The Gay Marriage Ban (Again)

[Gail Simone]

Dear USA...

WHAT THE FUCK?

I honestly can't feel as good about the Dem wins as I'd like to because...why the hell can't my friends, who are in love and are human beings, get married like the rest of us?

What in the world is this supposed to take from the straights?

We're gonna look back on this time in shame.

Bleah.

Gail

[Jared_Humpherys]

As with other civil rights struggles, I see the process of allowing Gay Marriage in the U.S. as a rough and ponderous one.

It'll happen though, I'm sure of it.

[TomStillwell]

It's because all the straight marriages are complete successes...

[the4thpip]

Well, the new governor in Massachussetts has pretty much promised that he will no longer use that old law that was created for interracial marriages to ban gay couples from other states to get married in Mass.

So I guess it will be up to the courts to decide if other states can deny the legality of a Boston marriage.

[BetterThanYou]

Marriage has nothing to do with Civil rights IMO.
No one gay or straight, has a "right" to have thier marriage recognised by the US government or any state Government.
Thats why the US has the right to nullify "green card marriages" and to not give citizenship to the spouses of American citizens if it so chooses.
Government recognised Marriage is a benefit given to married couples based on the assumption that doing so benefits society as a whole.
To call it a "rights" issue is misleading and in my opinion sophistry.

A Marriage license is no different than a drivers licenseboth are privaleges, not rights.

[Arawn]

Marriage has nothing to do with Civil rights IMO.
No one gay or straight, has a "right" to have thier marriage recognised by the US government or any state Government.
Thats why the US has the right to nullify "green card marriages" and to not give citizenship to the spouses of American citizens if it so chooses.
Government recognised Marriage is a benefit given to married couples based on the assumption that doing so benefits society as a whole.
To call it a "rights" issue is misleading and in my opinion sophistry.

A Marriage license is no different than a drivers licenseboth are privaleges, not rights.

True, but the fact that the only reason for denying it is they are gay makes it discrimination. This then qualifies it as a rights issue. If it were for citizenship, or a tax break or some simmilar reason then I couldd understand an agree with it. But discrimination is not a valid reason.

[Ian Boothby]

Marriage has nothing to do with Civil rights IMO.
No one gay or straight, has a "right" to have thier marriage recognised by the US government or any state Government.
Thats why the US has the right to nullify "green card marriages" and to not give citizenship to the spouses of American citizens if it so chooses.
Government recognised Marriage is a benefit given to married couples based on the assumption that doing so benefits society as a whole.
To call it a "rights" issue is misleading and in my opinion sophistry.

A Marriage license is no different than a drivers licenseboth are privaleges, not rights.


But if you wouldn't give driver's licenses to Jews, would that make it a rights issue?

[GozertheGozarian]

Marriage has nothing to do with Civil rights IMO.
No one gay or straight, has a "right" to have thier marriage recognised by the US government or any state Government.
Thats why the US has the right to nullify "green card marriages" and to not give citizenship to the spouses of American citizens if it so chooses.
Government recognised Marriage is a benefit given to married couples based on the assumption that doing so benefits society as a whole.
To call it a "rights" issue is misleading and in my opinion sophistry.

A Marriage license is no different than a drivers licenseboth are privaleges, not rights.
That's not true. The Supreme Court ruled marriage is a "basic human right".

[Lex]

While most of the election results in South Dakota were great, I was very disappointed that the gay marriage ban passed here too. Especially since one of my best friends is gay and he would like to settle down and get married one day.

But I see hope. Arizona's ban failed and the South Dakota ban only passed 52-48. That gives me hope that this movement to discriminate against homosexuals is slowly losing steam. And I think it reflects how the US, as a whole, is moving back to the center.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us, but I have hope that we will win.

[TomStillwell]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit if happiness.

That seems to cover it pretty nicely.

[Dr. Killbydeath]

But if you wouldn't give driver's licenses to Jews, would that make it a rights issue?

So that's why I failed my driver's test.... Or I'm just a bad driver... Either way it's discrimination..


Man, I like living in Ontario.

[Dedagda]

My personal opnion - Deny marriage - You deny societal acceptance of monogamous relationships. Its easy to demonize gays and lesbians if society doesn't recognize their relationships.

We can debate monogamy, marriage as contract law, tax benefits to marriage over partnership or anything else.

I want good relationship models for young gays and lesbians. Marriage is currently how that is exemplified for heterosexual society. As long as bans exist it says our love isn't valid.

[TCJohnson]

Personally I think that the government should only recognize civil unions, and any benefits and rights should come with that. Let the churches recognize whatever marriage they want, but don't have any rights associated with that.

[Corrina]

Well, the new governor in Massachussetts has pretty much promised that he will no longer use that old law that was created for interracial marriages to ban gay couples from other states to get married in Mass.

So I guess it will be up to the courts to decide if other states can deny the legality of a Boston marriage.

That's already in the legal pipeline. You really can't keep this state by state, simply because of issues that arrive during divorce.

Frex, there's a case where two women who were married in MA divorced. Both women had equal custody rights over their child in MA. one moved to West Virginia, where the courts there promptly awarded her full custody rights.

The Massachusetts courts basically said "fuck off." So now it probably goes into the federal system and will be decided on minute details of state to state recognitions and such.

This won't be the last case, by any means. As the court record builds concerning gay marriages, courts are eventually (probably in the next ten years or so) going to recognize gay marriages as already existing, even in states where they are not allowed because of the intentions of the parties involved in unions and marriages from another state. It'll take time, but the legal snowball will build, and not in favor of the ban.

[Kirayoshi]

My problem with the current Neo-Con attitude regarding gay marriage is this; several congressmen have argued that gay marriage should be illegal because homosexual relationships cannot produce offspring.

Does that mean that if a straight man has had a vasectomy, or if a straight woman is infertile, or if a straight couple fall in love past their productive years, they cannot be allowed to be married? There are benefits to marriage far beyond simply bearing children. Mutual support, combining two incomes into one household, legal recognition, inheritance issues, and simple companionship.

I say that if Bush wants to preserve the 'sanctity of marriage', then he should lay off the gays and pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as "a legal and spiritual union between two consenting adults, neither of whom are in the entertainment business." Seriously, I am for gay marriage and against celebrity marriage!

[sk716]

Dear USA...

WHAT THE FUCK?

I honestly can't feel as good about the Dem wins as I'd like to because...why the hell can't my friends, who are in love and are human beings, get married like the rest of us?

What in the world is this supposed to take from the straights?

We're gonna look back on this time in shame.

Bleah.

Gail

Yeah.
But in time, I think it will become more mainstream and eventually pass into society. Probably in my lifetime. As a society, we had been making progress as far as accepting people who were different from us, at least as Monkey Boy likes to put it, "To their faces."

Then the fundamentalists movement set everything back ten years. I don't really see it taking ten years to get back to where we were before Bush and his Fundy army took over.

I don't expect everyone in the world to accept or embrace my lifestyle. I do however expect everyone to accept that gays and lesbians are also guaranteed the same rights as heterosexuals.

As a species we have a habit of moving from one civil rights battle to the next, it seems we must have some segment of society to single out as being lesser people due to gender, mental health, skin color, or sexual orientation.

I wonder who will be next after homosexuals are accepted as the norm.

[Dedagda]

I wonder who will be next after homosexuals are accepted as the norm.

That's a good question. I've wondered that myself. What do we need to conquer next? What are my biases?

[Jack Zodiac]

But if you wouldn't give driver's licenses to Jews, would that make it a rights issue?

Ba-ZING!

Morality shouldn't be measured by some dodgy old book that says it's okey doke to stone a chick on her period, and the douchebags who perpetuate this are the biggest bunch of fuckin' hypocrites alive. Preach about morality and the sanctity of marriage before a bunch of old white men, go out for a drink, sodomize your secretary, then go home and beat your wife. That's all you have to do to be a politician. Oh, and then openly fingerpoint homosexuality like it's some kind of fuckin' travesty and shove your lesbian daughter in the pantry, and only slide her a couple of pancakes under the door every night. If you can do that, you can run America.

[Gilda Dent]

Yeah.
But in time, I think it will become more mainstream and eventually pass into society. Probably in my lifetime. As a society, we had been making progress as far as accepting people who were different from us, at least as Monkey Boy likes to put it, "To their faces."

Then the fundamentalists movement set everything back ten years. I don't really see it taking ten years to get back to where we were before Bush and his Fundy army took over.

I don't expect everyone in the world to accept or embrace my lifestyle. I do however expect everyone to accept that gays and lesbians are also guaranteed the same rights as heterosexuals.

As a species we have a habit of moving from one civil rights battle to the next, it seems we must have some segment of society to single out as being lesser people due to gender, mental health, skin color, or sexual orientation.

I wonder who will be next after homosexuals are accepted as the norm.

Transgender rights are coming in a bit slower and meeting a lot more resistance right now than homosexual rights.

[TCJohnson]

That's a good question. I've wondered that myself. What do we need to conquer next? What are my biases?


Muslims probably, with the way things are going.

[diana_fan]

This whole thing is a travesty.

How could it possibly affect my life if two guys or two women got married? Why should anyone be opposed to that? The only answer I can come up with is that the people who are opposed to it simply hate gays. There's no other rational or irrational reason I can come up with.

This whole "sanctity" of marriage thing is a load of bullshit. How did Britney Spears getting married while wasted in Vegas, and then getting it annulled 55 hours later contribute to the "sanctity" of marriage? But as far as I know, the institution of marriage survived that.

There was a time that we accepted the fact that women couldn't vote.

There was a time that we accepted the fact that blacks couldn't drink from the same water fountain.

And right now, we are accepting the fact that somehow two people in love who want to marry can be kept apart by the State.

We've moved on from those first two, and we will move on (eventually) from this last one. It will not be soon enough, but it never is.

[sk716]

That's a good question. I've wondered that myself. What do we need to conquer next? What are my biases?

The list is actually getting smaller.

If your not a Male, Anglo-Saxon, Heterosexual, Christian, you are a target. But a few have fought the battles and won.

Women have equal rights across the board. Still some problems with equal pay and glass ceiling in the business world. But those problems are shrinking.

