insomnomaniac

There's much sound thinking and insight here, Deb, but I'd like to include something else: the old "follow the money" principle. Think "Social Security survivorship benefits." Think "employer-provided medical insurance." And think "automatic permanent U.S. resident status for spouses."

I've also been entertaining a less savory notion. Gay couples are still disfavored for adoption, because they don't / can't marry. Officially recognized marital legitimacy would remove that barrier, and therefore would improve their access to children.

Now, homosexuals all say they're "born that way," but a psychologist friend of mine disputes that assertion. In her opinion, about ninety percent are rendered homosexual because of a specific prenatal trauma, and the remaining ten percent by abusive incidents abuse during their upbringing. (She also says that persons in the latter group are capable of having their orientation changed with determination and the right therapy, something I did not know and would not have guessed.)

What price must we pay to discover whether children can be made homosexual by being raised and educated by homosexuals? And if we do discover this, what then will we be able to do about it?

Of course, merely for having voiced the possibility, your Curmudgeon is sure to spitted and braised over a slow fire, perhaps with a nice teriyaki basting.

Thanks for posting this, Deb. I like the fact that you've framed the debate in the proper form: homosexual marriage is not allowed under the status quo. It's the job of those who want to change the status quo to provide a compelling argument in favor of that change. "But it's not *fair*" isn't, in my opinion, a compelling argument.

Interesting debate. I have gone back and forth on this one. At the moment, I am of the mind that it should be allowed, although, if a private institution like the catholic church, doesn't want to perform the ceremony, they should not be forced to. At the same time however, I do not see the logic in an argument that allows for the normalcy of same sex relationships, and not for multiple partner relationships. If Homosexual unions are to be permitted, then bigamy must be allowed as well. I also don't think that it is at all unreasonable to draw the line at children and animals. Ya know what I mean?

That's part of the problem for some of these politicians. Once you open the door for a certain policy, it doesn't take too much more work to strectch it open a little bit wider. Gay marriage sounds fine. Polyandry sounds ok. NAMBLA . . . now we're getting creepy. Farm animals? Woah, now!

But once you get one foot in the door, there are groups out there that are going to throw all their funding into slipping inside. (Really, no pun intended anywhere in here)

JK

I'm hard pressed to find any good points to marriage legally, I agree with you, what marital rights assigned legally can also be taken care of with the proper legal work.
That leaves religious and moral reasons. Government legalizing gay marriages will not change peoples religious beliefs. What the majority of Christian Americans believe: homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, despite current trends to negage portions of the Bible. Ignoring something doesn't mean it will go away, legalizing gay marriages will just further separate church from state.
Gays need to ask themselves who and what are they seeking validation from in the long run: God or society? God and society will not co-exist peacefully on this earth.

Dawn makes an excellent point! If it's the church/synagogue homosexuals are seeking validation from, they're going to lose, no matter what laws are passed protecting rights they don't actually have.

Dr. J., the problem is, you say that animals and kids are creepy, but there are people out there who think that gay marriage is creepy! Don't you see? Why is your barometer of "creepiness" the right one, and theirs wrong? The status quo is the status quo (as Jeff has pointed out), and it does seem to me that the onus is on those who want to change it to explain why! Their legal arguments are bogus, their moral ones bereft, so what's next? All I hear when they talk at this point is "I want it I want it I want it!!! Waaaaah!"

I'm sorry, we don't make huge sweeping changes to our societal norms because someone whines loudly enough. I mean, we do, but we shouldn't.

Marriage has enough to contend with in the heterosexual community without adding the new and as-yet uncharted territory of homosexual twists to it. Just because it is the status quo for a man and woman to be allowed to marry, doesn't mean it works well every time. In fact, we know that it doesn't in better than 50% of cases. We need to fight first to stop THIS trend if we hope to protect marriage from its denegrators!

To me, saying "sure, why not, who cares really, how does it hurt me? etc..." is the same thing as saying "marriage is no biggie," but IT IS A BIG DEAL, and we need to get back to that perception, in a hurry!

The best thing heterosexuals can do right now is not attack gay marriage. Their arguments have little merit as it is. The best thing we can do is defend heterosexual marriage against ALL COMERS, homo or hetero, who seek to reduce it to "just a piece of paper" that is "no biggie."

If we don't, how do we stand a prayer of protecting it from those who'd like to see bigamy, marriage to animals, kids, etc...

Haggling over the relative creepiness of different kinds of relationships is the province of those who've given up, and I'm not one of them.

Sorry Dr. J! Marriage to me is sacred whether it's sanctified in a house of worship or not, it's a priviledge and one not to be entered into lightly. We ALL need to remember this. It is when we forget that the homosexual community (and others) act like that which we hold dear is "no biggie."

