Gay marriage

[The Colonel]

Don't listen to Fred, he knows nothing about anything, nothing at all.


Gay people (including myself) should be allowed to marry, as there is no reason why they should not have that right.

Then theres also no reason why a man cant marry a goat.

A little thing called "species" comes in there thicko.

[Cambridge]

Xlnt point. One of the many specious arguments that have to be swept aside.

[Sharon den Adel]

Editing because I made a boo boo.

[Cambridge]

A little thing called "species" comes in there thicko.

Doesn't tell me why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.

I think Colonel is on your side, sharon; he's merely defrocking one of hairy back's rhetorical arguments. Look at the top of his quote; it says "Fred75 wrote":D

[Sharon den Adel]

A little thing called "species" comes in there thicko.

Doesn't tell me why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.

I think Colonel is on your side, sharon; he's merely defrocking one of hairy back's rhetorical arguments. Look at the top of his quote; it says "Fred75 wrote":D

I just noticed that, I think something went wrong when I posted the reply.

Sorry Colonel!

[chrisvet]

Somebody give me a valid rationale, here.

Whatever 2 adults choose to do without hurting themselves / other people should be completely allowed. This simple rule defines freedom for everyone.

[Cambridge]

I agree 100%. When I wrote that question it was directed to the other side. Can anyone give me a valid rationale why gays should not be permitted to marry. To date, I have not heard a serious answer.

[Fred75]

Don't listen to Fred, he knows nothing about anything, nothing at all.


Gay people (including myself) should be allowed to marry, as there is no reason why they should not have that right.

Then theres also no reason why a man cant marry a goat.

A little thing called "species" comes in there thicko.

Species shmecies!
Neither can have offspring!
So crossbreeding inst the issue.

[Fred75]

Somebody give me a valid rationale, here.

Whatever 2 adults choose to do without hurting themselves / other people should be completely allowed. This simple rule defines freedom for everyone.

Cool... lets pass a law that doing crack cocaine in the privacy of ones home is perfectly legal!

[Gibbous Moon]

What does marriage gain a couple?

I suggest

1) A useful short hand when dealing with private law matters (e.g. my pension has enhanced rights for my spouse but not my lover)

2) A useful short hand when dealing with public law matters or the state (e.g. I might or might not be entitled to favourable tax treatment if I am married but not if I am co-habiting or the recognition that I am part of a family unit rather than a one of a number of individuals).

3) Social and Moral cache from the community and state recognition of a relationship.

4) For the religious amongst us the recognition and blessing of our Gods on our unions.

1 you can manufacture yourself. You can decide that you won’t work for a company whose pension scheme doesn’t apply to your gay life partner. If you can manufacture it yourself why not allow people access to the short hand.

2 – I’d be fascinated to hear what people think are the policy reasons that justify different treatment of relationships based on the gender of the people involved.

3) It’s of no practical benefit, it’s nice but again you can have something pretty close without the state taking part. What is the difference between a “life partner” and a “civil partner”.

4) I reckon if you’re a gay man who thinks God has problems with gay marriage you probably have bigger issues to resolve.

So, the any objection will turn on the policy reasons why the state might support a binding long-term relationship and why those policy goals are better met by excluding homosexual relationships.

GM

[Cambridge]

Um, yer…that’s the relaxed review standard of equal protection analysis. Is there a rational basis for a law that excludes gays from the ranks of those entitled to marital status. Certain states have been flip-flopping like a fish outta water to establish a basis for heterosexual marriage, such that they can say it does not justify gay marriage. They argue religion, but in the US that is contrary to the 1st Amendment prohibition of a church-state relationship. They argue history/tradition, and then find that throughout most of history, polygamist marriages have been the norm. Opps. Besides, what legal effect does history or tradition have, anyway? Then, like hairy back, they center on the children and argue that the welfare of the children somehow mandates a heterosexual marriage. Except, it isn’t true. No scientific study supports what hairy back contends, that children require a heterosexual parental arrangement.

You’re a lawyer. Snoop around the ideas and you’ll see what I mean. The purpose of marriage in the eyes of Anglo-American law has never been defined….and probably cannot realistically be defined.

[coolman]

...

[Fred75]

I'm also a 100% heterosexual male. I believe people are born with one sexual orientation or the other (or both as the case may be). Why should gay/lesbian couple be denied any of the rights and privileges that are offered to heterosexual couples?

I agree with chrisvet and cambridge: what two consenting human adults do is none of my business as long as they are not infringing upon my rights and privileges.

Because saying that gay couples are all equal is to say that they are equally fit to raise a child.

And that is not so.
A child needs to see how to live and love the opposite sex and raise children just the same.

To say two lesbian women are the equal of a man and woman is to tell society and children that a father is not needed.
Is that a message you want have a small boy learn and then grow up and live by abandoning his children?

[GayandProud]

So whats it like on Planet MadBastard then Fred? Should we call the Homophobe police?

...

[Who?]

I can see all sides of this argument (I'm straight by the way)

Everyone is attacking Fred's viewpoint and i can see why, but i can also see what Fred's saying. This is a difficult issue. In an ideal world children would be brought up by one man and one woman, for balance. But this is not an ideal world - far from it. I have gay friends that are longing for children and I feel they'll do a great job. There are plenty of hetero couples that are bloody awful parents - even criminal.

I believe gay couples should be allowed to marry. They should have the same legal rights and protection. I believe that as long as they're investigated properly along the same lines as prospective adoptive parents, they should be allowed raise children. (i speak as an adopted person).

So, I agree with the general consensus on this thread but I don't think you're being fair to Fred - some of his points aren't as crazy as you make out.