Blacks have equal rights across the board. Still suffering from racism, but the problems do seem to be shrinking as the hate mongers are currently focused on homosexuals.

Jews are currently being ignored. I think they've been forgotten for the moment. And as long as the Fundys stay out of power or have some other group to be hostile to, their 2000 year old crimes may continue to be over looked.

The Japanese were horribly mistreated during and after WW2. Now they own Hawaii and design most of our electronics. I don't think they're up for persecution again anytime soon.

Muslims have been targets for years and have been getting a lot of flak since 9/11. I think they breathe a sigh of relief every time the Gay Marriage argument comes up again. It means the hate mongers are otherwise distracted.

Mexicans and illegal aliens are most likely the next targets. It's easy to pick on illegals, they already don't have any of the rights afforded to them by being a citizen. And since the biggest portion of the illegals are Mexican, the legals would take the flak by default.

I could be wrong and some tiny segment of the population that likes to wear tweed while dancing to disco could be next.

[diana_fan]

I could be wrong and some tiny segment of the population that likes to wear tweed while dancing to disco could be next.

Yeah, but in that case, those people would deserve it.

Just sayin'.

[sk716]

Transgender rights are coming in a bit slower and meeting a lot more resistance right now than homosexual rights.

While I only have your experiences to go on, I would think that your battle will be fought a little bit longer than mine, but after the gays and lesbians finally make headway, the transgendered population would get a leg up by default.

It's hard to argue about the adoptive rights of a woman who used to be a man when you've awarded adoption rights to a male couple. At least you can breast feed.

[That JonoGuy]

Personally I think that the government should only recognize civil unions, and any benefits and rights should come with that. Let the churches recognize whatever marriage they want, but don't have any rights associated with that.

This of course is the perfect solution, but seeing as it makes the most sense it's not a viable option. People would rather play their politics than actual come to a happy middle ground for all.

[Gilda Dent]

While I only have your experiences to go on, I would think that your battle will be fought a little bit longer than mine, but after the gays and lesbians finally make headway, the transgendered population would get a leg up by default.

It would be nice if this were so, but equal rights for the transgendered is often used as a bargaining chip in lobbying for anti-discrimination legislation. Transwomen still routinely lose custody and visitation with children after a divorce, lose jobs, get arrested for using the "wrong" restroom, are disproportionately targets for violence (12 times as likely to be murdered as a genetic woman, usually at the hands of male sexual partners). Unfortunately, the laws that protect orientation don't cover gender identity.

I do suspect that acceptance of transgender people will come more quickly after acceptance of homosexuals, but it's lagging right now.

It's hard to argue about the adoptive rights of a woman who used to be a man when you've awarded adoption rights to a male couple. At least you can breast feed.

Yet some do just that. Some gay activists argue in favor of separating transgender rights from gay and lesbian rights because it hurts the cause.

Some transwomen can on occasion breastfeed; I unfortunately developed a blood clot in reaction to the medications used and won't be able to do that.

[BlairH]

Personally I think that the government should only recognize civil unions, and any benefits and rights should come with that. Let the churches recognize whatever marriage they want, but don't have any rights associated with that.

Spot on!

The Government has about as much buisness recognising marriage than it does running hair salons. Why do we even let the government interfere in matters of marriage? It is our most sacred and fundamental institution.

[rebelchelle]

Personally, I wept as I read the news of the ban of gay marriage. It was banned in the wonderful state of Ala*fckn*bama this year too. What got to me the most wasn't so much the tremendous victory the ban received, but rather knowing that my immediate family was part of the 80% plus that voted for the ban.

[amboy00]

Gays are a galvanizing issue for groups like CWA and FRC to raise money. Falwell figured that out after we no longer had to be afraid of communists. Remember, these are multimillion dollar lobbying groups that attack anyone who doesn't agree with them.

They reach out to their base with falsehoods and half truths to give their supporters a reason to be afraid. They need a boogey-man.

Now they have to justify why the Dems took back the house and the Senate. Look at George Allan. He lost because, according to PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays), of his pro-homosexual stance, and Webb and other Dems won because of their centrist/conservative views.

First of all, there isn't anything pro-gay about George Allan. He refused to endorse PFOX's sick statement about gays and didn't discriminate during the hiring period for staffers for his campaign committee.

It isn't even about protecting marriage anymore, its just raw naked hatred against gays and anyone who slightly appears rational on the subject.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a drug deal and massage to attend to (amen).

[Samurai]

True, but the fact that the only reason for denying it is they are gay makes it discrimination. This then qualifies it as a rights issue. If it were for citizenship, or a tax break or some simmilar reason then I couldd understand an agree with it. But discrimination is not a valid reason.
Actually, no marriage license asks about a person's sexuality. It only asks about who the person is marrying. No matter what your sexuality, a man can't marry a man, and a woman can't marry a woman. But a gay man can marry a woman, and many do. So by your own reasoning here, since the law and its requirements are not based on sexuality, it's not discrimination.

[Jack Zodiac]

Actually, no marriage license asks about a person's sexuality. It only asks about who the person is marrying. No matter what your sexuality, a man can't marry a man, and a woman can't marry a woman. But a gay man can marry a woman, and many do. So by your own reasoning here, since the law and its requirements are not based on sexuality, it's not discrimination.

The fuck it isn't.

When you say "you can't," and then back it up with personal preference largely influenced by religion, it's discrimination. It's even better when the government is doing it during a time where freedom is being waved in everybody's faces.

[Cam63]

Actually, no marriage license asks about a person's sexuality. It only asks about who the person is marrying. No matter what your sexuality, a man can't marry a man, and a woman can't marry a woman. But a gay man can marry a woman, and many do. So by your own reasoning here, since the law and its requirements are not based on sexuality, it's not discrimination.

That's some fucked up shit, dude.

[Corrina]

This of course is the perfect solution, but seeing as it makes the most sense it's not a viable option. People would rather play their politics than actual come to a happy middle ground for all.

Then those gay heathens would get *their* sinful and wrong churches to bless their civil unions and they'll be 'married' too and we'll all have to live with it! They can't have freedom of religion like that! Freedom of religion means we get to hate fags and not let them have their own churches!

Sadly, that's why it's not on the table. :sigh: Behind the prejudice against homosexuals is a prejudice against other religions who don't agree with the one these bigots practice.

[Cam63]

The only people happy with the gay marriage ban are bigots.

Such nice people.

[Crowley]

Actually, no marriage license asks about a person's sexuality. It only asks about who the person is marrying. No matter what your sexuality, a man can't marry a man, and a woman can't marry a woman. But a gay man can marry a woman, and many do. So by your own reasoning here, since the law and its requirements are not based on sexuality, it's not discrimination.
it's discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Don't bring the bullshit man.

[Cam63]

But he's got so much of it.

[Screwtape]

Sam states, pretty clearly and succinctly, the conservative case. Marriage is about children; it's an institution set up to protect families that include a mother and a father (for my money, still the best way to produce a well-adjusted child, but that's another argument); it gets special social, legal, and political status because it provides the casing for the basic unit of a productive society.

We run into trouble when we actually look at the facts of modern American society, though. Plenty of kids are raised in explosive home environments created by unhappy marriages and grow up emotionally stunted; plenty more grow up in isolated communities and grow up without the social skills necessary to interact with the rest of society. As a consequence, we have more processes in place to help out kids; to get them into loving homes; to support their parents if financial straing is causing child-rasing problems; to educate the kids and provide some sort of structure for them in an educational context; to aid single mothers or fathers. This doesn't render parents meaningless, but it does provide a series of fail-safes that make it possible to raise kids from troubled or broken homes (who would have been written off completely a hundred years ago) in relative safety and comfort. Thus, the lucky few born into totally functional families are no longer the only hope for society. Increasingly, they're the exception, not the rule.

Thus, the pool of happy, productive children who will grow up to contribute to society in a meaningful way has been widened enough that having enough good kids to make the world a better place is no longer a problem. Class has almost become a thing of the past; we pay attention to at least some of the poor kids; the idea that a kid from "good stock" is intrinsically better than a kid from the ghetto is considered reprehensible. This, and the kind of sexual and financial freedom we have in this country, enables adults to focus on something different when they're deciding to get married in the 21st century: Do they really, really like each other?

Presumably, if (because we have a society that cares for children better than we did a hundred years ago) people now get married solely for love, rather than because their husband or wife will provide a some kind of social or financial benefit for them and their offspring. Hopefully, everyone can admit that gay people are capable of truly loving one another, just as straight people are.

We run into trouble again, though, when gay people occasionally discover (sometimes to their horror) that they have accidentally entered into another phase of their sexual identity and are either no more aroused or far less aroused by their same-sex partner than by someone of the opposite sex. This does not happen to everyone, and inevitably some idiot maintains that it doesn't happen to ANYONE, but it does happen. The human body is designed to function in a certain way and occasionally it "corrects" itself. Should gay people get married if there's a chance they might end up completely unable to relate sexually to their partner? After all, marriage is ostensibly a lifetime commitment.

Once again, we have to look at marriage as it is practiced today, not at its ideal. The simple fact is that marriages break up all the time, for a variety of reasons, sexual inadequacy being one of them (and not just in gay people).

However, "marriages break up all the time" doesn't seem to be a good reason to get married.

The short answer is that I really have no idea. I go back and forth on this issue, and inevitably someone will yell at me for taking one side or another, but it really doesn't make sense to me. It irritates and appals me when liberals histrionically compare the gay marraige argument to the civil rights movement (how many people do you know with gay slaves, for example?), but it also bothers me when conservatives glibly dismiss the idea that societies can evolve in healthy ways that don't necessarily have to be embraced by its most conservative elements in order to make a large number of its members happier and more productive.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the topic. Let the beatings begin.

[Nick Soapdish]

Spot on!

The Government has about as much buisness recognising marriage than it does running hair salons. Why do we even let the government interfere in matters of marriage? It is our most sacred and fundamental institution.

I'd also be in favor of this ...

However, I think it has a much lower chance of passage than accepting gay marriage. First, there is still a sizeable proportion of the population that's been opposed to gay civil unions.

