That is, they already have the right to marry, and the one to whom they marry is restricted to an opposite sex partner.
If you are in favor of gay marriage, how do you respond to this challenging question???
Wow. What a perfect compromise. Why hasn’t anyone thought of it before?
Umm what question? I only see one question in the Op:
Well, just, “Why do gays say they are being discriminated against, since they are as free to marry an opposite sex partner as straights are?”
So … um … you’re not like … serious, or anything like that, right?
… another challenging question.
Well, probably the most obvious point is that the situations are not equivalent, because the average individual only considers marrying the person he/she falls in love with and decides is the one he/she wants to spend the rest of his/her life with.
Rather obviously, straight people fall in love with people of the opposite sex; gay people, with people of the same sex.
So, while their proposition is accurate from the point of view that if one were assigned a spouse (as in arranged marriages) gays and straights would have exactly the same rights, in point of fact how people choose whom to marry makes a significant difference.
A straight person has the right to marry the person with whom he/she falls in love (presuming that person has reached the age of consent for marriage and is not otherwise committed); a gay person does not.
Does that help?
you’re kidding, no?
Well, no, I mean, on the face of it, it’s true. Gays could marry an opposite sex partner, and thus be “married”, just like a heterosexual person could marry an opposite sex partner.
Okay, I know it’s a silly point, but believe it or not, intelligent people who are afraid of gay marriage will let that point be the one to convince them that, no, gay marriage is not the way to go.
Help!
Or, to look at it another way, my girlfriend has the right to marry me. Should my Kinsey scale rise a few points and I acquire a boyfriend, he would not have the right to marry me. Why should that right be denied to him soley on account of his gender?
Yes, polycarp, thanks. that’s what I thought, too, which is you have to look at the history of marriage and what the tradition is.
It’s too complicated to get into right now, but basically, marriage is “about” love and who one chooses to love and always has been, and so, while non-gays can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex they love, gays don’t love people of the opposite sex in that way - they love people of the SAME sex in the same way.
Talk about splitting hairs!
Bingo! So then it becomes not an issue of lack to equal protection between the class of heterosexuals and the class of homosexuals, but rather equal protection as to gender. (I hate talking about class - it sounds so Marxist)
[emphasis in original]
Quibble of Order!!
In human history, marriage has only recently been about love.
And even now, not so much. At a point in time when at least 1/6 of of the world’s population still operates under a dowry/arranged marriage system (India, not to mention many other places in the world), your assertion is questionable even now, much less as to the past.
Sua
As Polycarp said, it’s about love. I don’t marry people I don’t love. I have yet to meet a woman who invokes in me the full range of passion and emotion that men do and I doubt I ever will. I have loved four different men in my life, however. This is not about sex, it’s about the full, deep range of emotion that two humans can feel for one another, not simply a sexual response but an emotional and intellectual one.
I haven’t read all the posts, but why would a gay person want to marry someone straight? They want to marry each other, not straight people or even another gay person of the opposite sex.
I’ve heard ridiculous claims that roomates will want to get married to gain some marriage benefits through taxes or whatnot. PfffT!!! Come on! No benefits would make me want to marry another girl! I would have to go through a damn divorce to marry a guy then!!
This point is actually often raised in a serious way. Gays will claim that they are being treated unequally and some genius replies that they’re treated the exact same–us straight folk can’t marry the same gender either, after all.
It’s like claiming that we don’t need to build ramps for those confined to wheel chairs. If the able bodied can deal with stairs, so can you!
-Anatole France
It’s pure Sophistry.
Marriage, as it relates to the government, is a legal institution that combines the households of two individuals. It does this for several reasons including inheritance, power of attorney, parental rights, tax purposes, etc.
I have seen no compelling argument how the gender of the participants in such a contract in any way effects the interests of the government. Aside from the historical precident I can see no reason that Gay marriage should not be immediately approved universally by every government, much like Canada recently decided. And in my mind the historical precidence is not a good reason.
The religious question of marriage is another one entirely and should not be brought into the government’s interest in this contract in any way.
I believe it was Anatole France who said something like: “The law, which, in its infinite fairness, forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under the bridge”.
Nisosbar, I’m a little confused. Are you on a particular side of this debate, or did you just toss the question into the ring to see what we all thought of it? Are you just looking for answers to give to people who believe gay people should marry opposite-sex partners, or do you yourself believe they should?
So what would happen if a gay couple and a lesbian couple teamed up, bought two adjoining houses/apartments/condos, married each other by opposite-sex pairings, then lived with their partner of choice and reaped the benefits of being “married”? How would the folks out to “protect marriage” react to that?
(Sounds like an idea for a sitcom, actually… 
)