What's lost by re-defining marriage

[darin]

Fantastic perspective and well-written piece. Absolutely spot in, IMO. Of course, some of you less-educated/tolerant will IMMEDIATELY throw out hate-words like "homophobe".


When 84-year-old Connie Kopelov was wheel-chaired up to the Manhattan City Clerk Sunday for the first legal gay marriage in the state of New York (to Phyllis Siegel, 76), it was a touching scene of two elderly women publicly cementing their 23-year-long love. Who could deny these ladies a recognized connection?Why shouldn't Alvin Woods, 27, and Antonio Lopez, 25, enjoy the public revelation of their tattooed wedding rings at their legal linkage? For these and the other happy couples newly wed in New York, to headlines celebrating the ability of same-sex partners to become "like everyone else," it's a day to proclaim love.
What could possibly be wrong with that?

...

When we re-define marriage as the union of any two people who love each other, we change the focus from our nation's future to warm touchy-feelies of love, in the present. We lose a long-term perspective, substituting a carpe diem, emotional priority.
As a nation, we need children to grow up with optimized chances to succeed, earn money, and create further happy families. We like it when gay citizens can live with those they love, and feel respected. But that's not the government's business or job--let religious officials, friends and family declare these unions permanent and appreciated. Don't make these people go through expensive public courts to dissolve them when they fail, since their existence, while adding to personal satisfaction, contributes little to national goals that governments control.

....

Men and women are not interchangeable. All the brain research (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Health/story?id=424260&page=1) confirms that the genders have fundamental, irreducibile differences that complement each other. The 1.4% of people who are homosexual (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-23-Sex-survey-revelations-on-gay-identity_n.htm) deserve to spend their lives with whomever they please. But we do ourselves and our children a disservice to suggest that the unions they form are the same as heterosexual marriages.
Distinctions serve a purpose, especially when based on replicated research (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201012/unexpected-sex-differences-in-brain-development)--men and women aredifferent (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704660-2,00.html), and the bond they form is different from the bond formed by two of the same gender. But we're coming to a time when legally, we can know it and even demonstrate it but can't live it. Now that gay marriages are becoming numerous enough to warrant widespread research and analysis, we'll soon have data, and from what studies I've seen so far, I suspect academics will confirm that yes, marriages of, say, lesbians are dfferent from, say, marriages of gay men. When we must deny reality, that will surely be a big loss.

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=321&sid=521413

[KartRacerBoy]

And even if this research is truthful and it's conclusions are irrefutable, why does it hurt anyone if two people of the same gender marry? Why are people against it?

Please don't say it somehow harms marriage. Tell me specifically how if Tom and Jim (two of my friends) get married, YOUR marriage is affected. Cz I just don't get it.

And it IS the govt's job to define marriage. Like it or not, the govt writes the laws, and legal rights are conferred by "marriage."

And allowing gay marriage with religious "exceptions" doesn't work. If a religious institution like a hospital doesn't have to recognize the rights conferred by law (making medical decisions, for example), the rights are reduced. That's a violation of equal protection under the consitution, IMO.

[ConHog]

And even if this research is truthful and it's conclusions are irrefutable, why does it hurt anyone if two people of the same gender marry? Why are people against it?

Please don't say it somehow harms marriage. Tell me specifically how if Tom and Jim (two of my friends) get married, YOUR marriage is affected. Cz I just don't get it.

And it IS the govt's job to define marriage. Like it or not, the govt writes the laws, and legal rights are conferred by "marriage."

And allowing gay marriage with religious "exceptions" doesn't work. If a religious institution like a hospital doesn't have to recognize the rights conferred by law (making medical decisions, for example), the rights are reduced. That's a violation of equal protection under the consitution, IMO.


First, drop the facade about your friends. You're gay and want to marry your lover. We're here for you brah!

Second as for your claim about hospitals. Seriously, read this slowly and try to comprehend it. The Constitution of the United States was NEVER meant to protect your right, real or imagined, from being violated by ANYONE other than the government. However, as a matter of law a hospital could not ignore ANY valid court document, well I mean they COULD ignore it, but they would be doing so at their own peril.

[Dilloduck]

Gay marriages will never take away anything from real marriages as far as I'm concerned. I laugh my ass off when a couple of gays announce they are married.

[ConHog]

Gay marriages will never take away anything from real marriages as far as I'm concerned. I laugh my ass off when a couple of gays announce they are married.

Me to, I wonder, do they take turns being the wife? Who leads when they dance? These are practical things I don't understand. How do they decide who's last name to take?

[KartRacerBoy]

First, drop the facade about your friends. You're gay and want to marry your lover. We're here for you brah!

Second as for your claim about hospitals. Seriously, read this slowly and try to comprehend it. The Constitution of the United States was NEVER meant to protect your right, real or imagined, from being violated by ANYONE other than the government. However, as a matter of law a hospital could not ignore ANY valid court document, well I mean they COULD ignore it, but they would be doing so at their own peril.

