Does the union of a man and woman deserve a special place in our society...

[IndianaJones]

given that it is the unit of child rearing most common to every culture?

[Skittles]

1. ?

what do you mean by "special place"

[IndianaJones]

3. I assume it means calling the male/female union marriage. nt.

[closeupready]

10. That's not a place, it's a word, and it should not be unique to heterosexual unions, no.

n/t

[closeupready]

11. And I love the subtext of the thread here: "...but it's for the children!"

:eyes:

[blondie58]

45. well, then shouldn't those of us who are raising children alone

be admonished for raising children without a spouse? Love is love- gender has no bounds. This is just discrimination, pure and simple. And I know of same gender people raising children, who are doing a fantastic job.

[mondo joe]

13. If you need to create a special place for such a union it must not be very special.

[MADem]

14. Or UNION, for that matter? That's anything from one night stand to live in arrangement

to bedtime pals to 'till death do us part.'

[scarletwoman]

2. Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. Of course they deserve a "special place". (nt)

[mondo joe]

4. People who rear children have a special place: parenthood.

What other could be called for?

[Ferret Annica]

5. In relation to what?

All domestic partners should be equal in everyone's eyes. All domestic partnerships should have equal legal and social protection.

[closeupready]

6. If you're asking if it's okay with us to discriminate against gays/lesbians and their partners, NO.

Discrimination is always wrong. Period.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Maybe child rearing does

I've met plenty of queer folk who have raised excellent children.

We should save the ritual elevation of the heterosexual-only marriage for those churches that want to practice it.

OTOH, if this is a primary-related post, I don't think Barack Obama is anti-gay at all. He's a half-a-loaf guy; most politicians are. I wish they could all be firebrands, but they have elections to win. The important thing is to make constant progress until there is full equality -- as quickly as possible.

Disclosure: I am heterosexual. I am also leaning toward HRC. But I was also nearly killed by a gay-basher in 1985. Thugs don't ask for ID -- and neither do tyrants. Until every member of the queer community enjoys full rights and respect, we are ALL at risk.

--p!

[still_one]

8. You aren't referring to a Constitutional Ammendment that marriage should only be between a

man and a woman are you?

[IndianaJones]

9. no. nt.

[still_one]

17. good /nt

[Jed Dilligan]

12. Not if I'm to be expected to pay for it somehow. nt

[Fresh_Start]

15. amazing how many families have children and do not have

man and wife....

if you want to create a special place for children in our society, how about elevating children. Be direct, instead of celebrating the soil celebrate the fruit.

doesn't matter who's entrusted with caring for them....just make sure the children are cared for the very best we as a society can do.

[Djinn]

22. seems a logical starting point

I have no intention of ever breeding but I can get married to some guy I barely know. My friend who is raising 3 children with her female partner can never marry.

It's got jack shit to do with kids clearly and everything to do with discrimination

[Fresh_Start]

24. agreed, its because of discrimination (and ignorance)

and not because of the children.

[Fresh_Start]

25. i had no intention of breeding either

I thought it would be best if my families genes stopped propagating .... but I changed my mind and of course had fertility issues because I'd waiting

[Djinn]

27. and that makes you person

number 6,565,325 who assumes I'll change my mind about having kids even though you don't know me at all.

It kinda gets irritating

Don't want kids, never have (not even as a small girl) and never will.

[Fresh_Start]

28. I'm not assuming you'll change your mind

all I'm saying is that I changed my mind.

I was vehemently against having children because as I said I thought my entire family was certifiable.
But things changed for me.
Until I had kids, I felt that if I needed to, I could chuck my job if I got fed up.
But then the responsibilities made me realize differently.
And those other things became less important to me.

[Djinn]

29. sorry

it's just a real sore point with me, particularly because I never see men who proclaim their lack of desire for kids subjected to the same questioning.

[Fresh_Start]

30. I remember

as well as the when are you going to settle down BS

[grantcart]

16. every one deserves

life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. What can be more basic to a person than to make a choice of a life sharing partner?

Marriage should be the providence of churches or other religious institutions. It should not be a part of any government activity at all as it is a sacrament with religious meaning.

The state should sanction civil unions. They should be the same for any two people and their sexual orientation should not be an issue.

"child rearing most common"

For the child that is raised by two parents of the same sex, that child's parents are not part of a percentage of a culture they are 100% of the parents that that child has.

It is a matter of time, just like every other evolution of our civil rights before this becomes common place.

The only thing that determines whether or not someone is for or against equal rights for homosexuals in marriage is whether or not they actually know someone that is in that situation. If he could answer in complete privacy even Dick Cheney would wish his grandson could have a normal status with his two mothers.

[theredpen]

18. Yes. My bedroom.

Any volunteers, ladies?

[undeterred]

54. Motel 6?

:shrug:

[Djinn]

19. no

The two parent family is a relatively recent construct and often is not relevant. The upper classes were never raised by their parents anyway and the working class needed to call on parents/neighbours/relatives in order to keep an eye on the kids whilst they worked.

Marriage was originally nothing more than a way for two rich families to consolidate their wealth.

Has nothing to do with God, nothing to do with society and everything to do with greed.

[LordJFT]

20. should we repeal all of DOMA or just the parts Hillary wants to repeal?

Give gays all of the rights they deserve or just most of them?

[durrrty libby]

21. It doesn't seem that a huge amount of people think it's that special,

considering how many marriages end in divorce

[alfredo]

23. Sure, we don't want them to do it in public.

[XemaSab]

26. I would say that the family unit does, yes

Whether it's a man and a woman, a gay couple, or any other kind of family. :)

[IndianaJones]

31. kick for some morning opinions. nt.

[terrya]

32. Marriage should not be seen solely in terms of procreating

Or raising children or whatever.

If two people...be they a man and a woman, or a man and another man, or a woman and another woman...if they love each other, if they want to honor their committment to each other...want to get married, their marriages should be equally honored.

[Le Taz Hot]

33. The union of any two people

deserves to be celebrated.

[Iggo]

34. No.

[spanone]

35. we have that special place - divorce court

[SidDithers]

36. It deserves an "equal place" to the union of 2 men or 2 women...nt

Sid

[-..__...]

37. To tell you the truth...

I really don't give a fuck... I really don't :shrug:

I have no problem with gay people or gay marriage... it's all fine by me.

But as a political or social issue... it ranks at the bottom of my concerns.

As far as any candidates are concerned, I can guarantee you that if any one of them were to make gay rights
a focal issue, that candidate would be defeated on the level of McGovern in 72 or Mondale in 84.

[IndianaJones]

39. civil rights are at the bottom of your concerns? why? nt.

[-..__...]

41. No. I posted "gay rights" is at the bottom of my concerns (issues).

That's because I don't see "gay rights" or gay marriage as a civil rights issue (at least not in the traditional sense).

[mondo joe]

42. Then you don't know what civil rights are.

Thanks.

[-..__...]

46. Oh really?

Maybe it's just that I disagree with your interpretation of civil rights and under whom and what circumstances the term should apply.

[mondo joe]

49. Yes, really. And it's not MY definition. Application of equal protection is a civil right.

Marriage is a basic civil right, as well established by Loving v Virginia.

Words have meanings.

[Beetwasher]

55. Uhh, Yes, Really. "Gay Rights" IS MOST DEFNITELY

a matter of civil rights.

[originalpckelly]

58. So you don't think not being able to your loved ones in their last moment on Earth...

is a civil rights issue?

You don't think being able to have your employment terminated for no other reason than your sexual orientation is a civil rights issue?

You don't think being able to pass on your life to your loved ones when you die, tax free, is a civil rights issue?

[-..__...]

63. I think the real problem with this issue is the definiton and application of the term "marriage".

Specifically... the rights you mention should be applicable across the board for everyone without having to be married (or civil unions for that matter).

[mondo joe]

65. But they're not, and the inequality violates equal protection.

Marriage is certainly a civil right.

[gollygee]

66. Well you have to somehow define who the next of kin is

We could re-write thousands of different laws that deal with marriage and associated rights, or we could just change the words "a man and a woman" to "two people" in the existing laws about marriage.

Which would be easier? Why take the harder route? What possible benefit would there be to that?

[-..__...]

70. What about single people?

Who gets my worldly wealth?

[mondo joe]

71. Your next of kin, or your designee.

Marriage is one legal contract. It is currently available to some couples, but not others, for purely arbitrary reasons.

[gollygee]

73. Your parents, your kids, and if you don't have those

siblings can battle it out in court. If you have a boyfriend/girlfriend, he/she is out of luck. You can make them your designee, but that won't guarantee they won't face a court battle against your parents.

My husband is my next of kin and no one, and no court, will ever question that.

[IndianaJones]

43. I don't understand. It is an equal protection issue. What would you consider it? nt.

[-..__...]

57. A non-issue really.

Given any set of circumstances, situations, classifications, beliefs, etc any group of people can make equal protection claims if spun the right way.