But the bigger issue is all the straight couples that are told that they aren't married any more.

The word means a lot to people. And it's not like it's a specifically Christian institution or even a religious one. It hasn't been for a long time.

[Jack Zodiac]

Sam states, pretty clearly and succinctly, the conservative case.

Which, it should be known, is not the only, nor predominant case. And it, like every side of an argument, is entirely open to debate, starting with...

Marriage is about children; it's an institution set up to protect families that include a mother and a father (for my money, still the best way to produce a well-adjusted child, but that's another argument); it gets special social, legal, and political status because it provides the casing for the basic unit of a productive society.

How much that doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Objectively, I get it. However, I don't agree with it, because I don't think marriage should be about offspring, or welfare, or anything other than the union of two loving mates. And in that case, so the fuck what if they both have the same reproductive organs?

I appreciate your post being openly exploratory. Most people settle on one subject and delve into that instead of considering all sides of it at once. However, I don't know if this...

The human body is designed to function in a certain way and occasionally it "corrects" itself.

...is all that "kosher."

At any rate, this entire argument stems from the stingy definition of marriage which is largely influenced by a former society that depended on religion even moreso than ours does today.

[Jack Zodiac]

The word means a lot to people. And it's not like it's a specifically Christian institution or even a religious one. It hasn't been for a long time.

Precisely. So stop allowing it to carry around its ratty, old, religious baggage.

[sk716]

Sam states, pretty clearly and succinctly, the conservative case. Marriage is about children; it's an institution set up to protect families that include a mother and a father (for my money, still the best way to produce a well-adjusted child, but that's another argument); it gets special social, legal, and political status because it provides the casing for the basic unit of a productive society.

We run into trouble when we actually look at the facts of modern American society, though. Plenty of kids are raised in explosive home environments created by unhappy marriages and grow up emotionally stunted; plenty more grow up in isolated communities and grow up without the social skills necessary to interact with the rest of society. As a consequence, we have more processes in place to help out kids; to get them into loving homes; to support their parents if financial straing is causing child-rasing problems; to educate the kids and provide some sort of structure for them in an educational context; to aid single mothers or fathers. This doesn't render parents meaningless, but it does provide a series of fail-safes that make it possible to raise kids from troubled or broken homes (who would have been written off completely a hundred years ago) in relative safety and comfort. Thus, the lucky few born into totally functional families are no longer the only hope for society. Increasingly, they're the exception, not the rule.

Thus, the pool of happy, productive children who will grow up to contribute to society in a meaningful way has been widened enough that having enough good kids to make the world a better place is no longer a problem. Class has almost become a thing of the past; we pay attention to at least some of the poor kids; the idea that a kid from "good stock" is intrinsically better than a kid from the ghetto is considered reprehensible. This, and the kind of sexual and financial freedom we have in this country, enables adults to focus on something different when they're deciding to get married in the 21st century: Do they really, really like each other?

Presumably, if (because we have a society that cares for children better than we did a hundred years ago) people now get married solely for love, rather than because their husband or wife will provide a some kind of social or financial benefit for them and their offspring. Hopefully, everyone can admit that gay people are capable of truly loving one another, just as straight people are.

Okay, I'm with you to here. I'm not saying I agree with you, but I see where you are coming from.

But this paragraph:

We run into trouble again, though, when gay people occasionally discover (sometimes to their horror) that they have accidentally entered into another phase of their sexual identity and are either no more aroused or far less aroused by their same-sex partner than by someone of the opposite sex. This does not happen to everyone, and inevitably some idiot maintains that it doesn't happen to ANYONE, but it does happen. The human body is designed to function in a certain way and occasionally it "corrects" itself. Should gay people get married if there's a chance they might end up completely unable to relate sexually to their partner? After all, marriage is ostensibly a lifetime commitment.

I've got some issues with. Because the bit you are overlooking is the people who are "straight" and get married and then discover/admit that they are gay a few years down the road. While I'm sure your example has happened once or twice, it's considerably less likely to happen than a closeted individual getting married to someone of the opposite sex under pressure from family/society/friends. I knew a lesbian who fell in love with a man. So. she's not a lesbian anymore. I'm still confused about that.

Once again, we have to look at marriage as it is practiced today, not at its ideal. The simple fact is that marriages break up all the time, for a variety of reasons, sexual inadequacy being one of them (and not just in gay people).

However, "marriages break up all the time" doesn't seem to be a good reason to get married.

The short answer is that I really have no idea. I go back and forth on this issue, and inevitably someone will yell at me for taking one side or another, but it really doesn't make sense to me. It irritates and appals me when liberals histrionically compare the gay marraige argument to the civil rights movement (how many people do you know with gay slaves, for example?), but it also bothers me when conservatives glibly dismiss the idea that societies can evolve in healthy ways that don't necessarily have to be embraced by its most conservative elements in order to make a large number of its members happier and more productive.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the topic. Let the beatings begin.

[Lester C.]

Gay people are a very small percentage of the population. They are not a threat to Christianity. In my opinion the thread to Christianity is Christianity as that organization seems to be imploding under its own weight. A very view Christians, as most are wonderful tolerant people that feel nothing but compassion and love for their fellow man, need to lighten the fuck up before they bring their organization down.

[thespianphryne]

The short answer is that I really have no idea.


It took you something in the order of 500-700 words to say that you have no idea? Good gods!

If it's so easy for you to reach oscillating equilibrium on the topic; if either side has equal merit in your eyes, then have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the law and society should be on the side of the people who are not allowed access to certain legal and civil because of the unorthodox structure of their family or their sexual orientation.

It's not histrionic to compare the demand for equal legal recogition of family structures to the civil rights movement. Do you know why? Because all the rights and privileges accorded to individulas in a heterosexual marital contract are civil rights.

And marriage is not about children. Human societies were raising children well before we dreamed up marriage. Marriage is more about determining inheritance rights than it is about raising healthy children. Family is about raising children. And there are more kinds of families than are dreamed of in any one single book.

[TCJohnson]

I'd also be in favor of this ...

However, I think it has a much lower chance of passage than accepting gay marriage.

Yup..but in my perfect world...


But the bigger issue is all the straight couples that are told that they aren't married any more.

Well, I don't see it that way. They would still be married by the church, and then fill out some forms to get the rights of the civil union.

[Cam63]

Live in " sin " and the wankers can go fuck themselves.

[sk716]

Live in " sin " and the wankers can go fuck themselves.

It's not that easy anymore. It's become a vendetta on both sides of the argument. And I don't see the Fundy side backing down anymore than the Gay & Lesbian Activists.

The only way it's going to happen is if cooler heads prevail and the people who aren't in the middle of the argument stand up and say 'You know what, this is stupid.' And end up with exactly what TC and Blair have suggested. Civil Unions for all and Marriage being a term restricted to the church. Even though marriage is not a product of the church.

[Pia Guerra]

Well, I don't see it that way. They would still be married by the church, and then fill out some forms to get the rights of the civil union.

And those of us not married in a church and have no desire to be married in a church? Ian and I got hitched on a beach in a civil ceremony and try telling us that our union isn't a marriage, you'll have quiet a scuffle on your hands.

[sk716]

And those of us not married in a church and have no desire to be married in a church? Ian and I got hitched on a beach in a civil ceremony and try telling us that our union isn't a marriage, you'll have quiet a scuffle on your hands.

The problem is language. They're exactly the same thing. They are just different words and the church claims ownership of the word Marriage.

At this point, I'm tired enough of the fight that I'd be more than willing to accept "Civil Unions" for gays and lesbians. The Christians can have their word, just as long as I get the same considerations under the law.

[Lester C.]

I was under the impression that a church can't marry anyone, and a couple isn't officially married until they head to a court house and fill out the proper paper work.

[Cam63]

I heard bribery was OK.

[sk716]

I was under the impression that a church can't marry anyone, and a couple isn't officially married until they head to a court house and fill out the proper paper work.

You would be correct. You also need witnesses to sign the paperwork.

[Cam63]

It's not that easy anymore. It's become a vendetta on both sides of the argument. And I don't see the Fundy side backing down anymore than the Gay & Lesbian Activists.

The only way it's going to happen is if cooler heads prevail and the people who aren't in the middle of the argument stand up and say 'You know what, this is stupid.' And end up with exactly what TC and Blair have suggested. Civil Unions for all and Marriage being a term restricted to the church. Even though marriage is not a product of the church.

Allowing consenting adults to live and be happy together can't be too hard.

[Pia Guerra]

The problem is language. They're exactly the same thing. They are just different words and the church claims ownership of the word Marriage.

At this point, I'm tired enough of the fight that I'd be more than willing to accept "Civil Unions" for gays and lesbians. The Christians can have their word, just as long as I get the same considerations under the law.

Seperate but equal huh? And since when does the church 'own' the word marriage? Marriage has existed long before religion, it exists on every continent, across many different faiths, it even existed in places where there was no religion (the USSR recognised marriages even though the church wasn't high on their list of recognizable institutions).

This is the most ridiculous, childish argument I've ever heard.

[Samurai]

And those of us not married in a church and have no desire to be married in a church? Ian and I got hitched on a beach in a civil ceremony and try telling us that our union isn't a marriage, you'll have quiet a scuffle on your hands.
I'm agnostic and have no desire at all to get married in a church. If/when I tie the knot, it'll be in a natural setting, such as next to a creek or lake or the ocean. And I'll still call it a marriage and a wedding, despite the lack of religious trappings.

I've been to many religious weddings, even read Bible passages at my brother's wedding (I only did it because it's my brother, not because I believed a word of it... that wasn't the point though, it was to show support. Several other family members on both sides did readings too) I think the couple should have the kind of ceremony they want, what matters to them... it's their day. People should be supportive of their choices, not make a stand. Wrong time and place for that.

[Screwtape]

The most ridiculous? Well, you're young. When was "before religion?"

[sk716]

Seperate but equal huh? And since when does the church 'own' the word marriage? Marriage has existed long before religion, it exists on every continent, across many different faiths, it even existed in places where there was no religion (the USSR recognised marriages even though the church wasn't high on their list of recognizable institutions).

This is the most ridiculous, childish argument I've ever heard.

