Taking the sex out of the Maryland marriage question...

[marshall]

I think the comparison of gay marriage to polygamous marriage is a bit of a red herring. Wouldn't it be better to quit obsessing on sex and who's doing what to whom and focus on the more important issue--the benefits afforded by society to two individuals who marry.
A more accurate comparison would be marriage between blood relatives, which is as much of a social taboo as gay relationships and has also been outlawed by most cultures (in spite of its accepted position in ancient Egyptian and South Pacific societies.)
A friend of mine whose husband died several years ago has been raising her two children with her mother. They would both benefit greatly if they could establish a legal relationship that gave them the same things that a man and woman get when they are married. The would have financial and tax benefits, joint insurance coverage, etc. What difference does it make if they are having sex with each other or not, as long as they are two adults who wish to establish a household and benefit from the advantages offered by society?
For that matter though, what difference would it make if a mother/son, father/daughter, or sibling/sibling who were both adults DID want to establish a loving sexual relationship? Shouldn't they be given the same opportunity offered to any other couple, be they of the same or opposite sex?

[xchrom]

1. the point about about gay unions

is as much about basic human rights as it is about anything else.
gay isn't in any way abnormal. it's as natural as heterosexuality.
here, in the u.s., we have this focus on equality for every one -- and following that to it's natural conclusion brings us to ''mariage'' rights for gay people. gay relationships when held outside the rights held for straight married folk -- discriminates.
i prefer to keep the focus on that rather than on any other relationship because somethings begin to look extraneous.
discussing gay relationships in the same context as a ''marriage'' between a mother and son is to me... insulting. and keeps gay relationships in that extreme field -- which it is not.

[marshall]

2. the hawaii example

I understand that point, but I think broadening the argrument away from one particular type of relationship to the basic rights afforded to anyone would be more fruitful.
When I was living in Hawaii there was an ongoing discussion about extending privileges to couples. The gay community lobbied for and got such privileges. The law or whatever it was was worded something like "any two adults who cannot legally marry" can establishe a household and get benefits such as insurance coverage and whatever else was offered on a state level. AFter the thing went into effect, there were lots of instances of two brothers, grandfather/granddaughter, two single mothers, etc., basically lots of couples who were not necessarily having a sexual relationship but who were living together as two adults in a household and who could benefit from sharing the benefits offered to one or both by the state. When it came out that such people were applying for the benefit, some in the gay community argued that these were benefits they had fought for and that it was being misconstrued and misapplied due to the vague wording in the bill. I moved at that point and did not keep up with what happened, but I always thought it was a terrific point that these benefits could be had by any two adults who chose to live together, regardless of whether they were gay or whether they were straight or whether they were having sex with each other.

[Blue_Chill]

3. Problem with your thinking is that it destroys marriage

The institution is downgraded to a simple contract. It makes what was once the center of societies structure equal to a service contract on my printer.

No thanks.

Gay marriage makes perfect sense to anyone that is willing to admit that homosexuality is natural. People are born a certain way and you can't force them to deny it. They should be afforded the right to take their relationships to the next level and commit to eachother just like everyone else.

Now we have sickos trying to ride on the hard work of the gay rights movement. They want their own sick garbage to be justified by society thru marriage. Parents and children? That's disgusting and if I was gay I'd be insulted that you equate the two.

[marshall]

4. that's the reason to take sex out of the argument

In a legal sense marriage is a contract. The canonization of marriage belongs in the religious arena, in my opinion, not as part of government.
But this whole issue is the reason I think sex ought to be removed from the argument--it's all anyone focuses on. It takes away from the fact that rights afforded to one couple ought to be afforded to another couple when both wish to establish a household--regardless of whether the reason is that they are a romantic couple or otherwise. That's the reason I mentioned my friend who is raising two children with her mother. They could certainly benefit from the rights and privileges afforded a married couple, and they shouldn't be considered sick just because circumstances have caused them to choose to live together.

[Blue_Chill]

5. Marriage isn't about privileges, that's a horrible view to have

Marriage is about making a statement to society that you have found your mate damnit and you want everyone to know. From the goverments perspective it adds a little financial stability and happiness to it's people so it does it's thing to help people that decide to wed.

You are looking at it ass backwards. It seems that you feel that marriage should be based purely on financial advantages. That is a amzingly cold heart horrible way to view it.

I would rather remove every single advantage given to those that choose to marry, then allow the institution to be degraded in this fashion you suggest. I could never support turning a thing of beauty and meaning into a service contract.

[marshall]

6. long term/short term

In the long term, your idea of having gay marriage consecrated as a quasi-religious activity is certainly a good one, regardless of the separation of church and state can of worms that it might introduce. But in the short term, individuals today who may not necessarily have any interest in making such a public statement are being denied the rights and privileges afforded to other households.