[oldfogey]

I came across this excellent, thought-provoking article. It's worth reading through.

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

[oldfogey]

I'm just surprised there's no feedback on this. Did the intial paragraph put people off and stop you reading further? It's one of the best arguments in favour of keeping marriage in its traditional form that I've seen, and from a libertartian point of view of all things.

Or are we all so much in favour of keeping the traditional form that there's no counter argument?

[ND4SPD]

I'll bite...

I didn't read very far into it...to me this paragraph pretty much sums it up.

Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.

It was meant to be a certain way, and it has worked that way for thousands of years.

Most of the gay marriages that have taken place in the US recently are on the rocks or over in just a matter of months. Naturally, the media neglected to cover most of that.

[HondaGalToo]

I don't think you can claim that more gay marriages will fall apart than straight marriages. Not with today's divorce statistics. If the institution of marriage is falling apart, it's not because or will be because gay marriages become legal. It'll be because people can't make lifelong commitments to anything anymore, much less a lifetime commitment to another person, which takes a lot of work. More than most are willing to put in these days, it seems.
That goes along with another trend today which is that no one will take responsibility for their own actions.
I didn't read the entire article, but it did make some good points. I personally see nothing wrong with gay marriages and I don't believe it will cause society to crumble. Please.

[colryn]

Originally Posted by HondaGalToo

... It'll be because people can't make lifelong commitments to anything anymore, much less a lifetime commitment to another person, which takes a lot of work. More than most are willing to put in these days, it seems.
That goes along with another trend today which is that no one will take responsibility for their own actions.....

Leave it to HG2 to sume it up with the most perfect words.

It is easy for people to quit than to put effort into a relationship.

[Red Rider]

Originally Posted by colryn

It is easy for people to quit than to put effort into a relationship.

I see a lack of commitment in many aspects of our society these days...especially jobs.

[luvtolean]

Funny, I had a guy come by the house last night trying to get me to donate to fighting the proposed amendment.

Even if you are in favor, you have to admit, it is kind of ironic. Proposing an amendment taking away people's rights in the document we all love as the giver of freedom. Mark my words, this **** is gonna mean the demise of the repubs...

That goes along with another trend today which is that no one will take responsibility for their own actions.

Yeah. No commitment to kids, family, themselves, work....

Personally, I think one of the main culprits is the shift in the feel good, bullshit "counseling" we have now.

Until the 60's, "self-help" was really focused on making small improvments in yourself.

Now counselors perscribe a highly addicitive pill, and tell you to come back next week so we can blame your mother some more, and of course, give you that all important refill to continue to feed your newfound drug addiction.

[Newfie TLR]

Personally, I don't agree with Gay marriages. What people do in their own homes and in privacy is their own business and should not be the public's concern, for the most part. But I believe that Marriage is sacred and I also believe it's meant to be between a male and a female.

There are many comments above that once again give me the urge to quote the Eagles:

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat
Get over it..........

[Newfie TLR]

Looks like the Same Sex marriage front is even getting support from many different religious sects:

What's next?

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by Newfie TLR

Personally, I don't agree with Gay marriages. What people do in their own homes and in privacy is their own business and should not be the public's concern, for the most part. But I believe that Marriage is sacred and I also believe it's meant to be between a male and a female.

There are many comments above that once again give me the urge to quote the Eagles:

So it's ok to deny a group of people the same rights as anyone else, effecively making them second class citizens? Everyone should have the same rights.

[luvtolean]

I hate this issue, because there are so many far more important (in the sense that they effect more people in more drastic ways) ones facing this country...the only right denied to homosexuals in this is the actual legal marriage certificate. Taxes, work benefits, and much much more are all the same for domestic partners as "married" partners.

But my last thought is that marriage is not an institution historically based on religion.

Non-Christian people were getting "married" long before a priest was required for the ceremony.

[oldfogey]

I liked the article because it presented both sides of the argument and commented pithily on the unexpected consequences of some previous social liberalisations.

I was in favour of legal recognition of non-religious, whole-life intentioned partnerships. (If you understand what I mean by that cumbersome phrase.) If the state has rules about recognising when a social pairing should be considered a single economic unit, it should follow those rules whether the social pairing is same sex or not. This was my opinion before I read the article.

