Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wilbjammin
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.
|
All but the tax status can be gained through contractual agreements, without forcing corporations who may disagree with homosexuality to subsidize it through sharing of benefits. And if you take out religion, the basis for marriage is financial, and has nothing to do with caring for each other or being in a committed relationship. Marriage is a way to join two families through blood, or in the industrial age, to give an opportunity for people to support and raise their children. Love, being generally temporary, is a recent component into marriage and has no basis in a logical discussion of the benefits to society for allowing gay marriage.