From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Gay marriage
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Political-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and Idaho
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:34:34 GMT
Keywords: same sex couples

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>These are justifications* for you wanting to marry, not justifications
>for the marriage laws in general, nor for expanding legal "marriage" to
>include same-sex couples.  I've been through this many times before
>(although someone just recently expanded the cross-posting of this
>thread alt.politics.homosexuality, a group I didn't know existed and
>this site doesn't get).  The answer is still the same:

[drivel elided]

However, currently in the U.S.:

1.  Heterosexuals have the privilege of legally marrying someone they
    are sexually attracted to.  Homosexuals do not.

2.  Legal recognition of a "family" is granted only to those families
    which are considered "appropriate" or "normal" in the eyes of the
    law.  Homosexual couples, living together as spouses, are not
    considered by the law to be a "family" in most places in the United
    States.  The law is discriminatorily making a values-statement.

Unless marriage is given legal recognition solely for the purpose of
making and raising babies...and there are valid arguments that can
be made to demonstrate otherwise...there is really no reason why
the law should recognize het couples but not homosexual couples,
except for government's kowtowing to the misconceptions of the 
masses.

There is a kind of double standard at work here.  Yes, it is true
that homosexuals do technically retain the right of marriage.
However that argument is just a red herring.  In most of the
western world, heterosexuals can gain legal recognition of
a marriage in which both parties are sexually attracted to
each other.  Homosexuals can gain legal recognition only of
marriages in which at least one party feels no sexual attraction
towards the other.

Most family counselors will confirm that sex is important in most
marriages.  Sex is (or should be) an expression of love, a
unifying of people into one entity, and a satisfying experience.
An unsatisfying sexual relationship within most legally-recognized
marriages is a sign of marital problems, under most circumstances.

IMO, it is d*mn near impossible for a homosexual (*not* bisexual)
person and a MOTAS who are "married" under the definition of the
law to be *truly* married.  Yet it is still impossible to
get legal recognition of a *real* marriage of a homosexual couple.

The problem isn't that "homosexuals don't have the right to marry."
Believe me, homosexual couples *can* and *do* get married, despite
what the law says; it's d*mn near impossible to deny anyone the
right or ability to *be* married.

The problem is that the law does not grant recognition to 
"nonstandard" marriages and "nonstandard" families, almost always
because of the sexual preferences of one or more people involved
in those "nonstandard" marriages or family.  *This* is uncalledfor
discrimination by the government...a double standard, in effect.

Double standards really have no place in the law.

Or is it true that "all people are equal, but some are more equal
than others?"

Dosvydanya, comrades

--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow