The Chick-Fil-A/Libertarian/Gay Marriage thread ;)

Hey, it's just a gut feeling I have when I'm around loan officers. If I had a gay son, I sure wouldn't want him marrying a gay male loan officer (in New York, that is).

Completely agree Roger, because we all know what would happen to him, right?

Is there a projected opening date? Sorry if I missed it in a previous post.

I relish the opportunity to bash homophobic conservatives but I will defend Brian slightly on this point.

Sexual urges exist in nature as a means of procreation. In cases where there can be no procreation, i.e. homosexual relationships, they have to be recognized as abberant.

The argument that random homosexual behavior exists in other parts of nature doesn't hold water. While it does happen... based upon it's small percentage of occurance in the big picture... it also has to be recognized as abberant.

In a country where we offer affordances to the "family unit" (tax breaks, decreased insurance rates, legal rights of ownership and trust, etc) we have to come up with some sort of definition of what a family really is. Until recent days it has been considered the union of a man and woman who combine their efforts to the betterment of themselves and whatever offspring they choose to have. It is assumed by doing this that it will also better the country through both economic and sociological means. Hence the entitlement to said breaks.

I personally do not approve of extending benefits to anyone based on their relationship status. I would rather see these opportunities pulled from heterosexual unions than extend them to homosexual ones. I have always felt a little punished because I choose to be single. If you were to recognize same sex marriages as equal to hetero ones... where does that leave everyone else? It's basically saying that the raising of children is no longer a fundamental part of a family's definition and as such a union of two people has more worth than any effort of a single person. Bah.

And just for the record... I am well aware that homosexuals who raise children through adoption or whatever means are just as capable as any heterosexual couple of turning out a great child. Any two good people have a better chance of raising a good child than two bad ones. I'm just saying the way of getting there is not part of the natural process.

I hear what you are saying Gary. All I was trying to say is that just because it's natural doesn't make it acceptable. Some religious homophobes decry homosexuality as unnatural becuase "it's not the way God intended". My answer is "how do you know that?" Perhaps homosexuality is a perfectly natural situation in nature designed to act as a population control. Who knows? I'm just saying that since society regularly allows adoption of children among those that might be otherwise childless, since modern medicine has made artificial insemination available to those that might not otherwise "naturally" concieve I fail to see why the term "natural family" is even used. Our entire world is blasted with unnatural events many of them life saving others not so much. But when two people want to make a go of it as a married couple, try to live in harmony together because of their love for one another I think we should afford them all the same courtesies we do everyone else.

I have heard it reasoned that the only thing standing in the way of legal gay unions is the insurance industry. Shared benefits would certainly cut into their profits. Which brings us back to your .other thought of why folks like you and I are financially hog tied into larger premiums because we are single. I agree, it isn't fair since we don't have the benefit of sharing the burden of those costs with a spouse. I suppose when those guidelines were drawn most spouses were stay at home moms, not working nor drawing an income but that is almost never the case anymore. Perhaps those guideline need be redrawn?

[Robin Garr]

Sexual urges exist in nature as a means of procreation. In cases where there can be no procreation, i.e. homosexual relationships, they have to be recognized as abberant

No birth control, then? No relations in marriage unless pregnancy is the intended outcome? Hey! Is that you, Pope Gary?

I personally think that marriage shouldn't be a legal institution to begin with. Civil unions for those of all stripes who need a contract. Insurance should be square across the board. That's my libertarian streak.

Sexual urges exist in nature as a means of procreation. In cases where there can be no procreation, i.e. homosexual relationships, they have to be recognized as abberant

No birth control, then? No relations in marriage unless pregnancy is the intended outcome? Hey! Is that you, Pope Gary?

Yeah I wasn't gonna say anything about how he bummed out THIS menopausal woman! Of couse I guess anyone could say that sex amonst the elderly is obviously abberant.

Sexual urges exist in nature as a means of procreation. In cases where there can be no procreation, i.e. homosexual relationships, they have to be recognized as abberant

No birth control, then? No relations in marriage unless pregnancy is the intended outcome? Hey! Is that you, Pope Gary?

Yeah I wasn't gonna say anything about how he bummed out THIS menopausal woman! Of couse I guess anyone could say that sex amonst the elderly is obviously abberant.

As is sex between married heterosexual couples of any age where one partner is sterile. Not to mention sex between immoral unmarried heterosexuals.

I relish the opportunity to bash homophobic conservatives but I will defend Brian slightly on this point.

If you're talking about me you'd be incorrect. Voting for Obama = not conservative. Not one thing against gay people but do not support gay marriage.

I personally think that marriage shouldn't be a legal institution to begin with. Civil unions for those of all stripes who need a contract. Insurance should be square across the board. That's my libertarian streak.

I agree. If they made that change, it would come off as a way of re-thinking marriage so as to never allow gays to enjoy the honor of being married. But, I would read it as a better understanding of the problems of using a religious ceremony to create legal groundwork. Civil unions for all. And a legally non-binding religious ceremony for those who desire such.

Marriage between two adults, straight or gay, is really none of my business.

Man I love this thread! So entertaining! All over a new chick-fil-a opening, hehe.

It's like a battle royale of opinions- nobody is right or wrong, yet we all come out the other end more informed.

Hey Steve, remember speaking of some people running down the hall? (civility thread)

Everybody's doing it now, lol!

Somebody pass me the scissors...

I personally think that marriage shouldn't be a legal institution to begin with. Civil unions for those of all stripes who need a contract. Insurance should be square across the board. That's my libertarian streak.

I agree. If they made that change, it would come off as a way of re-thinking marriage so as to never allow gays to enjoy the honor of being married. But, I would read it as a better understanding of the problems of using a religious ceremony to create legal groundwork. Civil unions for all. And a legally non-binding religious ceremony for those who desire such.

I mentioned this thread to my husband this morning and he came up with almost this exact thing. A legal contract for cohabitation for everybody to extend rights and responsibilties as such. Then if a couple wants a "marriage" they could have that as well just no legal bearing....I just told him I was ok with it as long as it was equal for everybody.

As a supporter of the separation of church and state, I think religious denominations should be able to decide whether or not they want to be inclusive. I happen to attend a church that is open and affirming and allows the ordination of openly gay pastors, but that is my choice. Others chose differently.

However, I don't see how the state can deny a marriage license to two adult taxpayers, regardless of gender. Basically, the state denies equal rights to taxpaying citizens because SOME people think said citizens lead a sinful lifestyle. Why else would something that doesn't hurt or inconvenience anyone be made illegal? It's a blatant disregard for the separation of church and state. Social conservatives only seem to be for this separation when it suites them.

I personally think that marriage shouldn't be a legal institution to begin with. Civil unions for those of all stripes who need a contract. Insurance should be square across the board. That's my libertarian streak.

I agree. If they made that change, it would come off as a way of re-thinking marriage so as to never allow gays to enjoy the honor of being married. But, I would read it as a better understanding of the problems of using a religious ceremony to create legal groundwork. Civil unions for all. And a legally non-binding religious ceremony for those who desire such.

I also support separation of marriage and state.

But why would the religous ceremony be "legally non-binding"? One of the few (in my mind) legit purposes of the state is contract enforcement. The bindingness of a marriage contract at that point would depend on what the couple put in it (plus, if they see fit, some church or etc, which could be a 3rd party to the contract). It would put an end to no-fault divorce, unless you put a no-fault clause in the contract.