Gay Marriage

[Will-Mun]

Okay... lets just get this one out of the way... It's a 'big issue' (pft, it's barely an issue at all). So lets see how you weigh in!

Gay Marriage, should it be legal? Should it be outlawed? Should it be called Civil Union instead?


My opinion? Anything else besides Marriage is insulting to a couple, and seems to be establishing that a gay couple is lesser than that of a straight couple.

Marriage is not a sacred thing. Marriage is a contract between two people and the government. By becoming married the couple will help to stimulate the economy, in return for making it easier to live together and make a family.

This is, down to the bone, a religious argument. And therefore already lost. Church has no place dictating what happens between the state and it's people. But... I'm a fair man.

Anyone here who does NOT believe gay marriage should be legal (I doubt theres many here.) Give me one reason that is not based on religious belief. One reason why gay marriage should not be allowed that has nothing to do with that near two thousand year old book... Or ANY really really old book.

There ya go. The challenge is set! But... Go on and just leave your opinions if you agree with me. :D

[AFPheonix]

I never did understand the justification that gay marriage is bad because it "threatens traditional marriage". It takes nothing away from marriages between a man and a woman. I'm more than happy to let gays marry, tweak about the "perfect wedding", bicker, and divorce like everyone else ;)

The only thing I can think of is that they think it somehow dilutes the concept of marriage to have more than one set of genders marrying. But the definition of marriage has changed so much over the centuries, including ceremonial marriages to inanimate objects to polygamy, that it frankly shouldn't matter in my opinion.

Part of me just thinks some people are just freaked out about butt secks or something.

On a related note: http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/
I find it very interesting that sexual orientation is associated with a higher rate of certain morphologies. Take THAT, Straight to Jesus crazies!

[MadMike]

I think this might have come up once before, and I'll say it again: If gay people want to be miserable like the rest of us married people, let 'em. ;)

But seriously, the other poster's comment that marriage has changed over time caught my eye. I'm in an interracial marriage myself, and in the not too distance past, even that would have been illegal.

[Greenday]

I think this might have come up once before, and I'll say it again: If gay people want to be miserable like the rest of us married people, let 'em. ;)

Damn, that's what I've been saying all along!

I have never been in a discussion where I was part of the minority dealing with gay marriage. In my sociology 101 class, we were talking about gay marriage. My teacher and I seemed to be the only ones willing to argue for it. The main argument against it? "My religion says it's wrong." So even though it has NOTHING to do with them, they still want to deny other people their rights to be together.

[Boozy]

The main argument against it? "My religion says it's wrong."

You can't argue with that. When religion is brought into a discussion, all reason-based argument ceases. When someone is basing their argument on what someone or something else told them, they've stopped thinking critically.

There's no acceptable reason why homosexuality should be considered wrong or antithetical to the common good in this age of overpopulation and assisted reproduction. There's no reason why gays shouldn't be able to enter into what is essentially a business contract with themselves and the government should they desire to do so. Of course, no church should be forced to participate.

The gay marriage debate is about the separation of church and state. There's a vocal and misguided group of citizens who believe that America was founded by Christians (not true) based on Christian principles (also not true). They're the ones driving this debate...I suspect that the majority of Americans would prefer to live and let live and get the government the hell out of their bedrooms.

[Greenday]

About 10 minutes from me, a female couple is trying to sue the town because the town will not let them get married in that town. Now, normally I'd agree with them, but this town is extremely small and is owned by a religious organization. So since it's technically private property, I can't exactly agree with the couple for trying to get the town in trouble.

http://www.stephenhyland.com/2007/06/ocean_grove_mar.html

[k386trl]

I live in the only state in the US that has completely legalized gay marriage. Our state government has even made sure that this issue will not hit the ballots since they feel it is a right, just like a straight couple has the right to marry. I must say I have not noticed a difference since it became legal, haven't seen more gay couples, our divorce courts are not flooded, most people don't notice. I personally think its great.

The only issue seems to be the very religious people who write in to the newspaper every day and tell us we're all going to hell because of this and it's an insult to them and protest at the courthouse. I don't understand why they care? It doesn't hurt them any.

One of my coworkers told me the other day that "That's why there aren't many whites anymore, they're killing themselves off and all becoming gay" (he's black) He says the only gays are whites and that our schools here in MA are trying to teach his children to be gay before their old enough to know better. (The schools read books that involve children with 2 mommies or divorced parents to introduce kids to different family type, try to reduce the amount of hatred and teasing) I personally think he's a bit paranoid :) I've seen some ridiculous stuff come out of the gay marriage debate, and almost none of it is from the people it directly involves :)

[AFPheonix]

The church owns the land the people live on? I don't think I'd dig that.

I don't know. It sounds like the church is letting other people get married there with no issue. Substitute the word "black" in that story and see how it looks now.

[rahmota]

Yeah thats definately not a good thing there. What other sort of cult like activities goes on within that place I wonder.

[Greenday]

The town is owned by a Protestant group, so it's not like it is extremely strict with everything. There have never been any problems with the church and the people who live there, even for the non-Christians. I agree that it's kinda stupid, but since it's privately owned land, they can choose what can and can't be done on it.

[Rapscallion]

I don't have any problem with gay marriage. I also don't have any problem with some religious institutions saying it's wrong - that's the job of religion (to tell people how to live).

I'd have a problem if a gay couple insisted that they should be able to marry in a church that forbade gay marriage.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

And that's precisely what that particular couple's point was. They wanted to get married in what is pretty much a public place, not in the church.

[Will-Mun]

Again it seems everyones in agreement. Figured as much, and maybe it doesn't need to be said as people were just throwing it out as their opinion, but of course Churches would have EVERY right to refuse to marry someone.

Hell, most churches are just a ceremony. I mean you're technically married the in the court house when you sign your marriage license. And there are plenty of people who can marry you besides your holy man of choice.

If I owned a boat I could marry you. :D

But of course, no Church should ever be required to marry anyone they do not wish to. As that would be the STATE stepping into CHURCH, which is just as wrong. But there are plenty of Churches of both Christian and alternate religions that have no problem with marrying two dudes, or a couple of chicks. :p

But man... Nobody here against it? Not ONE person can come up with a reason that has nothing to do with religious beliefs?

So why the hell isn't it legal? :rolleyes:

[Greenday]

Because the majority of the country blindly follows their religion and their religions say it's wrong because that's how it's always been. And, since the government uses religion as a way to control the people, it will use religion as an excuse to achieve its goals. In this current government, they don't want gay marriage so they play on the fact that many religions ban homosexuality.

[AFPheonix]

I was amazed that a gay marriage ban passed here in Oregon of all places. I thought for sure that the state of hippy love and hairy toes would be able to rally a stand for equal rights for all, but apparently not.

[Will-Mun]

Well Jersey has the Civil Union passed, one of I think now only 4 states to have it, (I think it's still in the process of being passed in many states where it's not specifically banned, while other states have 'Domestic Partnership'). Honestly, it's a smoke screen. I think it should just be called marriage. But I am glad I am in a state that is, at least in part, half intelligent.

[AFPheonix]

Well....except that if the couple leaves NJ, they are no longer spouses, but strangers under the law, and the rights they gained as a couple are gone.
So here's to hoping no one gets injured while out of the state, because the other will not be able to see or be able to make decisions in the first's stead.

Oregon just passed a domestic partnership bill a few months ago, to become active next year. Conservatives are already sending out their petitioners to get signatures to see if they can put the new measures to a ballot.
If that happens, I guess I'll be cancelling out my mom's vote again.....sigh....

[Puckishone]

I'm a little surprised no one's advanced this argument in favor of gay marriage: the additional revenue for states and municipalities. Say a marriage license is $50, and your state requires a blood test (another $50 or so), and the couple in question want a big, splashy wedding at a posh spot (anywhere from $5000 on up into the freakin' stratosphere)...the possibilities are as endless as any given couple's desire to spend.

By the way, the legal basis for denial of same-sex marriage is the federal Defense of Marriage Act, legally defining marriage as an act entered into by a man and a woman...signed into law in the 1990s by President Blowjob. Every time we rail against the religious nature of the current Administration's policies, I invite everyone to recall that fact -- it's all over the place, my friends.

Washington (State, my home) just passed legislation allowing same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples over 62 years of age to register with the state as domestic partners (at $50 a pop...ka-ching!!). While this isn't marriage, it does allow them certain rights that married couples would have (such as power of attorney and similar legal rights). It's a start, but in a state that most people think is just a shade less hairy-toed than Oregon, we should have made more progress by now.

Just think: Canada, Spain and South Africa are all more progressive than we are on this issue. :rolleyes:

[protege]

By the way, the legal basis for denial of same-sex marriage is the federal Defense of Marriage Act, legally defining marriage as an act entered into by a man and a woman...signed into law in the 1990s by President Blowjob. Every time we rail against the religious nature of the current Administration's policies, I invite everyone to recall that fact -- it's all over the place, my friends.

I find that humorous--the Act was signed into law...by the very same president who seemed hell-bent on destroying his own marriage. Anyone see the hypocrisy there?

While we're on the topic of insurance, suppose gay marriage did become legal. I have a feeling that we'd see a drop in the number of people without health insurance and other benefits.

[powerboy]

To me, it doesn't matter if you are gay. If you want to get married, then more power to you. I am not against gay people.

[CancelMyService]

I think it should be allowed by law, and if individual churches don't want to conduct gay marriages, then that's their choice. People talk about slippery slopes all the time, but once we start making laws stating who we can and can't marry, that can lead to all sorts of things no one of any political persuasion wants to see.

Along those lines, why is it that the traditional conservative viewpoint of keeping government out of people's personal lives doesn't seem to apply to their favorite wedge issues? To me it just exposes the bigoted and hypocritical stand on these issues when it goes against everything they supposedly stand for in other matters.

[blas87]

There are too many horrible problems going on in this world, too many to even list...

and yet all these right wing nutjobs care about is bashing gay people, trying to make it impossible for them to get married, doing everything in their power to prove that they are going to Hell........

It's ridiculous. Let's forget about destroying gay people's rights and focus on real problems. They deserve the same rights as everyone else.

[rahmota]

Well that is one reason why they are called HUMAN rights. As they shold aply to all humans. Too bad too many of the christian fundies dont see homosexuals as people.

Here is a site that has a good argument for homosexual marriage that I've borrowed or referenced quite a few times in the past.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Very intelligent and rational.

Puck: The DOMA was created and pushed throug by a republican ruled congress. While Clinton did not oppose it and does oppose homosexual marriage the act itself was not his invention. That is one of the thigns I do not agree with or like about Clinton though.

About the Act itself though. Since the SCOTUS is conservative based they ahve refused to hear any of the arguments about how unconstitutional the DOMA is. 1:it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
2: Discriminates againt people violating the Equal Protection Clause
3: and prohibits the Due Process Clause.

Among other things.

[Kara_CS]

Took me awhile to find this one, I don't do much Fratching.

It's probably pretty obvious where I stand on this issue. I'm fortunate enough to work for a massive corporation that offers "domestic partner" insurance. Sure, marriage is just the government recognizing the union of two people (well, basically). As was previously mentioned, it's not such a sacred thing, at least, not anymore. But why should anyone be denied the right to marry the person they love, no matter who that person is? To have concrete proof that you have committed yourself to one person for the rest of your life (at least, if you believe in true love and fidelity, which most married couples do not).

What strikes me the most contradictory of this entire fracas of an issue is that it always comes down to "God says it's wrong." These are the same people who expel students who have a Bible in school. The same people who are offended by the line "One Nation, Under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance. The same people who get up in arms about the "Separation of Church and State," which is THE most misunderstood line in the entire bloody Constitution (and the subject of a separate topic altogether). But when it comes to gay marriage or gay rights, everyone uses religion to fight it.

I'm religious. I'm not Wiccan, or a Satanist, or a Scientologist, or Klingon. I'm a Christian. I go to church with the aldulterers, child abusers, alchoholics, liars, wife-beaters, drug addicts, thieves, swindlers, gossipers, maybe even murderers (the BTK serial killer was president of his church congregation after all). But we're all there for the same thing, except those who go because they feel obligated to. God turns away no one from His house. What these people who declare that "God hates fags," and that gay marriage is a violation of God's law don't understand is that God IS love. Without Him, love cannot exist. The only thing in the entire Bible that it states God despises is sin, and all sin is equal. And he forgives all through love.

Knowing this, how can anyone who uses religion as a weapon of hate proclaim that love is wrong and should be denied?

I'll shut up now.

[Seshat]

I was part of a long debate on a mailing list over this issue - and the debate ended when we realised we were ultimately in agreement on the practicalities, and it was a wording problem.

The religious people saw 'marriage' and 'wedding' as words for a religious ceremony, and didn't care if the gay people attained the civil rights associated with marriage. They just didn't want the words 'marriage' and 'wedding' being hijacked for something that offended their beliefs.

The gay people in this particular discussion just wanted the civil rights, and didn't want to barge into religious institutions where they weren't wanted. They were using the words 'marriage' and 'wedding' because those are the current words for the legal arrangement under debate.

Once everyone understood that, both sides sheepishly apologised for having gotten so angry and heated about the discussion, and were all friends again. It was almost funny.

Obviously, this particular mailing list didn't include any of the religious people who are offended by the whole idea of homosexuals having permanent loving relationships; and our gay people who wanted a religious blessing for their relationship were of the 'I'll have it in a church that welcomes me, thanks' attitude.

