October 14

[Japher]

The only reason marriage is considered to be between the same sex is because of religious dogma. The state adopted this union giving it legal rights. If there is true sep of church and state then this recognition should be able to apply to all unions regardless of gender.

However, I don't feel anyone should marry MrFun. As whatever poor sod marries him will be pestered for the rest of his life with "I'm funny right?", "Ewww a spider", and "Eek a dog!"... and that would just be wrong

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrFun
I still fail to understand how friendships and relations with grandparents are discriminated against in society.

If you don't think friendships are discriminated against (lets leave grandmothers to one side), why would you think homosexual couples are discriminated against? Surely the only difference is a bit of rumpy pumpy - it's not like the government asks you if you have sex with your friends...?

[GhengisFarb™]

I think a big misconception is that non-heterosexuals cannot be a part of a family (and therefore cannot appreciate family values) because a non-heterosexual union does not produce children.

Non-heterosexuals come from somewhere, they have a father and mother like heterosexuals and are therefore part of a family are they not?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mr. Fun:

"
"2) I have read about horror stories where a grieving gay lover was not allowed to see his/her dying spouse in hospitals."

Why didn't the person say that he was a friend? Trying to make a political statement during a time of tragedy?

IIUC the issue is NOT that the hospitals denied it on the assumption that is was a stranger. Its that the blood relatives denied it, KNOWING that it was the gay significant other. Now in the case of a hetero non-marital relationship its one thing ("I dont want that slut visting my brothers bedside, i mean they could have gotten married if they were that close") but in the case of a gay one, where marriage was never an option, its another.

It seems to me that when two people have lived together for years, and desired to be legally joined in a relationship that would give them such visiting rights, and marriage is not an option, society owes them the ability to create such a relationship, that trumps the rights of blood relatives.

Should this relationship be called a marriage? Frankly, I dont know. My inclination is to be conservative (with a small "c") about this - make the smallest possible change that addresses the hardship in question, and see how it plays out. Thus allow some form of legally recognized commitment that allows for such things as hospital visitation, but dont call it marriage, or necessarily even include all the benefits of marriage. Then see what happens.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher

However, I don't feel anyone should marry MrFun. As whatever poor sod marries him will be pestered for the rest of his life with "I'm funny right?", "Ewww a spider", and "Eek a dog!"... and that would just be wrong

I will find the right guy -- but he definitely will not be a gay Republican -- UGH.



As for Ben and Rogan -- they're somewhere in the seventh dimension making up all kinds of nonsense.

[DRoseDARs]

Speaking of nonsense...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/126615p-113368c.html

Gay marriage in New York?
It undermines the institution

By WILLIAM A. DONOHUE

NO To be for same-sex marriage is to be against marriage.
How so? Explain to someone who served in the armed services that the veterans' benefits he justly earned are now going to be extended to those who never served.

Explain to senior citizens who get discounts in many different venues that their benefits are going to be made available to everyone, regardless of age.

And then tell veterans and seniors that the new policy has no effect on them.

If something is special, it cannot be universally distributed. This is what our society must decide: If marriage is special, then it must be treated as such in custom and law.

If it doesn't matter, then let the politics of inclusion prevail. But history warns against such nonsense.

The mores, and later the laws, in every society in the history of the world - in both Eastern and Western civilizations - have reserved marriage for heterosexuals. Moreover, not one world religion has ever endorsed the idea that two men should be allowed to marry.

Given the extraordinary diversity of people that has existed over the centuries in so many different cultures, it is astounding that not one place on Earth has ever sanctioned the idea of two men getting married.

This alone ought to give the proponents of gay marriage pause. But not theleaders of the New York State Democratic Party - their arrogance allows them to declare the wisdom of the ages to be dead wrong.

Those who advocate same-sex marriage like to emphasize that all that matters is that two people love each other. But if a loving and committed relationship is the sine qua non of marriage, then a brother and sister who fall in love would qualify for marriage. Polygamy would have to be legalized as well.

And what if Tom and **** are courting and they both fall in love with Harry. Why can't Tom, **** and Harry get married? To deny them would be to discriminate.

If marriage is to be treated as if it were nothing more than an alternative lifestyle, cohabiting men and women will have less reason to marry.

Unfortunately, this does not bode well for children. The social science evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that children do best when raised by a mother and father in the institution of marriage. Indeed, the data show that the physical, psychological, emotional and social well-being of children is so much better served in this context that it is preposterous to argue otherwise.

In short, if marriage is special, it cannot be treated as if it were but one selection on a sociological smorgasbord. On the contrary, it must be granted a privileged position in society.

Donohue is president of the Catholic League
for Religious and Civil Rights.

