1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

I don't understand why gays want to marry

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by AbsoluteVoluntarist, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, I think marriage should be removed from the government entirely and privatized as a contractual matter. Thus, anyone could enter into a private contract that they could call a marriage or anything, man, woman, one person, two people, whatever. I think this is appropriate and good way to satisfy everyone.

    But regardless, I don't understand why same-sex couples want to get married in the first place. The whole point of marriage is not to be symbol for twoo wuv or anything of the sort, despite what Disney says about it. It has a legal role to regulate the bearing and raising of children, in regards to issues such as paternity, custody disputes, etc. Since a homosexual couple cannot bear children together, what's the point? It seems like it's more about a desire to assimilate than anything else, the idea that if gays are married, the soccer mom contingent will be more likely to accept them. Other than that, it's a mere symbol of romantic infatuation that could just as easily be expressed with Valentine's Day candy. Their free to enter into a contract and call it what they want--I wouldn't stop them. I just don't see the point.

    The same goes, by the way, for heterosexual couples that do not want to have children. I don't see the point of marriage for them either.
     
  2. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only reason to enter into a marriage is for tax benefits and such as far as the government is concerned. And the only reason that exists is the government wanted to promote what they considered to be a moral and ethical action. Which is really just the government overstepping its bounds. The only reasons gays want to get married is so they can have the SAME RIGHTS AS ALL AMERICANS!
     
  3. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, so then why do so many not consider civil unions good enough? And wouldn't abolished government-licensed marriage (originally created to enforce such things as anti-miscegenation laws) solve this wholly?
     
  4. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So why did you not just ask:

    Why does anyone want to marry?
     
  5. JeffLV

    JeffLV New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suppose because marriage comes with more than just contractual elements. It also includes financial elements that even heterosexuals who don't want to or can't reproduce have access to.

    While I could support a scenario where marriage was removed from law and things became purely contractual, there are some advantages to it in its current form. It certainly simplifies the legal process - Analyzing a contract for each individual person to determine their custodial rights and rights as power of attorney could be a nightmare. Opening a checking account at the bank could require a lawyer to review the "marriage" contract. A lot of things are just built into marriage that make sense for any loving, committed couple, in a nice and uniform form.

    Not that I'm not open to other solutions to the matter. I'd even be open to civil unions if it would be "on par" with what heterosexuals face... i.e. I'm not even asking for all the financial rights like heterosexuals get automatically. But fact is homosexual couples do raise their own biological and adopted children also, so I see no reason to exclude them entirely from consideration of those financial and contractual rights that are intended to support families.
     
  6. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,522
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How does one enforce a contract that has no legal (i.e. governmental) recognition?

    Just to be clear, that's a rhetorical question. A contract that can't be enforced is rather pointless. So the idea that we should get government out of marriage by making it a contractual matter (when it already is one) is a bit silly.

    Not sure what you think emphasizing the word 'private' accomplishes, here. If by 'private' you mean one the government has absolutely no involvement in, then it's not enforceable and thus serves no real purpose. If, on the other hand, you mean a contract between private individuals that the government would become involved in only when the parties are unable to resolve disputes, then you might almost have a point. Perhaps what you really mean is that the government shouldn't predicate laws on the existence of a marriage contract. I think that's a more suitable topic for debate.

    I find that 'everyone' is rarely satisifed by "one size fits all" solutions.

    Is it necessary for you to understand it? I'm being serious.

    Now you're being condescending. Not the best way to start a dialogue - if that's even what you're interested in.

    While there are laws governing legal paternity and child custody that make use of legally recognized marriages, marriage itself does not do these things.

    The point is that marriage is not a license to procreate. It's an institution that can have legal, social and even religious meaning - but at it's core marriage is an economic union. A couple doesn't need to have children to benefit from uniting in marriage. More a case of children, when they are raised within such a union, benefitting from it.

    That's your bias talking. You aren't in a position to know what my motivation is for wanting to marry my husband. Never amusing when straight people think they have such a superior command of the situation that they should go around telling us what we think, why we're gay, what we want from marriage, etc.

    That's insulting. Being a heterosexual doesn't make you or your romantic infatuations superior to me or the love I have for my husband. Such condescension. I've a fair mind to tell you what you can do with your Valentine's Day candy.

    I still don't see why I should care whether or not you do.

