GAY MARRIAGE Conservatives should insist on same-sex vows (Barf Alert

New York Times ^ | David Brooks

[Holly_P]

Doing so would strengthen marriage as an institution and the culture of fidelity.

Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.

But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to one another, and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.

Few of us work as hard at it as we should, but marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you."

[Calamari]

What I posted is just one of the unintended consequences of allowing people to claim a status based solely on their declaration. This is worse than affirmative action.

For example, two young men share an apartment. Both are heterosexual. Neither has found a women to say yes to marriage or have not found any they would ask. Each young man's employer offers a benefits package but certain things offered in one package are not offered or have a lower payout in the other. First young man needs some dental work but his coverage is only for routine cleaning and xrays.
Second young man needs an expensive prescription drug but has no prescription benefit. Each benefit is found in the other's plan. Over a couple of beers on a dateless evening they decide that to get the benefits they will become "married" (use any term such as domestic partners,committed relationship,gay marriage,etc.). They also execute a legally binding private prenuptial agreement that makes the dissolution of the "marriage" much less problematic when the time to separate comes.

[scripter]

As I see it, that comment appears to be an attempt to denigrate the facts and direct the discussion away from demonstrating the errors of their position. I'm sure allowing same-sex marriage opens a can of worms we haven't even realized yet, and that may make some here rather uncomfortable realizing where they stand.

[Calamari]

And I don't know why you would want to

Because when someone claims a protected status, I want to be sure that they really are entitled to that status
Black, Hispanic, American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander are listed as minorities and have status that does not accrue to non-minorities. Before homosexual becomes included as a minority a method of proof needs to be established; not just your claim.

Census Link

[scripter]

Thanks for the link.

[Calamari]

Wow, what a scenario! Now, since over five thousand American companies offer same-sex benefits, including half of the Fortune 500 companies, I assume you have been able to accumulate some reliable statistics about how often this sort of fraud has been perpetrated. Where are they?

My question was just that a question.The frequency of the "fraud" makes it no less a "fraud". The granting of benefits by a corporation does not create law. The claim for benefits based on an unverifiable behavior is what I object to.

I guess the companies have two choices: deny the benefits or force the guys to have sex with each other.

Companies have many choices as long as they do not violate law.

Of course, a man and woman would never ever marry for such venal purposes.

Transgression in one instance does not excuse transgression in the other instance.

If you claim benefits or status by declaring that you are homosexual, then be prepared to prove you are homosexual.

Why is asking for proof a problem?

[Calamari]

Straw man. It isn't a matter of "verifiable behavior".

So then, just what is "gay marriage" if it is not about behavior?

They required proof that we live together and share financial interests. I also showed them copies of our wills. They didn't even ask about sexual activity.

So you're telling me that "gay marriage" is not about a claimed sexual orientation or activity.

All that is required to present documents showing a domestic partnership; not behavior.

So anyone can present a will, joint bank account and proof of address and qualify for "gay" status without verification of homosexual behavior.

So the two guys in my example in post 61 would qualify!

But they aren't homosexual!

[Deep_6]

Welcome aboard! And my thanks for being brave enough to join
in debate on a conservative's forum.

The battle for rights and equality has always been tough for any
minority, but when there are pseudo-moral aspects added to the mix,
the topic of "rights" manages to become volatile. 

The vast majority of Americans do not wish to stifle the rights
of anyone for any reason, gays included. The ranting over the
"gay's right to marry" would be humorous, if it weren't so hostile.

As long as there is the stereotyping of gay community, there will
be a tough battle to convince those that do not know better, the
real world that's out there. We have many gay associates and 
clients that have been together as couples for over 20+ years.
Two couples have celebrated their 40th anniversary together,
One couple celebrated their 50 years together, last March.

We feel great sorrow for their inability to have the same rights
as couples we have helped through their divorces after a few 
years of marriage. Where is the fairness of law; the justice, that
allows a man/woman couple to gain so many benefits of a 
relationship that lasts no longer than the average automobile tire,
while same-sex couples that remain together for centuries are
prevented from the most basic of human rights concerning their
shared welfare and common interest.

Bank accounts, wills, medical agendas, the list is near endless,
of the rights gay couples are denied, simply due to a wording
of the state's marriage contract.

