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 H.]

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.

[AaronJ]

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.

[AaronJ]

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.

[AaronJ]

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. “But”, you say, “that doesn’t apply here! This is America!” True, true. And yeah, while a hell of a lot of gay men and women have been assaulted or killed in hate crimes (more than you think, I suspect,) I agree that it’s not as many black men and women who have been lynched, legally or illegally, in this country. Problem is, you can extend that argument to my peeps as well. Jews have, on the whole, had it quite nicely in America. Are you going to say that the Shoah didn’t matter? “Not to American marriage law” is your answer. So would you agree that if the religious right want to make it so that only Christians can get married, even civilly (after all, they’re saving us Jews from hell – how could it be wrong,) that we shouldn’t be upset? (Gosh, why are they upset? You know those screaming, hysterical gays…whoops, I mean those scheming, insular Jews…) How is any of this different?

Look dude, I know you’re not trying to be the enemy. The problem with trying to find a rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage is that there isn’t one. There simply isn’t one. Complaining about the so-called “hysterical” presentation of the issues is a pretext; the bigots (I don’t mean you here, despite your preliminary martyr stance,) will simply find another reason to object.

[Ian Boothby]

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?

You may not be a bigot. But your position is the same as having whites only and blacks only drinking fountains. The same water is in both and both quench thirst. But the need for the seperation is what's flawed.

[Gail Simone]

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!


Dude, having a fake argument with yourself where your fake opponent is a moron doesn't gain you any points.

Gail

[Gail Simone]

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.


QUIT MAKING INTELLIGENT, SENSIBLE POSTS!


Gail

[Gail Simone]

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.

.


YOU, Pia, are ALWAYS welcome here and are much missed in your absence.

That was a mean thing to say, TCJ, and very uncalled for.

Gail

[Gail Simone]

Next person who equates gays marrying with someone marrying a dog can follow these simple instructions:

#1) Obey #2

#2) Go fuck yourself

#3) Repeat #1

Gail

[Adam Crocker]

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...

I can understand your argument in terms of pragmatism, but how exactly does the existence of civil marriage infringe on a separation of Church and state?


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?

Exactly. Even in Europe the Church didn't have exclusive, original claim on marriage. It merely passed into its hands over time due to changes in custom, the Roman Church extending its power, and economics. (The nobility and wealthy merchants were the ones who led the way in terms of having marriages officiated by a priest because it helped to standardize and provide reliable witness to marriages in which alliances were made and land was transferred.)

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.

How do you define religion then? Because you say it is only a few thousand years old, but I don't see it. Then again I see religion as any system of belief relating to a supernatural cosmology which includes everything from Roman Catholicism to the animist beliefs of primitive tribes.

[TCJohnson]

YOU, Pia, are ALWAYS welcome here and are much missed in your absence.

That was a mean thing to say, TCJ, and very uncalled for.

Gail


And calling others names just for having a different opinion is called? Yeah, I got it.

[TCJohnson]

You may not be a bigot. But your position is the same as having whites only and blacks only drinking fountains. The same water is in both and both quench thirst. But the need for the seperation is what's flawed.
To bad that is not what I am arguing for.

I am saying both gay and straight couples should get their rights from the civil union part of it, from the legal part of the marriage. Then they can have the religious ceremony or the non-secular ceremony for god and/or friends and family. Everybody gets treated equally...the rights come through government contracts, and then the marriage is left up to the individuals.

[TCJohnson]

I can understand your argument in terms of pragmatism, but how exactly does the existence of civil marriage infringe on a separation of Church and state?


Asking the wrong person since I don't believe it does. But it upsets the religious fringe so much that they are trying to take away all rights from gays and infringing on those religions that would be willing to marry gays. But as long as we put marriage, which does have religious connotations for most people, in the legislation, the fight for rights is going to be a lot harder.

[JeffreyWKramer]

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?

What I am addressing is the ridiculous idea that religion has some sort of exclusive claim on the concept of marriage, and how some use that claim to justify bigotry.

Keep in mind, most active opponents of gay marriage in the US - including the Catholic Church, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, etc. - also oppose civil unions, and most of the anti-gay marriage amendments that have been enacted ban not only marriage but also any other condition for gay relationships that would provide for the same legal status as marriage. This argument isn't about "protecting marriage" - that's a smoke screen. It's about people not liking gays, and not wanting gay relationships to have any sort of legal recognition and status.

People suggesting "civil union" vs " gay marriage" aren't generally bigots. I think they're misguided, because "separate but equal" doesn't work and because there is no rational reason to not call all civil marriages - the only ones with which law is concerned at all, by the way - marriages, but at least they show some flexibility and a desire to get to a solution. Most gay marriage opponents are bigots, though, pure and simple.

[JeffreyWKramer]

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.

Marriage isn't a specifically church or religious concept or issue, and never has been in the history of the US. As such, continuing the practice of civil marriage doesn't in any manner violate the concept of separation of church and state. Churches can still decide who will and won't receive their sacraments - no law can impact that at all.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Asking the wrong person since I don't believe it does. But it upsets the religious fringe so much that they are trying to take away all rights from gays and infringing on those religions that would be willing to marry gays.

No. They're upset about gays existing and being considered part of society, and that's why they want to take away the rights of gays. Again, the same people who are arguing against gay marriage are by and large also opposing civil unions for gays. They're engaging in smoke screen tactics, and you're buying into their bs here, TC.

