Quote Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg View Post
That is not true. This issue is about why we should call a specific type of relationship special and then convey tax benefits onto it. A look at what the institution is - is important. It isn't a math equation of "equality" - it is an unequal institution itself, held above others. It reminds me of the fight over the crown being passed over to the eldest son -and everyone cawing about how "equal" it would be if it could also go to the eldest daughter... Why the eldest, and why the hell are people still wearing crowns and ruling other people in the first place? The fairness angle is nonsense.
I would submit that royal succession is not the best comparison to make to the debate over gay marriage. A more apt example would be the debate over interracial marriage, which revolved around many of the same (ultimately unfounded) criticisms. Why can't society again broaden the definition of a socially acceptable relationship without altering the definition of what a marriage entails?


I don't believe that a monogamous gay relationship is any more special than the aforementioned types of relationships and I think is opens up more questions about the failing institution of civil marriage than it solves. A grandparent aunt relationship is more special, a mother daughter relationship is more special, a best friendship is more special - to me and probably most of you. All relationships which can be and have been important in the rearing of children and the conveyance of affection. These are also usually lifelong commitments, unlike most marriages. What are we doing singling out gay couples? Why not open it up fully if we are opening it up at all. You guys have so far failed to distinguish why one relationship deserves benefits and the others don't. We've made good points that your closest loved ones should be allowed by your death bedside, why just the one you've been nailing? We all recognize that social security would be a benefit to your closest loved ones - why withhold that from the most important people in your life that you are not having sex with who could use it?

To be honest, I had a difficult time following that paragraph. I can only say that the whole argument seems so superficial. To me, what makes marriage special and socially desirable runs much deeper than things like skin color or genitalia.


I know that you desperately want gay marriage to become legal, Panzer. I oppose it and am firm in my opposition - the arguments over the years have not convinced me because I view it as an undeserved social conveyance of benefit. I can see some agreeable point to eliminating the thing all together and keeping marriage a personal thing between 2 people, God and the society that they identify with. You get your equality and I don't have to keep calling these BS fair-weather shallow marriages, marriages - gay or straight. Win-win
As I said earlier, removing the state from marriage entirely is a completely reasonable position in my book. It is regrettable that you reached that conclusion over an apparent disgust with the idea of gay people getting married, though.