On Saturday, in cities across the country, Americans gathered in protest of what is accurately characterized as a step backwards. As part of an ongoing initiative to take steps away from the armchair and into the fray, I was there.
While it's disheartening that, in this day and age, we are still arguing over -and at times retracting- the civil rights of entire groups of people, I was encouraged by a turnout estimated at 10,000.
The truth is, even in beacons of progress like Massachusetts, there are forty some odd rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples that are not afforded to married homosexual couples. Judging by the turnout, perhaps the tide is changing. It's about time.
10 comments:
Did you ever think about the reasons there are additional rights given to married heterosexual couples over unmarried couples? One, to make sure our society continues to bare children so the human race can continue to survive. Two, the concept of marriage was and is designed for heterosexual couples to give society the best change of continued survival allowing for married couple breaks in cost since the cost of raising a child is astronomical.
Allotting these benefits to gay couples would not help continue the proper growth of society and the breaks allotted for child rearing couples would be deluded.
While there should be some type of benefit for being in a gay couple, why do you feel the exact marriage rights should be given to gay couples? Marriage, as defined, in our laws is between a man and women, so should we change the definition of marriage?
Why should the benefits designed to create the best society possible be given to those who would not use them for the purpose in which they were created for? Please advise.
Note: In no way am I against gay's. I would simply like to hear your thoughts.
Who are you and what did you do w/ my friend from college...
You think without tax incentives heterosexual couples would cease procreating? If I've read your "theory" correctly, I think you might be crazy.
Wow. Anonymous’ argument makes absolutely no sense, as Anonymous #2 has already pointed out. In most cases I would ignore something this nonsensical, but I am tired and cranky and cannot let this go. So, just so I don’t lose you, Anonymous, I’ll break your argument down piece by piece…
“Did you ever think about the reasons there are additional rights given to married heterosexual couples over unmarried couples? One, to make sure our society continues to bare children so the human race can continue to survive.”
What?!? People hardly require the incentive of marriage in order to procreate. How do we have any living species at all? Because of SEX. Not marriage. Cats don’t get married. Spiders don’t get married. Monkeys don’t get married. But miraculously, their numbers still thrive! The notion that gay marriage would somehow be detrimental to the human population is preposterous. (Too bad, really, since overpopulation is one of the world’s most pressing issues and it would be ecologically responsible to cut down on the baby making.)
“Two, the concept of marriage was and is designed for heterosexual couples to give society the best change of continued survival allowing for married couple breaks in cost since the cost of raising a child is astronomical.”
Yes, the cost of raising a child is astronomical. So what about gay couples with children? Yes, that’s right. Gay couples have children also.
“Allotting these benefits to gay couples would not help continue the proper growth of society and the breaks allotted for child rearing couples would be deluded.”
The breaks allotted for child rearing couples would be deluded?? You mean, made obsolete? Your word choice is confusing here. I’m not sure what exactly you think would happen to those breaks for couples with children if gay couples could get married. The legal marriage of a same-sex couple will not affect the reproductive strategies or tax breaks of heterosexual couples in any way. It is completely unclear why you seem to think it would.
”While there should be some type of benefit for being in a gay couple, why do you feel the exact marriage rights should be given to gay couples? Marriage, as defined, in our laws is between a man and women, so should we change the definition of marriage?”
Should we change the definition of marriage in our laws? YES. It is exhausting that people use this argument, as if our laws are innately perfect, unchangeable, and have never been altered in the past. Have no laws ever been deemed unjust and then changed? Following your logic here, we’d still have slaves and women would still lack suffrage rights. Way to be.
”Why should the benefits designed to create the best society possible be given to those who would not use them for the purpose in which they were created for? Please advise.”
Well, seeing as you were completely illogical in your reasoning of why the institution of marriage was created in the first place, this also makes no sense. Gay couples would not use marriage “for the purpose it was created for?” Do you mean, to have children? We already covered that…marriage does not allow for the creation of children. There would still be plenty of kids running around without the institution of marriage. And, as we’ve also covered, gay couples have children also - through adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, heterosexual intercourse (gasp!), etc. If marriage is intended for procreation as you say, then infertile heterosexual couples and those who do not desire any kids should be banned from getting married also. Again, way to be.
