Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

Thank you Emperor Fabulous.

Reason 1: Love. Gays want to be able to express their love in exactly the same way as straights. They want to be able to stick a ring on their partners finger, have a huge ceremony, and have it recognized in the eyes of society.

So will the recognition in law provide acceptance in society? Is 'feeling left out' a good reason to grant benefits?

Reason 2: Inheretance. At this time, only those who have been married have any right to the assets of their partners. Gay people, since they can't be married, have to give up what their partner had to the next of kin.

If a man can give all his inheritence to his dog, I don't see why they would not let someone name whomever they want as next of kin.

Reason 3: Health. Insurance companies will accomadate spouses and children. They will not accomodate girlfriends/boyfriends. Thus, gay people have to find two seperate health plans.

So why not let long-term boyfriends and girlfriends have equivalent access in health plans? Don't they love each other?

Reason 4: Commitment. Goes with love. They are saying that they are pledging their lives to another person. While that doesn't NEED the government, they want the right to be recognized BY the government as much as heterosexuals do. If heterosexuals didn't care if it were recognition of commitment, there would be fair less recognized marraiges.

If it doesn't need the government, why should they intervene?

Reason 5: Children. Believe it or not, gays can be as good or bad as straight parents. If the government allows gays to marry, it would almost eliminate any hesitation to grant them rights to adopt.

So gays should be able to adopt children just because they want to adopt children? I'm going to have to ask you whether the majority of gay couples will want to have children.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Ok, fine, have it your way.

Reason 1: Love. Gays want to be able to express their love in exactly the same way as straights. They want to be able to stick a ring on their partners finger, have a huge ceremony, and have it recognized in the eyes of society.

Reason 2: Inheretance. At this time, only those who have been married have any right to the assets of their partners. Gay people, since they can't be married, have to give up what their partner had to the next of kin.

Reason 3: Health. Insurance companies will accomadate spouses and children. They will not accomodate girlfriends/boyfriends. Thus, gay people have to find two seperate health plans.

Reason 4: Commitment. Goes with love. They are saying that they are pledging their lives to another person. While that doesn't NEED the government, they want the right to be recognized BY the government as much as heterosexuals do. If heterosexuals didn't care if it were recognition of commitment, there would be fair less recognized marraiges.

Reason 5: Children. Believe it or not, gays can be as good or bad as straight parents. If the government allows gays to marry, it would almost eliminate any hesitation to grant them rights to adopt.

Explaination of the MA Court ruling: They found that civil unions do not fit because they are still not granting full rights to all of the citizens. This is more of a reason for the state rather than gays.

There you go. No flames. Full explaination.

I have been silent up to this pont. But now I have to say that EF has summed up my feelings to a tee!

My "Domestic Partner" and I have been together for over 14 years! This is not a one night stand. We both pay taxes and our credit report is totally mixed together - ie, you do a credit report on me, you get both my partner and myself. You perform a credit report on my patner - what do you get? The same - a credit report with my partner and I.

We have worked hard for what we have...but without the legal recognition, what do we really have???

We pay the same taxes as everyone else, we want the same recognition!

And this brings up a point from the Constitution:

"All men are created equal"

So , should the Constitution be reworded to:

"All men (and women) are created equal, unless they're gay"???

Please.

Home of the free my ass. Next we'll be seeing people goose-stepping in the streets!

Sorry for gettting off on a tangent. My main point was to congradulate Emperor Fabulous on his well worded response.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Well thank you Wittlich. I'm actually surprised that I was able to respond without flaminDEATH TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE1!!

...


****...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Ben: you have all these ideas for amending other things to allow gays access...but why not just allow gays to marry? It gets the whole thing in one shibang!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you Drake. Marriage to one man and one woman is neither new nor arbitrary.

"Marriage" as we know it is actually pretty new. For example, up until about a century ago, you could marry a 10-year old in the US. Up until pretty recently, few people married for love. Up until 1967 you could not marry a person from another race.

"Tradition" is not a very good reason to deny someone a right.

I would hope not. All other basic human rights do not require the consent of another in order to be executed. Marriage requires consent, therefore it cannot be a basic human right.