It's not an argument. I agree with you.

It's not my fault the church insists that marriage belongs to them, I know marriage was created for inheritances and property rights and is a legal status not a church status. I'm just tired of arguing about it with them.

I'm all for completely equal, I am a lesbian after all and while I'm not a big fan of the institution of marriage, I believe I have a right to the same things straight people do.

[thespianphryne]

The problem is language. They're exactly the same thing. They are just different words and the church claims ownership of the word Marriage.

At this point, I'm tired enough of the fight that I'd be more than willing to accept "Civil Unions" for gays and lesbians. The Christians can have their word, just as long as I get the same considerations under the law.

I second the motion.

Call it the Unholy Bond Of The Perverse And Abominable if you must, but give me the same legal right to determine who and what my family is.

[TCJohnson]

The point is to ceperate the legalities and the ceremony.

Have the legalities come with the paperwork...getting the marriage liscense, and sign the paperwork with the witnesses.

Then have the marriage come with the ceremony, whatever ceremony you wish, wether it is religious or not.

[thespianphryne]

I second the motion.

Call it the Unholy Bond Of The Perverse And Abominable if you must, but give me the same legal right to determine who and what my family is.


OOps, got cut off earlier...

Of course, after I've got my legal rights, I'm coming after ignorance and cultural inertia and laziness.

[Screwtape]

Okay, I'm with you to here. I'm not saying I agree with you, but I see where you are coming from.

But this paragraph:

I've got some issues with. Because the bit you are overlooking is the people who are "straight" and get married and then discover/admit that they are gay a few years down the road. While I'm sure your example has happened once or twice, it's considerably less likely to happen than a closeted individual getting married to someone of the opposite sex under pressure from family/society/friends. I knew a lesbian who fell in love with a man. So. she's not a lesbian anymore. I'm still confused about that.No, I totally get that. That was what I meant in the next paragraph when I referred to sexual inadequacy.

So, thespianphryne, your argument appears to be, "fuck you, why don't you just give up and agree with me." Tell me, have you ever had a friend?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Marriage has nothing to do with Civil rights IMO.
And the US Supreme Court says you're wrong. Way back in Loving v. VA, marriage - the decision that overturned laws against interracial marriage -the Court found marriage to be a fundamental right.

That decision also didn't specify the genders of the participants.

[Samurai]

It's not an argument. I agree with you.

It's not my fault the church insists that marriage belongs to them, I know marriage was created for inheritances and property rights and is a legal status not a church status. I'm just tired of arguing about it with them.

I'm all for completely equal, I am a lesbian after all and while I'm not a big fan of the institution of marriage, I believe I have a right to the same things straight people do.
Actually, it's both a religious sacrament/institution and a legal one. Since there was really no disagreement between the 2 sides, they merged them into one entity. Now 1 side want to unilaterally change the definition to include something the other side doesn't just disagree with, but actually considers a sin. So it's time for the partnership to break up, each side going with their own definitions from now on. Since the term "marriage" is more important to the religious side, let them keep the name and definition, and let the govt create Civil Unions.

[Samurai]

And the US Supreme Court says you're wrong. Way back in Loving v. VA, marriage - the decision that overturned laws against interracial marriage -the Court found marriage to be a fundamental right.

That decision also didn't specify the genders of the participants.
Because it was considered obvious and self-evident. Not every word in the decision (any decision) is defined...

[JeffreyWKramer]

It is our most sacred and fundamental institution.
Bullshit, again.

Civil marriage has been around for the entire existence of the US, and has existed in many countries for hundreds of years. And nobody had any problems with that whatsoever until gays started applying.

[Screwtape]

And the US Supreme Court says you're wrong. Way back in Loving v. VA, marriage - the decision that overturned laws against interracial marriage -the Court found marriage to be a fundamental right.

That decision also didn't specify the genders of the participants.My GOD! They DIDN'T SPECIFY THE GENDERS! THAT MEANS IT'S BEEN UNQUESTIONABLY LEGAL FOR YEARS, AND J W KRAMER IS THE FIRST PERSON TO NOTICE! SOMEBODY CALL DAN RATHER!

It's nice that Jeff will continue to be wrong on this point for the rest of his natural life. You can set your watch by it.

I promise, if gay marriage advocates don't abandon the "Civil Rights" thing and find a new line of attack, hell will freeze over before anyone in the South recognizes a same-sex union. And black people will be incensed and insulted, as well they should be.

[TCJohnson]

This is the most ridiculous, childish argument I've ever heard.

So, because I would like church and state to be truly seperate and everybody, gay or straight, to have the same rights under the law it is ok to insult me.

Yeah, glad you don't post here much.

[Cam63]

If there is a God, I can't see why he or she would object to two people being happy togther.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's some fucked up shit, dude.
Consider the source.

[sk716]

My GOD! They DIDN'T SPECIFY THE GENDERS! THAT MEANS IT'S BEEN UNQUESTIONABLY LEGAL FOR YEARS, AND J W KRAMER IS THE FIRST PERSON TO NOTICE! SOMEBODY CALL DAN RATHER!

It's nice that Jeff will continue to be wrong on this point for the rest of his natural life. You can set your watch by it.

I promise, if gay marriage advocates don't abandon the "Civil Rights" thing and find a new line of attack, hell will freeze over before anyone in the South recognizes a same-sex union. And black people will be incensed and insulted, as well they should be.

Here's where we always differ. You are bound an determined to see it is anything except a civil rights issue. And it is a civil rights issue.

One segment of the population is being denied a right. How is it not a civil rights issue?

[TCJohnson]

If there is a God, I can't see why he or she would object to two people being happy togther.

Well, only his kind of people are supposed to be happy. The rest are supposed to burn in hell.

Kinda like a cosmic country club.

[thespianphryne]

So, thespianphryne, your argument appears to be, "fuck you, why don't you just give up and agree with me." Tell me, have you ever had a friend?

Dear Screwtape,
Yes, apparently that is what my argument appears to be...to you.

My argument is, if your reasons for or against something don't ring true, then stop to consider that it's because your reasons are hollow.

Sincerely,
Patient

[Michael P]

Actually, no marriage license asks about a person's sexuality. It only asks about who the person is marrying. No matter what your sexuality, a man can't marry a man, and a woman can't marry a woman. But a gay man can marry a woman, and many do. So by your own reasoning here, since the law and its requirements are not based on sexuality, it's not discrimination.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Switzerland!

[Briareos]

In order for things to have meaning they have to have rules. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. A man and a man along with a woman and a woman cannot get married. Some wish to change the meaning of marriage into something it has never been (too people who love each other wish to unite). The best most stable family structure is a Man and a Woman who have made a comitment to each other. No other structure throughout history has ever worked as well as this one. In places where homosexual unions are allowed to be called marriage they have shown dramatic decreases in the percentage of couples who marry. Why should they marry it doesn't mean anything if any two people can do it? Why bother with the comitment if there is nothing special about it?

[Sally Sensational]

Guess I'll weigh in here, too.

Regarding the statement made about how marriage today is about love and not financial gain or security - have you ever met a single mom who doesn't quite know how to make ends meet so she marries the first guy that comes along? I've known quite a few - second marriages actually have a higher divorce rate than first marriages do. To be honest, there are days that I look at my bank balance and wonder about doing the same thing.

It's also not at all unheard of for people to get married for the financial benefits - happens all the time in the military.

I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with TC on this. Marriage in a church is an option - not a requirement. Otherwise, "Elvis" couldn't marry a couple in a drive-through in Las Vegas. If I'm not mistaken, many European countries actually require that a couple have a civil ceremony in a courthouse or registry office in addition to a "church wedding" and it's the ceremony in the office that makes the marriage legal.

From another angle, the Catholic church hasn't recognized second marriages by divorced individuals for centuries. But that doesn't stop people from remarrying and living the rest of their lives as married couples and families.

I guess what I'm saying here is that we have lost track of what marriage is about. It's about two people committing to share their lives together. That's not just about love - it's about money, and taxes, and a commitment to blend ALL aspects of those two lives.

The church can't tell you you're married - only the courthouse can. If the churches don't want to recognize some marriages, fine. It won't be anything new. As far as "marriage" is concerned, it's really only the "civil union" that changes a person's status anyway.

It just seems to me that so many of the arguments presented in this issue have nothing whatsoever to do with its reality. If two people, whoever they may be, want to combine their lives in such a way that it will require a legal contract to do so and another legal contract to get out of, then they ought to be able to. And, if they're of legal age, they ought to be able to do it without anyone else's permission.

Edit: With regard to the "historical precedent" argument. It wasn't so long ago that it was a historical precedent for a man to marry several women and it's still practiced in some areas. Which "historical precedent" are we supposed to support?

Edit - Mark two: how much more meaning can you have than two people who are willing to go before witnesses and sign a contract saying that they will spend the rest of their lives together? That seems pretty meaningful to me. Does it have more meaning if it's said in a church? It didn't for my ex-husband, but it sure had plenty of meaning when two of my friends said it in the living room of the local justice of the peace.

[JeffreyWKramer]

My GOD! They DIDN'T SPECIFY THE GENDERS! THAT MEANS IT'S BEEN UNQUESTIONABLY LEGAL FOR YEARS, AND J W KRAMER IS THE FIRST PERSON TO NOTICE! SOMEBODY CALL DAN RATHER!

Not at all the first person. The thing is "they took it for granted it didn't need to be specified" isn't very meritous as a legal argument. It used to be considered that "men" referred to men. Now we use it generically for "people."

It's nice that Jeff will continue to be wrong on this point for the rest of his natural life. You can set your watch by it.
And I'm guessing this is the point by which the US Supreme Court will eventually affirm gay marriage. We'll see who is right.

I promise, if gay marriage advocates don't abandon the "Civil Rights" thing and find a new line of attack, hell will freeze over before anyone in the South recognizes a same-sex union. And black people will be incensed and insulted, as well they should be.
Lots of people in the South don't have a problem with the obvious comparison. Either do lots of old leaders from the Civil Rights movement, though some do - mostly ones that have their own religiously-derived bigotry toward gays.

