Why do homosexual people want to get 'married'?

[Lol]

I'm not saying that homosexual people should be denied the right of the right of union, but why do they want to get married? Marriage has always been the union of a Man and Woman, not Man/Man or Woman/Woman.

Especially getting married in churches... The bible quite clearly states that it is anti-homosexual, so why would homosexual couples want to get married in a place that doesn't accept who they are?

I'm not homosexual or religious, I just don't understand why they'd want to do it.

My solution would be to create a social contract of some sort that is similar to marriage to but applies to homosexual people instead.

 

[kaelum]

There are legal umm, protections (not the best word choice, but ehh) that come with being married---If I am ill in a hospital, my hypothetical gay lover may not have rights to be next to me on my death bed without marriage (relatives can block the lover from coming in). Getting a family plan on health insurance is only allowed for families (i.e. must be married) otherwise you pay alot more for health insurance, etc.

 

[Pizzabeak]

They want the same privileges as other human beings? Whatever arbitrary definition whoever imposes on 'marriage'... The universe said 'marriage' can only be between man/woman?

Apparently there are some tax benefits to getting married. I'm personally not crazy about getting married, because the man. It seems to be some tradition or propaganda, with all these Disney movies. After a certain point getting married might make sense though, for business related reasons maybe.

Why do women want to be paid the same amount as men?

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm not saying that homosexual people should be denied the right of the right of union, but why do they want to get married? Marriage has always been the union of a Man and Woman, not Man/Man or Woman/Woman.

Right. It's tradition. Tradition sets up a structure making things easy to operate in. Change that and you mess with the structure.

Especially getting married in churches... The bible quite clearly states that it is anti-homosexual, so why would homosexual couples want to get married in a place that doesn't accept who they are?

There is a church here in NYC that has accepted gays for decades. Also heteros don't always want to get married in churches. They can go secular.

I'm not homosexual or religious, I just don't understand why they'd want to do it.

You will have to pass a test.

My solution would be to create a social contract of some sort that is similar to marriage to but applies to homosexual people instead.

I had thought of that also. Call "marriage" by a different name to appease the traditionalists. The answer must be legal. Taxes and such use the term "married." Creating a similarity would mean duplicating too much legal stuff. Besides gays want equal rights so if one similarity were missed, it would mean discrimination.

 

[RaBind]

Along with what kaelum, BAP and Pizzabreak said it could just be a desire to go through that tradition or social event. Also the fact that all gays aren't necessarily atheists or non-religious. They could very well be devout Christians all the while being gay, I could see that happening, after all cherry picking of the teachings of religions happens all the time. why would gays be immune to this?

 

[Amagi82]

Ultimately, we shouldn't have legal ramifications built around the concept of marriage. Do that, and the issue just goes away, along with a huge amount of ancillary bullshit. Marriage is actually sort of a ridiculous concept, at odds with our nature. We are supposed to have sex with and love many people in our community.

 

[crippli]

From wikipedia.

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious.

So it seems there are several reasons to swear to stay connected separated only by death, if one like some of these things.

 

[Fukyo]

Ultimately, we shouldn't have legal ramifications built around the concept of marriage. Do that, and the issue just goes away, along with a huge amount of ancillary bullshit. Marriage is actually sort of a ridiculous concept, at odds with our nature. We are supposed to have sex with and love many people in our community.

Saying "we are supposed to have sex with and love many people in our community" is the same as saying "we are supposed to get married and be with one person for the rest of our lives" imo.


Weren't you getting married?

I was wondering what happened to you to go from advocating PUA tactics in picking up chicks to passionately advocating feminism.

 

[Cherry Cola]

For the same reasons as heterosexual people? Because marriage carries with it a lot of desirable social connotations which a social contract could never provide? It does so even in Scandinavia which is a big damn lot more secular than most other places such as the states.

If you're gonna go down the route of making sense why the fuck would anyone who isn't a religious fundamentalist want to get married? The Bible clearly states a bunch of fucking shit which is disgusting and inhumane apart from what it says about homosexuality.

I agree with Amagi that ultimately -but only ultimately- we shouldn't have legal ramifications built around the concept of marriage so far as it is a religious and not purely social contract. But that's just not possible right now, it is; however, possible to let gay people marry and it is not hard to see why they would want to.

Of course if they did not that would be kinda awesome, but it would be really weird if for some reason gay people were bastions of rationality completely resistant to emotions lacking an anchoring in logic. But that would make gay people some kind of ubermenschen compared to everyone else.

 

[doncarlzone]

Especially getting married in churches... The bible quite clearly states that it is anti-homosexual, so why would homosexual couples want to get married in a place that doesn't accept who they are?

