Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[_Abyssinia]

Slavery has been the norm for societies for thousands of years, through differing cultures and countries. This is not a good argument, merely a statement of the historical situation.

Slavery is often said to be a product of poverty, and in fact, marriage can bring people out of poverty. Marriage has been said to be ‘America’s no. 1 weapon against childhood poverty.’ Reduction in poverty likely means there is a reduction in slavery so the comparison you make actually shows the importance and value of marriage in society, and why it is so important to keep it in high accord and to not mess with the definition.

Slavery in many places is maligned, wheras marriage is a celebrated institution.

You defend marriage by attacking marriage? You are assuming your answer in your argument, so the argument fails.

Kolasinski uses the fertility argument, yet he fails to argue for the automatic divorce of all women past their menopause. That shows that he is not sincere in his argument.

Post menopausal or infertile couples are the exception, not the rule, for most hetrosexual couples getting married. The ‘What is marriage’ link I posted has a very good section on infertility in regards to marriage that I have posted before.

They start by assuming that marriage is heterosexual marriage only, and come to the conclusion that same sex marriage isn’t proper marriage. Assuming their conclusion again. Why did you pick such a weak paper to quote?

How many heterosexual couples do you know who got divorced because homosexual couples are allowed to marry in some places?

rossum

From the polling, it appears there is a correlation between belief in the importance of marriage in countries which have legalised homosexual marriage, compared to countries which have not legalised homosexual marriage.

In his opinion upholding traditional marriage in Nevada, Judge Robert Jones noted that it was ‘conceivable’ that a ‘meaningful percentage of hetrosexual persons’ would not see marriage as important if it was redefined and the repercussions that would have for society.

 

[rossum]

Slavery in many places is maligned, wheras marriage is a celebrated institution.

Yet both are common institutions in history. Slavery shows that the argument from history (we’ve always done it this way before) is not a useful argument. The way it was done before may, or may not, have been good.

Post menopausal or infertile couples are the exception, not the rule, for most hetrosexual couples getting married.

Just so. Same-sex marriage is also an exception. What is your reason for allowing one group of exceptions but not the other exception? What good legal reason do you have to differentiate between different types of infertile couples?

In his opinion upholding traditional marriage in Nevada, Judge Robert Jones noted that it was ‘conceivable’ that a ‘meaningful percentage of hetrosexual persons’ would not see marriage as important if it was redefined and the repercussions that would have for society.

I would need to see statistics on that from states/countries where same sex marriage has been legalised.

rossum

 

[Monkey1976]

And you do not think that extra money to help raising (adopted) children is of benefit to society?

You assume that same-sex couples will adopt, the morality of which is a separate argument.

As opposed to the unnatural structure of an orphanage, where they have neither mother nor father. Half a loaf…

Orphanages are no longer part of the US adoption process. In actuality, parents looking to adopt an infant or toddler have to sit on a waiting list for some time due to the lack of children available for adoption. In the case of group homes where older children might be living prior to adoption, the situation is never presented as normal or natural.

Agreed. There are unhappy single people and there are unhappily married couples, of the same and opposite sexes. That is why it was “pursuit” and not “guarantee” of happiness.

So a homosexual person is just as free to pursue happiness in states where their “marriage” would not have legal recognition.

It is estimated that marriage confers about 1,000 benefits. That is 999 other pieces of paper per couple that do not have to be administered any longer.

Do you really want to hang your argument on paperwork reduction? How many lawsuits have been filed against people exercising their right to not participate in a same-sex “wedding”? How much more paperwork will be required to change the forms used as a marriage license? How much paperwork will be required to drive those who oppose the incentivization of homosexual activity from their jobs as bakers, photographers, judges, clerks, etc?

Then we are not simply discussing marriage any more. Sexual activity, both heterosexual and homosexual, does take place outside marriage.

True, it does. However, the benefits attached to marriage act as incentive for sexual activity within that context, because children are the natural result of such and a stable marriage is the ideal environment for a child. For male-female couples, the reason for the incentive is obvious - children. What reasons exist to incentivize homosexual activity?

