Gay Marriage

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.)