Ever since then, I've told this little story to everyone who's tried to get me into a 'gay marriage debate', and it's pretty much shut the debate down. :D
Noone ever seems to want to argue that gay couples shouldn't have rights like being next-of-kin to their partner. At least, not in front of me. It's almost disappointing. :(

[squall]

As a conservative, I know my beliefs aren't all that popular on fratching sometimes. The previous poster basically summed up my beliefs on the gay marriage issue. I agree with gay "civil unions". By the way, I am not a Chrisitian, so there is no way I can be a fundie. I'm pretty much atheist, but at the same time conservative....I cling to values from an earlier time (even though I'm 25). Marriage to me is between man and woman only. If they change the definition of a same sex union to a "union" or some other word, then I am totally in agreement...but I know people will disagree with me because they don't see it as equal. It's just the way I feel, I can't really think of a good reason for justifying my belief....it just seems right to me, and it may date back to a time when I was being instilled with Christian beliefs from grandparents and such. And I don't believe gay people suffer eternal damnation or any such thing. I know I probably sound hypocritical, but my beliefs are just hard-wired into me.

[Rapscallion]

As a conservative, I know my beliefs aren't all that popular on fratching sometimes.

You still have views. As long as they don't break the UK's laws on hate speech, you're welcome to voice them.

I do find part of what you say disturbing, though. One system for us, one system for them - same but equal, right? That was used as a battlecry during the apartheid regime that finally fell when Rosa Parks declined to sit in the back of the bus.

What interests me is that you say marriage should be between man and woman only. Please, define marriage, but not just in those terms.

Raspcallion

[Boozy]

It's just the way I feel, I can't really think of a good reason for justifying my belief....it just seems right to me, and it may date back to a time when I was being instilled with Christian beliefs from grandparents and such....I know I probably sound hypocritical, but my beliefs are just hard-wired into me.

You don't sound hypocritical...just unquestioning.

Why should your beliefs be hard-wired? You said yourself that you can't think of a good reason for justifying your beliefs. Is it because you haven't given this particular issue much thought? Why believe what your parents or grandparents have told you? You have a mind of your own!

(PS - Please know that your views are VERY welcome here. How boring this forum would be if we all agreed on everything! :))

[Will-Mun]

Yes, very welcome...Without opposing views there's nothing really to debate, and then it's just us loony liberals telling each other how right we all are...

But I do have to question why you hold Marriage as between a man and a woman. You say you're an atheist (or pretty much one as you said) but still want to keep gays from saying their married.

Christians say that want Marriage between a man and a woman because homosexuality is a slight against their god, and marriage is a ceremony binding two people before god, therefor they cannot accept that type of marriage...

We've also discussed why thats besides the point all together as religion has no place is American politics and law.

But you don't want to allow homosexual couples to be married out of sheer routine? Simply because it's traditional? It was tradition for a wife to come with a dowry only a couple hundred years ago...

I don't wanna be condescending, but it seems to me you're clinging onto baseless beliefs...

[rahmota]

Squall: Like I told ya before I'm glad to have your POV here. It would get rather boring if everyone was just sitting around monolouging at each other and patting us on the back for being so cool.

Although I do agree with Wil-Mun. Is a rose by any other name not still a rose? If you dont call between two homosexual marriage then that still seperates and can be used to demean people. Oh you've just got a civil union (words dripping with scorn) while we have a real marriage! (Said snobbily) So thats one reason right there why we need to use one title or name. Seperate but equal was found a long time ago to be very seperate and definately not equal. So either legally define everythig as a marriage or a civil union. But none of this you have a marriage you have a civil union you have a domestic partnership etc... stuff. And besides its not what you call it or what the piece of paper says but what the people involved in the relationship do and feel that makes it special or not.

You know there are a lot of traditions that fall by the way because they no longer serve a purpose, society has shifted away from the need or desire for those traditions or because people see how limiting and restrictive those traditions are. To keep doign somethign merely because it is tradition in the face of any reasonable reasoning (which by your own hand you admit) is rather interesting.

I mean in appalchia its traditional to fire off your firearms on new years eve. It used to sound like downtown baghdad every year growing up. Over the years with more people moving in and people discovering just how bad an idea shooting large amounts of lead into the air is (what goes up doth come down) that tradition stopped.

One of my beefs about this is so what if your beliefs are not such that you would allow two homosexuals to have a marriage. What gives a person the right to interfere or deny someone else the free action and pursuit of their life? Two homosexuals getting married does nothign to or against two heterosexuals getting married. Basically if a person levaes them alone and they leave others alone why bother them?

[CancelMyService]

Anyone else really bothered by the whole "lets put it to a vote" idea that gets put forth mainly in states they know it won't pass in? It just seems like rights aren't something that should be voted on.

Lets face it, if civil rights were put to the states to decide in the 60s it would have never happened. As long as you have states willing to pass laws blatantly discriminating against a group of people and no one is willing to call it unconstitutional, you have to set laws on a federal level. Of course that has no chance of happening until 2008 (I hope).

[Nightwolf]

I've been in many debates over the issue. I for one am not against it, and share most of the ideas spoken, especially the one Mad Mike pointed out. I've known many homosexual/lesbian couples and am not the least bit frazzled when around them. I know who I am, and which sex I prefer, as do they. So we can have fun and goof off, pat each other on the back, hug, whatever, and there is no akwardness. I say if they want to get married, more power to them.

What drives me nuts is when people have a problem with homosexuality as a whole because it, the sexual acts between two men disgusts them (but of course, they have no issues with two women, that they consider hot :rolleyes:), and they use that to drive their point. They don't care about two human beings that have a love for one another. They only see the sexual acts that they themselves wouldn't do, therefor in their mind, it HAS to be wrong and not allowed.

Then you always have the people, desperate to win the argument, that cry out...."what about overage men/women who want to marry an underage boy/girl, ya know, pedephilia. If we allow gay marriage, we can't shut the door to that, and where does it end?" This is usually where I slap my forehead and tell them i'm done talking to them as now they're just grasping at staws to win the debate.

Like I said, I'm fine with the whole thing, but i've been amazed at the amount of people i've met that are against it just because they are put off by the homosexual acts.

[CancelMyService]

It's kind of sad, my mom is that kind of person. She's very open minded for someone in her age group (mid 60s), she's all for civil unions or whatever you want to call a partnership but she's dead set against calling it a marriage. When pressed for a reason why, it pretty much boils down to her finding gay sex to be icky.

I mean, that's all well and good (it's not everyone's cup of tea) but you can't hand out rights based on your comfort level.

[Will-Mun]

Then you always have the people, desperate to win the argument, that cry out...."what about overage men/women who want to marry an underage boy/girl, ya know, pedephilia. If we allow gay marriage, we can't shut the door to that, and where does it end?" This is usually where I slap my forehead and tell them i'm done talking to them as now they're just grasping at staws to win the debate.

Noooo. What they're doing is trying to imply there's a link between Homosexuality and Pedophilia... Which is just so disgustingly WRONG. When people say there's a link between Homosexuality and Pedophilia, thats when I want to start punching people.

You wanna feel icky about man man love? Whatever, you don't understand that kind of attraction, thats you're right. You're religion say it's a sin on the level of Murder... Ignorance is bliss? Whatever, I can't touch you on that, thats your faith...

But when you slander an entire people to try and get US open minded folks to try and be disgusted by the act, well thats just deplorable...

But okay...Lets go onto the argument... If we allow gay people to marry, when will it end, Pedophile marriages? Animal Marriages? Necrophiliac Marriages?!

Let me ask a question... Are ANY of those partners a legal adult authorized to sign a Marriage license? NO!

My god, when you get married you sign a marriage license... Which is like a contract, and to sign a contract you have to be a Legal Consenting Adult.

[Seshat]

Noooo. What they're doing is trying to imply there's a link between Homosexuality and Pedophilia...
<snip>
Which is like a contract, and to sign a contract you have to be a Legal Consenting Adult.

That's when I stop them, and say 'I'm talking about actions that involve informed consent. A child can't give informed consent - she can't understand.'

And yes, if I can remember to, I use 'she'. They almost always call me on it, and I 'remind' them that the majority of pedophilia is between adult males and child females.

But then, I can be a sneaky bitch. :p

[squall]

And yes, if I can remember to, I use 'she'. They almost always call me on it, and I 'remind' them that the majority of pedophilia is between adult males and child females.

But then, I can be a sneaky bitch. :p

Yeah, not always the case though. Remember Mary Kay Letourneau? There have been ALOT of reports on the news lately of female teachers, ones usually in their 20's, who have sex with their male students. There was one in my state where the husband of the teacher killed the 18 year old student. Sometimes these teachers are separated in age from their students as little as 4-6 years, but it is not always the case. Remember the beauty queen who molested a 12 year-old? Why are these teachers always pretty?

Perhaps the government should not have 'moral intervention' into gay marriage. Not to draw comparisons, but I worry that passing gay marriage might open up a can of worms regarding other more....unsavory types of marriage. Like cousins, brothers, sisters, whatever. It is neither more nor less natural to have sex with your sister. So who says law should limit incestual marriage, between consenting adults no less? Well assume you pass gay marriage into law, what's stopping the government from passing other types of marriages previously deemed 'immoral' or 'icky'? You'll bring up the fact that they produce children with birth defects, well gay people have a higher spread rate of HIV, AIDS, than intravenous drug users. If the government no longer can intervene in gay marriage, then just what can they intervene in? Maybe the government should just stay out of lives completely......when pigs fly right? The government will always be making or forcing you to do something against your will, whether it's jury duty or 'interfering' with your fun when you want to smoke a doobie.

For the record, I do not condone incestual relations, there is probably not a word in the left wing vocabulary that can be politically correct and describe how morally wrong it is to most of us. And I am not saying I totally oppose gay marriage.....but where should freedom end and intervention begin?

[Boozy]

Perhaps the government should not have 'moral intervention' into gay marriage. Not to draw comparisons, but I worry that passing gay marriage might open up a can of worms regarding other more....unsavory types of marriage. Like cousins, brothers, sisters, whatever.

The slippery slope argument does not apply here. There are currently laws against incestuous marriage that would need to be individually repealed in order for that to happen.

I also fail to see the comparison between marrying your same-sex partner and marrying your sister or an animal. Its frankly degrading to homosexuals to imply that there is even a comparison to be made.

[Will-Mun]

You'll bring up the fact that they produce children with birth defects, well gay people have a higher spread rate of HIV, AIDS, than intravenous drug users.

Which is completely and utterly FALSE. Homosexual sex does NOT spread AIDS or HIV any faster that straight sex does. The reason, and I don't wanna get into the dirty details, is that the anal tract is much more easily torn than the vaginal tract... But it is JUST as easy for a straight couple to get AIDs and HIV, and JUST as easy for homosexuals to PREVENT it with the use of safe sex.

You are again just sliding the argument sideways, and now you're doing what I mentioned in my last post, lumping homosexuality with something that is universally accepted as immoral and wrong.

Sex between a Brother and a Sister, Father Daughter, Son Mother, and spawning off to about the third cousin will have a HIGH chance of mental or physical defects in ant children because it is the SAME family DNA being used to create the child. This is dangerous for the child, and therefor it is illegal in most states.

Even WITH your argument, that is false, the choice to have the dangers of STDs is the PERSON'S to make. The reason incestuous relationships are frowned upon is because the child that will be defected did not choose to risk defect. Any time ANYONE sticks a part of their body into another's? They're willingly making a choice to risk it...

*EDIT* Er whoops, well, still false. Sharing a Needle is probably one of the more easier ways to get HIV and AIDS.

For the record, I do not condone incestual relations, there is probably not a word in the left wing vocabulary that can be politically correct and describe how morally wrong it is to most of us. And I am not saying I totally oppose gay marriage.....but where should freedom end and intervention begin?

When it doesn't stomp on civil liberties for RELIGIOUS reasons. When intervention PROTECTS the people not simply panders to a CERTAIN people. Thats when.

[AFPheonix]

Yeah, not always the case though. Remember Mary Kay Letourneau? There have been ALOT of reports on the news lately of female teachers, ones usually in their 20's, who have sex with their male students.
She did not discount that female on male abuse doesn't happen. She said that a MAJORITY of abuse is older male on younger female. Majority != entirety.

As for the rest of your post, others have already picked it apart fairly well, except none of them have mentioned that the kissing cousins argument is invalid because if a homosexual couple does have children, it typically is because they adopted said child, or in the case of some lesbian couples, they did the IF route from a sperm bank. They preserved hybrid vigor. Also, as to passing on STDs, the only ones at risk would be the IF babies from lesbians, a group that doesn't have a significantly higher rate of HIV than the rest of the population.

[Rapscallion]

But okay...Lets go onto the argument... If we allow gay people to marry, when will it end, Pedophile marriages? Animal Marriages? Necrophiliac Marriages?!


Till death do us part would be a touch redundant in that last one. In fact, quite a few bits would be.

"Please put the ring on the bride's finger... Oh, the other finger then."

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

Perhaps the government should not have 'moral intervention' into gay marriage. Not to draw comparisons, but I worry that passing gay marriage might open up a can of worms regarding other more....unsavory types of marriage.
<snip>
And I am not saying I totally oppose gay marriage.....but where should freedom end and intervention begin?

As AFPhoenix said, I said 'most'. I did not say 'all'.

