Why should it be any different for Gays?
I can give you some possible reasons. Are you willing to consider them?
Here's my thoughts: If a couple truly loves each other, then
they should be allowed to marry. No exceptions.
And here's my thought: what exactly is this "marriage" thing that you're saying couples should be "allowed" to do, and by what authority can you
or anyone else tell someone that they do or don't have "permission" to do it?
These questions need to be answered. There's very little point in considering the question of whether someone should be "allowed" to do something
without a clear idea of what that something is. And I think you'll find that there are a good number of people who think of "marriage" as a formal
recognizance of union between specifically a man and a woman in the eyes of their god. That is, after all, why it's traditonally religious authority
figures who perform the ceremonies. To those people, gays cannot become "married" any more than automobiles can. Two cars next to each other in the
garage cannot be married because they're not a man and a woman. And two men or two women cannot be married for the same reason. It's a particular
type of relationship. And the relationship that they perceive precludes same sex unions. The expression
has a certain meaning. If you combine a 25 degree angle with a 65
degree angle, they're complementary. If you combine a 25 degree angle with a 25 degree angle...they're not complementary. It has nothing to do with
fairness. They're simply not components that relate to each other in the manner that is meant by the expression "complementary angles." And many
people perceive marriage to preclude same-gender relations in exactly this way. Two 25 degree angles can be combined, yes....but they're not
compelentary. And two men can be combined, but they're not married.
If you ask me...I would say that no two people need the permission of a third party to relate to each other in a manner of thier own choosing. But
that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing a particular formal social/religious arrangement.
Marriage is a formal permission from a third party for two people to relate in certain ways.
Whether one views marriage religiously, and that
third party is god, or whether one view marriage socially, and that third party is the government, either way...marriage is permission from a third
party for a relationship to exist. It is not the relationship itself.
Reiterating my own view that no two people need the permission of a third party to relate to each other as they please, to me...the whole idea of
marriage as exists in our particular social environment is mildly abhorrent. I don't require permission to relate to, live with, or have sex with
whomever I choose. And the idea that I do need some sort of external approval is insulting. With that in mind, I would ask, why
? Why are they asking for that particular name and title? They're not looking for permission to have sex with
each other. They're doing that already. They're not seeking permission to live together. They're doing that already.
By all appearances, gays looking to be "married" are looking to get a social title. But they're not doing the social thing that is associated with
that title. Saying that gays "deserve" to be able to be married isn't much different than saying that people who never attended college "deserve"
to be able to be PhD's. Well, ok...but to get the title you need to do what the title is associated with. A guy living with and having sex with only
one particular guy isn't "married" any more than someone who attended CPR courses is a doctor.
Second issue: finance
Occassionally someone will point out possible tax, legal and financial advantages to being married. And they want them. But why
financial advantages exist? Why should people who are "married" be given any legal, tax or financial advantage over people who are not?
The reason is that our society, and in particular our coroprations have concluded that it is advantageous to encourage
marriage. As one
computer industry president explained to me once, "married people make good workers." Why? Because they have families to support. They have social
pressures to be stable and dependable. They have relatives from whom to win approval. Many reasons. And consequently they have chosen to give
financial incentives to people in the situation of marriage to encourage people to married.
Gays in exclusive relationships are not in the situation that our society and corporations have seen fit to encourage through financial incentive. Two
gays saying they want the tax breaks are in no different position than a single guy who says he wants the tax breaks. Sorry guys, you're not doing
the thing that they're trying to reward, so you can't expect the reward. If you want the reward created specifically to encourage a specific
behavior, you need to engage in that behavior.
Gays feel that some love, they're human. Shouldn't
they have the same marriage rights?
Marriage is not about love. If gays love each other, so be it. If they have sex with each other, so be it. But marriage is not sex and marriage is not
love. Marriage is a social construct and it is a religious construct. And in the eyes of many people, the nature of that construct does not include
[edit on 10-7-2010 by LordBucket]