I hope you would agree at least that it is a more fundamental right than voting, no? If you're going to deny a select group some basic right, a right more fundamental even than voting, I think you need a pretty good reason. I have yet to hear one, and I've been listening very closely.

In what sense are they asking to enter marriage? They are asking marriage to embrace them.

You never heard the phrase "enter into matrimony"? You never heard the phrase "enter a contract? "Enter an agreement?"

If they truly wanted marriage, they would find a nice woman to get married to.

Well, now you are being specious. You already admitted you could never marry a man.

It is analogous to wanting to be on the health plan, yet not have to pay the same amount for the services as everyone else.

Analogous? If gays are allowed to marry, in what sense will they not "pay the same amount for the services"?

[Ben Kenobi]

The fundamental problem with it is that alcoholism, unlike love, has clear detrimental effects upon the society in which it is taking place. What detrimental effects on society does gay love have?

Leaving aside the issue of children, I'm going to do something new.

First off, I want to clarify. By the word it, I'm making a distinction between the desire and the action. One may not be able to choose the desire, but one can indeed choose the action. Genes cannot determine behavior. Jut as an alcoholic, under treatment can learn to control his impulses, the same is with homosexuality.

The analogy can be extended. Alcoholism has serious physical consequences, the most obvious being deterioriation of the liver, and the capacity of the liver to detoxify the body.

What about homosexuality?

In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

Again, from a study in New Zealand:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org

Attempts at self-inflicted harm by both men and women were increased significantly with the degree of homosexual attraction. Even among men who reported only "minor same-sex attraction," a marked increase in the occurrences of physical self-injury was noted.

Episodes of depression during the twelve months prior to the polling were rated significant by the researchers, especially among the male subjects, and also increased greatly in proportion to increased levels of homosexual attraction.

Substance abuse was also a major factor examined by the study. Both sexes reported elevated rates of substance abuse during the same twelve-month period. The researchers note that the women particularly appeared to show increased incidents of substance abuse with an increased degree of lesbian attraction.

Domestically, men and women who reported strong, consistent homosexual attraction were less likely to be living with a spouse or partner of either gender.

Overall, men who admitted any same-sex attraction of whatever degree and persistency, seemed to be at a significantly higher risk than women of like responses in their reporting of deliberate self-harm over the course of a lifetime.

[Japher]

I have been silent up to this pont. But now I have to say that EF has summed up my feelings to a tee!

'bout time Wittlich! Of all the gay posters here I'd think you'd at least have something to say

Your problem, however, is that you are in CA... And we give you homos everything you want... Every company I have worked at honors same sex marriages... As it should be.

Where in SF are you, by the way? I had a thread on moving in the Castro, and I was thinking about you.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

**** it. I'm going to go drink.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
MtG:

(sorry mindseye)

Not the first time I've addressed this question either. What qualitative benefits does society retain from traditional marriage? The first is that a stable marriage is the best environment for raising children. Why, if the state has no interest in the preservation of marriage, do they work to decrease the divorce rate?

Let's say you have a traditional marriage between a wife-beating (but she never prosecutes, since she believes it's her fault), crackhead, and an obese, alcoholic smoker who supplements her income by street prostitution (I picked factors which all play into fetal health risk). What "qualitatitive" conditions does the state impose? Gee, they're married, and by God they stay that way. Good for the kids. Right?

Does "society" retain benefits from any two people of the opposite gender marrying for any reason, and then being forced by statutory design (a la Ireland) to remain technically married?

Or does it benefit from the character and nature of specific parents who bring healthy values, positive actions and dedication to their relationship and their choice on whether to raise children?

The fact is that the state takes no action, or simplistic kneejerk action alone (procedural impediments to divorce) with respect to marriage, and no significant action at all with respect to real qualitative issues of bringing up children.

Why? Well, social conservatives have this real issue of consistency - if it's hetero Jerry Spring rejects, there's all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth about parental rights and parental choice and none of the government's business, along with the obligatory whining about ol' Hillary's "It takes a village" liberal BS. Let a couple of queers talk about getting married to each other on the same basis as a couple of heteros, then these same social conservatives who routinely discard qualitative arguments in favor of individual rights do an about face, and talk about "society's interests."