To hell with the lunatic religious fringe getting upset. The correct response to bigotry and small-mindedness is not to give in to the small-minded bigots.

[TCJohnson]

People suggesting "civil union" vs " gay marriage" aren't generally bigots. I think they're misguided, because "separate but equal" doesn't work and because there is no rational reason to not call all civil marriages - the only ones with which law is concerned at all, by the way - marriages, but at least they show some flexibility and a desire to get to a solution. Most gay marriage opponents are bigots, though, pure and simple.


But I am not advocating separate but equal.

When you get married, first you need a marriage certificate, right? Well, I am saying call it a civil union certificate or whatever, and that document is what give couples the rights that come with marriage, for gay or straights. Then do whatever ceremony you want.

Take the government out of marriage alltogether and then make the rights available for everybody.

[JeffreyWKramer]

When you get married, first you need a marriage certificate, right? Well, I am saying call it a civil union certificate or whatever, and that document is what give couples the rights that come with marriage, for gay or straights. Then do whatever ceremony you want.

Take the government out of marriage alltogether and then make the rights available for everybody.

That would be fine, except a) renaming civil marriage is opposed by lots of civil-married folk, and a lot of other people for whom the word "marriage" is important. Why should the desires of the religious be given sway over those of everyone else?; and b) once again, the gay marriage folk oppose civil unions for gays, too. Almost all of the amendments which ban gay marriage also ban exactly the thing you're talking about.

Again, you're being snookered and falling for smoke-and-mirrors if you think this sort of measure will placate the opponents of gay marriage, or fix the problem.

[TCJohnson]

No. They're upset about gays existing and being considered part of society, and that's why they want to take away the rights of gays. Again, the same people who are arguing against gay marriage are by and large also opposing civil unions for gays. They're engaging in smoke screen tactics, and you're buying into their bs here, TC.

To hell with the lunatic religious fringe getting upset. The correct response to bigotry and small-mindedness is not to give in to the small-minded bigots.


Except that I can't think of a civil rights movement that got everything all at once. It has all been in steps.


That would be fine, except a) renaming civil marriage is opposed by lots of civil-married folk, and a lot of other people for whom the word "marriage" is important.


I don't see why it would affect civil married folk. They still had a ceremony wether it be with a judge or somebody else. Nothing would change for them except that in the law books the rights would come with the civil part of the phrase, not the married part.


I don't see why it would affect civil married folk. They still had a ceremony wether it be with a judge or somebody else.

Because a lot of these measures had marriage and civil unions on the same page. I know that is how it was in Virginia recently. Seperate them.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Except that I can't think of a civil rights movement that got everything all at once. It has all been in steps.
And "give in to religious fanatics" has never been one of those steps.

I don't see why it would affect civil married folk.
It would impact them exactly as much as it impacts religious folk to have gay people get married - not at all. But, the word is important to some people, and civil-married folk have a better claim for it than do religious folk, because civil marriage has been part of US law from the outset, and a common aspect of civil law for many centuries, and the religious are only now, at this late date, calling any claim over the word - and again, only when gays step up to the plate.

And I note, TC, you keep dodging the fact that the solution you're advocating - while, I agree, not an unreasonable one on some grounds - won't fix the problem here because the gay-hate bigots won't buy into it, and are in fact opposed to that solution, or to any solution granting legal rights and status to gay relationships.

[Lester C.]

Next person who equates gays marrying with someone marrying a dog can follow these simple instructions:

#1) Obey #2

#2) Go fuck yourself

#3) Repeat #1

Gail
If it wasn't for the context of this thread, which at its heart to me is about gay citizens wishing not to be treated like second class citizens with criminal backgrounds, the above would have been hilarious. I'm going to steal those three instructions and use them at a later date.

[Nick Soapdish]

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.


Some people have already touched on this, but it was in longer posts.

A fairly decent chunk of people didn't get married in a church or even by a minister. (And no, I have no idea on the actual statistics on that.) I'm betting that a lot of them would be a bit upset if they were told that they weren't married now, but instead got civilly unioned.

My sister is one of those former, although I doubt she'd be the latter. She'd just continue to say that she is married regardless of whether or not she is officially married. But maybe not. The words do matter to people.

[Ed Cunard]

The words do matter to people.

Of course they do! Words are how we interact with the world.*

This thread is confusing me. I'm having trouble seeing why Screwtape is being singled out when a lot of what he says is "you're not going to convince people by calling them bigots." That line of thought makes sense to me, even if they are bigots.

I'd still maintain, though, that it is indeed a matter of civil rights, which is why I don't even think it should be up for voting--winning over the hearts and minds of people is a very slow process. It's not like the civil rights legislation stopped people from being racist, but it did make life somewhat better for people who had been traditionally shit upon.

*EDIT: It's also why I can get the opposition to changing the definition of marriage--people take their words very seriously (too seriously, sometimes, considering that language itself is an organic, evolving thing).

[Sally Sensational]

QUIT MAKING INTELLIGENT, SENSIBLE POSTS!


Gail

Am I in trouble?:eek:

[JeffreyWKramer]

This thread is confusing me. I'm having trouble seeing why Screwtape is being singled out when a lot of what he says is "you're not going to convince people by calling them bigots."

People don't disagree with him on that, really - though I do believe in calling things what they are - but rather his lame assertions that this isn't a civil rights issue, or one of bigotry.

