What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

It's only "over inclusive" based on your own logic; your own assertion that marriage is based solely on procreation. I obviously do not see it as over inclusive because I reject that notion.

 

But the presumption is that the platonic couple "want" to join in marriage for reasons other than sex. As long as they are heterosexual they still have the "option" of having a sex-based marital relationship with somebody else. In your example they chose not to exercise that option. Your scenario doesn't allow the gay couple the same range of choices.

 

Perhaps, most importantly, they are identically situated in terms of the legal administration of the contract. The contract can be administered in exactly the same way between a sterile opposite sex couple and a same-sex couple right down to things like adoption etc.

 

Not sure of your point. Being family diesnt give us any of the entitlements of marriage.

???? Hell, the 6 states have removed sexual orientation discrimination and has no problem at all maintaining restrictions for those who are not homosexual. Revealing that you see this as a good thing. Special rights for homosexuals because they are so special.

 

No, just like me they are free to marry someone they dont want to, in order to get the benefits.

 

Who says they don't want to?

The fact is a straight person can marry a platonic friend of the opposite sex and they can also enter a romantic/sexual marriage with another person of the appropriate (straight) sexual orientation. A gay person can platonically marry a person of the opposite sex but they can't enter a romantic/ sexual marriage with another person of the appropriate (gay) sexual orientation.

Which ever way you slice it that will always be the result.

 

It gives you inheritance and hospital visitation/decision making rights, among other things. Hospital policy isn't required by law to allow anyone who isn't family/married to do so.

Tell me how short of a legal union same-sex couples would be able to attain the rights that you enjoy with your brother and your other family members?

??? People who are not homosexual? You mean heterosexual or bisexual people? I'm pretty sure they can marry who they want too. That's the point.

You're trying so, so hard to make same-sex marriage supporters look like the ones wanting to exclude everyone, but it's you who wishes to exclude from marriage everyone but the group you conveniently fit in to.

The family restrictions are kept in place so as not to encourage incest.. I don't know how much clearer I can be on that. And the fact marriage is formulated to give rights to unrelated individuals where no kinship exists.

 

Yup, like someone who was in love with a person of a different racial background was free to marry someone of their own race to reap the benefits...

 

When anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, all races were able to marry each other. When homosexual marriage was invented by four judges they had given a favor only to homosexuals.

 

And where there are no bars to same sex marriage all sexes are allowed to marry each other so whats your point?

 

I'm pretty sure anyone can marry a member of their own sex under SSM.

 

Nope, close relative are not allowed to marry even though according to gay community marriage does not have anything to do with procreation and sexual intercourse.

 

Nope close relatives can't get married.

 

Noooo, only a spouse has inheritance rights and as a 51 yr old unmarried man, my mom would have decision making rights if I couldnt make those decisions and my brother wouldnt have any say.

I dont believe there is any law regarding hospital visitation policy. And if you dont like hospital visitation policy you need to make changes to hospital visitation policies. Not laws regarding marriage.

Well, since you made them up, they already have them.

The court decisions do that. Not I.

 

Close relatives are always denied the right to marry because of the inevitable and unavoidable link with incest. How would you separate the sexual ones who are breaking the law from the non-sexual ones who aren't? It'd be quite impossible and you'd be giving all of the sexual couples increased legitimacy by making their relationships considerably easier.

If however there were an effort to legislate it (related marriage) I would not be in opposition with even a fraction of the zeal of the anti-SSM crowd. I doubt I would oppose it at all as a matter of fact. It's just not a cause I see as either necessary, or practical, or relevant to delivering the kind of equality and change that matters.

 

If your mother were to die it would almost certainly fall upon your brother, unless you have kids? The point is your family members are afforded these automatic rights whereas gay couples in the majority of states aren't. There is no legal kinship available for them.

And family do have inherentance rights assuming no will, ever heard of intestacy? Usually if you have no children or grandchildren, it goes up the family tree to parents and siblings. If the life partner of a gay person dies and leaves no will, with the absence of any legal kinship tying them together they get absolutely nothing.

Most operate on a strict next-of-kin basis if a person is incapacitated or unconscious. When that's your legally unrecognised partner you shouldn't have to petition the hospital to change their policy in the mean time!

Remember, in over 30 states same-sex couples are treated as COMPLETE strangers with no legal ties to one another. Same-sex marriage rectifies this problem nicely.

 

Except there are no such rights. You made them up.

Moms alive and my brother anf I both have wills.

Revealing, you declare procreation irrelevant to marriage because it does not occur in all mariages, and when it come to you justify excluding my brother and I, over inclusiveness or under inclusiveness, suddenly isnt even issue that concerns you. Tortured logic is fine when it comes to rights "awarded to homosexual couples" but off limits when it comes to those who are not homosexuals.

 

??? Made up the fact that the law confers "next of kin" status on related individuals? Obviously it's at the discretion of the hospital personnel whether to allow others to do the decision-making when a person is incapable of doing so, but usually all hospitals will refer to the legal next of kin - which would be a person's spouse if they were able to marry, but of course in most states gay people cannot. It's automatically conferred on family members however in all 50.

I'm speaking generally of course. If you didn't your possessions would go to your family members.

It's only "tortured logic" because you seem to have drilled it into your head that I'm unequivocally opposed to it - your argument hinges on that presumption - but in fact whilst I've been explaining the differences between "marriage" between related individuals and SSM and why it's impractical to expect the government to legalise the former, I'm STILL not actually opposed to it. But keep beating the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of that strawman.

 

What link is that? Sex isnt required in marriage. Goverrnment doesnt inquire into the couples willingness or ability to have sex. If two platonic friends who dont have sex can get married, why cant two closely related people who dont have sex get married?

 

My mom is "next of kin", not my brother. You made that up and the bit about "inheritance and hospital...decision making rights". I have none with my brother.

 

Oh so you finally admit that sex isn't required for marriage. That no government agency is going around trying to discern whether or not a couple have consummated the marriage, annulling those who have not?

I suppose that's a step in the right direction.

 

A man and a woman could do the same thing.


So, thats your whole argument smashed to pieces in one sentence, yes?

 

He KNOWS what you say above is true... so he'll build a wall, made of intellectual noise, obfuscation and irrelevance... to deaden the truth within himself.

 

Never claimed it was required. Revealing, You chase the strawman and completely ignore the quetions. Typical.

 

Please, don't pretend you haven't been parading around spouting that non-sexual couples couldn't marry because their marriages would be annulled for failure to consummate.

Did I refresh your memory? Still going to deny what you have clearly stated before?