Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Barnabas]

You all realize homosexual marriage a historical novelty, right?

Eeven in societies tolerant of homosexuality or bisexuality, marriage was only between a man and a woman.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are you entitled to equal access to veterans benefits Zkribbler, if you did not serve in the war? Not all government benefits are distributed equally, many would make little sense if done in that fashion.

Absolutely not. The reason for veterans benefits is to induce people into joining the army. I didn't join; hence, no benies for me.

I would argue marriage is the same. The state has a great public interest in preserving marriage between one man and one women for both the sake of the partners, and for their children. Ergo, it makes sense that they would provide benefits for this arrangement in order to encourage more marriages.

For the sake of the partners -- That is an argument in favor of gay marriage. It leads to more partners, more stable relationships, and thus a more harmonious socieity.

For their children -- That is why, if a gay man fathers a child, or a lesbian give birth, they should be permitted to marry who they want in order to give the kid two parents.

"To encourage more marriages" is another argument to permit gay marriages. To wit
Number of straight marriages + number of gay marriages > number of straight marriages.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are plenty of laws like that. I can't marry my mom. I can't marry someone who is under 16. Are those not also intrusive laws telling me whom I can and cannot marry?

Yes...but the reasons are:
Mom: Incest perpetuates genetic illnesses.
Under 16: Legally cannot give consent. You can't marry someone, or even have sex with them, if they don't consent.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
You all realize homosexual marriage a historical novelty, right?

Before the Magna Carta, so was the concept of limited government.
Everything that has ever been done, was first done at a time when there was no precedent for it.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As you quoted from me earlier, I argued that marriage has benefits that it provides to the state in a way in which other relationships cannot provide.

That is hardly an argument saying that gay marriage is bad because it is detrimental to marriage, rather that marriage is best between one man and one woman. The reason why they ought to be treated differently is because of the benefits in which marriage provides to society, when it is confined to one man and one woman.

Does that make sense? I'm talking about things like stability and children.

How does a marraige between two women or two men not provide the same benefits, e.g., provide stability for the couple and provide children with clear legal status?

The argument does not make sense. We are talking about legal benefits/rights. Providing these to GLBT people does not harm others in any way.

Amending the constitution to build in discrimination in a social contract, however it is worded, is actually repulsive. And this action does harm those discriminated against. Look at the Virginia law which even prohibits alternate, "marraige-like" contracts such as wills, contracts, and medical visitation and decision contracts. This is hysterical reaction embodied in bad law.

[SlowwHand]

And let's remember, amendments should be a rarity. They should fit a changing time, while keeping the basic principles intact.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you actually think that actively taking rights away from gays

I know of no plans to do anything of the sort. It's this sort of dishonest demagoguery that contributes to the increasingly bitter and divisive debate on issues like this and frustrates people who would prefer to look examine these issues in a logical and reasonable manner.

And really, you should be condemning Bush- after all, at this moment in time it is he, not the gays with their wacky agenda, who is trying "to muck around with an important social institution when no pressing need to do so exists".

1. I don't support an amendment to ban gay marriage. I actually voted against such an amendment in Nebraska, which is more than a lot of the people engaging in hyperbolic fits here can say.

2. I don't see how an amendment that essentially protects the status quo from alteration constitutes "mucking around with a social institution". It would, in fact, seem to be the exact opposite...

3. There's no need to be condemning anybody. It's completely possible to disagree with someone on an issue without resorting to condemnation and demonization. That's something I wish both sides in this debate and countless others would remember.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I personally don't give a ****. I doubt it will have too big an effect socially (although I can't be sure on that). But I also don't consider it to be the great civil rights struggle so many people make it out to be. Frankly, I find the linking of the push for gay marriage with the civil rights struggle of the '60s to be offensive.

At any rate, it seems like experimenting with our social fabric for specious reasons, something a lot of non-religious people might be wary of.

There is nothing offensive about drawing parallels with the civil rights struggle of the 1960s with that of the current civil rights struggle. In fact, the civil rights struggle for gays was underway at almost the same time as the other civil rights movements.

It's amazing to what extent you will go in trivializing something so fundamental as the right of one person to associate with another consenting person in a romantic, committed relationship. Yeah -- gays can do that without having any legal recognition for their symbolic marriages but they are entitled to be treated equally under the law, which means the same legal protection that heterosexual couples take for granted.

Not to mention, as I have said before, that this civil rights struggle involves the right of conscience.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by MrFun



There is nothing offensive about drawing parallels with the civil rights struggle of the 1960s with that of the current civil rights struggle. In fact, the civil rights struggle for gays was underway at almost the same time as the other civil rights movements.

It's amazing to what extent you will go in trivializing something so fundamental as the right of one person to associate with another consenting person in a romantic, committed relationship. Yeah -- gays can do that without having any legal recognition for their symbolic marriages but they are entitled to be treated equally under the law, which means the same legal protection that heterosexual couples take for granted.

Not to mention, as I have said before, that this civil rights struggle involves the right of conscience.

The key point he was making is that the current "oppression" of gays is nowhere near as bad as it was for blacks before the civil rights movement. Which is very true. Not to say that the inferior status of gays isn't unfair or is "trivial" and doesn't need to be changed, but you have to be careful comparing it to Jim Crow.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah -- gays can do that without having any legal recognition for their symbolic marriages but they are entitled to be treated equally under the law, which means the same legal protection that heterosexual couples take for granted.

I support civil unions, which would grant the same legal protections to gay couples that are granted to heterosexual couples. Seems like a smart compromise measure that gives homosexual couples the protections they want (and I think deserve) without messing around with the status quo on marriage. Unfortunately compromise seems to be an outdated notion in today's America, so I don't expect civil unions to catch on anytime soon. Too many people seem intent on trying to force gay marriage on a population that isn't sure if it wants it or not.

The key point he was making is that the current "oppression" of gays is nowhere near as bad as it was for blacks before the civil rights movement.

Indeed. It's hard to argue that homosexuals are oppressed much at all in America today, on an institutional level at least. A decision to oppose the extension of marriage to gay couples is not oppression and is certainly not comparable to taking away an entire race of people's rights for several hundred years...

[Guynemer]

Drake, civil unions are marriages that just aren't called marriage. You usually see through that sort of semantic bull****, so I'm not sure why you're advocating such a position. Just go ahead and "come out" for gay marriage; you've amongst friends here.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, civil unions are marriages that just aren't called marriage. You usually see through that sort of semantic bull****, so I'm not sure why you're advocating such a position.

Semantic bull**** is a key to compromise in many cases and I think it's useful here. Civil unions allow for gay couples to get their legal protections and for marriage to officially remain between a man and a woman. It's win-win.

[Guynemer]

Symbolism means something, Drake, especially in this instance. While granting all the same rights, calling them "civil unions" denotes a different, secondary social class to those relationships. Would it were not so, but it is what it is.

[Jon Miller]

What gays need is the social support that marriage would provide (to help them have successful relationships).

Jon Miller

[Drake Tungsten]

Symbolism means something, Drake, especially in this instance. While granting all the same rights, calling them "civil unions" denotes a different, secondary social class to those relationships. Would it were not so, but it is what it is.

I guess the question comes down to how badly gay couples really want the legal protections afforded to hetero couples. They could have them pretty soon if they would settle for civil unions, but it has been seeming more and more likely that they won't settle for anything less than officially-sanctioned marriage. That's a lot harder goal to achieve and runs the risk of incurring a public backlash that will leave them with nothing.

Personally, I'd take the civil unions now and try to get marriage later when the public opposition is decreased.