'Same Sex Marriage'? Is it natural?

**vetalalumni** · May-28-09, 09:35 PM

... I don't know how marriage of any kind can be considered 'natural' as it is a human cultural institution, whether it is considered as a civil one [[sanctioned by governmental bodies) or a religious one [[sanctioned by religious bodies). To make any kind of argument about 'naturalness' you would first have to make the case for a definition of 'natural' that includes human culture in all of its varieties of practices.

Excellent position made here! Refreshing.

ccbatson · May-28-09, 10:01 PM

If it is a personal matter, then why does anyone care whether it is "banned" or "legal"? Make your vows and all should be right....right?? Or...is something else afoot?

ccbatson · May-28-09, 10:08 PM

Had a rehabilitative epiphany have you Slim?

ccbatson · May-28-09, 10:11 PM

Apart from the quasi governmental endorsement, what is so desirable about an official/sanctioned same sex marriage policy?

**jt1** · May-28-09, 10:25 PM

"If it is a personal matter, then why does anyone care whether it is "banned" or "legal"? Make your vows and all should be right....right?? Or...is something else afoot? "

The issue is that gay people in long term relationships do not have the same right that married couples have. If my wife is on her deathbed I have full access to see her. If my gay friends spouse [[not recognized by law) is on his/her deathbed they do not have the same rights as family.

If a gay couple adopts children only one can be listed as a partent and have legal custodial rights, etc.

ccbatson · May-28-09, 10:28 PM

Rights to what? Seeing the body of a person that has died? Only one parent as a legal custodian, but the other as a back up in the event that the first dies? Trivialities...any more significant "rights" which you are referring to?

**mjs** · May-28-09, 10:30 PM

From your Perspective: Spousal benefits, legal inhereitence, and the right to sue on the deceased's behave if someone kills them.
In a more Spiritual Perspective: Acceptance, public acknowledgement of a monogomous relationship, honor, pride.
From a State Perspective: The usual, community stability.

ccbatson · May-30-09, 11:02 PM

Anyone can will their assets to anyone they like, anyone can be named beneficiary on a life insurance policy, Murder is not a civil matter for an individual to sue over.

SPOUSAL BENEFITS is the one I was fishing for...and that is the reason not to extend marriage rights.

Spiritually?? Who cares what other's think, unless the person/persons in question are highly insecure.

Community stability? You must be joking with that one....a community made of same sex couples is demographically doomed to breed itself out of existence....not very stable.

**rb336** · June-01-09, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Anyone can will their assets to anyone they like, anyone can be named beneficiary on a life insurance policy .

yet numerous cases exist where a same-sex partner was excluded from the estate by those damn right-wing activist judges, and where insurance companies have refused to pay to non-wed partners [[both straight and gay)

SPOUSAL BENEFITS is the one I was fishing for...and that is the reason not to extend marriage rights.

actually, that is PRECISELY the reason they need to be extended

**oladub** · June-01-09, 09:12 AM

One solution might be some sort of a universal contract allowing individuals to designate anyone they want to have listed benefits and shared responsibilities toward each other. For instance, an elderly sister and brother who may love each other do not have the right to each other's survivor benefits. Gay marriage proponents would allow two gays to have the right to each other's social security survivor benefits. However, this does nothing for an elederly siblings who also might love each other and might have known each other much longer. They would be relatively discriminated against because they still would not be able to get each other's social security survivor benefits. A universal contract that wouldn't have to be called a marriage contract would allow anyone to designate another person whether their gay lover, their sibling, a good friend, or even partners [[plural) to have visitation, survival, medical access and other rights being sought now by gays. Gays would get what they want as well as others catagories of people needing the same benefits.

Any additional groups dipping into social security funding would, of course, require more funding for social security, pensions, and similar programs but that is a separate matter to be decided by people and their elected representatives. A lack of extra funding to go with gay marriages or my idea of a more encompassing contract option would be an attack on the viability of social security and similar public institutions.

Historically, traditional marriages have not been based on romantic love. Arranged marriages, marriages of convenience for practical reasons, alliances, and other things have often usurped the quest for romance as the primary reason for marriages. Just wanted to get that in there because loving someone is not an entitlement let alone a requirement of marriage. From a public standpoint, love is not a qualification and is hardly measurable. Since there are different types of love, it would be a nightmare for government to try to favor one sort of love over the others anyway.

**mclark** · June-01-09, 12:02 PM

While I do believe same-sex marriage should be legalized, I understand the argument that it is a religious institution. In that case, there should be a legally recognized alternative, an official civil union with the same benefits of marriage available to anyone who doesn't want a "traditional Christian" marriage.

**rb336** · June-01-09, 01:07 PM

No, just legalize same sex marriage but do not compel religious officials to perform the ceremonies. non-religious officials, however, should have to regardless of their beliefs because it is not a church matter

**1KielsonDrive** · June-01-09, 01:36 PM

How about a law that says 'MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS'. People who are concerned what others are doing with their lives and in their bedrooms[[or the garage, or the backseat of the car, etc, etc) have too much time on their hands. Go home and take care of your own damn business. Go to church and pray for the deliverance of your own soul. Stay out of my life. There's nothing more immoral, degenerate and sinful than being judgemental, nosey and meddling.

cheddar bob · June-01-09, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by mclark

I understand the argument that it is a religious institution. In that case, there should be a legally recognized alternative, an official civil union with the same benefits of marriage available to anyone who doesn't want a "traditional Christian" marriage.

Really? Because when I got married in April, there was nothing religious about it and there certainly weren't any clergy around.

**mclark** · June-01-09, 03:26 PM

I understand that, and have had several friends that had very "secular" [[for lack of a better term) weddings. But one of the main arguments I hear against allowing homosexual marriage has to do with religion. Personally I think it's B.S., but I'm just proposing an alternative.

Originally Posted by cheddar bob

Really? Because when I got married in April, there was nothing religious about it and there certainly weren't any clergy around.

**Detroitej72** · June-01-09, 06:14 PM

Not allowing couples to marry is another example of the right wing limiting our freedoms. This from a party that claims to stand for freedom, yet once again, they show their hypocrisy.

Funny, now that he is not running for office, even their hero Chaney thinks gays should be allowed to wed:http://www.yahoo.com/s/1079736

ccbatson · June-01-09, 10:02 PM

My argument is to avoid expanding entitlement roles as they are already to big.

**Detroitej72** · June-01-09, 10:04 PM

Many companies already do this, by their own choice, so it really isn't expanding entitlements, unless you mean government workers.

**1KielsonDrive** · June-02-09, 12:50 AM

Religion is an institution. But certainly not an institution of higher learning.

ccbatson · June-02-09, 08:25 PM

With government growing at astonishing rates, is there much private industry left?

**Detroitej72** · June-02-09, 08:29 PM

Halliburton still is doing well, even though it has moved the headquarters to Dubai, in order to screw the U.S. out of tax money that it makes by the wonderful no bid contracts that W gift wrapped for them.