Prop 8 to pass?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wish this really, really, Bush-level bad argument would be retired by the opponents of gay marriage already. It's utterly ridiculous.

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?

The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.

So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.

[Koga No Goshi]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?

Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.

The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.

You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.

So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.

a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.

b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.

[Koga No Goshi]

The constitution never states marriage. Its my understanding that they are interpreting the word happiness to include gay marriage and IMO that is very much a stretch and how I feel about the issue shouldn't come into play. A referendum was the thing to do.

Your understanding is flawed in this case. The Constitution doesn't say everyone has to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools either, but state-passed laws saying that water fountains and schools are only for certain races is unconstitutional nonetheless. Which was determined FIRST by courts, and only later by legislation.

Something doesn't have to be specifically delineated in the Constitution for a Constitutional violation to occur when a law is passed on that topic. I'm sure the Constitution does not specifically say anything about how it's not okay to murder Texans in California, but a law saying it is okay to do so in California would be unconstitutional, and stricken down by the courts. And that would be the judicial system working perfectly - though some would call it legislating from the bench.

[Strike For The South]

Your understanding is flawed in this case. The Constitution doesn't say everyone has to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools either, but state-passed laws saying that water fountains and schools are only for certain races is unconstitutional nonetheless. Which was determined FIRST by courts, and only later by legislation.

Something doesn't have to be specifically delineated in the Constitution for a Constitutional violation to occur when a law is passed on that topic. I'm sure the Constitution does not specifically say anything about how it's not okay to murder Texans in California, but a law saying it is okay to do so in California would be unconstitutional, and stricken down by the courts. And that would be the judicial system working perfectly - though some would call it legislating from the bench.

Comparing this to civil rights is a rather erroneous comparison and if the movement continues down this road it will only inflict more deafeats on itself.

Well considering murder is kind of an affornt to the pursuit of life as stated in the California constitution

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The court would be within there rights as that is explicitly stated. There is nothing about marriage therefore this should've gone to the legislature. It didnt because the gays saw an opportunity to get it done through the courts because they knew they would take a VERY liberal view on the word happiness. Now its biting them. So poo on them for being dumb and not appealing to the mainstream.

[Koga No Goshi]

Comparing this to civil rights is a rather erroneous comparison and if the movement continues down this road it will only inflict more deafeats on itself.

Well considering murder is kind of an affornt to the pursuit of life as stated in the California constitution

I have no idea why this is an erroneous comparison. Back in the 50's and 60's a lot of people considered blacks less than full white humans. Today a lot of people think gay people are just perverts and their right to form families and access legal rights which protect families should not be legally recognized. I fail to see the difference.

The court would be within there rights as that is explicitly stated. There is nothing about marriage therefore this should've gone to the legislature. It didnt because the gays saw an opportunity to get it done through the courts because they knew they would take a VERY liberal view on the word happiness. Now its biting them. So poo on them for being dumb and not appealing to the mainstream.

There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about water fountains. However, the Constitution DOES include language about equal protections of all U.S. citizens, and equal rights. So courts rule this kind of business unconstitutional. The same rulings ... the "good rulings" that even you guys would agree with today, growing up after the history of formalized segregation, you would and do call "judicial overreaching" if applied today overturning voter-passed legislation.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about water fountains. However, the Constitution DOES include language about equal protections of all U.S. citizens, and equal rights. So courts rule this kind of business unconstitutional. The same rulings ... the "good rulings" that even you guys would agree with today, growing up after the history of formalized segregation, you would and do call "judicial overreaching" if applied today overturning voter-passed legislation.

Off-topic

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.

I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

Off-topic

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.

I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.

Maternity leave is MANDATED? If there is a law saying women cannot work during a certain point in the pregnancy I'm unaware of it. If you mean, should states have to ALLOW paternity leave or some form of time-off flexibility for fathers (doctors visits for wife, prenatal care appointments, and time after the baby is born) much of the first world already has this in law and certainly if a man was terminated from his job for reasonable absence related to having a new baby (taking the wife to important doctor's visits, helping with the care after birth, etc.), I believe he does and should have a case in court.

