Gay marriage

[RichEdwards]

I base my opinion on gay marriage on two math teachers who happen to be former colleagues. Bob and Harry were excellent teachers, ran the math club together (without pay), and kept their relationship quiet. They lived together in a town about 20 miles from the high school where we taught. Twenty years ago Bob told me that they would get married if it was possible...but it was not. Two good people who could not formalize their relationship because society would not permit it.

So now I am for gay marriage because I knew Bob and Harry. And because there are other good folks in the same situation today.

[Ken H.]

Another opinion...

 

Why Gay Marriage Doesn't Make Sense - an Isn't Fair

What is the point of marriage? In other words, why does marriage—as an institution and as a social construct—exist?

 

Simple: Protection—for the woman, and for the children that she bears.

And there’s where the whole argument falls apart right there. An incredibly narrow-minded, ridiculously over simplistic definition of “the point of” marriage.

 

It’s both an insult to married straight couples who choose not (or can’t) have children, and to gay couples who choose to do so.

 

Throughout his article his basic argument is straight couples have biological children, and should have more of them, and gay couples can’t (or shouldn’t). I call total 100% BS.

 

There are so many quotes in there it would take days to retort them all, but perhaps this is the most outrageous one of all; why discussing why society grants certain rights (e.g. tax breaks, recognition of unions, encouragement, etc) he says, “Of course, this line of argument gets awfully nasty when you get to cases of heterosexual married couples who cannot have children: Should society economize, and therefore strip them of the benefits of marriage? Well, maybe society should: It might seem like society is kicking the childless couple when they’re down—and it is—but at the end of the day, a society’s resources are limited, no matter how rich it might be.”

 

So we shouldn’t legally be considered married unless we have biological (created between the two of us only) children!?! WTF?

 

What a crack-pot that guy is!

 

[Ken H.]

You are amazing. How can you refer to a loving home, as a place where rapes and murder occur?

Dave I'm quite sure Moshe whas using the word "loving" dripping with sarcasm.

[DaveTheAffable]

You are amazing. How can you refer to a loving home, as a place where rapes and murder occur?

Dave I'm quite sure Moshe whas using the word "loving" dripping with sarcasm.

I am quite sure you are right.

 

Sad. Rape and murder of children in ANY home is not a topic where sarcasm has ANY appropriateness.

 

If I said, "...Loving Black home..." I'd be labeled a racist.

 

When someone else says, "...Loving Heterosexual home..." they are showing us that they are enlightened.

[ghaverkamp]

Precisely, exactly, absolutely, 100% correct. In fact Quinn was asking for reasonable explanations based on fact as to why gay marriage is opposed, and to Quinn I will say this: Don't hold your breath. Instead you will get religious dogma. Always taken out of context, always picked and chosen but not swallowed whole.

 

Except that you have a Gonzalo Lira's well-reasoned blog post a handful of posts back as a good counter. I don't think he properly finished the thought, though.

 

Arguments trying to place gay marriage in the same category of interracial marriage fail for the exact reasons described in that posting. There are reasons that marriage is incentivized. If we don't need those incentives any longer, surely we'd be better off with the state out of the interpersonal relationship management business altogether. IOW, don't legalize gay marriage; eliminate marriage.

 

Where it's useful for standardized contractual governance of relationships, we can have those. After all, survivorship, breakup, and (basically) power of attorney is really what's critical. Everything else is the state too tightly bound up in religion and the nature of the relationships, and that's due to the derivation of marriage. Once we've decided that we no longer need marriage to incentivize procreation, why even look at these contractually bound relationships as sexual, which brings the slippery slope nuts out?

 

Why shouldn't (Platonic) siblings be able to enter into civil unions? Or (Platonic) best friends? All with the same contractual characteristics that bind most traditionally married couples under no-fault rules could just as easily apply.

[beemerman2k]

You are amazing. How can you refer to a loving home, as a place where rapes and murder occur?

Dave I'm quite sure Moshe whas using the word "loving" dripping with sarcasm.

 

Moshe is using sarcasm in responding to my tongue in cheek post. You have to go back and understand the context of Moshe's comments.

 

By the way, Dave, what do we mean when we as a nation talk about freedom, if not freedom? Are you saying that individual freedom is a bad thing?

[moshe_levy]

You are amazing. How can you refer to a loving home, as a place where rapes and murder occur?

Dave I'm quite sure Moshe whas using the word "loving" dripping with sarcasm.

I am quite sure you are right.

 

Sad. Rape and murder of children in ANY home is not a topic where sarcasm has ANY appropriateness. When someone else says, "...Loving Heterosexual home..." they are showing us that they are enlightened.

 

Dave, obviously I was being more than sarcastic. It is I after all who has to calm down said wife after she downloads these stories, and it is sick stuff. Most too sick to repeat here in public. I come from a loving heterosexual home under the roof of two loving parents who are still married today. I am married today and I have 3 girls of my own.