So, we make it illegal for all women past their menopause to have intercourse with anyone, because there is no reproductive benefit to society? That is where your logic leads. All those cancer survivors who are sterile because of intensive radiotherapy – no sex for them.

You are making a very weak argument here; there is a lot of sex where reproduction is either impossible or highly unlikely. There are many other reasons for people to have sex.

rossum

For any given male or female, there is no 100% accurate test for infertility beyond actual absence of the gonads. I personally know two couples whose doctors told them that they were sterile, and both couples now have natural children. Neither is there a fixed age for menopause in women - there are documented instances of women becoming pregnant through intercourse well into their 70s. So, in the interest of privacy, it is assumed that any male/female couple is fertile. Such as assumption is impossible for a male/male or female/female couple.

 

[rossum]

You assume that same-sex couples will adopt, the morality of which is a separate argument.

We are not discussing morality, we are discussing legality. I am Buddhist, so my morality already differs in some respects from yours. Legally same sex couples can adopt, and some do so.

So a homosexual person is just as free to pursue happiness in states where their “marriage” would not have legal recognition.

The US Supreme Court disagrees. Since we are discussing the law in Utah, then the USSC’s opinion carries a lot of weight.

What reasons exist to incentivize homosexual activity?

All that is not permitted is forbidden! If you support freedom, then you do not need a reason to allow something; you need a reason to disallow it. If you really need a positive reason, then how about equal treatment under the law, exactly the reason that Judge Shelby cited in his decision.

So, in the interest of privacy, it is assumed that any male/female couple is fertile.

No such assumption is made. There is no mention of fertility in the laws about marriage. Women with hysterectomies can get married. Men with orchidectomies can get married. Fertile couples are under no obligation to have children and may use contraception to ensure that they remain childless. Your argument here is spurious.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

And you do not think that extra money to help raising (adopted) children is of benefit to society?

As opposed to the unnatural structure of an orphanage, where they have neither mother nor father. Half a loaf…

Agreed. There are unhappy single people and there are unhappily married couples, of the same and opposite sexes. That is why it was “pursuit” and not “guarantee” of happiness.

It is estimated that marriage confers about 1,000 benefits. That is 999 other pieces of paper per couple that do not have to be administered any longer.

Then we are not simply discussing marriage any more. Sexual activity, both heterosexual and homosexual, does take place outside marriage.

So, we make it illegal for all women past their menopause to have intercourse with anyone, because there is no reproductive benefit to society? That is where your logic leads. All those cancer survivors who are sterile because of intensive radiotherapy – no sex for them.

You are making a very weak argument here; there is a lot of sex where reproduction is either impossible or highly unlikely. There are many other reasons for people to have sex.

rossum

You continue to base your arguments on complete ignorance of American realities. There are not thousands of unwanted children languishing away in orphanages hoping some nice gay couple will adopt them. In fact, in America stable married couples aren’t able to adopt children, they aren’t available. And how many of those “nice gay couples” are looking to adopt? This is why they got “married?” PUH-LEASE. At least don’t insult our intelligence. They want “marriage” to push and agenda and to get government benefits.

There is no benefit to society in allowing same sex couples to “marry.” If they wish to adopt or have visits in the hospital or any one of a number of contractual obligations, this can easily be arranged. In fact Catholic Charities had to get out of the adoption world in certain states because married couples could not be given any preference for the children.

As to the 1000 “benefits” that is a Lavender Mafia talking point list and if you were to look at it, you’d see that the vast majority are available to non-married couples. I think there are a few exceptions…Social Security benefits in the case of a non-working partner and not filing joint tax returns…which as we all know is an ADDED expense, not a benefit.

The demand for gay “marriage” is a selfish and self centered, agenda driven demand that renders the term marriage meaningless. It becomes little more than any arrangement the individuals wish to have supported by civil government rather than the ancient building block of society.

