Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Since you assumed by default that gays have different motivations, I challenged you on that assumption. I'll try to keep things simpler in the future.



Depends on the nature of the question. Why do you assume that gays want the legal ability to marry each other for any different reason than non-gays might want the legal ability to marry each other. Why assume that being gay somehow causes a whole different set of motivations?

I dont assume any of that. now plz state the reasons.

I think u all are treating me w/ several degrees more antagonism than I deserve. I am not anti gay marriage.

[Drake Tungsten]

Would you be satisfied if the government arbitrarily picked you out and said you could not get married?

Arbitrarily picked out? Gays have never been able to marry; the government is maintaining the status quo, not arbitrarily removing rights from people who never had said right in the first place.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by yavoon

none of that requires gov't.

Check again:

"they want to form a recognized life-commitment based on love".

With the official recognition come all of the rights, benfits, and responsibilities the government grants to other recognized marriage unions.

Right now, gays can form unions, but without official gov't recognition, those unions are not acknowledged by anyone else (e.g. courts, insurance companies, hospitals, employers, schools, etc.).

For example, an informal gay partner can be denied visitation rights at a hospital emergency room, or after a partner's death, lose the house they shared for twenty years to a distant unapproving relative of the partner.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye


Check again:

"they want to form a recognized life-commitment based on love".

With the official recognition come all of the rights, benfits, and responsibilities the government grants to other recognized marriage unions.

Right now, gays can form unions, but without official gov't recognition, those unions are not acknowledged by anyone else (e.g. courts, insurance companies, hospitals, employers, schools, etc.).

For example, an informal gay partner can be denied visitation rights at a hospital emergency room, or after a partner's death, lose the house they shared for twenty years to a distant unapproving relative of the partner.

so they want the rights? see look everyone a sane person.

followup than, why do some not like the civil union and demand that it be marriage if the union carries similar rights?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Look at that old soft shoe... Look at 'em dance.



But it (the list) does not end there, eh?

I didn't enumerate them all because i assume different people want to get married for somewhat different reasons (e.g. your number two might be taxes, mine might be children). However, I think nearly all those who are married or wish to be would share that number one reason.

No dancing going on here. I will continue to give as straight an answer to anything you ask as long as I can, but I am nearly out of posting time. If I run out of time, I will return later.

[Ned]

Are gays really "surprised" by the reaction they got to the Hawaii decision in the mid-90's?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

dp

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by yavoon

state them.

state why gay ppl want the state to recognize their marriage

if u keep this up much longer I will suspect its a smoke screen for an actual lack of an answer

also realize this was not some super anti gay marriage trap I'm leading u all down. it was an honest question that so far no1 has had the courtesy or ability to answer.

Marriage exists in two forms: ecclesiastical and statutory. States (in the US) reserve to themselves the "right" to refuse recognition of a marriage that does not conform to state law. Under Islamic law, a man may have multiple wives, and may enter an ecclesiastical state of marriage with multiple women at the same time, but states in the United States will only recognize the first marriage, even though all marriages may have been validly performed in the country of residency of the married people when and where they got married.

The state also asserts itself as an arbiter of child custody, property rights, tax liabilities, inheritance rights (intestacy). If the state refuses to sanction, perform, or recognize a particular marriage, it also is refusing to acknowledge any particular legal status that may apply - visitation in hospitals, implicit power of attorney to make emergency decisions on a spouse's behalf, or for a child in some cases, on and on.

There are also wholly personal reasons for marriage - an intended declaration of personal commitment between two people, the symbolic joining of the two families, etc. State recognition is not needed for this, but the state in fact asserts itself as the entity which determines who is, and who is not, legally authorized to enter into a marriage. So the non-legal aspects are not a matter of wanting the state to "recognize" the marriage - it's a matter of the state asserting itself and determining who it will or will not allow to marry, or to claim a state of marriage.

Better?

