In Defense of the Marriage

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

So far anyone has yet to show any need and reason for homosexual marriages. We're not preventing homosexuals from having relationships, we just want to preserve the traditional institution of marriage, WHICH WAS CREATED BY HETEROSEXUALS.

And by protecting marriage, we protect the traditional family unit--a cornerstone of society-- and also the children.

I would respond, but IMO you are diffusing you own argument.

[Jerrek]

Show me the need for marriage?



Oh .... .... you're in need for help. I don't know what you have, but I'm sure it is hard to pronounce.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Show me the need for marriage?

Why do heterosexuals need marriage??

[Jerrek]

Would you like me to explain why 1 + 2 = 3 too?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Why do heterosexuals need marriage??

I think it's more to do with society needing marriage. It is a stable influence on males and increases the likelihood of survival of the offspring (originally)

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I think it's more to do with society needing marriage. It is a stable influence on males and increases the likelihood of survival of the offspring (originally)

and with divorces so readily available and these supposed 'open marriages' it seems to be loosing that point.

In response to Jerek why must children be the result of marriage, I don't see it in the contract. I'm sure there have been instances of people aged 80+ getting married, there are no rules against that. Marriage is still binding after the children have left.

Also back to the point of why homosexuals can't raise children just as well anyway?

What people do in their lives is their business and I'm surprised at the US which is founded on the idea that the government(and everyone else) should BUTT out of everyone's lives.

It's not for me personally but I'm not about to go sticking my oar in and tell people how to live their lives.Like with religion I'm indifferent and would rather leave people alone than interfere.

Who are we to tell people how to conduct their sex lives?I also can't recall that Christ EVER told anyone that homosexuality was wrong.It wasn't his style.


Incog wanders off totally bored out of her skull.

[Sociable]

The big problem with any debate on such an emotive subject as this is that as always the various elements of the subject get confused.

For me the starting point is the need to debunk some myths. The first is this somewhat ridiculous notion that gay marriage in some way threatens heterosexual marriage which therefore needs †œDefendingà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Ã⠀šÃ‚Â� in some way as if homosexuality were a disease threatening all heterosexual couples. For those having such issues about gay relationships please donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t fret nobody is advocating it become compulsory. (Or is perhaps the problem some may feel so unsure about their own sexuality that they fear they may succumb?)

From a civil rights issue the argument is clear, and that is no section of the community should be discriminated against because of some arbitrary notion of †œnormalityà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Ã⠀šÃ‚Â�. One doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have to look too far back to see the injustices of mixed race marriages being not just illegal but actually a capital crime in many states.

All that gay couples want is to be allowed the same ability to publicly confirm their commitment to each other and for the state to acknowledge that such a commitment should carry the same benefits, privileges and rights as similar heterosexual commitments do.

The main reason gay couples are seeking the legal status of †œmarriageÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ� is that much legislation links that specific status to being the gateway to specific benefits, rights and privileges. The issue is therefore, is there any justification in denying any of these specific benefits, privileges or rights purely on the grounds of sexuality?

When considering that question, I pose some further simple questions to all those wishing to deny such benefits, privileges or rights to their fellow citizens.

How can you justify such blatant discrimination?

Which specific benefits, privileges or rights do you feel should be excluded and why?

And finally, why do you see allowing others to lead their life the way they want to be such a threat?

Well said Sociable.

There is one thing about religion that does p*ss me off.It's the way so many of religious persuasion(not just Christian) think that they have a right to force everyone else to live according to their narrow blinkered viewpoint.

I'll defend any religious minorities right to worship as they like.I also hope that they would extend the same to others who do not share their beliefs including homosexuals.

I hate the way how lifelong relationships can be cut asunder at sickbeds and deathbeds because the relationship isn't recognised by the government.It's cruel to separate two people who love each other at the time when they need to be together the most just because you don't believe in homosexuality.To force the remaining partner to have to move home because a partner has died and the next of kin refuse to recognise the relationship.

Incog.

[Jerrek]

As I said before, I do not buy into this entire priviledge thing for married couples. In an ideal world, here is what I'd like:

- marriage is reserved for the church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever religious institution you're from

- non-religious people can do the whole promise thing in private, or if they feel the need for a public demonstration they can set up a ceremony with anyone, be that a friend, a parent, or a stranger

- there will be no priviledges surrounding marriage

- in cases of where there has to be a priviledge, every person can designate one other person as a beneficiary under the law. If you're married, you can make it your spouse. If you're in a union, you can make it your partner. If you're single, you can make it a friend. The beneficiary would receive benefits along with you.




Unfortunately, there is not a lot of chance that my libertarian beliefs will become law, so for now, it is either left or right, and if the government has to be involved, I'd pick what is better for society.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Russ D

So I can't give my opinion?

As my daughter grows up, she will be taught that a mother and a father create babies together. Infertility is rare enough for me to not find it neccessary to explain that until she's old enough to know for herself.

What I won't be telling her is that those little boys and girls with 2 mammies or daddies needed special treatment from doctors in order for them to be born.

But in this day and age of step parents and step step parents there are already childredren with mum dad and step dad or mum and mum and step children and their parents.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I will not support putting children through that kind of torture.

NO. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING-- There are NO RIGHTS. GET IT? NO RIGHTS!

Just because you shout doesn't make it true.

I can't legally sign any medical consent for my partner, or him for me, I am his next of kin, yet I am not allowed this "right"

Another "right" I don't have is being able to leave him my savings or possessions tax free, this is because we aren't "married"

Both of these are rights that I would be given if we were allowed to marry. Personally I wouldn't want to marry, it isn't our style, but I do plan on spending the rest of my life with him and would like the same rights as a heterosexual couple when it comes to these issues. I feel that this is going to come (at least to the UK) soon, and I for one will be glad of that.

As for your way of thinking in the states, I can't take a country (and its views) seriously that can't cope with a flash of a womans breast on their TV yet find violence a routine part of their viewing acceptable. You want to get Richard and Judy over there, she's always getting her boobs out.

Getting back on topic, and to sum up, I WOULD like to have the same rights as a married couple but without it being called or linked to that word. Maybe an official declaration (similar to adoption) that states that I have the right to make decisions about my partners life (should they become too ill to make them their selves), for me this is the main problem at the moment.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

<snip>
- in cases of where there has to be a priviledge, every person can designate one other person as a beneficiary under the law. If you're married, you can make it your spouse. If you're in a union, you can make it your partner. If you're single, you can make it a friend. The beneficiary would receive benefits along with you.

Great plan, so instead of me passing my house to my wife tax free I can elect to pass it to my son.

That will save me £ÃÆ ’‚£Ãà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£ in tax. Go ahead with this one. Its the only tax break left in marriage.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

- marriage is reserved for the church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever religious institution you're from

So you have no problem with the Mormon's being advocates of bigamy, despite that potentially not falling within your narrow definition of a family.

Similarly, if there were a religion that incorporated the concept of gay marriage that would suddenly make it alright for you?

[downquark1]

Fox News report on a state that may legalise gay marriage
Bush deeply troubled
More oposition