So…society does not penalize those lacking fertility in the sense of denying marriage privileges…but, despite this, we still can’t have gay marriage because it’s “not the same.” How? I’m honestly not following you here. It sounds like you have some reason for being against gay marriage, but you’re not taking issue with any of the points that have been raised in favor of it. All you’re offering is that gay marriage is somehow magically different.
Then why did you introduce the concept of childbearing into the conversation in the first place? You can’t say, “Well, we can’t have gay marriage, because they can’t have kids together,” then get upset when people point out that this is not a barrier to thousands and thousands of straight couples. If childbearing is a necessary component to the definition of marriage, then that definition should be enforced equally to all applicants to the institution of marriage. Because it is not, then the state has no business using it to narrowly bar gays from marriage.
Yep, I went through the deaths of a couple people very close to me in the last several years. I had similar difficulties, and, no, I’m not gay. Life sucks sometimes. Now, is there a way this awful situation could have been prevented? Yep. And if so, why does the onus fall upon society? I’d toss in inheritance rights in the absence of a will as another frequent bone of contention.
So would a good attorney. Look, this isn’t a new situation, is it?
You’re taking anecdotal evidence and proclaiming the entire world revolve on your dime because of it. That’s just not good enough.
I know, life does suck, geez, I know that, but how. Gay people are not the only people who are vulnerable to these situations.
So, they should be more vulnerable? I don’t follow.
Good question, if I knew the law, I’d have better answers. Off the cuff, housing purchases can be put in both names, giving right of inheritance and a property to be divided should the need arise. Same with business.
What you’re doing here is merely pointing out what we all know: unmarried people, of any shape, color, number, or size, have to take affirmative action in the course of their daily affairs. You’ve presented nothing to demonstrate that gay relationships are or ought to be recognized as the same as marriage.
Never mind.
So childless marriages are not of benefit?
Stop picking on gays.
Then why should it penalize gays, even those who are rearing children?
[quote\Okay, now this is an argument. You’re right. Property rights, child custody and support are all or can be related to…marriage.[/quote]
Legally, including a few other things like medical treatment decisions, that’s all marriage is, and all that the states have done that have stopped denying the privilege and ensuing rights on the basis of an inborn and unchangeable sexual orientation.
Such as when?
And therefore gay families should reasonably expect that protection as well. Your own argument.
Know what? Gays have biological relations too!
Then why bother with a different name?
Nope. Rights are not granted, but recognized. The right in question has been in the Constitution for nearly a century and a half. Sometimes acceptance of the existence and applicability of a right does have to be forced upon those who would prefer it did not exist, but that’s their problem.
Marriage is, itself, a right. If gays are being denied marriage, then they are being denied equal rights, regardless of what other paliative measure is put forward.
That aside, you dismiss the chief argument against your solution far too cavalierly. You are proposing a solution that will take years and millions of dollars to achieve, and whose ultimate success is very much in doubt. I do not, personally, believe that it will ever be possible for civil unions to be exactly equal to marriage. You are demanding, however, that we pursue this path, instead of the easier, more logical, and more equitable solution of allowing marriage to any who want it, for no rational reason that you have ever been able to articulate. You want gays to work harder, and suffer longer, for not better reason than allowing gays to marry is outside your comfort zone. So you still do not have equal moral footing in this argument, even if your characterization of our motives were remotely correct.
You’re saying there should be laws in place and affirmative actions taken to protect the property interests of same sex couples. What should those laws be, and what actions should they take?
You’re going to play difficult? Fine. A person is the smallest distinct unit of humanity. A man and a woman can then become a couple, which in today’s society mostly* means married. They then can and usually do produce children. We usually call this a family, though we can back up a step if you’d like. I won’t quibble. This family then joins with other families, becoming, well, pick a name: clan, tribe, a social unit, m’kay? The tribe increases in size…and, voila, you eventually have a culture/society.
You know this, why play games?
*I know, marriage is so screwed in today’s society. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value.
Because straight couples can have these things guaranteed for a nominal fee, whereas gay couples would have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees for a lesser certain degree of protection.
You’ve also yet to demonstrate how gay relationships are different from straight relationships.
It’s not the same is not a reason but merely an observation. I asked for a valid reason you haven’t given one. Not only that you claim that society doesn’t penalize those lacking fertility you’re incorrect. It does penalize one group but not others. That’s what you’re required to explain if you want to present a valid reason. So far you haven’t.
