Gay Marriage

[AFPheonix]

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

[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. And for that matter, ever notice how they LOVE to fixate on homosexuality, despite the fact that they claim to be straight themselves?

[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.

[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

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...

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!

[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.

[Saydrah]

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

*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]

...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?

[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.

[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.

[Saydrah]

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

I think ALL marriages should be gay!

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.

[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.

[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*).

[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!

[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.

[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.