Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I know of one person in a long term lesbian relationship whose partner died. Her partner's family had had little to do with them, disapproving as they did of lesbianism. However this did not stop them taking away the body of their relative (despite having ostracized her whilst she was alive) and not informing the surviving partner of either the funeral or where the body was buried. No guesses as to which monotheistic faith they adhered to.

that's disgusting

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well, now, what about those who harm themselves?


Yes, it is immoral, pre-marital sex. But why should we prevent them from getting married? It would be more immoral to prevent two people who had sex with each other before they were married from marrying, then it would be to allow them to marry.

Remember my earlier post on bonds formed by sexual union? This would be why.

Last time I checked, consensual sex between two competent adults has no debilitating, psychological problems, nor physical health problems when the sex is done safely.

Secondly, if we insist on legislating morality on others to impose second-class citizenship on those who have sex outside of this externally-imposed morality, then pre-marital sexually active heteros should belong to the same second-class citizenship as homosexuals.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

According to a friend back home, the MA legis. votes on a constitutional amendment today

[Ben Kenobi]

Secondly, if we insist on legislating morality on others to impose second-class citizenship on those who have sex outside of this externally-imposed morality, then pre-marital sexually active heteros should belong to the same second-class citizenship as homosexuals.

First of all, you are not a 'second-class' citizen. The law treats you same as everyone else.

Secondly, I have no problems with treating both of these relationships on an equal footing.

consensual sex between two competent adults has no debilitating, psychological problems

According to whom?

[fredsaveage]

Originally posted by boann
and let folks pursue their own happiness... i mean that is in the constitution isn't it.

No, that isn't in the Constitution. You must be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kontiki:

Sure, many of them want to have kids, but that was never the prime motivator in them getting married.

So? I make no distinction between prime, or not prime. Desire to have kids should be there somewhere.

I really don't understand your obsession with breeding. I've seen you bring it up again and again, in many different threads.

That's because there are many threads on the same issue, and I tend to be consistent.

Seriously, is this a Mennonite thing?

No. It's more of a result of me confining myself to arguing from secular morality. It would be more balanced if I take off the gloves.

I will say, yet again, love is an important part of marriage. A marriage without love is not good for either partner.

Married people tend to, on average, be more mature and stable in most aspects of their lives.

Good point.

[quote]
You tend to see less reckless behavior, more careful thinking and planning since another person is intimately involved in most major decisions.
[quote]

Another.

Hell, every aspect that makes for a better environment for raising children has equal benefits to society even in the absense of children.

Sorry, but no. Children provide an ongoing benefit to society over and above these benefits.

An employee who's personal life is stable is likely better able to focus on their work.

Agreed.

Someone that doesn't go out and party or have as active a social calendar as a typical single person is less likely to miss work due to illness or be less productive due to fatigue.

Again. I have no beef with any of these points.

Ming has already pointed out, and it should be obvious anyway, that the difference lies in commitment.

No argument here. In the difference between a boyfriend / girlfriend and a husband and wife.

Marriage is (or should be) a sombre, life long commitment to one another.

Sombre! Why commit if you aren't going to enjoy yourself!

It's no different with homosexuals. If two straight or gay people are simply dating for years and not married, you would probably ask yourself why.

Contrary to what you believe, I'm not a busybody. I would not ask in the first place, but assume the heterosexual couple is not ready.

But let's (again) turn the question back on you. How does allowing homosexuals to get married impact you in any way?

I will repeat my earlier statement. I will likely face decreased benefits or no benefits whatsoever should I marry.

Secondly, you tear apart two churches on this issue. I am a member of one, though I have left that church 3 years ago. This has negative consequences for all of the Christian denominations that have already started to face persecution for openly opposing homosexuality.

Is marriage some sort of prestige status symbol to you that you want to share with as few people as possible?

Hardly. I would hope for everyone, even Mr. Fun, to get married to nice partner of the opposite sex, and share in the benefits of marriage.

[Drake Tungsten]

According to a friend back home, the MA legis. votes on a constitutional amendment today

While I used to be against constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, they seem to be the only way available now to stave off judicial activists and allow this issue to be resolved through the democratic process. Here's hoping that the Mass. legislature passes the amendment in time to make this court decision irrelevant. Let's get back to the status quo and find a better way to deal with this.

