flopper]

If homosexuals are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers or just two-same sex friends who want to get bennies are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

What prevents polygamists from entering into legally recognized marriages now?

State bigamy laws

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

not in this country...

If homosexuals are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers or just two-same sex friends who want to get bennies are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

It’s interesting how opponents of equal protection rights keep coming back to this failed argument.

Laws prohibiting plural marriage or siblings marrying are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no rights are being ‘repressed.’

That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

 

[Noomi]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

You could say that about straight couples who get married with no intention of having children.