As usual, there aren't enough choices so I had to pick the one that was least disagreeable. Marriage is a tradition, a cultural institution, a religious institution. The state has no business being involved in it. If two people of the same sex or three people of any sex or seven people want to enter into a relationship, call it a "marriage" or call it a "blotzfilker," and invite all their friends over to witness a ceremony in which it is formalized, and they can find someone willing to perform the ceremony, and that person's religion, status and other credentials are satisfactory to the happy couple/trio/septet, then that's their business. If people want to make a formal legal commitment to assume the responsiblity of caring for one another in event of unemployment, disability, etc., then they can draw up the contract and if it satisfies basic contract law all they have to do is sign it and perhaps give a copy to a lawyer in case of dispute. There does not have to be any particular connection between the ceremony and the legal document. People love to yell, "But what about the children?" Well what about them? The current laws dealing with marriage have done a perfectly miserable job of taking care of children. Many fathers run away. Many mothers throw fathers out of the house. Many unmarried people have children. Many children run away. Many mothers and fathers who have no interest in separating from each other are horrible parents. The frelling government throws many fathers and some mothers in prison for selling drugs to consenting adults, impoverishing and breaking up their families. I don't know what it's like where you live, but in the USA the laws concerning marriage are a big joke. They should all be repealed. If a guy wants to marry his dog and some priest wants to bless the union, it's none of our business. At least they won't have children for us to sort out when it falls apart.
Married couples have more rights than unmarried ones. An unmarried man/woman who loses their life partner cannot for example organise or even attend the funeral without the families permission. They may not be able to visit them while dying in hospital as it is 'family only'. They will not get any widow/widowers benefits or any rights to income/property after separation. The list is endless. from web "On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; and more.... Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. "
I said I disagree. It's the use of the word marriage I don't agree with. Marriage between two people suggests children and family, historically anyway. I think gay people should be able to have the same rights afforded by married couples, but it definitely shouldn't be called marriage.
Fair enough, perhaps offer them the same legal protection and call it civil union. It's only a word afterall.
I think we can just term any joining of 2 people marriage, why not? As for thinking gay people are gross Mr. Roman, errrr you do realize lesbians are umm actually real?
Marriage, in the human sense, is man and woman. It's family. It's children. It's love, sanctity, caring for each other 'til death do us part and I would be fucking pissed off if gay people could sign a contract and call it marriage. I can't really explain it, as you can see. By all means, same rights afforded to them, legally, but calling it marriage - nope.
phonetic: Gay people can't have family, children, love, sanctity, caring for each other 'til death do them part?
I pretty much agree with this. There was an episode of South Park where the governer suggested this approach. He said male/female couples would be "married" while male/male couples would be "butt buddies". Female/female couples he called "hot".
I get tired of people trying to push their moral views on everyone else. Look. Gay marriage does not affect anyone's life in any way. If you say "it offends me, so it does affect me," THEN STOP BEING OFFENDED. You bring it upon yourself.
I personally don't like same sex marriage, but I see no reason why it should be outlawed except for one dynamic: children of same sex couples I have to wonder what would happen if more and more same sex couples adopt children of same sex. Would a new kind of sexism emerge from men wanting to hang with men and vice versa? It's something I don't know what the consequences would be, and frankly, it worries me.
So couples who can't have children aren't 'married' then? Talk sense! Marriage is about two people, not the baggage heaped on the term afterwards. It shows how desperate people are when they start grabbing such ideas as 'tradition' and 'family values' and attaching them to the debate. 'Traditions' were invented at some point in our history. They have been modified over the years, and are therefore subject to more modification, so take off the conservative blinkers, these things are not set in stone.
Hi all i think we need another option on this poll somehting with rhymes with "who lives in muck" ######################### take care zak
I don't really care about this issue too, but as a representative of the legal arts I have problem with homosexual couples not having the ability to enter in the same legal relationships and have the same rights as heterosexual couples. In this case the solution what they have in Germany is entirely satisfactionary to my mind.
I don't think there is much to worry about children when it comes to adoptive gay parents. In my opinion, I think that gay adoptive parents aren't any different than a white family raising kids of different races. The general attitude and prejudice of the common American makes things way too difficult.