I believe Re Converted mentioned that ANYONE should be able to put together a civil partnership and that be distinguished from a religiously based sacramental marriage. That’s fine with me. I don’t give a rat’s patooty what people want to do in the privacy of their homes and if it works out that two friends or two siblings can maintain financial stability through this arrangement, fine with me. But don’t call this marriage because it’s not.

Lisa

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It’s fallacious if it’s being used as the sole reason to accept an anti-gay marriage argument, as I’ve stated twice.

My disagreement and basis have been explained in my last post.

Nice personal attack even while claiming that your comments aren’t for me.

It’s a factual statement, not personal at all. I don’t know you. A Catholic who argues for same sex “marriage” is not aligned with the teaching of the Catholic Church, unless you change your faith ID to Episcopalian or the American Catholic (as another poster, which still, understandably, confuses a lot of other posters).
,

 

[SeannyM]

You continue to base your arguments on complete ignorance of American realities. There are not thousands of unwanted children languishing away in orphanages hoping some nice gay couple will adopt them. In fact, in America stable married couples aren’t able to adopt children, they aren’t available. And how many of those “nice gay couples” are looking to adopt? This is why they got “married?” PUH-LEASE. At least don’t insult our intelligence. They want “marriage” to push and agenda and to get government benefits.

There is no benefit to society in allowing same sex couples to “marry.” If they wish to adopt or have visits in the hospital or any one of a number of contractual obligations, this can easily be arranged. In fact Catholic Charities had to get out of the adoption world in certain states because married couples could not be given any preference for the children.

As to the 1000 “benefits” that is a Lavender Mafia talking point list and if you were to look at it, you’d see that the vast majority are available to non-married couples. I think there are a few exceptions…Social Security benefits in the case of a non-working partner and not filing joint tax returns…which as we all know is an ADDED expense, not a benefit.

The demand for gay “marriage” is a selfish and self centered, agenda driven demand that renders the term marriage meaningless. It becomes little more than any arrangement the individuals wish to have supported by civil government rather than the ancient building block of society.

I believe Re Converted mentioned that ANYONE should be able to put together a civil partnership and that be distinguished from a religiously based sacramental marriage. That’s fine with me. I don’t give a rat’s patooty what people want to do in the privacy of their homes and if it works out that two friends or two siblings can maintain financial stability through this arrangement, fine with me. But don’t call this marriage because it’s not.

Lisa

You should come see the foster care system here in California. It’s a mess. Especially in San Diego County and LA county. The argument that children should be raised by a male-femal couple is fallacious for several reasons.

1. Gay couples were already allowed to adopt before marriage equality became law. All you’re doing by restricting marriage is denying those children the legal protections and stable household that are conferred when their parents are married.
2. Their are a lot of children in the foster-care system that are praying for adoption. Many of those never get to see that happen. Many of those children end up on the streets, in gangs, or involved in drugs.
3. There are many LGBT youth in the foster care system. Many of them prefer adoption by a same-sex couple because they’ve been deprived of the acceptance and recognition of their own sexual orientation. They want someone to tell them the truth, that they are not defective.

As for how many gay couples are looking to adopt, the answer is plenty. I’m actually one of them. But sadly, every gay couple who adopts has to recognize the fact that there is a good chance their child may suffer. Not because of some deprivation of a mother or father, but because of people who will insist on putting their family down, and telling them that their family isn’t as good as other families. Sadly, most who do this do it in the name of Christ. I do not believe that Christ would do this. The Christ I believe in would encourage these couples to continue offering their homes out of love, and to care for the littlest, and weakest among us.

Lastly, the phrase “Lavender Mafia” is pretty offensive. I could come up for a similar phrase for Roman Catholics, but I have too much respect for your beliefs to do that. Based on my experience of some on this forum, I would be amazed if you stopped using it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to let it happen without saying anything. Just remember, “you will know they are Christians by their love.”

 

[LisaA]

You should come see the foster care system here in California. It’s a mess. Especially in San Diego County and LA county. The argument that children should be raised by a male-femal couple is fallacious for several reasons.