[amboy00]

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.
What's wrong with two men in leather collars kissing?

[Ed Cunard]

What's wrong with two men in leather collars kissing?

Absolutely nothing.

However, as Screwtape put it forth, it's the kind of thing anti-gay marriage ideologues are likely to grab onto to win on these ballot initiatives most people in this thread are complaining about.

[thespianphryne]

When you get married, first you need a marriage certificate, right? Well, I am saying call it a civil union certificate or whatever, and that document is what give couples the rights that come with marriage, for gay or straights. Then do whatever ceremony you want.

Take the government out of marriage alltogether and then make the rights available for everybody.

TC, just to clarify something – you can’t take the Government out of marriage – they’re the ones who recognise the validity of the marital contract; and they’re the ones who arbiter the equitable redistribution of “property” and rights when that marital contract is dissolved. What we do need to take out of the equation is a Government that frames civil definitions on religious terms when the very basis of its existence is predicated on the separation of religion and government.

In re: Adam Crocker, he’s absolutely right when he says Governnments have always been involved with marriage – that’s why they’re called marriage laws. And to point to a historical truth, most governments in far history were bound up in religion because religion and government have always been humanity’s two order creating institutions. But the most enlightened governments of their time have always striven to separate religious belief from orderly governing because most forward thinking individuals have recognised that one person’s religious belief is not the same as another and trying to induce order and law on the basis of those beliefs is difficult and often leads to inequity.

As regards the religious conservatism behind the definitions of marriage, there have been large tracts of history where persons belonging to two different religions were forbidden to marry. Today, disallowing a union on the basis of religion is unthinkable to most people.

The thing is, cultural definitions of social constructs are subject to the same change as cultures themselves. People advocating for the right of two individuals of the same gender to get married, are asking for an expansion of the definition to be more compassionately inclusive. People advocating against the legal recognition of that are seeking to narrow the definition more punitively. And what’s been even worse in some cases where states have put forward measures to close off avenues whereby even a civil partnership/union will be denied to two people even if the couple comprises of a man and a woman.

The extremist rhetoric on both sides has been angry and vitriolic – and strident imprecations are hardly the way to be effectively persuasive. But as in the case – for example – of Screwtape ( this in answer to Nick Soapdish’s question about why he was singled out), even in those claiming to be undecided or even handed about the issue, there is a distinctive tone of pejorative denigration of one side of the 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. . . .
. . . .

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?

It is this unthinking paralleling with absurd and offensive analogies that instigates and drives the rhetoric. Fine, don’t equate the movement for same-sex marriage rights with the Civil Rights movement – because being homosexual has never been the cause of enslavement, or meant being defined as less than human, or meant being defined as property. Lets equate it with the movement for Women’s Suffrage. Now let someone stand and argue that the right of a woman to vote is not a civil right. So while the movement for legal recognition of the marital rights of same-sex couples isn’t quite The Civil Rights Movement, it is a civil rights movement, nonetheless.

[amboy00]

Absolutely nothing.

However, as Screwtape put it forth, it's the kind of thing anti-gay marriage ideologues are likely to grab onto to win on these ballot initiatives most people in this thread are complaining about.But they don't. Their scare tactic is to equate gay men with pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality.

Putting forth that men in parades being as gay as possible is equating that the glbt community put this upon themselves for speaking out rather than being quiet as we should have in the first place. It is totally preposterous when you consider we never picked this fight.

It's a fight they picked. They need money to take, sheeple have money to give.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But they don't. Their scare tactic is to equate gay men with pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality.

In truth, it's both.

Yep, the gay-hate folk make their comparisons of gay marriage with folk that fuck kids, goats and corpses, and their retarded arguments along the lines of "Today, gay marriage... tomorrow, churches will be forced to marry gay men to their four-year-old cousins!", but they also use gay imagery to shock the prudish, the ignorant and the repressed. THE 700 CLUB and other gay-hate forums always comment on Gay Pride marches, and note how they are held in more places each year - with the unstated "... and they're coming for YOU next!!!" premise - and they send people out to the marches to shoot footage of the most outrageous individuals and then broadcast that, to make it appear the marches are nothing but a lot of half-naked lesbians with extreme face piercings, bearded cross-dressers and guys in chaps and bondage regalia. Their supporters find such imagery disturbing - often it causes them uncomfortable and unacceptable twinges in private areas - and it riles up the ignorant bigot base. The coverage doesn't show the vast majority of folk in such marches that are just normal-looking people, because, well, that would actually reflect reality, and the hate contingent wouldn't want that.

[TCJohnson]

TC, just to clarify something – you can’t take the Government out of marriage – they’re the ones who recognise the validity of the marital contract; and they’re the ones who arbiter the equitable redistribution of “property” and rights when that marital contract is dissolved. What we do need to take out of the equation is a Government that frames civil definitions on religious terms when the very basis of its existence is predicated on the separation of religion and government.

Which is why I think we should just replace marital contracts with the government to something that will apply to everybody equally.

Will probably never happen, I know this. But despite NJ and Ma, getting people to accept gay marriage is a loosing battle.

[amboy00]

Which is why I think we should just replace marital contracts with the government to something that will apply to everybody equally.

Will probably never happen, I know this. But despite NJ and Ma, getting people to accept gay marriage is a loosing battle.
Or Arizona? Or the repeal of the Texas sodomy law?

