Panache

Does anyone else find it a little odd that gay mariage activists are wanting equal rights for both gay and married couples, but wish for unmarried people to remain second class citizens?

Why should a sexual relationship be prerequisite to the benefits of marriage?

Why shouldn't roomates get the same prviliges? If some guy and his best friend share an apartment together, they have a houshold income and should be allowed to file jointly.

If Bob, understandably, trusts his best friend more than he does any woman, why should his best friend not be the one to decide when to pull the plug at the hospital?

If Jane is the only one that Betty can really depend on, should she have to be a lesbian in order for Jane to take time off work in order to take care of Betty while she is pregnant?

Can anyone think of a reason why these benefits should only be available to people in a matrimonial relationship, rather than to any two people for whatever reason?

Why should single people not have equal rights to married people?

It seems to me that gay marriage activists don't really want to get rid of the system of unfair privilige, they just want to be let in.

1069

Do opposite-sex roommates get "the same privileges" now?
Can some guy and his female best friend file jointly?


If Bob's best friend is female, and he trusts her more than his wife, does he have, under current law, the right to appoint his best friend his medical executor?

If Jane were John, a male platonic friend of Betty's, should he have to be having sex with Betty in order to take time off work in order to take care of Betty while she is pregnant by another man?

I'm just saying, anti-gay-marriage activists are so worried about the potential for two parties of the same sex to abuse the system and enter into sham marriages merely to recieve benefits... yet that same potential currently exists for two people of the opposite sex to abuse the system and enter into sham marriages merely to recieve benefits, and yet nobody really worries about it.
It either doesn't happen, or else it happens so infrequently that it isn't any big deal.
Why is it presumed that if same-sex marriages were allowed, it would happen much more frequently than it currently does, to the point that it would actually pose some sort of problem?
Are two people of the same sex more capable of engaging in devious and unethical behavior for personal gain than two people of the opposite sex are?

It's puzzling, to say the least, why people are so concerned that this outlandish scenario might become commonplace... and why they think it would really matter if it did.

__________________
"I do love this idea that one can scream and scream and scream, with that utopia just one more scream away."
~ Scucca

Panache

Not to my knowledge. Can you think of a reason why they shouldn't?

I don't think he does. Are you arguing that he shouldn't?

I don't think he should. That was rather my point. Why should he have to be in a sexual or matrimonial relationship in order to take care of someone he cares about?

WTF are you talking about? Why should we want to keep people from, as you say, "abusing the system?"

Why should two people have to be in a nuptual relationship in order to recieve the legal benefits associated with two people taking care of each other?

Who is presuming that? What sort of problem are you talking about?

Not to my knowledge. What does that have to do with whether or not married couples should have prviliges that single platonic friends do not?

I think you quite misunderstand my position here.

I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all.

I think the fact that the state gives special privliges to people who enter into a spiritual union is a clear lack of separation between church and state.

Even if it gives special priviliges to gay people who enter into a spiritual union, the problem still exists. Unmarried people will still be treated as second class citizens.

If special priviliges are going to be granted to two people who enter into an agreement, those priviliges should be applied equally to everyone regardless of whether the nature of their relationship is nuptual, romantic, platonic, etc...

1069

Everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side.
It's the crux of their argument (along with the only marginally less persuasive "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and makes the baby Jesus cry.")
Perhaps you've not had much experience with same-sex marriage debate, if you've not encountered this argument.

As the clarity of my writing is beyond question or reproach, the problem- if in fact there is one- must lie in your reading comprehension skills.
It is not incumbent upon me to further simplify my writing for the benefit of any mentally challenged people who might happen to read my posts.
Rather, it is incumbent upon them (ie, you) to improve their reading skills to the point that they're able to understand my writing, if in fact they (you) have any real interest in understanding it.

Panache

Hmm. Perhaps I haven't had much experience with the same-sex marriage debate. I was rather under the impression that the anti-gay marriage people were saying that the government had a legitimate interest in promoting heterosexual relationships because they produce offspring or some such nonsense as that. I don't see what any of it has to do with the topic though.

Ok, let me rephrase my question:

WTF does any of that have to do with the topic?

If you want to argue against points that no one has made, feel free to start your own thread about it. Then I can go on and post something random about about gun control, and how anti gun control people always bring up the argument that guns lead to underage drinking.

Would you care to reply to whether gay marriage activists are actually fighting for "equal rights" when they give no support to the rights of people in platonic or otherwise non-matrimonial social relationships?

Cephus

They're not second class citizens, they are simply not people who have committed to being legally and financially responsible for each other. Married people get specific rights because they become a single entity. Roommates can move on any time they want to, they have no legal responsibility for each other's debts, no legal responsibility for each other's wellbeing, etc. If you're willing to take on that extra responsibility, you get rewarded for it. That's what marriage is.

__________________
I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-hypocrisy.

Blog me! http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com

Panache

And OBVIOUSLY, as EVERYBODY KNOWS, a sexual relationship, or "spiritual union" is necessary in order to take on that kind of responsability.

Why aren't people allowed to team up unless they are boinking each other?

And as far as roomates moving on whenever they want to goes, last I checked married people can move on whenever they want to as well. Its called "divorce" and most couples do it.

Cephus

You're the only one who keeps bringing up sex. Got a fixation? I said LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Sure, but once divorced, they lose those special privileges because they stop taking responsibility for each other.

If you want to sign up to take legal responsibility for another person, feel free. Get married. You don't even have to have sex. Have fun.

Panache

On the first count, yes, I do have a fixation. I spend most of my time thinking about it, and a good chunk of time doing it.

On the second count, what does that responsibility have to do with marriage?

Why aren't my sister and I allowed to be legally responsible for each other? How about my brother and I? My best freind happens to be male, and if we wanted to room together and be legally responsible for each other, we wouldn't be allowed to.

Even if gay marriage laws are passed, my brother and I would have to enter into an incestuous "gay marraige" in order to be legally responsible for each other, even though neither of us is gay. Even then, they probably wouldn't allow it because my brother and I are related, and "marriage" in our society implies sex.

In fact, "marriage" in pretty much all societies implies sex, romantic relationships, spiritual union, etc...

Why is our government even involved in marriage to begin with? Why should people get speicial priviliges for committing to boink each other exclusively for a peiriod of time?

FallingPianos

its not. in most states, the only requirements are that both people be above a certain age, that they be the opposite sex, and that neither person is already married to someone else. a sexual relationship is not a requirement.

if someone wants to marry their opposite sex roommate, no one is going to stop them. its completely legal.

__________________