In fact, we know that it doesn't in better than 50% of cases [of marriage, which end in divorce].

FYI, this is a fallacy that really, really needs to die.

Here's what happened : some bloke looked at how many marriages there were in a year. Then he looked at how many divorces there were in a year. According to those numbers, there were half as many divorces as marriages.

Does this mean that half of all marriages end in divorce? No! -- Unless you don't count marriages in past years! The number of existing married couples increases every year.

While the divorce rate is getting appallingly high -- someday there will probably be more divorces in any given year than marriages -- to say "there were 60% as many divorces this year as there were marriages" is not the same thing as saying "60% of all marriages end in divorce."

There are some who would argue that the promotion of this fallacy is being done intentionally by those with an agenda that includes discrediting the institution of marriage. I tend to not buy into that ... if it is a Discordian / Feminist / Progressive / whatever plot, it's a great little insidious meme that's as viral as the urban legend of your choice.

But please : when you hear someone quote that stupid "statistic" ... let them know they've been had ;)

Like 9 out of 10 Americans I really don't care if you're gay or not. The one thing that kills me the most is that the whole argument is based on what's between the legs. Why care ? I don't..Just stay monogamous and loving....S*** isn't that what marriage is all about ?

If the only argument you have against gay marriage is the same old tired slipperly slope argument, I'll remain in favor of gay marriage.

The only analogy I can think of to your argument is a techish one. You're a firewall set to a default of blocking everything. Unless there is some good reason to let something through, you don't. In this case, gay marriage. I would rather let everything through unless it is specifically harmful. You would rather block everything unless there is a good reason to let it through.

But you've offered up no real reason to oppose it except that you think it's wrong. You cloak that in a fairly obvious cover of your slippery slope. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Deb, the problem I have with your debunking of the reasons that you listed that homosexuals want to marry, is that you havent ascribed good reasons why anyone(heterosexual) would want to get married, and then made a case showing homosexuals incapable of having these same reasons. Until I see that from someone, I see absoluely no good reasons for homosexuals not being able to marry.

Funny, none of you have answered my question though. Why should ANYONE want to get married? Straight or otherwise?

If it's ok with you that gay people marry--if you see nothing harmful in it, then why not bigamists? It's not a slippery slope, it's logic, pure and simple!

Why get married? Well, because we do live in a society that has been organized around the nuclear family--a father, mother and offspring. Few--even homosexuals--would argue that having parents of EACH gender isn't optimal. Studies have shown that this is true. History has shown that this is true. Ideally, these would be "good" parents, and this isn't always the case, but the fact remains that children need the influence of both genders in their lives to become well-adjusted members of society. When they don't have it, a whole host of problems are inclined to ensue. Not always, of course, but the likelihood is dramatically increased.

Don't agree? How often have you heard the "Well, he came from a broken home" defense when someone grows up to be a serial killer, rapist, or other form of scumbag? Sorry, can't have it both ways. Can't sit there and paint someone the victim for NOT having the nuclear family, as if that should get him or her off or a lighter punishment, and then say the nuclear family is a bogus or discriminatory concept!

Isn't the fact that they want to get married enough? Why do you care what someone else does? Does it affect you in anyway if two men marry each other? If so, how?

You're not making an argument, you're saying "I don't think there should be gay marriage because it is icky." But you know that you can't get away with that so you're trying to justify it to yourself.

"I would rather let everything through unless it is specifically harmful. You would rather block everything unless there is a good reason to let it through."

I'm a Network Admin so I get your analogy. Only one problem with it. With new exploits, viruses, etc. there is no way to know beforehand *everything* that is "specifically harmful". So by having your "firewall" configured that way, you leave yourself open for a myriad of potential attacks/problems. There's that pesky slippery slope again. Some 40 year old guy could say, "Well, I really LOVE this 13 year old girl. If it's okay for homosexual people to get married, what's wrong with me marrying this girl?"

And just to pitch in my little theory and stir things up. I think homosexuality (as it exists in culture today) is a fad... kind of like being part of a gang. People with poor self image have to find some way to come up with an identity -- so they choose to become part of the homosexual population. I have a friend who was straight, went off to college and "came out of the closet". He never had many friends, and had trouble meeting new people. When he went to college the first people who would talk to him were gay. The way he behaved completely changed over three months, from the way he walked, talked, etc.

Anyway, to tie this back into the original post, I think the whole "legalize gay marriage" thing is so that homosexuals (who are suffering from poor self image) would receive some sense of validation from "everyone else" for themselves... so they'd feel better about themselves.

