Konrad, I don’t understand your argument. You seem to be saying that marriage is a legal state and homosexuals should be denied it for some reason? Looking at your previous post, you seem to believe that the purpose of marriage is solely for breeding. I’m sure the married people on this board will disagree with you heartily there. If that is, in fact, your sole argument, then it’s unsupportable.
Konrad,
when you’re giving examples of Canadian law, you might want to mention that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that under our Constitution, same-sex couples have the right to the same family law protections upon break-up as opposite sex couples.
As well, when you ask where in the Consitution it guarantees the right to marry, I think you’re asking the wrong question.
The Canadian Constituion (I’ll use that as the example, since I am more familiar with it than the U.S. Constitution) does not guarantee a right to marry. Rather, it guarantees that the government will not discriminate by conferring benefits on some members of society and not on others, based on the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Sexual orientation is a prohibted ground of discrimination.
You recognize in your arguments that legal recognition of a marriage is a benefit. But, if the legal benefits of marriage are availalbe only to opposite-sex couples, that suggests it is a discriminatory policy.
(For anyone who’s interested, here’s a link to the SCC decision I mentioned: M. v. H.
Because your lawnmower could do better.
I had the Boswell book in mind. I did a web search and found a site that your hubby might find interesting: http://purl.oclc.org/NET/lgbh/
Folks, if you must use those dotted lines to delineate quotes, keep 'em short.
The width of the page will expand to match the longest string of consecutive characters without a space. That includes dashes. It’s a real nuisance to have to use the horizontal scroll bar to read the page. 
I had said:
[quote]
But more seriously, in case you hadn’t notice, lawnmowers are not people. Homosexuals are.
[quote]
Konrad responded:
Well, I guess that about sums it up. Konrad says it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about an inanimate object or a human being.
Right there in Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Melin here are your cites:
Boswell, John.
Same-sex unions in premodern Europe.
NY: Villard Books, 1994.
note: also issued in England under title: Marriage of likeness: same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe.
Suz, Ugl, Tac HQ 76.3 E8 B68 1994
Marginality and community in medieval Europe [computer file]. A project designed by the History 84 students at Kenyon College.
[Gambier, OH: Kenyon College History Department, 199?]
note: essays on the social and political situations of six marginalized populations in medieval Europe, namely heretics, Jews, homosexuals, prostitutes, lepers, and witches.
note: click on Sexualities; includes links, among others, to Two Versions of the Adelphopoiia Rite (translated excerpts of marriage rites that may have been used by same-sex couples), The Passion of St. Sergus and Bacchus (an excerpt from the Medieval Sourcebook showing the strong bond felt between two men), Alain of Lille: Complaint of Nature…(a spectacular attack on homosexual activity…and sexuality)
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
(The Bible actually has instances of gay marriage also, I believe they were in Judith(or something like that) (whatever it was called it was a book taken out in the King James version with some girls name. I will have to look it up later when I get to where I can get a real study bible.) I don’t have any specific sites so I will have to ask around until they come up again.)
Anyway, there are many many more citings. Your husbands lack of knowledge in this particular area is not surprising, the modern church has struggled to hide these citings but they inevitably surface.
Konrad, you are simply wrong. Marriage is a legal commitment of love. If we are allowed to marry, we would also be allowed to divorce. The divorce rates will probably be fairly low for gay marriages initially because the few couples that would actually marry would be a)couples who have been together for a long time already and are stable in their relationship or b) couples who are wanting to make a political statement. The latter couple would not be likely to divorce any time soon because they want their marriage to show the strength of a strong union even if they don’t want to be together. There are many other factors and reasons to get married but they will probably feel corraled into one of the two reasons above.