I also quote myself: "I'm talking about actions that involve informed consent." A child cannot give informed consent. Nor can an animal, or a corpse.

As for other forms of 'distasteful' relationship that does involve informed consent between adults (presuming the adults are consenting and know the risks they're taking):
* incest: if they ensure that no children can come of it (because of the high risk of deformity): noone's business but their own.
* multi-partner marriage: noone's business but their own.
* gay marriage: noone's business but their own.


Where should intervention begin? When informed consent is not given by all parties involved. Intervention should occur when rape or abuse is present, or where a party involved is unable to give informed consent.

That's clear enough to prevent a slippery slope.




As for the medical argument you put forward: it's true. Unprotected anal sex has the highest risk of spreading blood-borne disease of the penetrative sex acts.

So if preventing people with penises from marrying people with anuses prevents unprotected anal sex, I guess the only people who should be allowed to marry are lesbians.

If that looks ridiculous to you, squall - well, that's what 'gays can't marry because of AIDS' looks like to me.

How about this: let medical matters be dealt with by the medical profession. Let the Centres for Disease Control and the World Health Organisation handle the AIDS issue, without interference from political people.

Distribute condoms. Distribute information about safer sex. Modify the cultures which prohibit women from demanding that their male partners use condoms. Those things work. Preventing gay marriage doesn't.




And now to add one more thing:

Religions, as Rapscallion said in a different thread, have their own rules. If a religion doesn't want to marry any pair (or trio, or quad, or whatever); that's their business. If a religion doesn't want to recognise a marriage, that's their business. 'In the eyes of God' is the business of religions.

The State is separate from the Church, in many places in the world. I believe that the State should do one of two things:
1. Recognise a legal 'family' or 'married' status, in whatever words it wants to use, between any adults who choose to take that status; and also between those adults and any children who are born or adopted into that family group.
2. Not recognise a legal 'family' or 'married' status in anyone.

Either accept a family/married/pick-a-word status for any group of consenting adults who want to make the commitment, or accept it in none. Whether the adults in the family/marriage/whatever have sex with each other - that's between them, their God, potentially their religious community, and their doctor.
All the State needs to know is who's a family for tax purposes, medical power of attorney, and guardianship authority for children. (And probably a few things I've forgotten, but I think you get the idea.)

[Amethyst Hunter]

Without going into too many details, my parents have a 30+-year marriage that came *thisclose* to divorce earlier this year. Suffice to say that a lot of stuff had been building up over the years, and certain events were the catalyst that made them realize they were standing on the edge of a cliff.

I was pretty upset over the whole deal while it was going on, and I honestly thought they were going to go over that edge. I shit you not, if somebody (not that many people knew at the time) had come up to me and said to my face that the reason my parents were divorcing was because of gay people wanting to get married, I would have planted my fist squarely in their face without a second's thought.

Gay people wanting to enjoy the bennies of a legal contract (and spend their lives with the person they love) were not responsible for all the problems my parents had been having and the near-dissolution of their marriage. Lack of communication and respect were what drove my parents to the brink of divorce. (Happily, things are MUCH better between them.)

I think you can guess from that where I stand on that issue.

[king4aday]

ok...so looks like I need to get into fratching more because this is an arguement which affects me personally. Overall, I am very happy to see this discussion happening. I like seeing both viewpoints presented. As for the whole marriage debate, I would just like to see my relationship with my future partner (alas...Im perpetually single :( ) recognized.

I am very lucky that I grew up and lived during the past 30 years because leaps and strides have been made in terms of gay rights, but we still have a long ways to go as a society. Yes Ive been discriminated against (fired for my sexual orientation), yes I have victim to harrassment (hate letters to the editor of the university newspaper, and grafitti on my dorm room door), and other things which escape me at the moment. BUT if being out and proud of who I am helps future generations be comfortable and be accepted for who they are, then all of it is worth it.

Personally, I dont care if I get "married." Its just a freakin word. I just want the right to be able to visit the man I love (when I get my hands on one...) in the hospital. I recently had a friend who went into the hospital due to complications with HIV/AIDS (he has since recovered). His partner was allowed to sit in the waiting room. I also want to be able to get the same tax benefits married couples get. I can't go into all the things that straight couples get that gay couples dont (there are over 2,000) so I will just end by saying that I eventually just want to live with the love of my life in a legally recognized fashion...I honestly could care less what its called.

[DesignFox]

Till death do us part would be a touch redundant in that last one. In fact, quite a few bits would be.

"Please put the ring on the bride's finger... Oh, the other finger then."

Rapscallion

I've been following the argument, but have nothing to add, since I'd just be mooing in agreement with most of you.

But, I can't not respond to this! Raps, you're hysterical. :D

[DexX]

Heya everyone - this is my first fratching.com post!

There is actually a very simple solution to the whole question of same-sex unions, but it isn't one that the fundies like very much.

You ask the fundies, "Is marriage a religious ceremony or a legal procedure?"

If they say, "It's a special religious ceremony!" you reply "Then it should not have any legal significance. If you want to own it, then it should be strictly ceremonial and bestow no legal status."

If they say, "It's a legal procedure!" you reply "Then the government is free to change it and you can't claim religious persecution."

If they say, "BOTH!" you remind them about a fun little thing called the constitutional separation of church and state.

The simplest solution, then, is to give marriage to the religious groups that want to own it, but remove all legal status is confers. At the same time, redefine all marriage legislation and rename legal marriages as "civil unions" or domestic unions" or whatever.

If a person wants to get "properly" married, they have whatever ceremony makes them happy (including none at all) and then apply to the government for recognition of their relationship as a civili union.

Everyone - straight, gay, or otherwise - gets to have a non-binding spiritual (or not) ceremony, call it marriage, handfasting, or whatever, and then a civili union registration with the government.

True equality, and the churches get to keep their precious marriage.

[Rapscallion]

True equality, and the churches get to keep their precious marriage.

The religious groups would never go for it. It means they lose control over people not in their congregations. Otherwise, fine idea.

Rapscallion

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Yes, DexX, I've been saying exactly that for years. problem is both sides are very stick-in-the-mud about it.

I've known liberals who would refuse that solution, because it would 'give' the fundies what they wanted: control of marriage. Many far left liberals refuse to believe that marriage is a religious institution and refuse to grant it that status.

Also, many fundies would then refuse to get the legal civil document, because it's 'no different than what the gay people get'. They would see it as encouraging gay unions. Yet without the legal aspect of it, they cannot get all the legal benefits it grants you, such as better tax rates, right to make medical decisions for your spouse, etc. For this reason, fundies would consider this as depriving them of their rights, and would never go for it.

[Seshat]

The religious groups would never go for it. It means they lose control over people not in their congregations. Otherwise, fine idea.

Rapscallion

Replace 'The religious groups' with 'some religious groups'. Some religious groups are in favour of making a clear distinction between the religious and the secular aspects of marriage; and some are 'meh - whatever' about it.

But yes, those religious groups who are firmly against it, are (or seem to be) against it for the reasons both Raps and PhoneGoddess have just mentioned.

[AFPheonix]

It also kind of reinforces that whole "separate but equal" thing that we already know is not the right answer.

No, have 1 marriage institution, allow gays into it. Those who wish to partake may, others who don't, won't.
I think it's going to have to be one of those things where we have to elect in a president and congress with balls, much like we had in Lyndon Johnson and the congress in '62.

[Seshat]

My preference is to have one legal 'marriage' thing, with any suitable name, which is applied to everyone. And let the churches and other religions do any 'marriage' religious ceremonies and rituals they wish, with the State staying out of it.

Anyone who wishes to be religiously married without being legally married doesn't get the State benefits. Anyone who wants to be legally married without a church wedding doesn't get the religious benefits.

My own wedding was both a legal and religious ceremony - the priest who married us was also legally empowered to do so. His training to become a priest included the celebrant training & authorisation.

Yes, some churches will doubtless be angry about it - but their priests already need, and get, civil authorisation as a celebrant, and wedding rituals already include a short recess while the newlyweds sign the civil papers. At least in Australia. So nothing's changing for them - they've got nothing to be upset about.

[Sylvia727]

I have a question here: suppose, by some twist of fate, that Congress was about pass a bill that would make gay unions completely equal to straight marriages. Literally, every single right and priviledge outlined as identical. However, you can only get this bill passed if you appease the right wing fundies by stipulating that gay unions are called 'unions' not 'marriages'. Would that matter to you? Would you hold out for the name?

Personally, I agree with Seshat (except for polyamorous marriages; I only recently was exposed to this concept and have not yet worked out my opinions on the matter). The government has already decided that 'separate yet equal' is not equal. It's just dragging its feet over the gay issue, and as long as fanatics express themselves by graffiting a dorm room door (or beating someone to death), then they will continue to delay.

[AFPheonix]

My only concern with making a distinction on the nomenclature is that could potentially open the door for groups to lawyer their way into chipping away at gay marriage.

No, it's going to be one of those things where the federal government is going to have to take a giant shit on the people who are homophobic, much like they had to at the beginning of the Civil Rights movement.

[Seshat]

I wouldn't hold out for the name: but I think I'd request that ALL civil marriages, by whatever name, be called by the same name. Thus, the civil side of marriages (heterosexual, homosexual, whatever) would be 'unions', and the religious side can keep the name 'marriage'.

Also, I'd expect that anyone who entered a civil marriage/union/whatever would be required to be an adult giving informed consent. No children, no intellectually undeveloped adults (unless an independent psychiatric assessment showed them capable of understanding), no corpses, no animals.

I don't permit a slippery slope, I just also don't see how gay (or poly) marriages are a bystander's business.

(Note: polygamy has a bad name in some places, but my understanding is that in many of those cases, children or young adults are married either without being consulted, or after a great deal of social and familial pressure to marry as they're told to. I do not approve of that sort of polygamy - only polygamy where adults truly, freely desire the bond.)

[AFPheonix]

That's really the true definition of marriage: a bond between 2 (or possibly more) consenting adults.
I would be really ok with that.

And that's why I don't buy the whole slippery slope argument about letting gays marry, thinking it will lead to bestiality or whatever nasty things these supposedly conservative people think about. Animals and children cannot legally consent.

[Sylvia727]

I've had the 'slippery slope' argument explained to me as "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman; they're changing it to just say 'two adults'; what if they change it further?" The people who use this argument really do believe that this would be a world-ending change from the current norm.

Personally, I think that if you honestly don't see the difference between having sex with another man and having sex with a goat or having sex with your sister than I'm gonna need to see your STD results before we hop in the sack :D

[AFPheonix]

Oh, I've heard it too. Hell, my mom tried to get me to sign up to some such petition when the gay marriage law was going around our state. Hells no.

We did just start a domestic partnership thing today though. There are quite a few people's panties in bunches because they tried to petition to get it on the ballot (I'm assuming to knock it down) and failed. Ha and ha.

[Seshat]

I've had the 'slippery slope' argument explained to me as "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman; they're changing it to just say 'two adults'; what if they change it further?"

I would say 'common sense and decency', but I guess that's their argument too. :p

[Sylvia727]

Common sense isn't.

And my university now has a domestic partnership benefits program, thanks in large part to petitions and picketing by our Gay-Straight Alliance. I think a lot of companies and organizations are moving towards that because it falls under 'take care of your employees'. However, my college's city itself does not refer to sexual orientation as a protected status along with race, gender, and disability. So if your landlord or your boss finds out and screws you over, well, sucks to be you!

[DexX]

I'm a bisexual polyamorist, myself, and while I would love to be just as legally married to my boyfriend as I am to my wife of twelve years, I know it isn't a fight that will be won any time soon. Most poly people I know, including myself, have made the conscious decision to simply not pursue the idea of legal multiple marriages (three-plus people). The same-sex marriage movement has done a lot of good work against very tough odds, and adding another fundie-terrifying issue will just make their job even harder.

So, let the gay guys, lesbians, and monogamous bisexuals have their same-sex marriage for now, and we poly people can launch a fight for our marriage rights as a whole separate issue somewhere down the road (maybe when we reach a convenient slippery slope... *evil grin*).

[Seshat]

In my ideal world, the law wouldn't care who you had sex with*, only who you deemed your closest family to be.

(* as long as they were an informed, consenting adult)

Thus, an adult son caring for his aging mother could declare (with her approval, of course) that the two of them were a 'closest family' or a 'household' or whatever term got used. They could then be automatically medical next of kin, their default wills (if they didn't write one) would pass their property to the other, they'd have visiting rights in intensive care in hospital, his medical insurance would cover her - all the stuff we presume nowadays for legal spouses, but without the sex.

(Do I need to mention that family creation should be between informed, consenting adults, with parents/guardians deciding for children, with increasing consultation as the child grows?)

There are only three reasons the community should care who anyone has sex with. Children's rights, medical contagion, and religion.

Children's rights are important, and if we do the radical overhaul of civil family-creation that I would love to see, we'd have to do a lot of thinking about children's rights. My vote is for the children's genetic parents to be the default parents, but for contractual variation to be permitted (for adoption, gamete donation, intentionally 'being stud' for a different family unit, intentionally carrying a child for a different family unit, and so on).

But since my radical overhaul isn't likely to happen, I haven't gone deeply into the children's rights thing. :)

Medical contagion is a medical issue, I believe the law should largely stay out of it, limited only by medical necessity. Which is a tough ethical thing, but there's a whole body of medico-legal ethic research available at your nearest comprehensive library.

