10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

[AlicornsPrayer]

That has EVERYTHING to do with marriage as a LEGAL INSTITUTION.

There is no big conspiracy afoot here. Anyone can spend the rest of their lives with whoever they wish. Without the the legal form or substance, however, it's just not a marriage.

No it doesn't Numinus. I know you'd like to wish it did, but the simple truth of the matter is that marriage isn't about "planned parenthood and reproductive health."

There are no legal requirements, in regards to getting married, that require individuals to prove they are planning on having children or that they are capable of having children. If this was the case, then people that weren't able to procreate, or those that had no intentions of procreating, wouldn't be allowed to get married, cause they wouldn't qualify under those conditions.

Furthermore, the children aren't actually protected under the laws regarding marriage. The parents of the children are protected, but not the children themselves. The marriage laws protect only the two individuals being married and affords certain rights to those individuals in regards to property, child rearing (if they decide to have children), and health say-so in regards to their spouse.

You are trying to combine the two things into one, when they are actually seperate issues completely. Yes, children do sometimes result from a marriage...But the marriage laws/rights aren't designed to create children.

 

[AlicornsPrayer]

It is not frozen. Its just not applied to homosexual unions.

Actually, Coyote is correct, that the deffinition of marriage has changed over the centuries Numinus. There actually was a time, not so long ago, that same-sex marriage wasn't that uncommon, and was accepted by society in general. It's only been a recent change in society, of only a few centuries, that same-sex marriage became taboo...

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

Here's a book that you'd find interesting...To see just how much marriage has changed over the centuries, especially in regards to same-sex marriages...

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201528221&sr=1-15

 

[Segep]

Isn't a legally-binding last will and testament to be followed to the "T" upon your death? That's what my lawyer told me last month when i complete mine. If that's all this is about, just draft a well-written, very specific will and you'll be fine.

Unless of course your deceased partner's family contests the will and gets a sympathetic judge who doesn't believe in homosexuality either. Then you're ****ed.

 

[palerider]

I'm just curious - is there anyone here (other than me) who is against gay marriage for one reason or another, or is this site frequented by gay-rights supporters only? I'm not knocking you either way, I'd just like to know if there are ever any opposing view points to this issue here.

Yes, I am opposed to granting special rights based on sexual preference.

 

[AlicornsPrayer]

Isn't a legally-binding last will and testament to be followed to the "T" upon your death? That's what my lawyer told me last month when i complete mine. If that's all this is about, just draft a well-written, very specific will and you'll be fine.

Wills are contested all the time, and overturned on a daily basis. And such cases can be tied up in a court for years, to where the only ones that benefit from the estate are the lawyers defending both sides of those contesting.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, I am opposed to granting special rights based on sexual preference.

Why should special rights be granted to married couples period then?


Why do SOME couples get special rights while others do NOT?

In fact...Palerider....why are YOU in favor of granting special rights based on sexual preference?

 

[numinus]

Why not?

Marriage has been defined in many ways:
one man, one woman

Pending the requisite legal forms and substance, correct.

many men, one woman

And what does a marriage such as this say about the relationship of the men among themselves, hmmm?

many women, one man

Same question as the above.

one man, his wife, his wife's widowed sister...

So the sisters are joined in marriage as well?

only one race

Eh? Where?

adult and child

That would be statutory rape.

between children

Now that's just plain child pornography.

I have yet to see a valid reason not to extend it to consenting adults of the same sex.

So does most of the above.

 

[numinus]

Not really. State recognition of marriage is nothing more then a granting of certain rights and privledges. Either those rights should be granted equally or not at all and the state should completely stay out of marriage.

Sigh.

They are privileges bestowed on individuals who undertake the necessary legal forms and substance. Usually, such privileges are bestowed with accompanying responsibilities towards a specific purpose.

 

[9sublime]

Usually, such privileges are bestowed with accompanying responsibilities towards a specific purpose.

That is where your whole argument falls down as it is simply not the case.

 

[palerider]

Why should special rights be granted to married couples period then?