I'm a Network Admin so I get your analogy. Only one problem with it. With new exploits, viruses, etc. there is no way to know beforehand *everything* that is "specifically harmful". So by having your "firewall" configured that way, you leave yourself open for a myriad of potential attacks/problems. There's that pesky slippery slope again.

Maybe, but the Constitution is on my side.

"Amendment Nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The firewall is open except for things specifically denied.

As for not getting away with saying "homosexuality is icky," why couldn't I get away with that? It's a free country, and we have free speech, and if that's what I believed, I could and would say it.

But we're NOT TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY! We're talking about MARRIAGE, get it? What part of this do you people not understand? People didn't create marriage so that heterosexuals could have one-up on homosexuals, as it is implied. Human society created marriage because they wanted a STRUCTURE to their society that was based on the state/church/whatever officially recognizing, encouraging, validating and yes, STATING A PREFERENCE FOR a specific lifestyle. In this case, one based on the nurturance (financial, emotional and spiritual, ideally) of the nuclear HETEROSEXUAL family unit!

What people now find "icky" is the notion that society should change what it finds PREFERABLE as its chosen structure because a sub-set of people-- a MINORITY in that society--just plain want it that way!

This is why I say that the onus is on that minority to justify why "marriage" should be changed to accommodate their wishes.

You say that it should be enough that they want to be together. Well, as Chris pointed out, what if a 40 year-old "wants" to be with a 13 year-old? Now you'll say "Well, we have laws that protect that 13 year-old now don't we!"

Yes, and we have LAWS that protect SOCIETY from homosexual unions as well if we find them to be "icky" too. It is totally illogical for homosexuals (or you) to suggest that it IS ok for them to marry, but NOT ok for bigamists. Just because homosexuals have succeeded in making their lifestyle more "mainstream," doesn't mean the same thing can't happen someday with bigamists. Call it a slippery slope argument if you want, but thirty years ago, most people in this country would have found it equally absurd and aberrant to suggest that two men should marry, so why is this so far-fetched for you?

Personally, if it were up to me, there would be a harsher litmus test for heterosexuals to get married! There isn't, but it's not because we're being REWARDED for not being gay. The law just doesn't make exceptions within our sub-set of society because it is believed that our efforts to form nuclear families should be supported and validated, and beyond that, the government should not get involved. This I can deal with. But to suggest that society should support and validate a kind of arrangement that does not support anything other than the personal wishes of the couple in question (yes, I think there's societal value in marriage, if you haven't gotten that already) "just cuz" seems childish, selfish and really quite silly.

Marriage isn't some reward for not being gay. Nor is it a reward for being committed or monogomous. It is a validation of a family structure that is based on a synthesis of biological imperetive (the animal need to reproduce and physically nurture the species), cultural preference and religious teaching. Sorry if you don't think this is "fair," but I"m pretty sure there are lots of laws you wouldn't think "fair" if you thought about them.

For example, one of the punk kids in the park across from my house could kill me, right in front of my husband. He could see the person, know who did it, etc...That person would have taken EVERYTHING from him--his whole family--wife and child in one fell swoop. Yet, he still would not have the right to kill that person in return. It would be "fair" to allow him to, but NOT RIGHT. Why is that? Why has society chosen not to allow vigilante justice? BECAUSE IT'S IMMORAL.

Like it or not, we have lots of laws that are based on what we find "icky." And I have no problem saying so.

Show me where it says in the Constitution that marriage is a right conferred on heterosexuals specifically to disparage homosexuals??? SHOW ME!

You can't. It's NOT THERE. Not even the loosest interpretation of the Constitution would suggest that society must recognize IN PUBLIC that which is tolerates in private BECAUSE IT'S PRIVATE. The SCOTUS sealed the fate of this issue (if they have ANY integrity at all...so much for the alleged "conservative court") when they used privacy as a basis for overturning the sodomy laws!

Or if that's too confusing for you, MARRIAGE IS PUBLIC. That is precisely why the SCOTUS decision cannot be a precedent for making homosexual marriage legal. It's also the only loophole the SCOTUS has for keeping bigamy ILLEGAL!

GET IT? Homosexuals are asking that we--the public--recognize, validate and legitimize a PRIVATE BEHAVIOR that they just finished telling us we had no right to comment on.

This implies that the only reason heterosexuals get to marry is that they fuck the opposite sex in private, and that is BULLSHIT.

Why do you care if someone has two wives? Go read Den Beste and then come back. Two guys getting married down the street does nothing to you. Abosultely nothing. So why should you try to stop them from doing it? Sorry, but the onus is on you because you want to limit freedoms. If you don't understand that or believe that, then I guess nothing is going to convince you that it shouldn't matter what anyone else does.