You can't have it both ways. If it's the state's business to interject itself into personal relationships and decide what is permitted and what is prohibited, when there is no coercion or abuse, then the state can intervene for any reason at all. If there is a nexus of personal rights that are not subject to state intrusion,

But we cannot marry a man, nor can we marry 6 women who happen to strike our fancy should we desire them. So does Mr. Fun. He can marry a nice woman if she also desires to marry him. Same rights, same equality.

Let's substitute "coloreds" for "6 women." What is the fundamental difference? Why is it purportedly right for the state to regulate who may enter into marriage with whom in the one case, but not the other? For that matter, what compelling interest does the state have in prohibiting polygamy, given that the most venal human trash can marry if they're of age, mentally competent (at least as the legal standard goes) and of opposite gender? The state doesn't prohibit you or me from shacking up with six women, does it? Ah, but there could be some confusion on child custody, survivorship of assets, and other property issues if the husband dies, or just divorces some wives. Then there's that whole question of working out rules for vesting of property interests depending on when wife number so and so enters or leaves the picture. Ah, the state might have some interest in regulating the number of people who are concurrently married to each other, because there is this confusion of legal interests that's a mess to sort out.

So let's make it two people, one to the other. Now let's take four people - two gay men, two lesbian women. Let one man marry one woman, so you have two marriages. The two men live together and do their evil, abominable sodomite thang^TM, as two the two women. Four people, two marriages, two sets of people living together, all sorts of sinful sodomiteness going on. Perfectly "legal." After all, the state is having those men marry those women due to the societal interest in two-parent households in rearing children.

Just change that around a bit, and let the two men marry each other like they want to, and let the two women marry each other. Four people, two marriages, two sets of people living together, all sorts of sinful sodomiteness going on. What in God's name is the difference from the state's perspective? Let alone a difference so compelling to the public interest that the state should refuse to recognize or actively prohibit one marriage relationship, but allow the other even though it is a patent sham?

No good reason? Care to address my point about the interchangeability of genders?

I just did. Even to the extent that genders are not interchangeable, that's irrelevant if there are no kids (what do we do with 70 year olds who want to marry? - kids aren't an issue there.)

Society does not have a requirement to provide all benefits equally, otherwise, you would have to give unmarried bachelors the same provisions as a married couple.

Only because the society we lived in developed from a white male dominated patriarchy. We deigned to give rights to darkies, women, and other lesser beings when and to the extent we decided to. Queers need not apply. The question is not what society does, but what a moral and just society ought to do. We could step back 140 years to one of my collateral relations' properties in Virginia or Kentucky and argue that society's lack of obligation to provide benefits equally justifies the institution of slavery. Southern society at that time did justify the evil institution, in some case a bit reluctantly, but nonetheless, we did justify it. (We fought a war over state's rights, though, so shove off, MrFun )

Why should unmarried bachelors have different rights? For tax purposes in the US, two single people are generally better off than two married people in most income ranges or filing status. Property rights, survivalship, power of attorney, etc. are different only to the extent of being able to ascertain then intent of the parties. If you and I are roommates, there's nothing that establishes our intent with respect to property rights, power of attorney, or anything else. If we get married , that is generally recognized as a fairly clear signifying of our intent with respect to those issues.

Reason with me here. What tangible differences will marrying a black woman have for the marriage, as marrying a white woman?

Society is simply not ready for this kind of public mixing of the races. And if we allow this sort of miscegenation, we risk the purity of our blood lines, and public morals as well.

Will the children in one be more likely to be deformed, as in the other?

The mixing of the bloodlines can not be beneficial to the white race. And we know that coloreds are more susceptible to syphilis due to their looser morals, they're more likely to engage in criminal behavior, and they carry inheritable diseases from their African heritage.

All of these arguments have been used in relation to miscegenation statutes.

However, we can say that the two will create a tangible difference in both incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages.

Can we? We don't know about incestuous marriages without a detailed genetic assessment of both parents. And many states allow first cousins to marry, so there's not that much difference, although adopted siblings can not marry - there's no objective reason, just an assumption by the state.

