From: "Doug Freyburger" 

Angelika Tobisch wrote:
> Vorlonagent schrieb:
>
> > You want me to accept gays and gays marrying, give me a reason.
>
> No, no, no and no again. You want me to accept being discriminated
> against and to not be able to marry, you give _me_ a reason. Why, oh
> why, is it so hard to get that?

Marriage is preferential treatment.  Lack of preferential treatment
is NOT discrimination.  Honorably discharged veterans get
preferential treatment in plenty of nations - housing loans,
advantage in getting civilian governemnt jobs, you name it.  Does
this mean that non-veterans are discriminated against?  I say
not and thus I say not allowing gays to marry is not discrimination.
Even without discrimination I don't object to allowing gays to
marry - I'm not averse to granting preferential treatment to gays
who wish to marry.  So long as gays can legally reside together
without being legally hassled, no discrimination exists.

Some US-only commentary - Since marriage is not discussed
in the Constitution is not not a constitutional question unless
one state stops recognizing gay marriages in some other state
(oops, haven't I read that in the news in the last couple of
years?).  It's a legislative matter and as long as all states
recognize each others' marriages gay or not it's a state issue
not a federal one.  And since the US has separation of church
and state, having the majority religion rule that gay marriage
should be forbidden is irrelevant except on how a majority can
effect the decisions of elected legislators.

My own sole objection to gay marriage is the tax advantages
that are given to married couples and why I think they are in
the tax codes.  The preferences given to honorably discharged
veterans are after-the-fact payment-in-kind for valuable services
rendered.  What services do married couples deliver?  They
breed the next generation of citizens in a way that averages
more stable citizens.  It isn't even a certain thing just a trend.
ALL of the other advantages of marriage apply equally either
way - added stability in neighborhoods and employment and
so on.  When adopting even that difference goes away.  And so
my stance is simple - Switch the tax advantages of marriage to
tax advantages for raising minor children (mandating that gay
couples adopt goes too far IMO) and I stop caring because my
tax dollars are at work as I wish for the long term investment
(and I personally lose whatever tax advantages I have because
the kids are grown up and moved out).

That would still leave lots of non-monetary advantages.  Default
will that leaves everything to the spouse, hospital visitation rights
and so on.  Give any and all of these advantages to gays and
I wouldn't care one cent's worth.  It's my understanding that some
states have "domestic partner" laws that already do this.

In fact, now that the kids are moved out I am now in the same
situation relative to raising the next generation as a gay couple.
Unless we adopt it's not going to happen any more.  BTDT.
Yet I don't object to taking tax advantages because I'm married.
And so I my objection to giving tax advantages to gay couples
who marry isn't an overriding one.  The current tax advantages
for being married don't actually do what I think they should.  Some
couples never have kids, some never rise kids, some have the
kids grown up and moved out.  Some adoptive parents are gay
so they can't get both child deductions and marital tax rates.
(Head of household rules, hmmm, further weakens my only
objection).

It isn't about discrimination, though some do wish to discriminate
against gays.

Doug Freyburger  moderator soc.religion.asatru



--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2