Why do you see marriage as a "freedom?" Please, explain this to me! You keep coming back to the same old tired "you're discriminating" argument. You keep accusing me of being anti-gay, I'm not. I could give a shit what two gay people do or want to do in the privacy of their own home, but don't ask me to say that their marriage does "nothing" to me when it would literally ensure their "right" to adopt kids in every state in the union. I'm sorry, but I have a serious issue with that!

As I've already said, I think society has an obligation to ensure that it sets certain standards. If you get what you want, then no one--and I do mean NO ONE--should ever again be allowed to use the old "He/she didn't have a mom/dad" argument as a defense for illegal or immoral behavior ever again!

Do you or do you not think it is PREFERABLE that a child should have a parent of each gender? Do you really want to say that having two of the same is "just as good?" Do you?

I don't. I don't think it is. I'm not saying it's the most harmful thing in the universe, but it's NOT THE SAME THING, and by allowing gays to marry, we would be saying that it is--just as good, and the same thing.

I don't want that. And I'm allowed to not want that, and since that's how things ARE, the people who want it changed need to convince me that I'm wrong, not the other way around.

Marriage is a responsibility, not a freedom.

As for whether someone has two wives? Why do I care? Well gee, let me ask you this, can I have two husbands? No? Why not? Hmmm..What do you care, after all?

I care because it IS a slippery slope. What next? Should you be able to marry your dog? What do you care? What do I care? Why care about anything at all anymore? Why not just embrace Rousseau and sing Kumbaya like nothing else matters but getting what we personally want all fucking day.

WHAT-ever.

I think homosexuality has become more mainstream because we as a society have had "tolerance" pushed down our throats about many things. Tolerance and acceptance is not the same thing.

Not that long ago, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. Many still believe that it's a learned behavior. It's hard to disprove that when many claim to be gay or heterosexual are bisexual. We are becoming an anything goes society...unfortunately.

Marriage has taken the slippery slope down over the past few decades..if gays want to be married I think that would put the finishing touchs on making a complete mockery of it. I agree..what next? Children, bigamy, animals? It's their right, right?

what next? Children, bigamy, animals? It's their right, right?

I'm sorry, but no matter what side of this this issue we are on, I would like to hope that we could agree that 2 or more consenting same sex adults, getting married and having ass sex is not the same thing as pedophilia, and dog fucking. Am I wrong here, or are we saying that fags might as well have a 3-way with a child and her puppy, because it's all pretty much the same anyway?

Actually no. In a sect of hinduism, it's perfectly legitimate to marry a dog.

Does that mean we should allow it so as not to offend hindus? No. We don't allow it because we have a definition of marriage that corresponds to theirs.

It acutally is the same thing in that I have a definition of what I believe marriage is. It does not allow men to marry men and women to marry women. Should we change the definition to accomodate them?

No.

Interracial marriages were once "icky", too. Most of the same arguements against gay marriage used to be used to prevent interracial marriages. One day people will come around and realize they have nothing to fear from gay marriage. One day people will recognize that straight marriage isn't in jeopardy because two gay people who would never have had a straight marriage anyway want to get married. One day the US will catch up to Canada (once again). :-)

I was waiting for this one...The "homosexuality is just like race" argument.

No. It isn't. People cannot choose whether or not to be black, or any other race but white, and "ickiness" didn't stop interracial marriage from being legal in all but the Jim Crow states anyway. When Jim Crow laws were repealed, then interracial marriage had to be allowed as well.

But that's because the laws WERE DISCRIMINATORY. In this case, they are not. Heterosexuals do not reserve the term "marriage" for themselves to discriminate against homosexuals. Why do people keep making that argument? Not being able to be "married" is not the same thing as being called a second class citizen because it doens't prevent the homosexual from getting or having ANYTHING that a heterosexual has except the ability to be called "husband and husband" or whatever.

No one has yet answered me. What is the fight about? WHY BOTHER? Seriously! Not one person has addressed my argument in these comments that we as a society set up marriage a certain way for specific REASONS. If you don't like the reasons, say so. If you think homosexuality is "normal" and "good," just as good/desirable as heterosexuality, then speak up--say so.

If there is no specific right that is guaranteed to straight people because they can marry, that gay people cannot also access through some simple paperwork (most of which you can do for free, yourself, using computer programs by the way, so don't give me the financial hardship crap), WHAT IS BEING WITHHELD? Why are they being treated as second class citizens? Because we refuse to accept that their lifestyle is just as desirable as a straight one in our societal structure? That's called believing in something. Holding something dear. I know, foreign concept to those of you who say "what's the big deal?"

