I don't understand why gays want to marry

Homosexual couples are blatantly denied marriage; that is the concern of many.

 

Can you show me ANY law that would even be concerned with ones homosexuality? Marriage laws are unconcerned with ones sexuality.

 

You are kidding, right?

 

Is there another large, mobilized group of couples currently prevented from marrying who have put in decades of lobbying and grass-roots legwork towards a single goal? If so let them make their case. It sounds like you'd like all kinds of other types of marriages legalized as well. Some fairly fringe ones, if you ask me, but who am I to judge? Get off your butt and start handing out flyers if you want your secret little obsessions validated. Complaining here about your inability to marry a horse won't get you any closer to a that blissful stable or that sweet, sweet hay. Careful about the side entrance, though. It's a bit of a slippery slope.

 

Hwey instead of "Marriage equality " for religious nutty Gay and Lesbians ,why not a unified campaign to abolish Marriage a culturally backward and oppressive religious social throwback .News flash the social institution responsible for the coverup of Violence and abuse is MARRIAGE ,how many destroyed lives abused humans smashed chilhoods is marriage responsible for ,how many women are enslaved sexually and Physically no more then SLAVES with Marraiges World wide?

the figure would run into 100's of millions.

Yet we have this crazy demand of a SMALL ,section of the Homosexual community for Religious Rites equality ,Amazing how many times do the Churches have to attack homosexuality before you understand until Religion is abolished or dies away they will be mortally hostile to Homosexuals ,now a small religious nutty group called the LGBTIQC wants to actually tie Homosexuals to the churches that hate them good thinking that get up and personal with those that have slaughtered ,Persecuted and oppressed people like your good selves for millenia and counting .

Outside the sick religious backward needs of religious nutter Gay and Lesbians Marraige Rites Equality makes no sense the churches couldn't have organised it better if thwey tried a Pretext to launch Provocations and open attacks on not the LBGTIQ community but the HOMOSEXUAL Commmunity as whole .


who are the idiots that started this insanity in the first place and are they Catholics????

 

That is true which is why arguments based upon the sexual relations of the individuals involved are invalid. It is the prohibition of same-gender marriage that is at issue and that is gender discrimination. It doesn't even relate to procreation per se because most laws that provide benefits related to marriage are based upon the merged financial assets of the couple and are completely unrelated to children. This is where the true discrimination and violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment exists. Joint tax filing status, SSI spouse survivior and retirement benefits, bankruptcy laws, etc., are completely unrelated to children. They all deal with the merged financial assets of the couple (i.e. the personal financial partnership established by the couple) and they are completely unrelated to children or procreation.

It is the gender discrimination which is unconstitutional and this has nothing to do with sexual behavior or children or procreation.

 

Crickey you are in trouble ,I agree with you whole heartedly ,and think with the stripping away of the marriage tinsel,how happier and gayer the world would be .

Marriage contracts are property contracts ,now if we could just take the conponent that Humans could ever be defined as property then hey we are there.

Please note how the Homosexual commuity is being attacked and hijacked by something that calls itself the 'Gay and Lesbian "Community .they have to distort the Language in order to smuggle in their rightwing defence of the Human slavery concepts promoted by the religious biggots and oppressors of women with Marriage ,hey given a chioce of standing in the trench with the Female community [50%]of humanity and their struggle against marriage slavery ,and a bunch of nutty 'Gay " Right -wingRadicals,hey I know which truely represents the fight for Equality ,

My sisters,we see your plight with the mechanism of Marriage which the Patriarchal Religious Institution of Sexual slavery called "Marriage",we are fighting for your liberation against some nutty non-existant Queer strange very Right-wing group called the LGBTIQC, who not a single human defends, that wants to defend and prop up this inhumane "marriage slavery".

Are women still forced to say 'Love honour and OBEY' in the USA?

That should be Abolished !

 

Because in many places, civil unions do not carry the same rights and recognition (from a legal standpoint) as a formal marriage.

