Foxfyre wrote:Okay, okay. The special right wanted by some gay activists is the right to marry with no distinction between their same sex marriage and a marriage between a man and a woman. Unless that privilege was granted to ANY two people who wished to marry, the gay couple would be afforded a privilege not available to others who, for whatever reason, could not or chose not to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Any two people of the same sex would be permitted to marry (with reasonable justified exeptions), thus it would not be a special right, but a universal one. Also, choosing not to exercise a right does not exempt you from having that right.
Quote:By the time all the variables in that equation were appropriated, the whole concept of marriage would be so diluted that it would be unrecognizable as the institution it has always been. This is what many see as a frontal assault on marriage as an enduring American institution.
I don't quite get this diluting effect, how would the institution change from consisting of two people living together as life partners? (or intending to)
Quote:Currently all persons of legal age have the right to marry any other consenting unmarried person of legal age provided it is a man and a woman involved. There are some restrictions even on that as have been previously listed by other.
True
Quote:The most sensible path now is to keep the definition of marriage intact for the benefit of the children, and provide a means for all those who choose not to marry for whatever reason to form themselves into family groups with all the benefits they lack because they are not married.
I think this is what we presently have in Norway, in theory there is a different name for it, but everyone just calls it marriage. I think having the distinction is sort of useless, all it does is hint at sepparate but equal sentiments.
Since you seem to be sort of sentimental about the word marriage, would you find it satisfactory if the state just made arrangements for people to bestow visitation at hospitals to a limited number of favored people, bestow citizenship upon a forreigner against financially vouching for said forreigner (supporting if necessary), and generally just made the legal implications of marriage available to everyone? This would leave the word and symbolism as a cultural tradition, with no legal ramifications, for people to figure out for themselves. This would be my preffered solution to the problem.
Quote:By so doing, everybody continues to have identical rights under the law and we correct the inequities that now exist.
Way better than what you presently have, I guess I just don't see why anyone would need to make a distinction other than to hint that the gay people's marriage isn't a 'real' marriage. It looks like a veiled insult from where I'm sitting.
