Gay people have had the right to enjoy all the legal benefits of the "governmental version of 'marriage' " in most, if not all, states for a long time. It's called "civil union." Civil unions convey ALL the legal benefits of marriage. But that wasn't good enough for them ... they insist on being allowed to call it a "marriage." That's where I -- and many others -- have a problem.
Do you happen to have a citation on this? From what I remember, 'civil unions' were tried in like half a dozen states.
searching - 4. 13 banned same sex marriages completely.
My libertarian tendencies are more "civil unions for all! If you want to be 'married' find a religious official willing to do it." As long as we're at it, clean up all the contractual stuff that civil marriages mean.
That said, I eventually came to the conclusion that "marriage" is just a title for it. I am not in favor of forcing people to provide services for them, no more than I am for other things. Well, except that I think that a business should be able to fire an employee for not serving them if it's the business's policy, and the government, well, it's controlled via laws and courts. If the law or judge says to do something, you do it. Or, as you say, you quit.
I'm just concerned about your position of "I'll keep the position as long as I'm never asked". If you're ever asked by a gay couple, you might find yourself in some serious trouble, it might be better to do your duty per the laws of the state
then resign. Because even though you've never been asked to do so, you're unwilling to do part of the job.
That's like being a soldier until a war comes along, then you're suddenly a pacifist.
Do I support them? Legally, or morally? They've obviously much more claim to being actual marriages than exclusionary, one-sex-only, homosexual unions. You can't justify same-sex "marriages" by saying, "but mah poligamey!" That's like justifying a 100% tax on birthday presents by invoking the poll tax.
It's pointing out that marriage is actually pretty flexible if you look worldwide. LOTS of different forms and customs.
So my appeal to the broad sweep of world history is supposed to make me sympathetic to a narrow-minded, racial-purity view of marriage? Explain how you reached that conclusion.
I'm asking you to identify how your position is, in the end, different from theirs. All you're doing is substituting 'sex' for 'race'.
For one thing, there's always a chance that a "heterosexual couple with no reproductive ability" will conceive. As unlikely as it may be, it happens.
And if they chose not to? Should we automatically divorce couples when the woman hits menopause?
And marriages used to be more about property than children.
Nope. The homosexual relationship is still not producing a child. As far as helping to raise the child, are you saying that a homosexual relationship between two adoptive parents is helping the child in some way? Is it better than, say, a brother and sister adopting the child? Or some other, non-sexual partnership?
As a libertarian, I'm more about you having to prove harm than I have to prove benefit. I will say that a stable homosexual couple is a far better choice than the 'usual' these days of a single mother.
If it's about the benefit of the child, we should take kids away from single parents long before we take them away from the gays.
And I think you're forgetting about lesbians. They manage to have kids just fine. A woman doesn't need to be in a 'stable loving relationship' with a man to have babies. And quite a few didn't marry them first either. Carefully timed 'one night stands' with selected men works well enough, for those that can't or won't go to the sperm bank.
You are aware that the framework of marriage, it's benefits, expectations, and requirements has varied greatly through history and cultures right? As have all manner of things we'd no longer find acceptable.
And we're saying that this is one of them.
Not being a sociologist, all I know is that both sides claim that science backs up their view about whether the heterosexual parents (or the biological parents) being involved is critical to the development of the kid.
All I say is that 2 is better than 1, generally speaking. After that, things like ethnicity(better take the kids away from blacks), income level(poor shouldn't have kids), and outright individual variations in families all outweigh any detectable differences between a gay couple an a straight couple raising kids. Divorce, separation, and such all have a much greater impact.
Like every other advocate of same-sex marriage, you're confusing the question of whether government recognizes something with the question of whether it prohibits it. You're claiming that a) homosexual relationships pose no threat to adoptive children, therefore b) the government must recognize that relationship as marriage. You could make the same claim about any other type of relationship, like the sibling housemates mentioned above. So then you have to say this:
I wouldn't say that. I'd say it's a rebuttal to your argument that marriage is about raising kids, and homosexual couples can't raise kids(properly), ergo they shouldn't be able to get married.
Yet, once .gov got involved, it followed that lawyers would as well. (Go to your local courthouse to see tilecrawlers printing money.) And much like everything else that .gov gets involved in, instead of "strengthening" families, it has only made things worse. Much worse.
Well, yeah, which is why I consider civil marriages to be the most complex set of contracts that you can enter for only about $45 and two to three signatures.
