Detour: Point of View thread

"The relationship itself has no impact on others. The changing the law to grant rights and responsibilities to a new sort of relationship might well impact a great many people."


How?


If your religion (undefined here - Hindi, Islam, Buddhist, Christian or all myriad variants of all?), states that gay members shouldn't marry, that is OK, as it is their belief. If they state that gay people that are not of their religion shouldn't marry, then that is wrong - wrong and wrong again.

Years ago a youngish gay friend was in a long term relationship with an older man. The house was in the older man's name but they had both contributed to paying it off and maintaining it over years. The older man died without a will, and then his birth family physically assaulted his partner and evicted him without any compensation. Our partnership and defacto marriage laws wouldn't let that happen now, but a legal marriage would have been fairer again.

What limits will there be in choice of partners? Will father and son marriages be allowed? The reasons for not marrying someone too closely related do not apply to same sex marriages. If the only limiting factor to marriage is romantic love, than anyone can marry anyone. There are legal reasons for this sort of union to be attractive to some people who wish to avoids inheritance taxes.

Parental rights will also have to be examined if marriages is redefined. The interplay between adoption and genetic parents as well as the legal status of surrogates will change. How will all that change? Will our courts force those laws on us or will we be able to influence legislation? Even if we make local laws that are acceptable, will the Supreme Court let them stand?

None of this has been discussed. Right now two people of the same sex can enter into a contracted relationship to define all the rights and responsibilities they grant each other. This is indeed more convoluted. Yet it will not impact anyone else. Changing the law in such a fundamental way will.

Is it a wonder there is resistance to the entire idea?

Daryl wrote:"The relationship itself has no impact on others. The changing the law to grant rights and responsibilities to a new sort of relationship might well impact a great many people."


How?


If your religion (undefined here - Hindi, Islam, Buddhist, Christian or all myriad variants of all?), states that gay members shouldn't marry, that is OK, as it is their belief. If they state that gay people that are not of their religion shouldn't marry, then that is wrong - wrong and wrong again.

Years ago a youngish gay friend was in a long term relationship with an older man. The house was in the older man's name but they had both contributed to paying it off and maintaining it over years. The older man died without a will, and then his birth family physically assaulted his partner and evicted him without any compensation. Our partnership and defacto marriage laws wouldn't let that happen now, but a legal marriage would have been fairer again.

PeterZ wrote:The relationship itself has no impact on others. The changing the law to grant rights and responsibilities to a new sort of relationship might well impact a great many people.

But what's the cost? What are the negative effects of legally recognizing a relationship? This is something noone on the conservative side of the debate has ever been able to explain. There's a lot of handwringing about children and such, but as we've seen, homosexual couples are just as able to have and raise children as any other (although a few extra steps may be involved in having them).

The E wrote:
But what's the cost? What are the negative effects of legally recognizing a relationship? This is something noone on the conservative side of the debate has ever been able to explain. There's a lot of handwringing about children and such, but as we've seen, homosexual couples are just as able to have and raise children as any other (although a few extra steps may be involved in having them).

Are they? Where is the evidence? I am not saying homosexual parents are inherently worse. I am just asking for the evidence supporting this assertion.

I gave descriptions of potential issues. Those are costs. Will adoptive rights have to be changed or strengthened as a reasonable accommodation because same sex couples cannot have children by themselves? Does this mean that courts decide in certain cases that a genetic parent's rights are superseded by a surviving same sex spouse regarding custody of minor children?

Why not just define another legal relationship that describes same sex unions without changing an ages old institution?

Some of our more conservative politicians have run the argument that it is the thin edge of the wedge, and eventually will lead to people marrying their kids or pets.
This is an insulting cheap shot, implying that gay marriages are wrong, and by implication as wrong as pedophilia, incest, or bestiality.
Basically what is being sought is equal rights for all adult humans regardless of how they are hard wired. If all parties are well informed, I'd have no problem with polygamy in any combination as well. In At All Costs, Emily admits that if she regained the use of her body she would take her relationship with Honor to an other level.

There are good real reasons for the taboos on bestiality, incest or pedophilia, that have led to strict secular laws banning such practices. No such reasons exist for adult gay human relationships.

Regarding the term "marriage", if there is a religious copyright on the word, which religion holds it?

Liberals say they want equal rights but are asking for expanded rights. Marriage has been defined as between a man and woman. Gays or straits are able to marry under this definition. The insistence that marriage must be redefined invites more government intrusion. There are other less disruptive options. Create a same sex union as an example with rights specific to same sex couples.

This seems reasonable but lib's insist on that option which invites more government. Gays might well want equality, however, progressive- liberals are using this to promote their bigger government agenda.

I doubt if we'll ever agree on this, as I can't see why a gay marriage needs any different rights to a hetero one.
Sure some religions define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but the state just has to say between consenting adults. Nothing else, so no intrusion.

What rights specific to same sex couples would be required?

Is it the hang up about sodomy? Statistically there is more sodomy occurring in the hetero community than the gay one due to the overall numbers. Due to my scientific background it isn't something I like either, but many male gays don't indulge either.

PeterZ wrote:Liberals say they want equal rights but are asking for expanded rights. Marriage has been defined as between a man and woman. Gays or straits are able to marry under this definition. The insistence that marriage must be redefined invites more government intrusion. There are other less disruptive options. Create a same sex union as an example with rights specific to same sex couples.

This seems reasonable but lib's insist on that option which invites more government. Gays might well want equality, however, progressive- liberals are using this to promote their bigger government agenda.

Daryl,
I have not argued once against same sex unions. Asserting I am against it for reasons I have not raised is disingenuous. I am against redefining a millennias old institution without adequately considering the consequences. Proponents of this redefinition need to justify the changes and mitigate any disruption.

Absent a solid rationale, the supporters' argument devolve to all change is progress and all progress is good. That logic simply does not hold.

PeterZ wrote:Daryl,
I have not argued once against same sex unions. Asserting I am against it for reasons I have not raised is disingenuous. I am against redefining a millennias old institution without adequately considering the consequences. Proponents of this redefinition need to justify the changes and mitigate any disruption.

Absent a solid rationale, the supporters' argument devolve to all change is progress and all progress is good. That logic simply does not hold.

Neither does your assertion that there are any negative consequences arising from this change. Your argument boils down to "we can't change the way it is because that's how it's always been", which was patently untrue in the past and is patently untrue now.

Point is, if I were to press you on why you think the term "marriage" must always be defined as "recognized heterosexual union", the only reasons you could come up with are a) it has been that way for as long as you remember and b) something about children. Point a is not good enough. Point b is plain bullshit.

You keep talking about how we who are pro gay marriage haven't considered the consequences from changing the legal meaning of the term. We have. We found the consequences to be acceptable. It's your turn to articulate why you believe this is all wrong. If you can't do that without resorting to something more substantial than "it is change, and I am uncomfortable with it", do not be surprised if you cannot convince anyone of your position.

To divert momentarily from the central topic, the attitude to change may be pre wired to some extent.

I'm not saying prenology has any validity as it is clearly rubbish, but there is some recent research on physical differences between the brains of conservatives and progressives. Also not in any way saying that either is smarter or better balanced than the other.

What has been observed is that there are consistent subtle physical differences between brains of those with stronger biases to either philosophy. The fear/flight area is stronger in conservatives, and the investigative/not accepting status quo areas are more pronounced in progressives.

May end up to be pseudoscientific hocus pocus, but maybe not.
I do know that when something changes, my conservative friends (I do have some) see it as a potential threat, while I see it as a possible opportunity. It does end up biting me on the a*se at times, but I have had some great wins as well.