<p>Denny Hastert should be able to marry anyone he likes, even if it is another man.</p>
<p>For EK: A more recent poll (CNN/USA Today):</p>
<p><the poll=“” found=“” that=“” 20%=“” favored=“” same-sex=“” “marriage”…=“”></the></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm</a></p>
<p>I don’t understand why the state is in the marriage business anyway. Personally I think the government should recognize civil unions - give tax and health benefits. Leave marriage to the religious institutions who are free to be as bigotted as they feel like.</p>
<p>There are many people who have overcome behaviors for a time and then fall back into them, such as alcohol abuse and pornography. That doesn’t mean that it is not possible for others to successfully refrain from practicing unwanted behaviors for the remainder of their lives and to replace old habits with new ones. I don’t think that most former homosexuals would say that they don’t experience any temptation to practice homosexual behavior, just as most former drug abusers, smokers, etc. wouldn’t. However, that doesn’t mean that real change isn’t possible, and that former homosexuals are not very happy that they’ve found a new way to live. No one is suggesting that homosexuals should be rounded up and forced to go through therapy, and, of course, it would be ineffective for anyone who doesn’t wish to change his behavior, but to dismiss it as impossible is to bury your head in the sand.</p>
<p>My mother (who is 79) really should change her bedroom behavior - after all, it isn’t for the purposes of procreation. And they should definitely take away her marriage license - why is she getting taxbreaks at this point for being “married”, when being so contributes absolutely nothing to the national interest?</p>
<p>Sigh. She won’t change, even if she should find a new way to live. And the law just seems to ignore what she is really up to.</p>
<p>mathmom,
I would be inclined to agree with you (except for the tax & health benefits and the civil unions part) were it not for the negative effect it would have on children. The breakdown of the family has had devastating effects on our society and to weaken it any further would make it even worse. If our country did go that direction it would have to be in a completely libertarian or socialist setting, and I don’t think most Americans want to go there.</p>
<p>The tax breaks my married mother enjoys has massive negative effects on children and families, which is why they have consistently gotten poorer over the past decade, while my mother grows rich.</p>
<p>mini,
High taxes have had a negative impact on most families, but that’s a completely different topic.</p>
<p>Not a different topic at all. My mother receives these benefits specifically because she is “married”, without there being any societal benefit from her receipt of them. If she was not married, she would not be receiving these benefits, which could then be distributed (if society chose) to families and children (of whatever sexual orientation) in need.</p>
<p>Society reaps no benefits from recognizing my mother’s marriage, but could reap great societal benefits from recognizing the committed relationships and stable arrangements of those who happen to have other sexual orientations, including benefits to HETEROSEXUAL children, who are denied those benefits now (and did absolutely nothing to be so deprived.)</p>
<p>mini,
I’m all for slashing taxes and giving the money back to those who earn it to spend as they see fit, but broadening the definition of marriage or switching to civil partnerships to encompass various attachments will do nothing to further stable arrangements for children.</p>
<p>This is NOT about slashing taxes; this is about getting rid of the special tax breaks my mother gets as a result of being married (despite their being no societal benefit.) This is specifically about RAISING her taxes, and making sure that all children (whether being raised in hetero- or homosexual unions) receives the marital benefits provided to their parents.</p>
<p>mini,
I understand what you would do if you were emperor. I simply disagree.</p>
<p>Logos, I admire your tenacity of position, but you are so sadly and clearly wrong. Homosexuality cannot be “controlled”, and the church efforts to deprogram gay people or force them into a straight lifestyle has been a dismal failure.</p>
<p>You may think homosexuality or gay marriage will lead to the breakdown of the American family. Maybe you’re right, and maybe you’re not, but your belief that one can “convert” a gay person is just plain fallacious.</p>
<p>I doubt anyone can convert my mother either, but at least we can take away her “special rights”.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Why does hereshoping et al. keep using the 80% figure? All of the polls seem to suggest that about 25-30% of people favor same-sex “marriage”, 50-60% favor legal recognition of same-sex unions, 40-45% oppose all legal recognition of same-sex unions, and 65-70% oppose same-sex “marriage”.</p></li>
<li><p>I am always puzzled as to why opponents of legal recognition see it as a threat to families and children. Most same-sex couples my age either had children or wanted to (easier for the women than the men), and they certainly aren’t any worse parents than their different-sex peers. I have seen a number of marriages break up over one partner’s acknowledgment of his or her homosexuality, and this was painful and horrible for everyone involved, but the lack of legal recognition of same-sex unions didn’t ever enter into it (except to the extent that the homosexual partner entered into a heterosexual marriage, which he or she later left at great emotional and financial damage to everyone, in part because there was no legal recognition for same-sex relationships). I have also seen once-committed same-sex relationships break apart, in a very divorce-like way, except that things were made worse by the fact that they did not have the legal structure of actual “divorce” to rely on, and of course the extra cost and difficulty made their childrens’ lives a little worse. But I haven’t seen committed same-sex couples break up more than heterosexual marrieds (and in my circles such break-ups and divorces are pretty uncommon).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I would see same-sex marriage as slightly family-positive. “Slightly” because the law really isn’t the crucial thing here, and doesn’t really do that much to affect peoples’ behavior. It would be family-positive because it would tax families a little less, especially when one of the parents died (that is a huge tax difference now: 0 tax for inheritance between married couples and, in my state, a net 15-55%+ state and federal tax for inheritance between “strangers”), ease some child-custody and tax problems in divorce, prevent kids from being thrown out of their home if one parent went bankrupt. Stuff on the edges like that. Maybe it would reduce the number of mistaken heterosexual marriages a bit, but I doubt it. I don’t think it would increase the number of heterosexual-marriage divorces at all.</p>
<ol>
<li> I had to laugh at the stuff quoted by hereshoping about the different attitudes towards legal recognition within the gay community. I have no doubt that all three attitudes exist – as they do within the straight community – but that does not mean that they have equal weight at all (unless the population you are surveying consists entirely of 20-23 year-olds). The gay people I know want to be married for the same reason the straight people I know want to be married, and by now most of them have had one or more marriage ceremonies somewhere. I think the first two attitudes – respect for marriage, and ambivalence about marriage but wanting others to have the choice – have to reflect 95%+ of the gay population.</li>
</ol>
<p>Allmusic,
You’re arguing against a straw man. Read my post #1144 again and note that I said nothing about “force”. Homosexuality can be controlled as can heterosexuality. Reasonable human beings do not, fortunately, act upon their every sexual impulse.</p>
<p>You’re comparing apples and oranges, Logos.</p>
<p>What if someone told you whom you HAD to love? How would that work for you?</p>
<p>??? No one is telling anyone who they have to love.</p>
<p>Well, yes. Someone tells you that you have to love someone for whom you feel no attraction. None. Doesn’t work for heterosexual people, nor for gay.</p>
<p>I find it very interesting that such a high percentage of Americans so recently disapproved of interracial marriage-
( not that I don’t believe it- obviously we still have people who disapprove)</p>
<p>But when the * Governor * of what I always thought was our most conservative state: Utah, proposed reciprocal benefits for all same sex couples living in Utah and the * Mayor* of Salt Lake City, supports same sex marriage and has created domestic partnerships for city employees, then I think that it is only a matter of time( after all the largest group who disapproves of recognition according to the CBS poll are 65 yrs and older) before states see that recognizing adults who want to form a family is the right thing to do whether they be homo or heterosexual.</p>
<p>
</p>