Same-sex marraige: honestly, what is the point?

[sedonaman]

I have noticed that false equality is a type of god to many these days.

:bowdown: Amen, baby.

 

[jonathan_hili]

What you are asking is “What is the public purpose of marriage?” There are plenty of personal reasons [e.g., “I want to be happy,” “We want to show our love/commitment for each other,” etc.]. If we were to accept this, there would be no need for marriage because any number of persons could do it on their own. The fact is, there would be no need for marriage at all if there were no children, so we must ask, “What is owed the child?” The answer is what marriage gives them: tying parents to their children and the parents to one other. For a more detailed explanation see,
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=atsAiYpyI9M&feature=related
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=VwyOHhJAYko&feature=related
By Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

I agree. I’m not so much asking what the public purpose of marriage is, because one could argue that social recognition is a public purpose, but why does it have to be legalised. As far as I can see, it is the regulation of children (as you say, tying children to parents legally and socially) that is the only real legal purpose for such an institution.

 

[jwinch2]

illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

The goal, is the destruction of marriage all together. Go back and look at the things pushed for over the past 75 years or so. Then ask your self, “at what point did they stop, and were satisfied?” The answer will be that they were never satisfied, and they never stop pushing.

*“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”*

 

[fix]

illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”[/INDENT]

As I said it is about affirmation. The entire enterprise is about re-ordering society to fit an upside down morality.

 

[jwinch2]

As I said it is about affirmation. The entire enterprise is about re-ordering society to fit an upside down morality.

I agree with your assessment completely. I just wanted to also remind everyone that the immediate goal is not really the end game. In fact, it rarely is. Rather, it is merely a stepping stone on the their way to fundamentally altering society in line with their own desires and the prevention of others living in a way which does not reflect their own personal preferences.

 

[edwest2]

The reason some wonder “how could this have happened” is the same as two guys with sledgehammers taking 30 years to make a hole in the Hoover Dam. It’s propaganda 101. It must be a long, gradual process. I mean going back to 1973 when the APA voted the disorder out as a disorder, gay activists knew they couldn’t run out that day and say, “Hey everybody! The APA says it’s not a disorder so we’re going to start getting married.” Having lived through the time period till now, the poison had to be dripped into our veins slowly, to drain us of right judgement. To make us believe a fantasy by one method: constant repetition. Just like chipping away at that concrete at the Hoover Dam, and playing on our Christian compassion.

A few years ago, I was in an emergency room. My male friend sitting in the same room with me for hours. No one asked what our relationship was. I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years, and I ask anyone here to give me the name and location of any hospital that will deny you visitation rights.

In about 5 minutes, over the phone, I put him down as beneficiary on my IRA. No questions asked about our relationship.

We went to the bank, showed some ID, signed a few papers and his name was now on my meager bank account.

Had things gotten worse, I would have made out a will leaving all I owned to him. No big deal. And there is no legal requirement for him to be anybody in particular: next door neighbor, coworker, etc.

Oh yeah, this is not the end. Not by a long shot, But imagine the divorce proceedings.

Judge: OK. How many families do we have here?

Attorney: Three, your honor.

Judge: OK. I want the three families to separate into groups. OK, can counsel had me a flow chart showing biological children and non-biological children and their relationship to any of these individuals?

Attorney: Here it is, your honor.

Judge: OK. Now I need to see adoption and birth records.

Attorney: Here they are.

Judge: OK. This is going take a while. I’m calling a recess.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sedonaman]

… but why does it have to be legalised. …

I think Dr. Morse explains this [not absolutely sure since it has been a while that I’ve listened to her].

As I recall, she says that society has a compelling interest in traditional marriage “‘marriage’ without the adjectives,” she calls them] because whenever you put men and women together, children result, and it is in the best interest of society that they be raised with the benefit of both natural mother and father [she also addresses other configurations].

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the public interest in sodomy?

 

[BlaineTog]

Gay couples that can’t marry are denied a number of important rights and protections given to straight married couples. That’s a pretty straightforward reason, without getting into tinfoil hat logic.

 

[edwest2]

Gay couples that can’t marry are denied a number of important rights and protections given to straight married couples. That’s a pretty straightforward reason, without getting into tinfoil hat logic.

Human biology? Remember? Which combination of sexes is the only possible means of getting the next generation of human beings?

1. Man, man.
2. Woman, woman.
3. Man, woman.

 

[Monkey1976]

Gay couples that can’t marry are denied a number of important rights and protections given to straight married couples. That’s a pretty straightforward reason, without getting into tinfoil hat logic.

