What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples? Part 3

My answer needs to be brief as I'm working on a very important project right now.

I think your fears are unfounded. We already have many cases of adoption and surrogacy among heterosexual parents. Some people want to be sperm donors without becoming fathers. Some people want to be surrogates without becoming mothers. The gender make up of the couple the child ends with is less important than the amount of love and care they show.

Realistically I think the following will happen.

Most gay men will use the marriage contract in much the same way as elderly couples do, a way to merge assets etc. Most of the "benefits' they will derive will come from giving less of what they own to the government in the form of gift taxes inheritances taxes etc.

Some may chose to become parents but my guess is that number will remain relative low. I also think, in time, there will be less gay couples raising kids from previous heterosexual couplings because gays will feel less pressure to conform to the kinds of societal norms that push them into unsuitable relationships in the first place.

I think the proportion of lesbian couples is also not likely to change that much. While I think they will parent at a higher rate than gay men, the fact that they are currently willing to do so in states that have the most hostile attitude to the LBGT people indicates to me that the presence or lack of state sanction will not sway them in their aims or alter the number raising kids to any significant degree.

I think of FAR greater concern is the fact that people overall are going to be raising kids at a much lower rate than they are now. Increasingly couples are working more-and-more hours for less-and-less pay. Expensive benefits such as healthcare (especially in the US) are becoming more the purview of the employee than the employer as people are fired and re-hired as contractors etc or if it's just not offered at all. Both parties in most households regardless of gender, often have to hold down full time jobs just to pay the rent/mortgage and other bills. Further education costs are spiraling throughout the western world.

As a result people are choosing to have kids later and later or even not at all.

I think that should be of far greater concern to you that the small proportion of the 2-3% of lesbians/gays in the population choosing to marry and the even smaller proportion of them electing to raise children.

 

If your real concern is with the morality of sperm donor-ship or surrogacy, then the a more direct, effective, and honest approach would be to propose legislation concerning those practices -- not marriage.

Disagree that if a same sex couple marries, some child will be denied a relationship with their birth parents that he or she would otherwise have? I don't even see a basis for making that claim much less a need to deny it. It's absurd.

The thing I find frustrating here is folks supporting a law that will directly and explicitly prevent American's from exercising equal rights under the law because of strange and unrelated fears, when those folks don't seem to be willing to argue legislation to address those fears directly.

If you feel the law should protect children from being raised by someone other than their birth parents, argue a restriction against that. Denying a couple the right to marry does harm unnecessarily and fails to accomplish what you are claiming is your goal.

 

You've succeeded only in making yourself look dishonest. I never even attempted to define "gay culture". You asked me to spell out the risky behaviors I alluded to, and in that context, I did so. To suggest that I offered that as my complete definition of "gay culture" is just not true, and you're smart enough to know that.

OK, I think that's a valid point, and it offers some understanding. But denying that the problem is a part of homosexual culture doesn't further understanding or help address it.

I made no effort to tar "all gay people" in any way. Again, I was simply answering the question. I never claimed that "all gay people", or even most engage in these behaviors. Not all young black people listen to rap music, but I thinks it's fair to say that rap music is a part of young black culture.

Then you haven't been listening. I've been very clear in saying that I don't think the State should be encouraging homosexual parenting arrangements as this will leave a child without one or both of his parents. This is what SS marriage will lead to.

More of this? "I'm such a victim..." You might consider how much of your own suffering is self-inflicted. And if you feel I have no valid point, you're welcome to ignore me or not respond. You're just not being reasonable in any case.

It's not bait. The standard has never been "whoever befits my orientation".

Of course you have no obligation to be nice. But you seem to view anyone who opposes SS marriage as some evil despot twisting his mustache plotting the demise of all homosexuals. It's a jaded perspective, and sad, really.

 

Given that the long-term romantic relationships in question almost always involve sexual proclivity, this is false. A homosexual is no more likely to form a lasting, romantic and caring relationship with the opposite sex than a heterosexual is to do with the same sex. The two concepts are intertwined.

True, the reduction of the spread of STD's is the only benefit I can imagine DIRECTLY related to sexual proclivity, but it's certainly not the only benefit related to long-term romantic relationships which involve sexual proclivity. There's no reason the benefits of such relationships should not be a consideration as well.

