Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why?

[QuestingHound08]

You hang to this idea of marriage to cause a divide between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

No, actually--I don't desire any artificial divide between people--I adhere to this idea of marriage because it highlights the real differences between the two--and instead of turning those differences into mush and blurring them together (which, I firmly believe does not solve problems genuinely), it looks for true recognition of what each relationship is, and appropriate treatment. I don't necessarily oppose the State giving benefits to deserving couples--I just appreciate the honesty and integrity to which people are holding our social definitions, when they say that marriage, if it is to be different than other relationships of affection and even attraction, needs to have a recognizable identity. My impression is that even in ages when homosexual activity was much accepted as more common-place (say, in Socrates' day in Ancient Greece) there was still a clear recognition that these relationships were not marriage. I'm not reinventing any wheel, here . (if you want to know why I really believe that the two relationships are essentially different, I have included a link at the bottom with the best articles on both sides of the issue, that I've found so far--they actually respond back and forth directly to each other's arguments.).

Why do you need this separation, if two people love each other enough and decide tat marriage is what they want, then it makes no difference.

I do not personally need separation (I'm not married, I know what it's like to experience same-sex attraction, etc.)--I simply ask questions about why homosexual couples need a declaration of sameness, when their relationships not the same as traditional views of marriage. I'm not advocating persecution of homosexuals, necessarily. I'm just saying, this homosexual relationship isn't traditional marriage, and in order to try and say it is, we have to water down our definition of marriage to be pretty much about feelings and subjectivity, and not about the basic symbolic nature of the relationship--the new and objective identity formed by the couple. Even legally in the U.S. (if I get my facts straight) there's a recognition that consummation of the relationship through the sexual act is what officially enacts the marriage--up till then its just filling out the forms. Marriage is the official recognition of a new identity flowing out of the sexual act, and its implications. A man and woman engaging in the sexual act are saying something with their bodies, which the marriage contract puts explicitly on paper. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, can have many similarities to the married life of a heterosexual couple, but they don't image that same relationship of which marriage is a legal, public recognition.

So what is you opinion on civil partnerships? Since, it isn't "marriage"...

Great question, there! I personally (for the reason of the same differences that I see between marriage and homosexual relationships) am not in favor of civil partnerships, because I think they are contrary to fully expressed human sexuality (ask me about this if you care to--its not at all bigotry--its an articulation based on an understanding of sexuality and the body as being integrally connected to the personality, and the need for full expression rather than repression of one part or another of a human person--but I won't bore you with it unless you really want to know--Once you hear it, it's beautiful, though). Whew. Short answer: the state gives benefits and civil recognition to relationships existing in an official capacity, for a certain function. So, as long as the relationship is an official consolidation that serves a particular social function that is beneficial to the state, yes, I think it is consistent for the state to recognize it with appropriate benefits.
If there is a relationship, whether between two women, or two men, that functions as an official unit and has the capacity for particular services to the state, I don't know why the state should refuse it recognition.

In the end...It may seem like a stupid thing to say--but official recognition and benefits accorded to a particular non-marital relationship does not mean officially confusing it with a much different marital relationship. I'm for just compensation, without the dishonesty.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memo...w-j-franck (here're the articles I promised--very articulate, high-powered people, writing well. I personally favor the arguments for traditional marriage, because however unsatisfactory they may feel to those who want their relationships to be called 'marriage' the articles defend the understanding that what we do with our bodies is meaningful--something I firmly believe)