Is it reasonable for society to deny people the right to form a family unit of their choosing that poses no harm to society or other citizens? It is reasonable for society to deny a minority the same rights as it gives it’s other citizens. Granting gays the same rights of marriage does not threaten family unit integrity, it actually expands the boundaries of a family unit.
So, please present something other than* they’re not the same*. We know that and it is not a valid reason in any way.
Equal protection isn’t a new right - it’s in the Constitution. Gay marriage is a new right, and it isn’t.
The notion that the Constitution was amended by judicial activism is pretty self-evidently stupid, to the point that it doesn’t really need to be addressed apart from pointing and laughing at the notion.
Obviously, you are quite correct - no one would object to elected legislators making such a change on the grounds of judicial activism. The only objection that I could think of that is even remotely related is that changing the definition of marriage to include a new right to SSM is so sweeping and fundamental a change as to require the explicit consent of the people. That objection could be met with the suggestion that, if the people don’t like the new law, they can elect new representatives who could overturn it.
But apart from that, the only objections are non-falsifiable ones based on moral or philosophical objections to homosexuality.
Which states are you talking about?
Perhaps you could quote the part of the state constitution where it says “state judges get to decide what new rights are, and the people can go pound sand if they don’t like it”.
And as far as the feds go, under the Tenth Amendment, no, they don’t. All powers not explicitly assigned to the federal government belong to the states, or the people - not judges. The power to bring new rights under the aegis of the federal government is not explicitly assigned to the federal goverment, ergo it belongs properly to the states, or the people.
Again, I am afraid I don’t agree. As I mentioned, under the Tenth Amendment the majority very clearly does get to vote on what previously unenumerated rights the minority have. Otherwise it is too easy to simply define whatever I want as a new “right”, and get some judge to give it to me.
Again, it seems clear enough that the will of the people is not to be so casually flouted. The issue is who gets to say “that law is archaic”? If it is some judge, based only on his own feelings, then fine - I will agree, providing I get to pick the judge.
Again, no they don’t. Judges do not - or at least, should not - make up laws when they feel like it.
Regards,
Shodan
Losing the argument. To emotional appeals.
I’m going with what is “Ewww, icky buttsexx ahoy” or what is an “evolutionary cul-de-sac” for 1000, Alex.
Yeah, isn’t that weird? I propose that:
- Either gays are allowed the full rights of marriage, or
- Married couples have 5 years to conceive (and, no using any fertility treatments, because homosexuals can do that too) or else the marriage is dissolved, also
2a. Once the the couple is no longer fertile (either through menopause, surgical procedures to the man or the woman, accident, etc.), once the kids reach 18, the marriage is automatically dissolved, and
2b. Infertile couples shall not be allowed to get married.
2c. To further protect the sanctity of marriage, divorce shall henceforth be illegal.
So, which is it **NaSultainne **? (1) or (2)?
You’ve also failed utterly and completely to answer the key question:
If - as you yourself observe - gay marriage does no harm to society, why should we not, as a society, allow gay couples to share in the many benefits to society that marriage provides?
Let’s lay this out logically. For the sake of clarity within this discussin, NaSultainne (and anyone else who would care to), please state your agreement or disagreement and the reason for it with each of the following statements:
A. Marriage is the formal societal recognition of two individuals as a unified household, with certain rights and responsibilities conferred upon each of those individuals as a result of the arrangement.
B. Marriage as an institution in and of itself is beneficial both to the individuals within the marriage and to society at large.
C. A marriage may or may not produce children, based on the choice of the married couple or on biological factors. The production of children is beneficial to society, but is not to be considered the ultimate purpose of marriage.
D. Because marriage is a beneficial institution, there is no reason to deny access to the institution based on the gender or sexual orientation of the individuals wishing to be married.
Good.
Don’t even try to equate the death of a friend to that of a spouse. Just. Don’t.
You suppose that attorneys can make this all better? Really? That’s all that you’ve got now?
They did have legal papers. The hospital IGNORED them.
Uniform marriage rights would have protected them.
Also, even with a lawyer (not to mention the expense), the rights are not protected. Marriage carries a heavy weight in law. Wills, on the other hand, can be contested (and they are: “Hey, court! My Uncle didn’t mean to leave all his money to a total stranger; the money should be left to legally-recognized family!”), marriage is much more clear cut and enforceable.
Hardly, though you’re cleary incapable of seeing it. A priviliege cannot be defined legislatively until it is defined lexicographically. And for the purposes of our country, we have for its entirety defined the word marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
It’s fatuous to pretend that law defines lexicography.