Homosexual marriages generally don't result in the production of offspring, although either partner might have kids from heterosexual relationships, or by adoption. However, why should the state (regardless of parental rights) make a blanket, a priori assumption about parental fitness for homosexuals when it does not do so for heterosexuals?

[Combat Ingrid]

@ Ben's last post.
Man you are really a moron

I'm off to bed now, happy -ing all of you

[mindseye]

Originally posted by yavoon

followup than, why do some not like the civil union and demand that it be marriage if the union carries similar rights?

Because it does not carry equal recognition. Like it or not, having two categories implies they are different - or else there would just be one category. It wouldn't make sense to have two categories for something unless there was some kind of difference.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, it's just a finer form of discrimination. If you have all the rights, but not the title, there is an implication that for some reason you still don't qualify.

We've already seen how "seperate but equal" works in real life. It doesn't

To use an anlogy of Ramo's, what if there were two classes of US citizenship ("citizens" and "members") legally equal in every way, and that all black people were asked to accept United States "membership". How do you think they would feel about that?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, but you are what you eat. (bada-bing!). Sorry.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What about homosexuality?

Does the study clarify (no one study could) that it is homosexuality per se, rather than risky behavior by some segment of the gay population, that is responsible for any apparent differences?

And you can find similar heterosexual at-risk groups that skew their results as well.

Again, from a study in New Zealand:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org

Again, is this a result of homosexuality per se, or a result of psycholigical and emotional reactions to factors such as harassment, ostracism, fear, misplaced guilt, etc? which are exacerbated by society at large and typical treatment of and response to gays?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What about homosexuality?

In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

Are you proposing limiting marriage on the basis of disease risk? I don't know of any other group in the nation discriminated against in this manner.

Straight sex also carries significant risks for all sorts of diseases. Are you also calling for some sort of discouragement of all non-procreational heterosexual sex?

As for the cost to society, most of the people who have these diseases are heterosexuals.

Attempts at self-inflicted harm
(...)
Episodes of depression
(...)
Substance abuse

Ben, which do you think is more likely the cause of these:
(1) something intrinsic to homosexuality, or
(2) the fallout of social discrimination?

When your society brands you as officially unequal, that inflicts difficulties and pain into people's lives. Other minorities suffering similar discrimination show similar problems.

Domestically, men and women who reported strong, consistent homosexual attraction were less likely to be living with a spouse or partner of either gender.

Gee, do you think that has anything to do with the fact that they can't get married?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Japher


'bout time Wittlich! Of all the gay posters here I'd think you'd at least have something to say

Your problem, however, is that you are in CA... And we give you homos everything you want... Every company I have worked at honors same sex marriages... As it should be.

Ah, but what if my patner and I wish to move to say....Ohio? (I know, it's crazy - But I was born and raised there and my parents family still reside there). Then what? We need Federal recognition as a fellow American.

Where in SF are you, by the way? I had a thread on moving in the Castro, and I was thinking about you.

We live in Ingelside (just south of South Market) but still in San Francisco proper.

[Ben Kenobi]

Does the study clarify (no one study could) that it is homosexuality per se, rather than risky behavior by some segment of the gay population, that is responsible for any apparent differences?

Study gages attraction, not actions.

Again, is this a result of homosexuality per se, or a result of psycholigical and emotional reactions to factors such as harassment, ostracism, fear, misplaced guilt

Trope (n)

"A short distinguishing cadence interpolated in Gregorian melodies."

We've heard this music before.

If so, why did this study find differences between the men and women? They both live in the same environment that is supposed to harrass them equally.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If so, why did this study find differences between the men and women? They both live in the same environment that is supposed to harrass them equally.

Gee, do you suppose that it could be possible that women and men respond to stress in different ways? Or that they are subjected to different forms of discriminatory pressures?

Trope indeed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow!

I hope you're enjoying yourself MtG. Gets your mind off things for awhile.

Gee, they're married, and by God they stay that way. Good for the kids. Right?

Social services exists for a reason.

I will not condone wife battering, I will not deny that to a woman as grounds for divorce. What she needs is counselling so that she does not blame herself for getting the **** kicked out of her. So she can divorce this ****er.

Does "society" retain benefits from any two people of the opposite gender marrying for any reason, and then being forced by statutory design (a la Ireland) to remain technically married?