But in regards to the second comment-- I'm not 100% sure this is what you meant, but... if what you mean is, it's "funny" how attempts to ban or restrict rights (things like Prop 187, Prop 8) always go to state ballot/referendum, and attempts to have rights recognized or discriminatory laws challenged goes to the courts, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not difficult to have already existing prejudices or discriminatory practices upheld in a general, straight majority public vote. The courts, by virtue of not depending on popular vote, have both the leeway as well as the obligation to examine the issue within the greater context of Constitutionality and legally logical reasoning which of course, is not required and largely not a component of much of the public vote. The yes on 8 ads were proof enough of that... a lot of them didn't even touch the issue directly at all, and just told parents their kids would be "taught gay marriage" if they didn't vote yes.

A voter making a call on oh I dunno... let's say a law about redlining, based on seeing a commercial with black kids hitting on white girls in high school, is something that has happened/does happen in our democratic process --- one would hope judges and the court system are not making their rulings based on the same mindset, though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.

No, all the things you listed are required. But why should they be granted to those with a fetish over those who choose not to enter into sexual partnerships?

You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.

I'm sure it means more than that to them, but the government should not encourage perversions (you do acknowledge that's what it is?). It would mean a lot to TuffStuff if he could marry his toaster - but they just won't let him.

a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.

b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.

a) Well unfortunately that legal entity is based on the traditional idea of marriage. And homosexuals should stop referring to it as 'gay marriage' if they wish to be taken seriously.

b) The constant comparisons to the civil rights movement is an insult to the suffering and prejudice that black people endured. Gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see. Why should they get to invent new institutions for themselves (because if you recongize its not marriage then that's what they would be doing)?

[Koga No Goshi]

No, all the things you listed are required. But why should they be granted to those with a fetish over those who choose not to enter into sexual partnerships?

Why should clearly inferior black people get rights equal to whites? :SHRUG:

I'm sure it means more than that to them, but the government should not encourage perversions (you do acknowledge that's what it is?). It would mean a lot to TuffStuff if he could marry his toaster - but they just won't let him.

And you guys wonder why the term "bigotry" comes up regarding the opposition to gay marriage crowd?

a) Well unfortunately that legal entity is based on the traditional idea of marriage. And homosexuals should stop referring to it as 'gay marriage' if they wish to be taken seriously.

b) The constant comparisons to the civil rights movement is an insult to the suffering and prejudice that black people endured. Gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see. Why should they get to invent new institutions for themselves (because if you recongize its not marriage then that's what they would be doing)?

a) I am fairly confident that homosexuals do not need your approval in order to pursue their equal civil rights, nor do I think this issue will go away until people who consider them nothing more than perversion fettishists "take them seriously."

b) Oh please.

I'm a white guy in South Carolina in 1962. I don't see what this big hubbub is about interracial marriage. I mean, it ain't natural anyway. But some folks wanna do it. But we got laws against that sort of thing. Marriage is for white and white, or black on black... stick to your own kind. I mean, all these protests-- what's the big deal? There ain't no unfairness. A black person can't marry a white person, but I'm a white guy, I can't go marry a black person either. There's nothing unequal about the law.

And, Rhyfe, "gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see" loses any of its potential benefit of the doubt when you refer to gay people as perversion fettishists. Besides, aren't you in the UK? Have you ever resided and lived in the United States? Or California? I don't really see what call, whatsoever, you would have to make that kind of an assessment. Your opposition to recognized gay rights in any form, in any locale, seems to be motivated by religious conviction of the "immorality" of homosexuality, period.

[HoreTore]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

[HoreTore]

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

BAH!

What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.

Neither does it matter what "every religion" say about it, simply because religion, thankfully, has no say in government. Separation of church and state FTW.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

[HoreTore]

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

No. It's different from what marriage was. But as we make up a new meaning for it, we can choose not to care about what it once was, and also what it still may be in the head of a few people. Thankfully, that's just what the people here did. I'm sure the yanks will follow eventually

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No. It's different from what marriage was. But as we make up a new meaning for it, we can choose not to care about what it once was, and also what it still may be in the head of a few people. Thankfully, that's just what the people here did. I'm sure the yanks will follow eventually

Quite possibly. But the first step Europe made along these lines was, in many Western European nations, to discard organized religion more or less entirely. Lacking any reverance for religious tradition, the viewpoint you highlight is rather a simple step.