 

"Romantic"???? Yes, most "romantic" relationships involve sex, but what does Romance have to do with stable homes? Probably more stable homes made up of closely related adults than there are stable homes made up of two homosexuals. If you want to limit marriage to "romantic" couples, youll need some justification that is rationally related to the stated governmental interset.

 

And I think most people are smart enough to see that risky behavior was your ONLY reference to "gay culture", and make the reasonable inference that you only see gay people and the gay subculture in a negative light.

Making it your sole focus in order to demonize gay people doesn't further understanding or help address those issues either. Be honest, you only offered it as a means to an end - that end being to perpetuate anti-gay stereotypes.

I see no reason to believe you're the least bit concerned with our health.

And I'm a Vermiscious K'nid.

Context matters, and we all know what the context was of your remarks about gay people.

Disgusting premise. Same-sex parents aren't depriving a child of anything. They are the child's effective parents, and often one is the biological parent. I guess you must be opposed to straight couples adopting as well, since that also "deprives" a child of its biological parents. That's how much sense your argument makes. A safe an nurturing environment is far more important to a child's chances of success in life than a relationship with its biological parents.

And you might consider taking your argument and...

Nevermind. So not worth it.

It is, however, a very important factor in how most people choose a marriage partner. One wonders what your arguments would be were the shoe on the other foot.

It's a perspective shaped by almost 50 years of experience, borne about by daily confirmation from conversations with condescending (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s blind to their own superiority complexes. I never said anything about "plotting the demise of all homosexuals", though there's no shortage of people advocating exactly that sort of thing, either.

 

As opposed to what? The limit on marriage to "those who could produce children so we can ensure they are provided for"? I mean, except for the fact that infertile couples can marry, as can convicted child rapists who will have their children taken from them. This limit is not very well established in law...

In any event, to answer the question, let's look again at the benefits of romantic relationships I mentioned:

1. General happiness and wellbeing of the individuals, supporting their mental health.

Certainly your family can make you happy too, but is that enough? There's a reason people go out and seek romantic relationships. It's a different sort of love and happiness. It's different from the relationships people have with their own families. I'm pretty sure if only my mother loved me and I could not find a romantic parter, I'd be pretty unhappy.

2. The individuals will care for each other emotionally, financially and physically.

Certainly family does this too... but not in quite the same way, and it's not mutually exclusive... You already have your family, but by getting involved with a romantic relationship, you get both your family AND your spouse for support.

And it's not just that... when two people join together romantically, that unites not just the individuals, but also the families of the individuals. Romance creates large support networks that families alone can't do. At the drop of the hat, my partner could call any of my family members for help if he needed. If he was sick, my family would assist me in assisting him. If he needed emotional or financial advice, my entire family is at his disposal. And he is at their disposal.

In addition, consider the depth of the emotional, financial and physical involvement that romantically involved partners have for each other. Not just ANY couple achieves this. There's things people would talk about with their romantic partner that they'd never talk about with their friends or family. Rarely do family members want to tie themselves together legally and financially, but this is what happens in a marriage among romantically involved partners. And as much as I love my mother's chicken soup, I don't always want to take advantage of her... my partner is my first line of defense and support when I'm sick.

3. The loving, committed relationship offers a stable home for children.

Not just any "couple" is suitable to create a good environment for raising children. Romantic relationships offer the support of both parents, and both parent's family support networks for the child.

Certainly we often end up with mother and grandmothers raising a child together. But this does not imply that they should, or even want to get married. Marriage creates legal and financial ties that don't make sense for such a mother and grandmother... marriage is designed for romantic couples that would WANT that level of unity. It's a fundamentally different type of relationship that most aspects of marriage doesn't apply to. This doesn't mean that the mother and grandmother should not have any form of legal or financial support for raising a child, but Marriage is not suitable for that purpose.

Consider that children are almost always born or adopted into romantic relationships. The more romantic relationships among those who would adopt, the better. This does not hold true for just ANY couple. It's romantic couples that create the type of environment and support networks we want children to grow up in. Again, a mother and grandmother may end up raising a child, but that doesn't mean that they WANTED to (it was probably because the father left), and it doesn't mean that the mother and grandmother want to get married.... marriage supports romantic relationships.