Umm, even the Catholic church will not deny them a divorce on these grounds, just for the wife beating.

Or does it benefit from the character and nature of specific parents who bring healthy values, positive actions and dedication to their relationship and their choice on whether to raise children?

Marital counselling should help discourage people from marrying each other, and getting into these situations in the first place. Not a perfect solution, but reasonable.

The fact is that the state takes no action, or simplistic kneejerk action alone (procedural impediments to divorce) with respect to marriage, and no significant action at all with respect to real qualitative issues of bringing up children.

Sounds like a complaint to social services, eh? Gay marriage will not fix this problem.

Why? Well, social conservatives have this real issue of consistency -

Strawman. Deal with my points.

routinely discard qualitative arguments in favor of individual rights do an about face, and talk about "society's interests."

I'm not sure how this critique is applicable. I have consistently argued that marriage is not about individual rights, and why it should be distinguished from other issues. If the state issues marriage licenses, then it is not a private issue, but rather a public concern.

Let's substitute "coloreds" for "6 women." What is the fundamental difference? Why is it purportedly right for the state to regulate who may enter into marriage with whom in the one case, but not the other?

Reciprocity and symmetry found in marriage, is not found here.

The state doesn't prohibit you or me from shacking up with six women, does it?

But the state does not give benefits to those who are shacked up, now does it?

abominable sodomite thangTM,

LMFAO!

Shame I can parse away the rest.

I just did. Even to the extent that genders are not interchangeable, that's irrelevant if there are no kids (what do we do with 70 year olds who want to marry? - kids aren't an issue there.)

Let's see. I answer companionship. Gay people pounce saying, we can be companions too.

Better argument. They love each other, as they would when they are younger, but it is no fault of their own they can't have kids.

lack of obligation to provide benefits equally justifies the institution of slavery.

So are you arguing that all benefits should be distributed equally to the population? Even the commies don't go that far. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. "

that is generally recognized as a fairly clear signifying of our intent with respect to those issues.

That's not a strong argument. If a declaration of intent is sufficient, than anybody can say that anyone else ought to have these benefits.

purity of our blood lines, and public morals as well.

So tell me MtG. Did the public morals of the good old USA decline with the increase of Hispanics?

Secondly, what tangible benefits can be derived from purity of blood? Last I saw just the opposite could be true. Just look at the beloved Hapsburgs.

All of these arguments have been used in relation to miscegenation statutes.

Very good. Now can you say men and women are completely interchangeable?

although adopted siblings can not marry - there's no objective reason, just an assumption by the state.

I wonder why?

Can it generally be shown that marrying your mother will not cause these problems? You're very close to an argument by Walter Saletan.

Homosexual marriages generally don't result in the production of offspring, although either partner might have kids from heterosexual relationships,

Back up. Isn't sexual orientation fixed? How could this happen if this were so?

a priori assumption about parental fitness for homosexuals when it does not do so for heterosexuals?

Would it be beneficial for the child to have parents of both genders? If so, then that's a credible a priori assumption.

[Q Classic]

sweet! even more reason to lead a revolution to get rid of every single idiotic bastard in power ruining the country and the world for the rest of us!

[Ben Kenobi]

Gee, do you suppose that it could be possible that women and men respond to stress in different ways?

That's like an alcholic telling his wife that she drives him to drink by her nagging.

Or that they are subjected to different forms of discriminatory pressures?

Why would an ignorant society be able to distinguish between lesbianism and gayness? Why would they make such a distinction.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Note: Drinking = no hard feelings

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If so, why did this study find differences between the men and women? They both live in the same environment that is supposed to harrass them equally.

How many lesbians have been threatened, beaten or killed by heterosexual women who felt the lesbian was somehow threatening to their womanhood?

No gender issue around affects both men and women equally.

And you might have heard the beat before, but then flat earthers probably hear that the earth is round a lot, too.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's like an alcholic telling his wife that she drives him to drink by her nagging.



Why would an ignorant society be able to distinguish between lesbianism and gayness? Why would they make such a distinction.

Why do men often behave differently in male dominated social groups from women in female dominated social groups?

