Of course there are always exceptions; some can live together in a committed state of unmarriedness and vice versa, but in general this makes sense to me.

Interestingly, in the documentary "Saving Marriage" - the married (Gay) couples gave many of the same arguments I've summarized above!

Personally, even if I was straight I don't think marriage is of personal importance.  If two people are right for each other they'll stay together.  A marriage certificate isn't going to change that.  However, I think the right to marry is an important stepping stone to being treated as equals, as a precedent for future issues, for the satisfaction of those who choose to marry and to assuring benefits, etc., to our chosen family.

You don't see the 1,400+ rights granted under marriage in the US as important?

If you don't like gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person!

I wanted to know if any of you guys out there take gay marriage serious? I'm gay myself, but I think I don't need marriage to prove my love and commitment to another guy. If I had a partner and we both knew that we were spending the rest of our lives together, why go through the trouble of getting a marriage license or having a ceremony? What's your opinion on this?

I am male, gay and married so i think i will answer yes on that.

But seriusly its not all about love but also security, if something will happen to you are your loved one. If you are married you have legal rights like any stright couple. It makes me feal more secure and i love my husband. I am 30 and we have bean together for 10 years now, but only married 1 year.

I think a better question is really about whether marriage is important?  I think the answer is yes; it is important, but not for everyone.  Ignoring the rights confer governmentally, the institution is really more of a binding trust between individuals.  It's an agreement to stay together (for what ever reason the parties decide).  The hassle is the point.  Getting married in a way of agreeing to tie yourself to someone and knowingly facing greater difficulty to end relationships.  I think theres quite a bit of sweetness in that.

I'm not sure if I'll ever get married of if I want to, but I do believe that marriage is perhaps one of the most significant promises a person can actually make to another. I'm stuck to you...legally!

US law says I cannot be denied a job due to race or gender but I have yet to land a job as a stripper at the local titty bar(strip club).

Hmm… How many times have you applied?  Seriously.  If the answer is 0, then you are discriminating against yourself!  I would be impressed by 2 or above.  Heck, even 1 would do it.  How about posting your audition tape? :pleasant:
@cumeaternc:

On the flip side of the coin, how many hot women have you seen working a pole at a local gay bar??? None(I hope) ;D So does that mean we as a gay community are prejudice against hetro women stripping for us…YES!

I'm not the best judge of "hot" women, but the local gay bar I used to visit the most had more rails than poles… it was also known for the best dance floor this side of Montreal.  There was nobody at the door checking for your QueerCard either.  Generally, at least 1/3 of the patrons, and 1/2 of the staff were people of the female persuasion, and one of the worst arguments was with the liquor control board, about people wanting to remove their shirts on hot days (or when they got overheated from dancing) although they allowed paid strippers at another bar, admittedly, in a different part of the city.

Having said all of that, there are some very nice looking guys working at the local "Hooters".  I've got to check out their Wednesday wing night some time.

Brandon

I rest my case! Anger and ignorance are our enemies on this issue.

@roto13:

What does that have to do with rights?

It has to do with equal rights…but if you are not black living in America(which you are not) you wouldn't understand the stigma still attached to a skin color(gay or not).

Again, what does stigma have to do with rights? Are there laws saying that there are things you're not allowed to do because you're black?

That's because you aren't qualified.

There is now law that says you have to be a woman to work at a strip club!

And women aren't qualified to be male strippers. And neither of these points have anything to do with same sex marriage.

Again no rule against it.

Let me put it this way. Would a gay porn studio be making gay porn if their movies had men and women having sex in them? A strip club for straight males is going to need to hire employees that appeal to straight males. They're protected by the law to be able to do that. To be qualified for the job of a stripper at a strip club for straight males, you have to be a woman. There is no law against hiring men to do it, but why would they?

What this has to do with gay marriage is that there is no law keeping gays from being "married"(in America at least), There's just no law to ensure it.

… Yes there is, in most of the country.

I believe if we are to be treated equally we as the gay community have to change the perception that all we are is a bunch on horny men looking for sex where we can get it.

And what better way to do that than to show that gays are as capable of making real commitments to each other as straight people?

Roto13 you missed a quote of mine… the mose important one.
@cumeaternc:

For those of you who do, I hope you get the benefits and recognition you so rightfully desire.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't need to reply to it because it's the one part of your post that isn't an ignorant strawman argument.