    Being an equal opportunity offender doesn't improve your arguments.
     
  7. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,522
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If civil unions are good enough, then go have one yourself.

    A legal marriage is the civil recognition of a marital union. We don't need a separate word. Marriage will do just fine.

    The only reason for civil unions to exist is so that some people can maintain their misplaced sense of superiority while feeling better about themselves for being so tolerant of gay people. :puke:

    Myth. My great-great-great-grandparents were married by a justice of the peace in the 1840s in Ohio. Government has been involved in marriage a lot longer than you might think.

    As for abolishing governement-recognized marriage as a solution, I suppose that depends on which problem you're trying to solve. Seems apparent that you think gay people are a "problem".
     
  8. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    46,228
    Likes Received:
    299
    Trophy Points:
    83
    They already have that. They simply choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex. Like I, a 51 yr old divorcee, much to set in my ways to marry my lover. And the majority of Americans dont get the benefits of marriage.
     
  9. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    46,228
    Likes Received:
    299
    Trophy Points:
    83
    My brother and I are prohibited from civil unions because we dont rub genitals like the gays do.
     
  10. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,836
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Same as saying "every person who wanted to marry a member of another race (anti-miscegenation era) has the right to marry a member of their own race, they simply choose not to".

    Silly argument. People who aren't attracted to their own sex shouldn't have to marry one in order to attain those rights.
     
  11. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,836
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope. Because you are related. No requirement for you to rub genitals.
     
  12. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,836
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here we go again...
     
  13. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the courts deemed that "separate but equal" was wrong and unconstitutional.
     
  14. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    46,228
    Likes Received:
    299
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Nope, because there is no animus towards brothers, only gays.
     
  15. Independent77

    Independent77 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that the government should get out of the "marriage" business all together and stay out of peoples bedrooms as well. Allow ANY two consenting adults to have a civil union particularly if they claim the same household residence. Male and female should not matter. Whether they are having sexual relations or not should not matter. Whether they are genetically related or unrelated should not matter.


    Leave "marriage" to the religious organizations and leave "civil unions" and the legal rights of such a two party contract to the government and contract law.
     
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    46,228
    Likes Received:
    299
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That would be equal treatment under the law. The gays want special treatment for gays under the law. For the preference for biological parents, providing and caring for their children together, to be applied equally to gay couples.

    Cant win respect from society and dignity for themselves through marriage if they will let just any two people get married.

    Since one, fundamental aspect of that contract is-

    Seems perfectly reasonable to have a separate contract for heterosexual couples, different than the contract between two people who do not engage in heterosexual sex. Not because of religion, but instead because of biology.
     
  17. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if you and your brother both are consenting adults then why shouldn't you be allowed to get married? Its disgusting from MY point of view, but i am not the one marrying a brother... so why does my opinion matter? People act like if we give every consenting adult the right to marry as the government should then all of the sudden everyone is going to be gay and incest would run rampant. Same thing for drug legalization. Why do people think the government has to ban cocaine? Most people are smart enough to go oh duh cocaine is an abusive substance I should stay away. And the people stupid enough to do it are probably doing it anyway. At least with legalization we can regulate, monitor, and tax it while simultaneously crushing the drug lords.
     
  18. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree completely. How can someone argue that marriage is religious and simultaneously say the federal government should regulate it. Thats putting religious ideas into law for everybody, which is unconstitutional.
     
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    46,228
    Likes Received:
    299
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Because we have no potential of procreation.

     
  20. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,198
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There is no requirement for the "potential of procreation" in marriage, but this concept has been destroyed numerous times...
    Just because you cannot hold a marriage together does not mean others should be denied this option...

    As for the op - gay people want the right to marry for the same reasons that women wanted the right to vote and serve in the military, for the same reasons that blacks wanted the ability to marry outside their race, for the same reasons that people flooded into this country upon its conception... to seek equality and happiness without fear of being discriminated against.

    The system we have now discriminates against several groups for no logical reason other then they do not belong to the larger group. While I agree that the government should remove itself completely from the concept of marriage I do not foresee this happening which leads to the system having to being as fair as possible.

    I really do not understand why some people (a shrinking minority of the population nonetheless) are so scared of two people gaining the same rights they enjoy, and abuse, even though it will not effect their lives in the slightest....
     

Share This Page