Gay marriage

[Kaleva]

Various states have laws prohibiting people of the same sex from marrying and this is almost always thought of as infringement on gay rights. I'm a heterosexual male and am prohibited from marrying another male if I ever had the desire to do so. Are not my rights also being violated? One may question why I would desire to do such a thing and I very highly doubt I ever would (my wife would raise a stink about it) but I can imagine two people who end up loving someone else of the same sex like a brother or sister. They may be the best of friends, care about each other deeply and possibly sex is no longer a desire for whatever reason. The two may want to live the rest of their lives together in a legal arrangement, combining assets and responsibilities.

Should then the laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same sex be thought of as a gay issue only or should it be thought of as a rights issue for everyone of legal age?

[IntravenousDemilo]

1. Bingo. It's a question of choice.

And everyone, whether hetero- or homosexual, should have the right to choose either a man or a woman to get married to. Gay people aren't asking for special marriage rights in your country, after all, but equal marriage rights.

Thanks for understanding. In purely legal terms, marriage is a civil rather than a religious function.

[uppityperson]

2. I consider it a rights issue for everyone

[Kaleva]

3. It's always framed as a "gay only" issue though.

At least that is how it appears to me.

[closeupready]

6. But is it, really? Think about it.

It's not. It's about the government frowning on gender pairings. That's sexism, clear as day.

[Kaleva]

8. However, Dungy is described as a homophobe

in a separate thread. I didn't see any post describing him as sexist.

[closeupready]

9. I'm sorry, I don't follow what you are referring to. Regardless,

sexism obviously pervades life in Saudi Arabia even though THEY claim that men and women are separate but equal.

In other words, sexism exists independent of whether society thinks of it in those terms. The prohibition against same-sex marriage is one such case.

[Zhade]

13. Tony? Yeah. He is. He gives major coin to anti-gay hate groups.

NT!

[LoveIsNow]

4. For me it's a gender equality issue

By saying that marriage is for a man and a woman, we are saying that men and women should be separated and treated differently. I think gender neutrality, rather than gender equality (separate but equal rearing it's head again) is the only fair policy. Sex needs to be treated as just another quality like skin or eye color, not something that defines how we are expected to behave.

[NorthernSpy]

10. I'm all for treating men and women differently...

... where the need to protect the common good, in which both men and women are understood to have an equal share, warrants this.


Male and female prisoners should not be housed together, for instance. There are situations in which separate-but-equal treatment is justified.

[closeupready]

5. I have always felt it is clearly a question of gender discrimination.

I thought that was unconstitutional, but I guess as with national security, homophobia must trump sexism.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. it is gender discrimination. a lot of refer to this as equal marriage laws.

to get away from calling it gay marriage

[tabbycat31]

11. I think of it as a civil rights issue.

I used to work as a tax preparer. I had a (gay) client who's partner got health insurance through my client's job. Because it was a "domestic partnership" my client had to pay taxes on the full value of her partner's health insurance (about $6000). Had she been straight, and this was her husband's health insurance, she would not have to pay taxes on it.

[Critters2]

12. I've known of two situations where men ended up adopting

another grown man, in order to leave property to him, power of attorney issues, etc. In both cases, they were gay couples, one man older than his partner and looking for a way to provide benefits. It's ridiculous that they had to be basically dishonest about their relationships in order to meet these needs. But, the courts allowed it. So, what's the bfd about calling such a familial relationship marriage, rather than adoption?