I'll say it again. Marriage is a big deal! It's not just some random piece of paper! It's a covenant between two people of the OPPOSITE SEX.

But you know what, I'm sure I'll lose this battle. I'm sure gay marriage will end up being legalized. I have no doubt. I also have no doubt that bigamy will end up legal someday. The dogs and kids thing, probably not. The arguments against it will be totally illogical, naturally, but they will hold--at least until I'm dead and gone I expect.

The funny thing is--you watch--when it does become legal, homosexuals will marry in far fewer numbers than their straight counterparts, and they will likely do so for two reasons:
1) So they can adopt children
2) So they can stay in this country

Now I ask you, how are we going to discriminate in these two instances when that happens? Hmmm? When an adoption agency has two sets of "parents" applying, and the gay couple has more money perhaps, how on earth is the agency going to legally say that the hetero couple would be a better fit than the gay couple? They won't be able to. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, until agencies start placing kids with gay parents who are LESS qualified out of sheer fear of being sued, and how is that good for kids? For those of you who say "who does it hurt?" Ask yourselves, what about these kids?

Seriously! Whatever one thinks of homosexuality, are we ready as a society to say that two homosexuals raising a child can provide "the same" quality of environment as two heterosexuals? I'm not suggesting that heterosexuals are better JUST because they are straight, but that it's an important place to start. Sure, if we're talking about an impossible to place kid, and all other things being equal, that kid would languish in foster homes forever if not for this gay couple, fine, so be it. But to take an infant (for example) and say: "Hmmm...Between Betty and Bob, and Bob and Bob, we're gonna go with Bob and Bob just cuz they have a few more bucks in the bank" or because they have a lawyer waiting in the wings really scares me. I'm sorry, but it really does. I do not, cannot, and will not see that as "just as good" an outcome, and that is what we will have.

ok Deb this is bullshit...Marriage is not in any legal sense a covenant between 2 people of the opposite sex. To say that homosexuals cant marry by law is not protecting the sanctity of marriage. There is no such thing. Marriage isnt a thing of value in itself, its only as valuable as the people in individual marriages believe it to be. Letting gays marry doesnt cheapen your own marriage any more than Jennifer Lopez setting the land speed record for divorce does. This non-sensical argument of yours that "society" set up marriage for specific reasons is pure bunk. What marriage is at any monent in time is transitory. We no longer as a society have dowries, or arranged marriages, and plenty of other practices, rituals and laws in regard to marriage that we once had.I still challenge you to give me a list of reasons that heterosexual people would want to marry, that homosexual people are not capable of having. The bottom line is that same sex marriages allow heterosexuals to be legally recognized as a molding of two people into one. heck married people even pay higher taxes, I dont see why we shouldnt let gays do the same. insurance comapnies generally dont recognize same sex unions the same way they do "legally married" unions. As long as marriage is a "legal" institution as well as a personal one, not letting same sex people marry is just outright unfair, and in my opinions reflects poorly on our society. Deb I have posted here before, and many time on right-thinking. You should know that I respect you greatly. We are very like minded in many ways, but i have to say that your opinions and more importantly your arguments on this issue do not seem to be logical, but emotive. Someone mentions that not letting gays marry is similar to racial discrimination, and you say blacks cant choose to be not black, thus implying that homosexuality is a choice people make...sometimes it is I suppose, but I have a hard time believing that 3-6% of the population would choose to be ostracized and treated like second class citizens on purpose. Being a heterosexual male, I cant even begin to tell how unbeleiveably disgusted I am of the idea of even kissing another man, nevetheless doing anything distincly sexual. I have a very hard time that people could overcome such an intrinsic natural aversion to find an identity Myabe your friend was having social problems becuase he had other things to deal with, like coming to terms with his sexuality.

