Theres a vote going down next week I think in my suburb,about domestic partners who want spousal benefits(I guess they mean hetero and homosexual also).Its gonna be a nice debate,considering many homosexuals live in my little suburb.I’ll report soon.
So they want the benefits of marriage w/o any of its responsibilities…
So let them get married, dlv, and there won’t be a problem, will there?
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
Yes - lt them get married, and if they want to split up, let them get a divorce like everyone else.
This comment that I’m about to make will likely surprise those of you who know me as a pretty conservative kind of guy. But I really have to say…
I’m not sure what all the big fuss is about. If people who are homosexuals want to get married, and if the person they want to marry is of the same sex, what’s the big deal?
I know, of course, that some people are concerned about their health insurance rates going up, since same-sex marriages will mean that suddenly a lot of people who have AIDS, or who are in a better-than-average position to get AIDS, will suddenly be allowed to get group insurance (as the spouse of a person who’s already so insured). I understand that anything that may impact our cost of living in a substantial way will cause many people to oppose the action.
Another problem that some people see is that those same-sex couples would be eligible to adopt children, and that would be bad, because they “obviously” would then indoctrinate the children into the homosexual lifestyle. (Caution: sarcasm may exist in this paragraph.)
And I know that there are many who believe that homosexuality is a great pernicious evil, and must be stamped out (as if it could be).
But really, where is the great harm? Surely, the documents which set the basis for this great land, and which promised all of us the right to “the pursuit of happiness”, apply to homosexuals as well as to heterosexuals. If we don’t allow this group of people to have the same basic set of freedoms as all other Americans enjoy, then we might as well take the vote away from blacks and women, re-institute Prohibition, outlaw all religions other than Christian Protestantism, and put small children back to work in sweatshops.
Dick Macy
Y’know Dick, if I’d thought about it at all, you’re right, I would have been surprised that the sentiments in your post above are yours. I apologize for the thought! And I’m glad to see that that’s the way you feel.
Regarding gay couples adopting kids, all I can say on that issue is that the people who will get my kids in the event that my husband and I die before they are grown (God forbid), assuming that for some reason my sister and brother-in-law cannot take them, are a gay (Jewish) couple. I know that these men would raise my children well, and care for them in every way. Although they own a fine home on L.A.'s west side, they have told me that they would even move into our family home (on the other side of town) while the kids were in school so that the kids could stay in the same neighborhood and schools.
I do have some of the same sentiments about this “domestic partnership” thing that were stated above. I do think that it is trying to get the benefits without the responsibilities or disadvantages of being married. I’m with Phil – let 'em get married.
-Melin
I agree 100%. If they want to have a real marriage, with all the rights and responsibilities, go for it. (And if your spouse gets sick and sues you for support, you can’t claim that this was “just a domestic partnership” with no obligations 
)
Just a few decades ago many states used to outlaw interracial marriages. I’m sure a few decades from now we’ll view the prohibition of same-sex marriage the same way.
P.S.
I don’t have any numbers to analyze, so I have to guess, and my guess is that we’ve already seen the impact and it wouldn’t get much worse. In states like NY and CA, where most AIDS cases occur, most domestic partners are already entitled to their partner’s medical insurance. Are you thinking of hypothetical situations where the sick domestic partner declares himself indigent and gets Medicaid, while the other partner stays healthy and welathy? If they were officially married, both would have to spend their savings before getting Medicaid. But my guess is that given the choice between Medican and a domestic partner’s private medical insurance, most AIDS patients already choose private insurance. Medicaid really sucks.
This is all hypothetical, since I don’t know what I’m talking about.
P.P.S.
Other than some people not liking gays on general religious/moral grounds, I don’t understand why a gay/lesbian couple would make worse adoptive parents than a straight couple… But I don’t think it’s 100% correlated to gay marriage. Already some gay couples adopt (even though they’re not married). I don’t see why recognizing gay nmarriage would make it harder for the state to make it harder for gay couple to adopt (what a mouthful), if the state chose to.
It’s just my opinion, but I think that you REALLY underestimate the homophobia that has pervaded this culture over the last two millennia. Dick, you answered it yourself when you said:
…but I think you dismissed, or overlooked, the implications too easily, as it seems do the other posters above.
Basically, when one is taught (by parents, religious leaders, and/or just the messages pervading the culture) that homosexuality is Wrong Wrong Wrong with a capital R, then one is unlikely to accept it in any guise, to reconcile constitutional guarantees with it, and moreover one is likely to look everywhere for support for one’s belief.
That’s just the way hate works. That’s why racists and nationalists and sexists and homophobes are always able to find a biblical passage or a respected literary work or an ‘historical imperative’ or ‘the latest science’ that explains why [insert hate idea here].
Don’t expect hate to make sense…but also don’t expect that shining the light of logic on it will make it flee into the shadows.
We’ve got a couple of millennia of built-up ignorance to overcome…so let the fight continue! Keep up the good work!
Also, from personal experience, I think perhaps you overlook the ease with which some people just fall in line with “the party line.”
The leader of my mother’s religious sect has urged all good members to fight “for family values.” The sect has a well-organized push along those lines, and they have A LOT of money. (I mean, A LOT!) My mother, who has never struck me as a particularly hateful person, is doing her part for ‘the push’ just because she thinks it’s ‘right.’ She just wants to preserve ‘the family.’
As far as she’s concerned, ‘domestic partners’ should be able to visit each other after-hours in the hospital, or enjoy the pension and tax benefits of inheritance that currently only married couples enjoy, because that’s just ‘a government thing.’ She just doesn’t think we should change ‘marriage’ because that’s a ‘God thing.’
In addition to not expecting hate (or phobias) to make sense, also don’t expect many people to think independently.
