Just because YOU can't figure it, doesn't mean the courts can't. I can guess by your previous posts that you have very little experience with the gay community. Most gay couples will not have children. Those who do, may have had them before they took on a partner. FEMALE does not imply NURTURER. There are heterosexual males that are more nurturing than heterosexual females. There are heterosexual males that are more feminine than heterosexual females. How do the courts decide in that case? They just do. I know personal examples where the courts gave custody to the father. Gay couples, regardless of sex, have feminine partners and masculine partners; i.e. two gay men will specialize on gender roles. It may be very hard for YOU, a heterosexual, to see the difference, but THEY have no problem with it. And judges can be gay too, so let gay judges figure it out. I don't really care. What's important here is that YOU stay out of their affairs.
On average, the typical homosexual man has 100 - 500 partners.
These people are probably not going to get married, anymore than a heterosexual man who has been playing the field will likely get married. This is America -- land of the individual. America is not supposed to invent laws that stereotype people based on what they consider to be part of their liberty. It doesn't matter what a typical homosexual does. For example, on average, the typical heterosexual man who gets married, gets divorced. What "they" do is no argument for what "he" or "she" may do. So let's drop with the stereotypes.
No other demographic group can compare with such instability.
I just did. Divorced adulterous people. And you find lots of them in the conservative party.
Netherlands... While married, these men have an average of eight outside partners.
Well maybe they had 10 times as many when they were single. If so, then this does "change that pattern of infidelity". More than 50 percent of all married women, at some point, cheat on their mates.
Not only does this present difficulties for the courts, it puts an undesirable burden on children.
You are arguing against being gay -- not being gay married. And you've already lost that battle. It is legal to be gay these days and for gays to adopt children. What you need to do is argue that if two gay partners with children later get married, then somehow the bad will increase more than the good. You have to argue that the children will then say, "Oh no. My parents are gay and that was tough enough. Now their getting married? I think I'm going to kill myself." NO. I think the children would prefer that their gay parents get married, for exactly the same reason that children of straight parents would prefer marriage.
And who gets the child when the gay men leave each other--which statistics say is inevitable?
Statistics say nothing about the individual. A fact about an individual implies information about the whole. The converse is not true. PROOF: 3 + 4 tells me something about the total. Now given the total is 100, this says nothing about any part. America is about INDIVIDUALS -- not GROUPS. People have the right to pursue their own happiness individually. I will bet top dollar that granting gay people the right to get married will make them far more happier than it will make you and all your friends unhappy. You will learn to accept it, just like you have learned to accept the fact that Freddy Mercury was gay.
Ah! So, you’re saying we can’t allow polygamist marriages because forms, paperwork, and computer systems don’t already accommodate them. In other words, the traditional understanding of marriage is so entrenched in society, it would be too expensive to change. Correct? Consider for a moment the kinds of changes required to abolish thousands of years of understanding about human relations, all to accommodate same-sex marriage. ENORMOUS overhauls of forms, paperwork, and computer systems will be necessary to make marriage non-gender specific. I can’t even comprehend all the changes that would be needed to integrate same-sex marriage into the culture, government, legal apparatus, and the business world. Not every form tidily asks for a “spouse.” In fact, when homosexuals attempted to marry in San Francisco, they ran into a slight hitch. The marriage certificate asked for the name of the husband and the name of the wife, along with the maiden name.
I don't buy your argument that gay marriage is legally complicated. We do not pass out two different forms for males and females. They are generic and ask for your "spouse's" name. Even my marriage certificate was generic. But so what. If the out dated application mentions the words husband, wife, man, woman, etc. the the gay couples will choose how to fill out those forms. They have been referring to themselves in those terms for decades now. They've done all the work integrating their way into society. They are used to it, and forms can later be changed. But forms accepting 3 or more spouse names are a bit more tricky. I don't buy your argument that gay marriage is equally or more complicated form-wise than polygamy. But I could careless either way. It's not about me. It's about them. And I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine. That's just down right evil in the most pretentious-righteous way. Maybe one day you will think the same.
What about surnames?
What about them? Most of the times, they don't change their name. If they do, THEY decide, not you, and not the government. Hetero-married couples keep their names from time to time -- even with children.
How does the term “maiden name” apply to homosexual men? How does the term “wife” apply to homosexual men?
Let THEM decide how it applies. If you are too confused to figure it out, then don't expect to get invited to THEIR marriage. I think you will find that THEY (along with all their friends and family) have already figured it out. They have already integrated the traditional vocabulary into their system, just like we have gotten rid of terms like stewardess, seamstress, fireman, and policeman, but have allowed terms like nurse to apply to men. WE CAN ADAPT! And no one says that you have to. If you don't like their culture, then stay away. But expect to go to jail if you discriminate against them politically or economically.
Of course, these terms can’t apply. The only answer will be to abolish their use. No more husband and wife. No more maiden names. Those words are now discriminatory. They imply that heterosexual unions are favored above homosexual unions.
Of course they can. Again, you are making the mistake of applying those terms "collectively" to wholes, rather than parts. In the context of a married couple, you either know which terms apply to which person, or you don't and make an fool of yourself. When you see two people in the hospital, and one is a doctor and one is a nurse, you either know which one is the doctor, or you don't, at which point you ask, or go do something else. The government does not owe you a convenient labeling algorithm. Take a man named "William Smith". Do you call that person William, Will, Bill, or Mr. Smith. By your reasoning, we need to get rid of all names in the world because you can't instantly satisfy your need to box it all up out of context. The rest of us just ask Bill, or listen to what other people do, or wait to be properly introduced. If Bill is a customer at your cash register, you may interact with that person for 10 minutes and never even use his name. You might just interact with a gay married couple for years without ever knowing whether they are married or not. How long did it take you to figure out that the boys next door were a gay couple by the fact that they were wearing identical matching rings on their right hands? You learn.... or you don't. The government is not supposed to make laws that make you feel good about your philosophy, or complacent about your religion. It's not supposed to play favorites with respect to ideals. It is supposed to make sure that others cannot clobber you over the head for what you believe.