[TCJohnson]

The coverage doesn't show the vast majority of folk in such marches that are just normal-looking people, because, well, that would actually reflect reality, and the hate contingent wouldn't want that.
Exactly. Two men in dog collars kissing equates to kinky sex, which in many people's views is about the same as bestiality.

One of the problems is that a lot of people think being gay is just about sex, which is not a good thing to solely base a relationship on...especially a marriage. People need to undersand that being gay is also about romance, and love and that is what we need to remind the general public of. We need to remind them that gays are just like everybody else. Two men in dog collars...don't show that as much.

[TCJohnson]

Or Arizona? Or the repeal of the Texas sodomy law?


Repealing the sodomy law is an extremely small step in my opinion. What is the situation in Arizona? Not as familiar with that.

Sorry, but after seeing the anti-gay marriage get so much support in my state, I am not very optimistic about this at all.

[MrSuslov]

People advocating for the right of two individuals of the same gender to get married, are asking for an expansion of the definition to be more compassionately inclusive. People advocating against the legal recognition of that are seeking to narrow the definition more punitively.
Nice try, but no. The side that does not desire to expand the definition of marriage to include Adam & Steve (or Eve & Lilith, whatever) is interested in the status quo. They seek no change; by definition, this cannot be a punitive narrowing. It's already where they wish it to be.

[Ed Cunard]

How about this:

By and large, the people opposed to gay marriage also support the right of pharmacists not to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill. If they continue to retort "but it is legal for gays to marry, provided the marry people of the opposite sex," would it be analogous to suggest that pharmacists with moral opposition to the morning after pill can continue to be pharmacists, provided they open up their own pharmacy?

[Ed Cunard]

Nice try, but no. The side that does not desire to expand the definition of marriage to include Adam & Steve (or Eve & Lilith, whatever) is interested in the status quo. They seek no change; by definition, this cannot be a punitive narrowing. It's already where they wish it to be.

Or, phrased differently, the people who have the power to frame the debate wish to continue having the power to frame the debate.

[amboy00]

Repealing the sodomy law is an extremely small step in my opinion. What is the situation in Arizona? Not as familiar with that.

Sorry, but after seeing the anti-gay marriage get so much support in my state, I am not very optimistic about this at all.The case involving the sodomy law was a huge upset to Republican shills. A law that W felt should have stayed in tact, Scalia wrote a nasty descenting opinion on the matter. It made police raid into gay couples homes (which is what happened) unconstitutional.

New Jersey recognized gay couples are equal to straight couples.

Arizona voted against a gay marriage ban in this last election.

You're "small steps" are all we have to work with. Its not a losing battle as long as the glbt community exists.

*huzzah*

[TCJohnson]

The case involving the sodomy law was a huge upset to Republican shills. A law that W felt should have stayed in tact, Scalia wrote a nasty descenting opinion on the matter. It made police raid into gay couples homes (which is what happened) unconstitutional.

New Jersey recognized gay couples are equal to straight couples.

Arizona voted against a gay marriage ban in this last election.

You're "small steps" are all we have to work with. Its not a losing battle as long as the glbt community exists.

*huzzah*


I did not say New Jersey or Arizona were small steps. Those are great. I just consider repealing anti-sodomy laws are small steps to getting gays equal rights.

But the anti-gay marriage in VA won by a lot of vote. That depresses me.

[Charles RB]

Personally I think that the government should only recognize civil unions

Now go out onto the street and tell people: "you can now no longer get married unless your local church, which you may not ever have gone to, wants you to! Also, we're retroactively saying everyone who hasn't been to a church is not married, just to be fair! You all get to settle for something else!".

See how many people say "fuck off!". Coz it's going to be a lot.

To put it another way - I'm not religious, so why should I need a church I don't go to and don't believe in to let me be married?

Since the term "marriage" is more important to the religious side, let them keep the name and definition

Fuck that. I might want to get married one day. Having the same name and definition of the thing my parents, grand-parents, relatives, friends of the family and characters off the telly have is pretty damn important as far as I'm concerned. The term marriage is something that citizens of the United Kingdom have been able to get via civil authority for generations, taking that away because some git somewhere is afraid "oh noes! We may have to allow teh gays to get married too!" is bollocks of the highest order. (So John Reid's probably in favour of it)

[Dreadstar]

*EDIT: It's also why I can get the opposition to changing the definition of marriage--people take their words very seriously (too seriously, sometimes, considering that language itself is an organic, evolving thing).

I've been educated on that specific issue here. The word "marriage" is the deal breaker.

I get it and I don't.

The government's sum total of involvement should be the recognition of the union/marriage/whatever as a legal matter guaranteeing whomever is entered in this unity/matrimony/personal-hell receives, by law, completely equal treatment.

Me? I don't CARE wtf you call it.

The problem is, some people *DO*.

Which is precisely where I lose understanding.

I know people who've gotten civil unions in the courthouse. They refer to it as their wedding and their relationship is "married."

The government would be best served to simply stop using the term altogether. The people will perpetuate it.

[Pia Guerra]

The best example I can think of where change occured without 'baby steps': segregation in schools. One day, poof, the courts said black kids could attend white schools. And judging by the disgusting, ugly, hateful bile spewed at these children, the eggs and food and rocks tossed at them by cleancut, grown adults with faces twisted with hate there were a lot of fringe types who were 'upset' by these sudden developments.