1. Gay couples were already allowed to adopt before marriage equality became law. All you’re doing by restricting marriage is denying those children the legal protections and stable household that are conferred when their parents are married.
2. Their are a lot of children in the foster-care system that are praying for adoption. Many of those never get to see that happen. Many of those children end up on the streets, in gangs, or involved in drugs.
3. There are many LGBT youth in the foster care system. Many of them prefer adoption by a same-sex couple because they’ve been deprived of the acceptance and recognition of their own sexual orientation. They want someone to tell them the truth, that they are not defective.

As for how many gay couples are looking to adopt, the answer is plenty. I’m actually one of them. But sadly, every gay couple who adopts has to recognize the fact that there is a good chance their child may suffer. Not because of some deprivation of a mother or father, but because of people who will insist on putting their family down, and telling them that their family isn’t as good as other families. Sadly, most who do this do it in the name of Christ. I do not believe that Christ would do this. The Christ I believe in would encourage these couples to continue offering their homes out of love, and to care for the littlest, and weakest among us.

Lastly, the phrase “Lavender Mafia” is pretty offensive. I could come up for a similar phrase for Roman Catholics, but I have too much respect for your beliefs to do that. Based on my experience of some on this forum, I would be amazed if you stopped using it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to let it happen without saying anything. Just remember, “you will know they are Christians by their love.”

Lots of suppositions but a serious shortage of facts. The foster care system in EVERY state is a mess and there are many children in crisis. The reality is that many of them are NOT available for adoption. The state puts incredible resources into reuniting the children with a biological parent. Anyway this is just another White Rabbit, destined not to derail the thread. As you noted, gays could adopt before marriage and in fact were literally given preference over married couples in some states including my own. So once again you’ve not provided any compelling societal interest in allowing the definition of marriage to be morphed into an unrecognizable amorphous mess.

All children benefit from a mommy and a daddy. To claim that children experiencing SSA are better off with foster or adoptive parents who have the same issue is specious at best. Regardless of your sexual activity which should be irrelevant to the child, mothers and fathers bring different approaches, reactions and emotional responses that are far more important to a child’s future than justifying his/her sexual interests…yikes! There is way more to life than what you do with your genitals.

Oh and love means telling the truth even if it’s painful. Perhaps the term Lavender Mafia is inappropriate so I will return to saying Homosexualist Activists.

Again, what societal benefit is created by homosexuals calling themselves “married”? Traditional marriage has unique features that sets it apart from every other contractual relationship. But if the term “marriage” means no more than individuals stretching the term to cover any sort of self described “class” then it means nothing at all.

Lisa

 

[gracepoole]

Again, what societal benefit is created by homosexuals calling themselves “married”?

See this earlier post.

Oh and love means telling the truth even if it’s painful. Perhaps the term Lavender Mafia is inappropriate so I will return to saying Homosexualist Activists.

Why not “homosexual activists” rather than “homosexualist”? I only ever hear/read that term here and it’s always used in a pejorative fashion.

 

[LisaA]

“The Economic Benefits of Gay Marriage”

The “benefits” are a combination of suppositions, assumptions and made up stories. There are for example claims that allowing gays to marry allows them to be on the “spouse’s” health insurance. And who knew this was worth FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! Mercy as my granny used to say. They must have some pretty expensive benefit package. The claims also completely ignore that many if not most employers allow domestic partners to be included in benefit packages. So the incremental value of the tiny minority of a tiny minority of yet another minority getting additional benefits is worth this upheaval? Really…it reminds me of Obamacare…let’s spend millions on pointless and expensive marketing and administration of a new concept instead of spending a fraction of this amount to cover the few who are uninsurable…but hey when it comes to spending other people’s money…the sky is the limit!