Religion? Well, that's none of the State's business. The State makes legal family unit creation possible, and leaves the form of the family unit to society and religion to decide.


Well, in my ideal world. :rolleyes:

[Saydrah]

I don't see what the big fuss over gay marriage is :confused:

I think ALL marriages should be gay! :D

If the USA was 200% more British, they'd all agree with me....


Being serious though, I think it's inexcusable that gay marriage is still not legal in our country. I mean, who the HELL thinks heterosexuals are doing a great job of preserving the fine old institution of marriage? Raise your hands! 50% divorce rate going once, going twice? Anyone?

As Mae West said, "Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not quite ready for an institution."

I'm all for the "marriage is a union between two or more consenting adults," and would be even if I weren't a bisexual, polyamorous chickie myself.

[Sylvia727]

I think the USA is slowly and surely moving towards gay marriage. Several states have 'civil unions', corporations are factoring domestic partnerships into their decisions, and more and more people are becoming educated about the issues. It's really just a matter of time.

[AFPheonix]

I'm hoping within a generation that it will become a reality.
It still pisses me off that even in a state as liberal as Oregon, idiots managed to get a gay marriage ban passed. We have a domestic partnership law that was just enacted, but the same idiots who campaigned on the gay marriage thing are trying to bring the domestic partnership law to account via the initiative process. Just leave them alone, you fuckers.

[DexX]

...even if I weren't a bisexual, polyamorous chickie myself.
Another one! Hooray! We will take over the universe. Robert Heinlein* said so. ;)

Seriously, though, the human race is slowly, ever so slowly, moving toward more acceptance and open-mindedness. Same-sex marriage is only a matter of time.

* Actually, to be honest, I've never read any Heinlein. What kind of poly man am I anyway?

[Saydrah]

I cut my teeth on Heinlein. My dad read him to me for bedtime stories. Maybe that's why I turned out poly :D

*high fives* There's another of us on the main CS site, too. Woot! Our numbers continue to grow!

And yes, I totally agree about society's gradual march toward openmindedness. I feel very glad to be born in this generation and era- I hear so many stories about how hard it was to come out as GBLTQ or poly, mostly from older people, and I have never really had trouble with it, beyond the many people who don't understand that poly =/= easy/trashy. It was more of a "Oh, that's something people can be? So that's why I'm never jealous and don't understand the idea of monogamy..." and similarly with the bi thing, it wasn't so much soul searching and a momentous revelation as, "Hm. I just woke up with my best female friend. I think that makes me bi. I should probably tell my boyfriend."

Even my parents have been quite accepting- Pops figured it out on his own somehow, and my mother was just a little confused as to why anyone would want to deal with more than one man at a time.

Given that 30-some years ago homosexuality was still a "mental illness," I'm hoping that by the time my niece/surrogate daughter since I don't want kids (7 at the moment) has to figure these things out, she'll be able to dream all about her legal and legitimate wedding to one or more people of whichever gender she darn well prefers, and nobody except a few crazies will be bothered.

[DexX]

I have asked my boyfriend to marry me, and he's said yes, so now we just have to wait for the legislation to catch up!

Legally recognised plural marriage is going to be a much more complicated issue than same-sex marriage, though. Two queers want to marry, then the state just has to say okay and the old model gets renovated to accommodate same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. Get more than two people involved, though, and everything has to be reassessed from the fundamentals. You're no longer talking about one legal spouse, but the possibility of several. Whole swathes of legislation would have to be rewritten. Old simple things like "If the account-holder should die, 100% of the account shall pass to their legal spouse" suddenly get complicated: Both spouses? Two account holders, or two halved accounts? And so it goes.

About the only way I can see it working legally is forming some kind of "domestic corporate body" (sounds romantic, I know) which would essentially be a legal body of two or more people which members can "sign into". Essentially, it would be a single "traditional" marriage but with three or more people.

It wouldn't be perfect, of course - I mean, I'm legally married, and so is my boyfriend, so there are already two "compounded legal entities" in existence. Short of divorce, the only way I could marry my man would be for all four of us to be married under the same agreement, despite the fact that my wife and his wife are friends but not romantically involved.

Reading back over this, it really puts paid to the "slippery slope" argument. Maybe legal plural marriages will come in the next few decades, or maybe they won't, but they definitely won't follow hot on the heels of same-sex marriage - they are very different set-ups, and both face their own unique legislative challenges.

[BookstoreEscapee]

OK, I realize I’m reiterating some old ground here, but I just came into this thread (well, the whole site, really) and I don’t often get the chance to really formulate my opinions into words, so, well, I’m gonna do it now :D


So here's to hoping no one gets injured while out of the state, because the other will not be able to see or be able to make decisions in the first's stead.


I suppose each partner could set up a medical power of attorney for the other in the event of injury/illness...it's unfortunate that they should have to go to extra lengths just to ensure rights that married couples get just by saying "I do" though.

I find that humorous--the Act was signed into law...by the very same president who seemed hell-bent on destroying his own marriage. Anyone see the hypocrisy there?

But he was trying to destroy it with another WOMAN, so it's OK...:rolleyes:

If they change the definition of a same sex union to a "union" or some other word, then I am totally in agreement...but I know people will disagree with me because they don't see it as equal.

I see your point, but you're right, I do disagree. For one thing, it's just a word. Why does the church or anyone else get to "own" it? Also, using phrases such as "Civil Union" sets the gay couple's relationship apart as something different. They want to be married because they are two people who love each other and want to spend their life together. How is that different from a heterosexual couple getting married? Most straight people don't think of getting married in terms of the social/financial/etc. benefits they will gain by doing so...they think of it in the romantic terms of "we are two people who love each other and want to spend our life together so we are getting married." Why should a committed gay couple be portrayed as something different?

Yes, very welcome...Without opposing views there's nothing really to debate, and then it's just us loony liberals telling each other how right we all are...

Will-Mun, you are so right! ;)


You wanna feel icky about man man love? Whatever, you don't understand that kind of attraction, thats you're right.

By that logic:
Hell, I see a lot of women with guys who I would never in a million years be attracted to. I don't understand that attraction, either. Do I get to deny them marriage rights too?


But okay...Lets go onto the argument... If we allow gay people to marry, when will it end, Pedophile marriages? Animal Marriages? Necrophiliac Marriages?!

Let me ask a question... Are ANY of those partners a legal adult authorized to sign a Marriage license? NO!

Thank you. I've never had a good comeback for that argument. I'll have to remember that. I just could never grasp how anyone's brain goes from "2 consenting adults who happen to have the same equipment below the belt" to "OMG he wants to marry a goat!"

Like cousins, brothers, sisters, whatever. It is neither more nor less natural to have sex with your sister.

Actually, first cousins can marry in 22 states:
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/7286/Where.htm
I believe second cousins can marry in all states.

You'll bring up the fact that they produce children with birth defects, well gay people have a higher spread rate of HIV, AIDS, than intravenous drug users.

I don't know the stats on that so I will take this claim at face value (though I doubt it’s true), but I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The spread of HIV is, for the most part and especially in this context, a consequence of lifestyle choices. A committed, monogamous gay couple has no more risk of passing on HIV than a straight couple in a monogamous relationship, provided both parties have tested negative and don't engage in other risky behavior like IV drugs. The possibility of genetic problems arising between married cousins (which according to some recent studies I've read about, which I do not have links to at the moment, is not as high as most people think) is not passed on by the same "mechanism." Simply having sex risks HIV transmission; genetic problems only (potentially) arise if the couple has children.


There is actually a very simple solution to the whole question of same-sex unions, but it isn't one that the fundies like very much.

You ask the fundies, "Is marriage a religious ceremony or a legal procedure?"


I like your thinking!

[AFPheonix]

Thank you. I've never had a good comeback for that argument. I'll have to remember that. I just could never grasp how anyone's brain goes from "2 consenting adults who happen to have the same equipment below the belt" to "OMG he wants to marry a goat!"




For some reason, the most conservative people have the dirtiest minds. Hell, they give me a run for the money. ;)

[Amethyst Hunter]

Why should a committed gay couple be portrayed as something different?

According to those opposed to gay people marrying, the express purpose of marriage is to produce children. Homosexual couples, barring outside means, are unable to do this. (This is, incidentally, also why married straight couples get more benefits; it's assumed that such tax breaks will encourage propagation)

Nevermind, of course, that for CENTURIES people married for reasons that had nothing to do with love - the majority of those marriages had everything to do with securing political alliances, or breeding more farm hands, or passing on nobles' names/lineage. And very often the female had no choice in the matter - her father snapped his fingers, it was as good as done.

Given that there's no clear evidence that children raised in a homosexual coupled household turn out any worse than those raised in a heterosexual coupled household, and that more evidence points towards homosexuality being an innate trait instead of learned from seeing two men or two women kissing each other the way that Mommy kisses Daddy, it really doesn't make sense IMO to deny two people who love and respect each other from codifying their relationship.

For some reason, the most conservative people have the dirtiest minds.

If you weren't getting any, you'd probably obsess on it too. :D And for that matter, ever notice how they LOVE to fixate on homosexuality, despite the fact that they claim to be straight themselves? :rolleyes:

[AFPheonix]

Isn't that the truth? Is it just because the missus doesn't like the hershey highway or something?

[DarthRetard]

I do believe it eventually comes down to a religious debate at its most basic form. In Leviticus the bible clearly states that "thou shall not lay with another man" (paraphrasing of course, i'll look it up word for in a second).

[Saydrah]

Leviticus also says that you should not eat shell fish, sit on the same stool a menstruating woman has sat on, or re use a pot a dead lizard has fallen into. Leviticus also castrated himself long before anesthetic was invented. Now, tell me again why a single word of Leviticus is applicable to modern life?

Bible thumpers love to take one quote totally out of context and use it to meddle in the lives of others.

[Seshat]

I do believe it eventually comes down to a religious debate at its most basic form. In Leviticus the bible clearly states that "thou shall not lay with another man" (paraphrasing of course, i'll look it up word for in a second).

And why should a line in a religious book dictate law in a country which states that one of its core values is the principle of a separation between church and state?

[Sylvia727]

And why should a line in a religious book dictate law in a country which states that one of its core values is the principle of a separation between church and state?

Because something like 70% of USA is Christian (don't quote me on that exact number). Since their religion tells them that it's icky, then they decide that they don't want it around them. There's no logic involved in the thought process at all. Of course, not all denominations and parishes are homophobic, and not all homophobics are Xian. But there is a pretty large crossover.

[lordlundar]

In terms of legal, I don't see the issue. Union is union. Marriage is a religious term though, so if a religion doesn't like it, then they don't have to refer to it as such. As well, a priest/minister/rabbi/etc. doesn't have to perform the ceremony if they do not wish to.

That said, it is a personal choice which is theirs alone. It is the couple's choice to get the legal status, and it's the religious leader's right to refuse religious recognition (though not to decry it). Anyone else pushing their beliefs into these particular peoples lives need to take a long walk off a VERY short pier as far as I'm concerned.

[Spiffy McMoron]

Leviticus also says that you should not eat shell fish, sit on the same stool a menstruating woman has sat on, or re use a pot a dead lizard has fallen into. Leviticus also castrated himself long before anesthetic was invented. Now, tell me again why a single word of Leviticus is applicable to modern life?

True, but don't we all pick and choose what parts of the Bible was follow? Yes, I'll agree that what you listed is silly. But how do we distinguish what doesn't work (We shouldn't eat shellfish) to something that we all agree on (Thou shalt not kill/steal/etc.)?

For the record, I support equal right for homosexuals, but not because of out-of-context arguements and counter-arguements.

[Seshat]

And why should a line in a religious book dictate law in a country which states that one of its core values is the principle of a separation between church and state?

Because something like 70% of USA is Christian (don't quote me on that exact number). Since their religion tells them that it's icky, then they decide that they don't want it around them.

That's why it does, not why it should. If they care so much about separation of church and state, religious books should not affect laws (except perhaps to serve as inspiration, since many religious books contain historical laws).

As you said, logic doesn't hold.

[BookstoreEscapee]

On the whole, Gay Marriage leads to Goat Marriage theme:

I came across this in a collection of jokes by various stand-up comedians.

We have this huge debate going on right now about same-sex marriage. There are people who are against it; there are people who are for it. Some people say, “Marriage is a union between a man and woman, and it’s always been that way, and it should always remain that way, and if we change it and it’s between two people of the same sex, then what’s next? Someone could marry a goat.” That’s where they go right away. These people scare me. And they think we’re weird. -Ellen DeGeneres

I like this one, too:

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t love heterosexuals; it’s just that they need more supervision. -Lynn Lavner

[DexX]

"OMG he wants to marry a goat!"

An underaged dead goat of the same gender!

[BookstoreEscapee]

An underaged dead goat of the same gender!

Oh, the horror! :eek: What comes next on the slippery slope?

I think I'll marry the tree in my front yard...

[Sylvia727]

That's why it does, not why it should.

Oh...were we looking for common sense and reason in minds that couldn't be pryed open with a crowbar? :p

The only other argument I've ever heard (besides "wrong" and "tradition") is majority rule.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Interesting twist on the gay marriage debate...what happens when you want to get divorced?

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4347231&page=2

The short version is, lesbian couple got married in Toronto, had 2 children (both carried by the same partner), and now live in New York. They want to divorce, there is a custody dispute as well, and the judge assigned to the case in New York State refused to dismiss the suit. The one partner insists that the marriage should simply be considered invalid because NY State does not allow gay marriage, therefore in the eyes of the state, they were never married in the first place.

