First Same-Sex Divorce?

[Saryctos]

A heterosexual marriage has the main purpose of creating children. A gay marriage has the main purpose of gaining beneffits. This in my view cheapens the very meaning of marriage. "Oh yeah? plenty of heterosexual couples just get married for the beneffits." I think they cheapen it's meaning aswell.

Now as for the ability to gain beneffits without proving romantic entanglement? I'm all for the ability for two people living together to gain some sort of beneffits along the lines of a current married couple. Most beneffits from marriage are givin' due to the living condition, and then for children. While living together most things become shared, furniture, money, food, etc.. The ability to gain gov't acknowledgement of shared living conditions should not be related to a persons romantic involvement. However, I see this as something new, not an extension of marriage.

 

Which is Why I am opposed to gay marriage, it's not marriage, It's two people romantically involved wanting the beneffits of married couples. Which is a fair argument to make, but it isn't marriage.

[AL]

A heterosexual marriage has the main purpose of creating children. A gay marriage has the main purpose of gaining beneffits. This in my view cheapens the very meaning of marriage. "Oh yeah? plenty of heterosexual couples just get married for the beneffits." I think they cheapen it's meaning aswell.

Now as for the ability to gain beneffits without proving romantic entanglement? I'm all for the ability for two people living together to gain some sort of beneffits along the lines of a current married couple. Most beneffits from marriage are givin' due to the living condition' date=' and then for children. While living together most things become shared, furniture, money, food, etc.. The ability to gain gov't acknowledgement of shared living conditions should not be related to a persons romantic involvement. However, I see this as something new, not an extension of marriage.

 

Which is Why I am opposed to gay marriage, it's not marriage, It's two people romantically involved wanting the beneffits of married couples. Which is a fair argument to make, but it isn't marriage.[/quote']

So marriage is only about giving benefits to people raising children? What if a gay couple have children they want to raise together (children they could've gotten from adoption, in vitro, bisexuality, etc.)?

[Pangloss]

A heterosexual marriage has the main purpose of creating children. A gay marriage has the main purpose of gaining beneffits.

 

I don't agree with that premise. Either the first case or the second one.

 

 

This in my view cheapens the very meaning of marriage. "Oh yeah? plenty of heterosexual couples just get married for the beneffits." I think they cheapen it's meaning aswell.

Now as for the ability to gain beneffits without proving romantic entanglement? I'm all for the ability for two people living together to gain some sort of beneffits along the lines of a current married couple. Most beneffits from marriage are givin' due to the living condition, and then for children. While living together most things become shared, furniture, money, food, etc.. The ability to gain gov't acknowledgement of shared living conditions should not be related to a persons romantic involvement. However, I see this as something new, not an extension of marriage.

 

Which is Why I am opposed to gay marriage, it's not marriage, It's two people romantically involved wanting the beneffits of married couples. Which is a fair argument to make, but it isn't marriage.

 

What this is is a good argument for getting governments out of the business of marriage altogether.

[Sisyphus]

A heterosexual marriage has the main purpose of creating children.

 

I disagree completely. I don't think a marriage where a couple has no plans to have any children is any less legitimate than a marriage where they don't. I see marriage as a formal romantic partnership, and gay marriage certainly falls under that category. And even if it is merely a child-raising thing, plenty of gay couples adopt, anyway.

[Severian]

And how would you prove that your a couple living together for a long time? Without a contract, how would you have proof?

 

Isn't that exactly my point? You shouldn't need to prove anything! It is none of anyone else's business. If you want to have an exchange of rights with someone else, you should get it without all the baggage and assumptions which come with 'marriage' (unless you want them).

[gcol]

refering to the current situation in the U.K, I gleaned some info from a government website:

-------------------------------------

Civil Partnerships:

"The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force on 5 December 2005 and enables same-sex couples to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. Couples who form a civil partnership will have a new legal status, that of ‘civil partner’.

Civil partners have equal treatment in a wide range of legal matters with married couples, including: (note "including". I dont know what else, I did not have the patience to find out.)

 

tax, including inheritance tax.

 

employment Benefits.

 

most state and occupational pension benefits.

 

income related benefits, tax credits and child support.

 

duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partners and any children of the family.

 

ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner’s child.

 

inheritance of a tenancy agreement.

 

recognition under intestacy rules.

 

access to fatal accidents compensation.

 

protection from domestic violence.

 

recognition from immigration and nationality purposes."

 

-------------------------------------

So let us retain the term marriage for its traditional meaning, and use Civil Partnership for anything else.

 

As for "anything else" divorces, lets use, as does the same site, the legal term dissolution instead.

 

Unless I am mistaken, here in the U.K. at least, unconventional partnerships seem to be reasonably catered for.

[In My Memory]

Saryctos,

A heterosexual marriage has the main purpose of creating children. A gay marriage has the main purpose of gaining beneffits.

Because of course, no homosexuals ever want kids of their own, and all heterosexuals do.

 

Just down the street from me, a pair of lesbians have been married for almost 50 years, and they spend all their time playing with their grandchildren. One of my sisters and her husband are a voluntarily childless couple, they dont want kids. Which one of those couples is guilty of cheapening the definition of marriage?

