Skip to main content

View Diary: Pure and Simple: Equal Rights (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  People are making the case (none)
    Same-sex marriage prevents illegitimacy for children of same-sex parents. It creates a legal bond that makes it more difficult for one parent to leave.

    It encourages couples to engage in monogamy in order to preserve their legal relationship.

    It allows the love of two men or two women to be recognized within their broader society, so they can be full members of society and not an alienated minority.

    It allows them to protect their property, for each other and for their children.

    Society benefits from their marriage, just as it benefits from the marriage of parents of differing gender. There is simply no difference between the social benefit based on whether the genders are the same or not.

    •  Absolutely (none)
      I have been saying the whole time that just because society doesn't benefit in the same way from heterosexual marriage it doesn't mean that gay marriage is a bad thing.  I just think that the benefits of gay marriage need to stand up on their own for people to accept them.  As I said before, I think that many people don't accept gay marraige because divorce has gotten to be so easy.  When it isn't likely that there are children many people see it as much less of a commitment and they are already upset as how "temporary" marriage has gotten.  
      •  What's so interesting about issues like this (none)
        Is how willing they are to convolute logic in order to maintain a conception field of logic that supports their own privilege/willingness to discriminate.  

        You argue that the high divorce rate among heterosexuals so disturbs people because it demonstrates the precarious and temporary nature of marriage itself (Brittany Spears and reality TV aside), therefore people don't want same sex marriage?

        The problem them, if you are correct, is NOT that people are threatened by same sex marriage, the problem is that people are threatened by gay people, or more specifically what they perceive to be as a "gay lifestyle" which is, in the mind of this terrified public, the most transient and temporary of affilations between consenting adults.  

        Congratulations, you have just supplied the single strongest argument (standing on its own) for why gay marriage is necessary: think of the collective social good that will be achieved when the image of the promiscuous gay person is replaced with the image of the committed and steady gay married couple. What better way to remove this spectre of excessive promiscuity that haunts our culture, than to provide a counter to it.  That's one fear we can all put to rest as we concentrate on the fivefold volume of potential dangers that the Radical Right wants to bombard us with.  In one fell swoop we can shorten that list and take something off of it.

        Besides, once gay marriage is legalized, we can as a society, increase the arsenal of cultural images, anecdotes and romantic stories with which to battle the dominant popular culture's "defamation of marriage/committed relationships".  I'll bet that photo of Phyllis and Del's wedding had heterosexuals across the country scratching their heads and counting on their fingers the number of couples they know who have stayed together for 51 years.  And then you'd have to stop and ask yourself of those who meet that 51 year threshold, how many of them stayed together SIMPLY BECAUSE they were married and not because the relationship was good or healthy?  That's 51 years with none of the "social super glue" that marriage supposedly supplies.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site