What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

STARBOB:

As a matter of fact, I would feel the same way.

 

Jedi Ben, could you elaborate on how marriage and same-sex partnerships are treated by the UK government?

Does marriage come with legal and financial benefits?

Are the same benefits available to same-sex couples?

 

Womberty,

The answers are:

1. Marriage has legal/financial benefits. Particularly in regard to property,inheritance and next of kin rights.

2. Same-sex couples equal cohabitees effectively, neither has access to the rights married couples do.

The UK govt in the Queen's Speech last year has committeed itself to a Partnerships Bill, which will grant the same rights as marriage to same-sex couples by creating a new legal category of Civil Partner.

Why the terms used? Partly strategic, to prevent the proposals being termed gay marriage,or license for buggeryor paedophilia - no joke. At present the legislation is still being drafted.

Although I have to agree with you: What is the logical basis for favouring couples of any kind over individuals? I'm not sure there is one.

JB

 

12 reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will become less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55 hour just-for-fun marriage was very meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

 

13)who does the daughter of a gay couple take to the father/daughter dance.

14)who will marry the daughter of a lesbion couple.who wants 2 mother-in-laws?

 

DarthSill, most of the reasons you gave in your very, very, very, unoriginal list have already been addressed, time and again, in the over 2,600 posts in this thread.

This thread's very long history shows quite clearly that the opposition's reasons are not nearly as silly as you make them out to be, and I would appreciate it if you would go through these posts (at least some of them!) before you dare to presume to know what we have already covered.

Your post is not nearly as witty as you think it is, but, more than that, it's inaccurate, a strawman designed to do nothing more than smear the opposition. If you're not willing to have an informed discussion about this issue and face the actual positions of those with whom you disagree, perhaps it would be better if you played the role of spectator.

 

On the contrary, Bubba, I found it to be rather witty and accurate in parodying the opposition. But then, I'm not a self-proclaimed genius.

 

you want parody? how about this.
if you can use the interracial marriage was outlawed and we can change that why not gay marriage.
ok alcohal was illegal once and we were wrong.how come we can't legalize pot.or cocaine?

 

Okay Bubba, let's see your 12 reasons why gays should not get married. Go on . . . the ball is in your court.

And sorry if you don't find me witty because I certainly do.

And it also doesn't change the fact that you nor anybody else on this board has listed a single, solitary valid reason why homosexuals should not get married.

 

you want parody? how about this.
if you can use the interracial marriage was outlawed and we can change that why not gay marriage.
ok alcohal was illegal once and we were wrong.how come we can't legalize pot.or cocaine?

Why not?




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

because it's not the will of the people.and the will of the people are more often right than wrong.

 

A lot of things were guided by the will of the people, such as lynchings, and mercifully, we eventually learned that the will of the people was wrong.

 

so there should be no laws that are the will of the people heh?everything should be legal for each indivduals?

 

somethingfamiliar, good humor -- parody included -- usually contains a kernal of truth. Almost everything in that silly little list is dishonest.

For instance:

4. Straight marriage will become less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55 hour just-for-fun marriage was very meaningful.

The insinuation is that those opposed to gay marriage are large hypocritical because we looked the other way when it came to Britney, Liz Taylor, and reality shows that trivialize marriage. The fact is, we do not.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

The supposed joke here relies on the idea that legislatures have not actually protected the rights of minorities, and that idea is simply untrue. In addition to Congressional civil rights acts, the legislatures and the people have supported amendments to the Constitution to ensure -- among other things -- that slavery was abolished, that blacks could vote, that women could vote, and that individuals old enough to be drafted could also vote.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Opponents to gay marriage do not assert this. We assert that successfully raising children without both parents is less likely, not outright impossible. And guess what? We have statistics that strongly link illegitimacy to crime and poverty, statistics that back up our assertions.

Do I need to continue?

One doesn't need to be a genius to see that the opposition's reasons are much more reasonable than portrayed here. All it takes is a willingness to look back in at least some of the 2,600+ posts to see what we've actually said.


Sill, you should temper your view of the will of the people by familiarizing yourself with the Constitution and the amendments we the people approved.

And if you still distrust the will of the people so much, there are other countries where the despots in power have little concern for such things as consent of the governed.

EDIT: And it also doesn't change the fact that you nor anybody else on this board has listed a single, solitary valid reason why homosexuals should not get married.

You've read all 2,600 posts then?