Then there was the claim that same sex couples are “more likely” to go uninsured which is a complete fabrication without a single reference. In fact many studies and surveys indicate that same sex couples have a HIGHER standard of living than heterosexual couples. Same sex couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to have both parties employed. Again these are features of the lack of children in more same sex couples…the little dears do cost a fortune! Then there was an anecdote (not even claimed to be a true story) indicating one gay guy decides not to take a job offer because it’s into a state where he and his “husband” are not “married.” How this costs society remains a total mystery.

Quite lacking in anything but happy talk based on suppositions and assumptions. Again it’s clear that same sex “marriage” provides benefits, particularly government benefits, to the individuals involved but there is no real evidence that society benefits by gay “marriage” when virtually everything desired can and has been achieved without redefining marriage to suit the selfish desires of individuals.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

See this earlier post.

Why not “homosexual activists” rather than “homosexualist”? I only ever hear/read that term here and it’s always used in a pejorative fashion.

The “ist” means an advocate. I think it works well to distinguish between those who want to keep their private lives private and those who want public acknowledgment and approval for their sex practices. TMI IMO.

Lisa

 

[gracepoole]

The “benefits” are a combination of suppositions, assumptions and made up stories. There are for example claims that allowing gays to marry allows them to be on the “spouse’s” health insurance. And who knew this was worth FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! Mercy as my granny used to say. They must have some pretty expensive benefit package.The claims also completely ignore that many if not most employers allow domestic partners to be included in benefit packages. So the incremental value of the tiny minority of a tiny minority of yet another minority getting additional benefits is worth this upheaval? Really…it reminds me of Obamacare…let’s spend millions on pointless and expensive marketing and administration of a new concept instead of spending a fraction of this amount to cover the few who are uninsurable…but hey when it comes to spending other people’s money…the sky is the limit!

Then there was the claim that same sex couples are “more likely” to go uninsured which is a complete fabrication without a single reference. In fact many studies and surveys indicate that same sex couples have a HIGHER standard of living than heterosexual couples. Same sex couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to have both parties employed. Again these are features of the lack of children in more same sex couples…the little dears do cost a fortune! Then there was an anecdote (not even claimed to be a true story) indicating one gay guy decides not to take a job offer because it’s into a state where he and his “husband” are not “married.” How this costs society remains a total mystery.

Quite lacking in anything but happy talk based on suppositions and assumptions. Again it’s clear that same sex “marriage” provides benefits, particularly government benefits, to the individuals involved but there is no real evidence that society benefits by gay “marriage” when virtually everything desired can and has been achieved without redefining marriage to suit the selfish desires of individuals.

Lisa

You know, there are sources linked throughout that article…

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Ash-HealthInsuranceInequality-Oct-2006.pdf

cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf

www-personal.umich.edu/~adamstev/research_files/Stevenson_same_sex_taxes.pdf

nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[gracepoole]

The “ist” means an advocate. I think it works well to distinguish between those who want to keep their private lives private and those who want public acknowledgment and approval for their sex practices. TMI IMO.

Lisa

Yeah, the term “agenda” gets at the idea that you believe these people are activists. At most, “homosexualist” sounds pejorative and at least it’s redundant.

 

[SeannyM]

Lots of suppositions but a serious shortage of facts. The foster care system in EVERY state is a mess and there are many children in crisis. The reality is that many of them are NOT available for adoption. The state puts incredible resources into reuniting the children with a biological parent. Anyway this is just another White Rabbit, destined not to derail the thread. As you noted, gays could adopt before marriage and in fact were literally given preference over married couples in some states including my own. So once again you’ve not provided any compelling societal interest in allowing the definition of marriage to be morphed into an unrecognizable amorphous mess.

All children benefit from a mommy and a daddy. To claim that children experiencing SSA are better off with foster or adoptive parents who have the same issue is specious at best. Regardless of your sexual activity which should be irrelevant to the child, mothers and fathers bring different approaches, reactions and emotional responses that are far more important to a child’s future than justifying his/her sexual interests…yikes! There is way more to life than what you do with your genitals.

Oh and love means telling the truth even if it’s painful. Perhaps the term Lavender Mafia is inappropriate so I will return to saying Homosexualist Activists.

