Same-sex marriage CXVI...

It would be giving gays "special rights."

One of the main problems with a different word is the benefits and laws tied to the word marriage.

There are no marriage laws written outside the context of the definition of "marriage" When these laws were written, people didn't fathom the word "marriage" being applied to any union than that of 2 people of oppisite sexes.

Exactly. And if gay people want what they say they want, then they should be willing to choose that different word or there is no way they will receive the blessings and acceptance of the majority of Americans. And the main reason again comes down to the kids.

I have no problem with gays raising kids when that is the best option available for the kid. But I believe, and I believe all the credible study data will agree, that the best possible environment for a child is to have a loving mother and father in the home. Many gay people benefited from having Mom and Dad at home when they were growing up. I for one will never agree that married people (i.e. a qualified married man and woman) should not be at the head of the line to adopt children.

And I will not agree to any law that further weakens and/or trivializes traditional marriage. I would like laws that strengthen and encourage traditional marriage.

Gay people will have few enemies and will have a huge support base if they will compromise on this issue.

If I go to london and say "I want to smoke a fag" it is well understood.

If I make the same statement in America, many will think I mean that I want to fellate a gay man, even though I have no desire to do so.

What makes you think this would be the case?

PD I made my argument quite well in my initial post on this thread.

Gay people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people do now.

Fozfyre wrote (above): "Any unmarried person of legal age is free to marry any other single person of legal age who is the opposite sex. To provide some same sex persons with the right to 'marry' would be a 'special' right denied to other same sex couples who are not gay. That a gay person would not choose to marry a person of the opposite sex is irrelevant. He/she has the right to do so."

This is a bogus line of thinking, and I have to believe you know it.

Right-handed people are free use right-handed scissors. Left handed people are free to use the same right-handed scissors. Yet we have created left-handed scissors. Why ? Because right-handed scissors don't work for left-handed people.

Marrying someone of the opposite sex doesn't "work" for gay people. The idea is to marry someone you love, someone to whom you are attracted, someone with whom you want to share your life and perhaps raise a family. Gay people do not, at this time, have THAT right.

Get it ?

There is no law on any books anywhere that gives you the right to marry somebody you love or that requires you to be in love in order to marry. The law says you have the right to marry another unmarried person of the opposite sex who is of legal age and is single. Every person of legal age in the United States has that right.

This is an issue that begs for compromise. Let anybody form a family group for love, mutual support, legal protection or whatever. Just call it something besides marriage.

Fox wrote: "Let anybody form a family group for love, mutual support, legal protection or whatever. Just call it something besides marriage."

Marriage is BOTH a civil term and a religious one, and this seems to be the problem. Gay people are looking for the CIVIL (legal) right to marry, and along with it, all the civil rights that a civil marriage brings. (Religious institutions alone should decide whom THEY will marry.)

The problem is, if you call a civil marriage by another name, you lose LEGAL rights at the federal level (I believe there are 1049 og them), along with legal rights at the state level when going from one state to another.

Theoretically, if it were possible to grant people who enter into (gay or straight) civil unions ALL the same state and federal rights (not some, not a few, but ALL), then I doubt we would have the kind of intense disagreement we have now around this issue.

It is not just about semantics, in fact it's not about semantics at all. It's about civil rights.


.

Fox also wrote: "There is no law on any books anywhere that gives you the right to marry somebody you love or that requires you to be in love in order to marry. The law says you have the right to marry another unmarried person of the opposite sex who is of legal age and is single. Every person of legal age in the United States has that right."

Your statement is true enough, as far as it goes.

The problem is straight people have the right to marry "another unmarried person of the opposite sex who is of legal age and is single" AND whom they may (or may not) love. Gay people can never marry "another unmarried person of the opposite sex who is of legal age and is single" whom they may love, for obvious reasons. The difference lies in the options for the legal choice of a marriage partner. Straight people can choose to legally marry someone they love; gay people cannot.

And yes, that IS how the laws are currently written, but, again, for obvious reasons, those laws reflect a clear denial of equal rights.

.