But religious marriage ceremonies are about creating a man and wife framework for raising children with life-long intentions on the part of the couple. Now, sometimes either the child-rearing intent or the life-long intentions bits go wrong, but that was their social and historic context. Christian, Judaic and Moslem marriages are quite explicit about the need for the dual sex, child-raising intent and the long term commitment of the couple.

So, should same-sex couples who intend to stay together for life and raise children be granted the same legal rights as religiously married heterosexual couples? Before reading this article, I would have said yes, that seems reasonable. Now, I'm thinking "what are the unintended consequences?"

Perhaps, if the state decided that the economic rules about "married couples" should only apply to ongoing, two person households who were raising their own children, we might get closer to the intent. So divorced couples, childless couples, etc., wouldn't be treated the same way. (I speak as a divorced father of three who has a long term relationship with a mother of two.) Tax, social security, pensions: all the rules would change. If other couples, of whatever kind, wanted to make arrangements for each other, that's up to them, a private affair.

I don't understand what the US issue over gay marriages is about. What legal recognition issues go with the status accorded by the state to marriage?

[Newfie TLR]

Originally Posted by HondaGalToo

So it's ok to deny a group of people the same rights as anyone else, effecively making them second class citizens? ,,,snip

I'm not trying to say anyone is second class citizens HG2. This belief of mine stems from the fact that I believe marriage should be a precursor to procreation. And nature has decided long before we came about that two members of the same sex can't reproduce. Like I said up above, what people do in the privacy of their own home has nothing to do with me. Do you need a ring to prove your love for each other?? I think not. I have friends who are gay, I have friends who are straight. There are straight people I hate for one reason or another, and same with gays. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. However, I do feel that some people fighting for this right do so just as an issue to take a stand on. I know a couple of people who are very much pro-same sex marriage, but by their own admission will never be married and work in an atmosphere where gays are shunned. WTF???

I think LTL said it very well:

I hate this issue, because there are so many far more important (in the sense that they effect more people in more drastic ways) ones facing this country...the only right denied to homosexuals in this is the actual legal marriage certificate. Taxes, work benefits, and much much more are all the same for domestic partners as "married" partners.

WARNING, EXTREME THREADJACK BELOW:

Now, as for

Originally Posted by HondaGalToo

Everyone should have the same rights.

Don't go there. I live in a country where the average, healthy, employed, white, hetrosexual, Canadian born male is a freekin' minority who bears the brunt of the tax load. This government of this country produced an ad IN ALL DAILY RAGS for RCMP recruits saying white males need not apply. You want to talk rights??

Sorry, now back on subject:

Fogey said:

Perhaps, if the state decided that the economic rules about "married couples" should only apply to ongoing, two person households who were raising their own children, we might get closer to the intent. So divorced couples, childless couples, etc., wouldn't be treated the same way. (I speak as a divorced father of three who has a long term relationship with a mother of two.) Tax, social security, pensions: all the rules would change. If other couples, of whatever kind, wanted to make arrangements for each other, that's up to them, a private affair.

There will be no end to this dispute. There will always be someone whose only intent is to jack things around and play with rules just to piss someone off and prove a point.

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I hate this issue, because there are so many far more important (in the sense that they effect more people in more drastic ways) ones facing this country...the only right denied to homosexuals in this is the actual legal marriage certificate. Taxes, work benefits, and much much more are all the same for domestic partners as "married" partners.

But my last thought is that marriage is not an institution historically based on religion.

Non-Christian people were getting "married" long before a priest was required for the ceremony.

No, not the only right at all. The rights granted to domestic partners through domestic partnership acts or civil unions don't even come close to granting all of the same benefits of a marriage. They grant many of the same benefits under the state, but many federal rights are missing. Things like social security benefits (yeah, I know they're not much), pensions, federal income tax filing. There's more, I just can't recall them right now. So, the actual legal marriage certificate isn't the only thing denied. Domestic parnterships are not equivalent to a full marriage. I tend to agree with your other points.