 

In fact civil unions never provide the identical rights and recognition as the legalized institution of marriage. While there have been several state court cases on this it is best summarized in the California State Supreme Court decision on Prop 22 which denied opposite-gender couples from marrying under state law:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/NR26-08.PDF

There is an even more egregious violation of equality when we address discrimination at the federal level where legally married same-gender couples under the laws of a state are denied equality under federal law. This was addressed in the case of COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ERIC K. SHINSEKI, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA which is perhaps best summarized by the following summary:

http://www.employeebenefitscounsel....onstitutional-by-massachusetts-federal-court/

In the Federal Court decision specific to DOMA and the marriage laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of the Court stated:

http://www.healthcareemploymentcoun...alth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept of HHS.pdf

With this said we can also comment that in California, after the State Supreme Court mades it's decision on Prop 22 that it violated the equal protection clause of the State Constitution the people of California sought to institutionalize this discrimination under the law with the passage of Prop 8 that would circumvent the State Constitution's requirement for equal protection. Prop 8 has already been declared to be an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by the 9th District Court and that decision has been upheld by a three judge panel of the 9th District Court of Appeals. Further litigation is anticipated and eventually this will probably be heard by the Supreme Court. As noted above in the Massachusetts DOMA case there have been 1,138 different federal laws identified which are inherently discriminatory related to marriage so it will be virtually impossible for the US Supreme Court to rule that the prohibitions against same-gender marriage are not a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But that's not all because we now come to the most invidious action of all. Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican presidential candidate, has signed the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledge which calls for a US Constitutional Amendment to institutionalize this discrimination in the United States by circumventing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. NOM is a political front organization for the Mormon Church, of which Romney is a member, and NOM was behind the passage of Prop 8 in California which circumvented the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution. They want to institutionalize discrimination under the Constitution of the United States.

Let us look at this in a historical perspective. It would have been the same as the case of Loving v Virginia where inter-racial marriage was prohibited but instead of the Supreme Court decision declaring it an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause a bunch of racists managed to get a Constitutional amendment passed prohibiting inter-racial marriage. This would have circumvented any ability of the Court to end the invidious racial discrimination at the time and the amendment proposed by NOM would circumvent the invidious gender discrimination we have today related to the marriage law.

 

http://stuff.digitalock.com/Will.I.Am-AlexOnTheSpot.mp3

On so many levels it doesn't matter. Since the beginning of time elders have been taking care of youngers.

http://stuff.digitalock.com/The_Corries_Cam_Ye_Oer_Frae_France.mp3

Adoption of stranded kids is the most normal thing in the universe.

 

While I support the argument that we should remove the "legal institution of marriage" and treat marriage as a contract under contract law which is non-discriminatory the fact is that the legal institution does exist and it provides certain benefits and privileges to those that can legally marry. As long as such government benefits and priviledges exist then any couple that chooses to marry should be allowed to as every individual is entitled to equal protection under the law.

 

I agree. Until then, however, same-sex couples must be treated equally under the law. If anything, as the government marriage license expands, it will reach the point where everyday people will start questioning whether or not it should even exist.

The point of marriage in the legal sense is not necessarily to rear children. Regardless, homosexuals can raise children. Same-sex couples can adopt children, gay men can use surrogates, and lesbian women can buy sperm.

In addition, visitation rights have nothing to do with children, nor does the notion of joint-filing of taxes. There are plenty of legal benefits that don't require children at all, but are still beneficial to couples. Knowing this, to suggest marriage means nothing outside of children is nonsensical. Maybe from a religious point of view its all about procreation, but as far as the law as concerned procreation is irrelevant. And the law is what matters when talking about a legal license.

 

If the rights and privileges granted in civil unions are completely equal to those of marriage, why create the distinction? Why create both civil unions and marriage licenses when from a legal standpoint the two are fully identical? It makes no sense, and suggests an inherent discriminatory nature. Do we called interracial marriages "interracial unions?" Or marriages between people of a large age difference something else? We do not, nor should we. The law is to be indiscriminate.