[ajaxfetish]

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

Hang on. Is your argument simply that words cannot change their meanings over time, therefore homosexual couples cannot get married? That's a little far out. I take it you don't call flashlights 'torches,' since they aren't burning on the end of a stick. And you probably don't call automobiles 'cars' since they aren't drawn by livestock as a car should be. And you probably only call the bad guy in a movie the 'villain' if he's a peasant. And of course you'd never call that thing you're using to move your cursor around a 'mouse.' That'd be simply ridiculous. Well, the rest of the world doesn't have such a stagnant view of language, and we've moved on. But you're certainly welcome to think that way. I suppose it makes the world a little more interesting.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hang on. Is your argument simply that words cannot change their meanings over time, therefore homosexual couples cannot get married? That's a little far out. I take it you don't call flashlights 'torches,' since they aren't burning on the end of a stick. And you probably don't call automobiles 'cars' since they aren't drawn by livestock as a car should be. And you probably only call the bad guy in a movie the 'villain' if he's a peasant. And of course you'd never call that thing you're using to move your cursor around a 'mouse.' That'd be simply ridiculous. Well, the rest of the world doesn't have such a stagnant view of language, and we've moved on. But you're certainly welcome to think that way. I suppose it makes the world a little more interesting.

Ajax

These word games are getting ridiculous. The purpose of a car is to get you around, its defining point is that it is a means of transportation (that has certain characteristics eg 4 wheels and used on roads), not the fact that it is drawn by livestock.

The fundamental idea of a marriage is that it is between one man and one woman. So if all marriages were to take place in supermarkets, then without going into religious sensitivities they could still be called a marriage. Take two men though, and we have a problem.

[Koga No Goshi]

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

So what? Atheists get married everyday. Wiccans get married everyday. Agnostics and cross-faith couples get married everyday, even when their union would have been forbidden by the orthodoxy of their faiths for centuries or even milennia of human history.

This strikes me as very similar to the religious argument that the only acceptable purpose of sex or marriage is procreation. Yet there are no attempts to ban barren or infertile couples, or couples who choose never to have children or can't afford to, from marrying, or having sex. Nor should there be.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So what? Atheists get married everyday. Wiccans get married everyday. Agnostics and cross-faith couples get married everyday, even when their union would have been forbidden by the orthodoxy of their faiths for centuries or even milennia of human history.

This strikes me as very similar to the religious argument that the only acceptable purpose of sex or marriage is procreation. Yet there are no attempts to ban barren or infertile couples, or couples who choose never to have children or can't afford to, from marrying, or having sex. Nor should there be.

Indeed (apart from the procreation part, that isn't necessary for a marriage). The reality is that the USA isn't perfectly secular, religious and social norms had their influence on the founding fathers. And it was a good influence too as far as both myself and the majority of California are concerned.

As I said earlier, the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them. Otherwise, you are discriminating against people who can't/don't want to have sexual relationships.

Simply extending these benefits to another variety on the spectrum of sexual relationships would be a bit like arguing for civil right for Blacks but not the Hispanics.

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed (apart from the procreation part, that isn't necessary for a marriage). The reality is that the USA isn't perfectly secular, religious and social norms had their influence on the founding fathers. And it was a good influence too as far as both myself and the majority of California are concerned.

As I said earlier, the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them. Otherwise, you are discriminating against people who can't/don't want to have sexual relationships.

Simply extending these benefits to another variety on the spectrum of sexual relationships would be a bit like arguing for civil right for Blacks but not the Hispanics.

I am not sure if there was this reservation in what you said or not, but the only change I would make is that all current marriage rights must be present, for ALL of those couples. Even if we are changing the title to a civil contract and getting rid of marriage, or whatever. Failing that whatever benefits are in the civil contract must be precisely the same for everyone. The idea of keeping legal marriage, and creating a separate civil contract... .I realize you aren't an American, Rhyfe, but we have a saying here about our legal history: separate but equal is never equal. Segregated schools were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated services were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated communities were supposed to be separate but equal.

Leaving marriage as-is, and creating a separate civil contract to exist simultaneously, is just BEGGING for an employee of an insurance company, or an employee in social security, or an employee in hospital administration, to refuse service/access to a same-sex spouse with a civil contract "on moral grounds." Or for whole industries or services to refuse to recognize it, or for individual states to slip in benefits to state marriage benefits which do not exist in the Federal civil contract, etc.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am not sure if there was this reservation in what you said or not, but the only change I would make is that all current marriage rights must be present, for ALL of those couples. Even if we are changing the title to a civil contract and getting rid of marriage, or whatever. Failing that whatever benefits are in the civil contract must be precisely the same for everyone. The idea of keeping legal marriage, and creating a separate civil contract... .I realize you aren't an American, Rhyfe, but we have a saying here about our legal history: separate but equal is never equal. Segregated schools were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated services were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated communities were supposed to be separate but equal.