Okay, summarize my position -- citing my actual posts as necessary to support your summary -- and explain why each and every reason I give is invalid.

Go fer it.

 

who does the daughter of a gay couple take to the father/daughter dance.

If she has two dads, she can take both, and lend the extra one to the girls with two moms.


This thread's very long history shows quite clearly that the opposition's reasons are not nearly as silly as you make them out to be

Well, how far off are these?

4. How meaningful is heterosexual marriage, anyway? (Especially if we're marrying for the benefits!)

EDIT:
The insinuation is that those opposed to gay marriage are large hypocritical because we looked the other way when it came to Britney, Liz Taylor, and reality shows that trivialize marriage. The fact is, we do not.

Then where is the Defense of Marriage Act II, stating that no state can be forced to recognize marriages performed in Las Vegas?
/EDIT

5. You can't claim the definition of marriage hasn't changed over time.

6. Isn't there a place for the court to decide whether marriage laws contradict equal rights laws (especiall on the state level)?

9. Don't pretend no one's brought up the slippery-slope argument (and yes, even bestiality was mentioned in this thread). There is no need to compare gays to animals.

10. While no one's said anything about the legality of alternative parenting structures, they have claimed over and over that children need a male and female role model - but I'm not sure that's been substantially proven. How many studies specifically compare heterosexual parenting to homosexual parenting, without including the latter in the category of "other" along with single parenting and anything else that's not married heterosexual parents?

12. We keep hearing people say they support civil unions for gays, but who's going to answer the question of this apparent "separate-but-equal" treatment?


Your post is not nearly as witty as you think it is, but, more than that, it's inaccurate, a strawman designed to do nothing more than smear the opposition.

straw man! straw man!

[image=http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oz/images/vc55.jpg]


ok alcohal was illegal once and we were wrong.how come we can't legalize pot.or cocaine?

I don't recall a national amendment against pot or cocaine.


because it's not the will of the people.and the will of the people are more often right than wrong.



How much do you know about human nature?

I'm not saying we shouldn't allow the rule of the majority as we do now, but there's a reason we have limits on what the law can do.


so there should be no laws that are the will of the people heh?everything should be legal for each indivduals?

Ideally, the law would protect the individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the people would be given the freedom to do anything that doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights. But that's perhaps a topic for another thread.

 

womberty,

The marriages performed in Vegas were the result of legislative changes at the state and local level. The DOMA can into play on the issue of gay marriage because it was becoming increasingly obvious that the pro-gay-marriage crowd was attempting to circumvent the legislative process. Recent history has verified our concerns, and it's also clear that, in your contempt for the rule of law, you think that the tactic is more than justified.


Indeed, I can claim that the definition of marriage has not changed drastically over time. Laws that prohibited interracial marriage didn't say that interracial marriage wasn't marriage, just that it wasn't legal. And laws concerning divorce did not change the basic definition of marriage, just the laws dictating the end of individual marriages.

In both cases, the definition of marriage was constant -- one man, one woman. What changed was the set of laws that surrounded marriage.


There is a place for the courts in all this, but it doesn't involve making up new rights. There isn't a "right" to marry.

And, you cannot simultaneously demand judicial activism and scoff at the slippery slope argument. Throughout this thread, I've yet to see an effective legal argument that would require gay marriage but still prohibit adult incest and polygamy. A judicial decision requiring gay marriage would appear to create a precedent for polygamous marriage and the like, and I've yet to see anything to make me believe otherwise.


Indeed, direct comparisons to the parenting abilities of gay couples and straight couples have not been made. (That didn't cause you to flinch when Not George earlier asserted that gay couples were provably as effective at parenting.)

But the argument need not go that far: if extending the definition of marriage to gays increases the incidence of illegitimacy and broken homes (as it already has in Scandinavia), that's bad enough because we already know that illegitimacy is strongly connected to crime and poverty.


I personally don't support a "separate but equal" institution for gays. Marriage, as is currently defined, should be unique. Other arrangements should be separate and unequal.


Now that I've addressed your questions, I want DarthSill to respond to my request.

He insists that neither I "nor anybody else on this board has listed a single, solitary valid reason why homosexuals should not get married."

That implies that he's actually read all my reasons. I want him to kindly go through them and show how they're invalid.

Or, barring that, Sill should admit that he just popped in and decided to presume he knew everything without reading everything.