First of all (and I don't care what he says), fj will only ever be a friend with benefits. dmp is more my speed with his big...boost.

Now onto the matter, um, at hand.

Conghog -- now read this slowly so you understand -- a law distributes rights between private entities. It is created by a govt. That law binds folks. Such laws can be constitutional or unconstitutional. Despite the fact that you think it's wrong/unconstitutional for govt to make private behavior on private property illegal, that's what govt does. IThat's reality. t's the Social Compact.

As to what a hospital can and cannot do, you may be hypothetically correct but in reality institutions regularly act against the law. I had to go to court (both my wife and I are lawyers) to get a hospital to abide by a Do Not Resusitate healthcare order signed by my wife's grandmother dying of cancer. Sheriffs were involved to get the order enforced even AFTER a court order against the hospital.

[ConHog]

First of all (and I don't care what he says), fj will only ever be a friend with benefits. dmp is more my speed with his big...boost.

Now onto the matter, um, at hand.

Conghog -- now read this slowly so you understand -- a law distributes rights between private entities. It is created by a govt. That law binds folks. Such laws can be constitutional or unconstitutional. Despite the fact that you think it's wrong/unconstitutional for govt to make private behavior on private property illegal, that's what govt does. IThat's reality. t's the Social Compact.

As to what a hospital can and cannot do, you may be hypothetically correct but in reality institutions regularly act against the law. I had to go to court (both my wife and I are lawyers) to get a hospital to abide by a Do Not Resusitate healthcare order signed by my wife's grandmother dying of cancer. Sheriffs were involved to get the order enforced even AFTER a court order against the hospital.


The law does no such thing. You can't have a right that harms other people. That's just common sense. We don't need further laws to explain that to us. However IF you were correct and the law could force private entities to extend rights to people then I could sue and have the government force this website to let me post anything I wanted. Now of course I can sue for just about anything, but that doesn't make it a valid lawsuit. The point is the law can't force the owner of this website to publish my posts against their own wishes. Likewise with other private groups.

As for hospitals. Sure , sometimes they ignore court documents, at their own peril. Just as i said. You ignore a lawful order, you pay the consequence and in the end the court order is followed.

[KarlMarx]

And even if this research is truthful and it's conclusions are irrefutable, why does it hurt anyone if two people of the same gender marry? Why are people against it?

Please don't say it somehow harms marriage. Tell me specifically how if Tom and Jim (two of my friends) get married, YOUR marriage is affected. Cz I just don't get it.

And it IS the govt's job to define marriage. Like it or not, the govt writes the laws, and legal rights are conferred by "marriage."

And allowing gay marriage with religious "exceptions" doesn't work. If a religious institution like a hospital doesn't have to recognize the rights conferred by law (making medical decisions, for example), the rights are reduced. That's a violation of equal protection under the consitution, IMO.

First, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was supposed to apply to laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. The reason for the 14th amendment was that, during Reconstruction (i.e. the period of time after the Civil War) many Southern States refused to extend the same protections and rights to blacks as to whites. That was the intent of the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment. It did not grant children the right to drive, or blind people the right to practice surgery. The case of Loving vs Virginia, which gay marriage advocates used to justify gay marriage only granted a man and a woman of different races to marry. That is, the decision was to enforce a law that was already on the books at the time.

Second, once you allow two men or two women to marry, then why not three men, or three women? Why not a woman and her son? Why not a man and a horse? Why not a man and motorcycle? As is already happening, polygamists are challenging marriage laws. Eventually a man will claim he's in love with his underage daughter (and she with him) and that will have to pass for a marriage.

So, who does it hurt? The children that are unlucky enough to be involved in such unions, that's who.

Of course, there is the financial angle to all of this. Now gays will be taxed at a lower rate since they are considered married filing jointly. They will be able to collect their partners' SS benefits as surviving spouses, they will be entitled to their partners' pensions after their partners pass away, etc etc etc. That's probably what this was all about to begin with... the "equality" nonsense was just for public consumption... don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain... look here instead, that kind of thing.

[J.T]

But that's not the government's business or job--let religious officials, friends and family declare these unions permanent and appreciated. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. Get the State out of marriage entirely. No State recognition of marriage and no special treatment for married persons- no tax breaks, no automatic power of attorney, no more benefits for widows or divorcees if they didn't bother to make out a will or arrange for the division or inheritance of property.

Marriage should be a personal matter between the parties involved and whatever house of worship they might choose to involve- like it was in Pre-Christian Rome before the Church decided to hijack the State in Europe and fuck it all up.


Gay marriages will never take away anything from real marriages as far as I'm concerned. I laugh my ass off when a couple of gays announce they are married.

