Homosexuals are %1 of the population a very small minority to begin with. Out of that how many actually want to get married? I think it’s ridiculous that we are wasting so much energy to try and make a couple of them unhappy.
vroom -
You are missing the point.
Three activist judges in Mass. hijacked our representative gov’t and made law where there was none. They did this with out a vote.
If activist judges are allowed to go unchecked - we are indeed on a slippery slope.
To me it’s not about gay/straight. I don’t want some fucking liberal judge in Mass. having any say whatsoever in my life. But they are doing their best to fist-job me into accepting gay marraige.
Rainjack, that is certainly one interpretation. Another is that they looked at the legal situation and found nothing to prohibit it other than custom, and declared that it could proceed.
The fact that this decision impacts other states doesn’t itself make them activists.
How about viewing this the other way around? So many seem worried about the state of the family in our postmodern societies - now we have a group of people who want to actually get married and lead normal (classic) lifestyles, raise children etc. Why should we deny them this privilege, when they want to perpetuate what many of us deem the foundation of our societies? Our (heterosexual) families are pretty much fucked up nowadays - why not get a load of (often surprisingly conservative) and motivated people strengthen the role of the family in our societies and lead normal lives? Should we not rather view them as an asset than a threat?
I agree completely with makkun.
I don’t see how encouraging commitment (rather than humping in city park restrooms) is a bad thing.
[quote]makkun wrote:
…Our (heterosexual) families are pretty much fucked up nowadays - why not get a load of (often surprisingly conservative) and motivated people strengthen the role of the family in our societies and lead normal lives? Should we not rather view them as an asset than a threat?[/quote]
That is a social experiment I am totally unwilling to be a lab rat for.
Suicide rates among gay and lesbians are much, much higher than the national average. They are not a happy bunch of well adjusted citizens.
I don’t think innocent children should be thrown into a situation that has more to do with an individual’s choice of lifestyle, than getting married and having a family.
1% of the population? You’ve got to be kidding me, its ALOT more than that, even if you dont want to believe it.
An anonymous study done inside my original high school found that over 50% of the teenagers considered themselves ‘not straight’ Go figure. But maybe cause it was in MA, maybe not 
Anyways, what institution of marriage? I dont see one anymore, there is none. With divorce rates the way they are, all I can say is oh my god ~ why would anyone WANT to get married. However, if the gay community wants to try to make it work for them then let them have a go a happiness, it obviously doesnt seem to be working out for the straight ones lol And hey, all you gay marriage naysayers can point and laugh when their divorce rates are just as high as their straight buddies, but hey for some it might work out, and IMHO that would rock.
Lauren
Isn’t getting married and having children a choice of lifestyle?
You need to figure out just why you are so against it… it seems to change from post to post.
I can’t believe some of the silly notions I am reading here. I am gay, and I am married. I hear people calling legal recognition of my marriage “all about what I want,” “a slippery slope,” “not conducive to a stable relationship,” and other silly comments.
In no way does my marriage OR legal recognition of my marriage hurt anyone. It helps build the community. It is simple justice.
It helps build morality, and it helps children of gay couples.
The person who said we gays have such high suicide rates overlooks 2 things. 1. That suicide rates are only high with gay youth because heteros torment them so much… no other reason than that. 2. Suicide rates have been steadily lowering amongst gay youth in recent years as information has become more available to them, making them feel less alone and hopeless.
vroom -
Nothing has changed. It is wrong for activist judges to legislate from the bench. It matters not what the issue is.
Throwing children into a homosexual environment is a social experiment that I feel is wrong.
There are two issues that are being discussed here. I simply gave my opinion on both.
How have I changed my reasons?
Boston: good stuff, very informative.
Rainjack: agreed.
I’d add that the current weak state of traditional marriage is certainly no reason to try and dissemble it further. The opposite is true - we should be trying to strengthen it.
I don’t support gay marriage, and I am often tarred with the homophobic charge. Simply not true.
What I do support is a historical and natural institution that has evolved for a reason, what GK Chesterton referred to as the ‘democracy of the dead’. Alternative and experimental relationships - be they homosexual, bigamist, polygamist, or polyandrist - are simply, in my view, inferior to the institution of traditional marriage and should not have state endorsement.
Back to a question earlier: are people not ‘free’ to marry whomever they choose? The answer is no - the state defines who it will recognize as married and until you get the state to agree with you, there is no ‘right’ to marriage.
We should be serious about what this debate is actually about: getting certain governmental benefits. People can contract for just about any privilege provided by marriage with the exception of government tax benefits and social security benefits. You can designate a beneficiary in your will; you can designate beneficiaries of insurance policies; you can designate medical decision-making powers via a living will; etc. etc.
So the question becomes: can the government decide to favor certain forms of contract for social purposes, i.e. can the government choose to favor heterosexual couples becaues it believes those unions are superior for some public good (probably child rearing in this case)?
That is the crux of this debate.
I forgot – the above is the crux of the legal debate. Given this, I think the crux of the social debate consists of this: gays want to force others who otherwise do not wish to do so to recognize them as “married”, while those who do not wish to do so do not wish to be forced to so recognize them. In other words, it’s a battle to attempt to enlist the forces of the government for “acceptance.”
Whether you think this is proper or improper for the government to do will likely define your position on this issue.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So the question becomes: can the government decide to favor certain forms of contract for social purposes, i.e. can the government choose to favor heterosexual couples becaues it believes those unions are superior for some public good (probably child rearing in this case)?
