Same Sex Marriages?

[kat]

It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

The sentence I referred to ladies!

Apology for your unprovoked flame at me Kat? and by the way you are way off topic at the moment.

Tornado, in some people's perspective, comparing pedophila to consenual and peer appropriate gay/lesbian relationships is not unprovoked. But yes, maybe I should of withheld my flame.

[Tornado]

some kids are born with tumours, some without legs or arms, some are joined at the head and some are "born gay" - so in your reckoning we should just let them be? We operate and we medicate to fix problems, hormone treatment is widely available.

Your smug opening lines directed at me are silly and I have asked pertinent questions, so go support your gay friends, I couldnt care less. This is a black and white question to me, with no shades of grey.

Monoritys are taking over this planet due to being to lazy to fight for for what is right.

[wolf5370]

...dogs, sheep, goats and penguins, Ancient Greek Philosophers

With 6 billion and climbing it's probably a good idea to procreate a little less.

I watched a TV program on African elephants (only slightly off subject, but bear with me). It appears that these graet beasts have 'evolved' over the last 20 or so years! They now, on average, reach sexual maturity 2 years later than they did in the 70s (and yes there was accurate scientific records for comparison, it has been a trend that has been mapped). This they think is nature 'tinkering' with the species as its habitat can now not support so high a populous.

Many animals are not too bothered about the sex (or even species) of the recipient their 'efforts-sexual'. However, they do tend to still procreate at some point. Although when I was a kid I tried to breed my hampster, but it was only interested in another boy one - neither were interested in the lone female (perhaps she had poor hygene).

However, I don't think we can compare humans with most other animals. We are sentient to a much greater degree. We make judgements on the basis of morality, emotion and 'external guidance' (laws, rules etc). We have much more complex emotions "Love" "Hate" "Loyalty" "Patriatism" which most animals do not (even if we try to convince ourselves they do). I do not think Homosexuality is usually a 'genetic mutation' as implied above, I think it is more likely to be physchosamatic (cause and effect or chemical/hormone imbalance).

I think there is a fair percentage of creatures that are born this way continually throughout history. We do not notice with most animals (try figuring it out with rabbits or rats), but we notice with pets or seriously studied animals (Pandas, Penguines etc). It's just other Penguines don't build a bonfire and roast them (the chocolate would melt ).

Whales, dolphins other sentient beings - who knows?

[Tornado]

It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

The sentence I referred to ladies!

Apology for your unprovoked flame at me Kat? and by the way you are way off topic at the moment.

Tornado, in some people's perspective, comparing pedophila to consenual and peer appropriate gay/lesbian relationships is not unprovoked. But yes, maybe I should of withheld my flame.

You still missed the point!

The line she used was : "It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional."

sexual preference means everything sexual, including hetrosexual, homosexual, peodophilia, beastiality, rape and so on.....

Are they all unconstitutional as well?

[kat]

some kids are born with tumours, some without legs or arms, some are joined at the head and some are "born gay" - so in your reckoning we should just let them be? We operate and we medicate to fix problems, hormone treatment is widely available.

Your smug opening lines directed at me are silly and I have asked pertinent questions, so go support your gay friends, I couldnt care less. This is a black and white question to me, with no shades of grey.

Monoritys are taking over this planet due to being to lazy to fight for for what is right.

oh, we already did fight for what's right, and in the states it's called the civil rights movement. And oh yes, I'm one of those "lazy" minorities that's taking over the planet. Run, run, we're in Thailand now.

You're right, I have nothing to say to you because nothing you say can be received without keeping a straight face.

[Tornado]

some kids are born with tumours, some without legs or arms, some are joined at the head and some are "born gay" - so in your reckoning we should just let them be? We operate and we medicate to fix problems, hormone treatment is widely available.

Your smug opening lines directed at me are silly and I have asked pertinent questions, so go support your gay friends, I couldnt care less. This is a black and white question to me, with no shades of grey.