 

As with several others on here, I tend to support the idea of the government only issuing civil unions and allowing private groups to give marriages. Though, instead of taking a bias approach, there is a more logical and scientific way to approach this issue. We can determine whether different types of marriages are truly equal by analyzing two hypothetical extremes.

Let's consider a civilization consisting of only heterosexuals. This allows for procreation and has been the most accepted form of intimacy throughout the history of mankind. Having two human beings different sexes in an intimate relationship also gives us a challenge to overcome physical and hormonal differences. This could possibly have its negative effects (just look at recent divorce rates), but it forces us to better understand the opposite sex and know how to work together with these differences. Having to overcome this challenge may even help all other types of human interaction.

A civilization of only homosexuals could cause some conflict between the sexes. Not to mention that it would cease to exist since no one can reproduce.

The fact is that marriage has always been symbolic of a family and has an impact to how children are raised. Throughout the entire history of mankind, the mother and father of each family unit have had unique roles when it comes to raising children and providing for the family. This symbolism is most likely the reason for the stereotype of sometimes acknowledging a feminine and masculine member of a homosexual relationship.

Most advocates of gay marriage rights direct the fight toward the religious institutions. Unfortunately for them, religion is not the only enemy to their cause. Based on the reasoning above, the acceptance of homosexual relationships could have a profound impact to the future of our society. How the law should view gay marriage is not as black and white as other human rights issues that we have overcome in the past. Whether one considers their religious belief, laws of nature, the symbolic meaning of the traditional family structure, or the future effects on society, the two different types of marriages are simply not equal...

So should they be treated equal? And should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children? Based on the reasoning above, I would think we need to prove that sexual orientation is determined by genetics before we label them as equal. And to be honest... that's never going to happen. While there may be some sort of gene linked to people who are gay, it's impossible to prove that this is the case 100% of the time. It most definitely can be an acquired behavior.

 

They want to be seen as a couple and have the same rights

 

They just want the same tax structure if they're doing that bothersome process of raising kids, which are expensive, but yes there is the next generation, which most people here don't care about. In Sweden they worry about how to pay the cost of long-living elderly, but not here.

Otherwise they're hooped on the romantic notion that being married before God means God would have anything much to worry about it other than His war against Lucifer.

I mean, come on. Do you serously think God gives a rats a*s about how humans sort themselves out insolong as it does not threaten His war against Lucifer.

Prior to about 9,000 years ago, before the days of courts and justice, humans survived by killing idiot-evils through a process of violent combat... and somehow the species advanced... and somehow f*gs survived.

Speaking of which, how much does it bug you hill-billies to know it was a British f*g to cut the second world war down by two years by being the one to break the Enigma code?

Did you know that England had addopted a policy of exporting bad tempered people to the southern US instead of hanging them? Did you know that behavioral studied have shown that kids get 87% of their attitude came via their genetic parents, even if they'd never met those parents, and only 37% of attitude came from addopted parents? England stopped hanging all the malocontents, and just shipped them to the south, to stop the Spanish movement up from Florida.

 

Your argument is fallacious to begin with. There will never be an entirely heterosexual, nor homosexual society. Can you imagine how disastrous both of those would be? If we had an entirely heterosexual population, humans would breed to the point of starvation, as there would be far too many of us to sustain. If we had an entirely homosexual population, no one would breed. Neither one has ever been, nor will ever be, reality. Nature has a built-in balance to prevent both disasters. Why people like you can't see this, is beyond me.

As to your point about adoption- we've been raising kids for a very long time, and they're just fine.

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

 

Government's CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION is exactly that - a form of 'civil union'. Changing the name from 'marriage' to 'civil union' is unnecessary.

“Hypothetical extremes” are not reflective of the everyday reality of most marriages. They are therefore not actually very informative. Moreover, government recognition of marriages is not predicated on marriages being identical, but on the parties to marriages being similarly situated to each other in their ability to mutually consent to the agreement to form such a union without coercion. There is substantial diversity among heterosexually married couples; they are hardly all equal to each other in economic stability, interpersonal harmony, equity of partnership, espoused values, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Speculation backed up by…nothing. Also pointless, since we don’t live in a civilization comprised exclusively of homosexuals. There is no reason to think that providing equality to same-sex couples would somehow set us on a path to become such a civilization, either. The argument is basically a slippery slope fallacy, introduced for the purpose of fearmongering.