Really, what's the problem with the analogy? Civil rights isn't specifically a black/slavery thing. Civil rights encompasses all who are treated unfairly, or who have been - women, other minorities, etc. Gays are just the current group it's okay to be bigoted against. Religious arguments have previously been used to justify slavery and subjugation of women, too.

[Jack Zodiac]

In order for things to have meaning they have to have rules. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. A man and a man along with a woman and a woman cannot get married. Some wish to change the meaning of marriage into something it has never been (too people who love each other wish to unite). The best most stable family structure is a Man and a Woman who have made a comitment to each other. No other structure throughout history has ever worked as well as this one. In places where homosexual unions are allowed to be called marriage they have shown dramatic decreases in the percentage of couples who marry. Why should they marry it doesn't mean anything if any two people can do it? Why bother with the comitment if there is nothing special about it?

What a fucking sad and warped view of love and marriage.

First of all, if you're gonna' vomit crap about straight marriage declining in areas that allow gay marriage, back it up with proof. You could say whatever the hell makes sense and not back it up. I could tell you that there are far more straight divorces than there are gay divorces, and ask you who you think deserves to be and stay together based on that, but I know how slanted those statistics are.

There is something special about the commitment. It's between two people who love each other enough to devote their lives to one another. How is that not special, and how is it made any less special if the people involved both have a penis?

Wanna' twist words around to make any ridiculously stupid thing sound reasonable? If gays are allowed to marry, then it robs the act of marriage of what makes it special. In that case, if one of the things that makes marriage special involves excluding people from being able to experience based upon their sexual preference, enjoy engaging in one of the most ridiculously backwards acts of open and flaunted bigotry in society. How's that for a cornerstone of a societal institution?

[Screwtape]

Here's where we always differ. You are bound an determined to see it is anything except a civil rights issue. And it is a civil rights issue.

One segment of the population is being denied a right. How is it not a civil rights issue?The right to practice whatever kind of sex you want with whoever you want and call it "marriage" is not, in fact, a right. Provided state-sanctioned same-sex marriage is the direction in which society is going (and I'm not convinced it is, particularly after this year's returns) we have to redefine marriage to accommodate homosexuals, and we have to do it very carefully.

Look, I'll even do the rest of this thread in miniature:

GayPoster42: "If two people love each other, how can it be wrong? It's just like black people and white people loving each other, only they're gay, not black!"

Insensitive Asshole (me): "What if three people want to love each other? Or a hundred and five? Or a man and a dog? Or a school teacher and her 12-year-old student? Race makes absolutely no difference in the way people procreate, except for some rare genetic issues. Race is also inborn, not learned. Sexuality is, in large part, learned."

GayPoster42: "I don't want to hurt dogs or little kids! I just want to have a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend, whom I love very much! I didn't CHOOSE to be gay, you insensitive asshole!"

InsensitiveAsshole (me): "I never said you chose to be gay, I said sexual behavior was learned - "

Guy_Who_LOVES_This_Issue: "FUCK YOU! Gay people are born that way!"

InsensitiveAsshole (me): "But that's not strictly -"

lurker_the_splchkr-2: "Gay peopel are KILED for being gay! That's opresion, and it maeks them a minority! You should be sacrifised to Stan!"

InsensitiveAsshole (me): "But oppression doesn't make you a... wait, and a dozen murders, awful as they are, are nothing compared to -"

Cherry Picker: "FUCK YOU!"

lurker_the_splchkr-2: "FUC YOU!"

Guy_Who_LOVES_This_Issue: "FUCK YOU."

All of which doesn't get us anywhere on the real issue: the rhetoric adopted by the gay lobby is inflammatory. Undoubtedly, this is a great way to draw attention to the issue, but it has backfired in a major way. The argument that "My girlfriend/boyfriend and I are both of the age of consent and would like to continue to live our lives in dignity, with inheritance rights and hospital visitation, particularly the latter, since a specific terminal disease has ravaged our community" is much more convincing than screaming that gay people have suffered just like blacks or Jews or pick a persecuted minority.

Also, love should not enter into it. You can't legislate around love, because perverts and sickos claim love just as quickly. After all, if a forty-year-old man and a sexually mature fourteen-year-old boy are truly in love (and I don't doubt that they could be), do you think society should abolish the age of consent to accommodate them? Jesus, I hope not. A straightforward, unemotional argument is a much better defense, particularly since conservatives think gay people are unstable anyway.

I'm trying to contribute to this argument in a positive way here. Undoubtedly the animosity will reach a fever pitch in a couple of pages and I'll abandon this thing, but these are the reasons I think what I think (which is not necessarily that gay marriage is bad) and they don't seem totally out of whack to me. What do you think, SK?

[Screwtape]

Dear Screwtape,
Yes, apparently that is what my argument appears to be...to you.

My argument is, if your reasons for or against something don't ring true, then stop to consider that it's because your reasons are hollow.

Sincerely,
PatientI'm ambivalent because neither side has convinced me. I can understand how that would be difficult to grasp to someone who would rather be certain than right.

[Jack Zodiac]

I'm trying to contribute to this argument in a positive way here.

You're doing a bang-up job, between assuming some homosexuals "correct" their sexuality later in life, and that being gay is not only a choice, but equivalent to being a polygamist, polyamorous, "havin' jungle fevah," and wanting to fuck a dog.

[bert]

Insensitive Asshole (me):

well. . at least I can agree w/ part of your post, Screwtape.

I freely admit to not reading all of the thread, I skipped right to the end, and saw your post.

so if I've missed where you've equated "gay" with anything other than "sex", I apologize.

but that is exactly where your problem is.

you being Heterosexual does not mean you walk around 24/7 with woman balanced on the end of your penis like an antenna ball.

and me being gay is about WAY more than just having sex with a man I love.

and if you can't see that?

well, I'm just sad for you.

[Screwtape]

I would like everyone who actually read my posts to take the time to savor the marvelous irony above. Like fine wine, so it is.

Apology accepted, bert!

[Adam Crocker]

We run into trouble again, though, when gay people occasionally discover (sometimes to their horror) that they have accidentally entered into another phase of their sexual identity and are either no more aroused or far less aroused by their same-sex partner than by someone of the opposite sex. This does not happen to everyone, and inevitably some idiot maintains that it doesn't happen to ANYONE, but it does happen. The human body is designed to function in a certain way and occasionally it "corrects" itself. Should gay people get married if there's a chance they might end up completely unable to relate sexually to their partner? After all, marriage is ostensibly a lifetime commitment.

We could easily turn this into "should straight people get married if they find out they are gay?" Really, there's not much point to speculating on this, especially since gay people generally don't "correct" themselves. And of those who claim so, it generally turns out that they are in denial and having gay sex behind people's backs. This argument is a dead-end.

[Adam Crocker]

...because I am getting really sick of pointing this out time and time again...

Seperate but equal huh? And since when does the church 'own' the word marriage? Marriage has existed long before religion...

I agree with the others, since when is "before religion?" Arguably religion has been around since the earliest societies.

On the other hand...

Spot on!

The Government has about as much buisness recognising marriage than it does running hair salons. Why do we even let the government interfere in matters of marriage? It is our most sacred and fundamental institution.

Since you asked: in terms of recorded history, since the earliest civilizations whose laws we have records of. The ancient city states of Sumeria had laws regulating marriage. As did Egypt, the Greek City states, Rome, etc. I've said it time and time again this whole bit about government involvement in marriage being some recent innovation is fallacious. And I'm getting tired of pointing it out time and time again. It's not historically accurate.

Moreover, if you are an anarchist who feels that the government should just get lost, then I don't have a problem with this argument. It's actually based on one's political beliefs as opposed to false statements about history. If you're arguing that marriage belongs exclusively to a civil or religious sphere...look the argument is based exclusively on a modern understanding of the seperation of Church and State. Prior to the Age of Enlightenment, this doesn't really apply because that understanding simply didn't exist before then. You might as well argue that pop culture belongs exclusively to religion for all its worth. So just drop this damn argument already. I'm sick of having to refute it.

[Jack Zodiac]

I would like everyone who actually read my posts to take the time to savor the marvelous irony above. Like fine wine, so it is.

Is it really irony when you prompt these reactions with total incomprehension about homosexuality? It's more like foresight. Bad foresight, but foresight nonetheless.

[bert]

I would like everyone who actually read my posts to take the time to savor the marvelous irony above. Like fine wine, so it is.

Apology accepted, bert!

cool.

as I said, I was only commenting on this one post.

[Screwtape]

You're doing a bang-up job, between assuming some homosexuals "correct" their sexuality later in life, and that being gay is not only a choice, but equivalent to being a polygamist, polyamorous, "havin' jungle fevah," and wanting to fuck a dog.Out of curiousity, Jack, can you read?

[Jack Zodiac]

Out of curiousity, Jack, can you read?

No, I'm illiterate. Ya' caught me. I can't read or write or spell or punctuate.

[JeffreyWKramer]

In order for things to have meaning they have to have rules.

That's nonsense.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. A man and a man along with a woman and a woman cannot get married.
I'm not aware of any laws of physics dictating this. Marriage can be whatever people decide it is.

Some wish to change the meaning of marriage into something it has never been (too people who love each other wish to unite).
Things change. It's called progress. It's generally considered a good thing.

The best most stable family structure is a Man and a Woman who have made a comitment to each other.
The best, most stable family structure is a stable arrangement between committed people. There's no evidence the genders make a difference, and indeed, all available evidence re: gay couples with kids demonstrates that the genders don't make a difference.

No other structure throughout history has ever worked as well as this one.
Sheer and utter nonsense. There are all sorts of familial units through different cultures - extended families of various sizes, communal marriages, tribal-groups being defined as family, nonrelated folk being considered family members, etc. They have all functioned fine. People get together, have kids, the kids turn out fine. Anthropological evidence shows you wrong again.

In places where homosexual unions are allowed to be called marriage they have shown dramatic decreases in the percentage of couples who marry.
And in places where people read the Bible, sometimes they have power outages. Coincidence does not equate to causality.

For the record, in European countries with gay marriage, there was a downward trend in marriage numbers well before the start of gay marriages. The trend simply continued after that point.