It’s wrong simply because God says so!
Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”
“Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Psalm 119:105
Why am I not allowed to marry my lawnmower?
Is the law unfair because it discrminates against lawnmower lovers?
Yes. But the law isn’t supposed to be fair. It’s supposed to help society. Homosexuals can have a religious marriage, because they can believe in whatever religion they want. But a legal marriage is something different.
It makes sense that if being in a family helps children develop then breeders should be encouraged to stay together.
Unless someone has any reason that shows that encouraging homosexuals to form couples is beneficial to society I don’t see what the point of gay marriage is.
It’s not about fairness. If you want fairness you should abolish any legal ramifications of marriage.
Is it fair that adults can drink alcohol and children can’t? No. The law is not there to be fair. It is there to benefit society.
Thrifty said:
Where might I find this in the U.S. Constitution?
And do you therefore support the death penalty for homosexuals? Oh, I’m sorry, only homosexual males – it’s ok for women, I guess.
Konrad said:
I would not only encourage you to marry your lawnmower, but to consummate the marriage – preferably when its turned on.
But more seriously, in case you hadn’t notice, lawnmowers are not people. Homosexuals are.
Actually, you have it exactly backwards. We should not be writing laws to prevent things unless somebody can prove them good, but writing laws only to prevent things that are proven bad. Since there is nothing inherently bad about homosexuals having the same rights to marry as heterosexuals, I’m afraid you’ve already lost that one.
I’m a college student, and I presently rent a room in a house from a family. This family is comprised of two women and their daughter, who is 13. The women have been together for 16 years (yup, they celebrate their anniversary) and wear wedding rings. I suppose it is possible that they will someday break up, but you can say that about any couple, heterosexual or homosexual. Except that both spouses are female, there is nothing unusual about this family. The daughter takes dance and was in the school play last year. One of the women sings in choir. They have dogs and cats. I cannot understand how the religious bigotries of some people can get in the way of allowing this couple to marry in the eyes of the law.
What is so beneficial to society about heterosexual marriage? Why couldn’t homosexual marriage be equally beneficial? Most gay people I know have/want to have a committed relationship with someone they love, a family, a house, etc., etc., just as heterosexuals do. A former (gay) housemate of mine told me, “I want to have a boyfriend, but it’s more important to have a child. If he can’t understand that, I don’t want to be with him.”
I think a lot of this resistance is based on ignorance, something I’m having a hard time fathoming. (I’m a native San Franciscan…enough said.) Konrad, do you actually know any gay people? Any gay couples? I’m not really angry, just sad that there are still people who not only don’t understand, but make no effort to.
On a sort of political side note, California voters, remember to vote against the Knight Initiative in March!
~Kyla
“You couldn’t fool your mother on the foolingest day of your life if you had an electrified fooling machine.”
I think your paranoia has gotten the better fo you… Ancient Greeks and Romans considered bisexuality the norm. Christian Church in the middle ages had an official ritual for homosexual marriage. Modern homophobia has much less than two millenia under the belt.
You got a cite for that? My hubby’s got a Master’s in Divinity from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, and this was news to him.
-Melin
Thrifty - OK, let’s assume homosexuality is wrong. What’s the compelling state interest in banning gay marriage?
And question #2: what’s the compelling Christian interest in banning secular gay marriages?
Do Christians believe the state ought to have the right to ban every moral wrong, regardless of the degree of harm it causes? Should the state ban gambling, drinking, pornography (thank God, no **** in there), oral sex, cussing, picking one’s nose in public? Rock and rap music deemed sufficiently pernicious?
Awhile back, I started a thread entitled “You cannot have the right to do what is wrong!” after Alan Keyes’ speech from the '92 GOP hatefest. This was one of the reasons why. This is totalitarianism, pure and simple. I’m against it. But that’s where the right to ban stuff just because it’s wrong, rather than on the basis of harm, ultimately leads.
David B sez:
Doesn’t matter. Who says that all people have the right to marry? Where’s it written in the constitution?
Ah but you’re the one who has it backwards. Like I said, there’s nothing preventing homosexuals from marrying. They can live toghether and do what other married people do. But a legal “marriage” is a seperate institution. What a legal marriage means is that you get special priviliges. It’s not that we’re taking preventing non-married people from doing certain things. It’s that we’re giving those who are married certain benefits.
What are we preventing homosexual couples from doing? All it is is a legal definition. You are married according to the law, you get a paper and these benefits. When you have kids (at least in Canada) the government gives you a certain tax break for them. Does that mean people who don’t get this tax break are getting some rights taken away from them? No, but people who have kids get this benefit. Are you going to argue that unless not having kids can be proven to be bad then you can’t take away the rights of these people to receive those tax breaks?
If you want to argue whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, that’s an entirely different issue. There you can say that they’re being denied a right to do something.
Kyla sez:
What does it have to do with religion? I’m talking about the good it does for society.
I’m not arguing that it’s beneficial. Apparently some people believe it’s beneficial and that’s why they encourage it. I guess it’s mostly to do with encouraging child birth.
It doesn’t matter if it can be. The point is: Will the average homosexual marriage be beneficial? Explosions can be beneficial, doesn’t mean we should encourage people to blow things up.
So what? He’s just one person. The fact is the average heterosexual couple is more likely to have kids (for obvious reasons).
Of course I do. But what kind of an argument is that? If I’m against gay marriage that obviously means I’m ignorant and I hate gays? If I’m against lawnmower marriage does that mean I hate lawnmowers?
Seriously, you’re not looking at this issue in any more depth than the average christian fundamentalist. It’s not a matter of being pro-gay or anti-gay. That’s what I’m trying to say here. You can argue against gay marriage without being anti-gay.