 

I assure you I have no ill will toward heterosexual people or married people. I do have ill will toward people who claim to speak for these children of abuse, who following the trauma are ripped from the only "homes" they know and placed in state care (or, in some cases, foster care, which can be a heavenly or even worse than the original "homes" they came from - flip a coin).

 

When you have this situation, and you have couples are who are truly loving, willing, and able to care for the kids - and you don't let them? Well, that, to me, is crazy.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Except that you have a Gonzalo Lira's well-reasoned blog post a handful of posts back as a good counter. I don't think he properly finished the thought, though. Arguments trying to place gay marriage in the same category of interracial marriage fail for the exact reasons described in that posting. There are reasons that marriage is incentivized. If we don't need those incentives any longer, surely we'd be better off with the state out of the interpersonal relationship management business altogether. IOW, don't legalize gay marriage; eliminate marriage.

 

Greg-

 

Though I do feel I can make an excellent and very strong parallel between gay civil rights and black civil rights (and ANY denial of civil rights, for that matter) I will tread carefully on the second part of your post where you say to get the state out of the business of marriage.

 

In fact many countries have seen a marriage decline specifically as a means of circumventing the heavy hand of the state during divorce proceedings. Scandinavians for example shack up at an enormous rate compared to marriage.

 

Essentially the situation is vastly complex as you would expect, but one of many factors that plays into the marriage rate is ironically the divorce laws of a country. If a person can lose half of his fortune after a year-long sham marriage by a gold-digging partner, and then be subjected to the entire power of the state coming down on him afterwards to enforce ridiculously high alimony, child support, and associated penalties, he may think twice about getting married in the first place. For example, they see Heather Mills as one of the wealthiest people ever enriched by the music industry, in which she has never worked in her life, after a sham marriage. That is, in fact, a prime consideration cited by many young couples in other countries, and it has merit in my view.

 

But of course the machine of the state has enormous profit motive to keep the current status quo exactly where it is. I've never seen a study, but I would bet my house that what the state loses in marriage tax breaks and such, it more than makes up for in the divorce proceedings. The profits are literally staggering, and all that's left behind is broken families and destitution all the way around. You have NO idea, unless you've been through it...

 

-MKL

[DaveTheAffable]

You are amazing. How can you refer to a loving home, as a place where rapes and murder occur?

Dave I'm quite sure Moshe whas using the word "loving" dripping with sarcasm.

 

Moshe is using sarcasm in responding to my tongue in cheek post. You have to go back and understand the context of Moshe's comments.

 

You of all people should be sensitive to "Tongue in Cheek" If I say, after someone comments that James liked the watermelon, "Well, what do you expect?" I WILL be labeled as a racist. Even if I meant, "Well, what do you expect, he brought them for us all to enjoy".

 

As to context... I'm clear. The undertone for the last few weeks is that people responding to some of these threads with more conservative values, ideas, ethics, religion, or whatever... are thought of as the ones that are Wrong. Misguided. Non-enlightened. We shouldn't have convictions. And yet, in that VERY thought process, the other person has decided, is convicted, that their values or insights are RIGHT.

 

Remember my thread about giving my employer a full days work, and being criticized by my co-workers? I was told to by my co=workers I was wrong, and by some of you to just do what I felt was right.

 

In a very real way... it repeats itself here as of late - Some have more consevative or traditional values on some of these topics, and it absolutely insenses some others.

 

By the way, Dave, what do we mean when we as a nation talk about freedom, if not freedom? Are you saying that individual freedom is a bad thing?

 

That is another thread, for another day.

 

 

[moshe_levy]

As to context... I'm clear. The undertone for the last few weeks is that people responding to some of these threads with more conservative values, ideas, ethics, religion, or whatever... are thought of as the ones that are Wrong. Misguided. Non-enlightened. We shouldn't have convictions. And yet, in that VERY thought process, the other person has decided, is convicted, that their values or insights are RIGHT.

 

Dave,

 

See James' post. He was playing devil's advocate and I responded in that thread in which "loving" was used. Without context I can make Mother Theresa look like Hitler. It's not hard to do but it accomplishes nothing.

 

Second see "Feel The Love" thread. We are having a discussion. Do you feel the need for others to coddle you, and only shower your point of view with agreement and praise? It is not reasonable, and ultimately is not good for anyone. A good, strong argument is good for the winner, and for the loser. Both sides learn from it, and get sharper from it. And the labels we apply when the whining goes on (Oh, I'm on this side of the fence, and that's why nobody listens to me, etc.) is all 100% Grade A nonsense.

