Does gay marriage matter

townhall.com ^ | 6/03/02 | Maggie Gallagher

[stuartcr]

How can it be a biblical solution when a lot of Americans do not believe in the bible?

[anniegetyourgun]

Agreed. If they have their way, any union (man to dog, woman to woman, 3 men and 5 women, etc.) will be considered 'marriage.' With such a relativistic worldview, imagine how many other terms (at one time understood and agreed upon by society) can be redefined as one wishes: child, adult, sex, home, church, income, law, and so many more. It is each man doing what is right in his own eyes, and a people who no longer agree on sustaining and enduring concepts. Such a moral morass can only lead to anarchy.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Now, marriage is a contract between the husband and wife on one side and the government on the other. It should be between the husband on one side and the wife on the other.

Not only that, but the government gets to change the terms of the contract whenever it likes, without consulting the husband and wife. The most common example of this is differing state laws. A couple who gets married in one state is subject to that state's laws regarding marriage (and the government sees no need to inform them of what those laws are, prior to finalizing the marriage contract). Then if the couple moves to another state, they are subject to a whole new set of laws, again without being notified of or consenting to the change, e.g. from a community property state to a non-community propoerty state, or vice versa. And often they -- and especially a non-wage earning homemaker -- have little choice about making the move, if it results from an intra-company job transfer, or widespread layoffs and unemployment in the state where the marriage took place.

[GovernmentShrinker]

And no heterosexuals ever do this.

[Dimensio]

man to dog,

Given that a dog cannot enter into a legally binding agreement (and is not legally considered a "person"), I don't see how one could easily argue for marriage benefits for such a union.

[Kevin Curry]

Many economic conservatives have little stomach for this fight. They no longer understand marriage as a key social institution, carrying out an important public purpose.

These moral cowards are well represented at FR. Their cowardice and apathy are complicit in the advance of the Socialist/Gramscian agenda.

These so-called "economic conservatives" fix their greedy eye on the golden eggs and ignore the savage beating that is being inflicted on the goose. "The health of the goose is the goose's private and personal problem, not mine," is their attitude.

[galt-jw]

gay marriage=oxymoron

part of socialism involves context switching and misdefinition of terms to add false validity to invalid arguments.

marriage is ONLY a contract between men and women. if gays wish to be united in a relationship of devotion, they must use a term similar to this in order to be taken seriously.<p.admonish them as intellectual children, in a nice, non threatening way-it really gets under the skin, and never get angry.

[Dimensio]

if gays wish to be united in a relationship of devotion, they must use a term similar to this in order to be taken seriously

Some same-sex union supporters don't have a problem with this. I'm not sure if the biggest obstacle is the same-sex union supporters who insist on calling it marriage or the anti same-sex union people who balk at even that because it's "too much like marriage and cheapens real marriage". I can't tell if they're serious or if they're just trying to avoid saying that they don't want the ~1024 legal rights and benefits (many of which cannot be obtained in an equilivant legally-binding agreement and obtaining at least an approximation to the other rights and benefits requires far greater time and expense than a simple marriage license) granted in such a union given to same-sex couples.

[galt-jw]

Given that a dog cannot enter into a legally binding agreement (and is not legally considered a "person"), I don't see how one could easily argue for marriage benefits for such a union.

you are familiar with the animal "rights" movement? these sub humans seek to give animals the same rights as humans, as they see fit. and ownership of property, etc. is not beyond the pale for these man haters.

[Kevin Curry]

Given that a dog cannot enter into a legally binding agreement (and is not legally considered a "person"),

A single piece of legislation can easily remedy that. You seem to assume "consent" has some eternal and fixed meaning. It does not. Its meaning and its relevant applications are defined by law. And law comes into existence, undergoes metamorphosis, and dissolves out of existence at the whim of the legislature.

No matter how it is written, however, the law cannot make a sterile sow's ear male-male "marriage" into a male-female silk-purse society strengthening and preserving marriage.

[Dimensio]

That's great. So have they proposed a method by which it can be determined that a dog has legally consented to ... well, anything?

[biblewonk]

Make all marriages under a contract.

It pretty much is but you don't realize it until the divorce comes. Then you find out it was not as casual an agreement as you thought. The guys I know who are divorced are also broke. Atleast until their kids grow up.

[anniegetyourgun]

Right, I'm sure it could never happen in a society that no longer has a common cause, belief system, or standards.

[Dimensio]

You have a point, some apes and chimpanzees have been taught sign language and arguably they could "consent" that way. Doesn't help with dogs, though.

[anniegetyourgun]

Give it time, dim.....but you won't recognize it when it happens because you are unable to see right and wrong.

[Dimensio]

I think that I would notice when non-human life forms were given legal rights equivalant to human life forms.

[anniegetyourgun]

I never said you wouldn't 'notice'......

[Dimensio]

I never said you wouldn't 'notice'......

What is the difference between me noticing that it has happened and me recognizing that it has happened? I would think that "notice" implies that I've observed something, which implies recognition.