Monoritys are taking over this planet due to being to lazy to fight for for what is right.

oh, we already did fight for what's right, and in the states it's called the civil rights movement. And oh yes, I'm one of those "lazy" minorities that's taking over the planet. Run, run, we're in Thailand now.

You're right, I have nothing to say to you because nothing you say can be received without keeping a straight face.

you lost the debate Kat, you have come up with nothing to support your case and god bless America

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Does anyone agree with my previous post?

Kat, bringing religion into it and even nature to a certain extent is going way off topic.

We are human beings, not elephants, not penguins or dogs... Homo sapiens.

I still think any same sex couple who want to adopt are being incredibly selfish.

[wolf5370]

I still don't see what the problem is.

Are you afraid of the plannet running out of people because we all become homosexual?

Without glib or snide comments or personal attacks, can those that disagree so strongly with Gay marraige, what specifically is the concern?

Is it religious? If so, then so are many other things. Alchohol if you are Muslim. Sex before marriage if you are Christian. Divorce and contraceptives if you are Catholic. Eating prok if you are Jewish or Muslim. Eating beef if you are Hindu. I could go on forever perhaps.

Is it the thought of the sexual act? If so, then how is marriage going to make a difference. Do unmarried gay couple not have sex at the moment?

Is it the raising children angle? If so, then marriage also does not make a difference. They can not biologically mate. They can adopt, but have the same checks by the agency/state that every adopting couple have. So this can be controlled separately as an issue. They can be impregnated if they are female (artificially or otherwise), but they can happen now too.

You see, whatever angle I see it from, I can find no logical reasoned argument against it other than "Its wrong, 'cos the bible says it is". Anyone fancy stoning an adulterer (I'll give you my ex-wife's address ).

These sort of questions always get heated and personal, but no one ever throws in reasoned arguement - "never met a gay Kangaroo, so it ain't right for humans either!".

[wolf5370]

Scamp,

I agree with your sentiments towards raising children (adoption etc) in this sort of relationship. I also think it can be dealt with as a separate issue (and should be).

Although, it would have to be handled very carefully and may well be an even more difficult issue I feel.

[ka12345]

Is it the raising children angle? If so, then marriage also does not make a difference. They can not biologically mate. They can adopt, but have the same checks by the agency/state that every adopting couple have. So this can be controlled separately as an issue. They can be impregnated if they are female (artificially or otherwise), but they can happen now too.

That's the only problem I see with it. Let them get married etc, but don't let them adopt children. If they want to make their own then let them. But adopting kids who don't share their genes is unfair.

[20yearsinthai]

I still don't see what the problem is.

Are you afraid of the plannet running out of people because we all become homosexual?

Without glib or snide comments or personal attacks, can those that disagree so strongly with Gay marraige, what specifically is the concern?

Is it religious? If so, then so are many other things. Alchohol if you are Muslim. Sex before marriage if you are Christian. Divorce and contraceptives if you are Catholic. Eating prok if you are Jewish or Muslim. Eating beef if you are Hindu. I could go on forever perhaps.

Is it the thought of the sexual act? If so, then how is marriage going to make a difference. Do unmarried gay couple not have sex at the moment?

Is it the raising children angle? If so, then marriage also does not make a difference. They can not biologically mate. They can adopt, but have the same checks by the agency/state that every adopting couple have. So this can be controlled separately as an issue. They can be impregnated if they are female (artificially or otherwise), but they can happen now too.

You see, whatever angle I see it from, I can find no logical reasoned argument against it other than "Its wrong, 'cos the bible says it is". Anyone fancy stoning an adulterer (I'll give you my ex-wife's address ).

These sort of questions always get heated and personal, but no one ever throws in reasoned arguement - "never met a gay Kangaroo, so it ain't right for humans either!".

What I don't like about gay marriage is that it bascically puts an official stamp of approval on a relationship which I consider anatural and unproductive.

I dont buy this defective gene theory either.

[kat]

Does anyone agree with my previous post?

Kat, bringing religion into it and even nature to a certain extent is going way off topic.

We are human beings, not elephants, not penguins or dogs... Homo sapiens.

I still think any same sex couple who want to adopt are being incredibly selfish.