Most straight couples in secular societies marrying in churches, do not get married for religious reasons. It's purely a traditional social ritual, I see no reason to believe that most gay couples would get married for religious reasons either.

I understand where you are coming from though, but it's more complicated than that.

EDIT:

Didn't get to read Cherry's comment which outlines my point better.

 

[Jennywocky]

Most straight couples in secular societies marrying in churches, do not get married for religious reasons. It's purely a traditional social ritual, I see no reason to believe that most gay couples would get married for religious reasons either.

I understand where you are coming from though, but it's more complicated than that.

To add to what you said, there are denominations that disagree with the conservative prohibitions against homosexual contact. Realistically, there's very few passages that discuss it in the Bible and since the assumption in the culture was that marriage was for producing heirs and passing along property within the family (to the degree that younger siblings had to produce an offspring for the eldest sibling if that sibling died), well, any form of sexual behavior outside of procreation was wrong regardless of whether it was same-sex behavior or whatever else.

The Metropolitan Church of Christ that started about 40-50 years ago is one denomination that does not prohibit same-sex behavior. If you look at faith as a personal relationship with God and you have grown up feeling that you DO love God within the Christian mindset and are committed, but you happen to be gay and come to the conclusion that you were created as gay (versus straight), and you have reached a conclusion that promiscuity (versus homosexual behavior) is what God actually prohibits, then it's not as simple as leaving the church. Your faith is still your faith, and these people don't want to leave their faith or feel like they disbelieve in the Christian God.

Likewise, to simply "leave Christianity" is like abdicating the faith to people they believe are wrong; why shouldn't they try to worship God in the way they believe to be fit and to redeem the faith from the inside?

Overall, my point is that while people might identify as gay, they still do identify as Christian as well (as opposed to other faiths), and so to abandon their faith seems unthinkable. They're both, rather than predominately "gay". And as a Christian, they still want to do things that they identify with being Christian... including getting married in a monogamous union in a church officiated by a clergyman.

 

[Duxwing]

Perhaps Lot assumes that among the set of possible interpersonal unions exists a possible union called "marriage" that inherently discriminates against non-heterosexual people. If he thus correctly assumes, then everyone who desires inclusivity should enter more inclusive unions and thereby create a social norm of inclusive unions and not perpetuate one of marriage.

I agree with the above argument.

He may also as a conservative sympathize with the conservative cause against gay marriage and therefore above have unwittingly rationalized his sympathy.

-Duxwing

 

[Latte]

I think... people will certainly adapt better if the concept of marriage as something between a couple and state is abolished or replaced with a definition and wording that has no religious connotations and isn't restricted to male-female, than if the solution is simply "gay marriage is now legalized". Different denomination can have different policies and people can go around being socioconservative or socioliberal in their own sociospheres.

People who want to delineate between "their" marriage and "the kind of marriage homosexuals can get" will get relief in the fact that their own denomination doesn't formally recognize marriages from denominations that allow same-sex marriage rituals, and will regard same-sex marriage as merely a legal thing without valid divine blessing and holy union, and as such not being true marriage.

The compromise that is keeping the state out of something which for many is heavily religious and for more with heavy social connotations.

But in the end of things, a marriage-like legal union is indeed unnecessary for governing a populace and should be abolished as something the state recognizes or cares about tax-wise or in any other way. Married people really shouldn't get economic bonuses at the expense of the rest of the population to begin with for just being married. It's probably regarded as promoting social stability or something like that, but meh... is the degree to which this is true worth it? I suspect the cases where it provides social stability it mainly prolongs broken, unhealthy relationships, but then again, I come from a broken family and have a lot of friends who come from broken families.

 

[Base groove]

The "tax benefits" to my knowledge are basically just income splitting, where a large disparity in personal income levels can be neutralized so really it's a fair assessment of the income of the "unit" instead of its "components". There's probably something I have missed but my point being it's likely fair and doesn't cause detriment to people who can't capitalize on it.

 

[Cognisant]

Religious people who oppose gay marriage are bigots.

Now excuse me while I hang a lampshade on my ad hominem.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think... people will certainly adapt better if the concept of marriage as something between a couple and state is abolished or replaced with a definition and wording that has no religious connotations and isn't restricted to male-female, than if the solution is simply "gay marriage is now legalized". Different denomination can have different policies and people can go around being socioconservative or socioliberal in their own sociospheres.

People who want to delineate between "their" marriage and "the kind of marriage homosexuals can get" will get relief in the fact that their own denomination doesn't formally recognize marriages from denominations that allow same-sex marriage rituals, and will regard same-sex marriage as merely a legal thing without valid divine blessing and holy union, and as such not being true marriage.

The compromise that is keeping the state out of something which for many is heavily religious and for more with heavy social connotations.