Leaving marriage as-is, and creating a separate civil contract to exist simultaneously, is just BEGGING for an employee of an insurance company, or an employee in social security, or an employee in hospital administration, to refuse service/access to a same-sex spouse with a civil contract "on moral grounds." Or for whole industries or services to refuse to recognize it, or for individual states to slip in benefits to state marriage benefits which do not exist in the Federal civil contract, etc.

Well here we have seperate Catholic/Non-denominational schools and its not the worst thing in the world.

The state should be able to make people recognise each others rights, but it should never demand that people find anything moral. God knows what the founding fathers would have made of same-sex marriages.

[ICantSpellDawg]

the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them.

That is one positive solution. I do, however believe that society has the right to decide that the male/female biological relationship is special and that it is not inherently any more discriminatory than any other restriction on marriage. All are allowed to get married as of a certain age, but it has to conform to the utilitarian biological function to at least an nominal extent.

Now, if we can no longer maintain this, I would rather do away with the entire concept as it no longer serves its original purpose and it would usher in a more arbitrary, metaphysical and discriminatory system. It would, without any cause, give additional tax benefits to 2 joined people. Why shouldn't single mothers get the same marriage benefit? Why should people feel the financial pull to get married at all?

2 people sharing incomes, dormitory bills, utilities, insurance plans etc already receive astronomical discounts simply by sharing. Why do they recieve additional tax breaks for it when there is no reason 2 people together should be preferred citizens? Still no one can answer why the union of two is still so important and worthy of note without the biological function to back it up.


The funny thing is I am debating policy to be enacted by democratic consensus while others on the opposing side are arguing superlative morality to be enacted by cadre.

[Koga No Goshi]

The funny thing is I am debating policy to be enacted by democratic consensus while others on the opposing side are arguing superlative morality to be enacted by cadre.

Part of our democratic process is judicial review and maintaining that laws are consistent with the rights outlined in the Constitution. We are not, and never have been, a straight direct democracy referendum structure.

[Whacker]

Yep, so I'm pretty much seeing exactly what I've come to expect from the dear old Backroom, rampant homophobia. It's precious how people use religion to try to lend legitimacy to prejudice. Hey, christian types, got a question for ya'll. The bible condones both polygamy and slavery as well, what say we make those legal as well?

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

Oh FFS, am I really going to say this? I agree 100% with the dirty commie for once.

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

You just keep your eyes closed, ears covered, and keep chanting that to yourself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.


EDIT:

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

[m52nickerson]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.

I will go with this. The goal is equality for all unions, or marriages, depending on how the government labels them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I will go with this.

Sure - I think that this would get more people on board BUT we should bring it to the legislature and try to convince people.

If the American people no longer believe that the government should have an interest in propagation or interpersonal relationships, we should change the existing policy. I'm not opposed to taking the government out of what we should or shouldn't be doing (when it doesn't involve homicide or other forms of aggressive tyranny) but we need to discuss it and change it by legislative action.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

You're being far too pessimistic here Seamus...

[Koga No Goshi]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.


EDIT:

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

I disagree. Legal rights should be equally accessible to everyone (with the caveat that their acts do not demonstrably harm others or society in general- so this would cover the slippery slope arguments like marrying animals or marrying 11 year olds) regardless of how, socially, a particular lifestyle is perceived by the mainstream in terms of "normal" or "alternative/not normal." Besides, there will always be people who define normal as merely what a majority does, and nothing else. And still others who think normal is what they do, and not anyone else.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I disagree. Legal rights should be equally accessible to everyone (with the caveat that their acts do not demonstrably harm others or society in general- so this would cover the slippery slope arguments like marrying animals or marrying 11 year olds) regardless of how, socially, a particular lifestyle is perceived by the mainstream in terms of "normal" or "alternative/not normal." Besides, there will always be people who define normal as merely what a majority does, and nothing else. And still others who think normal is what they do, and not anyone else.

Koga:

I think we are saying the same thing.

My point was that the government would sanction NO marriages at all. It would only sanction and tax civil unions, they would be as simple to contract as a current "marriage," and they would be accessible to any legally competent adult.

Marriage would then be a strictly religious concern administered by and for the religion in question and marriage would be irrelevant legally.

The other discussion regarding normalcy was not directly connected. I was using "normal" strictly based on frequency of occurrence as any other definition is, as you correctly note, highly subjective.