Check the blog. I wasn't the one to bring religion or animals into it, but was responding to comments that were already made in that direction.

Wolfie about your comments:

"We are sentient to a much greater degree. We make judgements on the basis of morality, emotion and 'external guidance' (laws, rules etc). We have much more complex emotions "Love" "Hate" "Loyalty" "Patriatism" which most animals do not (even if we try to convince ourselves they do). I do not think Homosexuality is usually a 'genetic mutation' as implied above, I think it is more likely to be physchosamatic (cause and effect or chemical/hormone imbalance)."

Don't you think that this sentiment assumes that gay/lesbian people are either not sentinent or moral beings? I'm asking you a real question, not a rhetorical one. Hormone therapy and its associated medical "solutions" were tried and deemed archaic by the American Medical Association some time ago. Shock therapy and horomone replacement will never make a gay person ungay. It will simply drive some people to become insane or suppress sexuality to an unhealthy result. It will also serve to criminalize those who are "unsuccessful" in the "treatments". I'm sure there must be studies about this that were done back when AMA and associated medical associations deemed homosexuality a mental disability.

I agree that healthy societies have morals and guiding principles. Don't we all come to terms with our own individual sense of what's right in relation to society's overall vision? I mean, many view prostitution as a crime and it is illegal here in LOS and other places, but this is highly unpragmatic and not reflecting reality, and as such, creates more moral hazards than it seeks to curb. Don't you think?

[autonomous_unit]

Does anyone agree with my previous post?

...

I still think any same sex couple who want to adopt are being incredibly selfish.

I think this question of raising children is off topic too, but illustrates the problem. People argue about hot-button issues like this not because of the direct impact of the question at hand (which, as pointed out in this thread is really the legal rights and obligations for gay couples), but rather because of their other unspoken assumptions and agendas. This question is particularly nasty because of the polarizing assumptions about what is "the enemy's" agenda. I don't think the antagonists here are against the legal (civil) framework for long-term couples, but they are dead-set against any "endorsement" of gay life no matter the form.

I think trying to prevent gays from raising children because "children would feel abnormal among peers" is a civil rights issue. Community norms are not always right, and often I think our legal systems are necessary to protect people in situations where emotion clouds rationality. By your measure, it should be selfish to have mixed-race children because they too would feel abnormal in many communities. How about alcoholics, single parents, and the uneducated or poor? Should they not be allowed to raise children since the kids might be ostracized? What about mentally ill parents?

What this thread has to do with Thailand is unclear to me. I would have expected more libertarian beliefs among the expat community here, so I guess these political barometer readings are useful to me as a newcomer to the Thailand expat scene.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Is it religious? If so, then so are many other things. Alchohol if you are Muslim. Sex before marriage if you are Christian. Divorce and contraceptives if you are Catholic. Eating prok if you are Jewish or Muslim. Eating beef if you are Hindu. I could go on forever perhaps.

I have always found religion even more sickening.

[meemiathai]

Is it religious? If so, then so are many other things. Alchohol if you are Muslim. Sex before marriage if you are Christian. Divorce and contraceptives if you are Catholic. Eating prok if you are Jewish or Muslim. Eating beef if you are Hindu. I could go on forever perhaps.

I have always found religion even more sickening.

Religions had always been ok for me as long as they teach people to be good and do not force me to have their same beliefs.

And if they give me the bullshit as not to do this or that, I'll give them my middle finger!

[wolf5370]

Wolfie about your comments:

"We are sentient to a much greater degree. We make judgements on the basis of morality, emotion and 'external guidance' (laws, rules etc). We have much more complex emotions "Love" "Hate" "Loyalty" "Patriatism" which most animals do not (even if we try to convince ourselves they do). I do not think Homosexuality is usually a 'genetic mutation' as implied above, I think it is more likely to be physchosamatic (cause and effect or chemical/hormone imbalance)."

Don't you think that this sentiment assumes that gay/lesbian people are either not sentinent or moral beings? I'm asking you a real question, not a rhetorical one. Hormone therapy and its associated medical "solutions" were tried and deemed archaic by the American Medical Association some time ago. Shock therapy and horomone replacement will never make a gay person ungay. It will simply drive some people to become insane or suppress sexuality to an unhealthy result. It will also serve to criminalize those who are "unsuccessful" in the "treatments". I'm sure there must be studies about this that were done back when AMA and associated medical associations deemed homosexuality a mental disability.

Oh I didn't mean this at all. I meant that Animals are not as sentient as humans. I completely agree and defend the right for gay people to be gay (or animals for that matter). Assuming it is a chamical imbalance that can be 'cured' with HRT or some similar, it does not mean we should. We can not force medical treatment upon people any more than we can force them to be a particualr religion. If the person is sane, and not a liability to others, then we have no right to enforce the majority will. Especially when it does NOT harm society - how does a couple in love hurt anyone?

I agree that healthy societies have morals and guiding principles. Don't we all come to terms with our own individual sense of what's right in relation to society's overall vision? I mean, many view prostitution as a crime and it is illegal here in LOS and other places, but this is highly unpragmatic and not reflecting reality, and as such, creates more moral hazards than it seeks to curb. Don't you think?

I think there is call to legalise such as prositution (threads of old flash through my mind). Anything that does not hurt society, innocents (kids, mentally challenged) or the individual (perhaps) should be free to be adopted by the individual - or concenting couple.

What is the problem.

[ProThaiExpat]

You see, whatever angle I see it from, I can find no logical reasoned argument against it other than "Its wrong, 'cos the bible says it is". Anyone fancy stoning an adulterer (I'll give you my ex-wife's address  ).

This conclusion is the one reached by most rational people who have participated in forums in which same-sex marriage is the primary subject discussed.

There are a number of "reasons" advanced by opponents to same-sex marriage and they usually fall into certain "arguements" based on "feelings" not rational thought.

The religious right in the U.S. advances the bible as its "authority" and usually quotes Leviticus. However, scholars have gone through Leviticus and have found proscriptions against twenty or more things considered quite acceptable in modern society. That lenghty list will be provided if requested.

"Its not natural" is the next arguement, heretofore advanced in this thread, to which the fact is there are more than 80 animal species on earth that practice homosexul behavior.

"Procreation" is another one, which falls by its own absurdity when one considers denying marriage to impotent heterosexuals, couples who don't want children, over-population as one of the greatest "dangers" to the enviroment, etc.

One "flamer" early on in this thread actually used derogatory slang to describe oral and anal sex between same sex couples as being disgusting, while statistically it is a no brainer that that activity occurs in heterosexual unions vastly more often.

One poster questioned why compare same-sex marriage to inter-racial marriage.

Civil rights is a legal issue. When discussing legal issues, one looks to similarities and distinguishing features between issues being debated and if the similarities are predominant and the distinguishing charateristics are minimal, the legal similarities command adherence to the prinicple advanced.

Discrimination between classes of citizens is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Discrimination against women's rights were earlier advanced when women's sufferage and their right to vote were being established. Prior to women rights being established, a married woman had no property rights and was considerd the property of her husband in the U.S.

Then it was discrimination as to the color of ones skin. Then it was discrimination as to ones race, ie. the anti-miscegination laws, now it is discrimination as to ones sexual orientation.

The denial of the right enjoyed by one class of people, heterosexuals right to marry who they want, to another class of people, same-sex couples, is unconstitutional because it denies one class of citizens the "equal protection of the law".

Wiser people than I have advanced the proposition that civil rights (legal issue) cannont be discussed in a vaccum, but must be discussed in conjuntion with the political component. While the judiciary in many cases protects a minority from the "tyrany of the majority", the body politic can be brought around to share the same view as the legal scholars through poliitics.

Thus GWB and the religious right are trying to isolate the first judicial decisions in this area legalizing same-sex marriage (Massachusetts). Thus polarizing the population of the U.S. to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional by ammending the federal constitution before the Supreme Court can rule on this civil rights issue, as predicted by a prior rational poster. They have failed. Now they are attempting to deny the courts the right to decide this issue, in other words, removing the the "checks and balances" established by the founding fathers. Dangerous times.

For those of you who are so "emotionally" opposed to same-sex marriage are you amenable to a solution?. Not mine, perhaps you would consider the following.,

as one poster suggested, secular law be changed to provide all people the right to obtain, regarless of gender, a governmental issued license to be legally joined (or contractually bound) as a couple and reserve "marriage" to joinder by the church of ones choice.

This approach solves the problem both legally and religiously.

[20yearsinthai]

You see, whatever angle I see it from, I can find no logical reasoned argument against it other than "Its wrong, 'cos the bible says it is". Anyone fancy stoning an adulterer (I'll give you my ex-wife's address  ).

This conclusion is the one reached by most rational people who have participated in forums in which same-sex marriage is the primary subject discussed.

There are a number of "reasons" advanced by opponents to same-sex marriage and they usually fall into certain "arguements" based on "feelings" not rational thought.

The religious right in the U.S. advances the bible as its "authority" and usually quotes Leviticus. However, scholars have gone through Leviticus and have found proscriptions against twenty or more things considered quite acceptable in modern society. That lenghty list will be provided if requested.

"Its not natural" is the next arguement, heretofore advanced in this thread, to which the fact is there are more than 80 animal species on earth that practice homosexul behavior.

"Procreation" is another one, which falls by its own absurdity when one considers denying marriage to impotent heterosexuals, couples who don't want children, over-population as one of the greatest "dangers" to the enviroment, etc.

One "flamer" early on in this thread actually used derogatory slang to describe oral and anal sex between same sex couples as being disgusting, while statistically it is a no brainer that that activity occurs in heterosexual unions vastly more often.

One poster questioned why compare same-sex marriage to inter-racial marriage.

Civil rights is a legal issue. When discussing legal issues, one looks to similarities and distinguishing features between issues being debated and if the similarities are predominant and the distinguishing charateristics are minimal, the legal similarities command adherence to the prinicple advanced.

Discrimination between classes of citizens is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Discrimination against women's rights were earlier advanced when women's sufferage and their right to vote were being established. Prior to women rights being established, a married woman had no property rights and was considerd the property of her husband in the U.S.

Then it was discrimination as to the color of ones skin. Then it was discrimination as to ones race, ie. the anti-miscegination laws, now it is discrimination as to ones sexual orientation.

The denial of the right enjoyed by one class of people, heterosexuals right to marry who they want, to another class of people, same-sex couples, is unconstitutional because it denies one class of citizens the "equal protection of the law".

Wiser people than I have advanced the proposition that civil rights (legal issue) cannont be discussed in a vaccum, but must be discussed in conjuntion with the political component. While the judiciary in many cases protects a minority from the "tyrany of the majority", the body politic can be brought around to share the same view as the legal scholars through poliitics.

Thus GWB and the religious right are trying to isolate the first judicial decisions in this area legalizing same-sex marriage (Massachusetts). Thus polarizing the population of the U.S. to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional by ammending the federal constitution before the Supreme Court can rule on this civil rights issue, as predicted by a prior rational poster. They have failed. Now they are attempting to deny the courts the right to decide this issue, in other words, removing the the "checks and balances" established by the founding fathers. Dangerous times.

For those of you who are so "emotionally" opposed to same-sex marriage are you amenable to a solution?. Not mine, perhaps you would consider the following.,

as one poster suggested, secular law be changed to provide all people the right to obtain, regarless of gender, a governmental issued license to be legally joined (or contractually bound) as a couple and reserve "marriage" to joinder by the church of ones choice.

This approach solves the problem both legally and religiously.

My objection to same sex marriages is not based on religious beliefs but is simply based on common sense or what you would call "emotions".

My belief is that marriage, secular or otherwise, should be between a man and a woman. Why? call it instinct, emotions, whatever you like. I call it common sense.

More than 80 species of animals practice homosexuality? So that makes it okay for us humans? How many species kill their offspring? Does that make it ok for us too?

I realize that under current law these people should have equal rights to marriage etc..

Problem is I don't agree with the law.

[Richard Hall]

Does anyone agree with my previous post?

Kat, bringing religion into it and even nature to a certain extent is going way off topic.

We are human beings, not elephants, not penguins or dogs... Homo sapiens.

I still think any same sex couple who want to adopt are being incredibly selfish.

Scamp,

I do! If there were children featuring "parents" of the same sex, problems would most obviously occur and eventually they (the children) get rediculed, picked on and ousted by other children. This usually already happens if sometimes children are raised without "real" parents and/or just one parental part (father and/or mother).

Children can be extremely biased and cruel to each other and usually put this on others that appear just to be a little bit off the norm.

Okay, let those homosexuell activists have their rights and allow them even there legally confirmed relationships (I avoid the word marriage intentionally) but if it comes to child adoption that most likely will do the child more harm than good a limit is crossed. If people start shouting it is necessary to let have gay couples children so they (the adults) can find fullfillment we reach a point that is absolutely not tolerable anymore. Think of the children first even if this means a bunch of adults cry their eyes out and feel discriminated.

Well, Scamp be assured that there is at least another one sharing your way of thinking

[ProThaiExpat]

A previous poster correctly stated that adoption of children by any person is an entirely separate issue from same-sex marriage.

The judges, social workers and adoption agencies worldwide have a very important function mandated by the laws of all countries and that mandate is to ensure that the child's interest is paramount.

I am quite confident that responsible professionals in the field of child welfare do their utmost to place children in loving and supportive enviroments. Thus placing a black child with a white couple who live in an all while community would be of concern as would the opposite. Children of interracial marriage likewise have special problems. Children with birth defects, disfiguring birthmarks, ad naseum have special issues.

Prejudice, bigotry and discrimination thrives in all communities including thaivisa.com. Child abuse thrives and abounds in legal marriages in every country.

It doesn't take much immagination to envision a child l'viing in abject poverty on the streets of some country, a child incarcerated in an orphanage in a developing country without adequate food, clothing or educational opportunities or a child lving in an abusive enviroment that wouldn't be better off in a home with loving, caring and supportive parents that just happen to be of the same sex. True, perhaps that child might have as his major worry in life that a classssmate might snigger about his parents, just as children snigger about the offspring of interracial marriage, but it would seem a small price to pay for the benefits that child has gained by such a placement.

[ProThaiExpat]

Tornado's poll after 23 votes seems to be mirroring the view held by most Americans on same-sex marriage. With no "undecideds" to detract by a mandatory yea or nay, I suspect that there would be a few less yeas if the poll allowed.

Does Tornado's poll reflect a world view among westerners?

Spain seems to have a much stronger bias in favor of gay marriage (reported to be in excess of 70%) than in any other country reporting poll results dispite the Pope's tongue lashing of Spain's prime minister. For a Catholic country, Spain and its citizens are to be admired for their independent thought.

The Supreme Court of Oregon just certified their test case on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage for review by that court, bypassing the intermediate court, thus court watchers predict a decision on this issue in Oregon by the end of the year. The religious right and conservatives have placed a constitutional ammendment on the ballot for a vote of the people on November 2, however the issue to be voted on is sufficiently different that the Oregon Supreme Court could be the second supreme court in the U.S. to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

[Bluecat]

I think if a heterosexual marriage has a high divorce rate.

Wait for the same sex marriage divorce rate.

Especially in between men.

Sexual preferences do not change the behaviour of men.

And in such marriage, you have two of them.

Sorry guys,...

[francois]

hi'

out of religion's thoughts ...

marriage exist to build a family, just tell me how guys or girls can have children without external intervention?

and here is the main problem!

I have a lot of gay friends, I never had any argument with them about this topic,

because as said "wiht common sens", it's out of reality!

and to add, if the discrimination exist for gay people ...

don't make children carry this burden because you think that it's your right to make your relationship legal.

think about the consequences before to make something that "your" kid could regret all

his life, or feel shame about in his school life term.

just think how kids can be cruel to each-other in the schoolyard ...

don't you remember your schooltime?

this only common sens only

but anyway ...

good luck and have a happy life

cheers

francois

[ProThaiExpat]

Bluecat makes an interesting point, what will the same-sex divorce rate be?