It would be naïve to think marriage can simply be redefined overnight for gays, but not for any others! It’s also naïve to think that redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples is an easy, non-expensive task.
It would be naive for you to think that it hasn't already been redefined for decades in ways that just don't affect you. And since it doesn't affect you, you should just opt out.
From experience, we can conclude that homosexual relationships are inherently messy legally, even without marriage.
From experience, over the last 10,000 years, we can conclude that 95 percent of the population are farmers. Times change. New experience makes a stronger argument than old experience. As long as you are not paying for the legal mess, what does it matter to you? They are only 5 percent of the population. Of them, if 10 percent decide to get married, that's still a small percentage.
Take the case in Colorado, for example. Two lesbians adopted a child from China. They broke up after eight years. One of the women retained full custody, while the other was denied all contact, even visitation rights. Ironically, the reason she was refused visitation rights is that she became a born-again Christian, and the judge decided that no person can have visitation rights who might teach the child negative things about the other parent’s lifestyle.
You'll find lots of equally messy cases that apply to straight couples, such as when one couple is on Visa visitation rights to America, gets married, gets divorced a year later, then has to be deported with their children remaining in the USA. Marriage is supposed to be something that an individual possesses, not something that a collective hive controls and manages. But if the government is going to go there anyway, however socialistic it seems, then they might as well start treating all their tax payers one equal terms.
When it comes to homosexuals, yes, you are right. Their marital status is irrelevant.
I say the same thing about divorced couples that remarry.
My question for you... How does gay marriage diminish your marriage (assuming you are married, and I don't even know if you are a man or woman)?
Thank you for illustrating the point. Therefore:
To support same-sex marriage is to support polygamy. To support same-sex marriage is to support underage marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support consensual incestuous marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support bigamist-bisexual marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support marriage for anyone who wants it, no matter the form it takes.
Anything short of this is an irrational exclusion, per your definition.
Your definition of freedom is libertinism--that is, "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Should drugs be legal? Your answer is, "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
What about prostitution? It doesn’t affect your marriage. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Nudity doesn't limit your freedom. In fact, preventing it limits freedom. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Abortion doesn’t affect you. They say it’s a woman’s choice. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Pornography on a school teacher’s computer? Who cares? It doesn’t limit your choices. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
With this philosophy of government, you just made everything so simple! Freedom for all, to do whatever we please! No restraints, no restrictions! Just keep out of my business, and I’ll keep out of yours!
Is that really what you believe?
I find it interesting that, when given figures that reflect badly on homosexual fidelity, you respond by saying it is no different than for heterosexual couples.
There is something revealing in this tactic. In order to justify homosexual marriage, you must denigrate heterosexual marriage.
Yet, it is no secret that the two are not similar, by nature. The average homosexual marriage lasts 1.5 years. During that time, neither partner can be expected to be faithful. Multiple-partnering is in the nature of homosexuality, and infidelity is often consensual and shared between both parties. In other words, many homosexuals practice what would be termed an “open marriage.” Homosexual men have an average of 8 outside partners PER YEAR, while still considering themselves committed to one partner. Last month in Massachusetts, Jonathan Yarborough went to “remarry” his partner Cody Rogahn, whose relationship had been “solemnized” in Canada. Revealed Yarborough, “I think it’s possible to love more than one partner. In our case, it is. We have an open marriage.”
This is a far cry from the “cheating” among heterosexual couples.
For heterosexuals, fidelity in marriage is expected and required. That’s one reason to seek marriage in the first place! But why? Why the need for fidelity? Obviously because of the “implied probability” that children are the consequence of the man/woman relationship. It can be said that heterosexual couples try harder to remain faithful to one another primarily to avoid the known negative effects divorce and infidelity have on children.
Everyone knows the best place to raise children is in a stable, two-parent home, with parents who are committed to their wedding vows. To think such an environment can be expected in homosexual unions is to coddle an underdeveloped myth.
Homosexuals are free to live their lifestyle without marriage. Why, then, do they seek marriage? To put it bluntly, to make break-ups simpler. In fact, a recent, widely-circulated article boasted the headline, “Benefit of same-sex marriage: divorce.” The article stated that one reason homosexuals want marriage is not for the glories of the institution, but to make separation--by divorce--easier. “The single most important thing you get with marriage is divorce,” said the article, in relation to same-sex marriage, “[because it creates] a predictable process by which property is divided, debt is apportioned, and arrangements are made for custody and visitation of children."
Note the fine distinction: heterosexual marriage is instituted for long-lasting stability, while homosexual marriage is instituted for divorce. Heterosexual marriage is instituted with concerned for the welfare of children, while homosexual marriage is instituted with concern for which partner gets the kids upon the dissolution of the relationship.
This selfishness is a characteristic of homosexuality, just as Rosie O’Donnell inadvertently admitted in an interview. O’Donnell related that her son had asked her, “Mommy, why can't I have a daddy?” to which she replied, “Because I'm the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.” That selfishness is the essence of homosexual parenting and marriage.
Traditional marriage, on the other hand, is based on the opposite principle: self-sacrifice, service, and the fulfilling of natural responsibilities that come with the institution. It is only when marriage deviates from this standard that it fails.