Sorry, but if you want the right to marry, you have to accept the rules of divorce. You can't say "We have the right to marry like everyone else," and then say, "We shouldn't have to go through the legal divorce process because the state we now live in doesn't recognize our marriage. We can just pretend it never happened." Sorry, shouldn't work that way. I can understand the argument that if the state doesn't recognize the marriage it seems a bit hypocritical for the state to then adjudicate the divorce, but that doesn't make the marriage nonexistent in Canada where it was originally performed. If they don't want NY State to adjudicate it, they should have to go through the Canadian court to resolve the issues.

[Rapscallion]

Islamic law allows up to four wives. As far as I am aware, if a family with more than one wife comes from one of the islamic countries and resides in the UK, the wives are considered as being married to him for legal purposes.

Similar sort of thing.

Rapscallion

[tropicsgoddess]

I'm straight, but personally I think gay marriages should be legal and have the same rights that straight married couples have. We're all human, no matter if you like the opposite or same sex.

[SportinGoods]

(I just came across this today, I know that the previous post tags are from august, and I'm sorry but I had to reply :P)

First off My personal views: I've dated both sexes (One could even say I've dated in between sexes) , Have never considered myself gay or bi-sexual, I've loved each one in their own right, as a person, not a gender. That being said, heres a summary of the ongoing debate I have running with my mother.

I remember a time when my mother told me at 13 (when concerned about my tomboyish ways) "Are you a lesbian? If you are I will still love you" She really needed to elaborate on that statement.

My mother is a conservative, religion will be taken out of the equation mainly because I think she has learned by now, that thumping the bible on my head doesn't have the desired effect. From what I can gather according to our arguments these are her main oppositions to gay marriage.

1> Gay marriage is detrimental to the conservative idea of a family unit. Without a mother and a father (Figure) the child raised will turn out emotionally scarred and twisted.
(Until there has been a significant study on the effect of same sex parents on child development she will not waiver on this idea)
2> The amount of estrogen and progesterone in the tap water (along with soy products) Is causing boys to become "femanized". This increase in estrogen supply has caused more people to become "unnaturally" gay. She refuses to pay taxes for the alleged "nancyfication" of American men.
3> The Lesbian and Gay community has "forced" their beliefs on the American culture and in one decade has made the unthinkable acceptable. Just the mere idea that they are proud of this makes her ill.
4> Being Gay is now a trend (see above)
5> The tax breaks from marriage between a man and a woman should not be extended to a same sex relationship.

Thats an extreme conservative point of view, not my own of course but offered for debate.

[AFPheonix]

It's a view that if she bothered to do any research could be easily disproven. But then, that's typically the crux of the problem, isn't it? It's not so much that they want to know the truth, it's that they think they know the truth regardless of whether data supports it or not. It's the difference between people who wish to learn and those who are perfectly happy to remain ignorant.

It's sad, really.

[Seshat]

1> Gay marriage is detrimental to the conservative idea of a family unit. Without a mother and a father (Figure) the child raised will turn out emotionally scarred and twisted.

What about the children of widows? Divorcees?

What about marriages which don't have children?

(Until there has been a significant study on the effect of same sex parents on child development she will not waiver on this idea)

There almost certainly have been many such. I can't imagine that post-grad students in psychology, sociology and anthropology have left such a promising topic unstudied.

Whether she'd accept the studies is another matter.

2> The amount of estrogen and progesterone in the tap water (along with soy products) Is causing boys to become "femanized". This increase in estrogen supply has caused more people to become "unnaturally" gay. She refuses to pay taxes for the alleged "nancyfication" of American men.

Can she cite any studies? :p

3> The Lesbian and Gay community has "forced" their beliefs on the American culture and in one decade has made the unthinkable acceptable. Just the mere idea that they are proud of this makes her ill.

Forced?

One decade?

If it helps any: I don't know anyone in the LesBiGay community who would agree with the first sentence of that quote, much less be proud of it.

Pleased that they no longer have to hide for fear of brutalisation, yes. Proud of having achieved a measure of acceptance, yes.

Eh, she'd probably 'be ill' at that anyway.

My thoughts on the acceptance Les/Bi/Gay people have achieved is: would she prefer them to have to hide for fear of being physically beaten up, socially ostracised, and generally abused?

What would Jesus think? What would Jesus do?

Heck, what did Jesus do? According to the Gospels, he went out to the socially ostracised people and opened his arms to them, accepted them and treated them lovingly.

4> Being Gay is now a trend (see above)

. . .

I can't think of any way to dispute that that people like she seems to be would accept.

5> The tax breaks from marriage between a man and a woman should not be extended to a same sex relationship.

That's fine. I have no problem with no marriages or civil unions generating tax breaks. Equal treatment works for me. :D

Thats an extreme conservative point of view, not my own of course but offered for debate.

Not a problem. It does help to hear how they think.

[tropicsgoddess]

What about the children of widows? Divorcees?

What about marriages which don't have children?



Or the kids born out of wedlock? It's more common and less taboo than it was back in the day, but I just don't see the fuss about if a single gay parent and their partner raising a child as opposed to a single straight parent with their partner raising the child.

[Seshat]

Oh, no - those would be children of SIN! I'm sure SportinGoods' mother would have a lot to say about that - none of it good.

[miffed]

I used to be against gay marriage, just because I thought it was the right thing, after all I am from a Christian upbringing.

But then I thought to myself, would gay marriage really be all that big of a problem? Is society going to instantly crumble the moment it is allowed? Is it going to even affect my life at all? What is the "sanctity" of marriage, and haven't straight people managed to screw that up enough already!? Marriage is becoming a joke, celeberities get divorced after a ridiculously short time of being wedlock, sitcoms consistently mock husbands and wifes with their stereotypes. It's common for people to live together and start families without ever thinking about marriage.

Marriage is screwed up enough. Yeah homosexuality may or may not be in accordance with the Bible but I fail to see how allowing two loving individuals marry can screw it up more.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

You can't argue with that.

No, you can't argue with it, but constitutionally, you can't base laws on it either. I realize that in this country the "separation of church and state" is a sick joke, but that's why the idea that we can legally deny citizens equal rights because they are "sinning" makes my head explode.

And don't even get me started on the whole "gay marriage is threatening the marriages of straight couples" horseshit. Really, Mr. Legislator? And which of your marriages is being threatened, exactly? Your third one or your fourth one?"

God forbid we have those Godless queers threatening Brittany Spear's right to get married for a couple hours and then getting an annulment. Oh, my gosh, with all the straights divorcing and remarrying, I suppose that IS quite a few marriages that are being threatened by a gay couple's wish to live a quiet monogamous life with equal rights under the laws of their country.

Ptah.

[Seshat]

I used to be against gay marriage, just because I thought it was the right thing, after all I am from a Christian upbringing.

But then I thought to myself, would gay marriage really be all that big of a problem? Is society going to instantly crumble the moment it is allowed? Is it going to even affect my life at all?

THANK YOU!

That's exactly what I ask of people who are against gay marriage for religious reasons. I want you to ask yourselves exactly those questions.

Now, if you ask those questions and end up deciding 'yes, it is that big a problem' or 'yes, it is going to affect my life'; well, I'll probably look at you in sheer bafflement and ask 'how?' But hey, at least you thought about it. You might even be able to give me an answer!

But all I truly ask is that you think it through like that. And you have. So - YAY! Thank you.

[Zyanya]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23433982-23109,00.html


I'm in total support of this couple.

[Saydrah]

Just FYI, the last paragraph of that article is incorrect. Mr. Lee Mingwei is an artist and has been "pregnant" on his website for 9 years.

Accurate article:

http://www.disaboom.com/Blogs/disabled_politico/archive/2008/03/26/oregon-man-5-months-pregnant-feels-quot-incredible-quot.aspx

I am also in total support of the Beaties!

[MMATM]

I'm totally in support of them as well, but one quote sorta annoyed me:
"bravely and calmly taking us all towards a better understanding of the fluidity of gender." Gender, as biology has it, is essentially two-sided.

While it is possible to have both male and female characteristics (we all have both male and female hormones, in any case), one's reproductive gender is one's true gender. For example, if you are legally female, but have functional male genitalia, then you are biologically male, regardless of your physical appearance or characteristics outside the genitalia. And vice versa, of course.

As for mental/psychological genders, those are an entirely different story. It is completely reasonable (and, dare I say, "normal") for a man to identify as a woman or for a woman to identify as a man. This does not change the fact that the man is still anatomically male and the woman anatomically female.

Changing one's gender, by the modification of the body through surgery and/or hormone injections, can change one's anatomical (and therefore biological) gender. Mr. Beatie, despite being legally male, is not biologically male (as "he" still possesses all of the essential aspects of the female anatomy, and those are all still functioning). While I respect his decision to identify as a male, to change his legal status to male, and to change his body to that of a male, I cannot agree with the claim that he is a "pregnant man" when he is still biologically female.

In cases where neither reproductive organ is present (or both are present), the gender of the individual can be given as either, neither, or both established genders because our society (and genetics in general) has no system for the classification of multi-gender individuals. It sucks, but it's true.

Note that my disdain is aimed only at the offensive comment indicating that gender is some sort of continuum. If the comment refers to the ability of people to change their gender then my ire is misdirected and should be discounted.





BUT! Gay marriage? Fine with me. The only legal grounds to deny gay couples the right to marry is that no church can be forced to perform any ceremony that violates its beliefs (or even that doesn't violate its beliefs) by any government. Thus, if the Catholic Church denies gays the right to marry within Catholic churches, then gays cannot marry within those churches.

The way to fix this issue is to completely negate any and all rights and obligations associated with marriage in a church and reassociate them with civil unions, finally severing the tie between the Church* and the law. In this way, Church marriages (and any other Church ceremonies and proceedings) would carry no legal weight. This should have been done years ago, before the whole gay marriage dispute came up, but now that it's finally caused a problem it should be done ASAP.

As for the gay couples who cannot get married in the church of their choosing, because said church is intolerant of homosexuals and refuses to marry them, I'm sorry but they're SOL. Rights go both ways, and the church has as much right to prevent gays from marrying within their walls and their doctrine as gays have to marry via any means equal to today's Church-sanctioned marriages.

I fucking love my home state of Massachusetts, by the way.


*"Church" in this case refers to any institution that is or resembles a religious institution and operates outside of secular law.

[Boozy]

Gender, as biology has it, is essentially two-sided.

The term gender is used to denote a sociological and psychological construct. Its about behaviour and self-identification.

Sex is the biological term and is absolutely two-sided.

The term gender has been hijacked and used when sex is meant, because sex is a dirty word in American culture. For example, how many of us have filled out forms with a field for "Gender"? They want us to write, "Male" or "Female", not something like, "Feeling feminine today, although I've always been a tomboy." The form should obviously ask us for our "Sex", but it doesn't.

Maybe all these places have had too many people write, "Yes please." :D

[MMATM]

Ah, good call Boozy. I didn't think of that but you're right. So maybe the issue from which my argument stems could be resolved simply by saying what we mean and to hell with who we offend? "Sex" is only a "dirty word" because the powers that be have associated so many vile connotations with it. Particularly religion, but that's a spiel for another thread. So in fact "gender" is fluid, rather than as (relatively) cut-and-dried as "sex". My bad. :o

[fireheart17]

I used to be against gay marriage, just because I thought it was the right thing, after all I am from a Christian upbringing.

But then I thought to myself, would gay marriage really be all that big of a problem? Is society going to instantly crumble the moment it is allowed? Is it going to even affect my life at all? What is the "sanctity" of marriage, and haven't straight people managed to screw that up enough already!? Marriage is becoming a joke, celeberities get divorced after a ridiculously short time of being wedlock, sitcoms consistently mock husbands and wifes with their stereotypes. It's common for people to live together and start families without ever thinking about marriage.

Marriage is screwed up enough. Yeah homosexuality may or may not be in accordance with the Bible but I fail to see how allowing two loving individuals marry can screw it up more.

Hooray for sanity! :D

There's actually a cartoon that sums up your viewpoint exactly...

[rdp78]

I don't have problem with gay marriage and I think if you want to get married to someone of the same sex I think it's okay by me. It's none of my busines and as long as they are in love with each other that it's all matter. Now I admit I am trying to get used to the idea of homosexuality being part of human nature and that a gay person is no different then me or anyone else.

[guywithashovel]

This is something I don't understand about this right-wing, conservative types. They don't want the government to provide health care. They don't want the government to protect the environment. But darn it, they want the government to tell us who we can and can't get married to.

[Amethyst Hunter]

This is something I don't understand about this right-wing, conservative types. They don't want the government to provide health care. They don't want the government to protect the environment. But darn it, they want the government to tell us who we can and can't get married to.

Because it's about who gets to control others. It never was and never will be about "protecting the sanctity" of anything. Bible-bangers** are a huge fan of dictating others' lives according to their warped little interpretations. Just look up and see how many Republicans have been caught with kiddie porn or cheating on their 4th wife or so on.

And before the lame "but Democrats do it too" card is pulled, let me just say that yes, while there are Dems who have been caught with their pants literally down (Spitzer, Clinton, Kennedy), the difference between them and the GOPers is that the Dems don't generally want to control who does what in which bedroom. So I'm willing to give them a little more leeway than I do the GOP (Not that I condone adultery, mind you; if you get caught cheating on your spouse I'm not very sympathetic to start. But I can overlook that sin so long as you don't try to tell me what I can and can't do).