Hell... if equal protection was the absolute law of the land affirmative action wouldn't exist.

This isn't Selma Alabama or Stonewall the way some play it out.

[mondo joe]

59. BS. Affirmative Action was developed to ensure equal protection. Furthermore,

"civil rights" isn't limited to what happened in Selma or Stonewall.

You've made up your own feel-good definition of civil rights.

[originalpckelly]

61. I forgive you for your ignorance, no one deserves to be this ignorant.

[-..__...]

68. Your forgiveness is duly noted.

[gollygee]

48. The right to marry and have associated rights don't fit into the definiton of "civil rights" to you?

hmmmm.

Here's a scenario. My husband is not from the US. I met him when he was on vacation in the US. We kept in contact and eventually wanted to get married. In order for him to get a green card, guess what? We had to get married. If were were not a hetero couple, we wouldn't have been able to do that. Does that not seem like a civil right to you? Why should my husband and I have that right when same-sex couples don't?

[mondo joe]

52. I suspect some people think "civil rights" is just some sort of subjective feel-good code

word, and don't recognize that it has real meaning.

[gollygee]

64. It seems like he's just dismissing the concept by feigning ignorance to me.

"Civil rights" isn't a difficult concept. It involves actual physical *rights*, hence the use of the word "rights". Like the right to marriage, and the rights associated with that.

[-..__...]

60. Sounds more like an immigration issue.

If he wanted to reside here legally, there should have been no requirement to get married to begin with.

[gollygee]

62. Oh, so you want open borders?

"wanted to reside here legally"? Everyone who is here illegally wants to reside here legally.

[-..__...]

67. Nope. I didn't infer anything like that.

Legal avenues to entry and citizenship should be available, but marriage shouldn't be one of them.

[gollygee]

69. Why shouldn't it be?

If I fall in love with someone from another country, why shouldn't I, as an American citizen, have a right to have him move here to live with me simply because I love him and want to marry him?

I'm glad you aren't in the legislature.

[-..__...]

72. You lost me somewhere.

I thought that in order for your SO to legally reside here that you both had to get married?

I'm saying that he should be able to emigrate here (legally), but that getting married shouldn't be a requirement nor should it be an avenue to citizenship.

"I'm glad you aren't in the legislature"

What makes you think that I'm not? :smoke:

[Marrah_G]

38. They have a status already- It's called "Parents" and sometimes they are single or even same-sex

sigh...........

[Ganja Ninja]

40. I know people that have been married and divorced 5 times and

counting. Sixty percent of first time marriages end in divorce. How special can it be? Those who want to treat marriage as something sacred are trumpeting an illusion to further a political agenda. Marriage is a legal contract nowadays and nothing more.

[bemildred]

44. No. (I am married and have children.)

Enhanced financial support and social safety-net for ALL parents is a good thing though.

[Bonobo]

47. nope. doesn't need it. pepole would breed anyway. nt

[gollygee]

50. I think people chosing to turn themselves into a family unit deserve recognition

However whether that family unit intends to exceed the number two, and the genders of the people involved, are irrelevant.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. No more than any other lifestyle choice.

[LanternWaste]

53. If something is common, by definition it is not special.

If something is common, by definition it is not special. Therefore, I say nothing any more nor any less special than it has been given for the last 12,000 years or so.

[Ellen Forradalom]

56. One man, several wives is by no means uncommon

in parts of the world. Single parenting, whether by choice or circumstance, has become very common. Gay and lesbian parenting is becoming more common all the time.

I see the push towards same-sex marriage as stemming from the legal and economic power marriage already has in our society. Gay couples need the same supports straights do: rights of survivorship, legal recognition as parents, health and other insurance benefits, rights to visit in the hospital; the list goes on.

[NorthernSpy]

74. Yes.

Stable, intact families with both mother and father present in the home are best for the children, and best for society.

Problems such as poverty and crime would not be solved if more fathers were to resume their role in the family, but they would likely be ameliorated to some extent.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

75. I just wish the fed would get out f the marriage game alotgether

Just pass a law saying state can make their own laws on the subject and be done with it... No 'married' in terms of federal taxes/benefits..

[LeftCoast]

76. How would allowing same sex couples to form unions harm heterosexual couples?

Why else provide a 'special place' if not to protect?

[dysfunctional press]

77. my wife and i have chosen to remain childless...is our union somehow less "special"?

and given the fairly bleak outlook with the impending societal double-whammy of peak oil and global warming- i'm more happy about that decision every day.

[endarkenment]

78. no. nt.