Should that change have been done in smaller steps so as to make a smoother transition? To spare those little kids all that trauma should they have waited a few more years to get a desegregated education? How many years? Two? Ten? Fifty? If you asked any of those hateful assholes back then how long it should take I'm sure it would have been some silly length of time if they would even consider such a change. Appeasement just doesn't work in all cases.

The idea of segregation is based on the religious notion that races must be kept separate, that different fibres of cloth (ie. the cloths of different tribes) shouldn't mingle. So too is the belief that homosexuality is wrong derived from the same books of the bible (Leviticus and Deuteronomy). These are religious based arguments that have no place in law and therefore the law isn't required to take baby steps to keep religious elements from being upset. The law is there to set things right. Period.

Marriage is a union recognised by the community and blessed by the church. The union doesn't need to have the church bless it to be considered a marriage, but you'd better believe that without a licence, no ceremony, even one performed in a church is considered legal and/or binding.

[TCJohnson]

Now go out onto the street and tell people: "you can now no longer get married unless your local church, which you may not ever have gone to, wants you to! Also, we're retroactively saying everyone who hasn't been to a church is not married, just to be fair! You all get to settle for something else!".


Why should I when I don't believe that and that is not what I am saying? Where did I say that only churches could perform marriage ceremonies? You can get married by a judge, a sea captain, a non-demoninational priest or Elvis at a drive through...whatever. Whoever is willing to marry you, go for it. Or, if you two just want to go out in a park and declare yourselves married, that is cool too. Then go down to the court house to sign the forms to get the government to recognize you as a legal couple. I just said that the government should stay out of marriage ceremonies, reguardless of who is performing them, and find another system to give the same rights to all couples.

[TCJohnson]

I know people who've gotten civil unions in the courthouse. They refer to it as their wedding and their relationship is "married."

The government would be best served to simply stop using the term altogether. The people will perpetuate it.

That is what I have been saying.

[TCJohnson]

Should that change have been done in smaller steps so as to make a smoother transition? To spare those little kids all that trauma should they have waited a few more years to get a desegregated education? How many years? Two? Ten? Fifty? If you asked any of those hateful assholes back then how long it should take I'm sure it would have been some silly length of time if they would even consider such a change. Appeasement just doesn't work in all cases.



But even to get to the point of letting them in white schools, other steps had to have been made.


I am saying lets get gays the rights and security hetersexual couples have first, whatever it may be termed. Then later we can worry about if it is called marriage or civil unions or whatever.

In the mean time let them get liscenses so they can share their lives, and whomever wants to marry them can and they can call themselves married.

[TCJohnson]

QUIT MAKING INTELLIGENT, SENSIBLE POSTS!


Gail


Just to point out, not all her posts are intelligent or sensible....in one of them she agreed with me. That should get her thrown off the board.

[Charles RB]

Where did I say that only churches could perform marriage ceremonies?

You said only churches should perform it. "The government should only recognize civil unions... Let the churches recognize whatever marriage they want" - you said this just yesterday on the first page of the thread!

[amboy00]

It doesn't really matter either way.

1. Gays and Lesbians can already get married in churches. Don't believe me? visit Oregon sometime.

2. Marriage is a red herring. These fundimentalists don't care about marriage. They care about persecuting gays and using this wedge issue to make more money.

[Charles RB]

like idiots, liberal lobbyist have provided conservatives with the perfect image for their weekly mailing: two men in leather studded collars kissing... It says "here's what we're up against" in language clearer than any treatise.

Maybe I'm missing something here, coz the idea of two men in leather studded collars doesn't sound frightening at all.

[TCJohnson]

You said only churches should perform it. "The government should only recognize civil unions... Let the churches recognize whatever marriage they want" - you said this just yesterday on the first page of the thread!


No, I did not say only churches should. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Some churches won't recognize marriages performed by other religions. The catholic church won't recognize second marriages after a divorce. Nor should they be forced to.

But if they don't want to recognize gay marriages, fine. Forget them and just have all the rights associalted with marriages taken out and put in civil unions. Then the churches can do whatever they want and we can ignore them.

[amboy00]

Maybe I'm missing something here, coz the idea of two men in leather studded collars doesn't sound frightening at all.
What's frightening is the chaffing that occurs once you start sweating in it.

[TCJohnson]

2. Marriage is a red herring. These fundimentalists don't care about marriage. They care about persecuting gays and using this wedge issue to make more money.

But without that red herring I believe the fundementalists would loose a lot of support from the middle.

[Charles RB]

No, I did not say only churches should.

You said they could be the only ones recognising marriage and that the government shouldn't give marriages out. So who else is going to be giving them out under your system?

Some churches won't recognize marriages performed by other religions. The catholic church won't recognize second marriages after a divorce.

Well, tough shit for them - people can get married via civil authority instead. That's only an argument in favour of keeping it that way; it allows people to get married who the church wouldn't ever marry on grounds of "they once got divorced!". Good.

But if they don't want to recognize gay marriages, fine. Forget them

Yeah, have gay marriage legalised and if the church doesn't want to recognise it, the couple can get it done civilly. Hurray!

I like this much better than taking away my legal access to a civil marriage.

[amboy00]

But without that red herring I believe the fundementalists would loose a lot of support from the middle.
I don't think the middle cared about marriage until the fundies brought it up.

They count on voters to "feel" instead of think. Both sides have to use scare tactics in that scenario. If the voters of Virginia realized it was John Cosgrove who introduced that legislation, they would have felt differently about it. I'm willing to bet they didn't like his "have a miscarriage, go to jail" legislation either.