Again, what societal benefit is created by homosexuals calling themselves “married”? Traditional marriage has unique features that sets it apart from every other contractual relationship. But if the term “marriage” means no more than individuals stretching the term to cover any sort of self described “class” then it means nothing at all.

Lisa

I’m not going to repeat the list of social benefits you have completely ignored without refuting numerous times. I do want to point out one thing though… In a free society, you must establish a compelling reason to DISALLOW something. It’s not the other way around.

 

[LisaA]

I’m not going to repeat the list of social benefits you have completely ignored without refuting numerous times. I do want to point out one thing though… In a free society, you must establish a compelling reason to DISALLOW something. It’s not the other way around.

I see. Since you are unable to come up with any compelling societal benefits, you shift the argument to proving a negative. You want the status quo to change, so justify your claim. I don’t have to justify the status quo.

Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

The “benefits” are a combination of suppositions, assumptions and made up stories. There are for example claims that allowing gays to marry allows them to be on the “spouse’s” health insurance. And who knew this was worth FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! Mercy as my granny used to say. They must have some pretty expensive benefit package. The claims also completely ignore that many if not most employers allow domestic partners to be included in benefit packages. So the incremental value of the tiny minority of a tiny minority of yet another minority getting additional benefits is worth this upheaval? Really…it reminds me of Obamacare…let’s spend millions on pointless and expensive marketing and administration of a new concept instead of spending a fraction of this amount to cover the few who are uninsurable…but hey when it comes to spending other people’s money…the sky is the limit!

Then there was the claim that same sex couples are “more likely” to go uninsured which is a complete fabrication without a single reference. In fact many studies and surveys indicate that same sex couples have a HIGHER standard of living than heterosexual couples. Same sex couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to have both parties employed. Again these are features of the lack of children in more same sex couples…the little dears do cost a fortune! Then there was an anecdote (not even claimed to be a true story) indicating one gay guy decides not to take a job offer because it’s into a state where he and his “husband” are not “married.” How this costs society remains a total mystery.

Quite lacking in anything but happy talk based on suppositions and assumptions. Again it’s clear that same sex “marriage” provides benefits, particularly government benefits, to the individuals involved but there is no real evidence that society benefits by gay “marriage” when virtually everything desired can and has been achieved without redefining marriage to suit the selfish desires of individuals.

Lisa

I’ve been personally affected by one of the major problems with inequality. I was forced to take orders to a duty station on te other side of the country than my spouse at the time. This ended my relationship… Because of this I’ve decided to leave the navy. My job is critically undermanned, and the navy spent $130 thousand training me for it. It greatly benefits society for me to stay in, but because of that policy, I’m getting out. I know they’ve changed the rules, but still, there are chaplains refusing to allow gay spouses to participate in arraign enrichment retreats, anti gay discrimination cannot be reported using the equal opportunity program. Basically, because of discrimination after ten years of service, 6 deployments, shrapnel in my leg, PTSD, and a very bad back injury, I’m no longer willing to serve a nation of people who think I’m somehow worth less than they are.

 

[LisaA]

You know, there are sources linked throughout that article…

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Ash-HealthInsuranceInequality-Oct-2006.pdf

cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf

www-personal.umich.edu/~adamstev/research_files/Stevenson_same_sex_taxes.pdf

nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Grace, once again you ignore the reality that the proposed problems, some of which are detailed in papers from a decade ago, can and have been remedied without redefining marriage. Thus what is the point of redefining marriage? It seems like a solution in search of a problem. At this point there are few real examples of hateful bigotry and severe financial detriments to limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

I do not argue that in the past gays and Lesbians were treated badly in the workplace, in housing, contractual arrangements and sharing benefits. Unlike many of you big talkers, I actually left a very lucrative job because of the deliberate targeting and firing of two gay males with whom I worked. I remember leaving the meeting where I was informed that the two would be fired on basically trumped up charges…and they were. I would never condone this action and in fact left the firm within a few months. But this was over 25 years ago. This same firm now has gays and Lesbians in the highest echelons of its management. I have hired and paid a number of gay males who were professionals in an industry where I was very involved. I put my mouth and my money on the line when it comes to basic fairness.