 

You have an echo chamber effect going on. You can turn on the TV, read the paper, and listen to the radio all day on the right stations, and never hear a word of dissent. And it feels GOOD, like candy does. It feels good short term but is really giving you cavities. It also makes you intellectually lazy and incapable of the fight you need to have in you if you're going to stand up for what you believe. I make it a point, whenever possible, to read or watch ONLY what I disagree with, for this reason.

 

We had that religious discussion and you were standing toe to toe with everyone, and ultimately we wound up agreeing more often than not. Nothing's different here.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

By the way, to clarify by "right stations" above I meant "correctly chosen," not right in terms of the isle.

 

-MKL

[Les is more]

I'm not sure that the author you cite has looked around at the numbers of people, poverty, abused and abandoned children, and starvation (I won't even get into the pollution part)extant in our world. If he had looked at those things I'm hard pressed to see how he could come up with this statement--

 

It ought to be quite obvious: Modern society recognizes that it is in its own best interest to foment childbearing. Thus heterosexual married couples enjoy certain rights, privileges and benefits that have been granted by our society in order to help raise children—and hopefully encourage more children.

 

After all: Children are a society’s future—literally.

 

And, equating homosexuality (or left-handedness) with alcoholism? Really??

[DaveTheAffable]

Second see "Feel The Love" thread. We are having a discussion. Do you feel the need for others to coddle you, and only shower your point of view with agreement and praise? It is not reasonable, and ultimately is not good for anyone. A good, strong argument is good for the winner, and for the loser. Both sides learn from it, and get sharper from it. And the labels we apply when the whining goes on (Oh, I'm on this side of the fence, and that's why nobody listens to me, etc.) is all 100% Grade A nonsense.

 

 

We had that religious discussion and you were standing toe to toe with everyone, and ultimately we wound up agreeing more often than not. Nothing's different here.

 

-MKL

 

At an offline event in the future, I'd like to hear more about your wifes work. And, to tell you things about ...my work. Family members involved in adoptions, Family working in the legal field, investigations criminal, civil, child abuse, ad nauseum.

 

No... I don't need coddling. Trust me.

 

As you have said, context is important. If someone says, "What is it like to work in a hot field?" If another answers, "It is hard work. I start early, work until sundown, 6 days a week. Sometimes I get blisters on hands." That does NOT mean the worker is complaining, or is unappreciative of the job, or even minds being asked! It is an honest answer and provides CONTRAST to the experience of the one who works in an air conditioned office.

 

When I gave those examples of co-workers, or comments made here, they are for the purpose of CONTRAST. When I ask "Why?" about something, I am not "Whi-ning". (pun intended)

 

I think some on the board would have a better audience at times if the tongue in cheeks and sarcasm's were minimal. But hey... I'm still here!

[DaveTheAffable]

I thought I might as well give my opinion, since folks knew I was lurking, and maybe keep the thread on track to the OP's intent.

 

Some of you know I claim to be "christian". I fall short. I am not perfect. I'd rather you see something in me that would pique your interest, than shove it down your throat.

 

If the "government" claims there is no religious afilliation, bend, or slant whatsoever to the benefits they extend to "married couples", they should either give it to all, or take it away from all. Including me and my family.

 

If the "government" believes that there is social/cultural value to continuing to prevent others than male/female from entering unions and recieving the benefit thereof, they'd better make their case.

 

If they do give it to all, my preference would be that they call it something other than 'marriage', but it's not that big of a deal "word wise".

[moshe_levy]

Dave, I would gladly attend that offline event with you and listen about your family. I'm sure there are parallels with my wife's experiences too.

 

Noted on the contrast. I've got a 24 page thread of people disagreeing with me about energy and cars, and more than my share about other subjects too. Arguing is a lively and fun way to pass the time when work is slow, and as a bonus usually learn a thing or two. It's not personal.

 

-MKL

[John Ranalletta]

Homosexuality & alcoholism were two things in a list of tendencies that appear to be innate in some people - a part of their brain chemistry. If true, it means we should stop treating alcoholism as a disease and urging alcoholics to "take the cure".

 

Sure it behooves a society to reproduce. How many Shakers have you met lately? Of course, this discussion slides very nicely into the zero population growth promoters' arguments. But, let's assume that's not what you meant to infer.

 

How does gay marriage solves the problems you pose?

I'm not sure that the author you cite has looked around at the numbers of people, poverty, abused and abandoned children, and starvation (I won't even get into the pollution part)extant in our world. If he had looked at those things I'm hard pressed to see how he could come up with this statement--

 

I'd vote for removing all legal and financial dependencies and benefits from "being married" including custody, support, community property, tax deductions, SS survivorship, etc.

 

They were built into the "marriage" condition for a reason - to create the best conditions for children to be born and prosper. If that reason no longer exists, then "marriage" should be private with no recording in any office and needing no witnesses.

