I don't understand why gays want to marry

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

  1. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Only if you have kids hey if you adopt a child as a married couple then divorce after that is there still a child support issue or dose the government take the kid away?
     
  2. OLD PROFESSOR

    OLD PROFESSOR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    1. Financial advantages that have been created by government in part to encourage marriage
    2. Social pressure - certainly for good little girls (and boys too if they are from the religious right).
    3. Because it feels right to them.
    4. Because they think it is a meaningful way to express the depth of their attachment.
    5. Because it is nobody's (*)(*)(*)(*) interest other than their own (or so should be the case.
     
  3. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,419
    Likes Received:
    2,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, in your view, sterile people should be disallowed from marrying? That seems mean and pointless to deprive somebody of that just because they were born with, say, Turner Syndrome.

    There's a lot of reasons, and it's individual. Some of them really do think it's a true love thing and are super-psyched about the romance of a real wedding. Others think marriage is a "hetero thing" that they don't care about.

    One thing the gay people I've talked to worry about the right to visitation in the hospital. For example, a lesbian (friend of a friend) wanted to be by her partner's side when she was dying in the hospital, and they wouldn't let her in because she wasn't family. I understand there may be a contract for this besides marriage, but the "I'll have to ask my supervisor" response to such a contract would make it difficult at best, and too late at worst. This is one of many examples. On the flip side, the lesbian may want her partner to make medical decisions for her rather than her next of kin. Requiring gay people to draft dozens of contracts that are hard to enforce instead of simply allowing them to marry is unequal treatment under the law. As to civil unions, it's kind of like this:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X80WlzJdeKo"]Butt Buddies - YouTube[/ame]

    Coming from the same institution that has historically said it's not okay to have sex for pleasure, and then their priests get exposed as child molesters? Um, lets just discount whatever the Catholic Church says except when we shake our heads realizing some people actually follow them.

    It's paternity that determines child support (your sperm, your responsibility), not marriage. The alimony toward the support of the ex-wife after divorce stems from the historical fact that she did the domestic half of the partnership, and thus needs support until she can remarry or rehone her job skills.
     
  4. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People can enter contracts under whatever terms they want. They don't need to have the state define it for them. The state's terms of marriage would only be satisfactory to those who agree with those terms.
     
  5. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Marriage has been voluntary for many centuries. It's been a useful means of regulating childbirth, by making patrimony clear and concrete, outlining questions of custody and inheritance.

    You said it's for economic reasons, but either a civil union of privatization of marriage would take care of that, but you rejected both possibilities. So the only thing left is the name on the piece of paper.

    If not, it would and should be a criminal organization.
     
  6. DaveInFL

    DaveInFL Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I stand corrected with respect to Michigan. I do find it odd and interesting that such a liberal state as Michigan has such a ban.

    Great, you don't need acceptance and validation. You live your way, I'll live mine, neither will force his attitude on the other. We politely tolerate each other. No problem for me.

    But tolerance is not what the militant/activist gay community is about, they want forced acceptance, and that is what my previous comment was about. Tolerance is not what some religious groups are about either, but this thread isn't about religious groups.
     
  7. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Adoption should be a private matter between the biological parent and prospective adoptive parent, with a private adoption organization as mediator. Then that would be no problem.
     
  8. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would be legal because marriage would be a private matter like baptize. But adoption isn't the same issue as bearing children biologically.
     
  9. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've used the Spanish case, I don't know how it works in USA. I said it in the beginning.
     
  10. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is not the topic.

    The topic is:

    - Marriage can be between homosexuals or not.

    Your are discussing something irrellevant, to this topic, or what you want to discuss is another matter, not related to the homosexual marriage.

    Homosexual marriage must be legal or not, whatever it is private, public or whatever invented figure can appear in the future?

    And my question, why did you write adoptive parent? Should not be adoptive parents?
     
  11. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those rules should be left up to the hospital. If a hospital wants to ban straight people from visiting, that's the hospital's business.

    You don't need dozens of contracts to be a healthcare proxy. Such legal mechanisms are brokered all the time between, for instance, elderly parents and their children.

    Remember that the power to license is the power to exclude. If these state marriage licenses weren't exclusionary, they'd have no purpose (note that I'm against both them and the exclusionary purpose behind them).

    It's not about "convenience" versus a contract because it only deal with one very narrow set of a terms out of millions of possible contractual terms. Thus, if you want a contract under any other kinds of terms other than those spelled out by the politicians, you need to go enter a private one anyway.

    For example, let's say you want to enter a marriage under different terms of divorce than those decided by the state. You still need a private contract. Even worse, sometimes the state refuses to enforce certain contracts, effectually prohibiting such contracts altogether.

    I'm Catholic myself, but I'm not going to get into an argument with you about the Catholic Church. It's beside the point, so just shake your head. The point is that the idea that the purpose of marriage is to regulate child-bearing is not something we just made up when people started talking about same-sex marriage. It's an ancient concept that has been applied to heterosexual couples as well.
     
  12. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You brought up adoption, not me. I asked why would a homosexual pairing or any other pairing (or group) with no designs to bear children want to enter a social agreement specifically designed and invented to regulate the bearing of children. It's like a living person wanting a funeral.
     
  13. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ????

    What a nonsense said now, no?

    I gave you reasons for why homosexuals wanted equal rights. And one of them is being able of adoption in the same conditions as heterosexual married couples.
     
