Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay?

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Marshall

Does anyone understand what an oppressive and dangerous contract the marriage contract is? People may enter marriage for love, but there is some serious financial issues involved. I can think of only one societal goal sufficient to allow anyone to enter such an oppressive contract...that reason is the raising of children....children are best off in a nuclear family related by blood....marriage protects those children....

anyone that believes in gay marriage believes in making the lives of gay people worse....

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Marshall

Why do gay people even want to copy heterosexuals relationships? What benefits do gays think they're getting if they get gay marriage? Do they want ALL the detriments too, or did you even think that far?

Do the homework problem I assigned a few posts above yours, and you will be a long ways farther down the road to the answer to your question.

If you want even more data, do the same informal survey I've been doing, quietly, for years. When someone advocates gay marriage, ask THEM what benefits they think it should give, then SHUT UP. If they give one answer, or two, ask them if there are any others.

The first two answers will generally be all over the place. The third one is ALMOST ALWAYS the same, no matter who you ask. If you were clever enough to notice which answers come up most often, ignoring place, I think you'd find this one was actually in first place.

I'm not going to give you the punchline. Do your homework.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Marshall

It's an oppressive and dangerous contract for gay people to enter and not in the best interest of gay people.......

Actually, it very much *IS* in their interests.

You have to do your homework to figure out why.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Gays SHOULD be alowed to marry. Why the hell shouldn't they be alowed to suffer like the rest of us?

[John Bull]

Not a legal question, IMHO, it's a religious question and only the preachers have the right to decide. Most of the major denominations allow it now. Holdouts are Catholics and Muslims. Go figure!

[I B Hankering]

Marriage has always been about property. Men wanted the legal reassurance that when they died, the fruit of their labor would be passed on to the fruit of THEIR loins. This is why adultery, until very recently with the advent of DNA testing, was considered such an onerous transgression—it jeopardized the legitimacy of heirship. The more powerful the family, the more onerous the transgression, i.e., more property was put at risk. Hence, a queen found guilt of adultery was also guilty of treason – ask Anne Boleyn. Having a illegitimate claimant to the throne could, and often did, lead to a civil war.

Gays and lesbians want legal recourse in property rights (the right to inherit property of a deceased partner) and to other traditional, familial entitlements under law; such as, insurance riders, to cover partners incapacitated by injury or disease, and even the right to collect Social Security benefits of a departed partner.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Gays and lesbians want legal recourse in property rights (the right to inherit property of a deceased partner) and to other traditional, familial entitlements under law; such as, insurance riders, to cover partners incapacitated by injury or disease, and even the right to collect Social Security benefits of a departed partner.

So reasonable and so not remedied by a religious ceremony. These things are properly the venue of the legislature.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Not a legal question, IMHO, it's a religious question and only the preachers have the right to decide. Most of the major denominations allow it now. Holdouts are Catholics and Muslims. Go figure!

Source? I know my Protestant denomination doesn't allow it and can think of several others off the top of my head. Don't recall any Jewish capitulations.

[Jdriller]

I think people worry too much about where other people put their dick. I'll worry about where I put mine and don't give a a damn about what they do with theirs as long as they keep theirs away from me. Personally I like women and have no desires for anything else. As far as gay marriage. I don't really care one way or the other. I think mostly the push for gay marriage is a financial thing where they want to have health insurance as a family plan, or rights of survival when one partner dies to inherit the property (although a will could fix that). I do think the new numbers are more accurate (2% instead of 10%). Always thought that (10%) was way too high. Not sure that adopting kids into a gay situation is the right thing to do. Traditional male/female parents generally (but maybe not always) is a better situation to raise kids. I think a more dangerous situation is the number of single parent families. What is it 60 or 70% of kids are now born without married parents. Let's face it. It is too easy for unmarried people to split up and leave the kids unsupported, financially and emotionally. Being married with kids with all the drama, financial considerations and so forth will help you get through the rough times every marriage has. Men know if they leave the marriage they may never see their kids again. And they will usually pay child support (sometimes they will be forced to even if they don't want to for whatever reason). Not to mention allimony. Sometimes it is cheaper to keep her.
My point is the do gooders have picked the wrong dog to beat up on. Family issues, unmarried moms, fatherless kids, with mom working to try and suport the kids and feed the family (which means she is not arround to raise the kid right) are much more important than the gay thing. Kids need guidance, and a two parent family usually works better and I think it works better with a female and male role model. Sure there are "bad" family situations that are harmfull to the kids. But overall the instituion of marriage between a man and woman is better for raising kids to be productive and balanced adults. It used to be that being married for life was fairly common, but back in the 1800's and early 1900's people died before 50 (on average). Now more of us a living longer and being married longer than 25 years to the same person is really tough to do. People change, and in many cases those changes make you incompatible with your spouse. Maybe marriage should be a limited contract, and after so many years (25) if you don't renew it it expires and you go your seperate ways.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Source? I know my Protestant denomination doesn't allow it and can think of several others off the top of my head. Don't recall any Jewish capitulations.

Just a matter of common knowledge rather than a source. Episcopals, Lutherans, Methodists for some. Maybe not all diocese but certainly individual churches and larger divisions.

Not being terribly churchy, that's about all I can name off the top of my head.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Jdriller

I think mostly the push for gay marriage is a financial thing where they want to have health insurance as a family plan...

We have a winner!