Cobb

Throughout human history, there have been many kinds of social and familial organizational styles. Both polygamous and monogamous and multiple couples. They only threat one style has to the other style are that if an authority disallows are makes the other taboo.

Hedonism has existed both above ground and underground throughout all of human history and in all societies. Despite the authorities making such taboo because they viewed hedonism as a threat to their "family values" it still exist and has had no effect on destabilizing any society that the practices of such live in.

Homosexuality has existed for as long as humans have and never has there been any instances that civilization was harmed or affected in any way except for the authorities or values makers deciding it to be taboo.

So most of folks disdain and insecurity about same sex marriages is based on just that, their own particular values and that of their particular groups and psychological insecurities.

No civilization has ever failed because Gay folks made it fall. Myself being a heterosexual sympathize with the fear of gay marriages.

I have the same concerns, but the fact is our concerns or not supported by the archives of human social history. Heterosexual marriages will not become extinct because some very small percentage of the population chooses same sex unions.

Yes there are some homosexuals who are that way because of choice, but psychological research has shown that most are attracted to the same sex because of biological reasons and psychological core erotic natures.

These core erotic natures cannot be changed anymore than you can change a left-handed person to become right handed. In those cases, it is not a choice but such is natural for them.

Banning same sex unions is like banning left handed folks from some endeavors that all right handed folks currently enjoy. Us heterosexuals may not like it but this still is the bottom line. No pun intended.

I fundamentally agree with you. That is why I support Civil Unions, but not changing the definition of Marriage to suit the preferences of gays and lesbians.

"That is why I support Civil Unions, but not changing the definition of Marriage to suit the preferences of gays and lesbians."

So is your objection purely one of semantics, then? What, apart from the word itself, would be granted to a marriage that is not granted to a civil union?

A foster parent is not a parent, but their legal responsibilities are the same. Is that a semantic difference?

Civil Union is not Marriage but their privileges under the law can be the same. It's more than a semantic difference. If it weren't gay and lesbian activists wouldn't even bother with the term 'Marriage'. This is all about a social demand to legitimate gay and lesbian relationships as equivalent in every respect to the traditional definition of Marriage. I oppose that. And anybody who says that activists for SSM are not going after that merely needs to ask them what is wrong with Civil Union?

They want to change the definition of Marriage. That's not semantics, that's assault.

If there is to be a Civil Union to impart married rights to same-sex partners, I believe it should equally apply to any two consenting adults that intend to use it, regardless of sexuality. For example, there is no reason two unattached sisters who live together should not be able to obtain the same rights as a gay couple.

Personally, I think the only compelling interest the state has in imparting legal status or rights to marriage is in consideration of any children incidental to the marriage. Since it is reasonable to assume that most hetro couples will produce children and most homo couples will not, this seems like a sufficient reason to rebut SSM. Bottom line, love may make a relationship does not necessarilly define a marriage. Are my friends from India, whose marriage was arranged, less married because it was not founded on love? That which defines marriage is the intent to create a new family and continue the species.

I think you make an excellent point. One cannot bring up the history of human relationships without including the logic and standing of arranged marriages.

Maybe it's because I live north of the 49th but for the life of me I cannot figure out what the deal is here. I have read and read but truly I must be missing some obscure cultural point. I feel like this when I find myself in gun control discussions with American friends. It's like we are using the same words but somehow they have totally different meanings. Civil union, marriage so what. If the lesbians down the street want to get married I really don't care. We will still hang out and talk gardening. I'm sure they don't care what I do with my marital status. Which is as it should be.
Sometimes I feel like I have slipped into an alternate universe where any of this stuff will matter after they lower us into the ground.

By the same token, an adoptive parent hasn't delivered a child, but their legal responsibilities are the same. Following that logic, we should deny the word parent to those caregivers as well and just call them guardians. How is including foster and adoptive parents under the "parent" rubric less of an assault? I'm not asking rhetorically or trying to be difficult here; I am honestly having difficulty reconciling the threads of your stance.

If all the same legal rights redound to both marriages and civil unions - and I assume you don't exempt recognition under the Full Faith and Credit clause - then it still sounds to me like the objection you state comes down to semantics. Definitions change all the time. Not so long ago, the definition of "citizen" wouldn't have included you, and I'm certain we all agree *that* re-definition was an improvement.

fag. nigger. bitch. it's only language.

i have no problem with gay couples as they are today. I further have no problem with what companies and cities have done to get domestic partners equal medical benefits. I would expect gay activists to sue and push for legislation that allows domestic partners to have every medical and visitation right married couples have and similar tax status (though i'm not sure that's not already the case w/ head of household). i don't have a problem with gay couples adopting children in principle though i think the foster system needs much work.

I do have a problem with marriage being equated with domestic partnership. i do have a problem with the strategy of declaring gay couples 'married' in order to evade the basis of the discriminations against unmarrieds in the various 'public accomodations' claimed unfair. I do have a problem churches rewording their sacraments to be gender neutral. i do believe there is a slippery slope. i do have a problem with this movement being equated to the civil rights movement. and i have a problem with the notion that love and affection are the primary pre-requisites to marriage.

i believe that i'm parsing these matters a lot closer than most advocates believe of opponents, although i am not parsing it as closely as the law would. as any attorney will tell you, one word can make a world of difference. these differences matter. consider the post 'balkin's version'. http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/001609.html i don't understand the legal concept of 'common law marriage' enough to say much more than i've said here, but i think the legal distinction between 'common law marriage' and 'licensed marriage' is parallel to the legal distinction which should exist between Marriage and Civil Unions.

in fact, i need to make a wrap up here because i'm certain that i've put together at least 10 posts on the matter.

the primary principled reason why i beleive they should be separate has to do with the ideal of marriage. I also strongly believe that the ideal of gay love has its own principles as well and that these values do not intersect enough to share the same designation.

the primary practical reason why i beleive they should be separate is that i find the empirical data about the declining marriage rate in those scandinavian countries which have made marriage gender neutral to be compelling. it is this second notion i underscore in this post about damaging something as opposed to somebody.