Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

krebscout wrote:Dear Imogen:

Please come back.

With love,
krebscout

Yes, come back, please! Some of us really like to hear what you have to say!

In their point of view, we are banning them from being married.

I've never contested this point. Let me put it another way. Defining marriage as "a union between a man and a woman" doesn't discriminate against homosexuals. They can still enter into "a union between a man and a woman". Of course, that's not what they want, but that's not denied to them on the basis of their sexual preference. Defining marriage as "a union between a man and a woman" does discriminate against other types of unions (i.e. 'gay marriage'). It's nuanced, but there is a difference between discriminating against individuals (i.e. 'homosexuals' or 'rich people') and discriminating against associations/contracts between individuals (i.e. 'gay marriage' or 'corporate mergers'). I don't see the latter type of discrimination as being a problem. Obviously a lot of homosexuals do.

Conservatives get divorced too. John McCain is on his second wife I think. The governor of South Carolina may get a divorce because of an affair he had. Other Republicans have had discussions. This is a moot point.

It's funny that you should call this a moot point since, according to Merriam-Webster 'moot' primarily means: 1 a : open to question : debatable b : subjected to discussion : disputed. You probably intended the more recent meaning "not worth arguing about anymore" or "settled" (funny that the word is coming to mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant!). But I will subscribe to the original definition since I think my point is still very valid and worth arguing. Let's draw a scenario. You and I are roommates. We live in a house. We like to play with our friends in the backyard. One day I decide to dig a hole in the backyard. You think that's a bad idea. You say, "Don't dig that hole, man, people are gonna fall in it." I ignore you and I dig the hole. In the ensuing weeks lots of people fall into the hole. Nobody likes being in the hole, but now that it's there, it's not very easy to get rid of. Then I decide to dig another hole in the backyard. You say, "Don't dig another hole, man. You dug that last one and that was a bad idea. It's too easy to fall into." I respond, "Well, you fall in too, sometimes." Wow! What a non sequitur argument! The fact that we both fall into the first hole in no way negates the fact that digging the first hole was a bad idea. Nor does that change the fact that I'm responsible for it. And if the first hole was a bad idea, the second probably is, too. I've proven by digging the first hole that my judgment is lacking and I should be stopped from digging the second.

And that is what they are looking for, validation in some aspects.

Actually, I'd say they're looking for validation in all aspects. That's why even in places where the benefits attributed to a couple in a civil union are the same as the benefits attributed to a married couple, they still want to be able to call their union a marriage. That's why the lesbian couples I know went to Canada to get married. Their status in the US didn't change, but now they feel (more) validated. This isn't simply about rights and privileges. This is (mostly) about legitimacy. They want everyone to acknowledge that their lifestyle is acceptable and even 'good'. Ultimately that's more important to them than hospital visitation rights or tax benefits.

As for the religious aspects of it, many don't care if it is an acceptable religious thing to do or not, they want the promises of separation of Church and State.

The Constitution takes measures for separating church organizations from becoming conflated with the federal government. It does not prohibit individuals from seeking, enacting, and supporting religiously-informed laws and statutes. Basing your support for or against laws on morals you've acquired as a result of religious experiences is not wrong and is not unConstitutional! Take it a step further: would it be fair to disenfranchise anyone who held a religious belief? Separation of Church and State is a good idea; separation of Morals and Politics is folly.

And you know what, sooner or later they will win, because they have have the furor, the desire and every legal right to pursue the legalization of gay marriage.

Yes, they will win. We're at the beginning of a domino effect. But just because it will happen doesn't mean it should happen. Let's keep in mind that the corollary to their right to seek legalization of 'gay marriage' is others' right to seek to prevent it's legalization.

Here's a question that's been bothering me:

Why is the state even involved in marriages again? Like, why give tax breaks to married couples?

Oh yeah, it's "to promote marriage" cause marriage is good for society, right?

Find me ONE couple that's ever gotten married because the state has benefits for married people. That's usually the last thing on people's minds when they're considering marriage, isn't it?

And if people DO get married because of economic incentives, is there any evidence that this marriage will last?

I've always thought that people who said to get the government out of marriage were crazy and taking it too far. But the incentive argument that I've heard before suddenly today sounded like a pretty bad argument.

I suppose you could reconstruct the argument for special treatment of marriages around the economic difficulty in being a traditional family, but isn't that taken care of with dependents?

What do you think? Is there a good reason for marriage to be a governmental, rather than purely social, institution? What would change if marriage was no longer a governmental institution? Would homosexuals and mormons both be happy if they can define marriage in their own, non-institutionalized way, or would both parties continue to demand that the other adopt their definition of marriage? I'm guessing that governmental involvement isn't necessary, but it wouldn't leave us any better off, or make either party more tolerant of the other.

I think that in such a system that certain things would be stickier. For example, how do you decide custody, child support, ownership, &c.? Eventually people would get sick of the ambiguity and the inherent 'abusability' of the system (or, rather, lack thereof) and demand legal/political involvement. I wouldn't necessarily say that that's a good reason, but that's why I suspect that government involvement in marriage is ultimately inevitable.

And I think there would still be friction between openly-practicing homosexuals (since not all people who experience homosexual attraction are vocal or want 'gay marriage') and conservative LDS (since not all LDS are opposed to 'gay marriage', &c.). For example, conservative LDS would still want to prevent homosexuals from adopting children. They would still preach that homosexual acts are a sin in the eyes of God. They would still seek therapy for their homosexually-inclined children. They would want homosexuality left out of discussions in school. Those things are all very upsetting to openly-practicing homosexuals. Conversely, openly-practicing homosexuals would want to adopt children. They would want condemnation of homosexual acts classified as hate speech. They would want homosexually-inclined children taken away from parents who try to 'change' them. They would want homosexuality to be given equal time in school sex education. These things are all very worrisome to conservative LDS. And none of these issues go away by eliminating the 'sister issue' of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other. And like you say, it wouldn't add anything to tolerance/permissiveness from either side.