[JohnT]

Reason 2: Inheretance. At this time, only those who have been married have any right to the assets of their partners. Gay people, since they can't be married, have to give up what their partner had to the next of kin.

Not just "any right", but the right to a tax-free inheritance (if the estate is large enough to pay taxes on it, that is).

Ben, what in your life would be different if gays were to marry? If this has been asked and answered, just point me in the general direction and I'll read from there. Thanks.

[Ben Kenobi]

bipolarbear:

I just get such a laugh saying that.

Having citizens who are ahppy doesn't generally lead to a "moral decay". I quote the famous gay comedian from the "Kids in the Hall" Scott Thompson-"When the govt. realizes that gay marriage cures gay activism, they will jump all over that!"

Read the posts by some of the others in the thread. Do you really think that the activism will end?

Secondly, I never make the point of moral decay. I figure we can't do much worse than where we are already.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Wow!

I hope you're enjoying yourself MtG. Gets your mind off things for awhile.

It's been almost two months already, I just never mentioned it. I do have a lot of work I can't find the motivation for, however.

Social services exists for a reason.

I will not condone wife battering, I will not deny that to a woman as grounds for divorce. What she needs is counselling so that she does not blame herself for getting the **** kicked out of her. So she can divorce this ****er.

And social services agencies are constantly under pressure in both directions - be more interventionist, and be less interventionist. The simple truth is that the state has a very fragmented approach to these problems, depending on the agendas of the political directors of the state. I wouldn't suggest that you do condone battery, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the view that any hetero marriage is good, and any gay marriage should be forbidden. Even if two severely dysfunctional, iresponsible heterosexuals decide on the spur of the moment to get married, as long as there's no obvious issue of mental competence, the state let's them. Nothing in that lax approach to who is "entitled" to marry is consistent with the notion of a blanket prohibition on gays marrying each other.

Umm, even the Catholic church will not deny them a divorce on these grounds, just for the wife beating.

It depends on the diocese, and in particular the petitioner's advocate and the members of the diocesan tribunal, but the annulment process is often very timeconsuming, intrusive, and unpredictable, and in many dioceses, the quasi-official policy is to aggressively look for grounds not to annul. That is also different from the statutory schemes in many countries with extensive Catholic church influence.

Marital counselling should help discourage people from marrying each other, and getting into these situations in the first place. Not a perfect solution, but reasonable.

"Reasonable" to be imposed by the state? Not in my view of proper state power.

Sounds like a complaint to social services, eh? Gay marriage will not fix this problem.

The point is that states which accept that this type of situation is permissible have a real problem of consistency arguing for "sanctity of marriage" or any other excuse to prohibit gay marriage.

Strawman. Deal with my points.

Not a strawman at all. I think consistency in one's view of the scope and application of state power is important, otherwise you tend towards that "tyranny of the majority" thang my ancestors filled the Brits full of holes over. I support parental rights against state power as a general proposition, and I support gay marriage on the same basis - limitation on the power of the state to regulate personal conduct absent compelling reasons it should do so.

I'm not sure how this critique is applicable. I have consistently argued that marriage is not about individual rights, and why it should be distinguished from other issues. If the state issues marriage licenses, then it is not a private issue, but rather a public concern.

And I'm a proponent of individual rights over state power. I'm the pro-Confederate southerner, you're the socialist-light Canuck, remember? The fact that the state issues a marriage license means the state has interjected itself into marriage in general, but it should not do so in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

Reciprocity and symmetry found in marriage, is not found here.

Since when are reciprocity and symmetry in personal relationships legitimate interests of the state?

But the state does not give benefits to those who are shacked up, now does it?

In many ways, it does. You marry, you get divorced and pay alimony. Your ex shacks up rather than remarries, and she still gets alimony. You shack up with your new girlfriend rather than get married, and you file taxes as two single individuals (assume the US here). In most instances, your income tax liabilities are less than if you got married. If you apply for welfare or public health benefits, or student grants or loans, and you are means tested on your earnings or assets, if you're married, both spouses income counts. If you shack up, you are treated as a single individual. In many cases, married couples are treated significantly worse, in others, they have superior rights (intestacy, legal privilege, implied power of attorney, etc.) It's a mixed bag due to inconsistent and poorly thought out legislative meddling.