Why should they marry it doesn't mean anything if any two people can do it?
Because people want to? Because of the social recognition and legal rights that go with marriage?

Why bother with the comitment if there is nothing special about it?
Who says it's not special? And, to whom? Do idiots going for quickie Vegas weddings and just-as-quick divorces make heterosexual marriage any less special?

You toss out a lot of opinions here with no backing or logic behind any of them. Like usual.

[Screwtape]

No, I'm illiterate. Ya' caught me. I can't read or write or spell or punctuate.I was just about to write something even snarkier back, but I saw your subtitle and started laughing and now I can't.

Cunning Linguist. Hee hee. Damn you, humor.

Does anyone remember the bumper stickers that said "ILLITERATE? CALL 1-800-CAN-READ"?

[sk716]

The right to practice whatever kind of sex you want with whoever you want and call it "marriage" is not, in fact, a right. Provided state-sanctioned same-sex marriage is the direction in which society is going (and I'm not convinced it is, particularly after this year's returns) we have to redefine marriage to accommodate homosexuals, and we have to do it very carefully.

I think you're missing the point though. It's irrelevant who I sleep with.

You are a straight guy, you can marry any woman you want.

I am a lesbian and I am being told I can't marry anyone except a man. Which really isn't going to work out for me.

Do you see the problem?

Look, I'll even do the rest of this thread in miniature:

GayPoster42: "If two people love each other, how can it be wrong? It's just like black people and white people loving each other, only they're gay, not black!"

Insensitive Asshole (me): "What if three people want to love each other? Or a hundred and five? Or a man and a dog? Or a school teacher and her 12-year-old student? Race makes absolutely no difference in the way people procreate, except for some rare genetic issues. Race is also inborn, not learned. Sexuality is, in large part, learned."

GayPoster42: "I don't want to hurt dogs or little kids! I just want to have a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend, whom I love very much! I didn't CHOOSE to be gay, you insensitive asshole!"

InsensitiveAsshole (me): "I never said you chose to be gay, I said sexual behavior was learned - "

Guy_Who_LOVES_This_Issue: "FUCK YOU! Gay people are born that way!"

InsensitiveAsshole (me): "But that's not strictly -"

lurker_the_splchkr-2: "Gay peopel are KILED for being gay! That's opresion, and it maeks them a minority! You should be sacrifised to Stan!"

InsensitiveAsshole (me): "But oppression doesn't make you a... wait, and a dozen murders, awful as they are, are nothing compared to -"

Cherry Picker: "FUCK YOU!"

lurker_the_splchkr-2: "FUC YOU!"

Guy_Who_LOVES_This_Issue: "FUCK YOU."

I'll abandon the thread when it gets to that point, too. Screaming about it and insulting each other doesn't help.

All of which doesn't get us anywhere on the real issue: the rhetoric adopted by the gay lobby is inflammatory. Undoubtedly, this is a great way to draw attention to the issue, but it has backfired in a major way. The argument that "My girlfriend/boyfriend and I are both of the age of consent and would like to continue to live our lives in dignity, with inheritance rights and hospital visitation, particularly the latter, since a specific terminal disease has ravaged our community" is much more convincing than screaming that gay people have suffered just like blacks or Jews or pick a persecuted minority.

Also, love should not enter into it. You can't legislate around love, because perverts and sickos claim love just as quickly. After all, if a forty-year-old man and a sexually mature fourteen-year-old boy are truly in love (and I don't doubt that they could be), do you think society should abolish the age of consent to accommodate them? Jesus, I hope not. A straightforward, unemotional argument is a much better defense, particularly since conservatives think gay people are unstable anyway.

I'm trying to contribute to this argument in a positive way here. Undoubtedly the animosity will reach a fever pitch in a couple of pages and I'll abandon this thing, but these are the reasons I think what I think (which is not necessarily that gay marriage is bad) and they don't seem totally out of whack to me. What do you think, SK?

The rhetoric from the Fundy lobby is just as inflammatory, as is the rhetoric from the homophobe lobby. I agree that love isn't the actual issue. But it is rights. It's about the same things marriage was established for in the first place. Which has actually been pointed out a couple of times already, so I don't feel the need to list them all again.

[Sally Sensational]

The best most stable family structure is a Man and a Woman who have made a comitment to each other.

Let me tell you a story.

I have a six year old daughter. She has two parents - me and her daddy. Her daddy and I make every parenting decision together, from where she goes to school to how long she is grounded, to which movies she's going to see. We sit down to a family dinner at least twice a week. She hears "I love you" from both her parents every day and knows that she is the most important person in both our lives. I drop her off at school and her daddy picks her up. When I'm at basketball practice, she watches tv with her daddy. Last Sunday, we all went together to see "Monsters, Inc. on Ice".

Does this sound like a family to you? It sure feels like one to me.

Oh, one more thing. Her daddy and I don't live together. And we've never been married. Never. Guess that leaves us out of the "true" definition of family.

It seems to me that the "most stable family structure" is two parents who have made a commitment to the child they are raising.

[Jack Zodiac]

I was just about to write something even snarkier back, but I saw your subtitle and started laughing and now I can't.

Laughing at... the fact that my title is "cunning linguist" and you assume I didn't get your half-assed attempt at calling this thread while throwing in underhanded snipes at homosexuality and the circumstances of this debate, or were you laughing at the joke about eating pussy?

[MrSuslov]

Since you asked: in terms of recorded history, since the earliest civilizations whose laws we have records of. The ancient city states of Sumeria had laws regulating marriage. As did Egypt, the Greek City states, Rome, etc. I've said it time and time again this whole bit about government involvement in marriage being some recent innovation is fallacious. And I'm getting tired of pointing it out time and time again. It's not historically accurate.
Well now, that's some useful and interesting information. Bet that throws a sabot in several intellectual frameworks. Is there some sort of excuse that allows this to be ignored by various commentators in the professional realm, or is it just flat historical ignorance of the deliberate or accidental sort?

[Screwtape]

I think you're missing the point though. It's irrelevant who I sleep with.

You are a straight guy, you can marry any woman you want.

I am a lesbian and I am being told I can't marry anyone except a man. Which really isn't going to work out for me.

Do you see the problem?



I'll abandon the thread when it gets to that point, too. Screaming about it and insulting each other doesn't help.



The rhetoric from the Fundy lobby is just as inflammatory, as is the rhetoric from the homophobe lobby. I agree that love isn't the actual issue. But it is rights. It's about the same things marriage was established for in the first place. Which has actually been pointed out a couple of times already, so I don't feel the need to list them all again.The gender of the person you sleep with isn't irrelevant to the people you're trying to convince. I understand where you're coming from, I'm just saying that the burden of proof is on you guys at this point. Ditto for the fundy lobby. This is the EXACT same thing as the controversies around abortion: like idiots, liberal lobbyist have provided conservatives with the perfect image for their weekly mailing: two men in leather studded collars kissing. Before, they had to raid the biohazard bins at abortion clinics to take pictures of aborted kids.

Do you know how easy it is to mobilize your entire constituency with something iconic like that? It says "here's what we're up against" in language clearer than any treatise.

This issue is about whether the laws, and indeed, the traditional understanding of marriage, should be changed to accommodate grown men and women who practice sex in a non-traditional way and aren't hurting anybody. That is the sticking point for conservatives, and that's where the battle has to be fought, rather than trying to guilt people into thinking that they're spraying african-american children with fire hoses again.

[Adam Crocker]

Well now, that's some useful and interesting information. Bet that throws a sabot in several intellectual frameworks. Is there some sort of excuse that allows this to be ignored by various commentators in the professional realm, or is it just flat historical ignorance of the deliberate or accidental sort?

Probably the latter, but I cannot remember reading any professional commentators making this argument. Just people at CBR repeating it ad nauseum and me refuting it ad nauseum.

[Screwtape]

Laughing at... the fact that my title is "cunning linguist" and you assume I didn't get your half-assed attempt at calling this thread while throwing in underhanded snipes at homosexuality and the circumstances of this debate, or were you laughing at the joke about eating pussy?I was laughing at the joke about oral sex and I really don't understand the rest of that sentence, sorry.

[Cam63]

I think you're missing the point though. It's irrelevant who I sleep with.

You are a straight guy, you can marry any woman you want.

I am a lesbian and I am being told I can't marry anyone except a man. Which really isn't going to work out for me.

Do you see the problem?

What Ferret Sheila said.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well now, that's some useful and interesting information. Bet that throws a sabot in several intellectual frameworks. Is there some sort of excuse that allows this to be ignored by various commentators in the professional realm, or is it just flat historical ignorance of the deliberate or accidental sort?
The people that claim religion has some corner on marriage, or that marriage is exclusively a sacrament, are either ignorant or lying. Some of them are clearly lying, including those that keep repeating that argument here, because the facts have been presented to them repeatedly.

Yes, religions have sacraments about marriage. Some religions also have sacraments about breaking ground on buildings; that doesn't make construction a religious activity. Some people pray before eating; that doesn't make dining a religious activity.

I'll repeat this for the slow kids. Civil marriage - marriage by the state - has been around for the entire existence of the United States, and was around in Europe for a long time before that. Indeed, it has pretty much always been around in Europe. In the US, nobody ever had a problem with this until gay folk wanted in on it. Suddenly there's all these "it's a holy thing" arguments.

It's pure hypocricy, based on bigotry. Often bigotry inspired by religious doctrine/belief, but still bigotry nonetheless.

[Screwtape]

Yes, religions have sacraments about marriage. Some religions also have sacraments about breaking ground on buildings; that doesn't make construction a religious activity. Some people pray before eating; that doesn't make dining a religious activity.My church had its annual sex seminar a couple of weeks ago and this is essentially what my pastor, who thinks that both premarital sex and homosexuality are sins, said. To paraphrase as accurately as possible, "We deal with it in the church in a very specific way. But as far as whether or not gay people should be allowed to be able to live safe and healthy lives in society at large, I think there ought to be no doubt that they should."