 

Believe me, NOBODY thinks marriage is about having children, which is part of the reason why there are no lobbying groups trying to revoke recognition of marriage for voluntarily childless couples, couples too old to have children, or couple who are infertile. No one wants to revoke those marriages, but NARTH, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Christian Coalition, and a number of very powerful groups single out homosexuals out of all other types of marriages, even homosexual couples with children themselves.

 

None of the arguments against gay marriage have anything to do with being against childless couples, its an irrational prejudice against homosexuals. The truth of that statement is punctuated by the fact that 95% of gay marriage opponents (including the ones who say "marriage is for having children") also oppose gay adoption.

[YT2095]

I`m against gay adoption too.

[Pangloss]

I think I read somewhere that there are over 10 million adopted children to gay/lesbian parents in my country alone. Opponents worry about whether gays/lesbians are capable of raising children? Kinda moot at this point, isn't it?

[YT2095]

it`s nothing to do with any capacity as loving elders or ability to raise a normal funtioning child.

[Dak]

Most of the arguments i've heard against homosexual adoption stear clear of the 'ZOMG noez they are teh fagzors!!!1' and focuses on the fact that childeren 'need' a male and female parent/role-model type thingy.

 

Yet, there's been no-where near as big an out-cry against single parent adoption, which surely has the same (plus more) problems.

 

Just a random observation.

 

=======

 

OK YT', i'll bite: having just declaired that you dont have the only possible valid objection that you could have, why are you against homosexual adoption?

[Saryctos]

After careful consideration I have determined that I am no longer opposed to gay marriage. Since I no longer care about the legal state of marriage. Once you legally acknowledge same sex marriage it therefore changes the meaning of marriage altogether. Not in the sexual terms, beign gay has nothing to do with gay marriage from my point of view.

The fact of two people being the same sex, means that everyone, no matter how can become "married", and it is those quotation marks that make my statement clear. For if it were true marriage you wouldn't feel the quotation fit into place with that sarcastic tone in your head. Me and my roomate aren't gay, but we can get a gay marriage. A heterosexual non-sexual partnership could be done today in much the same manner. This isn't marriage, it's a sham for the purpose of beneffits. This is not to say that a gay marriage is a sham. What it does however, is start a change from marriage(a sexually motivated shared living conditions beneffit), to a sexless system of living conditions and child care. Which here, I am still fine with, but it isn't marriage...

 

This may well qualify as a slippery slope arguement, but it is more of a logical prediction of what the law should/would become. Why bother with the hassle and debate? just skip the mess and make shared living / child rasing it's own law that has a new tag.

[ecoli]

I think I read somewhere that there are over 10 million[/i'] adopted children to gay/lesbian parents in my country alone. Opponents worry about whether gays/lesbians are capable of raising children? Kinda moot at this point, isn't it?

 

That seems kind of high... can you find that source, please?

[AL]

That seems kind of high... can you find that source, please?

According to about.com, 6-14 million children are raised with a homosexual parent. They may not necessarily have been adopted though.

http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

[Mokele]

I don't think that is true. In the UK there is now no financial benefit to being married (Gordon Brown got rid of it a few years ago) and there was no outcry.

 

Perhaps in the UK, but here, there's a double whammy against it: There's over 1000 extra rights and priveledges that married couples get, counting tax breaks and such, and there's a very, very strong social conservative movement who are stridently "pro-family", and would *never* let this pass (and who have undue influence in our politics).

 

I actually agree with you that it's a good idea, but from my POV, on this side of the pond there's just too many benefits to marriage that people won't part with, and too strong of a movement against anything they see as contrary to the 1950's Donna Reed family.

 

Why shouldn't a man be allowed to have multiple 'wives', or a woman multiple 'husbands'?

 

Because it's more trouble than it's worth. Trust me: been there, done that, never again. Poly relationships are stable only temporarily, IMHO.

 

Isn't that exactly my point? You shouldn't need to prove anything! It is none of anyone else's business. If you want to have an exchange of rights with someone else, you should get it without all the baggage and assumptions which come with 'marriage' (unless you want them).

 

But extend that, especially with poly relationships. If you don't have to proove anything, and there's some sort of benefit, entire companies could simply 'get married' without proving squat and get these benefits.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

I guess that's a little different from what I was thinking, but perhaps that was the statistic I'd heard. Thanks AL.

[Severian]

But extend that' date=' especially with poly relationships. If you don't have to proove anything, and there's some sort of benefit, entire companies could simply 'get married' without proving squat and get these benefits.

[/quote']

 

And what is wrong with that? We could have true communes in a capatilist setting - some people would call that the perfect society. Aren't you making a moral judgement when you say that that is bad, and are therefore as intolerant as homophobes?

[Saryctos]

And how would you prove that your a couple living together for a long time? Without a contract, how would you have proof?

Living expenses, aka bills. That's how they do most things(like sign up for parking passes) these days

[Mokele]

And what is wrong with that? We could have true communes in a capatilist setting - some people would call that the perfect society. Aren't you making a moral judgement when you say that that is bad, and are therefore as intolerant as homophobes?