** = Does not apply to actual Christians who do their own thing and don't bother anybody else.

[AFPheonix]

I can overlook someone else's adultery if it has absolutely nothing to do with me, and as long as it didn't involve someone who couldn't provide consent. That's between those two spouses and their family.

[smileyeagle1021]

a somewhat related tangent... I hate the people who say that gays and lesbians shouldn't be granted rights because gays and lesbians have no morals... which of course explains why there is a story on the news about yet another STRAIGHT sexual predator. Please, lack of morals is not something that either orientation has a monopoly on.
If having good morals is a requirement for marriage then I think it's time we annulled quite a few straight marriages.

[Flyndaran]

I can overlook someone else's adultery if it has absolutely nothing to do with me, and as long as it didn't involve someone who couldn't provide consent. That's between those two spouses and their family.

To a point, but I wouldn't trust anyone that has such a history of lying selfishness.

[AFPheonix]

Then you probably can't trust a lot of our elected officials. With some personality types comes the propensity to cheat on spouses. That's the way it is and always has been.
Many of the stronger personalities that have been President of our country have been involved in extra-marital affairs, from Jefferson to Roosevelt to LBJ and beyond. I don't feel that their ability to perform their public duties was really that hampered.

[Flyndaran]

Then you probably can't trust a lot of our elected officials. With some personality types comes the propensity to cheat on spouses. That's the way it is and always has been.
Many of the stronger personalities that have been President of our country have been involved in extra-marital affairs, from Jefferson to Roosevelt to LBJ and beyond. I don't feel that their ability to perform their public duties was really that hampered.

I don't trust liars. That shouldn't be that bizarre of a concept. Lying to those you supposedly love means you would lie to everyone else on earth about anything.

[AdminAssistant]

The California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8. How fucking sad.

[Greenday]

Wow, pathetic. How is this any different than saying people can't get married because of race?

I can't find it, but which justices voted what on this case?

[Boozy]

Wow, pathetic. How is this any different than saying people can't get married because of race?

Well, to use an argument that was thrown about in another thread: They aren't saying two gay men/women can't get married. They're saying that they can't marry each other.

A gay man can still marry a woman. Just not another gay man. Ergo, they're not being denied the same rights being afforded others.

And no, I don't agree with that argument at all. I'm very disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision.

[AFPheonix]

They at least upheld the marriages that went in before the ban, and it was a profoundly narrow decision. Pretty much all they decided was that the amendment was put into place legally. They didn't really say anything about the obvious conflict between the fairness clause and prop 8.

That being said, the fact that the california supreme court was that emasculated that they didn't strike it down tells me that the state constitution is absolutely worthless. If it can't be used to do its job, namely protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority, what's the point of having it at all? It's going to take a 3/4 majority plus the legislature to reverse prop 8 now unless SCOTUS strikes it down. SCOTUS has not been taking any gay marriage cases at all, and the rulings it has been making the last few years have been very narrow as well. We haven't seen good, sweeping rulings like Brown vs. Board of Education or other landmark cases decided for a very long time, and probably won't again until several conservative justices kick the bucket and are replaced with more liberal ones.

[MadMike]

Well, to use an argument that was thrown about in another thread: They aren't saying two gay men/women can't get married. They're saying that they can't marry each other.

A gay man can still marry a woman. Just not another gay man. Ergo, they're not being denied the same rights being afforded others.


I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd like to point out that a few decades ago, the same argument could be made about a black man and a white woman. A black man could marry, just not to a white woman.

[DesignFox]

I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd like to point out that a few decades ago, the same argument could be made about a black man and a white woman. A black man could marry, just not to a white woman.

Well, Boozy didn't agree with that logic, just mentioned that it was the logic applied to prop 8.

I can't believe it was upheld by the supreme court. But then again, I'm not interested in the goings on of other people's sexual preferences. AND I happen to think that love is love. As long as consenting adults are involved, I see no reason to deny any person's right to dedicate their life/love to whoever they choose as worthy of it.

*sigh*

[Boozy]

I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd like to point out that a few decades ago, the same argument could be made about a black man and a white woman. A black man could marry, just not to a white woman.

Exactly. Good analogy.

Which is why I disagree with anyone who says that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

[daleduke17]

Exactly. Good analogy.

Which is why I disagree with anyone who says that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.

More votes were to uphold it. So, what's the big deal? Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke. Does it affect me? Nope. So, I don't really care. I'm just tired of hearing about it on every newscast.

[Greenday]

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.

More votes were to uphold it. So, what's the big deal? Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke. Does it affect me? Nope. So, I don't really care. I'm just tired of hearing about it on every newscast.

We could have a vote on how many sides are on a triangle. And if 95% of the popular vote says there are 4 sides on a triangle, that still wouldn't make it right.

Neither does a, what was it, 52% majority make stripping people of their human rights. Sometimes the majority is just plain wrong. And the Justice System is supposed to be there to correct this. The only problem is, this time the CA Supreme Court messed it up and denied people equal rights.

[AdminAssistant]

Does it affect me? Nope.

So...what you're saying is that you believe in stripping away rights from American citizens based on the circumstances of their birth? And that doesn't affect you? Well, hell, let's have votes and see if we can pass measures that keep blondes from marrying brunettes....or Arkansans from marrying people from Illinois? After all, if the "people" decide it, then it must be okay. Actually, let's just go back and make interracial marriages illegal and reinstate segregation in the South - after all, when those things were passed down from the courts, the majority of people didn't want it...so we should just go back to discriminating against anybody the majority doesn't like or understand.

Quite frankly, this whole thing makes me sick. It doesn't AFFECT you? I'm straight. I can legally get married to any person of my choosing. One of my best friends is not allowed to do the same, because she would choose to marry a woman. And that sure as hell affects me. American citizens are being deprived of their rights for no reason other than a lot of Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christians don't want to deal with gay people. I saw an interview yesterday with one of the Prop 8 supporters and she said that she wanted to make sure her children understood that a family was one man, one woman, and children. So, she wanted to legalize discrimination so she would have an easier job parenting her children. Of course, she didn't explain how she would teach her kids about single parents.

What the majority wants is NOT always morally, ethically, or CONSTITUTIONALLY right. Now, let's take a quick look at our very own Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal and are endowed with their Creator certain inalienable rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Please explain to me how denying homosexuals basic civil rights gives them liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

[smileyeagle1021]

Does it affect me?

It does now. The Cali Supreme Court just confirmed that it is Constitutional to have the majority vote on minority rights and I guarantee you are in a minority in one way or another, everyone is. If it's not because of the color of your skin or your gender or your orientation, it will be for something else. It could be because of your faith (no one denomination has enough to outvote every other denomination combined... so while it may be more or less likely you'll get allies from other faiths, it still could be an issue), it could be your education level, it could be for any number of reasons. And if it's now Constitutional to discriminate on orientation, why not discriminate based on educational level, why not discriminate on faith? After all, it will be the will of the people.

So, whether or not you realize this, you have been affected because the court has just removed your protection from the majority on any issue in which you are in a minority (at least if you want to take this court ruling to it's ultimate extreme).

ETA- even if everything I've said ultimately turns out to be a moot point... you may be a straight person who has lost absolutely no rights... but you have friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors who are affected, and I would pray that you consider inequity against those you care about to be something that affects you.

[daleduke17]

How does this affect someone not in California? Proposition 8 only affects Californians. Nothing happened here when Vermont, Iowa and Massachusetts allowed it.

[Greenday]

How does this affect someone not in California? Proposition 8 only affects Californians. Nothing happened here when Vermont, Iowa and Massachusetts allowed it.

Because California is one of the biggest states, and by making a ruling, not allowing it, other states will now be less likely to do it. And even though I truly believe eventually it will be legal everywhere, it's rulings like these that push it further into the future.

[Boozy]

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.
...Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke.

Actually, the United States is not run by mob rule. The constitution makes sure of it. Your system has a series of checks and balances to ensure that when the majority rules for something that is a violation of civil rights, the Supreme Court steps in and overturns it.

Which they refused to do here. So you could definitely argue from that side of things... but just saying that "Prop 8 passed by a majority, therefore Prop 8 is infallible" is incorrect.

[anriana]

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.

More votes were to uphold it. So, what's the big deal? Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke. Does it affect me? Nope. So, I don't really care. I'm just tired of hearing about it on every newscast.

75% of Americans were on the side of Virginia in Virginia vs. Loving (the Supreme Court case about interracial marriage.)

[Boozy]

To clarify for those who haven't heard of the case: Virginia had anti-miscenagation laws at the time of the case (1967), which banned interracial marriage. Virginians were overwhelmingly A-OK with that.

Richard Loving was a white man who married a black/Native American woman (in Washington). They were arrested when they returned to Virginia. (In their bedroom. Seriously. Government agents literally stormed into their bedroom.) Loving went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which upheld the laws.

The case was accepted by the United States Supreme Court, however, and they did the sensible thing and ruled Virginia's anti-miscenagation laws unconsitutional.

I don't foresee that happening here, since the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't been accepting gay marriage cases, which is pretty cowardly in my opinion.

Now, before someone says, "1967 was a less enlightened time", I can guarantee you that in 40 years, people will be saying the same thing about 2009. And Prop 8 will be a shameful part of California's past, god willing.

I think the Loving vs. Virginia case is a good example of how popular opinion can be wrong, and how state supreme courts can also be wrong.

[AFPheonix]

T

I don't foresee that happening here, since the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't been accepting gay marriage cases, which is pretty cowardly in my opinion.

Now, before someone says, "1967 was a less enlightened time", I can guarantee you that in 40 years, people will be saying the same thing about 2009. And Prop 8 will be a shameful part of California's past, god willing.

I think the Loving vs. Virginia case is a good example of how popular opinion can be wrong, and how state supreme courts can also be wrong.

Well hell, the California Supreme court didn't even have the balls to comment on the constitutionality of Prop 8. All they did was to make an extremely narrow ruling that stated that according to the rules in place, Prop 8 was worded and put into the constitution legally as an amendment.
Another amendment can be introduced to overturn, at least. It's going to have to, social conservatives cannot hide their heads in the sand any longer. Their numbers are slowly dwindling.
This is a blow to the gay movement and that saddens me that the court couldn't be brave and overturn the measure. That's why they get to be independent jurists who don't have to rely on popular opinion, so they can make calls that are right but not always popular.

It also just reinforces how California needs to have their current constitution scuttled and redone. If you can put in amendments that directly conflict with the rest of the document, then what's the point of having the original document in the first place? The whole point of a constitution is to prevent mob rule in our democracy. That clearly did not happen here.

[Slytovhand]

Just curious, why isn't this matter heading towards the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights?

After all, there is this document - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Human_rights _set_out_in_the_Declaration), which quite clearly indicates that Prop 8 is 'illegal' (or is it legal? I keep mixing the 2 up.. :p ) Certainly, any form of discrimination is out... and New York has a director who reports directly to the Commissioner!

[Boozy]

Just curious, why isn't this matter heading towards the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights?

The United Nations does not have any jurisdiction over sovereign nations.

Besides, that asshole Mugabe is still in power. If the UN is planning on doing anything (which of course they aren't), they should be dealing with that.

[guywithashovel]

To an extent, it upsets me that so many people seem to think it's okay to vote away someone's else's freedom. And to top it off, many of them justify it with their religion, and many of them even go as far as trying to make their position look like one of love, compassion and understanding. The sheer smarminess and utter contradiction can be infuriating.

However, I only stay angry with them for a few moments. I soon come to the realization that they are on the losing side of history. If you study the past, you will quickly realize that bigotry never prevails. Sometimes it takes a long time to extinguish it, but it is never the victor. We're already seeing this in the gay rights arena. So far, several states have already given the green light to same sex couples, and more states are considering it. Soon, it will spread throughout the country. Unless there is a law or supreme court ruling or some other federal action that says that marriage cannot be denied to same sex couples, I'm sure that it will be a long time before the Bible Belt (The Southeastern US) gives them equal rights, but soon, it will come.

And if I could go back to what I was saying in my first paragraph, I'd like to remark on something I read on another web site. Remember how I talked about the nature of people who use religion to justify discrimination? Well, here's an example. Below is a paraphrased comment that I read in the Religion and Spirituality section of Yahoo Answers. It was written by an Evangelical Christian who was opposed to giving gays equal rights.

"I understand, and most other Christians understand, that same sex couples want the right to be together and get married. Most of us also understand that not everyone considers homosexuality a sin like we do. And most of us don't have a problem with gay people having gay relationships if they want to. All we ask is that they don't call their relationships 'marriage.' Marriage is OUR thing. It was given to us by God and set up to be between a man and a woman."

That has got to be one of the most ignorant and most contradictory statements I have ever read.

[AFPheonix]

Ha ha ha ha! Marriage as a sacrament didn't even get instituted until the 16th century. Historically marriage in the Western world was a business contract. It could also be a way of gaining status for families. It sure as hell wasn't what marriage is today.

Never mind the fact that marriage originated many places, not just societies that were Christian.


Having said all that, it's not just religious people that are responsible for this. Religion can be used an excuse, but there are many areligious people that voted this in just because they are bigoted against gays. Eew, buttsecks and all that.

[Boozy]

"...Marriage is OUR thing. It was given to us by God and set up to be between a man and a woman."

Well, in that case, I don't see why the government needs to recognize those Christian marriages at all. Separation of church and state and all that.

If we accept that "marriage" is solely a religious institution, there's no reason for the state to marry anybody. Everyone, gay and straight, can have "civil partnerships." Your church can call your partnership a "marriage" if it wants, but the government doesn't need to call it that.

Let's see how that goes over.

[guywithashovel]

Thing is, most of these people don't think there is or should be a separation between church and state. Many of them want mandatory prayer in all of the public schools, and heck, I think they'd even go for compulsory church attendance laws if they could do it (or maybe that's a bit too much even for them).

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

[daleduke17]

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

[smileyeagle1021]

And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

along that vain, it should be mentioned that not all christian sects object to homosexuality... I am very much Christian and still very much gay... the two don't have to be in opposition.

[Boozy]

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

No, but the quote that I was responding to was made by an Evangelical Christian who claimed marriage as "our thing." For some reason I don't think he was including people of all faiths (including Muslims) in that statement.

[Slytovhand]

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

Ummmm... what???? :confused:


Boozy, my remarks on the UN High Commisioner (and I knew I should have added bits when I posted it :p) was that if it was 'ruled' to be against a person's human rights to deny marriage based on sexuality, it would give a massive stimulus to those querying the validity of such discrimination. I know they don't have a lot of power, and no 'jurisdiction', but I would think the effect of having such an important body say it officially would be pretty strong.

Mugabe?? Yeah, well... while the UN hasn't got much power (only the ability to talk, and occasionally rally some support), yes - not a lot will happen (see GD's thread). Besides, the UN is made up of lots and lots of different bits... I'm sure the New York office isn't inundated with so much stuff it can't see it's way to taking a quick peek at Cali.

[Sylvia727]

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

Ummmm... what???? :confused:

There is a denomination of the Christian religion whose followers are called simply Christians. Actually, I believe there are several denominations of Christianity who call themselves simply Christians, to "distinguish" them from all the Lutherans and Baptists and what-have-you. Yeah, that bugs me too, on a purely grammar-elistist level. It makes no sense, it does not communicate meaning clearly, it is bad language. :mad: And don't even get me started on the people who attend "Christ Church" and blow a fuse when you refer to it as "Church of Christ". They mean the same thing! Name your new denomination something new or quitcherbitchin.

*Ahem* Anyway, I believe this is the concept to which daleduke is referring. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, but it is not a branch of Protestantism. For added confusing goodness.

[guywithashovel]

No, but the quote that I was responding to was made by an Evangelical Christian who claimed marriage as "our thing." For some reason I don't think he was including people of all faiths (including Muslims) in that statement.

That's true. I just thought I would throw that in as a general statement.

And in response to others who have pointed it out, it is also true that not all sects of Christianity consider homosexuality a sin. That needs to be mentioned as well.

[smileyeagle1021]

And don't even get me started on the people who attend "Christ Church" and blow a fuse when you refer to it as "Church of Christ". They mean the same thing! Name your new denomination something new or quitcherbitchin.
.

yeah, and don't even think of confusing the Church of Jesus Christ with the Community of Christ... even though both of them use almost identical scriptures (both use the Old and New Testimants as well as the Book of Mormon, the only difference is a few versus in the Doctrines and Covenents).

[pantherquest2000]

This is how I view it:

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals at this point. They are able to legally marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. However, for obvious reasons, they choose not to exercise this right. Instead, they would like to institute a new right, which is that they can marry a person of the same sex. In other words, they want to change what the definition of marriage has been for thousands of years, across continents and cultures, but more especially, in Western culture.

If you take religion out of the argument, then marriage must be viewed simply as a construct of society, and as such, it is within the rights of that society to determine what they will and will not accept for "marriage." Within the United States, individuals have executed their rights, as citizens, to determine how they want marriage defined (e.g. Prop 8 California, Measure 36 Oregon, etc.). Unfortunately for gay rights, this has meant maintaining the historical and "traditional" model of marriage.

What I find interesting, especially in the recent Oregon example, is how hard Gay rights groups fought to make the domestic rights laws only apply to gays and lesbians. I have lived with siblings at various times, and it would be nice to share insurance benefits and other legal rights, but in this recent Oregon law, such inclusions were specifically rejected. Why should gay couples have more right to legal rights and health insurance benefits than other "committed" couples like siblings, seniors, adult children living with parents and so on?

It's not crazy to consider the gay-marriage question a slippery slope, good or bad. If you have gay-marriage, there is no logical reason to deny polygamy, polygany, and any other number of other constructs from being called "marriage" and applying legal status and rights to those unions.

It is not a simple decision to make. If gay marriage is allowed, it could potentially infringe on the free expression of religion (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/23beliefs.html?_r=2), which is a fundamental principle enshrined in the constitution. So we would in effect, have two constitutional principles conflicting with each other: equal rights and religious freedom. Who would win and why? Christians aren't the only group this would affect either. There are many non-Christian world religions that don't approve of homosexuality.

It doesn't help the cause either way to demonize, belittle, and condescend to those who oppose your personal beliefs. Both sides come at the argument from deeply held values. You never win someone to your way of thinking by showing them the "error" of their ways, but only by showing them the virtue of your ways.

[BlaqueKatt]

This is how I view it:

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals at this point. They are able to legally marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. However, for obvious reasons, they choose not to exercise this right. Instead, they would like to institute a new right, which is that they can marry a person of the same sex. In other words, they want to change what the definition of marriage has been for thousands of years, across continents and cultures, but more especially, in Western culture.<snip> Unfortunately for gay rights, this has meant maintaining the historical and "traditional" model of marriage.


I humbly suggest you watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFRgU)
and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA&feature=related)
and for a bit of a lighter take
"Proposition 8 the musical" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxjPyp4fnrs)

[Slytovhand]

Awww.... Youtube??? :(

:p ( I still can't get to it from here)

Sylvia - thanks, I didn't know that one!

In other words, they want to change what the definition of marriage has been for thousands of years, across continents and cultures, but more especially, in Western culture.

Allow me a (bad) quote... THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, now that that is out of the system :p... the Greeks, considered the founders of our Western Civilisation, did have a form of 'marriage' between homosexual men. Plato (in Athens) espouses in Phaedrus that the love and bonds between 'a man and his boy' far excedes the love between a man and a woman, and that heterosexual marriages were merely for reproduction (and acquisitions). So, that's already 2 examples to counter said statement.

The slippery slope... well, in regards to children, firstly, any 'marriage' must be between consenting adults, so that slope has just hit a brick wall. As for polygamy.. there are already precedents, and there is also another thread on the subject. Including from the legal aspects. The other things you've described? Perhaps it's merely a matter of time... perhaps in the not too distant future, the whole concept of 'marriage' will be laughed upon (ever read Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K Le Guin?)

[AFPheonix]

Panther, if the situation was reversed and it was only gay marriage that was legal, how do you think you'd feel, as a heterosexual person, to be told that you have the right to marry, but it is only to a person that you simply are not wired to be attracted to?
That is not equal rights.
As for the Oregon thing, it's because Oregon instituted a Domestic Partnership thing because a constitutional ban against gay marriage went in. I honestly don't think gay Oregonians would block other family units being able to take advantage of the rights you listed. However, that's not what they're fighting for at this point in the game. Trying to get that other wording would have clouded the bill and made it more likely to get struck down. It's not because evil gays were rubbing their hands together with glee to strike out at them thar breeders.

As for the slippery slope thing, that argument does not apply. Make the wording of the law state that the union is between 2 adults able to give consent. That's it. Maybe in the future when poly amorous people can be seen as people too, we can have legally defined polygamy. Unfortunately, that will require a fair bit of legal wrangling, but I honestly wouldn't mind, as long as it again was worded so that only adults able to give consent were allowed to take part.

The "traditional roots of marriage" thing is also complete crap as an argument, but I won't repeat myself, I already addressed that in a previous post. Marriage traditions have included child brides, plants, multiple wives and a few concubines thrown in to boot. We don't really have marriage as our ancestors knew it anymore.

As for the deeply held beliefs, once upon a time people firmly believed that brown people weren't really people. Fortunately we grew out of that. People will have to grow out of their bigotry for gay people too. Yay progress. That's not to say they can't continue to privately disapprove, they can, no one's going to be thought police, but they won't be allowed to outwardly discriminate against gays anymore.
If we insert any other minority group in the place of gays in any of these arguments, the people who are against it would look like tremendous bigots.
"I am against fat people marrying because of my religion."
"As a caterer, I won't serve at a marriage between Asians for religious reasons"
"I refuse to do flowers for Jews for religious reasons"

Why should we treat people who think gays are icky any differently than we would people who would say any of the above statements?

[pantherquest2000]

I'm not arguing for gay marriage one way or another. I'm just stating that marriage in the US is defined by the surrounding society, and they have voted to keep it traditional. You may not agree with the decision, but that's the way it is.

And as for your comment that "gay Oregonians would block other family units being able to take advantage of the rights you listed," that's not so. There were two bills proposed, one that had all of the other rights for everyone, and one more specifically for gays. They fought hard against the one that would more, in my opinion, distribute those benefits equally, in favor of the bill that provided only for Gay partnerships.

And as for all the rest, I haven't stated that I'm against polygamy or any other partnership of consenting adults. But I do think it's a slippery slope that we should at least be aware of, pragmatic about, and approach it with intellectual honesty. It doesn't just affect those who are in those partnerships, it affects society as a whole, especially when there are legal ramifications.

[smileyeagle1021]

Panther, how many times must it be pointed out to those who oppose gay marriage that your rights to religious freedom has always and will always be protected. When gay marriage is legalized, you'll still be free to believe whatever you want, your church will be able to preach whatever it wants, and most important to your argument, they will always be able to, just as they always have been able to, chose who they do and do not allow to marry in the church.
Don't think that's the case?
I don't know your faith, so I'll speak in hypotheticals. Say you are a baptist... just try to go into a Catholic church and have them give you a Catholic marriage... they will very politely yet firmly tell you that it's not possible, the only people they will provide a marriage ceremony for is members of the church in good standing. Or, an even more likely scenario, say you are a member of the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS) and would really like to have your wedding in the Salt Lake Temple (controlled by the LDS church). The LDS church will tell you it's a no go, you must be a member of the church and in good standing.
No court has ever ruled that a church can't require that the couple requesting a marriage be members in good standing, and they've never forced the church to change the requirements for being a member in good standing... gay marriage will not change that as long as the first amendment is in place.
I'm not able to open the NY Times link you posted while I'm at work, but I'm willing to bet it's about the New Jersey case which has NOTHING to do with a church's ability to determine who it marries. The church was operating part of its ground tax free because they had opened it to the public as a park area. As such, they had to follow the sames rules that a government run park would have to follow to maintain that tax free status, and the government is not allowed to say no to a request to perform a commitment ceremony at a public pavilian. And the lawsuit ruled that the rest of the land would remain tax excempt, only the pavilian would be taxed if the church was going to chose not to follow the rules set forth by the government.
ETA- now that I've had a chance to open the link and read the article I would like to offer an apology. I made an assumption on what the article would be about based on previous arguments that have been made, which was wrong. I will however leave the rebuttal to that article in my reply, because whether or not it is relevant to this specific reply, it is still something relevant to point out in the larger argument.
That aside, pretty much every state that has legalized gay marriage has put clauses into the laws specifying that churches can't be forced to perform the ceremonies... even though such clauses are not necassary.
So in this case, yes, there is an error in YOUR argument as well as virtue in mine. If YOU are too arrogant to consider you argument may be wrong, then there is a problem.

Oh, and if ever you think that the first amendment won't protect your church's speach against gays and lesbians, I'd ask you to look at Mr. Phelp's church... everything he has said has so far been protected... I doubt that will change.

And one final thought... if me living my life and living with the person I love (if I ever find him) in any way affects your faith, then the problem isn't me, the problem is your faith (to paraphrase a very wise woman, Ms Roosevelt, no one can lessen your faith without your consent... ok, so she really said no one can lessen your self esteem without your consent, but it still works), however, your faith being forced upon me by legislation DOES affect my life. My church says there is no problem with homosexuality... how is your church trying to get the government to not recognize my eventual marriage protecting my freedom of religion?

ETA- the argument that gay people have the same rights as straights because a gay man can marry any woman of his chosing, just as a straight man can is a straw man arguement at best... because, when gay marriage is recognized, gay men and straight men will still have the exact same rights... both will be able to marry the man or woman of their chosing... just because a gay man isn't going to chose to marry a woman and a straight man won't chose to marry a man, is irrelevent, they'll both have equal rights under the law.

Double ETA- where did you go to college? At least in Utah, public speaking classes (of which persuasive speach and debate is a part of the curriculum) is a required course for all majors... I'd assume that is a similar requirement for many states... one of the first things taught in those classes is what constitutes a valid logical argument... and slippery slope is one of the arguments that is specifically targeted as NEVER being considered a logical argument.

Triple ETA- and yes, I know attacking a speakers credibility is only a logical argument if it relates to their claim to a specific expertise, which you have not done, but damnit, it makes me feel better :)

revisioin- those last two paragraphs were out of line. I won't delete them because I don't believe that things once said can so easily be swept under the rug and I'm not sure that they should.