 

Though the research is dated, the data seems to come from reliable resources (CDC, US Census Bureau), it might suggest that making conventional families stronger can address many of the societal ills you list:

Defenders of experimental living arrangements say that unwed mothers can and do raise children who become healthy, productive citizens. This is perfectly true--and perfectly irrelevant. The argument confuses anecdote and probability. By the same logic, one could equally argue that people do not need parachutes to survive falls from airplanes. A mountain of evidence details the fact that a child’s life chances are adversely affected by illegitimate birth--irrespective of the baby’s race or its mother’s social background.

 

"The illegitimate baby, to begin, is far more likely to be born into poverty: For blacks and whites alike, poverty rates were five times higher for children in female-headed families than in husband-wife families."

--Nicholars Eberstadt

 

Recent U.S. Census Bureau numbers make the point. The illegitimate baby, to begin, is far more likely to be born into poverty: For blacks and whites alike, poverty rates were five times higher for children in female-headed families than in husband-wife families. If not actually born in poverty, an illegitimate child is far more likely to enter poverty--and far less likely to leave it--in any given year than is the child of a married couple.

 

The out-of-wedlock child is far more likely to be a financial ward of the state: Forty-five percent of fatherless families with children were on means-tested cash assistance in 1991, as against 7 percent of their married counterparts. If this is distressing to the taxpayer, it is hardly less problematic for the child, for the welfare state is at best a grudging and unpredictable provider. Among the mixed blessings it confers is public housing, and an illegitimate child is vastly more likely to grow up in the squalid and decrepit environment of these projects than a child from a husband-wife family.

 

But the “marriage penalty” imposed upon out-of-wedlock babies is not only financial: Illegitimacy can threaten an infant’s chances of survival. Indeed, according to CDC statistics, a child is more likely to die in its first year of life if born out of wedlock--irrespective of the mother’s race, age or education.

 

There are growing numbers of real-life Murphy Browns in America--single mothers who are well-educated and fairly well-to-do. Single mothers with a college education (whether black or white) are much less likely to live in poverty than married mothers without high school diplomas. But despite their economic advantage, infant mortality rates for these real-life Murphy Browns are higher than for their married but less educated sisters. Something about the out-of-wedlock lifestyle is evidently hazardous to a baby’s health.

[Ken H.]

Greg,

 

Well if one can push past all his offensiveness (hard to do, ala Leslie’s quote from the article, one of many), while he does make some valid old-school arguments about why society(s) incentivized heterosexual marriage in the past, where I don’t see his argument jelling is on of why society(s) shouldn’t do the same for homosexual marriages now. In today's world.

 

I mean except for the single point in time act of needing a source of an egg to fertilize with a sperm, the need to a have a couple consisting specifically of a biological man and biological women to bring all the advantages of additional children to a society (his principle argument) are long since gone. The blogger is making his argument in long past frame of history/reference.

 

I agree in principle, as Paul said, government should just get out of the business of marriage, in the religious or sexual context, altogether. But given that just plain isn’t going to happen, I still can’t see a valid argument for penalizing gays. And thus DIS-incentivized all the advantages those affirmed relationships would bring to a society.

 

[John Ranalletta]

I mean except for the single point in time act of needing a source of an egg to fertilize with a sperm, the need to a have a couple consisting specifically of a biological man and biological women to bring all the advantages of additional children to a society (his principle argument) are long since gone.

Nothing going on here, keep moving....

 

A British scientist fathered up to 600 children after founding a fertility clinic that promised to provide sperm donors from ‘intelligent stock’, it emerged yesterday.

Biologist Bertold Wiesner supplied sperm to the partners of infertile men from the middle and upper classes, including ‘peers of the realm’.

His wife Mary Barton later destroyed medical records, meaning most of those conceived there – and their thousands of subsequent offspring – have no idea of their true family history and blood ties.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126761/Bertold-Wiesner-British-scientist-fathered-600-children-donating-sperm-fertility-clinic.html#ixzz1szWfIXl9

[Ken H.]

Though the research is dated, the data seems to come from reliable resources (CDC, US Census Bureau), it might suggest that making conventional families stronger can address many of the societal ills you list

You’re quoting the CDC regarding single parent head of households (usually female). That decidedly not what we’re taking about here. We’re talking about stable, mature, functional long-term plural relationships. Just where the partners happen to be the same sex.

 

Using arguments about the well recognized pitfalls of poverty level, single head of household child rearing as an argument against gay marriage is not valid.

 

[John Ranalletta]

If one posits that having children who prosper is a societal good; and if data supports that conventional marriages are more likely to achieve that goal, then one can argue incentives be given to people who marry (as we know it in its current form) as they are more likely to achieve that good.

 

Gay marriages are less likely to do so; thus those couple should not be entitled to the incentives.

 

Doesn't mean they're bad, just means they're different.

[moshe_levy]

If one posits that having children who prosper is a societal good; and if data supports that conventional marriages are more likely to achieve that goal, then one can argue incentives be given to people who marry (as we know it in its current form) as they are more likely to achieve that good.

 

Gay marriages are less likely to do so; thus those couple should not be entitled to the incentives.

 

Doesn't mean they're bad, just means they're different.

 

On what do you base your claim that "gay marriages are less likely to do so?" And compared to what do you base this claim? On the ideal traiditonal two parent family household? Compared to a disfunctional family? Compared to a state home to house these kids after they're taken from their "parents?" What exactly are you saying?

 

-MKL

[Selden]

And, equating homosexuality (or left-handedness) with alcoholism? Really??

As a southpaw, I can say with some relief that I am glad our society has outgrown the need to "convert" left-handed people to writing with their right hands, although I suspect there are still some who believe I am the spawn of Satan because I am left-handed.

 

There appears to be evidence for a genetic pre-disposition toward alcoholism. My father was an alcoholic, and it's something that worries me, but not enough to give up wine and beer in moderation.

 

That said, alcoholics are made, not born, which I do not believe to be the case with sexual orientation, for which there is a wide spectrum.

[ghaverkamp]

And, equating homosexuality (or left-handedness) with alcoholism? Really??

 

He didn't equate them. He analogized them.

[ghaverkamp]

I agree in principle, as Paul said, government should just get out of the business of marriage, in the religious or sexual context, altogether. But given that just plain isn’t going to happen, I still can’t see a valid argument for penalizing gays. And thus DIS-incentivized all the advantages those affirmed relationships would bring to a society.

 

No one is being penalized. It's simply a matter of not incentivizing a different relationship. You might as well trot out the well-worn notion that a progressive tax penalizes the more fiscally successful, which I can't imagine you agree with. We simply treat them differently because they're different in an effort to achieve certain goals.

 

I believe homosexual couples should have all of the same rights as heterosexual couples. I don't think you fix a broken situation by expanding it.

[John Ranalletta]

It's based on my anecdotal knowledge of gay couples who are colleagues, friends and relatives. Certainly not a statistical sample, however, most of them do not want children, adopted or born via AI.

 

I don't think there's an "ideal" situation except where we disconnect "marriage" from "money" in every respect and people can make lives with whomever they please.

 

The question is only about money. Remove the money, remove the debate.

[ghaverkamp]

Though I do feel I can make an excellent and very strong parallel between gay civil rights and black civil rights (and ANY denial of civil rights, for that matter) I will tread carefully on the second part of your post where you say to get the state out of the business of marriage.

 

Frankly, I doubt that you can make either an excellent or very strong parallel. They simply are not that similar. Both groups have and continue to suffer through persecution and bigotry. That's where the parallels end.

[marcopolo]

In Canada, we got over this issue a few years ago (as we did with gays serving openly in the military). Gay marriage has been legal throughout the country since 2005, though several of the ten provinces had already allowed it based on court decisions in those jurisdictions. The 2005 federal law effectively changed the definition of marriage. Before the law was introduced in Parliament, the Government referred it to the Supreme Court for review. It was deemed constitutional by the Court, which also ruled that only the federal government could amend the definition of marriage and that religious institutions could refuse to marry same-sex couples on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection of the freedom of religion. Spouses in gay marriages have all the same benefits (survivor pension benefits, health insurance etc., etc.) as do straight couples. As far as I can tell, none of the calamities that opponents said would befall the country have come to pass. For the vast majority of the population, it's a complete non-issue. There have been some minor "complications", such as a few municipal workers not wanting to issue marriage licences to gay couples on the basis of religious objections. I in no way see how gay marriage devalues traditional marriage. A gay couple getting married has no affect on me whatsoever, unless you consider that, as a taxpayer, I'm helping to fund survivor benefits for a slightly increased number of public employees. There has been another interesting wrinkle of late that caused the federal government (a Conservative Government, I might add) to introduce legislation in Parliament that will allow foreign nationals who get married in Canada to get divorced here as well (for some reason that is not possible at the moment). There are many gay foreigners -- read Americans for the most part -- who come to Canada to get married. Some couples have now reached the point where they want to get divorced, even though their marriage may not be recognized as legal back in their home jurisdiction. They have been unable, through some quirk in the law, to get divorced here, so the federal government has decided to rectify that.

[moshe_levy]

Though I do feel I can make an excellent and very strong parallel between gay civil rights and black civil rights (and ANY denial of civil rights, for that matter) I will tread carefully on the second part of your post where you say to get the state out of the business of marriage.

 

Frankly, I doubt that you can make either an excellent or very strong parallel. They simply are not that similar. Both groups have and continue to suffer through persecution and bigotry. That's where the parallels end.