 

I'm not saying there's anything *morally* wrong with it, only that the system could be rampantly abused for financial gain or by those seeking to avoid their fair share of taxes etc. Of course, that goes into a whole new can of worms, so let's not go there, and instead simply clarify that my objection was pragmatic/legal rather than moral.

 

Mokele

[YT2095]

OK YT'' date=' i'll bite: having just declaired that you dont have the only possible valid objection that you could have, why are you against homosexual adoption?[/quote']

 

no Bite needed, my reason is simply that of protecting the children.

if you don`t have the "Right" footwear or mobile fone or listen to the right music *cough* etc...

you get picked on.

 

now imagine the child living with gay parents, what chance would they stand at school when these kids have a "Legitimate" reason to pick on them? a lot of the parents of these kids will seeing it as acceptable also or telling their children to keep away.

what about if you ant to have friends home after school? how many do you think would Risk being your friend or being seen with you?

 

I think it`s naive and shortsighted to think this would Not be the case.

[Dak]

I see your point, but there's something fundamentally wrong with it. I'm not sure that i can quite pin it down, but it has to do with the fact that, wer gay adoptions banned for that reason, then the govournment would be, essentially, extending and amplifying the predjudices of a large segment of the population.

 

It really boils down to 'you cant adopt because some people don't like gays', just with the homophobia shifted: rather than 'you can't adopt because I/the_govournment is homophobic', it becomes 'you can't adopt because other people are homophobic'.

 

The spirit is vastly different, but the effect is, unfortunately, the same.

 

Anyway, having the piss taken out of you for arbritrary reasons is all part of being a kid. If it's not 'lol, you have gay parents', then it's 'lol, you have only one parent', or 'lol, you're fat/have stupid hair/are stupid/are intelligent/etc'.

 

what about if you ant to have friends home after school? how many do you think would Risk being your friend or being seen with you?

 

How many *real* friends would abandon you merely because they might have the piss taken out of them?

[walrusman]

now imagine the child living with gay parents, what chance would they stand at school when these kids have a "Legitimate" reason to pick on them? a lot of the parents of these kids will seeing it as acceptable also or telling their children to keep away.

what about if you ant to have friends home after school? how many do you think would Risk being your friend or being seen with you?

 

I think it`s naive and shortsighted to think this would Not be the case.

 

And the same thing happened when white kids starting befriending black kids decades ago. Everytime we push the envelope of equality there will be the backlash until it becomes accepted. It's this backlash and controversy that gets people talking about it and minds get changed - mostly for the better.

 

I realize these kids didn't make the "choice" to be in this position, but whatever society happens to believe should not deter what is right. Somewhere, sometime, somebody is going to have to be the object of this controversy until the bigots become outnumbered and society changes its proverbial mind.

[Mokele]

WR and Dak are right: you're merely amplifying the problem or excusing it, and it would be unacceptable in other groups (Jews shouldn't adopt b/c christina kids would pick on the adopted kid?) Furthermore, kids will *always* be picked on and I doubt the legitimacy of the reason is really what matters. Rather, it's the kid's position in the social pecking order; the topic is really secondary.

 

On top of that, kids picking on another kid for having gay parents is something that the teacher or principal can step in and discipline kids for (in contrast to, say, being a nerd). I'd even argue it's more likely that the bullying kids would get disciplined.

 

Last, but definitely not least, the comparision between being picked on in a home and not being picked on in a home is invalid. In the US, the foster care system is overwhelmed, and most such kids spend their lives bouncing from home to home. It's been proven that such an environment is very deleterious to the kid's mental health, much moreso than *any* parenting environment, even one which might get them picked on.

 

Mokele

[In My Memory]

YT,

now imagine the child living with gay parents' date=' what chance would they stand at school when these kids have a "Legitimate" reason to pick on them? a lot of the parents of these kids will seeing it as acceptable also or telling their children to keep away.

what about if you ant to have friends home after school? how many do you think would Risk being your friend or being seen with you?

 

I think it`s naive and shortsighted to think this would Not be the case.[/quote']

Are you being serious, darling? Kids getting teased at school is so horrible that it outweighs that it justifies the profound psychological distress of telling gay couples that they cant be parents?

 

Kids get teased for everything, like being nerdy, being short, having a bad haircut, having a lisp, liking the wrong music, getting zits, shopping at the Goodwill store, being fat, not being able to read, etc etc etc etc etc. I've never seen anyone lobby congress to pass laws banning dentistry because kids who wear braces get teased at school. "Kids will get teased for having such and such" is almost too trivial to justify banning anything, and definitely not an adequate explanation why gays cant adopt children.

[YT2095]

the big difference between those examples you outlined the other are that most you mentioned are transient, and there would for the most part be only a select few that would do this bullying, having gay parents would invite trouble from all directions and groups and is not likely to be a transient "phase" either.

braces come off, hair grows back, nerds adapt, music can be put up with, footwear and mobile fones can be altered etc....

not a large group of kids care about those things, only the bullies.

 

but for a Shock Horror Gay parented kid, the probability of being bullied by a much Large group of people is significantly higher.