I don’t really think that your response dignifies a response, Konrad. You make analogies that don’t really fit together. Making the analogy that you can’t marry your sister may have strengthened your argument rather than comparing your lust for a lawnmower. I will just assume that you meant to compare marriage to your sister and let the board dissassemble that instead. (Small minds need all the help they can get. I am helping your argument eventhough I dispise it simply because I take great pity on you.) As everyone here knows, I am for gay marriage. I myself would like to marry but as the laws are now, I am not able. There are many reasons other than financial that would make this easier. As it currently stands, if I want to get a simple fraction of the benefits of marriage (inheritance, visiting in a hospital, mortgage with both of our names on it, etc) it would cost me several thousand dollars (around $8000 at my last checking). The real reason that I would want it is peace of mind in case my lover is in an accident that would allow me to visit him, if he dies I will be taken care of and his family won’t be able to come in and take everything that was bought by us mutually, and just to have a legally sanctioned union between us. Having the knowledge that we are in a committed union and having it made legal is a legitimizing factor. It will help alleviate a lot of the stress that is caused by homophobes who view us as a group of amoral sluts.
I can keep talking but need to get back.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Gasoline: As an accompaniement to cereal it made a refreshing change. Glen Baxter
My friend,who will be there arguing against the benefits package,says that homosexuals are not a disadvantaged minority like blacks were years ago.She doesn’t see how they are being discriminated against. She said there was an incident where 2 men raped and killed a 13 year old boy,but that was never on the news,whereas gay-killings are huge headlines ala Matthew Shepherd.
Also she thinks homosexuality is not something youre born with.
Konrad said:
Well, if the government tells those people that they can’t have this tax break because the government will not permit them to have children, and therefore they are never given the opportunity to be qualified for the tax break, then yeah, they are having some rights taken away from them.
First of all, let me state again what I am arguing. I am arguing that IF heterosexual marriage gives society benefits and homosexual marriage does not, then there is no reason to allow homosexuals to legally marry. I am not arguing whether or not those benefits exist. I am not arguing gay marriage should not be allowed because it is evil. I am not arguing that gay marriage should not be allowed because it is not allowed in the constitution.
What I am trying to say is that there are good arguments against gay marriage that have nothing to do with being pro or anti gay.
Now, the only arguments that I have seen made for gay marriage is
-
It’s only fair
-
Bigots are against gay marriage, therefore if you’re against it you’re a bigot.
If you want to argue that gay marriage produces benefits then that’s a whole other argument. And it’s a logical one. But these two arguments are not logical.
Most people’s arguments rely on wordplay. The word marriage means certain things. A legal marriage does not mean the same things. When the law says gays are not allowed to marry it does not really mean they are not allowed to have a marriage in the traditional sense of the word, just that their marriage won’t be recognized by the law and they won’t get certain benefits. People are making the argument that we’re taking away certain rights by not allowing them to legally marry, as if we were forbidding them from living together or something.
If, for example, instead of legal marriage I used the term Legal Distinction 23B, there go all your arguments. Homosexuals are allowed to marry, they just don’t fall under tax category for persons under Legal Distinction 23B. Now that doesn’t seem at all the same, does it? After all, poor people fall in a different tax bracket than rich ones. Does that mean that the rich people are having some rights taken away from them? No, they just don’t fall under the legal definition of someone who gets to pay less taxes.
So tell me, how is not allowing homosexual the legal recognition that a marriage entails any different from not allowing rich people certain tax breaks? Now I know you’ll say that rich people can afford it and so on but that’s not what I’m asking. Of course it’s unfair that gays won’t fall under this legal category, but how is it discrimination? Are we discriminating against rich people by not allowing them to pay less taxes? (And don’t tell me it doesn’t count because wealth is not race, orientation, etc…) Sure it’s unfair, but the theory goes that if poor people pay less taxes then it is a benefit for society. It’s not that lawmakers hate rich people, it’s that they hope to benefit society by giving these benefits to poor people.
Same thing with marriage. It may be unfair but the theory goes that if straight people get certain benefits from falling under Legal Distinction 23B it benefits society. If you want to argue that gay marriage gives the same benefits to society then you’re at least making a logical argument. But if you want to argue that we should allow gay marriage because it is discriminatory not to do so then that doesn’t make sense to me.
I don’t have time to respond to each of your posts individually right now, but I’ll try to when I get back from work.
