quote:

---

Originally written by Excalibur:

You show me an existing homosexual society, or why a society would turn predominately homosexual and I'll believe you. But until then, I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Male-female is a natural distinction, not a manmade one. The government recognizing male-female unions as special is not arbitrary because that pairing is naturally unique and different and from male-male/female-female groupings.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Marriage is a divine arrangement predating human government.

---

quote:

---

If yes, what would be the purpose of marriage in your ideal society?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

There is no "natural" distinction, other than impregnation, which makes pairings of sexes important at all.

---

quote:

---

I see your argument is based on the world-view espoused by your faith

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dikiyoba:

Society will not fall apart if same-sex marriage or civil unions are recognized. But not recognizing it causes hardship and grief for the people who want to marry a specific someone but can't solely because it would result in a male/male or female/female pair instead of a female/male pair.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

Then aren't you angry about the government thinking it has the right to decide what is and isn't a "marriage"? Shouldn't you be campaigning…

The purpose of marriage is whatever the people involved in the marriage want it to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

What I really want is to know if you feel that the person that disagrees with you has the right to push his values just like you have the right to push yours.

---

quote:

---

Written by the Committee that worked to decide how to cause hardship by denying marriage to same sex couples.
Married people have the following Federally legislated rights.
* Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
o Social Security pension
o veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
o survivor benefits for federal employees
o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
o renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
* Right to benefits while married:
o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
* Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
o veteran's disability
o Supplemental Security Income
o disability payments for federal employees
o medicaid
o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
* Joint and family-related rights:
o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
o joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
o domestic violence intervention
o access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
* Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
* Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
* Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
* Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
* Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
* Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
* Court notice of probate proceedings
* Domestic violence protection orders
* Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
* Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
* Funeral and bereavement leave
* Joint adoption and foster care
* Joint tax filing
* Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
* Legal status with stepchildren
* Making spousal medical decisions
* Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
* Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
* Right of survivorship of custodial trust
* Right to change surname upon marriage
* Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
* Right to inheritance of property
* Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

---

quote:

---

The comparison to racism and claims of discrimination are just clever equivocation.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Thuryl, I presented multiple scenarios and asked if you should be able to try to legislate your view and if someone with the opposite view should be able to as well.

---

quote:

---

I mean I don’t think disallowing same-sex marriage is equivalent to racial discrimination. I think denying housing, classifying it as a mental illness, and military policy is.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

quote:

---

Originally written by Locmaar:

when you get injured and someone calls an ambulance, this very ambulance may not be able to save somebody else's life, because of your odd definition of freedom.

If you think this sounds a wee bit constructed you should probably take a deep breath and contemplate the difference between forbidding people to marry one another and wearing a seatbelt for your own protection. You might as well decide not to wear your seatbelt at all - it's just a matter of paying the fine.

---

Dictionary.com
freedom
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint

Laws requiring seatbelt usage restrict freedom by definition. Everyone has the same restrictions in this state.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

It's impossible to prevent someone from trying to do something, so to say that somebody shouldn't be able to try to get their personal beliefs enshrined in legislation is a patent absurdity. Of course, I'll do everything within my power to prevent people who disagree with me from succeeding in getting their beliefs enshrined in legislation, and I'd expect anybody else to do the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

Denying the benefits of marriage to unmarried partnerships is, objectively, discrimination

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Locmaar:

You've quite lost it now, haven't you? A seat-belt is physical restraint? What about the confinement of your car? Oh, wait: You chose to sit in that car in order to enjoy your personal freedom/confinement?

If it wasn't for the fact that your argument is just another one of those 'hey-I-looked-it-up-you-are-wrong'-statements that you seem to be so agreeing of, I might actually get upset. But, hey, go and read ET's signature. There's infinite wisdom to be found.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Archmagus Micael:

Unfortunately it's been done in the past, and could happen again (Nazi Germany).

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Fernication:

That is why I think the fairest route is to leave marriage as a community decision (obviously, this would include religious communities) and attach all the government benefits to something more equitable.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

But everybody won’t do the same, Thuryl. Some people are not willing to lie and cheat the system to get their way and to stop their neighbor from getting his. For example, the Constitution forbids restricting or enforcing religion. So when some people aren’t getting their way they equivocate and say that there is a conflict of church and state when there isn’t any, so their opponent doesn’t even have the constitutional right get their beliefs enshrined in legislation. That is the sentiment of many on this issue.

---