Before getting into the details of these privileges (not “rights”), we should first ask why they exist. The answer is that they are in place to allow the couple to provide for the children which the state assumes will result from the pairing of the two sexes. That being said, let’s look at this list:
HRC:

The right to make decisions on a partner’s behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal “next of kin” automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

Misrepresentation. If such family is in fact present and they are designated as the next-of-kin in the patient’s records, then they will indeed have the legal right to override the partner’s decisions. However, I’m not aware of any hospitals that - in the absence of such documentation - will search out the patient’s next-of-kin on their own. The solution? Power of attorney - the same solution that is presented to a single parent with many children who might not agree on health decisions. Marriage is not required for this.
HRC:

The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner’s parents.

Misrepresentation. As of June 2010, domestic partners are considered “family” under FMLA. Marriage is not required for this.
HRC:

The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

Misrepresentation. This is currently being debated as part of the Immigration Reform bills before Congress, and is likely to be included if the Democrat contingent gets their way. Marriage is not required for this.
HRC:

The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent’s right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

Misrepresentation. The same is true for heterosexual couples. If it is truly important for the “partner” of the child’s parent to be seen as a second parent, then they can file adoption papers. There’s a whole additional argument here about the rights of the child in such a situation, but that’s for another time. Marriage is not required for this.
HRC:

The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

How is this a benefit? I thought that the point was to get the government out of the business of telling us how to live.
HRC:

Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

All of which are provided solely because a heterosexual couple can produce children, which are necessary for the future functioning of the society the government manages. How would same-sex “marriage” affect me as a single male? In my taxes paid. What does a same-sex pair give to society that would be on a par with the generation of children that would be an incentive for the government to accept the loss of revenue? More simply: For married couples, the government - basing its position on basic biology - “pays” them for the children is reasonably assumes they will produce. With a same-sex couple, exactly what is the government getting in return?
HRC:

The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

Then write a will. It takes only a few minutes. Even married couples are encouraged to do this. Marriage is not required.
HRC:

The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

Misrepresentation. The COBRA website answers this question here. As a real-world example, in my more sinful days when I was cohabiting with my then-fiancee, she was covered as my domestic partner and was included in the COBRA coverage offered to me when I lost my job.

In short, these benefits and privileges listed are offered not for the benefit of the married couple, but for the benefit of the children the government assumes will result. What incentive is there for the government to provide these benefits to a same-sex couple? As an analogy: Alaska provides tax benefits to residents using funds produced by the Pipeline as an incentive to increase the state’s population. If I have no desire or intention of moving to Alaska, should I be eligible for those tax benefits anyway?

We’ve heard endless verbiage about what same-sex “marriage” advocates want the government to do for these couples. What we haven’t heard is a logical argument as to why these benefits and privileges should be provided.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Gay couples that can’t marry are denied a number of important rights and protections given to straight married couples. That’s a pretty straightforward reason, without getting into tinfoil hat logic.

Okay, while I don’t really agree that all those “rights” stated in the link you gave should belong to same-sex couples, why not just extend civil unions to incorporate such rights? Why does it have to be “marriage”? The assumption seems to be that marriage is only for getting partner rights, but this isn’t right, since many of these “rights” are recent Western creations and have never existed as part of the institution of marriage. For these rights to be intrinsic to and fundamentally the social and legal purpose of marriage, you would have to deny that practically all past marriages and those of different cultures are marriages.

 

[Santi2]

Yet what is the point of such legalisation?

It is unnecessary. "Social recognition of our love…Social recognition of our commitment …“It’s about property and its regulation…” are already provided for by the Civil Partnership Act. CPA, as amended, also includes an opt-in for faith communities who do not have a problem with same sex unions and are not prohibited from conducting CP and need only register their premises in relation thereto.

This government can redefine marriage all they want but, it will never achieve universal recognition.

 

[fix]

Gay couples that can’t marry are denied a number of important rights and protections given to straight married couples. That’s a pretty straightforward reason, without getting into tinfoil hat logic.

“Gay” couples are not couples. The tinfoil morality goes nowhere.

 

[BlaineTog]

Human biology? Remember? Which combination of sexes is the only possible means of getting the next generation of human beings?

1. Man, man.
2. Woman, woman.
3. Man, woman.

And

“Gay” couples are not couples. The tinfoil morality goes nowhere.

You’re both missing my point. I’m not trying to justify gay marriage. I’m saying two gay people might want to be married so they can make end-of-life decisions for each other, be guaranteed being able to see each other in the hospital, do their taxes together, etc etc. There are real, tangible, obvious legal advantages to being married which gay couples currently cannot receive, even if they’ve been living together for 20, 30, 40 years. There’s nothing sinister or conspiratorial about that. Believing that each gay person wants the right to marry a person of their gender as part of some agenda that each has to take down traditional marriage is insane. On the individual level, they just want rights (and probably acceptance, but again that’s a personal reason, not some sinister ulterior goal).

