Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

I found this back forth exchange interesting as well.
The second article is a response to the first one.

Why Gay Marriage is the Wrong Issue


Gary Marriage: The Issue

Olyve
I don't know who the author is, but the site is Cat-V. If you can ignore the author's rant, some interesting points are made.

Advocates of 'gay marriage' claim that they are fighting for 'equal rights', but in reality what they are pushing for is to have 'privileged rights' extended to themselves. This by itself is hardly surprising, all groups like to advocate special rights for themselves, but the hypocrisy in this case is too great to ignore.
For centuries homosexuals have had to suffer discrimination and abuse, fortunately as the dark ages have started to fade illuminated by enlightenment and humanism this discrimination and abuse have also diminished. Because all this they should know better than now ask for special rights.
Why instead of railing against the special treatment received by married couples do they want those 'rights' extended to another special group that now suits them?
Why it is not OK to discriminate against gays but it is fine to discriminate against singles, polygamous, unmarried couples or any other of the infinite possible forms of interpersonal relationships?
When 'strong artificial intelligence' becomes a reality (hah!), will we need to have another movement for 'AI marriage'?
What is 'marriage' anyway?
Marriage is a cultural and religious tradition, but traditions exist to be changed and adapt to new times, and in any modern secular society no religion can claim any authority over anyone other than its willful (and I might add 'delusional') followers.
So why should government ever dictate the meaning and rules that should govern a tradition? Why should government endorse a particular form of this (rather barbaric) tradition?
There is no justification for the word 'marriage' to be part of any law. And if so inclined, it should be up to the involved parties to come up with a contractual agreement that fits their wishes.
Not only this, but any involvement of government in trying to define 'marriage' would go directly against the basic principles of separation of church and state, and by eroding that separation advocates of 'gay marriage' are basically conceding that their religious opponents are correct and that religion and politics should be allowed to mix.
Religious followers should also oppose governments being involved in defining marriage, some day their particular religious group wont be in control of government and they will have to accept a new definition they don't agree with (as is happening right now in places that start to recognize gay marriages).
If religious folks really care about being able to decide what marriage means, for them, the only way to ensure this is to keep government completely out of it, of course any religion with political power soon forgets this and tries to enforce their arbitrary views on everyone else. Yet another example of how religion while claiming the omnipotent authority of God always seems to need the help of government to enforce their silly ideas on others.
If you are a religious person, why do you need a government law that dictates what marriage means for you? If you really believe, shouldn't you follow your religious laws anyway? Let your religion decide what marriage means, and if you disagree nothing keeps you from switching religions or even creating your own (or, God forbid! just do away with the whole archaic and backwards concept of religion).
But, think of the children!
Amusingly enough, a rather common argument often heard in defense of 'marriage' is that somehow it helps protect children (exactly how nobody has explained). Nevermind that in modern societies most children have either unmarried parents or divorced parents.
Even if somehow it was true that marriage has some benefit for children, why should children of couples that decided to get married get special treatment? What about children of unmarried parents? Parents that (like this humble writter) find the concept of 'marriage' repulsive? Or of single parents? or orphans? Or adoptive children? Why should all of them be discriminated against?
Specially given that children have no saying on the married status of their parents it seems extremely unfair to endow some of them with some (supposed) benefits and not others.
Whatever legal alleged benefits marriage provides for children they should apply to all children.
Conclusion
The only way to really end all discrimination related to marriage is to get government out of the marriage business.

CM, have I welcomed you? I hope so. Nice to meet you and appreciate your words here.

I don't disagree with you at all.
I posted those two articles because I find them an interesting dialog within the gay community.
I am not gay myself but have many gay friends and care very much about this issue.
I have watched this thread unfold from the beginning and have learned much from it.

I adamantly disapprove of religion and government mixing too and think the 'marriage ceremony' is simply symbolic.
I am in favor of equal rights for everybody.
I hope it didn't seem that I was posting that second article in agreement with said article.
I only posted because I found both view points interesting.

The 'rite' of marriage is so absorbed in our community that even non religious people (like me) have trouble sometimes (like me at one time) with the concept that it is or should be separate from legislation.

Olyve, Thanks for the welcome.

Take a look at my post on 31 January on page 50.

It is a little strange that the religious conservatives and the gay community both very much want government involvement in their intimate personal lives.

ChristianMiller, I don't know of anyone gay or straight who wants government involved in their intimate affairs. Many, however, want government involved in everyone else's affairs.

Phil,
Well said! It's what I was trying to express. The busybodies are trying to take over the nation.

That is strange. It would never have occurred to me that that is true of either group. Perhaps we have different interpretations of what the legal institution of marriage entails. I know quite a few married couples for example, who do not engage in "personal intimacy". I also know quite a few single people who have intimate relationships. What, in your opinion, does intimacy have to do with "marriage" in the legal sense, and in what ways do religious conservatives and "the gay community" very much want the government involved?

Here is an interesting article about civil unions in France.

Steve,
You have pointed out the crux of the issue and the inconsistency of the government's role: What does intimacy have to do with "marriage" in the LEGAL sense? There is no law requiring intimacy. So why is government in involved? Consider the government's awkward position on a foreigner marrying a US citizen for the sole purpose coming to the US. The US has made such a "sham marriage" illegal with pretty heavy punishment. What makes a legal marriage a "sham"?

I'm not sure it's an "inconsistency", CM, unless you are referring to the fact that the rewards and obligations of legal marriage are afforded to some couples but denied to others. But I don't see any inconsistency at all as regards intimacy: the government does not in any way require or even inquire about a couple's intimacy.

Which brings me back to your previous assertion that "that the religious conservatives and the gay community both very much want government involvement in their intimate personal lives." Given that the government has neither requirement about nor interest in a couple's intimacy, how do you see religious conservatives and the gay community wanting the government involved in their intimate personal lives?