Gay Marriage

[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 ), 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.

[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.

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.

[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.