Cerek, your efforts to discuss this with Yorick would be a lot easier if he'd pick a story and stick with it.

To see you backtrack, Yorick, and state you never said your were against gay marriage is well... [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Here's how I see your statements lining up:

1. Only couples that can procreate should get the benefits of marriage.

2. Gay couples can't procreate.

3. Ooops, I meant to say gay couples can't have children naturally on their own as a couple.

Now, if the conclusion that "gay couples should not be allowed to marry" doesn't follow logically from this, I'd like you to point out how.

Having gone through the parts of the discussion where everyone points out to Yorick how he may be wrong, we have now entered the part of the discussion where Yorick changes what he's said. Same old, same old. Seen it before.

And, Cerek I don't have the time for a complete list of rights/benefits. Sorry. Busy day. Generally, they are:

Rights flowing from kinship (inheritance, hospital visitation, suing for the "loss of consortium" of the spouse due to the torts of another, etc.)

Adoption as a couple (rather than an individual)

Tax-based benefits

Access to Employment benefits (sharing partner's health plan, etc.)

Joint ownership of property

Rights against the other partner (in the event of a divorce, etc)

Marriage privilege (can't force a spouse to testify against the other spouse)

[ 02-13-2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Yes could easily say it, and I would say it.

What is the difference between two cohabiting platonic friends-for life and two lovers? </font>[/QUOTE]Lovers.
L-o-v-e-r-s.
Romantic love. There are different kinds of love, and I won't underestimate your intelligence by pretending you don't know. Gay people who live together but are just friends don't want to get married. Neither do platonic straight roomies. They want to be together because they have a deep love for each other and a desire to be together.

So you've never loved someone you are not "with"? L-O-V-E.

I repeat, I think platonic love is being seriously undervalued here. Like the only valid love is when it's expressed sexually.

I disagree.

And Timber, I have not backtracked. I stated repeatedly what my position was, and that I was being misinterpreted and misrepresented, and if you'll check my posts, you'll see I've said "I'm being misunderstood" again and again.

"I don't know why my p.o.v. isn't being understood" etc etc.

And yet it is fine that only one man would be the father of a blood child? Adoption mimics reality. What is the difference here?

What are these?

Can you not already name your beneficiary? I have named my brother.

Property ownership and marriage are different things are they not? Can you not co-own property? I co-owned a car with a friend. People can be partners in business. Why not a house? Time share apartments are co-owned.

Why would you want that? So you can pay alimony to the other person?

I have not heard of this. To my knowledge it's not applicable in Australia.

Did it ever occur to you that I may not have an opinion yet as to gay marriage? That would be a reason for discussion wouldn't it?

I have however, stated quite clearly what I DO believe, and what I believe SHOULD be encouraged in society. I am quite clear on those areas. I am not of the opinion that legal marriage supports child rearing couples enough. I am worried that gay marriage may further erode support for families and create further problematic mental health issues in children raised in an even smaller "village".

By stating what I DO believe, I have been expoloring the issue. Examining the core elemensts. Examining the fundamental purpose of society.

Cerek, of late you have been on a type of crusade against me. As in other threads, this post of yours is attack my communique, my style of writing, rather than the topic at hand. You are taking issue again and again with me - as I am now doing with you if you'll note. I have moved from the topic to debating your arguments. Debating the person, not the point.

I would appreciate it therefore if you could refrain from the character assassinations in future and return to debating the issue, rather than highlighting the problems you have with me as an individual.

I realise my writing can be offensive. This is nothing new nor surprising, and though it may surprise you, not my intent.

Cheerio.

So you've never loved someone you are not "with"? L-O-V-E.

I repeat, I think platonic love is being seriously undervalued here. Like the only valid love is when it's expressed sexually.
</font>[/QUOTE]Nobody said that. We're not *talking* about platonic love. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion, yet it seems that you're bringing it in to compare apples and pears ::refuses to mention the red-yellow colored fruit... though fruit references do seem oddly appropriate here::
I'm saying that if two people love each other in a romantic sense they deserve equal recognition, whether they be two men, two women, or two people of the opposite gender. Period. I'm not talking about platonic love (Even if two gay people loved each other in a platonic fashion. I'm not advocating marriage for them because, hey, they don't *want* to get married. Therein lies the difference.)

I completely understand where you're coming from... I am trying my best to not seem overly hostile, but I'm sure you realize that there are several things that make this difficult (Controversial opinions, passion flaring, and the fact that it's easier to insult a screen rather than have a mature discussion like you'd have face to face)
Personally, I don't begrudge you your opinions. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, even if I disagree with several of them.

Refusing to jump in on the jabs I'd simply like to make an observation after reading the news today where opponents to gay couples are seeking to thwart and render void those gay couples who wish and who already are actually married.

If it was a straight black and white person such talks would be immediately put to a stop and labellled 'discrimination', yet two blokes who may love each other to bits are being batted around at the governments whim. It is saddening to say the least.

The difference is Mike Brady can mary Carrol Brady and they can each adopt the other's kids, which are not their own blood. Happens all the time with step-parents. A couple wanting to adopt a child can adopt a child from China that is not a blood relative of either of them, yet the child belongs to both under the law equally. Adoption in fact ALWAYS involves a situation where there is a disconnect of blood relation with one or both of the parents. Yet, we won't let a gay couple adopt. I'm sure you saw my example of the absolute HORROR that can happen when the one gay parent who legally adopted the kid dies and the other gay parent, having no LEGAL relationship to the child he helped raise, must give the child away to "next of kin" relatives or -- WORSE -- the state orphanage system.

Again, I just pointed out a situation where the ONLY distinguishing feature between the law's treatment of people is what hangs (or doesn't) between their legs. That is called (say it with me, class) "discrimination."

Filing jointly, to name one. I don't have time to rummage through my tax notes presently.

That's the beneficiary who gets the check if you die. I bet your brother can't make use of your health plan or collect from your retirement. If he can, it's because the State of NY adopted specific rules to allow such access, which is a derrogation of the normal circumstance. As for the check for when you kick the bucket -- that can go to your dog if you like (assuming your dog could endorse it and make it to a bank to cash it).

First, I don't know if you can really co-own a car unless you're married. While you may think you were co-owners I would suspect there was one name on the car's title. Maybe not. Regardless, what you're missing is that co-ownership is a benefit a married couple gets free of charge -- meaning they don't have to file partnership papers or spend money creating the co-ownership relationship.

Nope, so they could pay alimony to you. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Well, it is applicable here. It's part of our right to privacy -- it includes respecting marital communications.

[ 02-13-2004, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Love is love Ilumina. I make no distinction. What you call "romantic love" I call "infatuation" or as the Greeks called it "Eros" and you can choose that, foster that, and feel it for numerous people you never cohabit with, have relationship with or have sex with.

Romantic love is simply an aspect of love itself, and may or may not be present in long term cohabitational relationships, whether platonic or not.

As such, I made the distinction between love that is expressed sexually, and love that is not, for whether sexual or not, all love is valid.