fiancee visa marriage visa..

“love doesn’t exist, so your argument is automatically invalid”

That is your opinion, Jerel, so your argument is automatically invalid to anyone who disagrees with that opinion.

It is important to separate civil marriage from religious marriage.

Civil marriage is a basket of a host of legal and social goods, including but not limited to, social recognition of a committed relationship, certain property rights, certain autonomy rights (like the right to make medical decisions for your spouse), etc… The purpose of civil marriage is that it allows a couple to get the whole basket of goods in one fell swoop.

Religious marriage has different purposes in different religions ranging from promoting procreation to an exchange of property rights (namely, ownership of a daughter passing from father to husband) to a recognition of the holiness of the union of a man and a woman.

The distinction is important because the debate is over civil marriage, not religious marriage. No one is going to force the Catholic church to marry gay couples (there is a little thing called the first amendment).

“Why does society offer a few financial enticements to be legally married?”

Well, I think this is more of a historical question than a policy question, but the way you can justify these incentives in a modern world is that marriage promotes social stability.

“What makes a marriage “legal” and what would happen if we removed the “legality”, for everyone, of marriage?”

This is not a terrible idea. Though, it would make life more difficult in a number of respects because you would be terminating the shortcut I mentioned above. So, there would have to be some other way to establish that you are legally entitled to survivor benefits under the VA or Social Secutiry, for instance. But lots of same sex marriage activists actually favor this option.

“What is the TRUE value of gay marriage to gay couples?”

I wonder if you are trying to imply that there is some sort of secret motive by gay people, but taking your question at face value… There are some practical considerations: Gay people want to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital. There are some sentimental considerations: Some gay people, just like some straight people, grow up dreaming of their wedding day. There are some moral considerations: Gay people don’t want to feel like second class citizens. There are some financial considerations: Gay people want to get survivors benefits and be able to access their partner’s health insurance, not to mention tax incentives.

“What would happen if ALL couples were dismissed from the governments requirement to legalize the union?”

I think I already answered this quesiton.

“Is the legal union and legal contract?”

This question is incoherent.

“To what extent is society ready to deal with the other groups who will step forward for marriage recognition?”

I assume this is the polygamy red herring. Polygamy is easily distinguishable from same sex marriage. For one, polygamy is a belief system, not a human characteristic. For another, polygamy, like prostitution, is closely intertwined with the exploitation of women. The last thing I’ll say on this subject is that fifty years ago, the supporters of anti-miscegenation laws made the same arguments about polygamy and incest. It was a stupid argument then and its a stupid argument now. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

“ARE there, factually, gay people who have the ability to CHOOSE to be gay, and what does that do to the “sanctity” of marriage?”

The “sanctity” of marriage is irrelevant because we’re talking about civil marriage and not religious marriage.

The other half of your argument, that it can be proven (by looking to hollywood) that being gay can sometimes be a choice, is dubious and irrelevant even if true. For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that you are right and some people chose to be gay. That does not prove anything. Some people choose to have red hair. Other people, myself included, have red hair through no choice of their own. It would be absurd to suggest that I chose to have red hair just because some hollywood celebrity dyed their hair red.

By this logic, sterile couples should not be allowed to marry. Nor should elderly couples. You really think a couple of 70 year old people should not be allowed to marry?

Polygamy, by the way, is certainly not banned because it doesn’t “further the human race”. To the contrary, polygamous marriages tend to lead to a lot of children.

Is it NOT a fact that there are many gay people who chose to be gay? I think we have seen some in the movie star arena, for example. So, if it can be factually proven that homosexuality CAN be a chose…and there is factually NO genetic mutation that makes someone become gay, from birth, wouldn’t the obvious factual conclusion be that homosexuality is a choice?

We can pinpoint genes for many things, except homosexuality. We can pinpoint specific instances where people who were once straight became gay, and visa versa…are you following me?

But, regardless of the choice aspect, you failed to comment on any of the questions I posed. Gay marriage is being sought, and excused, for all of the wrong reasons. But, in the end, it will likely prevail because we live in a society that does not value family, structure, nature or morality.

The ban on marrying first cousins is far from universal, even in the United States.