That is the crux of this debate.[/quote]
I agree that this is the crux of the debate, and the related issue is do you want government officials making this decision. I’ve met some decent people who have worked in government, but I have also met some complete idiots. So, who decides?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think the crux of the social debate consists of this: gays want to force others who otherwise do not wish to do so to recognize them as “married”, while those who do not wish to do so do not wish to be forced to so recognize them.[/quote]
I think we should simply outlaw marriage altogether, and create a brand new thing that everybody has to do instead. This new thing should be completely non-discriminatory to all classes of people, and we should describe it with a word that does not exist anywhere and has no discernible derivation from any word in any known language. Married people will be required by law to convert their marriages to this new thing, by filling out a form and mailing it somewhere. Once we get the forms, we stick them in a box and lock it up in a vault.
Then marriage will be safe, in a box, where nobody can touch it. Ever.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I agree that this is the crux of the debate, and the related issue is do you want government officials making this decision. I’ve met some decent people who have worked in government, but I have also met some complete idiots. So, who decides?
[/quote]
I generally don’t like the government making such decisions – of course, my preferred solution is privatizing social security and instilling a flat tax, which probably isn’t all that helpful given it’s odds of implementation.
I want to add a wrinkle to my constitutional explanation above. It is possible that Congress is required to assign all federal subject-matter questions to SOME federal court. Thus, in this case, if Congress stripped all the lower federal courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to DOMA, it might be interpreted as then necessarily falling within the original jurisdiction of the USSC. This is one possible interpretation of Article II, Section 3.
A possible constitutional fix for that intepretation would be for Congress to create a special federal court with jurisdiction over this question, and remove such cases from USSC appellate jurisdiction. Or, Congress could also decide to vest the state courts with special jurisdiction for these questions, and strip the USSC of appellate jurisdiction, which would create the same outcome as I had outlined above. Messy? Yes. But possible if this interpretation were to carry the day.
BostonBarrister,
although I often don’t agree with your viewpoints - in this case I think you hit it spot on. Your comment helped me clarify my view on the issue. Thanks. 
I understand that it would mean a substantial change in society, if gay marriage were allowed. Yes, it would help “normalise” the lifestyle of a minority, and this is being pushed by (sometimes quite strong) activism, introducing many consequences into our societies. That this get’s on many people’s nerves, I can imagine.
What I cannot understand is the outrage with which the appeal for gay marriage is often confronted - as if it would mean the end of the family, or western civilisation. No argument has convinced me yet that gay marriage would have any negative consequences for society (or the family or children) in general. I would rather see it as another variation in the way we let people pursue their happiness and thus contribute to society in a positive way.
I think that our concept of marriage and family are indeed in trouble - and only by introducing fresh ideas we might be able to save these institutions. So let’s not stand in the way of people who are motivated to try and save them.
[quote]makkun wrote:
… Yes, it would help “normalise” the lifestyle of a minority…[/quote]
That is where your whole argument falls apart, and where I refuse budge. The gay community is not a minority. It is a lifestyle choice.
[quote]makkun wrote:
BostonBarrister,
although I often don’t agree with your viewpoints - in this case I think you hit it spot on. Your comment helped me clarify my view on the issue. Thanks.
I understand that it would mean a substantial change in society, if gay marriage were allowed. Yes, it would help “normalise” the lifestyle of a minority, and this is being pushed by (sometimes quite strong) activism, introducing many consequences into our societies. That this get’s on many people’s nerves, I can imagine.
What I cannot understand is the outrage with which the appeal for gay marriage is often confronted - as if it would mean the end of the family, or western civilisation. No argument has convinced me yet that gay marriage would have any negative consequences for society (or the family or children) in general. I would rather see it as another variation in the way we let people pursue their happiness and thus contribute to society in a positive way.
I think that our concept of marriage and family are indeed in trouble - and only by introducing fresh ideas we might be able to save these institutions. So let’s not stand in the way of people who are motivated to try and save them.[/quote]
Thanks makkun:
Glad to know at least some of my analyses are appreciated. =-)
Anyway, I will presume to attempt to clarify what the marriage defenders are concerned with concerning allowing gay marriage. I think the main fear is diluting the concept.
Let me explain a bit. There are two main thrusts to the argument. The first is that, if you allow gay marriage based on some sort of equal rights doctrine that says defining marriage w/r/t only people of the opposite sex is arbitrary and capricious, what is then to stop polygamy et al from storming society to demand the same rights/benefits? The main point here is that if demanding different genders is an arbitrary and capricious restriction of rights, then why is restricting marriage status to only two people any less arbitrary and capricious? This is very problematic if judges/courts are the ones to extend marriage rights, as the common law precedent system bases future decision on the reasoning of previous decisions, and there really is nothing substantive to stop such an expansion. This is seen as a threat to traditional marriage because it dilutes the concept and takes the focus away from children/family and puts it on whatever the adults want.
People who dislike judicial activism, and who generally think that marriage is more to ensure stable families for children rather than to get benefits for adults tend to fall here.
The other objection is that if civil unions are allowed, or lots of benefits are extended to domestic partners, then equal-treatment advocates will demand the same for opposite-gendered couples. In other words, many of the benefits, but not the same amount of legal ties, of marriage. This is the worry usually held by people who are worried that gay marriage or civil unions would harm heterosexual marriage. In this case, the greater harm would come from civil unions than from marriage, provided that gay marriage demanded the same level of legal commitments as heterosexual marriages do currently.
On the converse, many advocates of gay marriage hold it would actually be a stabilizing force, as it would keep more gays in monogomous relationships.
If you want to see the back and forth of the debates, do a Google search on Andrew Sullivan (pro gay marriage) and Stanley Kurtz (anti gay marriage). You should get a good feel for the flavor and nuances of the actual arguments from them.