@roto13:

What does that have to do with rights?

It has to do with equal rights…but if you are not black living in America(which you are not) you wouldn't understand the stigma still attached to a skin color(gay or not).

That's because you aren't qualified.

There is now law that says you have to be a woman to work at a strip club!

And women aren't qualified to be male strippers. And neither of these points have anything to do with same sex marriage.

Again no rule against it.  What this has to do with gay marriage is that there is no law keeping gays from being "married"(in America at least), There's just no law to ensure it.

I believe if we are to be treated equally we as the gay community have to change the perception that all we are is a bunch on horny men looking for sex where we can get it.  I mean, look at the site we are discussing this on…A gay porn torrent tracker.  I am an eternally horny man so I may not be helping our cause. ;D I am also bisexual so I am in no way qualified to come anywhere near understanding the full scope of the desire of gay marriage totally.  If I have offended anyone with my view please understand, its just that...my view.  I in no way represent anyone else(mod or otherwise)on this tracker.

Roto13 you missed a quote of mine... the mose important one.
@cumeaternc:

For those of you who do, I hope you get the benefits and recognition you so rightfully desire.

@cumeaternc:

Sorry to bust everyones bubble but there is no such thing as equal rights!  Regardless of the law people will always carry a prejudice…ALWAYS.

What does that have to do with rights?

I am black american and guess what, I am proud of that fact but it has not been leverage to grant me any added rights.  US law says I cannot be denied a job due to race or gender but I have yet to land a job as a stripper at the local titty bar(strip club).

That's because you aren't qualified.

On the flip side of the coin, how many hot women have you seen working a pole at a local gay bar??? None(I hope) ;D So does that mean we as a gay community are prejudice against hetro women stripping for us…YES! Laws will never change a perspns perception of any group of people.

And women aren't qualified to be male strippers. And neither of these points have anything to do with same sex marriage.

There are some benefits to having marriage associated with our commitment to our partner but there are also many burdens to.  Additional "marriage" tax, Bankrupcy law, Finanical obligation to pay off estate if our husband dies, etc.

Marriage comes with responsibility. News at 11.

Kisses
Brandon

Blu…. wait, I'm gay, and the straight people say I can't use that 4-letter word for the color of the sky.  So, either I fight for my right to use that word, or I have to make do with something else, like, oh, let's say light cyan.

So, while the straight people can get a light cyan tie if they want, why should they have the right to say I can't get a bl_e one.  If I'm restricted from using bl_e, then my police car can't have a bl_e light on it, and people are not legally compelled to pull over for a flashing red and light cyan light... just like the hospital staff are not legally compelled to allow me to see my non-married, non-shared-ancestor-related partner.

If it sounds stupid to you, that's because it is.

The point I'm trying to make is that the M-word (and it's variations) are already imbedded in law, and rather than change all the laws to add something else to the M-word, why not just use a good word that's already in all the right places?

Phrases like civil unions and domestic partnerships have as much meaning to the average person on the street as "the number exactly between two and four".  If you can say three, then I should be able to say three too, and by not allowing me to use marriage to refer to my binding contract with my significant other, it's forcing me to use a longer, more convoluted and confusing phrase that is not yet in the law books in all the places where it matters.

Sure, there is a good case for saying that the M-benefits packages are way too large and unfair, but when was the last time you saw people fighting to reduce their rights and privileges?  It's much less likely to happen than to extend rights to others.  It wasn't that long ago that many places said you couldn't get married if you were of a different ethnic background… just try and force that genie back in the bottle, and see what you get called!  Oh, and before someone calls me a racist, I'll admit it, I have a bias towards the human race, and those darned dolphins can go fight for their marriage rights somewhere else, after they start paying taxes on all that fish. 

But if we can question the gender requirements of the marriage definition, why not the number of participants?  Isn't that just another alternate lifestyle?  And if we start opening up that can, then there is a destruction of marriage in a sense.

Heteros have been changing the definition of marriage throughout history.

Incestuous marriage used to be legal.  Polygamy used to be legal.  Interracial marriage used to be illegal.  A Roman Emperor married his horse, which was legal under their laws at the time.  An Egyptian queen married her cat {was that a lesbian marriage, as it had 2 pussies in it }.

Also, there has been gay marriage throughout history.  It's only that last few hundred years that it became frowned upon.