Okay, while I don’t really agree that all those “rights” stated in the link you gave should belong to same-sex couples, why not just extend civil unions to incorporate such rights? Why does it have to be “marriage”?

Long story short, because our legal system doesn’t work that way. “Separate but equal” is never really equal. You’d end up with some rights being slightly different between the two states.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that the government should only be giving out civil unions and leave marriage to religion. The government should only be involved in the legal and tax ramifications any given couple’s romantic life. But that’s probably not going to happen any time soon.

The assumption seems to be that marriage is only for getting partner rights, but this isn’t right, since many of these “rights” are recent Western creations and have never existed as part of the institution of marriage.

Nevertheless, they are rights gay couples see straight couples enjoying and have decided (which understandably) that they would like as well. I’m just speaking about motivation here. Whether you think gay couples should or shouldn’t be allowed to enshrine their relationship in the legal system is beside the point. It’s entirely straightforward why they would want such rights. Gay people are just people, after all. This xenophobic hullabaloo about how they specifically want to corrupt society is nonsense.

 

[fix]

And

You’re both missing my point. I’m not trying to justify gay marriage. I’m saying two gay people might want to be married so they can make end-of-life decisions for each other, be guaranteed being able to see each other in the hospital, do their taxes together, etc etc. There are real, tangible, obvious legal advantages to being married which gay couples currently cannot receive, even if they’ve been living together for 20, 30, 40 years. There’s nothing sinister or conspiratorial about that. Believing that each gay person wants the right to marry a person of their gender as part of some agenda that each has to take down traditional marriage is insane. On the individual level, they just want rights (and probably acceptance, but again that’s a personal reason, not some sinister ulterior goal).

No, that is certainly not the point. Right now you can get a lawyer to draw up papers to secure any of that. The reason we have have this grave cultural upheaval is to undue the moral moorings of society. People very much want affirmation for their disordered desires.

 

[BlaineTog]

No, that is certainly not the point. Right now you can get a lawyer to draw up papers to secure any of that.

I would love to see a credible source that shows how a gay couple could provide themselves all the current legal rights and privileges of marriage. From what I’ve seen, the entire gay community seems to be ignorant of such an option.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Long story short, because our legal system doesn’t work that way. “Separate but equal” is never really equal. You’d end up with some rights being slightly different between the two states.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that the government should only be giving out civil unions and leave marriage to religion. The government should only be involved in the legal and tax ramifications any given couple’s romantic life. But that’s probably not going to happen any time soon.

But you are talking about the case in the United States, not the rest of the world. But even granting what you say, Blaine, does that mean that every legal institution or ruling has to be equivocated on so that there is no differentiation between states?

Marriage has always been a civil issue, so I think the government is rightly involved. But it has never really existed (until only recently) as the source for legal, economic or social rights. It existed as the vehicle for birthing and rearing children. It has no other real purpose - everything else is just window dressing.

 

[BlaineTog]

But you are talking about the case in the United States, not the rest of the world. But even granting what you say, Blaine, does that mean that every legal institution or ruling has to be equivocated on so that there is no differentiation between states?

Yeah, it would. A bunch of the rights and privileges of marriage are related to the federal government. I also suspect it would be extremely troublesome for marriage to be defined so radically different between states. If a (straight) couple were traveling, for example, and one of them were rushed to the emergency room, some sort of inter-state technicality could hypothetically prevent them from seeing each other, and nobody wants that.

Really, though, I just wanted to speak about motivations.

Marriage has always been a civil issue, so I think the government is rightly involved. But it has never really existed (until only recently) as the source for legal, economic or social rights. It existed as the vehicle for birthing and rearing children. It has no other real purpose - everything else is just window dressing.

For Catholics, at least, that’s certainly untrue. A central part of marriage is its unitive aspect for the couple. It isn’t supposed to be a business relationship between the couple formed solely because they both happen to want children.

 

[jwinch2]

But you are talking about the case in the United States, not the rest of the world. But even granting what you say, Blaine, does that mean that every legal institution or ruling has to be equivocated on so that there is no differentiation between states?

Marriage has always been a civil issue, so I think the government is rightly involved. But it has never really existed (until only recently) as the source for legal, economic or social rights. It existed as the vehicle for birthing and rearing children. It has no other real purpose - everything else is just window dressing.

Here are some perspectives from a societal standpoint which may or may not be interesting to you.

 

[fix]

I would love to see a credible source that shows how a gay couple could provide themselves all the current legal rights and privileges of marriage. From what I’ve seen, the entire gay community seems to be ignorant of such an option.

Credible source? Go ask any lawyer.