Originally Posted by JeffLV

The question of why gay couples or otherwise should have their union recognized with the rights of marriage seems to hinge on why the rights for marriage exist in the first place. So I figured this is a good starting point.

Why are unions between a man and woman allowed to legally marry, and why are they given special legal rights and recognition? How do they justify not allowing polygamists and incestial couples to marry? The question of legal rights comes down to the concept of "similarly situated" persons. Namely, if you give a right or privilege to one group, you must give it to all similarly situated people.

If marriage is just a religious union, or if it is just a definition of a union between a man and a woman, why does this therefore make it okay to establish legal rights for these unions over any other?

Originally Posted by Colombine

Marriage and, as we have in the UK, Civil Partnership for gay couples establishes the chosen partner as the primary next of kin. Everything else comes from that: property rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation and medical power of attorney. Basically you (the partner) get first call on all decisions not your mum or your aunt or your sister as would be the case if you were not protected by the contract.

It's simply a matter of equality in that two gay people can legally partner in the same way that two straight people can sharing all the same rights and recognition (in our case) in every part of the land.

You simply cannot apply this to polygamy as it would require a separate contract nominating one spouse as principal next of kin and multiple additional contracts establishing property rights etc.

Civil Unions in the US (and marriage in Mass) are not the same as they are only recognised at State level and don't qualify for Federal benefits (and responsibilities) or State-to-State portability.

Marriage or CP essentially creates a new "legal family". In the case of incest you are already in a legal family. There is a pecking order to this kinship which the law would recognize up to a certain distance of relationship after which (first cousins in many places being the boundary) you are free to enter a marriage or CP.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

Thanks for your input, but it's not you I want to talk to! lol. I'm waiting for someone who does not support legal rights for gay couples to tell me why they support legal unions for straight couples. If they can’t say why they support these legal rights, then their arguments against homosexual couples getting the same rights are hypocritical. If they can't argue for why they support rights for straight couples, then it is THEM that are supporting "special rights" for straight couples, not the people supporting gay unions.

I agree with what you say as the reason for legal unions, and that's why I support legal unions for gay AND straight couples. Can anyone say why only straight couples should have this and nobody else?

Originally Posted by Colombine

Fair enough but I figured that anything they're going to come up with can be countered by my outline unless they start invoking the ancient teachings of supreme beings.

Originally Posted by Makedde

Originally Posted by JeffLV

What is this true meaning that is beaing made a mockery of? Perhaps what's needed is a strengthening of the institution, not a dissolution of it. But to strengthen it, first we have to know why it exists. So, why does it exist? After we establish that, we can try to establish the ways to "fix" it.

Originally Posted by Makedde