Utterly false statement. Homosexuals are not sterile, and many continue to reproduce through a variety of methods. This illustrates a classic error in approaching the subject of homosexuality: viewing it exclusively in terms of sexual behavior, and viewing reproduction as exclusively the product of sexual intercourse between persons of opposite sexes. So long as men and women exist who are capable of producing the necessities of reproduction (sperm and ova) – even in the completely unrealistic scenario of them all being homosexual in orientation – the means exists for the species to be renewed (and that is true even if it comes down to gay men and lesbians engaging in sexual intercourse with each other for the purpose of reproduction alone).

Roles which are not universal from culture to culture. Matriarchal societies have existed, as have those which view family in broader terms than father + mother + biological children.

No, that stereotype is just a case of heterosexuals projecting their lives onto homosexuals. While it is true that relationships often have a more dominant and more submissive partner, that doesn’t mean that feminine = passive and masculine = dominant. Moreover, same-sex couples often adopt much more flexible roles than their heterosexual counterparts, who have been socialized with the masculine, dominant man/feminine, passive female paradigm. Our relationships are not a mere aping of heterosexuality.

On the contrary, many religious groups are at the forefront of the attack on homosexuality, because they view it as a ‘sin’ or incompatible with the tenets of their religion. It doesn’t stop at marriage.

You are engaging in a false stereotyping of gay people as anti-religion. Some certainly are anti-religion (and that’s hardly surprising, given the attacks on homosexuality by religious institutions), while many are themselves religious. Gay people have a diversity of religious beliefs, just like straight people.

This is not news.

I wouldn’t characterize it as reasonable.

Such as? Don't bore us with vague crap. If you're going to argue that "homosexual relationships could have a profound impact", then I'm going to require you to spell out in specific terms what you imagine that impact to be.

Some people are easily persuaded by their own ridiculous hypotheticals and plainly false statements, reinforcing their prejudices. The vision of others is not so easily impaired, as they see right through it.

When one considers that the arguments were crafted to support a preconceived conclusion, rather than an honest examination of practical reality…

Religious belief? “Laws of nature”? Symbolic meaning? These have zip to do with examining the question of legal equality.

As a matter of legal recognition, yes.

Ridiculous. What does genetics have to do with who is or isn’t fit to parent children? If we proved that alcoholism was genetic, would that mean alcoholics are equally good candidates for adopting children? If we fail to show that left-handedness is genetic, would that be a basis for saying that left-handed people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt?

But why stop at adoption? If the idea is that homosexuals shouldn’t raise children, are you prepared to advocate for a law that criminalizes homosexuals’ having children through whatever means of reproduction are available to them, including sexual intercourse between gay men and lesbians? Should a gay parent have to surrender their biological children merely because they have a same-sex orientation, or are living with a same-sex partner?

Well, there it is – “acquired behavior”. No one said that homosexual behavior was genetic. In fact, I won’t even argue that same-sex orientation (as distinct from behavior) is genetic. However, the failure to prove that homosexual orientation has a genetic cause is not proof of any other theory of how it arises, and most definitely not proof that same-sex orientation would be a matter of choice or something “acquired”.

 

So gay people aren't using assisted reproduction and surrogacy to have children? Your statement is false.

 

Of course. I was just playing to the extremes. I think you know what I meant.

 

Reinforcing someone's idiocy by agreeing with it doesn't strike me as a very useful strategy.

 

I think playing to the extremes is like fighting fire with fire. A purely heterosexual society is just as bad as one that is purely homosexual. Balance is far better. Do you disagree with that statement?

 

I'm not persuaded that we really can know whether an exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual society would be good or bad. My opinion is that it's pointless to speculate since it's extremely unlikely to ever happen.

 

That was my point.

 

I disagree. It has more to do with taxes than anything else. You can have kids and raise them effectively without the parents being married.