[Essayo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

First of all, you are not a 'second-class' citizen. The law treats you same as everyone else.

Except in the respect of being able to marry the person you were in love with and wanted to make a lifelong recognised commitment to.

And as for the children thing, you make it sound like letting gay people marry will stop hetero people from having children of their own...and maybe the gay/lesbian people do want to have children. What if there was a lesbian couple who wanted to get married because they loved each other and desired to have (raise) a child together?

Wait question....if one woman had a child and raised it with her partner in a lesbian relationship, would the partner be eligible to adopt it? And be granted custody in the event of her partners death? I ask because in marriages where one of the people already has a child the other person becomes their step parent and in the event of the birth parents death the step parent is granted custody of the child (i think).

If not then thats where marriage would also be benificial for gay people. Because if two women raised a child as their own and the birth mother died, the child would *have* to go to the birth father (or his family), irregardless of whether they knew them or not, instead of staying with the 'parent' that raised them.

And before you say that gay (married) people shouldn't have access to the means for them to have children (ie; invitro fertilisation) everyone has the right to have a child if they wish. Doesn't matter on the circumstance.
No one is saying they should have more rights than others, just the same right.....

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


First of all, you are not a 'second-class' citizen. The law treats you same as everyone else.

The law treats me as the same, regardless of sexual orientation!!



So now you need evidence that consensual sex between competent adults has no debilitating, psychological problems?

That's like asking for evidence that the Earth is round -- it's something that's common knowledge.

[Flip McWho]

I will likely face decreased benefits or no benefits whatsoever should I marry.

Is it just me or has BK not actually said what decrese in what benefits would actually happen? If not full in please. Especially considering that legalising gay marriage will bring the same benefits that you will enjoy once you are married only to gays that get married not to every Joe Blogg who is in a relationship.

Children has nothing to do with marriage. Its about love and commitment. Children can happen to be a byproduct of this.

Ok, what happens if one is not Christian and wants to get married? Would it be permissable?

Also with you stating that homosexuality is a choice does imply that you believe everybody is fundamentally bisexual. Because it implies that at some point in your life you made a decision to be a hetero thus meaning you could have gone both ways.

I'm surprised Asher hasn't shown up again.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I will repeat my earlier statement. I will likely face decreased benefits or no benefits whatsoever should I marry.

Hardly. I would hope for everyone, even Mr. Fun, to get married to nice partner of the opposite sex, and share in the benefits of marriage.

While I don't buy into your decreased or no benefits argument...

Let me get this straight... If Mr. Fun marries a guy, based on your arguments, you get decreased or no benefits, and that is bad for you... But you hope he gets married to a nice partner of the opposite sex.

Either way, he gets married and the net effect is that there is one more married couple and ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT on your bennifits remains the same... So their there should be no difference to you in who he marries. But no... you only can accept his marriage if it is to a woman. Since there is no difference here, and no logical reason why it should matter to you.... it comes down to your religious beliefs and nothing else.

So lets stop hearing this crap about decreased benefits... While you are correct that allowing gays to get married would instantly increase the number of married couples... I highly doubt it would be enough to effect your benefits in any way.
However, even if it did... you have admitted that marriage is a good thing... and you wish gays would get married, but only to members of the opposite sex. So you don't seem to have a problem with the total number of marriages... your problem is strickly in who they are choosing. Why don't you let them make their own choice on who they love and who they want to spend their life with.

[Flip McWho]

Well said Ming

[MrFun]

dp

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Hardly. I would hope for everyone, even Mr. Fun, to get married to nice partner of the opposite sex, and share in the benefits of marriage.

This is a fallacy that you use over and over again, ad infinitum -- you always seek to distort what gays really want, by saying that we are welcome to marry someone of the opposite gender.

What we really want, is to have legal recognition when marrying someone of the same gender -- stop deliberately distorting our argument.




Oh, and Ming -- good post.

[Kontiki]

Ben:

You seem to have completely missed my point about having kids. I'm not arguing the "ranking" of the desire to have kids in terms of deciding to get married, I'm flat out saying that in just about every case I know, it's NOT a factor in the decision to get married.

Let's do a checklist on the rest. You shot yourself in the foot in regards to diminishing benefits, and Ming astutely called you on that one. You agree that there are benefits to society of marriage aside from having children (which is what you asked in the first place). So, what you're left with is that it upsets some churches.