Qcmbr:
Why should gay partners get rights over pensions etc above family members? In my mind a gay relationship isnot legitemate legally since there is nothing actually binding the two individuals together from a family point of view and while that statement alone will have popped a few veins in foreheads across teh board let me clarify a bit further.
That's kind of the point, that even though it may be a committed long-term loving monogamous relationship, it's not legally recognised because both parties happen to have matching genitalia. Imagine if you died and the person you loved most in the world was left with nothing, while your greedy relatives squabbled over your belongings.
1/ In a biblical sense it was the point at which a man and a woman agreed to be one , to leave the protection of the family unit and raise their own family (multiply and replenish). It was not simply a romantic affair (arranged marriages were the norm and still are in many religious societies) but a uniting of two families and the creation of a third - a uniting that creates a larger family with lineage and cultural permenance.
True. Fortunately we no longer live in such a benighted culture. People are now free to marry whom they choose, even against their families' wishes.
2/ Historically it was the point at which a woman would no longer be provided for by her father and would be handed over both financially and legally to her husband. The man was required to provide financially for the family and in times of attack to defend them. There were good reasons to draw up a legal framework around this relationship in the event of the death of the man for the provision of assets for the children (women were theroetically protected by the dowry.)
Again, things have moved on since then. Most adults manage to be self-sufficient before getting married. Dowries, like arranged marriages, belong to more primitive cultures.
3/ Socially the family unit is proven beyond doubt as the best environment for the raising of children
Please provide evidence for this assertion. Even if true, wouldn't allowing gay people to marry strengthen their family, making it a better situation in which to raise children?
and thus it was in societies interest to maintain civilisation by legally supporting the institution of marriage and to make it legally undesirable to commit adultery and thus potentially break up the family and at the worst create a child who must be cared for by a father who is not the blood relative. The lot of bastard children has not historically been a secure one.
Once again, it's lucky for all of us that society has at least progressed past this stage. Children have the same rights regardless of the relationship status of their parents. And parents have the same responsibilities.
Now we, in our enlightened wisdom, have dismantled the social, legal and religious framework of marriage to the point at which various statements such as 'its just a bit of paper' and the issue of 'same rights' become foremost arguments in the debate about what marriage is.
The religious aspect is of no interest to me; I have no need for your gods or your clerics. Regarding the legal and social framework, we live in a society for the most part based on individual rights, where the old rules of doing what's best for society no longer apply. Individuals are - or should be - free to choose whatever relationship works best for them.
Only now when we(society) treat marriage as we treat most commodities - as a throw away item once it has been used up - do gay couples have the ammunition to claim a framework for families as their own. The seeds of this have been sown in the common law framework set up to recognise unmarried couples living together, once this was accepted it became absolutely a matter of rights and nothing else. On the matter of rights there is nothing to stop two people of the same sex having marriage for let's be honest marriage is only 'a piece of paper' now for there is nothing to define it other than a few pension rights and hospital decisions.
Exactly. Marriage is no longer a means of building family alliances or transferring property. It is an expression of love and commitment. That it is legally elevated over other relationships is really little more than a historical curiosity. There will always be those who balk at any kind of change, imagining that the way they were brought up is the only way things should be, but more progressive-minded people will generally welcome anything that increases individual rights and liberties.
Our society has encouraged through legal laws and a dependency culture the single parent, the co-habitee, the absent father, the divorcee and the exploded family with multiple fathers with only a passing commitment (I'm not talking intent here but if your children live in another home with another father your influence on that family has waned - I know I'm a child of a divorce.) The gay family unit is actually just another mess of the family as we experiment with deconstruction of historical norms.
You've essentially listed several kinds of relationship and several ways of raising children, and jumbled them all up together and asserted that they're not as good as marriage. Why is a child with two parents who love him and provide for him and are committed to him and too each other in a "mess" just because his parents happen to both be male or both be female? Heterosexual relationships - including marriage - can fail. One partner could die, or just leave, or stay and make his family's life hell.
"Historical norms". That's what you want to base society on? Really?
The next stage is that it is now absolutely unfair to deny polygamy, bigamy or inter-family relationships as this is all about rights and no longer about religion or family units.
Agreed. All adults capable of giving informed consent should be allowed to participate in any sort of relationship with any other adults capable of giving informed consent, as long as all parties are informed and consenting.
In this debate few if any consider marriage as a family unit but they think first and foremost of marriage as a romantic engagement between two consenting adults - children are increasngly being delayed as women's careers are seen as far more important, in fact many relationships don't even consider children and don't want them. This is an almost unheard of social phenomenon - getting together with the express purpose of not creating a family.
Lots of marriages are childless. This has always been the case. Due to living in an affluent technologically advanced society, we are able to choose whether and when to have children. Most people would regard this as a good thing, but even if you disagree, it will remain a fact, one which considerably weakens your already feeble argument.
This is the gay basic premise
What's that? Item 1 on the Gay Agenda?
(there are those who want children but clearly they can't have their own - they will take responsibility for someone else's child which is a nightmare for a start and yes if you are wondering I am against sperm donars!)
Hardly surprising. You're opposed to adoption as well, I take it?
The question I have is why do gay couples seek an institution that the straight and religious society once held inviolate and sacred and have since discarded? Love is not marriage in any form and it is not enough to say that because two people love each other they should be married - you don't need marriage to love.
I agree. Marriage is a quaint old institution, a relic of a former time. But some people still like to stand before their family and friends and declare their love for each other. I see no reason why any informed consenting adults should be denied that right.
Though most will see this as a bash on gay people it is more a statement that some relationships cannot claim marriage because of what I define marriage to be and not because I wish to deny rights to people - some rights are not societies to give.
Nor are they yours to withhold. The problem is that married people are generally given legal rights that are withheld from people in other kinds of relationship. This is wrong. My opinion is that marriage should have no legal status. Rights belong to individuals and are the same regardless of whatever relationships they may or may not be part of.