Newfie, I'm not in favor of "reverse discrimination". I said equal rights, not more or different rights for a minority or majority. And as for the raising children aspect of being what constitutes what the true intention of marriage is, oldfogey was correct in saying that that would change everything if that were the only definition. I have a friend who was against gay marriage on the basis that the same sex couple couldn't procreate. That is, until someone (not me) pointed out to her that she never intended on having kids. She then realized she was being hypocritical.

This is a topic that no one is going to agree on, and no one's going to change anyone else's mind.

[BDA116]

There is no benefit to being married when it comes to federal income tax. Total myth. In fact, there is a penalty on the standard deduction. It is much smaller now thanks to the recent tax cuts, but you still benefit greatly by filing separate returns.

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by BDA116

There is no benefit to being married when it comes to federal income tax. Total myth. In fact, there is a penalty on the standard deduction. It is much smaller now thanks to the recent tax cuts, but you still benefit greatly by filing separate returns.

That's true.

[G-Force Junkie]

My 2 cents...There are two totaly seperate issues here. One is the historical based on religion. That one the two sides will never agree on, just like religion. The second, and the one I think HG2 is pointing out is that Marrage today (unlike yesteryears) is a binding, legal contract. That makes it a legal matter. That means marrage now involves property rights, financial rights, benifits, state and government taxes and monies, personal rights granted by the states and governments, etc. Denying some people these rights is discriminatory and flat out wrong. I hav no problem with people with religion, morals, etc beliving what they want to. Go for it, knock your self out. But a legal matter, that has nothing to do with religion, feelings, beliefs, etc. "Seperate but equal" was shot down a long time ago.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by G-Force Junkie

My 2 cents...There are two totaly seperate issues here. One is the historical based on religion.

Absolutely incorrect.

The second, and the one I think HG2 is pointing out is that Marrage today (unlike yesteryears) is a binding, legal contract. That makes it a legal matter. That means marrage now involves property rights, financial rights, benifits, state and government taxes and monies, personal rights granted by the states and governments, etc.

These are the reasons "the ancients" did it. Marriage, including the ring, was an established institution well before the birth of Jesus Christ. The ring ceremony is attributed to the ancient Romans as being neverending pledge.

Marriage then was all around the merging of two estates, the woman getting property rights, a lifelong pledge etc etc.

Nowadays, property rights are easily handled without wedlock. Both names on the deed, a Will, etc etc. The tax "advantage" is a waste of breath. I agree on the Social Security issue, but this is something that never enters my thinking, as I feel anybody under 50-60 years old better assume they are not going to see any meaningful contribution from "Social Security" in retirement. To me it is merely a tax.

The only thing I can think of that really matters is that it is hard for a gay person to pursue a liability based lawsuit for the loss of their partner, whereas a married person is practically expected to. This issue of course, affects very few people.

The necessity of a priest and 2 witnesses is traced back to the middle ages in Europe where the government and the church (kinda inseparable then) decided they didn't like the people getting married without telling the government about it. (Control of course)

Go do some reading on it, it's actually pretty interesting.

My final assesment is just let them marry already. Who cares? Quit wasting our damn time with this rediculous nonsense.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by HondaGalToo

I personally see nothing wrong with gay marriages...

I'm okay with lesbian marriages, because girl-on-girl is cool.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by Pete

I'm okay with lesbian marriages, because girl-on-girl is cool.

That is just a gateway to you and Bacchus getting hitched.

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by G-Force Junkie

My 2 cents...There are two totaly seperate issues here. One is the historical based on religion. That one the two sides will never agree on, just like religion. The second, and the one I think HG2 is pointing out is that Marrage today (unlike yesteryears) is a binding, legal contract. That makes it a legal matter. That means marrage now involves property rights, financial rights, benifits, state and government taxes and monies, personal rights granted by the states and governments, etc. Denying some people these rights is discriminatory and flat out wrong. I hav no problem with people with religion, morals, etc beliving what they want to. Go for it, knock your self out. But a legal matter, that has nothing to do with religion, feelings, beliefs, etc. "Seperate but equal" was shot down a long time ago.

Exactly. While domestic partner/civil unions are a wonderful start, they are benefits only afforded to those who live in those states. Not many states do.