But this demand that we redefine the building block of society to obtain benefits for the few who claim they do not have the same opportunities that most gays and Lesbians have is ridiculous. You can solve the problems of financial sharing, benefit packages, estate planning, or hiring a wedding photographer without all of this turmoil, the lawsuits, the turning over of society’s cornerstone.

Gay “marriage” is simply a selfish and self absorbed obsession of a tiny minority that cannot accept that two guys or two women do not create the same dynamic in a family or in society as does a husband and wife.

Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

Grace, once again you ignore the reality that the proposed problems, some of which are detailed in papers from a decade ago, can and have been remedied without redefining marriage. Thus what is the point of redefining marriage? It seems like a solution in search of a problem. At this point there are few real examples of hateful bigotry and severe financial detriments to limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

I do not argue that in the past gays and Lesbians were treated badly in the workplace, in housing, contractual arrangements and sharing benefits. Unlike many of you big talkers, I actually left a very lucrative job because of the deliberate targeting and firing of two gay males with whom I worked. I remember leaving the meeting where I was informed that the two would be fired on basically trumped up charges…and they were. I would never condone this action and in fact left the firm within a few months. But this was over 25 years ago. This same firm now has gays and Lesbians in the highest echelons of its management. I have hired and paid a number of gay males who were professionals in an industry where I was very involved. I put my mouth and my money on the line when it comes to basic fairness.

But this demand that we redefine the building block of society to obtain benefits for the few who claim they do not have the same opportunities that most gays and Lesbians have is ridiculous. You can solve the problems of financial sharing, benefit packages, estate planning, or hiring a wedding photographer without all of this turmoil, the lawsuits, the turning over of society’s cornerstone.

Gay “marriage” is simply a selfish and self absorbed obsession of a tiny minority that cannot accept that two guys or two women do not create the same dynamic in a family or in society as does a husband and wife.

Lisa

The only reason that need be cited for equally applying benefits is because it is the right thing to do under the Constitution. There is no need to defend why a right must exist… instead, one must show a reason to limit its existence… which your side has been unable to convincingly do. Separate but equal is not an option. All of the turmoil comes from out of touch religious zealots who have little regard for our civilizations governing document. Equal and just application of the law MUST be the standard, or else the Constitution is meaningless. If you honestly believe that this is a non-issue, and that anti-gay discrimination no longer exists, then you are not seeing the real situation. Anti-gay discrimination is a reality that people have to deal with every day. It’s not isolated to the work place… It is in the hearts of many people… in some places it remains enshrined in the law. That’s not what America stands for. Our society changes when new information becomes available. In the past, it was assumed that gay people were not capable of forming life-long relationships based on love, and becoming stable families. We now know that is not true, thus we must apply our new understanding of reality to our legal system. Decades ago, the same was assumed about interracial couples. The justices of the court at the time made a courageous decision, that was not very popular in many places. They face a parallel situation now, and so far, they’ve shown that they are up to the task. It’s sad that many Christians are again on the wrong side of history. Fortunately, there are also many Christians on the right side of history. You can denigrate us all you want. You can call us disordered “homosexualists” if you want. But we know our value to society, we don’t need you to agree. We know that our love and our families are just as good as yours. We know that our desire to be treated equally is not selfish. If anything is selfish, its the insistence that others conform to your beliefs and be treated as second class citizens in the name of “traditional” marriage. Traditionally marriage has meant many things. I’d like to think that in our nation we are not bound by how things have always been, but instead how things should be. If you feel like you are being personally attacked, or that your religious beliefs are under attack, well, I’m sorry about that. It’s not the case though. The same liberties I’m fighting for today, are liberties that you already have. One day that might not be the case. One day those liberties could be under attack. I pray that you never experience what it means to truly have your freedoms denied of you. But rest assured, if that ever does happen, I’ll be just as vocal of an ally for you as I am today. When you call me an activist, like it’s some kind of pejorative, I kind of smile. Because to me activist means someone who stands for what is right. So call me an activist all you wish, but until you truly experience the pain of being a second class citizen, don’t presume to tell me I’m selfish, or incapable of benefitting society, because that’s simply not true.