Luckily, he had The Family Foundation on his side for this one. Their push polling tactics and aggressive ($500k funded) campaigns drove people to the polls last week.

[TCJohnson]

You said they could be the only ones recognising marriage and that the government shouldn't give marriages out.

I did say governemnts shouldn't be giving marriages out, true. But I never said that churches should be the only ones recognizing it. I am saying they have the right to recognize whatever marriage they want but that should have nothing to do for who gets what rights or any legal standing.

So who else is going to be giving them out under your system?

I have already answered this:

You can get married by a judge, a sea captain, a non-demoninational priest or Elvis at a drive through...whatever. Whoever is willing to marry you, go for it. Or, if you two just want to go out in a park and declare yourselves married, that is cool too.

[Dreadstar]

I like this much better than taking away my legal access to a civil marriage.

A question of clarification from the legal eagles in the area:

Is "civil marriage" a legal term in the US?

[Charles RB]

I have already answered this:

So, under your system, we can be married by anyone and everyone (except for civil government), and all of them are legally recognised.

And this is supposed to placate the other side considered about marriage being de-specialed how? "Oh look, now any old bugger can go and declare a marriage & this can be legally recognised! This is much less threatening to church marriage than when it was civil government offices doing that!". Yeahhh... don't see that happening.

And then there's the bods who are big in favour of marriage being taken from civil government and only being in church hands. See the previous "fuck off my rights" comments for that.

A question of clarification from the legal eagles in the area:

Is "civil marriage" a legal term in the US?

I'm probably using the wrong term for it, I admit.

[Dreadstar]

"Oh look, now any old bugger can go and declare a marriage & this can be legally recognised!"

I don't think that's what TC is saying, at all. There is still the requirement of government recognition. In order to receive such recognition, a legal mediary has to at least witness the declaration by both parties. That mediary can be the drive-through Elvis. Basically, a Rabbi and a Catholic Priest are nothing more than government approved mediaries.


I disagree with TC's "go out in a park and declare yourselves married" bit, though.



Once again, however, it still comes down to THE WORD. That big bad immovable object beginning with the letter M.

[TCJohnson]

So, under your system, we can be married by anyone and everyone (except for civil government), and all of them are legally recognised..

If I answer this are you actually got to listen instead of putting words in my mouth?

[Sally Sensational]

Just to point out, not all her posts are intelligent or sensible....in one of them she agreed with me. That should get her thrown off the board.

Thanks, TC. Just when I was getting a reputation as a friendly, down to earth, non-combative-type poster with decent ideas.

I can just feel the love.

And I still agree with you. The fact is, unless you've purchased a marriage license from the local government, had someone certified by the government perform the ceremony (I think this part may actually be skippable), had at least two witnesses sign the license, and filed it with the local government, you are not married. The church just "sanctifies" it, if you so choose.

The red herring here is church marriage - granted, it's a REALLY BIG HERRING that many, many people would rather watch flop than pay attention to the real issue. The issue is legal rights and equal protection under the law.

Without that huge, flopping, stinky fish, what you have is two people who have chosen to live together, combine their finances, remember each other after they are gone, and make decisions together who are willing to sign a legal contract that says they're going to do all these things.

And when you put it like that, without ever mentioning the word "marriage", few people disagree with any two people's right to have that contract. It's just when "that word" comes into the discussion that everyone gets so over-heated.

No, I don't believe baby steps are the way to go. I went to school in the Little Rock area - if the Little Rock 9 hadn't risked their lives, we'd have still been segregated. Something big needs to happen.

But I'm with TC in thinking that that big thing needs to be ensuring that gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples and worrying about what word you use to describe it (when you're dealing with the legalities) later.

Oh, here's a curiosity question: has any gay couple in a state that has common law marriage attempted to use those statutes? Or do common law marriage statutes specifically state that it has to be a man and woman?

[Dreadstar]

Or do common law marriage statutes specifically state that it has to be a man and woman?

Not in Ohio, which is why the 2004 "defense of marriage act" passed by voters in essence made common law marriages contestable.

[amboy00]

Not in Ohio, which is why the 2004 "defense of marriage act" passed by voters in essence made common law marriages contestable.Similarly in Texas. Ohio had a problem recognizing domestic abuse cases with unmarried couples because of their marriage law.

[Dreadstar]

Similarly in Texas. Ohio had a problem recognizing domestic abuse cases with unmarried couples because of their marriage law.

The irony being (as one overbearing fellow found out) that if "domestic violence" statutes don't apply, then the more familiar assault and battery does.

[amboy00]

I think everyone here wants what is fair for everyone else.

When I look at the scenarios and living arrangements that exist in this country, by and large it is to be a family. Marriage is one option, and not even a wildly popular one anymore.

We allow the state to choose how to define marriage. We also have federal laws about it (thanks a lot Clinton). If this country wished to define marriage as a civil right, it will eventually land on the courts.

Gay Congressman Gerry Studds dies and his partner can not receive death benefits even though they are legally married. Bob Ney, however, will be receiving every last penny of his pension. That is an affront to morality.