 

Not as I see it. Read post #773458 in this thread. I described it there, and in fact it is 100% identical state-sponsored discrimination in the face of exactly the opposite result the parties lobby for. In the case of blacks, it was education. In the case of gays, it's marriage. In both cases, the state blocked the way and then proceed to fulfill the prophecy they themselves created artificially at the expense of a minority.

 

If you do not see that as a parallel with the strength of Atlas, explain why it's not to us.

 

-MKL

[ghaverkamp]

Well, as it happens, a great deal. The parallel with the African American experience, for example. Many states banned blacks from reading or getting an education during slavery and its aftermath (for decades afterward, in fact). Then a justification used for why blacks are "inferior" was they they are "stupid." Here, the same. We are told from a religious perspective that gays are immoral and promiscuous, so when they attempt to demonstrate monogomous long-term commitment, the state tells them they cannot. A further parallel - we tell them they can have the "separate but equal" civil union. In short, we've learned nothing from our past mistakes, and gays make a nice, convenient whipping boy during election season, don't they?

 

. . .

 

Not as I see it. Read post #773458 in this thread. I described it there, and in fact it is 100% identical state-sponsored discrimination in the face of exactly the opposite result the parties lobby for. In the case of blacks, it was education. In the case of gays, it's marriage. In both cases, the state blocked the way and then proceed to fulfill the prophecy they themselves created artificially at the expense of a minority.

 

If you do not see that as a parallel with the strength of Atlas, explain why it's not to us.

 

The foundation itself is flawed. Education is an activity of the government (or one prevented by the government). Marriage is a bundle of contractual obligations and rights created to govern and incentivize certain behaviors. There's really no need to go further.

[moshe_levy]

Greg, I'm not sure what to make of your post. The state grants a marriage license. Period. There are some rugged individualists who hate government intrusion into our lives, and yet who want the feds to block the states from granting said marriage licenses to certain tax-paying members of society. Period. Whether or not you want the government involved, IT IS. Licenses are granted by the state. As is education. Same provider, hence, the parallel.

 

-MKL

[Quinn]

Greg, I'm not sure what to make of your post. The state grants a marriage license. Period. There are some rugged individualists who hate government intrusion into our lives, and yet who want the feds to block the states from granting said marriage licenses to certain tax-paying members of society. Period. Whether or not you want the government involved, IT IS. Licenses are granted by the state. As is education. Same provider, hence, the parallel.

 

-MKL

 

I can't imagine marriage working only on a state level. What happens to a gay couple when they move from a state that recognizes their marital status to one that doesn't? If it's a company transfer, do they lose their partner's insurance benefit? If their partner dies in a non-recognizing state, would they not have survivor benefits? How was this handled for interracial marriages back in the day? Surely it would have to be consistant on a national level.

 

------

 

 

[moshe_levy]

I think they're trying to crawl before they run - that one state that doesn't recognize another's license would eventually lead to more lawsuits that would eventually pave the way for national recognition - that is the fear, anyway, which leads some to bypass the states (shock of shocks) and go straight for federal legislation.

 

-MKL

[ghaverkamp]

Greg, I'm not sure what to make of your post. The state grants a marriage license. Period. There are some rugged individualists who hate government intrusion into our lives, and yet who want the feds to block the states from granting said marriage licenses to certain tax-paying members of society. Period. Whether or not you want the government involved, IT IS. Licenses are granted by the state. As is education. Same provider, hence, the parallel.

 

That's weak, at best. You promised strong parallels. "Strong as Atlas". It's beyond me why you're introducing red herring about "rugged individualists". You made the argument about similarities in terms of civil rights struggles. You see "strong parallels".

 

You're deluding yourself. Your emotional desire to find some way to make them the same has resulted in poor analysis. Courts have been doing the same thing in an effort to legalize these marriages. They redefine marriage. They toss out the history or reasons for marriage. They stretch for parallels.

 

The fact is, many of the key decisions in civil rights battles (and in education, certainly with Brown v. Board of Education) have resulted from pretty poorly reasoned decisions. We praise them for the results, but the mess they make of the legal system is disappointing. Just don't try to find meaningful law in all of it, because none of it makes any sense.

[Bill_Walker]

In Canada, we got over this issue a few years ago (as we did with gays serving openly in the military). Gay marriage has been legal throughout the country since 2005, ... As far as I can tell, none of the calamities that opponents said would befall the country have come to pass. For the vast majority of the population, it's a complete non-issue. [emphasis added]

 

Sheesh! What's with all you Canadians trying to introduce actual data from experience into the discussion? Next you'll be trying to tell us that nationalized health care works.

[moshe_levy]

You're deluding yourself. Your emotional desire to find some way to make them the same has resulted in poor analysis. Courts have been doing the same thing in an effort to legalize these marriages. They redefine marriage. They toss out the history or reasons for marriage. They stretch for parallels. The fact is, many of the key decisions in civil rights battles (and in education, certainly with Brown v. Board of Education) have resulted from pretty poorly reasoned decisions.