I’m not gay and don’t even know anyone that’s gay (not for sure anyway), but if someone was I don’t see why it would be any of my damn business.
The benefits of being married: access to your spouse’s insurance, higher taxes.
I’ve got news for ya’ Bub, it’s been done (probably even the picking of one’s nose thing).
You can’t marry your lawnmower without its consent. “Do you John Deere Lawnmower . . .” Vrrrmmm Vrrrmmmm. You can’t marry dead people either for the same reason.
About the tax break for having kids, if you wanna’ have kids again it’s none of my damn business. I don’t wanna’ have kids and yet I’m being forced to subsidize yours. I feel like my rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been infringed upon, but that’s just me.
Some friendly advice Thrifty, you’re out of you little church click and you’re gonna’ have to come up with a new plan of attack. Quoting Bible verse ain’t gonna’ cut it so take it somewhere else please.
Eeek eeek – Boo, the giant miniature space hampster
I don’t think legalizing same-sex marriage is a form of affirmative action (i.e., quotas and preferences, which are a very Bad Thing). No one should receive special treatment, even if they are or were discriminated against. But recognizing same-sex marriage gives them only the same rights as we do, no more.
Yes, the rape and murder of that 13 y o boy was a heinous crime ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19991022_xcbtl_not_hate_c.shtml http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19991115_xcbtl_jesse_dirk.shtml http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19991116_xcbtl_the_washin.shtml I hope the perps get the death penalty) and the way it went unreported on most of the PC media really exposed them once again for the hypocritical liars that they are. So did their support of Bill Clinton and his lies during the Lewinsky affair. Interestingly, the rape&murder occured in Clinton’s home state.
Konrad says:
Using your logic, if heterosexual marriage doesn’t give society benefits then it shouldn’t be allowed either. The way I see it, it’s the couple that receives the benefits of marriage, not society.
So what are the benefits that heterosexual marriage gives to society?
As a party to a heterosexual marrage myself, I’d like to ask Konrad the same question. I’m not sure how much marriage benefits the society and I’m worried that I’ll be arrested for not fulfilling my obligations to the society. 
More generally, should any activity that doesn’t immediately and obviously benefit the society be disallowed?
Gourmet cooking?
Reading (and writing) romance novels?
Decadend bourgeois art?
Did you, by any chance, grow up in a Communist country? (This is not a personal attack; I’m just wondering if my guess is right.)
I’m sorry, I meant to type “I’m not sure how my marriage benefits the society” above.
Konrad has a point…not a particularly good one, but a point. I was about to place a nice ironic post about “it sure being nice of the government to give us our rights.” (The point, of course, is that our rights are guaranteed by the government, not given.) I was going to go on to set up a syllogism that (1) Konrad’s posts serve no public purpose to society, (2) Konrad is not guaranteed any right to post in the Constitution (freedom of speech, not freedom to post), and therefore (3) by his premises, he has no right to post.
I thought it over. My grandparents married on December 31, 1906. They were the last people in New York State to exercise their right to marry. By law effective January 1, 1907, New York required marriage licenses. It took away people’s right to marry, and instead made it a permitted behavior. Note the distinction clearly. One is by right, the other is by permission. In no state, AFAIK, can you marry as of right; all 50 regulate marriage and require licenses.
Do an analogy to zoning. If I buy a parcel of land in Unpopulated County, Montana, with no zoning in place, I can do with this land exactly as I want. (For purposes of the argument, ignore Federal and Montana state environmental laws governing all land in the respective jurisdictions.) If I buy a parcel of land in the City of Raleigh, what I may do with that land is restricted by the zoning law of the City of Raleigh. I may put a birdbath on my lawn as of right. But if I build a house, that construction requires a building permit…it is a permitted use. It is not a use as of right. I cannot be restricted from building a house, but the house I build must conform to the requirements of the zoning law. If my plans don’t match those requirements, I must change them or I can’t get a building permit. If I care to open a porn shop, I’m restricted by the zoning law to only a few very limited areas; the land I may own next to the elementary school is off limits to that business venture.
