Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I expect sexuality to not be a factor in any dealings not related to sexuality

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think you are confusing a legal issue with a sexual one. Many married people do not have sex at all. Many unmarried people do have sex. Many heterosexual married couples have "unnatural" or "non-procreative" sex. Issues of sexuality and what people consider "normal" have nothing to do with the legal protections of marriage, which is what homosexuals want and what the OP was addressing.

I don't think homosexuals care if you think their sexuality is perverse or if the church won't recognize their union. But they would like to be able to leave their inheritance to their loved one, or act as a health care proxy for them, or any of the other rights us "normal" people take for granted.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I think you are confusing a legal issue with a sexual one. Many married people do not have sex at all. Many unmarried people do have sex. Many heterosexual married couples have "unnatural" or "non-procreative" sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am well aware of this. I still maintain that the issue of marriage is related to sexuality.

[ QUOTE ]
Issues of sexuality and what people consider "normal" have nothing to do with the legal protections of marriage, which is what homosexuals want and what the OP was addressing.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the legal protections were only related to the couple, then I'd be OK with it. Trouble is, marriage involves more than just two adults. It is the buliding block for a family which involves children.

I didn't see anywhere in the OP where children were explicity mentioned which IMO is unfortunate because the issue is complex enough to warrant specific attention.

If the important stuff is just the tax benefits, inheritance issues (from partner to partner, not partner to children), and other legal issues affecting only the adults, why not just demand "equivalent to marriage" status on those? Why go for the whole nine yards and demand full marriage?

BTW I'm also OK with the state getting out of the marriage business altogether, which I believe is acceptable to most of the gay community.

[TheScientist]

In 100 years society will look back at the gay marriage issue and wonder what in the world took us so long. It will be a bit of an embarassment, in fact.
There is no reason two consenting adults should be denied the benefits of the marriage contract. Calling it 'marriage' is probably the biggest point of dispute. For a married heterosexual couple, it probably doesn't sit right that two men or women could unite and profess to have something as intimate as a marriage. Here's the thing though; individually, you don't have to recognize it. If you're religious, you know that God does not see this union as equal to your marriage. That's fine for people to think that way, it is not fine, however, to impose one's personal values on two consenting adults who are not harming anyone.

[TheScientist]

[ QUOTE ]
If the legal protections were only related to the couple, then I'd be OK with it. Trouble is, marriage involves more than just two adults. It is the buliding block for a family which involves children.

I didn't see anywhere in the OP where children were explicity mentioned which IMO is unfortunate because the issue is complex enough to warrant specific attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexual partners don't tend to reproduce, so that takes care of most of it. Exceptions abound, of course. I'd be interested in knowing if the adopted children of gay couples are more likely to be gay than your typical adopted child.

More likely the fear is that, 'with all these gay couples around, my children are going to think it is okay to be gay as well'. But sexuality is a strong biological pull, not an eny-meeny-miny-mo choosing of sides. In the rare case that your child does turn out to be gay, it will be highly destructive if you've always told them that such behavoir is 'deviant and immoral'. In the more probable scenario that they are straight, you are only perputating the rampant homophobia in this country.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
If the important stuff is just the tax benefits, inheritance issues (from partner to partner, not partner to children),

[/ QUOTE ]

Or partner to children. There are gay couples with children.

[ QUOTE ]
Trouble is, marriage involves more than just two adults. It is the buliding block for a family which involves children.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Marriage involves 2 adults.

As I've mentioned before, my wife and I do not have children nor do we plan to. Are we married? Yes. Are we a family? Yes, regardless of your opinion. Do we get all the legal rights heterosexual couples who have children get? Yes. And so should homosexual couples.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
In 100 years society will look back at the gay marriage issue and wonder what in the world took us so long. It will be a bit of an embarassment, in fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

My version has society looking back at a major war and wondering why the two warring sides couldn't have settled their disputes without so much bloodshed. Lack of foresight and/or intelligence is the current favorite to be the consensus reason.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
More likely the fear is that, 'with all these gay couples around, my children are going to think it is okay to be gay as well'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not it at all. I'm not terribly worried if one or two of my children ends up being homosexual. Really. This is one of the reasons we're expecting number 4 right now, hoping to take it up to about 8 or so.

My concerns relate to what shape society takes in the future and what the predominant values are, gays' status being just one of many related issues.

It's about whether we get our purpose from a higher place and do our best to satisfy that, or whether we just do whatever feels good without regard to the wider-reaching ramifications.

For example, a society needs to plan for the future, with part of the plan dealing with the succession of its members after death. Promoting and legitimizing homosexuality cannot be consistent with such a plan as it contributes to a decline in the population. One could argue that the world is overpopulated as it is, so a decline can't hurt. To that my answer is: let other societies decline, not ours.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
My concerns relate to what shape society takes in the future and what the predominant values are


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope the predominant values include respect and equal treatment for all, and an end to prejudice against all minorities including gays.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a society needs to plan for the future, with part of the plan dealing with the succession of its members after death. Promoting and legitimizing homosexuality cannot be consistent with such a plan as it contributes to a decline in the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is backwards thinking. It assumes that treating homosexuals as equal members of society would somehow stop heterosexuals from having children.

In what way would you expect legitimizing gay unions to lead to a decline in heterosexual birth rates? I am curious.

Changes in the education and status of women, as well as increased overall wealth of the people, have far more effect on birth rates than whether gay couples get to call themselves married or not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More likely the fear is that, 'with all these gay couples around, my children are going to think it is okay to be gay as well'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not it at all. I'm not terribly worried if one or two of my children ends up being homosexual. Really. This is one of the reasons we're expecting number 4 right now, hoping to take it up to about 8 or so.
My concerns relate to what shape society takes in the future and what the predominant values are, gays' status being just one of many related issues.

It's about whether we get our purpose from a higher place and do our best to satisfy that, or whether we just do whatever feels good without regard to the wider-reaching ramifications.

For example, a society needs to plan for the future, with part of the plan dealing with the succession of its members after death. Promoting and legitimizing homosexuality cannot be consistent with such a plan as it contributes to a decline in the population. One could argue that the world is overpopulated as it is, so a decline can't hurt. To that my answer is: let other societies decline, not ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, no offense, but thats hilarious. Are you seriously having 8 kids for the purpose of 'covering all your bases,' just in case a few of them turn out gay? Thats what you seem to be implying. Hey, they're your kids, do whatever you want, but man, that is hilarious to me.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, no offense, but thats hilarious. Are you seriously having 8 kids for the purpose of 'covering all your bases,' just in case a few of them turn out gay?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it's ONE of the reasons, among many others. It's the ole' theory of not putting all of one's eggs in one basket. I don't see what's so funny about that, but if you want to have a laugh, have a good one.