[sk716]

The gender of the person you sleep with isn't irrelevant to the people you're trying to convince. I understand where you're coming from, I'm just saying that the burden of proof is on you guys at this point. Ditto for the fundy lobby. This is the EXACT same thing as the controversies around abortion: like idiots, liberal lobbyist have provided conservatives with the perfect image for their weekly mailing: two men in leather studded collars kissing. Before, they had to raid the biohazard bins at abortion clinics to take pictures of aborted kids.

Do you know how easy it is to mobilize your entire constituency with something iconic like that? It says "here's what we're up against" in language clearer than any treatise.

This issue is about whether the laws, and indeed, the traditional understanding of marriage, should be changed to accommodate grown men and women who practice sex in a non-traditional way and aren't hurting anybody. That is the sticking point for conservatives, and that's where the battle has to be fought, rather than trying to guilt people into thinking that they're spraying african-american children with fire hoses again.

But that's the thing, they aren't changing Marriage, they are changing the law to define marriage specifically to exclude a section of the population.

[Screwtape]

SK: But that's a section of society that has been excluded for the entire life of this country and the life of the western world. It's absolutely changing marriage. The question to ask is whether that change is necessary.

Maybe it is.

The important thing is that none of your opponents are ever going to agree that you will not be changing the definition of marriage. As long as you insist that, it will sound like an insult to their intelligence. It's a MAJOR societal change. That doesn't make it wrong in and of itself.

[TCJohnson]

Since you asked: in terms of recorded history, since the earliest civilizations whose laws we have records of. The ancient city states of Sumeria had laws regulating marriage. As did Egypt, the Greek City states, Rome, etc. I've said it time and time again this whole bit about government involvement in marriage being some recent innovation is fallacious. And I'm getting tired of pointing it out time and time again. It's not historically accurate.

You might know more about this because I fully admit you are much smarter than I am but...historically aren't we also the first country that tried to really seperate church and state? In Egypt, the Greek City states and Rome, the priesthood had a lot of power.

The main problem with all this is that many (not all) of the churches don't like homosexuals so don't want them to involved in anything they believe they have influence over. Fine...but don't let it stand in the way of who gays can share their lives with.

[Lester C.]

The whole good old days argument about the nuclear family is crap. Back then most marriages were third or fourth marriage because the Mom would die from childbirth or the dad in a factory. Another reason why people didn’t get divorced back then, and had many more affairs, is because people were not marrying for love back then as marrying for love is a relatively new concept brought about by industrialization and the civil rights movement.

[sk716]

SK: But that's a section of society that has been excluded for the entire life of this country and the life of the western world. It's absolutely changing marriage. The question to ask is whether that change is necessary.

Maybe it is.

The important thing is that none of your opponents are ever going to agree that you will not be changing the definition of marriage. As long as you insist that, it will sound like an insult to their intelligence. It's a MAJOR societal change. That doesn't make it wrong in and of itself.

I don't see how it changes marriage. Marriage stays exactly the same, two people decide to share everything, from bills, to family decisions. You can spend the night in a hospital room by your spouses side. You get to claim married on you tax return and get that extra kick back.

Marriage doesn't change in all of this. The world around it, does.

[Sally Sensational]

The whole good old days argument about the nuclear family is crap.

Point to Les. Although I would like to point out that the nuclear family thing wasn't raised to its iconic status until the middle of the 20th century. Before then, the extended family was more the norm. The whole nuclear family thing was part of the anti-communist propaganda of the mid-century cold war.

So, why are we still extolling the virtues of something that was used to fight a war that is long since over? Since when is a family that excludes everyone but a mother, father, and 2.7 perfect children an enduring human institution?

[MrSuslov]

I don't see how it changes marriage. Marriage stays exactly the same, two people decide to share everything, from bills, to family decisions. You can spend the night in a hospital room by your spouses side. You get to claim married on you tax return and get that extra kick back.

Marriage doesn't change in all of this. The world around it, does.
Not exactly. Your policy preference would expand the availability of these benefits to a class that has not, to my off-the-cuff knowledge, ever been granted these benefits in the history of the United States. That would suggest to me that there is some sort of sea change afoot. To reformulate your conclusion, "The world around it changes marriage".

[TCJohnson]

The people that claim religion has some corner on marriage, or that marriage is exclusively a sacrament, are either ignorant or lying. Some of them are clearly lying, including those that keep repeating that argument here, because the facts have been presented to them repeatedly.

Yes, religions have sacraments about marriage. Some religions also have sacraments about breaking ground on buildings; that doesn't make construction a religious activity. Some people pray before eating; that doesn't make dining a religious activity.

I'll repeat this for the slow kids. Civil marriage - marriage by the state - has been around for the entire existence of the United States, and was around in Europe for a long time before that. Indeed, it has pretty much always been around in Europe. In the US, nobody ever had a problem with this until gay folk wanted in on it. Suddenly there's all these "it's a holy thing" arguments.

It's pure hypocricy, based on bigotry. Often bigotry inspired by religious doctrine/belief, but still bigotry nonetheless.

Since I was the one who brought this up (with SK agreeing with me for that matter) I guess this is addressed toward me. What I want is for gays to have all the legal rights everybody else has. I want Pip to be able to come live in America and spend the rest of his life with his boyfriend.

Explain to me how I am bigotted?

[Adam Crocker]

You might know more about this because I fully admit you are much smarter than I am but...historically aren't we also the first country that tried to really seperate church and state? In Egypt, the Greek City states and Rome, the priesthood had a lot of power.

I'm not sure if the U.S. is THE first, but it is the first country whose founding values includes this idea. But as I said this idea of a civil sphere and separate religious sphere is a product of the Age of Enlightenment. And the United States is a country founded on Enlightenment (specifically Classical Liberal) ideas. And yes, in those past societies the priesthood had a lot of power. But what you are forgetting is that religion had a much greater role in the actual culture of those societies (both high and low) than it does today.

Which is my problem with the way people here have argued that marriage somehow belongs first to religion or first to civil society is fallacious because pre-modern societies simply didn't have this concept of the two being separate. Religious observance and ritual was as much a part of civil society as watching the Simpsons is for us. A medieval christian could not conceive of social spheres separate from religion the way we do today because Christianity was the fundamental bed rock of pop culture back then. (Even if popular christianity didn't always line up with official Christianity, as both Catholic and Protestant churches found out when they actually started to look at popular religious beliefs following the initial stages of the Reformation.)

That's why you can't claim marriage is either exclusively a civil institution or a religious one. Because it first cropped up in societies that didn't make that sort of distinction and human history is too messy and complex to make such neat classifications. Otherwise I could just as easily kill any Church's claim on officiating marriage by pointing out that for about half of the Medieval period it most marriage was an informal co-habitation arrangement based on Germanic Custom rather than a ritual overseen by a priest. It wasn't made a sacrament until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1214 and even then it took time for that to take.

[TCJohnson]

I disagree that religion does not have as much control over people's lives as it used to. It still has a lot of control over a lot of people's lives. Most people associate marriage with religion, wether it is true or not. Perception defines reality and as long as we call it gay marriage, it is never going to happen.

And right now, I think the important thing is to get homosexuals couples the rights that other couples have. It is more important for me that Pip can live with his boryfriend than it is that they get a label for their relationship. That is the important thing, that gay couples can live happily with the security that the rest of us have.

So that is priority #1, in my opinion. The rights. If we can achieve those rights by changing the terminology, fine! Perception defines reality, and giving the perceptions that gay couples have the same rights without actually getting married before whatever God you worship will placate a lot of people. Then, after they have the rights then we can argue terminology.

But according to others here, this view makes me bigotted and childish.

[Adam Crocker]

I disagree that religion does not have as much control over people's lives as it used to.

Then you need to read more history because its influence, even among the religious in places like the U.S., is significantly diminished. That the idea of no divinity is widespread should be proof enough of this. In medieval Europe this was pretty much unthinkable. Less so in Greece and Rome, but even then that tended to rare (the examples were simply much more noticeable, see Socrates).


But according to others here, this view makes me bigotted and childish.

To be fair Kramer's talking about the crowd that started arguing for the government getting out of marriage simply because people wanted to extend it to gays too.

[TCJohnson]

To be fair Kramer's talking about the crowd that started arguing for the government getting out of marriage simply because people wanted to extend it to gays too.

yeah, and I am one of those people. I believe that the government should get out of marriage since there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. That way the government can give gay people rights without upsetting the religious right and individual churches can decide who they will marry off without trampling on people's rights.

[kingdom2000]

I disagree that religion does not have as much control over people's lives as it used to. It still has a lot of control over a lot of people's lives. Most people associate marriage with religion, wether it is true or not. Perception defines reality and as long as we call it gay marriage, it is never going to happen.

And right now, I think the important thing is to get homosexuals couples the rights that other couples have. It is more important for me that Pip can live with his boryfriend than it is that they get a label for their relationship. That is the important thing, that gay couples can live happily with the security that the rest of us have.

So that is priority #1, in my opinion. The rights. If we can achieve those rights by changing the terminology, fine! Perception defines reality, and giving the perceptions that gay couples have the same rights without actually getting married before whatever God you worship will placate a lot of people. Then, after they have the rights then we can argue terminology.

But according to others here, this view makes me bigotted and childish.


The label has been given value both literally and figurativatly by society therefore of course its something that is desired by gays. Having said that, their approach to this battle is frankly moronic on a titantic scale and its blowing up in their collective faces whether they realize it or not.

The hatred towards gays is intrinistic to society, like it not. Changing that hatred will take generations and that take steps. Its a whole lot easier to gain the label if people are already accostomed to civil unions and unions that grant the exact same rights as marriage. Once that is done, then shoot for marriage.

The argument is that if they get most but not all, they will never get all. The problem with that though is now its a fight for none or all and right now and 18 or so out of 50 states have made it clear that none it is. But the nice thing about generations, as shown with racism, even gay bashing, is that each one becomes accustomed to certain things and look back at some behavior as stupid. Where my parents generation finds being gay unacceptable and wrong, many of my generation shrug at it, and even more of my little's sister generation don't see the big deal. The problem with laws on the books such as a gay ban amendment is its makes the fight for the label sooo much harder to reverse. Where gays might have one the fight in 10-20 years they now may not win it in even 50 years. The ground that has been loss is huge and thats because the apparent ignorance of many in not only human nature but the inertia of law.