[Ben Kenobi]

Would you be satisfied if the government arbitrarily picked you out and said you could not get married?

Thank you Drake. Marriage to one man and one woman is neither new nor arbitrary.

the government says that one person in my family can't be.

Jilted at the altar by his lover? That's got to hurt.

I think marriage is a basic human right, far more important than voting.

I would hope not. All other basic human rights do not require the consent of another in order to be executed. Marriage requires consent, therefore it cannot be a basic human right.

Who is asking to opt out of marriage? "If I chose not to enter marriage"? But gay are asking to enter it! No one is asking that unmarried people have the same benefits as married couples.

In what sense are they asking to enter marriage? They are asking marriage to embrace them. If they truly wanted marriage, they would find a nice woman to get married to. It is analogous to wanting to be on the health plan, yet not have to pay the same amount for the services as everyone else.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Ok, fine, have it your way.

Reason 1: Love. Gays want to be able to express their love in exactly the same way as straights. They want to be able to stick a ring on their partners finger, have a huge ceremony, and have it recognized in the eyes of society.

Reason 2: Inheretance. At this time, only those who have been married have any right to the assets of their partners. Gay people, since they can't be married, have to give up what their partner had to the next of kin.

Reason 3: Health. Insurance companies will accomadate spouses and children. They will not accomodate girlfriends/boyfriends. Thus, gay people have to find two seperate health plans.

Reason 4: Commitment. Goes with love. They are saying that they are pledging their lives to another person. While that doesn't NEED the government, they want the right to be recognized BY the government as much as heterosexuals do. If heterosexuals didn't care if it were recognition of commitment, there would be fair less recognized marraiges.

Reason 5: Children. Believe it or not, gays can be as good or bad as straight parents. If the government allows gays to marry, it would almost eliminate any hesitation to grant them rights to adopt.

Explaination of the MA Court ruling: They found that civil unions do not fit because they are still not granting full rights to all of the citizens. This is more of a reason for the state rather than gays.

There you go. No flames. Full explaination.

[Nubclear]

Americans are so backwards.

[Drake Tungsten]

Americans are so backwards.

You're just mad that they won't let you have more than one wife.

[Ben Kenobi]

mine might be children). However, I think nearly all those who are married or wish to be would share that number one reason.

I fail to see why you leave this off. Do gay people want to marry in order to have children? I would insist that most people who do get married want children.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Ben: See my post

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Originally posted by mindseye

They didn't choose it. They didn't learn it. They were it.

But what is it?

The word most often used is "orientation". Try thinking of it as "hardwiring" and you'll get the picture. Did you somehow actively choose to become heterosexual? Probably not, anyway gay peopel don't choose it. It just is a fact of their existance, no different in this respect from being left-handed.

The desire, or the action?

It's both romantic (love) and sexual (desire), just exactly as it is for heteros. Again, gay people are not as different as you make them out to be. Think left-handedness.

Finally, can you say that because you desire peppermint ice cream that you are ice cream? Desire does not equate with identity. You are more than who you sleep with.

Yes, but you are what you eat. (bada-bing!). Sorry.

Well, okay, I used the verb "to be" because that is the verb we usually use in the English language when we talk about a preference as fundamental as sexuality Examples: "I am heterosexual" rather than "I desire women", "I am left-handed" rather than "I favor my left hand". I believe this is standard useage in English.

Just like alcoholism, to which I have made the analogy many times.

Sorry, but each time the analogy was wrong. The fundamental problem with it is that alcoholism, unlike love, has clear detrimental effects upon the society in which it is taking place. What detrimental effects on society does gay love have? Can you name any?

Also, one could say that a good definition of society is the collective denial of our natural impulses in order to live with one another.

Collective? That's the problem! I don't see any heterosexual people being asked to deny their natural impulse to marry. Not even death-row inmates. Only gays are asked asked to accept this denial. Nothing collective there!

Why should gays be singled out for denial of the right to marriage? For what good reason?