  14. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Which is why I see it as convenient that there is one, highly common contract that is standardized. Hospitals, banks, lawyers, employers, schools, etc. deal with and know how to understand the standardized contract known as marriage - simply showing a marriage license automatically implies a variety of legal repercussions. Splitting it appart into non-standard contracts seems to require a fair amount of complication to duplicate much of what it does, and allow each of the entities concerned to review each of these contracts.
     
  15. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,419
    Likes Received:
    2,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the hospital were simply a business, maybe, but a hospital is an institution of life or death largely funded by government dollars (medicare), and as a matter of basic human rights is subject to equal treatment under law. The rules that should apply for a hospital are stricter than those that apply to a restaurant much like the rules for a restaurant must be stricter than that for, say, a trinket shop.

    I was referring to the multitude of contracts that are bundled into one when one signs a marriage contract. Health visitation is just one example of this. Inheritance is another, albeit less emotionally appealing one. :)

    It's really more like a multi-contract than a license. Aside from those who lack the capacity to enter into contracts, nobody is really disallowed from marriage, they're only excluded from marrying who they want to for arbitrary reasons (gays now, interracial couples decades ago with anti-miscegenation laws). I don't really think marriage needs to have an exclusionary purpose as an inherent property, except to the extent that people who marry each other are "forsaking all others" in favor of each other's interests, much like any other contract.

    Or we could just have courts actually honor things like pre-nups. There's really no such thing as a private contract is there? Who enforces contracts if not the government?

    Yes this is a problem, but dissolving marriage into a bunch of mini-contracts wouldn't really help. Making a default sort of marriage that is customizeable with the consent of both parties would be ideal.

    Yes that idea was alive and well when people argued about anti-miscegenation. But it's ancient-ness (or Catholic-ness) certainly does not make it more valid. Is optimal child-rearing helped by marriage? Yes, not that I have anything but respect for single mothers who do the best they can for their kids. Is it the only possible valid function of marriage? No, it's really not. Marriage can also be for the stability of the relationship itself that gives both people security and a partner to synergistically maximize their productivity and happiness, kids or no kids. They are held accountable to each other, so that the whims that come with bad times don't lead to one partner getting used and thrown away without the other being accountable to them.
     
  16. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The enforcement of which all require the involvement of government, which regulates these things via the law, predicated on a legal recognition of marriage.

    Moving the goal posts. The name matters. You can't proclaim two things are equal while simultaneously making them unequal by forcing one group to use a different term that doesn't have the weight of history behind it, influencing how people understand and regard that union, and thereby marking them as targets for discrimination.

    Missing the point. Governance is still required for enforcement, and I see no point to moving that governance from established government to a "private organization".
     
  17. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Which asks us to posit as true that legal marriage as it exists TODAY regulates the bearing of children.

    It does not.
     
  18. AshenLady

    AshenLady New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Marriage was invented by heteros for heteros and their children.

    Everything else is a bastardization.

    Let them that want a religious ceremony....

    and so on and so forth.

    It's the kids that suffer.

    The world isn't yet ready for samesex marriage.

    It's hardly accepted in small liberal pockets the world over.

    Let law and culture and custom catch it's breath before anymore monkeying with the institution of marriage occurs.

    IMHO
     
  19. alexander.d.butler

    alexander.d.butler New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its not about WHY they want to do it
    Its the fact that they CANT, that angers them.
     
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nonsense. marriage doesn't create the obligation. paternity does.
     
  21. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You bring up some good points.
    It probably depends on the person, whether its a religious matter or not, but mostly, perhaps a show of commitment.
     
  22. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yalls stickin yer willies up each other bums hasnt had the weight of history behind it, not because the gays have been the "targets for discrimination", but instead because only when a man sticks his willy in a woman, might a baby come out.

    The importance of a stable home hasnt had the weight of history behind it because man thrives when he has a stable household where he can stick his willy in his spouse, but instead because children thive when they have a stable home with their parents together in that home and tend not to thrive as well when only their mother to nurse from, to provide and care for them. Fathers of children when paternity is never esablished, most frequently spend none of their income providing and caring for their children. Fathers on average spend more of their income providing for their children in their home than they do for their children when they dont live in the home. Rubbing genitals has no relevance to two people joining together to form a stable household, or the benefit to be derrived from a stable household.

    You want to take an instituiion that has the weight of history behind it because of the importance of humans responsibility for providing and caring for the children THEY have created, and turn it into an instituion that has the faux weight of history history behind it because of the importance of having a stable home to provide a comfortable marital bed to rub genitals. Because judicial or legislative fiat says it is so.

    Rubbing genitals just has no relevance to the need for stable homes. Rubbing genitals has no relevance to the creation of children, or the decision for two consenting adults to decide to join together to provide and care for somebody elses children, or simply form a stable home.
     
    CanadianEye and (deleted member) like this.
  23. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i thick they just want fairness and equality not like you have to have kids of your own or kids at all to get hitched around hear

    and most people don’t treat you like you’re not married if you don’t
     
  24. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Get back to me when you are able to discuss these matters like an adult, without the juvenile assumptions about my sex life.

    Marriage is not about "rubbing genitals". As for anything else you said, I'm sorry but I can't hear you over the din of your other bigoted statements.
     
  25. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Never amusing when straight people put on their "I'm so superior" badges and pretend they can read the minds of gay people.
     

Share This Page