Long story short, romantic relationships are a unique and powerful form of relationship. Romantic relationships enhance and grow families. Romantic relationships provide emotional, financial and physical support well beyond what we expect from our family and other forms of relationships. Romance and the benefits it provides is a value to the state, a value to the individuals, a value to all the family of the individuals, and a value to their community.

 

It doesnt "ensure" but instead makes it more likely and yes. Only heterosexual couples produce children who can benefit from a stable home with both their mother and father to provide and care for them. A rational relation between the distinction used and the stated governmental interest. On the othe hand, "romantic" couples are not the only couples who can benefit from a stable home, because reducing the spread of STDs is NOT the only benefit of a stable home.

 

So you agree the law is not narrowly applied, and that it could be made more narrow? Laws should be both narrow and sufficient in their execution, so it's an important point... not narrowly achieving the purpose can be a red flag that the purpose in question is just a smoke screen, or at least not the only purpose.

Agreed, romantic couples are not the only couples who benefit from stable homes. Which completely misses the point.

The point was that it's the romance that creates the stable home in the first place. Just because other couples benefit from a stable home, doesn't mean that their form of being a couple can create it. It's the caring, support and commitment between romantically involved couples that creates the stability, and benefits the individuals, their family, and the community in the several ways I mentioned. Supporting romantic relationships thus has value to the individuals and society beyond supporting any other form of couple (or individual). Romantic couples provide unique benefits to themselves and society that not just any couple (or individual) can create.

Consider also that "any other couple" would likely not want marriage in the first place. The legal and financial ties that marriage brings makes it unattractive for anyone besides those who have the type of commitment to each other, such that romantically involved couples do. Marriage is an institution designed for romance, it's not designed for just any couple.

 

Sooooo romance by itself creates stable homes, but we need all these governmental tax breaks and entitlements to encourage and aid romantic couples to create stable homes????? Stable homes arent important for mothers and fathers to raise their children together but are instead important for a cozy place for romantic couples to rub genitals. Its not

because it helps create a better enviroment for our children but is instead Marriage and ROMANCE are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race because it cause us to form stable households.... sooo government must encourage and subsidize the formation of these stable households that romance creates????? Makes no sense.

I think precisely the opposite is the case. Heterosexual romance doesnt have much tendency to form stable households at all, but it has a strong tendency to create children who can most benefit from a stable home with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them.

 

Nonsense, considering that marriage between a man and a woman is as old as civilization itself, and the ability to medically determine the actual potential of procreation of a specific heterosexual couple, AND more importantly, the ability to medically determine the paternity of a child, is a new invention. Marriage hasnt for thousands of years been limited to heterosexuals with the intent of excluding the homosexuals, but has instead been so limited to include the only couples who could conceivably procreate, the heterosexiuals.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_semper_certa_est

Not because homosexuals are icky but instead because only heterosexuals procreate. But that is exactly the judicial fiction that has been used by the courts to create a right to gay marriage. Marriage, the foundation of the nuclear family for thousands of years, has been transformed into institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals that cant be tolerated.

 

Just doesn't matter, as you believe it does. Simple as that.

 

Marriage does a lot more than give tax breaks. Marriage facilitates many legal processes that promote and support the romantic couple.

So what you're saying is people marry to form stable homes? Ridiculous... if that was the case, ANYONE would marry for ANY reason. Which is not the case. Virtually all marriages are a product of people wanting to marry to recognize, formalize and support their ROMANTIC relationship.

 

Yes, and society should never adapt to the culture and technology of the times....

Marriage hasn't for thousands of years been anything like it is today. Civil marriage is a rather new concept to begin with, as opposed to religious or purely ceremonial marriage. It's part of a complicated mess of legal structures we deal with the likes of which has never existed in the past. Marriage was rarely regulated by anything but perhaps a church. Marriage for most of history represented a transfer of ownership of the woman and breeding rights to her, where children were most certainly expected. Marriage was frequently limited to only people of the same race or social status. Marriage was often arranged, negotiated and bargained. Just suffice it to say, Civil marriage has little in common today with its origins.