I think Konrad’s argument is quite simple: marriage is no longer a right, but a permitted behavior. As such, the (state) government may place any restrictions it sees fit on it, including that the couple be of opposite sexes. The only limits to those restrictions is that they not violate rights guaranteed by the Federal or state constitution or Federal law passed in accordance with the U.S. constitution.
I am not advocating his attitude, and I think the idea that the government should only permit behaviors that are “beneficial to society” is all wet. (I might note that some of Konrad’s own behaviors as exhibited on the posts he has made are not “beneficial to society” – this is very much an ad hominem attack, but he has left himself open to it by espousing that restrictive concept of allowable behavior in his posts above.)
I would also raise the question of precisely what makes heterosexual marriage “beneficial to society” in a way that homosexual marriage would not be? The sole reasonable answer would be the ability to reproduce strictly within the marriage partnership (any gay or Lesbian, or couple thereof, can recruit an opposite-sex person to handle the other half of the engendering of a child artificially if he or she so chooses). By this logic, however, marriage licenses should be dependent on fertility tests. A person who was (a) past menopause, (b) infertile, © did not want children, would have no privilege to marry (he/she has already lost the right).
Needless to say, I favor the idea that gay people should be able to marry legally.
A non-hypothetical situation not involving gays but meeting OC’s OP: I know a couple with the following situation. He (M-1) is divorced. She (F) has all divorce papers in place, including draft decree, but has not paid the appropriate fee to file them (which makes the decree final). The reason is that her ex (M-2) is a disabled veteran with very few years to live, and, though they could not get along as a married couple, M-2 wishes to have her get the widow’s pension to which she would be entitled. M-1 and M-2 are considering registering for domestic partnership, and he has declared her his DP for benefits purposes where he works. What think ye of this?
Arg…what I meant to say is “M-1 and F are considering…”
A marriage contract comes not only with benefits, but with many costs, duties, and obligations. In your example, if F tried to dump M-2, he might sue her for support, which would be harder in a domestic partnership (OP), which comes with many of the benefits and none of the costs.
By the way, even when the states didn’t require marriage licences, they still legislated against marrying a minor (can’t marry a 3 year old, although such practice is still common in India et al), incest (can’t marry one’s sister, although ancient Egyptians and many Amerinds commonly did), interracial marriage (surprisingly many “progressive” states), bigamy, etc.
The last one is interesting. I’ve known folks who lived as a 3-some. Should they be allowed to marry or at least register a DP? One of the main reasons why Mormons got run out of NY and than IL is their practice of having multiple wives (all concentual, of course). Jews limited marriarge to only one wife in 11th century ce to avoid prosecution by the Xians (and some Jewish communities didn’t recognize this prohibition for many centuries). Why do we let Xian fundies tell all these people whom they can and can’t marry?
UMM DOES THIS MEAN MY FIANCEE WOULD GET BENEFITS SHARED NOW TOO?
OHH NOO THATS RIGHT THIS IS A “SPECIAL RIGHT” NOT GIVEN TO ALL… OH YEAH
DESPITE THE CLAIM THAT THEY WANT NOR SHOULD BE GIVEN ANY SPECIAL RIGHTS, THIS IS ONE.
PEOPLE NEED TO GET REAL AND STOP THIS POLITICALLY CORRECT B.S., AND GROW A SPINE, AND SOME TEETH… DONT LET ANYONE AND EVERYONE WALK ALL OVER YOU… ITS PATHETIC.
TO HAVE WORKED FOR THE GOVERNMENT WAS NO WORK AT ALL,TO REFORM AND REBUILD THE GOVERNMENT, THEREIN LIES THE CHALLENGE.
dlv refers to the
. . .
Hah! Oh, that’s rich! Every media outlet of any consequence in this country is owned and run by a large corporation whose stock is publicly traded and whose board members sit on the boards of several other large industrial corporations. I can’t think of a group of people more interested in maintaing the status quo.
Oh, and some doofus who thinks that typing in all caps somehow makes his argument more cogent or relevant doesn’t understand that allowing more people to marry doesn’t constitute a special right, it constitutes an equal right.
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather