Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[kddani]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

There is just as little or less reasoning which supports gay marriage.

Two adult, competant people who love each other should have the right to enjoy the same legal benefits.

If you use that kind of logic, what reason is there for ANYTHING? What reason is there for "straight" marriage? What reason is there for not being allowed to kill people? What reason is there that we're allowed to vote?

You cannot give any logical support for your argument or any reason beyond "just because", nor can you support your position against any counterarguments.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I know this is semantics, but I don't think I'd have a problem with having "civil unions" hold the same legal standing as a marriage. I believe that marriage as instituted by Christ is between a man and a woman, but I also recognize that this is my opinion, and others are free to do what they want, and responsible for their own destiny.

So Jews aren't really married? Nevermind that they invented the prenup...

[shinerbock]

You are being completely absurd. The fact that two people are in love entitles them to some right? Your argument is this: that because two straight people can enter into a relationship which by definition involves 2 people of the opposite sex, two people who do not fit the prerequisite to enter the relationship should be allowed to. This is like a stupid "No Girls Allowed is wrong" argument. You consistantly say logic and ration are on your side, but they simply are not. Now, if you simply desire some sort of civil union policy which would grant the "rights" to homosexual couples, that may be more understandable. However, even without such a policy, gay couples can create most of these rights for themselves. Worried about what happens to your partner if something happens to you? DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES AND DRAFT A WILL. Worried about your life insurance benefits? YOU CAN NAME ANYONE AS A BENEFACTOR. This is much less about the "rights" gays lose, and much more about pushing their way into an institution which is sacred to many who happen to think homosexuality is wrong.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by kstar

So Jews aren't really married? Nevermind that they invented the prenup...

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that people twist my words.

Where did I say that only Christians can get married?? I said Christ instituted marriage (according to the Christian church) between a man and a woman. I DID NOT say Christ instituted marriage between a Christian and a Christian.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that people twist my words.

Where did I say that only Christians can get married?? I said Christ instituted marriage (according to the Christian church) between a man and a woman. I DID NOT say Christ instituted marriage between a Christian and a Christian.

However, Jews were getting married long before Jesus of Nazareth.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You are being completely absurd. The fact that two people are in love entitles them to some right?

...

Now, if you simply desire some sort of civil union policy which would grant the "rights" to homosexual couples, that may be more understandable. However, even without such a policy, gay couples can create most of these rights for themselves. Worried about what happens to your partner if something happens to you? DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES AND DRAFT A WILL. Worried about your life insurance benefits? YOU CAN NAME ANYONE AS A BENEFACTOR. This is much less about the "rights" gays lose, and much more about pushing their way into an institution which is sacred to many who happen to think homosexuality is wrong.

It's not granting them a right. It is a right they inately have and are prevented from using.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You are being completely absurd. The fact that two people are in love entitles them to some right? Your argument is this: that because two straight people can enter into a relationship which by definition involves 2 people of the opposite sex, two people who do not fit the prerequisite to enter the relationship should be allowed to. This is like a stupid "No Girls Allowed is wrong" argument. You consistantly say logic and ration are on your side, but they simply are not. Now, if you simply desire some sort of civil union policy which would grant the "rights" to homosexual couples, that may be more understandable. However, even without such a policy, gay couples can create most of these rights for themselves. Worried about what happens to your partner if something happens to you? DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES AND DRAFT A WILL. Worried about your life insurance benefits? YOU CAN NAME ANYONE AS A BENEFACTOR. This is much less about the "rights" gays lose, and much more about pushing their way into an institution which is sacred to many who happen to think homosexuality is wrong.

Sorry, there are still a lot of rights they cannot arrage for. Just a few examples:

One spouse collecting the other's social security (also pension) when they die- not available to gay couples, no matter what their personal legal arrangements.

Health care- few companies offer same sex couples health care benefits. No matter what the legal arrangements. No matter that it would cost them the exact same amount of money if Gary was married to Louis instead of Louise.

Health care decisions- even carefully crafted advanced directives can be challenged by the immediate family and tie it up in a battle over who gets to make the decision over health care if a person becomes incapacitated.

HOW WOULD GAY MARRIAGE/CIVIL UNION AFFECT YOU PERSONALLY? IT WOULDN'T!!!!! You can't argue money, because as I said, the costs would be the same if Gary was married to Louis or Louise.