ok Deb this is bullshit...Marriage is not in any legal sense a covenant between 2 people of the opposite sex. To say that homosexuals cant marry by law is not protecting the sanctity of marriage. There is no such thing. Marriage isnt a thing of value in itself, its only as valuable as the people in individual marriages believe it to be. Letting gays marry doesnt cheapen your own marriage any more than Jennifer Lopez setting the land speed record for divorce does. This non-sensical argument of yours that "society" set up marriage for specific reasons is pure bunk. What marriage is at any monent in time is transitory. We no longer as a society have dowries, or arranged marriages, and plenty of other practices, rituals and laws in regard to marriage that we once had.I still challenge you to give me a list of reasons that heterosexual people would want to marry, that homosexual people are not capable of having. The bottom line is that same sex marriages allow heterosexuals to be legally recognized as a molding of two people into one. heck married people even pay higher taxes, I dont see why we shouldnt let gays do the same. insurance comapnies generally dont recognize same sex unions the same way they do "legally married" unions. As long as marriage is a "legal" institution as well as a personal one, not letting same sex people marry is just outright unfair, and in my opinions reflects poorly on our society. Deb I have posted here before, and many time on right-thinking. You should know that I respect you greatly. We are very like minded in many ways, but i have to say that your opinions and more importantly your arguments on this issue do not seem to be logical, but emotive. Someone mentions that not letting gays marry is similar to racial discrimination, and you say blacks cant choose to be not black, thus implying that homosexuality is a choice people make...sometimes it is I suppose, but I have a hard time believing that 3-6% of the population would choose to be ostracized and treated like second class citizens on purpose. Being a heterosexual male, I cant even begin to tell how unbeleiveably disgusted I am of the idea of even kissing another man, nevetheless doing anything distincly sexual. I have a very hard time that people could overcome such an intrinsic natural aversion to find an identity Myabe your friend was having social problems becuase he had other things to deal with, like coming to terms with his sexuality.

Ed, I'll grant you that it is hard to formulate a "logical" argument for or against marriage--gay or otherwise. This is why I am trying to defend the illogical reasons as still important. We do lots of things in our society for emotional reasons. Take for example our laws against bigamy and child porn. We've decided what a child is based on our emotional attachment to children, not much more. It's been less than a century since we decided that children weren't just little adults, right? How did we make that decision? Purely on science and the study of brain/emotional development? Nah. Children became children when we developed our industrial and technological capacity such that we didn't NEED child labor, so kids could stay kids longer, and women could stay home and raise them longer! Logic had/has nothing to do with it at all.

My point is that some things are worth sticking up for, and keeping marriage hetero is one of them TO ME. Might not be to you, but then again, you're asking me to accept and tolerate what someone else wants that has no grounding in logic either. If, as you say, there's no real reason for heterosexuals to get married, then why do gays want to do it? Why? NO ONE HAS ANSWERED ME! Heterosexuals at least can give the answer that for thousands of years, it has been an accepted right-of-passage into adulthood and the community of families that people marry and declare their intentions in a religious or formal civil service, binding themselves legally to their promise. Who has had such expectations of gays? What is their reason for wanting to pay more taxes?

I've positied two reasons, that you and everyone else have been avoiding like the plague:
1) Adoption
2) Citizenship

The other legal benefits seem hollow to me.

Why did I personally get married? Because--for better or worse--our society still recognizes the children born to married parents differently than those born out of wedlock. I wanted kids. My husband did too. We wanted those kids to be "legitimate," and wanted to also have the recognition--if only in our own psyches--of some higher power that we had agreed to take care of each other in front of Him/Her/It, the world, our families, the state, etc....There is a difference in how you feel when you get married vs. when you just live together. There's a sense of permanence that is inescapable, and I'll tell you why that is--because the only way out of the promise now is DIVORCE. Divorce, a messy, ugly, expensive process that carries stigma and pain in our society--still--so to make a promise with that in mind is really something. If two people want that kind of reassurance, or on a more positive note, want to make such an affirmative statement, they get married.

Now, to your question about why wouldn't gays want that...They might! Sure, I'll buy that. But that's NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING! They are saying it's all about money, benefits, society's recognition of their lifestyle, etc... Sorry, I didn't get married to get society to approve of WHO I"m sleeping with. I got married to get society to recognize that I've taken responsibility for the outcomes of that behavior. There IS a difference, sorry, but there is.

Also, you might ask gays in VT and Hawaii why most of them are NOT getting married when they could? Why not? If it's so desperately wanted, why aren't they doing it in the same percentages of their populations as straight people? I don't have the answer, just the question. I don't know why, it's just weird considering how hard they are fighting, and it's been my experience that people whine the loudest when they want something they need psychologically as well as (or more than) legally. I do think there's a pyschological component here, and I don't think it has to do with wanting to BE married, but rather with wanting to be ALLOWED TO BE married. And my point is that in saying that, we are basically saying they are no different from straight couples, and I'm sorry, but they are!

Case in point...I have a friend who's gay. He has pictures of naked men all over his apartment. He's a great guy, very nice, very responsible and very successful. Should he be allowed to adopt a child if he gets married to his boyfriend? Would you put a child in a hetero home with pictures of naked women (or men) all over the walls? Do you think that would be moderately strange? Hey, I like the naked form as much as the next person, but I also know that exposing today's child (the ones we've decided in the last century should be more sheltered for longer) to such explicit sexuality isn't healthy. Shit, I can't stand Barbie for this reason!