Let's see. I answer companionship. Gay people pounce saying, we can be companions too.

Better argument. They love each other, as they would when they are younger, but it is no fault of their own they can't have kids.

It's not the argument, it's the demonstration that the state regulatory mechanism accepts marriage for reasons other than procreation, so arguments about prohibiting gay marriage can't rely on that facade.

So are you arguing that all benefits should be distributed equally to the population? Even the commies don't go that far. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. "

Nice troll, considering my view of government in general and commies in particular. I'm saying that to the extent government grants benefits to individuals, there should be no inbuilt bias due to marital status, especially if marital status (to the legally competent partner of choice, not for a sham) is denied to a segment of the population. That is, that the benefit for two married people should be identical to the benefit for two single people, assuming there are any benefits at all. Same thing with the cost side (i.e. taxation)

That's not a strong argument. If a declaration of intent is sufficient, than anybody can say that anyone else ought to have these benefits.

The point is, it's a universally recognized, easily verifiable declaration of intent. These specific things can be covered by separte documents - wills, living wills, creation of trusts, executed powers of attorney, but generally with much more cost and legal complication than the blanket set of rights conveyed to married couples.

So tell me MtG. Did the public morals of the good old USA decline with the increase of Hispanics?

Depends on who you ask. Plenty of racists would say yes.

Secondly, what tangible benefits can be derived from purity of blood? Last I saw just the opposite could be true. Just look at the beloved Hapsburgs.

That's a little too pure. Just like 200 proof whiskey - God made Bourbon and water for a reason. My point is that the same arguments were made for miscegenation. Can you, based on (remember that good ol' Establishment Clause that applies down here) secular reasoning, say that gay marriage will result either in some inherent social harm or loss of morality?

Very good. Now can you say men and women are completely interchangeable?

They should be, to the extent of the state's regulatory interest in marriage. The state shouldn't give a fair damn.

I wonder why?

Can it generally be shown that marrying your mother will not cause these problems? You're very close to an argument by Walter Saletan.

Is his basis that the state is hard pressed to find any legitimate basis for regulatory authority? I don't like incest or polygamy, I don't approve of either, but I don't see that the state has any absolute, clear cut legitimate regulatory interest.

Back up. Isn't sexual orientation fixed? How could this happen if this were so?

Yes, it is fixed. But with a good dose of repression, guilt, coercion, social pressure to "conform,"perceived familial obligation, etc. people can do all sorts of "unnatural" things like breed and have kids. Ask Arriana Huffington's ex-hubby, or Greta Cammermeyer.

Would it be beneficial for the child to have parents of both genders? If so, then that's a credible a priori assumption.

It depends on the character of the individuals. If mindseye and Wittlich happened to be an item, for example, from what I know of each of them, if something happened to orphan either of my kids, I'd much rather that they raise them than a great many heterosexual couples I can think of.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Just a side note: Drew Barrymore has a fetish for furries...

thought that'd be a nice break for everyone...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Drew's kinda cute, but tell me about Salma's fetishes, then you're going somewhere.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, what in your life would be different if gays were to marry?

One of the proposals up before the legislature, in Canada, where we do have gay marriage, is to do away with marriage altogether. There would be a civil union recognised by the state and marriages performed in churches.

Secondly, we get this drivel stuffed down our throats on a day set aside by some of the conservatives to honour traditional marriage. Now, the CBC is funded by the government, so this is what our taxes are paying for.

Event: CBC hosts same-sex marriage
2004-02-15


Canada-wide

CBC News Sunday will broadcast the marriage of Douglass Drozdow-St. Christian (50) and his partner Stephen Drozdow-St. Christian (33) live to the nation on Feb 15 . The couple plan to shorten their hyphenated surname to "St. Christian" after their marriage. The hour-long ceremony will be augmented with edited portions of pre-recorded(Feb. 13) edited debates.. Rev. Deana Dudley of Christos MCC will be the officiant. More details to-follow

[Ben Kenobi]

Drew's kinda cute, but tell me about Salma's fetishes, then you're going somewhere.

Where were you when I wanted a babe thread...

I knew there was something I liked about you.