Gay vs Straight Marriage - Yes or No Poll

[Amanda]

Barb:
> I'm a trifle confused by this.  Are you against mixed-gender 
couples 
> marrying to "get" something?

Yes.

I had also said:
 
> > Which is why they're well-dressed and speeding past me in their 
> > Hummers, while I trundle along in my low-end Saturn with the 
> > handprints and stickers all over the windows (DINK envy, sorry; 
> > and I know darn well it's not confined to gay couples). The point 
> > is, I hear way too much "we should get the same stuff hetero 
> > marriages get" without (in most cases) a commensurate
> > burden. If it's about *getting,* I think the intent is misplaced.
> 
> Um, I have to say, I'm finding many of the stereotypes in the above 
> patently offensive.
<snip rest of stereotype offensensitivity>

Do you read parentheticals at all? What about "I know darned well 
it's not confined to gay couples" didn't you get? And in any case, 
this was an aside to a paragraph which was not the main point of my 
post.

> I know loads of gay couples raising kids for various reasons 
> (children from previous mixed-gender marriages, children they had 
> intentionally during the same-gender partnership, adopted children, 
> children of relatives who died, etc.).  These couples with kids 
> can't even, in many states, be considered a family.  Very few 
states 
> allow second-parent adoption.  Only one of the parents is legally 
> recognized and the other has no right to make medical decisions for 
> the kids or even to stand in at a parent-teacher conference at 
> school, and if the couple does break up, the parent with no legal 
> connections to the kids cannot even get visitation rights, let 
alone 
> fight to be the custodial parent, even if he/she has been the 
> primary caregiver.  And while you might say, "Oh, well, those folks 
> can get married then," this "parenting" litmus test doesn't exist 
> for mixed-gender couples, so why should it exist for same-gender 
> couples?  Again, equality is equality.

I agree. You and Tyler both totally missed my point. You got 
yourselves all wadded over what I thought was a lighthearted tossoff 
comment, and missed my first paragraph--when I said I could totally 
see the point of wanting a legally established relationship, so that 
the "auto" things that happen with the wife of a husband can also 
happen with the wife of a wife, or the husband of a husband. Gay 
couples shouldn't have to get a lawyer and have instruments drawn up 
to be able to have a legally recognized relationship: to be in the 
emergency room, to inherit, to be the beneficiary. That, to me, is 
the main reason for wanting gay marriage, and I'm totally behind it. 
The second paragraph, which is apparently the only one you saw, dealt 
with my opinion on wanting gay marriages recognized for reasons I do 
not approve of.

I'm sorry you missed that, in all that over-reaction. I thought I was 
essentially supportive.

~Amanda, who can't *wait* to hear how else she's insensitive and what 
other stereotypes she's invoked with this