I guess the bottom line is, I just don't think that gay marriage is as benign as you do. My arguments may seem mostly emotional but they do count! Show me the logical reasons gays want to marry, and I'll concede the point, ok? Not being able to doesn't make them second class citizens, it just doesn't.

As for choice, sorry, but I do think that people would, and do, choose to be ostracized every day! Look at people who tatoo their faces. What about gang members? To me, being gay for some is the only way that otherwise really awkward people can "fit in" to a group. Who wouldn't "choose" that over being isolated, especially now that our entertainment industry has glorified being gay to such a huge extent. What other minority population is so greatly celebrated on TV and in the movies? NAME ONE? You can't, because right now, everywhere you look, gay characters, gay stars, gay is chic!

Sorry, I think this is sad.

"'ve positied two reasons, that you and everyone else have been avoiding like the plague:
1) Adoption
2) Citizenship"

1) Private adoption agencies shouldn't be made to adopt to anyone they don't want to. If a private agency doesn't want to adopt to gay couples, god bless them.

The publicly funded agencies should consider gay couples and gay singles, for adoption. Sometimes a gay couple or a gay single is better then no one, wouldn't you agree?

2) What suggests that the abuse of gay marriage for this purpose would be any higher among gay's than straights?

Well, using "discrimination" as the reason for being allowed to be married in the first place (like not allowing it is discrimination) opens the door to using that as an excuse for scrutinizing ANY questionable behavior that may result from allowing it!

So, if even a private adoption agency says no, they can sue for discrimination. And if the INS wants to investigate the legitimacy of a marriage, they can allege the same thing. What might that due? Well, it might spark a bunch of lawsuits, which might in turn spark fear of them, etc....

But again, I dont't think I have to justify my opinion. I don't think there's a legal case for gay marriage, and no one has convinced me otherwise.Sorry.

"I dont't think I have to justify my opinion"

I agree. Like I said in my original comment, it's an interesting debate. I certainly don't mean to rile anyone who's opinion I greatly respect even if we don't agree on all issues.

Your not riling me. I think I'm just tiring of this issue. I'm fairly sure those with my view are going to lose in the end. Can't put the genie back in the bottle and all...But I'm sad about it. I do see that our society/culture is taking a nosedive in the civility and focus on the common good sense. Not sure it was ever really that strong except for a time in the mid-fifties (if you were white), but still. When I look around and see how the punks behave in my park, and how the Democrats behave as a party, and how so many people walk around acting like everyone else needs to do what they want, regardless of how it affects others, I worry about the future, I really do.

To me, there are good reasons why heterosexuals get married--to ensure that someone is legally obligated to take care of offspring would be one of them. I'm not sure I see the public good in gay marriage. This is not to say that all marriages are successful or good for society, but to devalue marriage to the point where being good for society, or a better way to formulate attachments/relationships over the long haul isn't an important consideration at all seems really truly sad to me.

Still, I'm sure I'll lose in the end, so perhaps we should just drop this topic and move on to something we have a hope of changing/preventing!

Deb while I think that forever you and I are goign to have to disagree on this subject ( gay amrriage), I just want to say that the idiot who called you "blah blaqh blah ignorant" ( aaron benson) has made me wish I agreed with you. His comments are utterly classless.

Well Ed, that's sweet of you! I appreciate the sentiment, and I hope you know that regardless of where our disagreements lie, I truly respect your opinion and the way you expressed it. People are going to disagree, it's part of what makes the world an interesting place.

Truth is, whatever I feel about this issue, it's not one I'm willing to do battle over. What I wanted to do was explore my views,open them up to critique--to test them if you will--and see if I could get people to better articulate what I think has been an equally poor case on the other side.

At the end of the day, this issue isn't going to make or break me. Now if you want to talk about the state of public education in this country, or the way MA deals with juvenile crime, or taxes, or local government, or the way Hillary Clinton makes my skin crawl, then we have something I'll roll up my sleeves and go to the mattresses over.

But this? Honestly? Nah. Not because I think it's unimportant, but because I know my side is going to lose, and because I'm not into fighting totally losing battles.

"I just want to say that the idiot who called you "blah blaqh blah ignorant" ( aaron benson) has made me wish I agreed with you. His comments are utterly classless."
I'm with you there, Ed. There are just some people in the world who think any kind of rudeness and ignorance (I'm talking about YOU, Benson) is justified in the name of "the Cause" whatever it is today. People like this Benson creature need to know they do their cause a disservice. The uncommited folk in this issue, on which the cause's success will rest will think "Jeez, what a stupid jerk", and judge the cause from the advocate. A brainless triumphalism usually results in a backlash. But hey, anything goes, so long as I can indulge my pettiness and mindless triumphalism, right? (sarcasm)

Deb,

After reading a few sentences of your blog I had to stop and take a deep breathe. I am a gay man and have been in the most wonderfully loving relationship for the past three years. I am 23 myself.