 

That would be the governmental "entitlements", like I said. What pointless irrelevancy you glom on to in a pathetic attempt to appear as if you have something rational to respond with

Noooo, government encourages marriage to foster the formation of stable homes. Individual couples marry for a wide variety of reasons.

 

????Nooooo, the limitation to a man and a woman in civil marriage was identical to the limitation of religious marriage. And civil marriage is as old as the institution itself. From BC Roman law

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

 

Which is exactly one reason that society benefits from homosexual couples being allowed to marry.

You reasoning, however clear in your own mind keeps pointing back to that reality; others reading about the same can see that and come to the same conclusion.

 

Society would benefit from stable homes made up of any two consenting adults. Nothing special about those couples who happen to be homosexual.

I completely recognize the advantage of homosexual couples in stable households, as opposed to the alternative of unstable households. It is you who cant recognize the reality that couples made up of any two consenting adults creates the same advantage. It doesnt only apply to couples who rub genitals, or "romantic" if you prefer because romance creates stable homes. The advantage of stable homes isnt only a benefit when couples are sexual because only then it helps prevent the spread of disease.

Absurd logic to argue that the uniqueness of heterosexual couples ability to procreate doesnt justify special treatment for heterosexual couples, but the uniqueness of sexual couples, both hetero and homo, potential of spreading STDs, OR ability to form stable households some how DOES justify special treatment for sexual couples.

There is a wide variety of stable households out there made up of two consenting adults, other than men and women in a sexual relationship. Homosexual couples are but a small portion of those stable households. They benefit from a stable home, no more than these other couples that are not homosexual benefit from a stable home. They are no more better suited to forming stable households than these other couples that are not homosexual are suited to forming stable households. They are no more in need of stable homes than these other couples that are not homosexual are in need of stable homes. You need SOME justification for special treatment for sexual couples. SOME rational relation between the distinction used to discriminate and the stated governmental interest.

 

Who mentioned that homosexuals were "special"; you seem to have posited that notion (and frequently so).

Anyone should.

If you actually think that, then you are mistaken. (Where in my dialogue have I given you such an idea?)

Love and dedication is far more than some 'friction' between the genitals of consenting parties. I'm certain you must realise that.

No, not always.

Of course. And keep in mind that being homosexual doesn't necessarily suggest better/worse outcomes. That really needs to be said.

There are special needs for those who DO have children (whether gay or straight); there are tax incentives and various rights concerning custody etc. So, I can see where you might say the above is important; of course.

Families have traditionally received certain 'particulars' in the form of legal rights and financial support in America. Even so, many homosexual couples similarly situated as heterosexual are... should and do receive certain benefits which single people do not. I don't see where "homosexual" or "heterosexual" makes any real difference here.

Yes. Even so, the status of the initial "couple", is of concern to the State as well. Thus, the "marriage" of the consenting parties is a significant legal aspect. It doesn't diminish the special recognition or benefits associated with adoption children or creating your own.

And red-haired couples are but a small portion of those stable households. Okay... got it. What's your primary point?

Of course.

(See the above.)

Who are YOU to say that? Marriage has meaning (legally and emotionally) for virtually ALL couples who commit to the same. Do you see the needs/benefits I'm referring to, or are you oblivious to them?

No, not really. A couple who makes the commitment to MARRY legally, are justified by the same. How is it you do not or cannot come around to making sense of that? I'm curious about your mindset or embraced meme.

I've explained it well enough above. Still, I doubt we would agree; even if I had a direct mind-link with you to communicate my thoughts. In between us (somewhere), there would likely be "DISAGREE" indicated in something.

 

marriage has only been limitted to a man and a woman in the eyes of the law, since the 1970's.

BC roman law has no relevance to 21st century US.

 

Use of the term "marriage", limited it to a man and a woman. 1970s was just the first time gays started to challenge it in the US. And from California statute in 1872

 

Academically, there is possibly some relevance... but not in the practical application of law today.

 

We werent talking about the application of the law today and were instead discussing the claim that

Civil marriage predates Christian marriage. Always, limited to a man and a woman.

 

nope. marriage was not limitted to a man and a woman in the law until the 1970's. the california statute does not limit it to a man and a woman only

 

nope............