 

Sil, yes, you are quite witty! I enjoyed the list, and it does sound a lot like what is being argued here. Not so funny, that part.

and Bob...because it's not the will of the people.and the will of the people are more often right than wrong.

Yawn. Make it a US Constitutional Amendment and I will concede that the will of the people have denied equality to all Americans.

However, I believe--as stated before--that such an amendment will not pass. It's already failing at teh state level.

Bottom line... again...

Why are you so afraid of gays marrying?

 

to all those who say the mayor of san fransico is doing a good thing because he is just disregarding an unjust law.I SUPPOSE YOU WOULd feel the same way if some mayor starting issuse linsences for automatic weapons or other illegal firearms because he felt guncontrol in unconstitutional.

You've been listening to Ahnold, haven't you? Of course we know the reason assault weapons have been banned is because of... what? HARM.

gay marriage has been banned because of... what? The courts say there is no harm. Hmmm. Ponder that.

 

The marriages performed in Vegas were the result of legislative changes at the state and local level. The DOMA can into play on the issue of gay marriage because it was becoming increasingly obvious that the pro-gay-marriage crowd was attempting to circumvent the legislative process.

Regardless of the [legal] means, if the definition changes at the state and local level, why do the other states jump to attention over gay marriage but not other threats to the institution?

I don't think it has to do with whether the legislature or the courts make the change; if Vermont had passed a law making gay "marriage" (or had been on the verge of doing so), I believe the reaction would have been the same.


Recent history has verified our concerns, and it's also clear that, in your contempt for the rule of law, you think that the tactic is more than justified.

You mean, mine personally? Where have I shown such contempt?


In both cases, the definition of marriage was constant -- one man, one woman.

Except in the cases of polygamy, which has been present throughout much of history in much of the world.

But I suppose we're only concerned with the last 200 years in our country when we talk about the "history" of the institution?


There is a place for the courts in all this, but it doesn't involve making up new rights. There isn't a "right" to marry.

The courts' place is rectifying the inconsistency between laws (state constitutional amendments in particular) prohibiting discrimination based on gender, and marriage laws that do just that.

It's not a right to marry, it's a right to have the same access to the benefits being given others.


Throughout this thread, I've yet to see an effective legal argument that would require gay marriage but still prohibit adult incest and polygamy.

The state amendments against discrimination by gender say nothing of discrimination by number.

As for incest, perhaps you should clarify whether you think it's a concern because of ability to consent, or potential genetic problems in the couple's offspring. The answer may be that there is no basis for limiting incest, but that can be shown in the current handling of heterosexual marriage.


Indeed, direct comparisons to the parenting abilities of gay couples and straight couples have not been made. (That didn't cause you to flinch when Not George earlier asserted that gay couples were provably as effective at parenting.)

I didn't accept his assertion as fact. However, barring proof to the contrary, how can you deny homosexual marriage by saying gay parents aren't as good at raising children?


But the argument need not go that far: if extending the definition of marriage to gays increases the incidence of illegitimacy and broken homes (as it already has in Scandinavia), that's bad enough because we already know that illegitimacy is strongly connected to crime and poverty.

But I'm not sure that the studies you presented on Scandinavia's treatment of marriage proved a causal relationship between gay marriage and the decline of marriage.


I personally don't support a "separate but equal" institution for gays. Marriage, as is currently defined, should be unique. Other arrangements should be separate and unequal.

But you've said, haven't you, that you support civil unions for gay couples?

So, what benefits would be reserved for heterosexual "marriage", and why?


EDIT:
You've been listening to Ahnold, haven't you? Of course we know the reason assault weapons have been banned is because of... what? HARM.

But the reasoning is still valid: if the mayor is ignoring a law because he thinks it conflicts with a higher constitutional law, why couldn't someone ignore laws that they feel conflict with the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

 

Sil: For the record, I thought your post was to the point--and I'm laughing my ass off. Especially at this one:

Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

I just got back from the doctor where we met to discuss further options for my endometriosis--and believe me, I needed this nugget of humor today.

STARBOB:

ok alcohal was illegal once and we were wrong.how come we can't legalize pot.or cocaine?

You're preaching to the choir. I think pot is safer than alcohol and should be legal.

because it's not the will of the people.and the will of the people are more often right than wrong.

Yep, that's why the will of the people kept blacks enslaved, and then sitting at the back of the bus, for years.

That's why the will of the people kept married women from being able to hold jobs or use birth control before 1965.

so there should be no laws that are the will of the people heh?everything should be legal for each indivduals?