I don't have any special right. I have exactly the same right to marry as any other adult in this country regardless of sex or sexual preference..

Why do SOME couples get special rights while others do NOT?

So who has "special" rights?

In fact...Palerider....why are YOU in favor of granting special rights based on sexual preference?

Clearly I am not. No special rights for me. No special rights for you. No special rights for anyone. Sexual preference is not a rational basis upon which to grant special rights, or to redefine words in order to satisfy a very small segment of the population or to make them feel better about themselves. If they need for words to be redefined, or to be granted special rights in order to feel different about themselves, their problems go deeper than rights or what words mean.

 

[palerider]

Marriage has been defined in many ways:

You dissappoint me coyote. We have covered this ground before and you lost the point then. Knowing that it isn't true, why would you attempt, again, to convince others to join you in believing something that you know to be untrue?

The fact is that marriage has always been an arrangement between men and women. While (temporary) relationships have been recognized by a very limited number of societies between men, such relationships have never, ever, ever been called marriages.

 

[Coyote]

You dissappoint me coyote. We have covered this ground before and you lost the point then. Knowing that it isn't true, why would you attempt, again, to convince others to join you in believing something that you know to be untrue?

Whoah there....we covered this, but I don't recall losing or conceding the point.

Marriage is only one term - for a variety of socially recognized unions.

Even sticking to the most common culturally (by western culture) recognized meaning of marriage it has most of those situations.

Now - today - we insist in it meaning one man, one woman. Why? It hasn't always. It has changed.

So you argue that it has never meant same sex. Yet, history has shown that there have been some sort of legally recognized same sex unions in other cultures.

Ok, so lets not call it "marriage". Let's call it one of the other terms. But lets give them the same legal rights that we give heterosexual couples because, in the end that is what it comes down to: equal rights. Whether you choose to call it marriage or not, is irrelevent. As long as the state recognizes and confers special rights on couples it should not discriminate.

The fact is that marriage has always been an arrangement between men and women. While (temporary) relationships have been recognized by a very limited number of societies between men, such relationships have never, ever, ever been called marriages.

Not necessarily temporary. And how can you say they have never been called "marriages"?

There are a lot of words defining contractual relationships - depending on the culture and language. Marriage is one of many.

 

[Coyote]

I don't have any special right. I have exactly the same right to marry as any other adult in this country regardless of sex or sexual preference.

Now that is sophistry.

So who has "special" rights?

Clearly I am not. No special rights for me. No special rights for you. No special rights for anyone. Sexual preference is not a rational basis upon which to grant special rights, or to redefine words in order to satisfy a very small segment of the population or to make them feel better about themselves. If they need for words to be redefined, or to be granted special rights in order to feel different about themselves, their problems go deeper than rights or what words mean.

First:

The state grants special rights to married heterosexual male/female couples. These rights are not granted to any other couples.

Do you deny that they gain special rights and benefits upon marriage?

Second:

You make a senseless comment about "make them feel better about themselves." I don't view this what-so-ever as an emotional issue of "feeling better". It's simply and unemotionally about equal rights and the ability of two consenting adults to enter into a legally binding contractual relationship that gives them the same rights as all adults entering that type of contract.


Marriage confers special rights to the married partners. Yes? No?

Once we determine that, then we can talk about whether the same contract for same sex partners confers "special rights".

 

[Coyote]

Sigh.

They are privileges bestowed on individuals who undertake the necessary legal forms and substance. Usually, such privileges are bestowed with accompanying responsibilities towards a specific purpose.

Presumably that purpose is to bear and raise children?

If so, then that would limit who would eligable for those priviledges such as elderly or barren couples or couples who have no plan to have children.

 

[jb_1430]

Presumably that purpose is to bear and raise children?

If so, then that would limit who would eligable for those priviledges such as elderly or barren couples or couples who have no plan to have children.

Says who? Because the marriage laws do not precisely fit the purpose to which they are intended is not an arguement for making that fit even more imprecise by including couples who are physically incapeable of producing children.