If two people are willing to make a life-long commitment to
each other and make that proclamation legally binding, that
should be proof enough of their moral obligation to receive
the state's benefits to anyone else making that commitment.
Sex; sexuality and sexual preference need not be an issue.

Thanks again for being brave enough to answer the rhetoric roar.

 

[Dan from Michigan]

DAMN! That is one sicko picture!!!!

[steve8714]

No, they just try to get consummated.

[garv]

The question has been asked directly several times on this thread and has yet to be answered. Should we allow adult brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters to legally marry?

If not, why not? Also, why limit the institution to two people?

[Calamari]

You are so hung up on your requirement that people somehow prove exactly what sexual acts they perform, how frequently, and in what location, that you seem deaf to anything but your sexual obsession.

how frequently, and in what location,

I have not asked about frequency or location.

Definition of terms from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry:1 ho·mo·sex·u·al

Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l Function: adjective Date: 1892 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Main Entry:2 gay

Function: noun Date: 1953 : HOMOSEXUAL

If heterosexual couples do not have to prove that they are engaged in regular coed wrestling in order to obtain health insurance, social security, etc., why do you think homosexual couples should have a similar burden?

This is about homosexuals claiming rights, privileges or minority status that they currently do not have and is based on a behavior.

If you want too claim the status, then you must meet the definitions.

So the question remains how do you verifiably prove your claimed status?

[jwalsh07]

If two people are willing to make a life-long commitment to each other and make that proclamation legally binding, that should be proof enough of their moral obligation to receive the state's benefits to anyone else making that commitment. Sex; sexuality and sexual preference need not be an issue.

What is magic about the numer 2? If, as you say, sex, sexuality and sexual preference is not an issue, then what is the rational basis for excluding any two or more people from the new definition of marriage? Why can't Aunt Irene marry Aunt Dolly so that Aunt Dolly becomes covered by Aunt Irene's government pension and SS survior benefits? Why can't any group of people marry? Surely a bisexual can not achieve happiness without one spouse from column A and one from column B. Wouldn't you agree?

[Deep_6]

I am amazed at the ignorance displayed on the FR forum.

Along with the ignorance, are the most absurd arguments
given to support the reason for denying Constitutional rights
to an entire segment of society.

It's not only ignorantly absurd, it's inherently blasphemous 
in the Godless manner the rejection of God's creations are 
dealt with.

Two people that desire to vow to live as one forever, should
not be denied legal rights simply because they do not meet 
a moral qualifier.

I will not follow the absurd down the path of discussing polygamy,
group marriages, communal living, incestuous marriages, bestiality,
etc. It is not part of this discussion, nor is it part of the problem.

There are rights and benefits granted to those that vow legally, to
live as a bonded couple. If the law refuses to acknowledge the
same vow of same-sex partners, it is denying rights prejudicially.

If "conservatism" means not living to our Constitutional dictates,
then this may as well be a democrat's forum. Freedom and rights
belong to all, equally. There is no religious, ethnic, heritage, color
or sex qualifier, nor should there ever be allowed to be.

That - is freedom.

 

[Deep_6]

Re:
"The claim for benefits based on an unverifiable behavior is what I object to."

I hate the people that park in the handicapped areas with their
little wheelchair sign in their window, then jump out of their
car and run into the store.

I hate the young people that get married to older folk, just to grab
their money when the old spouse dies.

I hate the liars that claim they have no deficiency when getting 
a driver's license, then drive through stop signs and traffic 
signals because they don't manage well with the medications
they're taking.

I hate those that claim to demand Constitutional rights for all,
then argue in prejudice manners.

I hate those that preach honesty, then declare more tax-deductible
donations for one year, than they've made in their entire life.

I hate those that get married they say they want love, then get
divorced because their partner is unable to have sex.

The list is endless, isn't it? And so is the list of people that would
use fraudulent means to get what they want out of life. We can't
stop those that are willing to steal from life, but we can guarantee
those that are willing to comply to a contract, the rights effected
to all that have complied to that same contract.

In this topic, the contract is "marriage". All that comply to it's
contract; all that are willing to vow to remain together as a couple,
deserve the same treatment under law.

 

 

[DLfromthedesert]

So you don't know anyone who engaged in homo behavior who are now happily married to someone of the opposite sex?