[reggie_woic]

your whole argument seems to simply reduce to the fact that the possession of complimentary sexual organs is the only necessary condition for marriage.

apparently, just because my wife and i "fit together", we are granted certain rights that other are not: we enjoy the position of a privileged class because of our genders; not because of our capacity to have children, love for each other or any other factor that may seem relevant to marriage.

(southpark and philosophy)

[chotadipo]

^^Reggie, my argument can simply be reduced to what is natural. Nothing much. And yes, I can vouch for a fact that marriage in its purest form was for procreation alone, what you call, "fit together'. Love, compatibility, etc are just essential ingredients to make the union more conducive for both the spouses, the offsprings, and health of the society.

Now, to go further, the capacity to have children is premised on the man-woman union. "Marriage love" is based on man-woman union. I chose to put it in parenthesis to distiguish it from other forms of love. There can be no other love that equals it. Reggie, and that is where we differ. I'm not talking about privilege or even being prejudicial. I'm just being natural. Please understand that.

[ATLian]

I don't buy the above. Marruage in one form or another has always been sanctioned by society. it is a rite of passsage. An important phase in a person's life vis a vis the community at large.

Chotadipo,

there are very many rites of passage that have always been sanctioned by the community that have ended up changing as we have become more advanced and civilized. Remember Maasai men had to kill a lion in order to be considered a man and ready for marriage. Those cannibalistic tribes had to bring the skull of another man in order to be men. Many women had to be circumcised. etc. Those rites are no longer there. My point is, a rite that's imposed by society can change, be rejected altogether, or be totally modified to keep up with the times. Those days when gays had no rights, there was no way they could even start thinking of marriage coz they'd have been stoned to death. Lakini now, as we have become more civilized, it has become a right for them, and they also want it as a rite of passage.



The very fact that they cannot reproduce naturally voids any form of argument on equality of contracts between normal marriages and gay unions.

Using this argument, then you should also argue that the marriage between a man who marries a barren woman ama a woman who marries a blanks-shooting-man is not equal to that of a couple that are both capable of getting children!

Plus the main reason for marriage is NOT children, it's companionship. Your children will grow up and leave you and move on and also get married. Your husband will be there, next to you, same bed, same house, for the next 60 years.



Not only is it undesirable in the eyes of the society but it sets a precedence for decadence, unatural indulgences, and breakdown in laws governing society as we know it.

Gay marriage has been illegal in almost all countries for the thousands of years man has been in existence. Yet right now decadence is at an all time high. What do you blame for the current decadence? And how can you say gay marriage will increase it bila criticizing the straights for the current level of decadence!

[ATLian]

I believe the rights do not need to be granted only through unions. We do have other forms of contract the two can pursue as in come-we-stay couples.

Chotadipo,

like I said earlier, my main reason for supporting gay marriage is that I feel that they should also be able to receive the same government given rights which straight people get through marriage. My revulsion at the idea of two fat hairy men pounding each other up the ass shouldn't change the fact that they also have rights.

It's amazing the number of rights that marriage can give you and your husband. I read that there are 1,409 rights (in the USA) that are given to only those that get married. Can you imagine that. Let me try and illustrate some of those rights.

Right now you can pick up a homeless bum from the street and take him to a drive-thru wedding chapel and marry him. By doing that, and assuming he's a US citizen and you're an out-of-status Kenyan, you can immediately go and file to get your Green Card and restore back your status. With that status, you'll now be able to work, travel in and out of the US, and you'll be on the path to one day becoming a US citizen. The bum would have immediate access to all your medical insurance from your jobbo, so he would be able to go and cure whichever diseases he may have. During the treatment process, you can get paid sick days off to go check him out in hosi. If you work in the military, he is automatically given all the perks you enjoy by being in the military. Since you're now married, you get the automatic tax breaks that come with it. etc. And this comes from marrying a homeless bum who you met 15 minutes ago!

Like I wrote a while back, my old gay boss has been with the same man for the last 35 years. Still, he cannot get access to any of the benefits I mention above. NONE! How can that be fair?

Now if you think about the straight couples who married for love (since the bum example is a bit extreme), then the benefits are even more. You can combine your incomes when going to buy a house, which will make a massive difference in interest rates and such compared to two people who buy the house as room-mates with separate incomes (which is what gay couples have to do). You have automatic access to the children in a divorce (visitation rights and such) even if the children are not biologically yours. You get automatic inheritance in cases of death. As cool as it is to inherit say $100,000 from a dead aunt you never knew well, one major major bog-down with inheritance if the inheritor has to pay the Death Tax, which is kedo 40% in Stato. Meaning the gova will take of with $40K of what your aunt left you. The only people who don't pay Death Tax are married people. You also get to decide what happens to your spouse in serious medical situations where your spouse cannot talk (like major surgery ama even euthanasia like in the Terry Schiavo case). If your husband dies in a wrongful death situation, the money comes to you. You both make choices for your children (schools, medical, etc). You get your spouses social security benefits. etc etc etc. There are about 1,400 more rights, which of course I won't list.

Again, none of these go to a gay couple, even those who truly love each other and have been together for years.

Assume you are in a lesbian relationship with a woman who has a 1 year old baby. Assume that you and your partner raise the child jointly, and you build a life together, including buying a house, starting a business, getting substantial savings, etc. Then one day when the child is 15, your partner is killed in a car wreck by a FedEx truck. Do you know that the dead woman's family can come and legally claim custody to that child, since legally the law doesn't recognize you as more than just a room-mate to the dead woman? Do you realize they can also claim the house you live in, using the child as the "owner", since you do not get automatic inheritance? Do you realize that if the business was so good that she left you $1,000,000, you'd have to pay $400,000 in death tax to the government, a figure you wouldn't have had to pay if it was your husband that died? Do you realize that if you're out of status for those 14 years you were together, there is no way she can put you in status, while thousands of straights marry each other strictly for status papers? Do you realize that you cannot sue FedEx for wrongful death or benefits or anything because you are but a room-mate? Do you realize that the woman's family (who maybe ostracized her for being gay all these years and were totally out of her life) can come in and sue FedEx for wrongful death and get awarded millions of dollars?

I can go on and on, but I'm sure you catch my point. There is absolutely no way that can be fair in a civilized society. There should be no way it should be illegal only because most straight people are uncomfortable with the idea of 2 men licking each others nuts.

The state should worry about protecting its married citizens and according them the same rights. It should not worry about what the sex of those who are married is.

Pole about the long essay.

[chotadipo]

^^And this is exactly the point I was waiting for you to make. You can have the same rights as married couples, but it should not be part of "marriage laws and rights" benefits as it dilutes the sacredness and sanctity of marriage. If gays want to have similar rights as straights, then why don't they petition the government to create gay rights for such unions instead of trying to wriggle them inside marriage laws and rights when the two are completly different? That is my beef...and I still know we really do not need same sex couples.

[ATLian]

So is your issue the term "marriage" or what?

I couldn't care less what term they use, they can even call it gayrriage, just as long as it confers the same rights to the gays.

BTW what would you do if your son or daughter was to turn out gay? Would you want them refused the rights of marriage only because they are gay?

Also don't you think it's the straights who defy the sanctity of marriage, with their numerous divorces?

[chotadipo]

Originally Posted by ATLian

So is your issue the term "marriage" or what?

It is the meaning behind it and not the term itself.

Originally Posted by ATLian

I couldn't care less what term they use, they can even call it gayrriage, just as long as it confers the same rights to the gays. This is where I refuse to agree with you. Rights cannot be the same when you are looking at two disimilar things.

BTW what would you do if your son or daughter was to turn out gay?

I'll go my way, I expect him/her to go his/her own way.

Originally Posted by ATLian

Would you want them refused the rights of marriage only because they are gay?

Yes I would because they will be entering an unatural union.

Originally Posted by ATLian

Also don't you think it's the straights who defy the sanctity of marriage, with their numerous divorces?

Divorce is civilway of ending marriages gone bad. Divorce in itself does not in anyway erode the sanctity of marriage.

[a.wanjala]

I would just like to ask, when does it stop? What's stopping marriage between adult incestuous couples? Why is suicide illegal? When did it become O.K for you to end a life that isn't yours? (Abortion) Why is it you can't smoke marijuana yet beer is perfectly acceptable?

If people (adults) are allowed to do whatever they want as long as it's not hurting anyone else, then that courtesy should be extended to everyone. Isn't that the argument for the pro-gay? If they are two consenting adults, and aren't hurting anyone, they should be allowed?

Then explain to me why siblings can't get married. Explain why I can't do hard drugs, even cocaine and heroin, in a controlled environment where I wouldn't hurt anyone, but myself. You're hurting yourself with beer.

The simple fact is religion and society were the determining factors when something was deemed right or wrong. Now that we have come to a place in our history where we are willing to bend societal and religious rules for our right to do what we want, what is going to be the determining factor from now on? Should we make laws according to the belief that we can do what we want (within reason) even if it means that our society will suffer in the long run? Or should we determine good and bad on the advancement of the whole of the society, even if it disadvantages its members? It’s kind of a catch 22. I honestly have no idea.

[chotadipo]

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

I would just like to ask, when does it stop? What's stopping marriage between adult incestuous couples?...Then explain to me why siblings can't get married. ... Now that we have come to a place in our history where we are willing to bend societal and religious rules for our right to do what we want, what is going to be the determining factor from now on? Should we make laws according to the belief that we can do what we want (within reason) even if it means that our society will suffer in the long run? Or should we determine good and bad on the advancement of the whole of the society, even if it disadvantages its members? It’s kind of a catch 22. I honestly have no idea.

You capture my sentiments well. This is what I grappled with before making up my mind that homesexuality has no place in society whether they want to coach it as people in love or whatever. Can I marry my sibling because I love him but choose to adopt children because I have a higher chance of concieving abnormal children? Why should I be stopped from doing that? I'm not hurting anybody and my inheritance is guaranteed to remain with my spouse who happens to be my trusted sibling, blood and all and so no stress. You see, progay can argue about equality but they know that the repurcussions far outweigh the intent. It can be done differently, it does not have to be gayism.

[reggie_woic]

ah, yes....the most popular argument against the gays: The slippery slope. if you allow gays to marry,
then you will have to allow polyandry, polygamy, and even incestuous marriage...who knows,
somebody might even want to marry their cat!

all i'm going to say is that gay marriage should stand or fall on its own merits,
and not as a result of hyped and unjustified fears of its detractors...

of course genuine concerns are raised, which need to be taken seriously, namely the good of society...
but mere speculation about the possibility of negative outcomes is not a good reason to deny
a set of groups their rights.

before you can restrict a behavior, you have to demonstrate that the behavior causes a demonstrable harm to others...
the right to self-determination so long as it does not harm anyone is one of the founding prnciples of societal democracy.

(from southpark and philosophy)