Gay Marriage

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lets break this down as my main reason to oppose gay marriage.

Example:

2 men are gay. They request that they be allowed to marry one another. The court allows them to because they cannot, for some reason, find a reason not to.

This means that 2 gay males or 2 gay females can marry one another.

lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.

This opens the way for same sex sybling marriages. Why can't I marry my brother? The obvious and long standing reasons not to allow sybling marriages ("bigotry" and the long repeated statistical birth defects) are gone since we obviously can't reproduce and bigots are herded into corners and berated. As soon as that happens brothers will push to be allowed to marry sisters because it is no longer about reproduction even abstractly.

Now - what is keeping us from allowing polygamy? David Patterson says that he will uphold any marriages recognized by nations or states when people re-locate to New York. Gay rights people are happy about this because it is an attempy to usurp the legislative process in the short term. This decision should include polygamous marriages but i'm sure that it doesn't, even though they are recognized by numerous Nations.

I'm tired of writing, but I could go firther with the polygamous marriage issue until marriage is just a government contract between any number of people without any concrete guidelines.

Long story short - we need to retain the idea that "marriage" is either between 1 man and 1 woman or destroy the institution entirely. There doesn't seem to be another oprion that is anything more than arbitrary.

What do you think?

[rory_20_uk]

To link gay marriage with marrying your sibling is about as logical as linking hetero marriage with molesting small girls.

Polygamy? Fine - why not?

[LittleGrizzly]

lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.

So you support a male and female best friend getting married just for the benefits and inheritance ect. because allowing straight marriage without allowing this would clearly be discriminaton ?

[Viking]

So you support a male and female best friend getting married just for the benefits and inheritance ect. because allowing straight marriage without allowing this would clearly be discriminaton ?

[Fragony]

Shouldn't be called marriage, that is between a man and a woman. Registered partnership with all the tax breaks sounds fine to me, if they want then that more I have to wonder why.

[rory_20_uk]

Shouldn't be called marriage, that is between a man and a woman. Registered partnership with all the tax breaks sounds fine to me, if they want then that more I have to wonder why.

So you say. Who made you lord of all? If two people want to say they are married, twinned souls or entangled particles then good luck to them!

[PBI]

If the debate is really just about what we call the thing then this is even more of a storm in a teacup than I realised.

[PBI]

To link gay marriage with marrying your sibling is about as logical as linking hetero marriage with molesting small girls.

Polygamy? Fine - why not?

Indeed.

I've yet to hear any good argument for why anything which happens between consenting adults and which doesn't harm anyone else is anyone's business but their own.

As rory points out, incest is prevented by independent laws which would be unaffected by allowing gay marriage, so no slippery slope there.

What I really don't understand is why such a minor issue has become so ridiculously blown out of proportion, to the point where it can supposedly decide somthing as important as a presidential election.

[Ronin]

Lets break this down as my main reason to oppose gay marriage.

Example:

2 men are gay. They request that they be allowed to marry one another. The court allows them to because they cannot, for some reason, find a reason not to.

This means that 2 gay males or 2 gay females can marry one another.

right...

lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.

right once again...

This opens the way for same sex sybling marriages. Why can't I marry my brother? The obvious and long standing reasons not to allow sybling marriages ("bigotry" and the long repeated statistical birth defects) are gone since we obviously can't reproduce and bigots are herded into corners and berated. As soon as that happens brothers will push to be allowed to marry sisters because it is no longer about reproduction even abstractly.

why "we obviously can't reproduce"? why are you taking that out of the equation?

Society´s reason to encourage marriage is to stimulate the creation of stable families and encourage regeneration of the population.
Of course it´s a given that homosexual couples can´t reproduce, so they can´t help regenerate the population, but they wouldn´t anyway, but at the very least you provide some stability for that couple in terms of taking care of each other in old age and such....so that´s still a plus for society.
for siblings marrying each other cause a definite disadvantage to society as they increase the rise of number of children being born with defects.

Now - what is keeping us from allowing polygamy? David Patterson says that he will uphold any marriages recognized by nations or states when people re-locate to New York. Gay rights people are happy about this because it is an attempy to usurp the legislative process in the short term. This decision should include polygamous marriages but i'm sure that it doesn't, even though they are recognized by numerous Nations.

uhm...there is no reason for not allowing it...as long as it is accepted by all parties involved what´s the problem?

I'm tired of writing, but I could go firther with the polygamous marriage issue until marriage is just a government contract between any number of people without any concrete guidelines.

the obvious guideline is if the society as a whole is harmed by the existence of these contracts or not....

Long story short - we need to retain the idea that "marriage" is either between 1 man and 1 woman or destroy the institution entirely.

we have people working on that

There doesn't seem to be another oprion that is anything more than arbitrary.

What do you think?

marriage, even the classic one between 1 man and 1 woman is a societal construct...and therefore arbitrary anyway....that´s what I think.

[ICantSpellDawg]

why "we obviously can't reproduce"? why are you taking that out of the equation?

Marriage no longer means reproduction or the support of the child by the state. The state has enacted other laws that do just that which undermined the status of marriage long ago. Gay marriage would finally decide that "marriage" has nothing to do with reproduction, which has been in limbo since people started having infecund heterosexual marriages. If not about reproduction, then what is it about? A metaphysical concept? Leave that to churches because the water will get very cloudy.

Society´s reason to encourage marriage is to stimulate the creation of stable families and encourage regeneration of the population.
Of course it´s a given that homosexual couples can´t reproduce, so they can´t help regenerate the population, but they wouldn´t anyway, but at the very least you provide some stability for that couple in terms of taking care of each other in old age and such....so that´s still a plus for society.
for siblings marrying each other cause a definite disadvantage to society as they increase the rise of number of children being born with defects.

How would 2 brothers marrying be a "definite disadvantage to society?". What if a brother and sister wanted to adopt or they were infertile? What is the barrier there?

I know that there are "different laws" regulating the two ideas, but it is naive to suggest that they aren't absolutely connected from one another through a similar constitutional process. Again - the modern mudus operandi is not "Why?" but "Why Not?"

As an aside, this isn't an issue of what people can call themselves, one another or feel - that is not affected by the governmental interpretation. What is affected is of concern to us all as it is a civil matter and one based on taxable assets and government responsibility, to which we are all actively party.

[PBI]

the modern mudus operandi is not "Why?" but "Why Not?"

Or how about "Why care?"

[Fragony]

Or how about "Why care?"

A lot of people care, so their sexual preference is more important then that? If it's all the same to them why want it. That's demanding respect without giving any.

[PBI]

Gay people seeking to wed have a reason to care about this.

Nobody else is affected by it. So why care?

[Ronin]

How would 2 brothers marrying be a "definite disadvantage to society?". What if a brother and sister wanted to adopt or they were infertile? What is the barrier there?

There would be no disadvantage there...

but what are you suggesting here? that we should perform medical tests on everyone before deciding what laws apply to each person?

that doesn´t seem very reasonable..or practical...sometimes a rule of thumb is necessary.

[Craterus]

Let them eat cake.