[Adam Crocker]

It is this unthinking paralleling with absurd and offensive analogies that instigates and drives the rhetoric. Fine, don’t equate the movement for same-sex marriage rights with the Civil Rights movement – because being homosexual has never been the cause of enslavement, or meant being defined as less than human, or meant being defined as property. Lets equate it with the movement for Women’s Suffrage. Now let someone stand and argue that the right of a woman to vote is not a civil right. So while the movement for legal recognition of the marital rights of same-sex couples isn’t quite The Civil Rights Movement, it is a civil rights movement, nonetheless.

This might be a more effacious strategy, but you're wrong about dehumanisation. Gay have been villified as something less than human for quite some time now (granted it has improved in recent years) and have been persecuted for that.

[Cam63]

Next person who equates gays marrying with someone marrying a dog can follow these simple instructions:

#1) Obey #2

#2) Go fuck yourself

#3) Repeat #1

Gail

Agreed.
..........

[Cam63]

YOU, Pia, are ALWAYS welcome here and are much missed in your absence.

That was a mean thing to say, TCJ, and very uncalled for.

Gail

I missed that insult.

What Gail said, TC. Pia's opinions are cool at worst.

[heystacy]

I have heard some very discouraging remarks on the topic many times. Too many people don’t have a grasp on sex and sexuality itself, yet speak as if wisened with time. To hear some people talk of homosexuality as a sin, while their child is having children, unmarried, and discussing the “sanctity of marriage” has really turned me off on discussing the matter with some family and friends.

I am saddened because there are some people I know who would “scandalize” their family by coming out, let alone marrying their partner. Too many people don’t know how to act or react to differences. Too many people feed off ignorance, and arrogantly cover their words with religious themes.

Lord knows I’m not perfect, and I have my own biases and quirks to resolve, but I can’t put that on other people. I have never given marriage any deep thought beyond I wasn’t going to do it. I don’t find myself offended by same sex marriages. If someone does find someone they love and want to cherish for life, and be afforded the rights of a spouse, then more power to them.

[TCJohnson]

I missed that insult.

What Gail said, TC. Pia's opinions are cool at worst.

Right, and I am childish and reidiculous for wishing that gays have equal rights. Whatever

[Cam63]

I have heard some very discouraging remarks on the topic many times. Too many people don’t have a grasp on sex and sexuality itself, yet speak as if wisened with time. To hear some people talk of homosexuality as a sin, while their child is having children, unmarried, and discussing the “sanctity of marriage” has really turned me off on discussing the matter with some family and friends.

I am saddened because there are some people I know who would “scandalize” their family by coming out, let alone marrying their partner. Too many people don’t know how to act or react to differences. Too many people feed off ignorance, and arrogantly cover their words with religious themes.

Lord knows I’m not perfect, and I have my own biases and quirks to resolve, but I can’t put that on other people. I have never given marriage any deep thought beyond I wasn’t going to do it. I don’t find myself offended by same sex marriages. If someone does find someone they love and want to cherish for life, and be afforded the rights of a spouse, then more power to them.

Good post.

[Cam63]

Right, and I am childish and reidiculous for wishing that gays have equal rights. Whatever

It was the " I'm glad you don't post here more often " post that I found insulting.

[heystacy]

Good post.


Thank you. I think that's about all I can offer on this topic.

[TCJohnson]

It was the " I'm glad you don't post here more often " post that I found insulting.

And I found being called childish insulting.

But got it. Bye.

[Cam63]

Have a good night.

[thespianphryne]

. . . but you're wrong about dehumanisation. Gay have been villified as something less than human for quite some time now (granted it has improved in recent years) and have been persecuted for that.

I over reached on the point about dehumanisation.

But it's one of the things that community leaders who were deeply affected by the Civil Rights Movement argue. The argument being that the Civil Rights Movement owes it's start and moral heart to the church and what gay people are asking for lies well outside the church, adn that to equate the two experiences is racist and offensive and that gays were never enslaved, deprived of property rights, systematically tortured and exploited, had their basic family units torn apart over and over again, treated like chattel and therefore actually defined as less than human.

Other assertions include, never been raped, never been lynched, never been framed other people's crimes, never been wrongfully accused of non-existent crimes.

[Corrina]

Well, the only reason gays weren't systematically dehumanized this way is because they can hide a lot their sexual orientation a lot easier than African-Americans race. There are certainly places right now who would be happy to round up all the gays and make them lesser, if they could sort out who they were as easily.

There are some things that have been done systematically, however, one of them being having their family units torn apart.

[Tommy]

Who wants to gay marry me?

[JeffreyWKramer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...n_South_Africa

Here's something to think about.

20 years ago, South Africa was still very much backwards in terms of human rights/civil rights. Now it's at the foreground, and South Africa is on the verge of gay marriages receiving full legal recognition.

But some gay marriage critics say that supporters of gay marriage have to be patient, and accept that these things happen only in small steps, and by catering to the opponents.

[Charles RB]

But some gay marriage critics say that supporters of gay marriage have to be patient, and accept that these things happen only in small steps

I presume they're talking about the United States and assuming they're full of a silent majority of homophobics.

I'd be amazed if there's more bigotry in the United States than South Africa or Northern Ireland (civil partnerships recognised since 2005 with suprisingly few straight people giving a crap)...

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'd be amazed if there's more bigotry in the United States than South Africa or Northern Ireland (civil partnerships recognised since 2005 with suprisingly few straight people giving a crap)...

I dunno if there's more, but the bigots in the US sure are noisy and seem to have an awful strong sense of entitlement.

[Ian Boothby]

I dunno if there's more, but the bigots in the US sure are noisy and seem to have an awful strong sense of entitlement.