What, exactly, constitutes a 'real' marriage? Recognition by Der Staat? Recognition by the Universal Roman Church of Pederasty? Recognition by the Lutheran Church of AntiSemitism (http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm)? Sexual compatibility? Or is it something else- like the ttrue and heartfelt love and commitment between the parties involved?


You can't have a right that harms other people.
So the First Amendment doesn't guarentee a right to brainwash your children and teach them anti-science, hatred, willful ignorance, and fanciful fairytales?

[ConHog]

What, exactly, constitutes a 'real' marriage? Recognition by Der Staat? Recognition by the Universal Roman Church of Pederasty? Recognition by the Lutheran Church of AntiSemitism (http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm)? Sexual compatibility? Or is it something else- like the ttrue and heartfelt love and commitment between the parties involved?



Just because someoen else calls it marriage doesn't mean Dillo has to. Just like you don't have to call our Lord your savior. It doesn't matter to me what you call your gay union, and likewise it shouldn't bother you what I call it.

[ConHog]

So the First Amendment doesn't guarentee a right to brainwash your children and teach them anti-science, hatred, willful ignorance, and fanciful fairytales?

If you can prove that those things harm my children, well then we might could talk. Until then I have the right to raise my children as I see fit.

[J.T]

Just because someoen else calls it marriage doesn't mean Dillo has to. Just like you don't have to call our Lord your savior. It doesn't matter to me what you call your gay union, and likewise it shouldn't bother you what I call it.

So you support gay marriage? After all, if it doesn't matter what it's called, why the objection to the State saying, 'yep, you're married, same as everyone else'?

Now, what, exactly, constitutes a 'real' marriage?

[ConHog]

So you support gay marriage? After all, if it doesn't matter what it's called, why the objection to the State saying, 'yep, you're married, same as everyone else'?

Now, what, exactly, constitutes a 'real' marriage?



Actually if you would read before you just started spouting BS you would realize that you and I agree on this issue. Get government out of marriage and let churches marry anyone they choose to marry. I couldn't care less if two gays have a ceremony and declare themselves married. Not one single bit.

[J.T]

If you can prove that those things harm my children, well then we might could talk. Until then I have the right to raise my children as I see fit.

So you support gays adopting and same-sex parents rearing children?

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."
Study Results Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation), and strengths.
Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/default.htm), couple relationships, or parental stress.


http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids


The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html


Holy shit- better than those raised by straight couples! Straight couples are armful for kids! That's it, only lesbian couples should be permitted to adopt or rear children. We must do what is best for the children. The rights of the kids come before the special rights demanded by heterosexual couples!

Good to know you're okay with the gay agenda, Mr Piggy :2up:

Now, who here wants to harm our children by seeing them reared by straights? Anyone willing to go on record supporting heterosexual parents?

[ConHog]

So you support gays adopting and same-sex parents rearing children?

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html


Holy shit- better than those raised by straight couples! Straight couples are armful for kids! That's it, only lesbian couples should be permitted to adopt or rear children. We must do what is best for the children. The rights of the kids come before the special rights demanded by heterosexual couples!



I have voiced NO opinion on adoption, nor is it the subject of this thread. Just more BS from you.

[fj1200]

Fantastic perspective and well-written piece. Absolutely spot in, IMO. Of course, some of you less-educated/tolerant will IMMEDIATELY throw out hate-words like "homophobe".


...

When we re-define marriage as the union of any two people who love each other, we change the focus from our nation's future to warm touchy-feelies of love, in the present. We lose a long-term perspective, substituting a carpe diem, emotional priority.
As a nation, we need children to grow up with optimized chances to succeed, earn money, and create further happy families. We like it when gay citizens can live with those they love, and feel respected. But that's not the government's business or job--let religious officials, friends and family declare these unions permanent and appreciated. Don't make these people go through expensive public courts to dissolve them when they fail, since their existence, while adding to personal satisfaction, contributes little to national goals that governments control.

....

... Now that gay marriages are becoming numerous enough to warrant widespread research and analysis, we'll soon have data, and from what studies I've seen so far, I suspect academics will confirm that yes, marriages of, say, lesbians are dfferent from, say, marriages of gay men. When we must deny reality, that will surely be a big loss.

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=321&sid=521413

What is the long-term impact of the public government treating people differently based on private actions? Besides, the author seems to have no problem with people honoring their relationships privately so why the distinction between the public and private recognition? It seems his entire premise is based on the old joke of gays should get to be married so that they can go through the hell of divorce. I would rather not have the government be involved in the promotion of my beliefs because that lays the basis for them demoting my beliefs, they should not have that power.

What are we to make of what he "suspects"? What does it matter if lesbian, gay, and straight marriages are different? To think that there are no differences in straight marriage is disingenuous and to not offer what those distinctions might be does not help his position.