I don't understand why gays want to marry

failed argument. blacks had the same rights as everyone else in that they could marry anyone they wanted as long as they were of the same race.

 

neither do many heterosexuals who marry. because it's not a requirement or even a consideration to marriage law.

 

It hasn't seemed to simplify the legal process; it's made it less flexible.

 

No, the contract would be enforced. The government, if it must exist, has an obligation to enforce all contracts, whatever name you give them.

Is anything necessary? We spend so much time of this debate, and I don't see the purpose. It seems like huge waste of time.

What economic benefits are there, other than the pooling of property and some government-granted privileges that shouldn't exist in the first place?

Now, you're just getting huffy for no reason. You suggest that the reason is economic benefits, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. If it's the goodies the government attaches to it, they shouldn't exist in the first place. The original point of marriage wasn't that but was passing inheritance and other such things related to procreation.

As far as the state is concerned, private contractual unions should be good enough for everyone, which we can call whatever we want.

Since I'm an anti-statist, obviously I don't want the state involved in licensing marriage. A license implies a ban, so there's no purpose for such a thing except to attach goodies to it and then ban some kinds of relationships from receiving it and thus the goodies, for the purposes of social engineering. And this has been used to ban interracial marriage, polygamy, and people with VD from marrying. This is not something anyone should support. Marriage should be contractual; the state can enforce the contract (or when we get rid of the state, private organizations can enforce the contract).

 

This seems like an awful lot of time and energy expended on the word stamped on a useless piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat. If you're worried about the state being involved in the bedroom, I'd reallocate that time and energy to, say, legalizing prostitution.

 

As I mentioned, I also argue there's no point for a heterosexual couple to marry if they don't want children. In fact, the Catholic Church actually prohibits that. Marriage is for children. True, if some people marry but then aren't able to have children that doesn't dissolve the marriage. But that's the purpose. You don't need a binding contract to "be committed"; you just need to buy a Hallmark card saying "I'm committed."

 

So much for your argument about getting government out of marriage then. If the government has the power of enforcement, it naturally follows that government (acting as a proxy of the people, whose tax dollars it spends) is going to take an interest in what it's tasked with enforcing.

I agree - why did you waste our time with the creation of this thread?

The pooling of property - and the protection of those assets - suffices in answer.

Don't be insulting and I won't have a reason. From where I sit, I have plenty.

Oh, were you there when the first marriage took place that you can definitively say this was the sole, original purpose? Marriage has been used to consolidate power and wealth as well. Point being, the purpose of marriage depends greatly on the interests of those who are marrying.

An answer which neglects that this was made in reply to the assertion that same-sex couples should be happy with "civil unions" while opposite-sex couples get exclusive use of the time-honored and therefore universally understood term of "marriage".

So no - I'm not going to be satisfied with a lesser status just because some people don't like the idea of having to share the word marriage with people they despise.

"Private organizations"? Sorry, but no one - not the state, not the church, and not any "private organization" gets to tell me what to call my marriage, and if I have to choose one of the three as the entity tasked with enforcement, then I'm going with government. I have zero interest in turning our republican form of government into a corporatocracy. Nevermind that governance is governance. If a private organization is the one exercising the power to enforce contracts, then calling them a ''private organization" makes no difference - they're still acting as a form of government.

 

As an agnostic who has no ties to any religious organization, I'm not about to cede the word marriage to them. Religion doesn't own marriage.

 

Because it is discrimination when two consenting adults of opposite sex can marry, but two consenting adults of the same sex cannot.

Its really that simple.

 

They could, if it were a private contract. Then, the definition of marriage would be a private matter, like the definition of baptism. But why would they want to? Why would a living person want to have a funeral?

 

Of course, I don't actually want the state enforcing any contracts. I'd rather all contract and all dispute be dealt with by private, voluntary, competing organizations. But later in your post, you crab about that idea too. Anyway, insofar as the state is involved, the involvement should and justly must be limited to enforcing private contracts, NOT defining and NOT licensing.

I'll tell you when you tell me why the "gay rights" movement has spent 20 years wasting time, energy, and resources to acquire a useless piece of paper stamped by a bureaucrat when it would have been investing them in something worthwhile, like legalizing prostitution.

Okay then, but mere pooling of property is not traditionally called a marriage, and marriage wasn't invented for that purpose. Hippies on communes and nuns in convents do that but they're not all married to each other.

Just look a the design: man and woman get together and procreate. If they didn't procreate--if we were all asexual--do you think marriage would have been created? I doubt it. Why would it? Yes, it helps consolidate wealth and power, by allowing the property and status of spouses to be clearly inheritable by their offspring.