I believe in democracy and rule by the majority, up to the point where the rights of the minority are being violated.

womberty:

Then where is the Defense of Marriage Act II, stating that no state can be forced to recognize marriages performed in Las Vegas?

I think that would be more valid than the lousy excuse of a "Defense of Marriage Act" that's out now.

I really wonder whose marriage Bill Clinton was trying to defend when he signed it--his own?

Bubba:

In both cases, the definition of marriage was constant -- one man, one woman.

Not in Utah.

Throughout this thread, I've yet to see an effective legal argument that would require gay marriage but still prohibit adult incest and polygamy.

Well, as I've said, I don't much care if either of those are legalized.

However, the difference between these two and gay marriages, from a legal perspective:

Polygamy: You're looking at serious problems regarding inheritance. When a man dies, which one of his wives inherits his assets?

Adult incest: The best argument against it is the one womberty brought up about living in the same house when one or the other is a minor.

However, again, I could care less whether a brother and sister get married.

Indeed, direct comparisons to the parenting abilities of gay couples and straight couples have not been made.

I've given you a few anecdotes, but you don't like those. You only like statistics, and because of societal prejudice against homosexuals, not too many homosexuals have adopted children, and those who have, have not necessarily made it known that they were homosexual. (In the case of the students I've had who have had homosexual parents, they were adopted by one of the adults, and that adult was listed legally as the parent, not the adult and his/her partner--therefore, statistically, this child was being raised by a single parent, not a couple.)

 

But the reasoning is still valid: if the mayor is ignoring a law because he thinks it conflicts with a higher constitutional law, why couldn't someone ignore laws that they feel conflict with the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

aha! No wait... Hmm. I suppose that could hold true, although, going through same legal process Newsom's decision followed, the courts would have likely stopped the selling of assault rifles because harm is actually decribed in that very legislation. If I were to continue arguing this, I'd have to do more research on the actual law against assault weapons. perhaps there is a loop hole...

Of course, being one who verrrrrry strongly opposes firearm ownership for personal use, i have a hard time justifying any law "for" gun ownership, regardless of type.

Like General Wesley Clark said: "If you want to fire an assault weapon, I have the perfect place for you..." (meaning the Armed Forces).

EDIT: (Before Bubba latches on to this and runs with it...) So are we talking about arming gays with assault weapons?

 

So are we talking about arming gays with assault weapons?



Hey! No fair! I'm straight and I want an Uzzi!

 

Polygamy: You're looking at serious problems regarding inheritance. When a man dies, which one of his wives inherits his assets?

What happens if he dies with multiple children?

It's not that the law couldn't handle it; it just that we don't want to. However, this doesn't qualify as discrimination prohibited under equal rights laws, because nowhere does anyone prohibit discrimination based on number.


I suppose that could hold true, although, going through same legal process Newsom's decision followed, the courts would have likely stopped the selling of assault rifles because harm is actually decribed in that very legislation.

You could only argue that harm was being done if people were actually using those assault rifles to commit crimes.


Of course, being one who verrrrrry strongly opposes firearm ownership for personal use, i have a hard time justifying any law "for" gun ownership, regardless of type.

I invite you to the gun control thread so I can explain this.


Like General Wesley Clark said: "If you want to fire an assault weapon, I have the perfect place for you..." (meaning the Armed Forces).

Because, of course, we would never be attacked on our own soil.

 

Not in Utah.

And I'll say this again, the LDS practice of plural marriage only involved 2 people at a time. One man, and one woman. The difference was that a man could be involved in more than one of such relationships at the same time. We no longer follow that practice.

We do still teach the doctrines that it is based upon. We believe that a husband and wife can be sealed together for all eternity, not just until death, and we still practice that today. The only change is that the church will not perform a sealing (marraige) for a person who already has a living spouse. If a spouse passes away, you would remain sealed to them and could also be sealed to someone else.

Of course, what would I know. My 2nd-great-grandfather Godfried Eschler was only the son of such a marriage.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Not in Utah.

And I'll say this again, the LDS practice of plural marriage only involved 2 people at a time. One man, and one woman. The difference was that a man could be involved in more than one of such relationships at the same time

Still, there is a point to be made: the laws surrounding marriage have not remained constant. Monogamous heterosexual parents heading a nuclear family unit is far from the universal definition of marriage and family, historically and even today.