Now if that sounds like I am againt gay marriage, I am not. I have yet to see any argument anywhere that backs up this "damages" marriage approach. Considering that heterosexuals in the last 40 years have completely destroyed marriage with a 50%+ divorce rate and others things, I really don't see how a couple being gay can make things worse.

For a more important reason I support it because in its current state, I believe a ban on gay marriage goes against the US Constitution. Even if I didn't like the idea, a true American would still support it for that reason alone.

In a country that brags about the idea of created equal, fairness for all, opportunity for all, that has fought and died for the concept, that pounds its chest about it, with many and ironically the mostly religious willing to force the concept on a foreign country not ready for it, I don't really see how can be against it. We like to claim we don't discriminate in this country or at least try to strive for the enlightened view on discrimination, yet on this we are unyielding. Just like racism in blacks had no real justification, neither does the behavior towards gays on the issue of marriage. An American that believes this in country, that believes in the constitution would support gay marriage, whether they liked it or not as true belief is supposed to overcome personal bias.

[diana_fan]

yeah, and I am one of those people. I believe that the government should get out of marriage since there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. That way the government can give gay people rights without upsetting the religious right and individual churches can decide who they will marry off without trampling on people's rights.


Well, marriage used to be handled by Ecclesiastical Courts, not the Common Law. If people want a return of that, and get the government out of it altogether, that's fine by me.

I'm an umarried, straight male, atheist. So, I don't know where I fit into the present US spectrum ... but anyway.

To me, the whole thing is people using religion (as they often do) as a crutch to scream and bitch about something which can't possibly affect them. Good lord, let people get married if they want to. Who cares whether they are guys, gals, or a guy and a gal? *How does it possibyl affect anyone else?*

That's what I don't get. People should be able to do engage in a construct like marriage if they want to. If they love each other, then what the hell is it to anyone else?

Oh, well. It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal in many states. Hell, Bob Jones U. still forbids inter-racial dating. But they are, thankfully, the exception these days.

Hopefully, one day within our lifetimes, homosexual relationships will be no more shocking to the majority of the population than inter-racial relationships are now.

[Gilda Dent]

Sam states, pretty clearly and succinctly, the conservative case. Marriage is about children; it's an institution set up to protect families that include a mother and a father (for my money, still the best way to produce a well-adjusted child, but that's another argument); it gets special social, legal, and political status because it provides the casing for the basic unit of a productive society.

So why not provide the same status to homosexual couples so that their families (they and their children) get the same social, legal, and political rights and protections? The only reason the girl Emily and I are adopting won't have two married parents is that it isn't legal for me and her other mother to marry.

The gender of the person you sleep with isn't irrelevant to the people you're trying to convince.

The right to practice whatever kind of sex you want with whoever you want and call it "marriage" is not, in fact, a right.

Repeat it often enough and maybe that will make it true. I notice you don't describe heterosexual marriage in terms of sexual attraction and activity. In fact, you don't even mention it, yet you frame same sex marriage in a way that implies that's all it's about.

[Pia Guerra]

So, because I would like church and state to be truly seperate and everybody, gay or straight, to have the same rights under the law it is ok to insult me.

Yeah, glad you don't post here much.

I haven't posted here recently only because I've been working like crazy over the last few months. I posted quite regularly on this board in the past and was very involved in the last mega gay marriage thread on here. In fact, it was during a very heated evening of arguing the subject with some pretty dense people (some who like to make up certain statistics out of thin air for instance) that Ian proposed to me. Seeing this argument come up again has brought me back if only for a little while. Call it nostalgia on the 6 month anniversary of our nuptials.

Canada has had gay marriage for a couple of years now and the effect on traditional marriage has been absolutely nil. Zip. While preparing for our marriage last spring we went to the annual wedding fair to check out a a few hundred vendors and their services. The center was packed with people, couples and maids of honour and many harried mothers all hellbent for deals, ready to spend tens of thousands of dollars on their special day. After two hours of getting bashed about by these crazy women racing from contest box to contest box with fistfulls of coupons hoping to win a free table setting or photo package it's pretty clear they couldn't care less about other people's weddings let alone those of gays and lesbians. Hell, brides don't give a shit that their own bridesmaids look like seafoam and tuille monstrosities so long as they get all the attention in their Vera Wang exclusives.

The US was founded on the idea of freedom of religion, anyone could show up and worship however they chose and people from all over the world with a whole host of beliefs did just that. Having government involved in marriage ensures fairness. It keeps restrictions like those found in Hasidic or Sharia law from screwing over women, especially during a divorce. Atheists, agnostics and lapsed churh goers of all faiths could also receive the rights and protections of marriage and still get to call it a marriage. The big day itself may be called a civil ceremony, but it's still recognised as a marriage.

Gays are not demanding that churches perform their ceremonies, they're just asking for the same recognitions as those who have civil ceremonies, like the one Ian and I had. If religious folks aren't offended, let alone even affected by our civil ceremony, why should they care about gays having one?

This whole idea of giving it a different name smacks of appeasement to ignorance (yes, ignorance) and America should be better than that. Churches should be protected from going against their beliefs, I have no problem with that, but there are others in the country who qualify for those same protections and shouldn't be excluded because of the special interest group that is the traditional church.

Part of my family are Finnish. They have a pretty interesting history in regards to religion in that they were the last country in Scandinavia and Europe to convert to Christianity... in the 1600s. Before then they didn't even have the written word, only a strong oral tradition comprised of folk tales and pagan mythology. They worshiped the Bear, believed birds were messengers to the gods, that spirits existed in all things from trees to animals to rocks, all of which were sung into existence by the bardic hero Vainamoinen at the dawn of time.

And yet they had marriage. There were no churches to bless these unions but they had elaborate ceremonies to celebrate the coming together of two people and their families and tribes. Does that mean those unions couldn't be called marriages because marriage is a church sacrament and the church is the sole proprietor of the term?

That's what I meant about there being marriage before religion. Religion is a contemporary institution going back only a few thousand years. For thousands of years before that there was a system in place to declare a union between two people, sometimes announced by a chieftain, a shaman, a father or priestess. Granted women were viewed as property, but I'm sure affection came into play in more than a few of those unions.

I'm sorry but it is a bit childish for the church to look at marriage through the whole of history and suddenly decide it's their term, their word, theirs to define absolutely.

[Tuppence]

Provided state-sanctioned same-sex marriage is the direction in which society is going (and I'm not convinced it is, particularly after this year's returns)Depends on where you are, doesn’t it. MA citizens have completely rejected any attempt by the legislature to get rid of same-sex marriage rights, despite the desperate politicking by our carpetbagger-outgoing-Gov. Romney. Anti-equality candidates are being voted out of office, and replaced with pro-equality ones. We’re just wacky MA, you say? NJ is going to have either civil unions or full marriage, CT now quietly has civil unions, RI is on its way to marriage or unions, CA has quietly put the rights in place…you see where I’m going with this.
we have to redefine marriage to accommodate homosexuals, and we have to do it very carefully.We do? We make the references gender neutral, and we’re done. I don’t quite see the big issue here. Where’s the redefinition?Insensitive Asshole (me):Wow. Truth in humor indeed. I'm not sure this joke really leads where you intended. "What if three people want to love each other? They can, and do already I suspect. Three people wanting legal recognition of their union? That’s a different matter than two (be they a gay or straight relationship.) Once more than two people are involved, different questions have to be asked: are all three married to each other, or just one to two people? Who gets primary decision in medical care cases? Who gets primary inheritance? If all three are married to each other and two want to divorce each other but not the third, then what happens? Who gets custody of children in that case?

You see the difficulty. Entire questions that need to be answered for the legal reasons, that simply don’t apply to man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. Can they be asked and answered? Sure. But they’re irrelevant to this case, aren’t they. We're talking about gay marriage, not plural marriage.Or a hundred and five?See the answer for groups of 3, writ even larger and much more impracticable. (One person sleeping with 105 people? Now *that* takes stamina. And protein.)
Or a man and a dog?Rick? RICK? Oh my god, is that you, Rick Santorum? Where have you been? We’ve been so *worried* since the election!!!

Right. Anyway, until the doggie gets citizen recognition, and is able to vote, make medical decisions, be subject to the laws of the country, and – oh – SIGN A CONTRACT (like, say, a marriage contract,) I don’t think we need to worry about giving Bob and Fifi legal recognition and next of kin benefits.
Or a school teacher and her 12-year-old student?Ah yes, we should definitely worry about that and homosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage also leads to complete revocation of age of consent laws. Oh wait, no it doesn’t. *They have nothing to do with each other.* So was it heterosexual marriage that led that crazy molesting schoolteacher to have a baby with her 11 year old student and then marry him when he came of age?Race makes absolutely no difference in the way people procreate, except for some rare genetic issues. Race is also inborn, not learned. Sexuality is, in large part, learned."You’re quite right about race (which is of course a *social* construct, but that’s another topic.) Sexuality as learned…I admit, I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Learned as in I can write to Dan Savage for advice? Read “The Dummies Guide to Sex?” No argument here.

What I’m betting you mean is the expression of sexuality – type of partner, whips & chains, etc. The answer is “Sorta.” Are you familiar with the 5 layers of sexuality? IIRC (and I admit, I’m pulling this purely from memory of my old abnormal psych texts,) there’s 1)sexual identity (am I male or female, and does my body match my head, i.e. transgender) 2)sexual orientation (gay/straight/bi/asexual?), 3)expression (shoe fetish, whips & chains, any paraphillias) 4)sex role and 5)performance issues (is everything working okay down below). The lower the number, the more ingrained the feeling and the harder to “fix”. So you fix a layer 5 issue with Viagra. You fix a layer 1 issue with sex-reassignment surgery. More to the point, you “fix” a layer 2 issue, *by having a happy life with a consenting adult of your preference.* "But oppression doesn't make you a... wait, and a dozen murders, awful as they are, are nothing compared to -"Ah. I think some historical education is needed here. Allow me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Hol ocaust. You’re welcome. Also if you like, I can give you a list of the places where you can get the death penalty for being openly gay