Yes there is currently equal protection under the law because a single gay person of legal age can marry a willing single unmarried person of the opposite sex who is of legal age just like anybody else can do that. That this would be unsatisfactory or impractical for the gay person is not a matter of law.

I do not think gay persons should have equal rights to adopt children ahead of heterosexual couples who are willing to adopt the same children. This is for purely documented practical reasons; not because I think gay couples could not do a credible job of child rearing. I believe it is best for children to grow up with a mom and dad.

But it isn't the right to adopt children that gay people have asked for. It is to have rights of inheritance, hospital visitation rights, shared insurance etc. that are guaranteed to married couples. This can be accomplished with a civil union and such civil union should be available to any two people or group of people who wish to form a family unit.

This has nothing to do with religion. Religion is not required in any sense for a state recognized legal marriage and it would not be required in any sense for a legal civil union. Religion just adds another layer to that required by the state so that isn't an issue.

I wholeheartedly support the idea of civil unions for all others who need that who are not one man and one woman. But lets keep marriage for the sake of the children and call the civil unions something else. Unless there is another agenda here that the gay-rights people are not admitting to, that should make most people happy. We can shout down the homophobes and ignore the militant flamers.

I'm looking for a best solution for all the rational, normal people involved.

I'm not touching this topic with a ten foot pole. I'm gay. So, my feelings on this subject are strong. I'll just leave it at that.

Call it a Gayriage or something.

From Dictionary.com:

mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage

You do realize that rights on paper are different than how gays are dealt with in real life right?



Though everyone is claiming that, there seems to be no evidence - at least, not that I know off yet -, nor any good explanation for it. An explanation for it can be not that homosexuals can not raise children, but that a lot of heterosexuals do not accept children who come from a family with two fathers or two mothers. Society accepts a mother and a father, not two parents of the same sex. You say that in that case it would be better for the child to be raised by a mother and a father. I say society has to change and has to accept that two homosexuals are also capable of raising a child.

Fox did not say that two homosexuals are not capable of raising a child, but rather that it is better for the child to have both a mother and father. That is an important distinction. I firmly believe that a homosexual couple is more than capable of raising a child. Many are doing so quite well I am sure. But a child will be better served to have both a mom and dad. I think of it in the same way that many childred are being raised in a single parent home. That single parent does a fine job I am sure. But again, the child would be better served with both a mom and dad.

I think that was the point Fox was trying to make.

And my reaction was (partly): why is a child better off in a family with a mother and a father than in a family with parents of the same sex?

If the child is a girl - can two men fully comprehend what is going on during her "time of the month"?

If the child is a boy - can two women fully comprehend locker room blues?

There are differences physically and psychologically between men and women.

I was raised by my mother from the time I was 11 years old. She did not understand me at all. To this day I do not have a good relationship with her. We are civil and can be in the same room at the same time and even say we "love" each other. That doesn't mean that she was the first person on my list that I called and told that my wife was pregnant.

I do think it is possible in an open society saintsfanbrian. More than once did my father and my sister talk about her period and the Pill. This being in the Netherlands of course... but I do think it is possible. Of course I do realize that it can be harder in many times, but I do think that children who are being raised in a family with homosexual parents from the beginning already act different on the issues as you stated. Two friends of mine were raised by only their mother, like you. In both cases their parents divorced on a young age (from one I know he was four years old, the other one was also around that age). Because of that they experienced their youth indeed different from the other children who did have two parents at home, though from both I know they did not see it especially in a negative way. They both got a good bond with their mothers. I do not say this because I think you are overreacting or something like that, absolutely not. I do realize it's not always a nice story with a happy ending. But I do think - with that coming back on the subject, switching back on gayparents - that having gayparents do not have to mean that their children will have a hard time. It's also a case off "what you are used to".

Rick - I am not saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt, but if there are 2 people that are in a marriage as man and wife (male and female) that are on the list, I think the child should go to them first.

Rosie O'Donnell has 4 adopted children (I think it's four I know it's more than one.) Why should she get preferential treatment over a married heterosexual couple? Oh wait, it's because she is a "celebrity" and she is rich. A friend of mine had to wait 2 years for a child. How long did Rosie have to wait. Seems like every time you turn around, she is off picking up another kid.