Gay marriage

[Belthus]

Some people are saying that government has no business in marriages of any kind. They are being completely impractical, and I challenge them to point to a working example of a society that does what they say should be done. Of course it is the government's business. Marriage is an arrangement that is public and involves a set of rights and responsibilities that are enforced by law. Nor is it just about taxes. There is a whole body of family law that has developed over hundreds of years (at least) to deal with such questions as who should get the kids, who has to testify, who gets hospital visitation rights, how the money should be split, etc. Anyone who wants to smash this system should be able to lay out in detail what the replacement would be. I am not holding my breath.

[Dragoon1140]

Anyone who wants to smash this system should be able to lay out in detail what the replacement would be. I am not holding my breath.

Not smash it, but how about giving another option to homosexuals that gives them the same benefits?  Just not calling it marriage, of course.

[theloconate]

So you're saying that because gay marriage, historically, hasn't been legal that it shouldn't be?

Scarecrow question already?  Okay, I'll bite.   

When it comes to strictly marriage, yes, I believe that.  Again though, I am not against another way to receive the same tax benefits, however.

So you think they should be allowed to get the same benefits as if they were married, but legally shouldn't be allowed to be married. If you're gonna say give them the same benefits then at this point why do you care enough to add "OH yeah and btw don't let them get married". In terms of you saying that we shouldn't allow it because it hasn't been allowed historically is simply ridiculous. If we thought like that we would never change anything

[theloconate]

Not smash it, but how about giving another option to homosexuals that gives them the same benefits?  Just not calling it marriage, of course.

Why "of course"

[truddy02]

Some people are saying that government has no business in marriages of any kind. They are being completely impractical, and I challenge them to point to a working example of a society that does what they say should be done. Of course it is the government's business. Marriage is an arrangement that is public and involves a set of rights and responsibilities that are enforced by law. Nor is it just about taxes. There is a whole body of family law that has developed over hundreds of years (at least) to deal with such questions as who should get the kids, who has to testify, who gets hospital visitation rights, how the money should be split, etc. Anyone who wants to smash this system should be able to lay out in detail what the replacement would be. I am not holding my breath.

I would love to see this system smashed along with many other government systems.  I doubt it ever will, or at least not in any foreseeable future but I am willing to explain how this could all work.

1.  Just because there is no society that does this right now does not mean it would not work. 

2.  Who gets the kids is an issue separate of marriage.  It is not necessary for two people to be married for them to procreate and this issue certainly can be decided outside the bounds of government defining marriage. 

3.  Who has to testify is one I have never really understood.  I don't get why someone is not forced to testify against their spouse yet could be called to testify against a family member.  On this issue, eliminate this law.

4.  Who gets hospital visitation rights could be settled by hospitals.  Perhaps the hospital will allow family members and one person designated as a significant other through their insurance or some other way.  I feel hospitals could come up with a reasonable system people would be happy with. 

5.  How the money should be split, etc. can also be handled independently of government.  If two people wish to get married I am sure there is some smart lawyer out there that can write them up some sort of general contract, or even a more specific one for their circumstances.  They could even write them up something that would act exactly as current law works in marriage situation.

[Belthus]

Anyone who wants to smash this system should be able to lay out in detail what the replacement would be. I am not holding my breath.

Not smash it, but how about giving another option to homosexuals that gives them the same benefits?  Just not calling it marriage, of course.

Sounds a lot like "separate but equal" with Black people and segregation.

As a practical matter, some gay people might accept civil unions as an interim solution that is better than the status quo, while they bide their time and wait for less bigoted attitudes. It's not my fight, so I defer to those whose lives are actually being affected. However, in the long run, gay people should be recognized as equal citizens with equal rights, and not in the separate drinking fountain way.

[QuantumT]

I think my solution is actually very practical. The government stops issuing marriage licenses altogether. Instead, they issue civil union licenses, which are functionally exactly the same, it's just called something different. This way, marriage can stay between a man and a woman as a purely private/religious affair, and all people can be 'civil unioned' in the eyes of the government.

[TimerClock14]

It's always nice to see healthy debates. I'll drop my 2 cents in too.

In the dictionary Gay means happy. Therefore Gay Marriage=happy marriage

the end.

[Dragoon1140]

It's always nice to see healthy debates. I'll drop my 2 cents in too.

In the dictionary Gay means happy. Therefore Gay Marriage=happy marriage

the end.

As an adjective, sure, but as a noun:

gay
   /geɪ/ [gey]
–noun
a homosexual person, esp. a male.

The meaning of a word changing every generation, and this is no exception.  Now, instead of gay referring to homosexuals, we are seeing it more and more used as an insult.

[theloconate]

It's always nice to see healthy debates. I'll drop my 2 cents in too.

In the dictionary Gay means happy. Therefore Gay Marriage=happy marriage

the end.

As an adjective, sure, but as a noun:

gay
   /geɪ/ [gey]
–noun
a homosexual person, esp. a male.

The meaning of a word changing every generation, and this is no exception.  Now, instead of gay referring to homosexuals, we are seeing it more and more used as an insult.

Dragoon 1140. Why are you posting on this topic without having responded to my points. Are you admitting your position has no merit?

[Dragoon1140]

Dragoon 1140. Why are you posting on this topic without having responded to my points. Are you admitting your position has no merit?

Well you using a variety of scarecrow questions is one of the reasons.   

I've spent years debating.  At this point, I would like to just give my opinion and leave it at that, unless something intrigues me.  Of which, your point did not.

[TimerClock14]

okay then explain what you see is wrong about a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married?