I don't deny that marriage has been defined differently over different times and cultures.  The issue here is gay marriage in the 21st century, under the legal and societal structure of the west (especially America, where the issue is especially contentious).

There is a compelling case for gay marriage.  But it seems that the logic of the case would cause us to expand into other relationships as well.  As a persecuted minority, gays are usually more sympathetic to other lifestyles that fall outside the mainstream.  Polygamy is one such lifestyle.  But because that is usually associated with religious fundamentalism, esp. Mormons, we deny the logical link.

I return to my larger point.  The problem is not that gays need marriage to secure more rights, it is that too many rights/privileges are given to married couples in the first place.

First, there's nothing keeping gay people from getting married.  I know many men who are both gay and married, many of whom are also now divorced or in the process.  The only thing, a lot of the world discriminates on the basis of sex, that one person in a marriage can't be the same sex as the other.  That's not a gay/straight thing, but a matter of gender discrimination.

Before people start telling me that I'm crazy (again :-), let me put out a statement:

I'm looking for a _____ to be _____.

When you start filling in the second blank, with things like "my gardener", "my secretary", "my lawyer", "my doctor" and so on, lots of people will get upset if you put "man" or "woman", or anything other than "person" in the first blank.  Indeed, in many countries, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, religion, or any of many other factors.

If I were to say that I wanted a blue to be my tenant, I would either be laughed at, forced to change my statement, or sued for discrimination on the basis of color.  The same thing holds if I put a gender in there.  Heck, the same can apply if I put just about anything in there.

The only form where it's considered acceptable is when the second blank is "my spouse".  Then, the only universally-accepted content for the first blank is gender that is not my own.  To me, this is blatant discrimination, either for or against those who are of a gender that is not my own, and the important words that are already covered in non-discrimination law are GENDER DISCRIMINATION.

The other thing that should be a consideration is that in many areas, there is something called "common-law marriage" where the people involved don't go out and have a ceremony, license, judge, or any of the other stuff, but are considered married if they have been living together for long enough.  I don't think it carries all of the normal rights/privileges of a "real" marriage, but this is where the people who are talking about the destruction of marriage should really be looking.

But if we can question the gender requirements of the marriage definition, why not the number of participants?  Isn't that just another alternate lifestyle?  And if we start opening up that can, then there is a destruction of marriage in a sense.

Heteros have been changing the definition of marriage throughout history.

Incestuous marriage used to be legal.  Polygamy used to be legal.  Interracial marriage used to be illegal.  A Roman Emperor married his horse, which was legal under their laws at the time.  An Egyptian queen married her cat {was that a lesbian marriage, as it had 2 pussies in it }.

Also, there has been gay marriage throughout history.  It's only that last few hundred years that it became frowned upon.

As to the political / legal side of the issue, I struggle with it.  I guess it depends on how one defines "rights" in this context.  I have the right to marry a woman (don't want to) just like a straight man, and he cannot marry another man just like me, so we are "equal" in the sense that society has limited our options the same.  If the right is more abstract – the right to marry whomever one chooses, and have that recognized by the state -- well, then we are not equal.  BUT, defined in that manner, I cannot see how we can deny other freely-chosen relationships, like polygamy.  I have seen so many gay-marriage activists say that that is completely different.  But if we can question the gender requirements of the marriage definition, why not the number of participants?  Isn't that just another alternate lifestyle?  And if we start opening up that can, then there is a destruction of marriage in a sense.

I know this won't happen, but my preference would be to take the government out of the "marriage" business altogether.  Why should any pair or trio or quadruple of people get special privileges over others, just for professing some affection for one another?  If I and my platonic roommate share expenses and buy some property together as an investment, why should my taxes be different than another pair of people who have sex together?  Marriage isn't just unfair for gays/lesbians, its unfair to straights who don't want to be married as well.

I apologize in advance for getting a little off topic. 

Of course it's extremely important.

In the US, there are 14,000 {city, county, state and Federal} rights and privileges for being married.  These include hospital visitation, survivor benefits from social security, work pensions, and the list goes on and on and on.

Then of course you have the non government rights and privileges.  All forms of insurance have lower premiums for married people.

There is also the issue of international laws.  These allow immigration and other benefits.

I couldn't agree more… it's not about wanting to get married or not, it's about having equal rights!
And despite what people want to make us believe, it's not a religious issue, but a legal issue... separation of church and state anyone? KTHXBYE