re: And just when you thought West Monroe couldn't get any gayer...Posted by kingbob on 12/29/13 at 3:09 pm to LSURussian
Well, if there's anything I've learned from starting this thread, it's the following points:
1. Homosexuals and proponents of same-sex marriage will NEVER understand why their opponents oppose their desire to make same sex marriage legal and recognized, so they assume it's because they must hate and/or fear them.
2. People who oppose same-sex marriage do not (generally) hate or fear homosexuals.
3. The gay-marriage debate is not really about rights, tolerance, acceptance, discrimination, religious freedom, or any of those other dog-whistle issues. The gay-marriage debate is about semantics: What is the definition of the word "marriage" historically, legally, traditionally, politically, and fiscally?
4. If you take away the term marriage, the vast majority of those who oppose same-sex marriage would not do so.
5. The state should have no role in deciding who can and cannot get "married".
6. Marital status should carry no legal consequences, advantages, or disadvantages in the eye of the state.
7. The best way to keep all parties happy is to allow "marriage" to solely be in the eye of the beholder. If you want to get married and can find a minister, church, chapel, ship captain, Jedi, ect that will conduct the ceremony, you can get "married" and have a wedding, and it will affect no one but you and your spouse. No additional insurance benefits, no tax benefits or penalties, ect.
8. All of the current legal and insurance benefits and penalties of marriage should either be legislated out of existence (for example, elimination of the income tax) or made possible through a separate legal contract that is open to any number of consenting adults.
9. You can never have a purely rational discussion of emotional issues when parties to that discussion are emotionally invested in that issue. This applies to issues as diverse as Abortion, Global Warming, Evolution/Creationism, the role of government, ect.