”Note: In no way am I against gay's. I would simply like to hear your thoughts.”
Ok, so maybe you don’t hate gay people. You just don’t believe they deserve the same rights as other people.
We are all entitled to our opinions. And, we are all afforded the right to express them in forums such as this. It would benefit the intellectual standard of a dialogue like this one, though, if people’s opinions followed any logic whatsoever.
Your animal comment is rubbish. No other animal void the elephant requires constant attention to their young for longer then 4 years before they can survive on their own.
Dont use the "our society is advance so much we dont need old definitions to apply to age-old customs" card. Marriage was constructed to help best raise human young. Animals dont always needed a mother and father to raise their young. So my point, is dead on in regards the point of marriage as a definition.
Let me ask you this, why do same sex couples want to have marriage rights? What is their main reason for wanting to wed?
Love? Maybe. Social status so other know you are committed? Possibly. Monetary advantages it brings? Bingo!
PS No I dont think they deserve the same set of marriage rights as defined by the current law. I do think they deserve laws as defined for same sex couples so they wont have to continue this dance around the age-old definition of marriage. Let the old definition stand as is and construct new rights much like common law marriages, but with great rights equal to the current marriage law. This way, no one can argue that marriage law is currently structured for heterosexual beings and therefore homosexual beings have no right to it. No one can strip them of rights if they have their own definition of it. Fair enough?
definitely a wise and honorable tradition that marriage is.
by "age-old" are you referring the tradition of arranged marriages, the right of prima noctus enacted by kings on the brides first night with her husband, or are you referring to the highly revered tradition that has a 50% failure rate currently?
think what you want of all of this, but don't act like marriage is this wonderful, amazing bliss that is never to be tampered with out of fear of spoiling its purity.
get over yourself and be inclusive, we don't have time for this shit, there are more pressing needs that will affect all of us, gay, straight, bigot, whatever...
“Your animal comment is rubbish. No other animal void the elephant requires constant attention to their young for longer then 4 years before they can survive on their own. “
The animal comment had nothing to do with child rearing; it was about reproducing – in response to your assertion that marriage promotes it. Can you read? (Not to mention, you are wrong again about no animals needing constant attention for more than 4 years for survival. Read up on your nonhuman primates).
”Dont use the "our society is advance so much we dont need old definitions to apply to age-old customs" card. Marriage was constructed to help best raise human young. Animals dont always needed a mother and father to raise their young. So my point, is dead on in regards the point of marriage as a definition.”
Marriage was absolutely NOT constructed to best raise human young. Marriage was constructed as a means of staking ownership over a woman. Marriage was a way for fathers to sell their financially burdensome daughters to another man, and for that other man to ensure he could make as many babies as possible to be raised under his roof. Marriage allowed women to be property. They had no rights. As you can see, the legal implications of marriage have evolved considerably over time. Changing marriage laws now to be more just would be no different from how it has been changed in the past to foster greater equality.
And again, you are wrong about animals. Many species require bi-parental care, from countless fish species to multiple New World primates. The benefits of two parents are obvious, both from an evolutionary perspective and a modern sociological perspective. You keep ignoring the point that gay couples have children also, and that two mothers or two fathers has in NO WAY proven to be inferior to a mother and a father. Do you need me to cite the many psychological and sociological studies that show this?
”Let me ask you this, why do same sex couples want to have marriage rights? What is their main reason for wanting to wed? Love? Maybe. Social status so other know you are committed? Possibly. Monetary advantages it brings? Bingo!”
You omit one BIG reason. People want marriage laws changed to include gay couples for the sake of EQUALITY. Same-sex couples have the same wants, hopes, goals, and intentions as heterosexual couples. They love each other, are committed, want to raise children, and could use the financial benefits as well. Nothing is different about a same-sex couple that justifies legal inequity.