[pantherquest2000]

Smiley,

Your whole response makes my last few points exactly. You know nothing about me. You don't know my political values, my religious values, or even where I'm from. You don't read all the relevant information in post (not your fault, but it didn't stop you from explicating based on your suppositions), and then proceed to make personal attacks on my values, education, and so on. You will never get anyone on your side by attacking them. Gay rights will never get the Evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons on their side by protesting their churches, threatening them personally and financially, and so forth. The fundamentals will never get GLBT to give them the benefit of the doubt if they demonize them either.

My point, AGAIN, is that this is a highly complex issue that has significant impact on the nation as a whole. No one group should be allowed to determine who gets input and who doesn't. We won't come to an appropriate, fair, and acceptable solution until the tenor of the argument changes, until all the worries of the religious groups have been allayed, and until gays have the legal rights assured to married couples.

In Oregon Measure 36 would never have happened if Multnomah County Commissioners hadn't taken it upon themselves to secretly, and in partnership with gay rights groups, plan a way to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples without any public input, and without any real authority. The public outcry was tremendous, and it wasn't just about gay marriage, it was about public discourse and public involvement. So now, "one man one woman" is enshrined in the Oregon Constitution because of open hostility toward the voting public.

Again I state that marriage is a public/social institution and should be decided upon by the public. The only way to get someone to vote your way is to show them that you have taken their fears into account and tried to address them, not to bully or force it upon them.

Gay rights groups want to make this about homophobia and bigotry, but that's only a piece of the puzzle. I know several people who voted for 36 simply because they were pissed off with the county commissioners.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Start the song: Our Maligned LGBT Brethren

I think this arguement should have begun and ended at the fact that a religeous angle like what constitues marraige should not, can not be legislated by the government, and thus the state laws are unconstitutional.

I agree with smiley on the ridiculousness on the 'but they CAN marry a woman like anyone else!' arguement... this is about marraige among people who love each other, NO ONE has the right to prevent that, especially since this society does so much to benefit married couples.

As for that Phelps ************er, I have given myself three options:

A: Ignore
B: Activeley speak against them
C: hang around at their protests after getting my CCL and waiting for one of them to lob a brick (I bet the safety slugs will hurt MORE)

End of Song

ETA: For some reason, I have the urge to start a 'Guns for Gays' movement :confused:
*runs off to make bumper stickers*

[AFPheonix]

I'm not arguing for gay marriage one way or another. I'm just stating that marriage in the US is defined by the surrounding society, and they have voted to keep it traditional. You may not agree with the decision, but that's the way it is.

And as for your comment that "gay Oregonians would block other family units being able to take advantage of the rights you listed," that's not so. There were two bills proposed, one that had all of the other rights for everyone, and one more specifically for gays. They fought hard against the one that would more, in my opinion, distribute those benefits equally, in favor of the bill that provided only for Gay partnerships.

And as for all the rest, I haven't stated that I'm against polygamy or any other partnership of consenting adults. But I do think it's a slippery slope that we should at least be aware of, pragmatic about, and approach it with intellectual honesty. It doesn't just affect those who are in those partnerships, it affects society as a whole, especially when there are legal ramifications.

I am an Oregonian too. I can't seem to find the text of either of those bills. Care to post them for me? I suspect the other bill had some serious stuff wrong with it to keep people from choosing it over the other. It's not like Oregonians haven't passed half-assed measures before. Again, I think they went for the more legally sound one not to be shitty to other people groups, but to pass the one that would be more likely to be upheld as law.

You say you aren't against polygamy, but clearly you see it as lower on the "slope" compared to plain ol' hetero marriage. But, that's hardly the argument here. Gay marriage wouldn't lead to other forms of marriage necessarily because, as has been pointed out many times, that the wording simply needs to be defined as a contract between TWO consenting adults. There's your traction and brakes to counteract that slippery slope.

As for surrounding society, once upon a time, surrounding society wasn't too keen on many things we take for granted today. The popular majority position is not always the right one, this is why we are a constitutional republic, so as to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

[pantherquest2000]

I am an Oregonian too. I can't seem to find the text of either of those bills. Care to post them for me?

HB 3476 vs. SB 1000

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/hb3400.dir/hb3476.intro.html

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/sb1000.dir/sb1000.intro.html

HB 3476 wasn't perfect by any means, and certainly needed tweaking to improve legal responsibilities. I think it was on the right track though.

And that's it, I'm done. You can continue to make snide remarks in my absence.

Cheers.

[Slytovhand]

*runs off to make bumper stickers*

'I'm gay, I vote ..... and I shoot' :p

Me and Ms X would like to get married - we're both consenting adults.. 2 of us! Cool - we can get married!

Later, me and Ms Y would like to get married. We're both consenting adults.. 2 of us! Cool we can get married...

Ooooh! Polygamy! :) (ha! I got away with it! And it'd be legal too,


yeah I know - there'd be a technicality, but hey.....

Panther - I get where you're coming from!

There is more to the issue than just a religious opinion, and bigotry in action (although, I think it's a fair argument to say that the legal issues are also based on that discrimination.. just because a marriage 'has been' such and such a way, and we've got legal issues which are attached to those ways, is no reason things can't changed).

And yes, you're right - people's minds aren't going to change by being bullied (or intimidated, nor insulted) into changing. Phelps won't change his mindset by screaming right back at him. It can only happen when the 2 (or more) sides sit down, and get to a basic point of agreement... which is that human beings - all of them (well, except for the rapists and murders and child molesters) are all equal - even in 'God's' eyes (after all, 'He' did a great job of creating us this way.. FTR, I'm not a christian, but it makes no sense to bash you guys all over the heads with reincarnation if you're not going to believe it... so I'll base my arguments on what you will believe). Also, fear is a massive motivator in this. Who (on both sides) knows all the points and arguments being considered by the governments... and who just assumes??

[smileyeagle1021]

Smiley,

Your whole response makes my last few points exactly. You know nothing about me. You don't know my political values, my religious values, or even where I'm from. You don't read all the relevant information in post (not your fault, but it didn't stop you from explicating based on your suppositions), and then proceed to make personal attacks on my values, education, and so on.

How did it feel?
I've gone back and added an apology to the post, but I'd still like to know, as you read it originally, how did it feel?
Do you know what I see every day I turn on the news or open a paper?
I see yet another conservative politician or evangelical religious leader, who knowing nothing about me, tells the entire world that I am a sinner, that I am vile, that who I am is disgusting, that I don't even deserve basic protections such as protection against discrimination in the workplace (legally, if one of my coworkers told my boss that I had told him I was gay, and my boss decided he had moral objections to homosexuality, he'd have grounds to fire me without recourse in this state). At least once a week when I'm taking the train to work rather than driving I'll hear hateful vile words about how the gays are destroying America, and some even going so far as saying wouldn't it be nice if we would all just kill ourselves. I've before when getting into my car (which has two equality bumper stickers, one from the HRC one from Equality Utah, and a 'gay geeks are sexy' bumper sticker) had people driving past who know nothing more than the fact that I'm gay and I think geeks are attractive yell out things like "burn in hell, fucking fag".
So tell me, how did you feel reading my reply?
Now imagine rather than one petulant poster on fratching saying it that it was something common and considered socially acceptable in the region in which you live. Or even take it one step further, imagine you are the petulant poster on fratching who hears those insults every day.
I doubt very much that you could handle being, to use your own words, demonized like that for very long before you start demonizing those who demonized you. It's a vicious circle, no doubt about it.

Oh, and for the record, at least in Utah trying to show our virtue has gotten us precisely NOTHING. Last year we attempted to pass the Common Ground initiative, we approached it as "look, we know that we can never come to agreement on whether or not we are moral people, but surely you must agree that we deserve to at the very least be protected from workplace discrimination, after all, we work just as hard as you do, surely you must be able to see we should be allowed to visit our loved ones in the hospital, whether or not you agree with who we love, we care for them just as much as you care for your loved ones, and if it's not too much to ask, we'd like to be able to set up our own way of handling probate in the event of our partners death, this wouldn't affect you in any way, but would help us greatly"
Would you like to guess what happened to it? The legislature very promptly said "the gays don't have morals, these laws are giving them too much." One of those legislatures, who went so far as to say he wished we could have laws taking away even more protections against gays is a Bishop within the LDS church... using the church's own standards, that makes him something of a spokesperson for the church (all church leadership positions are called of by God and serve at His will). And while demonizing the LDS church might also get us nothing, it will at least hurt those who have hurt us (for the record, I fully support a complete government investigation and audit on the church's involvement in the Prop 8 campaign, and I have emailed legislatures asking them to start the process, even though I know in this state that will never happen... it's human nature, if you are going to take me down, I will do my best to take you down with me)

[Boozy]

Again I state that marriage is a public/social institution and should be decided upon by the public. The only way to get someone to vote your way is to show them that you have taken their fears into account and tried to address them, not to bully or force it upon them.

Why should anyone have to convince others to grant them basic civil rights? The mere idea is antithetical to what America is supposed to be and what it is supposed to stand for.

The very idea that this was voted on to begin with should be considered insulting to all Americans. If the people of America voted overwhelmingly in favour of imprisoning you without trial, does that make it right? Because the justice system is just a public institution, after all. So what the heck, let the mob rule.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Protecting the minority is a key value in our government (or at least it should be) as it is a key value provided for in the constitution, just look at the senate.

It's our duty as americans to help make this nation as free as possible, for everyone not just yourself.

[BlaqueKatt]

Awww.... Youtube??? :(


they are also posted to my facebook page ;)

[AFPheonix]

HB 3476 vs. SB 1000

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/hb3400.dir/hb3476.intro.html

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/sb1000.dir/sb1000.intro.html

HB 3476 wasn't perfect by any means, and certainly needed tweaking to improve legal responsibilities. I think it was on the right track though.

And that's it, I'm done. You can continue to make snide remarks in my absence.

Cheers.

After reading the text of the two bills, I have come to the conclusion that the one that included other relationships would have been a nightmare to hold up in court since it was so broad. I can see why it wasn't chosen. Probably more pointed legislation could be written to accommodate what that bill was trying to do, and I think the second bill is an example of that more pointed legislation.

I'm not sure what part of my replies to you were seen as snide. I'm usually pretty painfully blunt.

[Slytovhand]

they are also posted to my facebook page ;)

Awwww... FaceBook??? :p

(nope, can't get that at work either :( )



(but I'm home now :D)

AFP, I'd take a shot and guess that if s/he was referring to your post, it was in relation to the polygamy/slippery slope bit - and that's only presuming it's in reference to your post! (which, from what I can read, didn't have any snideness in it..)

[fireheart17]

Hey, thought this article might highlight gay marriage in Australia...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25651109-2682,00.html

Read the comments though. I am just simply STUNNED by them. Although I had to laugh at the parallel between my state and the Bible Belt states in the US.

[smileyeagle1021]

fireheart... I am truly sadenned by reading those comments. I had hoped that Utah truly was the worst place in the civilized world when it came to bigotry like that... the fact that there is worse means we are so much further behind than I had originally thought.

[fireheart17]

fireheart... I am truly sadenned by reading those comments. I had hoped that Utah truly was the worst place in the civilized world when it came to bigotry like that... the fact that there is worse means we are so much further behind than I had originally thought.

Some of the other boards comment on how much of a backwater Adelaide is. While I don't disagree with them, I take what I can and use it.
What really disgusts me (but is a bit off-topic) is how people use the "we need change, we're not being progressive" argument towards anything that affects retail workers, teachers and just about anything else except their own careers...namely ensuring that things are actually WORSE off for us than for them. (one of those was forcing big box retailers to open on public holidays...what, like you don't have the other 364 days a year to shop?)

Lately, I've noticed that my views are getting sidelined on there, so I've come to here as it's a lot better in the long run and at least the people here are civilized :D.

Gay marriage wise, my original post on there (which I think has been sidelined) was a way to ensure that everybody remains happy: not all weddings are required to be in a church, and not all couples want to be in a church, religious or not. So gay people, sure they can get married, since it's more or less a legal agreement, just the church does not have to perform the marriage. They can get married, but not in a church, essentially. Basically, it opens up the entire state to them, and I don't think I've ever attended a wedding in a church. Ever. (two were outdoors, with the receptions nearby, one was in a hotel function room and the other was in another function centre). I know that my views will probably be nitpicked, but I thought this might open up some ideas for people. To those who are openly gay here, what do you think? Would it work?

[Slytovhand]

and at least the people here are civilized

Excuse me!! I resent that! I'm proud of my barbaric attitudes, thank you very much!


:D

Actually, Fireheart, I thought I heard something on the radio the other day from one of the federal pollies indicating an opening up of the laws to allow for same sex marriages.. (hang on, memory coming back... no, not marriages, but allowing for same rights for workplaces.. sick leave, carers leave, etc etc... so, not quite the same - but heading there).

As for the comments at the bottom (which I promptly ignored past the first page)... meh - bigots etc everywhere...

[smileyeagle1021]

I just found a good link for this debate.

http://www.geocities.com/patrick_farley/gayMarriageChart-large.png

there it is, the gay marriage debate in flow chart form. Enjoy :)

[Nyoibo]

That pretty much sums it up, I love it. :lol:

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I particularly like the unending 'why hasn't god smitten XXX?' cluster, and the bit with non-sequitur.

On that note, even if there was more crime, we could nail them with post hoc ergo propter hoc!

Logical fallacies rule :)