 

[SeannyM]

I see. Since you are unable to come up with any compelling societal benefits, you shift the argument to proving a negative. You want the status quo to change, so justify your claim. I don’t have to justify the status quo.

Lisa

I have justified it… you haven’t responded. You’ve insisted on shifting the standard to some contrived reason marriage exists… that is written down in no law. If anyone has changed the argument, its been the conservatives. It’s gone from “let’s establish in law that we are a moral society,” to " marriage exists for procreation." This change happened when the courts rejected the first argument because it was purely religious. So now it’s all about making babies… except that won’t work either because it’s not a standard that is a. written down anywhere, or b. enforced on anyone except gay people. You’re running out of arguments, and the courts can see that. So, even though in a free country one doesn’t have to provide a reason to allow a right to exist, but instead must provide a reason to restrict it, there are plenty of reasons that marriage benefits society beside procreation. One last time I will give some examples. But this is seriously the last time.

• It creates stable family units, which lends to economic and social stability for the community.
• It establishes a sense of belonging to the community which in turn fosters a desire to be an upstanding, contributing member of society.
• It creates an environment that is a safe, loving and prosperous environment to raise children.
• It allows for the pooling of resources, which enables the individuals in the family to better themselves educationally, financially, and socially.
• It allows a fall-back for when one family member becomes incapacitated because of sickness or other problem.
• It creates a single economic unit that has more buying power, thus multiplies the consumer base, and stimulates the local economy.
• It confers over 1000 benefits and rights that foster stability.
• Because gay people are already raising children, it stops treating those families as second class, which can create emotional hardships for children
• And most importantly, equal protection under the law is one of our nation’s most important moral imperatives. Extending marriage to gay people embodies that value, and represents what it truly means to be a free society.

 

[SMGS127]

I have justified it… you haven’t responded. You’ve insisted on shifting the standard to some contrived reason marriage exists… that is written down in no law. If anyone has changed the argument, its been the conservatives. It’s gone from “let’s establish in law that we are a moral society,” to " marriage exists for procreation." This change happened when the courts rejected the first argument because it was purely religious. So now it’s all about making babies… except that won’t work either because it’s not a standard that is a. written down anywhere, or b. enforced on anyone except gay people. You’re running out of arguments, and the courts can see that. So, even though in a free country one doesn’t have to provide a reason to allow a right to exist, but instead must provide a reason to restrict it, there are plenty of reasons that marriage benefits society beside procreation. One last time I will give some examples. But this is seriously the last time.

• It creates stable family units, which lends to economic and social stability for the community.
• It establishes a sense of belonging to the community which in turn fosters a desire to be an upstanding, contributing member of society.
• It creates an environment that is a safe, loving and prosperous environment to raise children.
• It allows for the pooling of resources, which enables the individuals in the family to better themselves educationally, financially, and socially.
• It allows a fall-back for when one family member becomes incapacitated because of sickness or other problem.
• It creates a single economic unit that has more buying power, thus multiplies the consumer base, and stimulates the local economy.
• It confers over 1000 benefits and rights that foster stability.
• Because gay people are already raising children, it stops treating those families as second class, which can create emotional hardships for children
• And most importantly, equal protection under the law is one of our nation’s most important moral imperatives. Extending marriage to gay people embodies that value, and represents what it truly means to be a free society.

You forgot the three points of:

• It imperils the souls of those who enter into it.
• In the off chance that the child themselves is gay, it represents same sex relationships as neutral or even positive, putting the child at high risk as they will undoubtedly follow their sexual orientation as a result.
• People cannot actually enter into the covenant of marriage with a member of their sex.