It's kind of useless and hypocritical to argue that "homosexuality" is wrong if you yourself have engaged in conduct, particularly sexual conduct, that is considered wrong. Are you a virgin? Sex before marriage is "wrong" in pretty much all major religions? Do you receive blow jobs? Also considered "wrong".

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You are being completely absurd. The fact that two people are in love entitles them to some right? Your argument is this: that because two straight people can enter into a relationship which by definition involves 2 people of the opposite sex, two people who do not fit the prerequisite to enter the relationship should be allowed to. This is like a stupid "No Girls Allowed is wrong" argument. You consistantly say logic and ration are on your side, but they simply are not. Now, if you simply desire some sort of civil union policy which would grant the "rights" to homosexual couples, that may be more understandable. However, even without such a policy, gay couples can create most of these rights for themselves. Worried about what happens to your partner if something happens to you? DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES AND DRAFT A WILL. Worried about your life insurance benefits? YOU CAN NAME ANYONE AS A BENEFACTOR. This is much less about the "rights" gays lose, and much more about pushing their way into an institution which is sacred to many who happen to think homosexuality is wrong.

Why don't we just get rid of civil marriage and make everyone fill out all of those seperate forms themselves... makes that honeymoon a lot less fun.

Hospitals can keep gay partners from each other, because they aren't related. If you die before you make a will, your partner is screwed. And be honest, how many people under the age of forty have a will, gay or straight?

Why are you holding them to a higher standard?

[shinerbock]

Kddani, so your theory is that since I and others may engage in things that are "wrong," we should create paths for people to use the government in order to do more wrong things? For someone so against using emotional/religious rationalization, the idea of what's wrong doesn't seem legitimate. Regarding social security, I guess if we reach a point where they are to be provided that, then civil unions could help them. As for health coverage, a great many companies are now providing partner benefits. Additionally, in discussing the matter with several people in my family who work within the health fields (one of whom is a democrat) they say the use of the "can't get in to see my partner" reasoning is so incredibly rare. My sister who is the democrat, claims it is similar to the rape defense on abortion, in that it happens very rarely and is not proper justification for a broad change. They also claim that this is another situation in which proper preparation would keep any problems from occurring. You're right, gay marriage doesn't really hurt me financially. As I've stated before, I would be more open to some sort of civil union. However, I still view marriage as a clearly defined act, and there is no reason for encroaching upon that.

[shinerbock]

As for the second post, just about all of my young professional friends have wills. It is the most intelligent thing to do. I plan on having one as soon as I have children. If I was gay with a partner, I would likewise ensure they were provided for.

[Drolefille]

You are holding 1 group of people to a higher standard than yourself.

Why do you think that is right.

Let's just do away with all of the civil benefits of marriage.. Everything from name-changing to next of kin to tax breaks and spousal protection under the 5th amendment.. etc... EVERYTHING

Marriage is now only religious and means nothing to the government.

Would that make you equally happy?

[shinerbock]

Actually, I think that would be a great decision. I would leave in place the name changing, but then again you can change your name legally anyway. Sure, works for me.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

.. it also is very troubling to corporations who have to provide benefits. I recently spoke to one of my fathers business associates, who works for a large international corporation here in Atlanta. He said that gay marriage is a big concern for them, as partners do not tend to be long term, and that the health insurance costs are higher.

About the health care costs companies would face should gay marriage be allowed... Generally, health care is more expensive for women than it is for men. So, technically, companies would fare better (economically) to provide coverage to male-male couples than any other kind. I don't buy the "health care costs would go up" argument.

[shinerbock]

You're right about women, and obviously I'm no expert on health insurance...however, would being gay, and having a higher risk of certain problems, not raise prices? It may not, but I have heard this.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're right about women, and obviously I'm no expert on health insurance...however, would being gay, and having a higher risk of certain problems, not raise prices? It may not, but I have heard this.

Higher risk of what problems, exactly, and proof of these risks?

Being overweight, smoking, etc. also raises prices. Skinny people are allowed to marry fat people.

BTW, no one's saying that gays have to be married by every church or whatever. "Marriage" and "civil union" are just being used interchangeable, what it comes down to are the rights. No one's going to tell your church, OMG you have to marry gay people! That's up to each church to do what they want. Just like a church/priest can decline to marry a couple who have been "living in sin" before they were married.

How about some actual, logical arguments, instead of my daddy said this, my sister said that?