 

That's fine, Greg. I'll stop right here. Anyone who calls Brown (which is obviously one of the landmark decisions in Civil Rights history) "poorly reasoned" is, to me, not worth arguing with, and neither is someone who has problems with "redefining" terms which should have never been so strictly defined in the first place. That's your stance, and that's OK, but it's beyond the realm of what I would consider to be a reasonable person I would have a conversation with, because there is nothing for me to learn here. Nothing at all.

 

-MKL

[Matts_12GS]

You're deluding yourself. Your emotional desire to find some way to make them the same has resulted in poor analysis. Courts have been doing the same thing in an effort to legalize these marriages. They redefine marriage. They toss out the history or reasons for marriage. They stretch for parallels. The fact is, many of the key decisions in civil rights battles (and in education, certainly with Brown v. Board of Education) have resulted from pretty poorly reasoned decisions.

 

That's fine, Greg. I'll stop right here. Anyone who calls Brown (which is obviously one of the landmark decisions in Civil Rights history) "poorly reasoned" is, to me, not worth arguing with, and neither is someone who has problems with "redefining" terms which should have never been so strictly defined in the first place. That's your stance, and that's OK, but it's beyond the realm of what I would consider to be a reasonable person I would have a conversation with, because there is nothing for me to learn here. Nothing at all.

 

-MKL

 

I'm starting to think Danny was right after all.

But I think Barry Goldwater said it best... "To disagree one does not have to be disagreeable"

[TyTass]

Marriage is a bundle of contractual obligations and rights created to govern and incentivize certain behaviors.

Greg, I'm obviously not a lawyer, so I don't understand the legal justification of a government to incentivising certain behavoirs for some segment of the population, but not others. Well, that's not true, I do understand there to be differences based on a person's status as a minor or adult.

 

So, please illuminate the reasoning, rather than the ramifications, of the government choosing to incentivize certain behavoirs of certain adults, and not others. Thanks.

[Huzband]

 

I'm starting to think Danny was right after all.

 

Hey, where'd that bus come from?

[Matts_12GS]

 

I'm starting to think Danny was right after all.

 

Hey, where'd that bus come from?

 

Detroit I think...

[tallman]

Broken clock, twice a day...

 

 

[Couchrocket]

This seems to be about definitions. "What is marriage?"

The solution to this and other knotty problems is to eliminate the definition itself.

Let anyone and any thing have any sort of definition for any other one and any other thing they please. That way we're guaranteed to eliminate any sort of differentiation, and therefore discrimination, completely. Who has any right to impose their definition of anything on me?

 

We'll have a better, more inclusive world, as a result. The only down side I can see is that we'll no longer be able to communicate.

[Bruce (Bedford)]

MKL -

Where are the folks who REALLY believe the whole Bible and not just the passages they agree with? Or conversely, take it all as inspired words, subject to changing times.

Not sure about the second part but I'm one who REALLY believes the whole Bible... HOWEVER it is not a simple book and comes with a lot of baggage the 'church' & others have put on it - but yep I'm that man & happy to chat but not to come to blows.

WRT the subject in hand IMO marriage is NOT the preserve of the church! The Bible seems to have marrage pre-date religion and a gift for mankind (I for one think it's a good gift) I think that it is important for the protection of all, strong & weak, and the security of society but it should be subject to wise law makers who may well amend the requirements to include all manner of combinations.

Churches and religions should manage their own business whilst adding their, undoubted, wisdom to the society they live in.

Gay marrage is a hot topic in the UK too.

Bruce

 

[moshe_levy]

This seems to be about definitions. "What is marriage?"

The solution to this and other knotty problems is to eliminate the definition itself.

Let anyone and any thing have any sort of definition for any other one and any other thing they please. That way we're guaranteed to eliminate any sort of differentiation, and therefore discrimination, completely. Who has any right to impose their definition of anything on me?

 

We'll have a better, more inclusive world, as a result. The only down side I can see is that we'll no longer be able to communicate.

 

Or there could be a middle ground where definitions do not expressly infringe on other citizens' civil rights. Remember the 3/5 compromise? Remember any of the other definitions we had that we now look back on with shame?

 

Let me ask it like this: When were we RIGHT to deny good law abiding citizens their civil rights? When? Point me to it historically. Was it right with the blacks? Women? When exactly was it the RIGHT thing to do, that we now look back and say, "Thank God we denied those poor slobs their rights!"

 

-MKL

[RTJohn]

I don't think gay people should be deprived the joy of a legal separation or the happiness of a divorce. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to experience this?