The first divorce of a same-sex married couple in Canada has been filed, and to my surprise, it was two women.

The same-sex male couples I know who have long time relationships, ten years or more, have open relationships, ie non-monogamous. This takes the 'wandering eye" out of the reasons for divorce.

I have never seen the statistics on what are the most fequent "grounds for divorce" among heterosexuals, anyone know? Is it the "wandering eye" of the male?

I think the prevalence of mistresses in European society removes the "wandering eye" issue in those societies. Anyone know what the most frequent reasons for divorce in Europe are?

My experience is that "growing apart" as opposed to "growing together" is a fundamental reason for divorce, not extramarital liasons. Comments?

With so many posts regarding "money ladies" taking falang husbands, I wonder what the privary reason for divorce in Thailand is?

[alaina]

With all due respect, I don't think a marriage is just about what consenting adult people do in their bedrooms, "natural" or not. Boring stuff like cohabitating, paying bills and taking care of each other are what the state definition of marriage deal with most.

What many gays and lesbians in the US do now in lieu of marriage is get a bunch of legal documents: a living will, power of attorney, a will on file in the probate office as well as purchasing good life insurance. On paper, this is almost what marriage does for couples.

The problems with this arrangement is that it becomes lengthy and costly to draft and enforce these documents. (AND social security benefits are still paid to the family after death.) Take an instance where a gay person is in a serious accident and is hospitalized, if a family has not arrived at the hospital or does not allow someone unrelated to visit, the staff will not allow the partner in. The person with power of attorney has to get the documents and most likely a lawyer in order to see their partner. Courts are also able to dispute these documents' validity.

The argument about marriage as a "natural" union of a woman of and a man also includes credit reports, health care, inheritances, social security and property decisions?

I don't understand how protecting the legal rights of same-sex couples causes anybody else's marriage to be lesser.

______________

mai pen rai

[ProThaiExpat]

P.S. to pearl's post, while there a many legal ways around the prohibiiton against same-sex marriage as pearl has suggested, including domestic partner legislation, "separate but equal" legislation, which is what domestic partner legislation is, by definition not "equal" as the Supreme Court of the U.S. innuciated in Brown vs. The Board of Education in 1954, (segregaton in the schools).

"Equal protection of the laws" requires that all citizens be treated equally, thus requiring same-sex couples to go through all kinds of legal machinations to obtain the same "rights" enjoyed by opposite-sex couples is clearly not "equal protection" and thus unconstitutonal accoring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and the Supreme Courts of other states soon to follow this landmark decision.

[wolf5370]

The first divorce of a same-sex married couple in Canada has been filed, and to my surprise, it was two women.

So, did they both get the house?

[20yearsinthai]

The first divorce of a same-sex married couple in Canada has been filed, and to my surprise, it was two women.

So, did they both get the house?

555555555555555

[SoCal]

By and large the majority of homosexuals do not want to get married.

By and large the majority of straight people are against homosexual marriage. Not enough to march, don't get me wrong, but would vote no in a straight up or down vote.

The primary reasons seem to be: 1) adoption 2) homosexual marriage will then be taught as a normal family in school, and given equal footing with heterosexual marriage. 3) the it's evil crowd

Personally, could give a rat's arse, but don't see why so many should be disaffected, for so few, when homosexuals can obtain the means to their ends legaly without getting married.

Whateva

[alaina]

Please understand that getting the legal documents I mentioned previously do not ultimately afford the same legal benefits as marriage/civil union.

The cost of getting these documents is much higher than the price of a marriage license. In the event these documents are questioned more legal fees are incurred.

What I find the saddest though is the idea of having to take a lawyer to the hospital to visit a partner. Imagine the idea of being barred from seeing your SO in the hospital then retaining counsel only to find upon your return that the person is dead. (It has happened.)