One of the reasons I like discussion forums is so I can try out my ideas with other people. And in this case, I have to confess that my original presentation seem unworkable even to me. My thanks to TemplarS for his insightful comments... they forced me to re-think through my ideas.
against thousands of years of tradition, spend hundreds and thousands of hours in legislative debate from State to State, and Millions upon millions of taxpayer's dollars, just to satisfy these people... boggles my mind.
I hate (love) to point out the obvious, but you are STILL ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED now that gay couples can too. DO get over yourself.
These advantages were granted married couples to aid them in the formation of traditional families which the state considered in its interest. Homosexuals cannot form families
Untrue. Please re-read what you first typed. It had to do with "married couples gain[ing] some legal advantages". Nothing in there about "froming families", but couples in and of themselves ARE families. And NO ONE is required to procreate to get married. Why, I hear we even let infertile heterosexual couples marry. Plus of course, there's that niggling little fact that some 30,000+ couples among the 130,000+ legally married same-gender couples (who will admit to such on a Federal Government form) are raising children. We very much do "form families".
How come, if civil servants can be fired for refusing to marry homosexuals, an Anglican priest who refuses to marry homosexuals can still marry heterosexuals that is recognized by the state?
Well, for starters, the 2nd half of your hypothesis is a non-sequitur. Civil servants are agents of the State and cannot decide which citizens deserve the full porotections of the law. Meanwhile, an Anglican (or any other cleric) is first and foremost acting as an agent of their religion, and in America, there's still freedom of religion. The religion is the enttity that decides who their particular clerics may marry. The trouble is that clerics are also acting as an agent of the State when they marry couples. (They must sign the State-issued certificates and intone the words, "And now, by the authority vested in me BY THE STATE ...".)
All you've done here is highlight the unfairness and inequality of not only refusing to marry some citizens, but also the granting of "recogni[tion] by the state" only for some couples' legal marriages an dnot ALL.
Homosexuals cannot form families, therefore they ought not to be granted these privileges.
I beg to differ, Homosexuals can and do form families. I don't know where you get the ridiculous notion thay cannot.
From Wiki ... Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior. Although heterosexism is defined in the online editions of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary as anti-gay discrimination and/or prejudice "by heterosexual people" and "by heterosexuals", people of any sexual orientation can hold such attitudes and bias. Nonetheless, heterosexism as discrimination ranks gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minorities as second-class citizens with regard to various legal and civil rights, economic opportunities, and social equality in the majority of the world’s jurisdictions and societies.
I get the silly notion from observing that homosexual couplings are sterile.
Seraphim, you changed your statement from "Homosexuals [i.e. the people] cannot form families" to "homosexual couplings[i.e. a physical act] are sterile". They are not the same thing. The "effects that flow from marriage" flow to people, not sex acts.
Besides, procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Anyone's. And, we let sterile heterosexuals marry all the time.
Let me know when you can come up with a cogent, consistent argument that isn't an insult.
As has been stated several times. Marriage is not a Christian controlled business. And yes it is a business. Marriage is a business contract. And that is all it ever was.
It has only become something special in the last 100-150 years, when emotion, become part of the deal. Up until then women were pretty much bought and sold by fathers and potential husbands. Women had no say in who they married at all. If Christians consider that sacred,
Well said, Cap'n. I remember hearing those now-antiquated words, "Who giveth this bride away?" - as if brides were property.
The General Accounting Office of the federal government found 1049 laws that apply to or give benefits to married couples in report dated January 31, 1997. They classified these laws into 13 catagories which are:
Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps Veterans' Benefits Taxation Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits Employment Benefits and Related Laws Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens Indians Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Crimes and Family Violence Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws Miscellaneous Laws