[ratfink]

They engage in reckless activities and are a danger to society and result in financial burden because they don't use adequate protection. They entice our youngsters into their lifestyle with media campaigns promising freedom and excitement. They are the horsemen of the apocalypse. They have wild rallys with public nudity and demonic music. I'm talking about motorcyclists in case you didn't realize it already!

 

The AMA is constantly asking me for money to fight onerous legislation against our sport. We probably have more in common with the gay folks than we have differences.

 

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, Judge not. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others. Dream Crushers and Bigots seem to forget these maxims when using Holy text to justify their attempts to force conformity on others that just want to persue their passions in life.

[Matts_12GS]

I don't think gay people should be deprived the joy of a legal separation or the happiness of a divorce. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to experience this?

 

+1

[Matts_12GS]

They engage in reckless activities and are a danger to society and result in financial burden because they don't use adequate protection. They entice our youngsters into their lifestyle with media campaigns promising freedom and excitement. They are the horsemen of the apocalypse. They have wild rallys with public nudity and demonic music. I'm talking about motorcyclists in case you didn't realize it already!

 

The AMA is constantly asking me for money to fight onerous legislation against our sport. We probably have more in common with the gay folks than we have differences.

 

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, Judge not. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others. Dream Crushers and Bigots seem to forget these maxims when using Holy text to justify their attempts to force conformity on others that just want to persue their passions in life.

 

well said

[Couchrocket]

This seems to be about definitions. "What is marriage?"

The solution to this and other knotty problems is to eliminate the definition itself.

Let anyone and any thing have any sort of definition for any other one and any other thing they please. That way we're guaranteed to eliminate any sort of differentiation, and therefore discrimination, completely. Who has any right to impose their definition of anything on me?

 

We'll have a better, more inclusive world, as a result. The only down side I can see is that we'll no longer be able to communicate.

 

 

Or there could be a middle ground where definitions do not expressly infringe on other citizens' civil rights. Remember the 3/5 compromise? Remember any of the other definitions we had that we now look back on with shame?

 

Let me ask it like this: When were we RIGHT to deny good law abiding citizens their civil rights? When? Point me to it historically. Was it right with the blacks? Women? When exactly was it the RIGHT thing to do, that we now look back and say, "Thank God we denied those poor slobs their rights!"

 

-MKL

 

What in my post makes you think any of the issues you mention are things with which I would disagree?

 

It is, in fact, the clear understanding of definitions (even evil ones such as some of those you mention) that allows relevant discussion about their merits, or lack thereof. My point is merely that moving in the direction of having terms / concepts having no limits to what they represent inevitably leads to increased inability to have communication about them.

 

I couldn't care any less about the government/legal definition of marriage. But it must have "some" boundaries in order to have meaning. Do you agree? E.g. One of the boundary conditions might be that the term marriage is limited to some sort of relationship between human beings. Then we might want to ask if the number of participants is relevant. Things like that. If you agree, what other boundary conditions would you suggest, and what justification for them can you offer?

[moshe_levy]

I couldn't care any less about the government/legal definition of marriage. But it must have "some" boundaries in order to have meaning. Do you agree? E.g. One of the boundary conditions might be that the term marriage is limited to some sort of relationship between human beings. Then we might want to ask if the number of participants is relevant. Things like that. If you agree, what other boundary conditions would you suggest, and what justification for them can you offer?

 

Scott, it looks as though we're on the same page if we can rationally and reasonably agree on langauge, definitions, and boundaries. People can wrap their heads around these concepts in a civil way.

 

However I don't think the vast majority of the opposition to gay marriage is rooted in these types of disagreements. I think that it is primarily driven by outright discrimination with a heavy emphasis on theology as the backbone of the argument. And it is that argument which I reject, not so much what you bring up. I do not disagree with what you said directly above.

 

-MKL

[ghaverkamp]

Marriage is a bundle of contractual obligations and rights created to govern and incentivize certain behaviors.

Greg, I'm obviously not a lawyer, so I don't understand the legal justification of a government to incentivising certain behavoirs for some segment of the population, but not others. Well, that's not true, I do understand there to be differences based on a person's status as a minor or adult.

 

So, please illuminate the reasoning, rather than the ramifications, of the government choosing to incentivize certain behavoirs of certain adults, and not others. Thanks.

 

Why does a government want to incentivize anything? To produce a desired outcome. Governments offer incentives to poor women to get pre-natal care so that their children will be born healthy. Governments offer incentives to certain segments of the population (based on income) to encourage higher education, in the hopes of producing a better educated and skilled populace. There are all sorts of incentives at all levels of government to get behaviors from some adults and not others.

 

As for legal justifications, there's not much to it in most circumstances. From a federal level, a legislative finding that some result would be desired and can be justified through a Constitutional grant of authority (most often the Commerce Clause). At a state level, it's going to be all over the map based on state constitutions.