First of all, there's no copyright on the word. Anyone call themselves married and indeed enter contracts they personally title marriage contracts. What really gets your gall is that a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats won't call you married and give a piece of paper saying it in big elegant letters. Personally, since my respect for politicians, bureaucrats, and institution of the state is less than zero, I'd just a soon they didn't recognize my marriage (if I had one), except for the tax break thing. I don't want them recognizing my baptism either.

The difference is that the private organization would be voluntary while the state is coercive. Why do statists think that "private" = "corporation"? For-profit corporations barely existed before the late 19th century and were supported in their ascendancy by government laws, and you can easily make the argument that they'd disappear, at least in the their present form, without such laws.

 

You are correct, gay "marriage" is not about taxes or rights or the law or even raising children. If it were then civil unions or private contracts would work just fine.

Gays have achieved all the legal equality issues already, the one thing they cannot legislate is social acceptance. Militant gays want to be able to get "married" because they want social acceptance. Tolerance isn't enough for some of them, they require acceptance and validation of their lifestyle.

 

Perhaps you take for granted the things that it has simplified ;-P.

What do you see as the issues with its lack of flexibility?

 

Marriage stifles procreation. Without it, men would be considerably freer to impregnate as many willing women as they could muster the energy with which to engage.

The consolidation of wealth and power through marriage isn't just about inheritance; I would question whether that's even the primary thrust. If you want to go back to the origins of marriage, then in many instances we'll be talking about a contract between two men - the groom and the bride's responsible male relative, usually her father. A business transaction which transfers the value of a man's daughter as chattel to her husband.

Is that what you'd like us to return to?

You're in no position to make such presumptions about what "gets my gall". I don't need the government's piece of paper to tell me I'm married.

I'm very skeptical that the "private organization" would necessarily be voluntary, especially when we're talking about that organization performing what is essentially a governmental function of contract enforcement.

Take a look around you at the world we live in today.

That's a debate for another thread.

 

I live in a state that has banned the recognition of any relationship other than one man/one woman in marriage. No civil unions in Michigan. So the notion that we've achieved legal equality is false.

As for what you can do with your "acceptance and validation"...not needed.

I see you're one of those people who pretends to know the motivations of gay people, as if we all had "hive mind". We aren't the Borg, and you're not a mindreader.

 

Well, only because you seem to think my concept includes a "requirement" of procreation. It doesnt. Heterosexual couples arent encouraged to marry because all heterosexual couples procreate. They are encouraged to marry because they are the only couples who have a potential of procreation.

And your opinions "destroy nothing". Especially not relevant court precedent.

 

OOO... I can post pages of court precedent to prove basically anything I want.

Pizza is a vegetable, check...
Companies are people too, check...
Women cannot vote, check...
Blacks are slaves, check....
Blacks cannot marry whites, check...
The earth is flat, check...

All these things are "correct"... Until they are not...

Your argument is not valid -- Simple point: we allow the elderly as well as infertile people marry, we allow friends to marry.
The likely hood of procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Only fertile couples that wish to procreate, between a certain age rage, are capable of reproducing yet they are not the only ones who you think my tax dollars should subsidize.

You get to have your (failed) marriage but people that you think are undeserving you get to deny them their attempt at marriage and happyness. Surely they would do a better job.

I can understand your frustration with the US likely passing its 10th+ state with SSM this year, as well as the recent conservative ruling on DOMA.

Marriage equality is slowly gaining traction around the world with no ill effects.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, appointee of former President George W. Bush.

 

Its a perfectly valid argument, you just have no way of going against it.

 

Soooo why dont you prove your assertion here

 

Yes, a valid argument nobody disputes. Its your private little strawman argument you are attracted to because nonbody disputes it. Helps you avoid addressing the arguments actually made

 

Because with homosexual marriage they have the same rights. I don't know how works the adoption in USA. But for example in Spain if you're not married you can't adopt as a couple. So, an homosexual couple that is married they will be able to adopt as a couple, and both be parents. While in the other way, only one member of the couple could adopt, and the other member would not have any right on the child.

While exists state, and the states gives rights to the married couples it can not be abolished.

So, there is logic of wanting to be married for part of homosexuals.

Ah and I am for the total abolition of the marriage. It is an outdate institution.

 

Any two people could adopt a child. No justification for special treatment because a couple happens to be homosexual.

 

Would it be ok for homosexuals and theInfertile to adopt then marry?

 

The primary barrier to homosexual marriage is moral. More's may change, but that is the primary deterrent.

Marriage itself is only a contract with the State so the State dictates what marriage is. The contract is in effect even after you divorce, in other words, that contract can help the court determine things like alimony and child support agreements.

Everything else around marriage is pure fantasy. It has long ceased to be something done by the Church; although, people still go through the motions.

 

Only a heterosexual marriage creates obligations of child support upon the father of a child.