”PS No I dont think they deserve the same set of marriage rights as defined by the current law. I do think they deserve laws as defined for same sex couples so they wont have to continue this dance around the age-old definition of marriage. Let the old definition stand as is and construct new rights much like common law marriages, but with great rights equal to the current marriage law. This way, no one can argue that marriage law is currently structured for heterosexual beings and therefore homosexual beings have no right to it. No one can strip them of rights if they have their own definition of it. Fair enough?”
Let’s give gay people a separate law? A separate word that means the same thing as marriage? Separate…but equal? Is that what you are saying? Remember “separate but equal” from 5th grade history class? Would you like gay people to have their own drinking fountains as well?
This is a civil rights issue. It is about equality for all citizens of the good old U. S. of A. ‘Separate but equal’ is NOT acceptable and hopefully, sooner rather than later, we will move away from archaic, discriminatory marriage laws and closer equality.
Jesus Christ.
As a true conservative, I don't care about Gay Marriage.
What you want to do in your free time is your business.
My question is where in the constitution does it give this right to citizens - it doesn't.
If this is right people deserve have the senate pass a bill allowing this - or pass a bill specifcally giving the rights to states - don't use the ACLU to forward an agenda.
Barrack Obama "Mr Hope, Mr Change," Has specified that he believes this is a states right issue.
As prop 8 proves - gay marriage is wildy unpopular, One of the most liberal states in the Union voted against it.
By Obama Saying this is states right issue and not moving towards a constitutional amendment - to allow gay marriage - he has esentailly sealed the fate of this issue for the near term.
(The only reason this is allowed in MA, & CT is due to the courts - not a single state has voted for it
Again the left pushes its agenda through the court as opposed to the legislature.)
As for the moral side of this issue - any one of any type of Christian Values can cleary see this is against the teachings of the thier religion - however the government of the united states should not be taking a stance on our personal sex lives. (Outside of pedohphilia, beastility, & rape)
There is some thing to be said for sanctity of Marrage - and the argument of "It takes a family," vs. "It takes a village." Our current divorce rate does not marginalize something that has existed for centuries. However, This debate is not the heart the of the Gay marrige issue we see today, the heart of the issue is legal rights affored to married couples within our system.
From a personal standpoint, I don't think People like Jon Mackin should be forfited valuable rights because he likes hot dogs more than clams.
At no point in our country's history has it been our policy/mission to be an exclusionary society - why start now?
Barack Obama has the power to change this, but this isssue is politcal liability - he - like the rest of the left, will let the ACLU do the work.
As a true conservative, I don't care about Gay Marriage.
What you want to do in your free time is your business.
My question is where in the constitution does it give this right to citizens - it doesn't.
If this is right people deserve have the senate pass a bill allowing this - or pass a bill specifcally giving the rights to states - don't use the ACLU to forward an agenda.
Barrack Obama "Mr Hope, Mr Change," Has specified that he believes this is a states right issue.
As prop 8 proves - gay marriage is wildy unpopular, One of the most liberal states in the Union voted against it.
By Obama Saying this is states right issue and not moving towards a constitutional amendment - to allow gay marriage - he has esentailly sealed the fate of this issue for the near term.
(The only reason this is allowed in MA, & CT is due to the courts - not a single state has voted for it
Again the left pushes its agenda through the court as opposed to the legislature.)
As for the moral side of this issue - any one of any type of Christian Values can cleary see this is against the teachings of the thier religion - however the government of the united states should not be taking a stance on our personal sex lives. (Outside of pedohphilia, beastility, & rape)
There is some thing to be said for sanctity of Marrage - and the argument of "It takes a family," vs. "It takes a village." Our current divorce rate does not marginalize something that has existed for centuries. However, This debate is not the heart the of the Gay marrige issue we see today, the heart of the issue is legal rights affored to married couples within our system.
From a personal standpoint, I don't think People like Jon Mackin should be forfited valuable rights because he likes hot dogs more than clams.
At no point in our country's history has it been our policy/mission to be an exclusionary society - why start now?
Barack Obama has the power to change this, but this isssue is politcal liability - he - like the rest of the left, will let the ACLU do the work.
Post a Comment