Why do I want to get married? For one, I am deeply in love (you can call it hormones, but frankly that is immature on your part). Two, I would like to know that if I were to ever be hurt or killed, that my partner would be taken care of. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but there are over 1000 rights and priveleges involved with marriage. You mentioned only a handful, but there are many more. As an American, I pay taxes, just like every other citizen. However, unlike my straight, married counterparts, my partner and I pay higher taxes and receive over 1000 less rights and benefits. Is that fair? I don't think so. Also, like you, I would like recognition. I don't need for the government to tell me that my relationship is valid. I am already aware that it is. But, equal recognition is not unfair to ask for.

As for the religious aspect, I, as most gay men and lesbians (refering to us as homosexuals is so clinical, and frankly annoying) don't seek a religious marriage, nor any type of blessing. We want a piece of paper that says that we are equal and deserving of the rights aforementioned.

On Aaron Benson's Blog you stated that you didn't think gay men and lesbians were good for children. You should be informed that psychological, sociological, and a whole wide range of studies have concluded that gay and lesbian parents do just a good of job as straight parents. Plus, they are just as physically and psychologically healthy and adjusted as kids of straight parents. Studies have also shown that children of gay and lesbian parents are more likely to be open-minded and tolerant people. And, no, they are no more likely to be gay or lesbian than the average kid. Remember, the vast majority of gay men and lesbians were raised in heterosexual households. And the children who are usually confused by the two daddies or mommies model typically come from heterosexual households with parents who teach, not tolerance, but hatred.

As for the ick factor, please don't think about us having sex. Frankly, elderly people having sex grosses me out, as does most people I would argue. Should people over the age of 50 be barred from marriage? It is ridiculous. People need to focus more on their own lives than on the lives of others.

I am starting to believe that we live in a country filled with hatred. However, as the frontier of hatred has been attacked through civil rights legislation for people of color and women, people have had to find the last community that can be publicly ostracized without any sort of social recourse. Why is it okay for people to call me a fag on a daily basis and have nobody stop it? Why is it okay for gay men and lesbians to be beaten in front of their children, as happened in Boston on the 4th of July, and have our country be so apathetic? If our country is supposed to be full of compassionate conservative Christians, then why donít we love our neighbors, gay or straight?

As far as throwing around of the term discrimination, my main comment is that people with privilege in this country (mainly white heterosexuals) don't like to share their privileges. Of course you are uncomfortable with the topic. If you worked in an environment where the subject was used innapropriately, that is unfortunate. But the reality is that gay men and lesbians are discriminated against. I can be legally evicted from my home, fired, be denied hospital visitation rights, and a number of other injustices in the majority of states in the US simply for loving someone of the same sex. All I want is to know that I am protected equally under law, just as everyone else is.

I hope that you can at least see why someone that is gay would want equal rights. And, yes, there is a gay agenda. It is to become equal citizens in the eyes of our government, so we can also enjoy the rights that many heterosexuals take for granted. If that is wrong, than I admit it, we are wrong. I, nor any other gay or lesbian person I know, want special rights. Equal is not special, rather it is rather bourgeois.

Gian

how would you like to be dropped of at the first day of the 6th grade by your 2 fathers?? lifes hard enough.

not all Aaron Benson's are bad... ;)

If I didn't have a speech later on this week on whether or not same sex marriage should be legalized, I would never have come accoss this page.
I read all the arguments brought forward; both for and against same sex marriage, but Deb, u have failed to argue the most important point of all.I believe in God and the bible; God's holy words.The biblical definition for marriage is" the joining together before God and other people of a man and woman to form a new family". Now tell me; where does man and man or woman and woman come in?
In biblical history God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of the sin that existed there, and in that sin lesbianism and gaynesss was present.Since God is our creator and he is against same sex relations then why shouldn't we be against it too?
Being gay is a choice.I once knew a young man who had a healthy relationship with his girlfriend and they brought forth a child. After a few years they broke up. A few months later he was caught having sex with a man. Since then he has announced to the community that he is gay.If he was gay, shouldn't he have always been gay? If this man was gay from the beginning why did he have a girlfriend and conceived a child with her.This must have mean that he had some kind of attraction towards women, and why has this changed?. Why isn't he attracted to women no more?.I repeat; being gay is a choice.A wrong choice.