I don't understand why gays want to marry

Gays want to marry for the same reasons as straights do.

 

Many straights marry because the woman wants the man to father her children and he wishes to father those children with her. And both wanting to raise those children together. Which of course is a physical impossibility for two people of the same sex. I think thats the main reason there are so many gays that soooooooooo desparately want to ape the heterosexuals in state sanctioned marrriges, because they cant participate in the processs of procreation.

 

I must have missed that part of the wedding vows... in virtually every marriage ceremony I've ever attended.

If you find your wife can't get pregnant and is infertile, do you divorce her? Or do you stay married for the love you have for her? Some might divorce, but many won't. There's more to marriage than procreation.

 

??? Not sure of your point. Wedding vows arent a statement of why people married. I didnt say anything about my Ex wifes big tits in the ceremony, but that was part of the reason I wanted to marry her.

 

Because THAT would be inappropriate

The vows express the love and commitment between the couple, or at least that love of her tits.

Still has nothing to do with procreation.

 

__Exactly.__

 

Many gays marry because they want to devote their lives to one another; and often they wish to raise children.

Same with many gays.

Please, stop lying.

Your views are delusional, at best distorted.

 

This is an age of consent statute, not a statute that restricts marriage to one man and one woman. Notice how it doesn't specify to whom they have to be married, merely that they are capable of consent at a certain age.

States didn't really begin to pass statutes that restricted marriage to one man and one woman until after the Baker v. Nelson case in 1972.

 

No, even in the states and nations with gay marriage, gays simply arent turning out to engage in the institution of marriage to any signicant extent.

 

??? Its both. Thus the language "any man" "AND" "any woman" as opposed to any man OR woman.

Fascinating how many of you idealogues read that as OR. Your ideologies actually transform your perception of reality.

Man AND woman. Husband AND wife. Father AND Mother. Two separate parts of the whole.

 

Then what are you so worried about?

 

I see you've had this argument before.

The statute that you're quoting is still on the books in California (only the ages have changed). Now known as California Family Code section 301. This is how it reads now, in its entirety:

The section that precedes 301, specifically 300(a) (which was codified the same year as section 301, 1872), provides the relevant language for what constitutes marriage in California:

Notice the language "between a man and a woman"? The statute was amended in 1977 to add that specific language. The language was added for the express purpose of "prohibit[ing] persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 607 (1977–1978 Reg. Sess.).

If California law already prohibited same-sex marriage, why add that language?

Man and woman are capable of consenting and consummating. That is the thrust of the statute you're referring to. Now tell me where it says, to each other.

 

Nonsense!! Marriage has no objective role. Marriage means something different to different people. For some people it is an excuse to procreate, for others it is about love, for others it is about money, for others it is about companionship, for others it is about convenience. Your own subjective determination of the point of marriage is irrelevant. All that matters is what marriage means to the person entering into marriage, and to some people it DOES represent love or companionship, and who am I to say they are wrong.

 

The Constitution and institution of marriage being twisted and tortured beyond recognition for the benefit of homosexuals.

 

The constitution? Marriage isn't mentioned once. So what the hell are you talking about? As far as marriage, what marriage is at any point and time is historically contingent. It is a fluid concept that means different things in different places at different times. This is the latest shift which is coming, and it couldn't be less of a problem. It also couldn't matter less to me. I am a straight guy, I can get married. It just comes down to wishing happiness upon my fellow human beings, without taking bigotry into account. If marriage will bring certain people that happiness, how self-righteous and asinine of me it would be to deny it to them!!

 

Twisted and tortured beyond recognition by a population that apparently won't even participate by at any significant rate... Makes total sense...

Equal rights for women, contraception, no-fault divorce, and legalized adultery have done well more to change the shape of marriage than gay's could ever do. The marriage of heterosexual couples will not be effected by homosexuals, not any more than has already been done.

 

thousands of same sex couples are already married in this country, has harmed your marriage in any way?

 

I've noticed in this and other threads that most people only concentrate on tax benefits when it comes to SSM. These reasons, while a hotly-contested topic, are only some pieces to the puzzle. Here are 2 others:

Next of kin status and inheritance benefits are heavily weighted toward marriage and blood-related family. Here is an example:
A friend of mine was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Eventually it came to a point when a next-of-kin had to make medical decisions for him, and when he was on life support someone needed to decide when and if to terminate that. His partner of thirty years was barred from making any decisions for him because they were not legally married (indeed they could not get married for obvious reasons). His father was contacted, a man he had not spoken to in decades. There were times when his partner could not even visit because he was not related or a spouse.
When he died, his will was read and it stated clearly that his partner was to inherit his estate in its entirety. The family contested the will, and ended up with a huge portion of the estate, leaving his partner with next to nothing.

Tax benefits aside, show me how this is okay. Please don't split hairs over "most families are not that cruel" or any other nonsense. The fact is that laws regarding these types of topics should be addressed when debating same-sex-marriage. If that requires a total overhaul in state-defined marriage, then so be it. If this only requires certain changes be made, then that would be fine as well. However, this type of situation is a direct result of the withholding of state-sanctioned marriage privileges for same-sex couples.

 

It's funny the way all the benefits of marriage beyond the obvious emotional ones are taken completely for granted until someone suggests SS couples should also take part. All of a sudden its "woah there, steady boy, let's not go crazy or anything..." But it seems like this stuff should be on the table early to give people time to understand what it means to be serious about equality.

 

You're 100% correct to point this out. Seems that people are often stupid and evil; that's the best explanation I'll give for the discrimination and bigotry for now.

 

So what if gays want to marry? Why is it anyone else's (*)(*)(*)(*) business? Just get on with your own life and stop interfering in other peoples.

 

Because some wish to control gays, they MAKE it their business. Until they get some kind of bite in their ass for stepping where they should not... they'll keep on trying.

Eventually, enough people will be willing to bite back and keep the busybodies more in their place. Essentially, a bunch of insecure and fearful jerks find it sporting and acceptable to make the lives of homosexual people more difficult in ANY way they can.

In due time, the tables will turn.

 

Gays are also a handy scapegoat, until quite recently entirely lacking even a real voice. As a politician it was always a good idea to keep them teed up and ready to pillory if things started to go pear shaped.

 

Correct. And this is the era in which homosexual people must stand up for their rights and dignity in every way possible.

Not that we are better that other people, but just as HUMAN as everyone else.

 

Same would apply to any couple prevented by law from marrying, and yet, you are only concerned if they happen to be homosexual.