Originally published on October 14, 2003

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, you guessed it: more of the same blah blah blah BS. Though, I hadn't heard the first couple of fallicies before. So now we're going to hurt seniors AND veterans?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Should this relationship be called a marriage? Frankly, I dont know. My inclination is to be conservative (with a small "c") about this - make the smallest possible change that addresses the hardship in question, and see how it plays out. Thus allow some form of legally recognized commitment that allows for such things as hospital visitation, but dont call it marriage, or necessarily even include all the benefits of marriage. Then see what happens.

Or alternatively, let some small, insignficant, and preferably cold and snowy country try it first - then we can see if it succeeds (like single payer insurance) or fails (like bilingualism) or just muddles along (like bizarre foreign policy)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
[from the article]

Given the extraordinary diversity of people that has existed over the centuries in so many different cultures, it is astounding that not one place on Earth has ever sanctioned the idea of two men getting married.

Uhm, the early Christian church allowed gay marriages. So did many Amerindian tribes. So did Rome (Emperor Nero married a man, and he wasn't the only one), and at least one Chinese emperor did also.

[DRoseDARs]

Don't ya' just love how some people think a religious text, the Bible in this case, qualifies as a "The History of the Whole Wide World and All Its People and Places and Things - Unabridged" book?

[chequita guevara]

:nods:

[Ben Kenobi]

Azazel:

It seems that this is a thinly veiled attempt, esp. from various religious groups/people, e.g. Ben, to delegitimize any homosexual relationship.

How am I delegitimising? Don't they have just as much of a right to marry, as I do to my grandmother?

not the right thing to do for you, and your sanity, but also something that cracks the delicate family structure like a 10lb hammer through a baby's skull.

Exactly. However, I would say that recognising gay marriage will have the same effect. Now be careful, I am not speaking of relationships, but of marriage.

It's the reaction of the household members that destroys the bond.

It takes two to tango, Azazel. This is a tacit admission that endorsing gay unions will result in the destruction of families.

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

I would hardly call an argument founded on denial of the franchise to certain groups (based on prejudice) a positive argument-

How are you being discriminated when you are allowed to marry any woman of your choice, so long as she agrees? Same franchise, same right as anybody else.

choose to ignore is that gay men and lesbians are not going to die out any time in the near future.

Yes, thanks to those who do have kids.

You might care to read more about Malthus before dismissing my neo-Malthusian label for your reasoning.

Actually, I am fairly familiar. Please elaborate your reasoning.

Marriage in and of itself is no more nor less moral than the societal setting and the reasons for it.

Well, then please comment on the reasons behind marriage.

Secondly, why should we change the definition of marriage, if Canada has always done things this way? Are not the current restrictions neither moral nor immoral?

relationships between same sex partners were given the same value as those between men and women.

Did they call them marriage?

You should also realize that the Western Christian definition of 'marriage' is not the sole definition, and that secular marriages exist as well as 'sectarian' marriages,

Yes, I am aware. I don't see precedent in either to sanction homosexual unions.

and the application of religious prejudice to restrict the former has no place in a civil society.

So religions ought to be checked out at the coat closet before entering the legislature? I would presume your definition of religious prejudice to be vastly different from my own.

[Ben Kenobi]

My inclination is to be conservative (with a small "c") about this - make the smallest possible change that addresses the hardship in question, and see how it plays out.

LoTM:

Hardship.

What hardships do gay people currently face in today's liberal, secular society?

I agree, the family in question ought not to have refused someone whom their son would have wanted to see. The hospital ought to admit him anyways.

There is no need to marry people to get this benefit.

[Ben Kenobi]

The state adopted this union giving it legal rights. If there is true sep of church and state then this recognition should be able to apply to all unions regardless of gender.

Japher:

Going to be short and sweet. How does recognition of marriage between one man and one woman constitute the establishment of one religion over another?

This is the only requirement of the 4th amendment; not only to prevent the establishment of a state religion, but also to protect the free exercise thereof.

[Ben Kenobi]

Explain to someone who served in the armed services that the veterans' benefits he justly earned are now going to be extended to those who never served.

Explain to senior citizens who get discounts in many different venues that their benefits are going to be made available to everyone, regardless of age.

Thanks Mr. Fun!

Both of these points ask some important question as to the nature of discrimination.

Society sees fit to deem some people access to benefits not available to others for some very specific reasons.

1. The state has an ongoing benefit to maintain armed forces. In exchange for people risking their lives for the state, the state compensates them for their troubles.

2. The state has an ongoing benefit from caring for the old and helpless in two ways, overall respect for human life and dignity, as well as increasing the quality of life for older people.

Now I ask, why do we not add a third point. Society has an ongoing benefit to encourage marriage, hence these people who make the sacrifice of having and caring for children ought to be compensated.