Yeah, I would suggest that the problem is that marriage in the United States (and other places) is mixed with religion; pastors can (and typically do) actually perform legal ceremonies. They should have some kind of legal union for everyone, and then if a specific religion wants to hold some kind of bonding ceremony that only they can recognize for their True BelieversTM, then let them. right now the religious folks are bitching because people they don't approve of are trying to horn in on their party, but the reality is that it should have never been their party to start with, and the resolution would be for them to have their own private party where they can exclude whoever they want, while the general society can provide open invitations to theirs.

But in the end of things, a marriage-like legal union is indeed unnecessary for governing a populace and should be abolished as something the state recognizes or cares about tax-wise or in any other way. Married people really shouldn't get economic bonuses at the expense of the rest of the population to begin with for just being married. It's probably regarded as promoting social stability or something like that, but meh... is the degree to which this is true worth it? I suspect the cases where it provides social stability it mainly prolongs broken, unhealthy relationships, but then again, I come from a broken family and have a lot of friends who come from broken families.

In general, yes, the benefits were supposed to encourage people to marry and build those little nuclear family structures, as well as making it easier for them to raise kids (by giving them financial breaks). There's also a ton of things where they "make exceptions" for married people, such as hospital visitation, estate tax breaks when one partner dies, child custody, and other things; if you are not officially married, even if you live together forty years, you will be denied many of these kinds of privileges that should be recognized for that kind of union. Marriage is a convenient structure on which to hang such privileges and pass them around as a package... but they are also a way for one group to punish or delegitimatize a group they do not approve of.

Now excuse me while I hang a lampshade on my ad hominem.

It's made of human skin, isn't it?

 

[Amagi82]

Saying "we are supposed to have sex with and love many people in our community" is the same as saying "we are supposed to get married and be with one person for the rest of our lives" imo.

I was referring to that more from an anthropological context. There is a sizable amount of evidence that the vast majority of pre-agricultural societies were semi-matriarchal and polyamorous.

Weren't you getting married?

I was wondering what happened to you to go from advocating PUA tactics in picking up chicks to passionately advocating feminism.

I've been married for almost 2 years now. I'm in an open marriage, and both of us date other people.

The PUA tactics were something new I learned at that time, which helped me get over some of my insecurity and terrible skill at interacting with people, specifically women. My current perspective on that is that those tactics can be effective in our current culture, and there is some wisdom to learn from it, but also a giant sea of misogynistic bullshit to wade through for that wisdom. I'm not perfect, but I'm constantly learning, changing, and growing, as I'd hope all of us are.

 

[Reluctantly]

I wondered this too at one point; the benefits didn't seem like it mattered that much, especially when you consider the potential drawbacks to marriage, i.e. divorce. It's not enough for me to care anyways. But I think I get it now.

It seems to be about acceptance because the laws/traditions that are being attacked are backed by the propagated concept of homosexuality being unnatural in some manner. Then it's no so much about seeing gay marriage as important as it is about destroying the harmful notion of homosexuality and being accepted.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yeah, marriage is one of the quantifiable elements, but opposition to it seems to be because of a view of homosexuality as deficient and destructive in some way, which then undergirds interactions, social mores, judgments, etc... so it's really an ideological battle in some ways that the marriage topic has made quantifiable.

 

[redbaron]

Then it's no so much about seeing gay marriage as important as it is about destroying the harmful notion of homosexuality and being accepted.

I'm glad someone said this.

 

[clockwork]

its not about tax benefits, there is no logical goal, come on, they are gay, its just emotional gay rebelliousness drama and wanting the candy you cant have.

Why do homosexual people want to get 'married'?
BECAUSE THEY CANT HAVE IT

 

[Jennywocky]

I wouldn't call it much of an insight. In fact it seemed to be devoid of any serious thought process.

 

[bemused]

I think the notion of marriage is antiquated and certainly isn't a 'sacred bond' given the extremely high divorce rates. However, as others have pointed out, there are many benefits for married couples.

And from a civil rights perspective, it's unethical to deny consenting same sex adults the same privileges granted to heterosexual couples.

I am indifferent either way. You won't see me marching in the streets in support or protest of either side. The institution of marriage is a joke, IMO.

 

[Spocksleftball]

I don't know why anyone would want to tie themselves finacially and legally to another person, and I've done it twice. Initially you fall in love, but people change over time. As they change, you have to continually adjust to the changes in the other person as they do to your changes. Sometimes the changes are too much to bear, thus divorce can result. We are adding to the legal industry's power over societal processes by increasing the number of potential clients.

I don't begrudge anyone matrimony. I do lament the money spent on divorces that is better served in educating children, or anything really.