03-12-2008, 03:17 AM
rusty, please substitute straight for gay in your posting and realize how absurd it sounds. Ok, everyone should keep their sexuality to themselves. Therefore if you are heterosexual, never mention the existence of your partner/spouse or children. When your spouse dies, refuse to take their retirement and social security benefits. Refuse to accept any health coverage you get from your spouse. Otherwise you are making a statement about your sexuality and shoving it in other people's faces and actually demanding that other support and fund your chosen heterosexual lifestyle.
Or maybe substitute left-handed or members of a particular minority religion. "Well people can choose to be left-handed, but if so, I don't think they should be allowed to be married." "People who choose to be Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim/Mormom/Jewish, etc. are fine, some are even my friends, but since Christianity is the overwhelming majority in this country only Christians should be allowed to marry each other"
I personally think that marriage should be a strictly cultural/religious term and since we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country, there should be no government definition of such a thing, and it should basically be a gender neutral, and even sexuality neutral definition in terms of government recognition of partnerships. For example, two elderly widows who are not lesbian but choose to live together for financial reasons and friendship should be able to enter into a government-recognized partnership and get all the rights and responsibilities of current married partners.
Rusty, I pay taxes the same as you, and while I will never have kids to send to school or get other government services disproportionately like most heterosexuals do, why should I not be considered a full citizen? At work even though I paid for my health care and my then domestic partner's health care, I was also subsidizing heterosexuals in my workplace who chose to have several children. As gays and lesbians we are simply demanding full citizenship, nothing less! And that means being able to choose to marry our same sex partners.
Or maybe substitute left-handed or members of a particular minority religion. "Well people can choose to be left-handed, but if so, I don't think they should be allowed to be married." "People who choose to be Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim/Mormom/Jewish, etc. are fine, some are even my friends, but since Christianity is the overwhelming majority in this country only Christians should be allowed to marry each other"
I personally think that marriage should be a strictly cultural/religious term and since we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country, there should be no government definition of such a thing, and it should basically be a gender neutral, and even sexuality neutral definition in terms of government recognition of partnerships. For example, two elderly widows who are not lesbian but choose to live together for financial reasons and friendship should be able to enter into a government-recognized partnership and get all the rights and responsibilities of current married partners.
Rusty, I pay taxes the same as you, and while I will never have kids to send to school or get other government services disproportionately like most heterosexuals do, why should I not be considered a full citizen? At work even though I paid for my health care and my then domestic partner's health care, I was also subsidizing heterosexuals in my workplace who chose to have several children. As gays and lesbians we are simply demanding full citizenship, nothing less! And that means being able to choose to marry our same sex partners.