Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
This topic was being discussed on CSPAN today. One of the panelists said what I thought made the most sense: Attraction to the same sex might be ingrained, but actions are not. There is no reason for governments to sponsor what is a deviant behavior. If someone chooses to have a same-sex relationship, that is a choice. Should they be persecuted-no. But that doesn't mean that they should gain special status. The same rationale applied for allowing gay marriage could be applied to bigamy/polygamy. The only difference is the gays have better P.R.
|
What stands out to me is the idea that marriage is "government sponsored" and that gay <i>marriage</i> is a behavior. First, the rights gained from marriage for homosexual couples typically aren't viewed as being "government sponsored" marriages. They are consenting adults in a contractual relationship with each other... and, in some cases, this is done in "the eyes of God" (but not always). Second, the differences in behavior from being in a marriage and not being in a marriage to committed couples is very small... whether or not <i>you</i> consider it to be deviant doesn't change anything. How is it deviant if all kinds of people get married everyday? Certainly, there should be some <i>compelling</i> reason to say that adults aren't allowed or capable of making choices to be like other members of society.
The "special status" gained by allowing gays to get married is marriage tax status, the ability to share insurance policies, make visits in hospitals when someone gets sick, and to handle funerals in a reasonable way as a survivor. These are fundamentally rights that people who care for each other that are in committed relationships should be able to have.
I can understand people objecting to it as being a traditional institution sactioned by the church, but not from a rights perspective.