And they don't think they're bigots. In other parts of the world at least they wear their hate on their sleeves.

[BetterThanYou]

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.

I see where you're coming from but again I have to disagree. IMO its more analgous to denying blind people drivers licenses. Certain physical conditions have to be met, in order to qualify for licensing. The understanid I have always had is that gay couples do not meet that standard.


QUOTE=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.
[/quote]
The problem, as I understand it, isn't that gay couples can't reproduce, so much as they can't reproduce without going outside the institution of marriage. In other words theres no way for gay couples to both produce offspring, and to do so within the bonds of matrimoney. Since the only way for them to procreate would violate the institution itself, they don't qualify.

[/quote]That's not true. The Supreme Court ruled marriage is a "basic human right".

I would like to see the ruling. AFAIK the supreme court, and several state courts have all ruled that the government has an inherant right to limit marriage as a government recognised institution to only those who fulfill the societal obligations marriage is supposed to create an vehicle for. Namely procreation and child rearing. My understanding is that the only reason the federal governement has any right to regulate or recognise any marriage is becasue it furthers the state interest of creating stable childrearing unions, which is viewed as a great enough "value" to society, to pass muster under the rational standard test.
Without the "state interest" in promoting such unions, it is my understanding that there would be no case for any gonvernment state or federal, to license marriage at all. Furthermore if gay couples are unable to meet those requirements, then just like a blind person attempting to get a drivers license, they can legally be refused licensing without it being "discrimination"

[Thnikkaman]

I see where you're coming from but again I have to disagree. IMO its more analgous to denying blind people drivers licenses. Certain physical conditions have to be met, in order to qualify for licensing. The understanid I have always had is that gay couples do not meet that standard.


Blind people are not allowed to have driver'slicenses because a blind person behind the wheel of a car IS A DANGER TO HIMSELF AND EVERYONE AROUND HIM.

Who exactly are gay people endagering by marrying each other?

[Gilda Dent]

We allow the state to choose how to define marriage. We also have federal laws about it (thanks a lot Clinton). If this country wished to define marriage as a civil right, it will eventually land on the courts.

The Supreme Court already did this, in Loving v. Virginia, and did not restrict this right by sex.

[Tommy]

The problem, as I understand it, isn't that gay couples can't reproduce, so much as they can't reproduce without going outside the institution of marriage. In other words theres no way for gay couples to both produce offspring, and to do so within the bonds of matrimoney. Since the only way for them to procreate would violate the institution itself, they don't qualify.
That is not an answer. Using that logic everything from surrogate mothers to single parents to adoption to people just happy not having children to post menopausal women getting married should be outlawed. There are a wide variety of ways in which heterosexuals reproduce both within and outside of marriage. In an interesting break through scientists have been able to remove the mother’s DNA in a frog egg and fertilize it with two different male’s DNA. Saying gay people can not get married since they potentially might not have children should mean that no one can get married. Every marriage has the potential to not have children.

[Gilda Dent]

I see where you're coming from but again I have to disagree. IMO its more analgous to denying blind people drivers licenses. Certain physical conditions have to be met, in order to qualify for licensing. The understanid I have always had is that gay couples do not meet that standard.

A blind person is unable to pass the test required to get a license. She's a practical danger to others.

The problem, as I understand it, isn't that gay couples can't reproduce, so much as they can't reproduce without going outside the institution of marriage.

Neither can infertile couples, couples with sterilized member, the elderly. Reproductive ability is not a prerequisite for legal marriage anywhere in the United States.

In other words theres no way for gay couples to both produce offspring, and to do so within the bonds of matrimoney. Since the only way for them to procreate would violate the institution itself, they don't qualify.

How are adoption, artificial insemination, children from previous relationships, or surrogacy a violation of the institution itself? These are the same methods used by infertile heterosexual couples.

I would like to see the ruling.

Loving v. Virginia

AFAIK the supreme court, and several state courts have all ruled that the government has an inherant right to limit marriage as a government recognised institution to only those who fulfill the societal obligations marriage is supposed to create an vehicle for. Namely procreation and child rearing.

The Supreme Court has never done this. Do you have any reference to state courts doing so? The federal laws regarding marriage don't, so far as I know, mention procreation, and I've seen no state law that does so. Are you willing to deny infertile couples and the elderly marriage?

Also, if childrearing is important, why not give the same right and protections to those families headed by homosexual couples? Why should an infertile heterosexual couple that adopts a child have rights that a homosexual adoptive couple does not?

My understanding is that the only reason the federal governement has any right to regulate or recognise any marriage is becasue it furthers the state interest of creating stable childrearing unions, which is viewed as a great enough "value" to society, to pass muster under the rational standard test.

Nope. This is a big red herring. There's not test for procreative ability, but this does support gay marriage. Protect the childrearing interests of those homosexual couples who adopt of have a child through artificial insemination.

[Gilda Dent]

But it's one of the things that community leaders who were deeply affected by the Civil Rights Movement argue. The argument being that the Civil Rights Movement owes it's start and moral heart to the church and what gay people are asking for lies well outside the church,

That it does. We're talking about civil marriage, not gay marriage, therefore any church argument is irrelevant.

adn that to equate the two experiences is racist and offensive

How so? From personal experience I can tell you that I've been the target of far more homophobia than racism, though I did get my fair share of that.

and that gays were never enslaved,

Slavery wasn't an issue in the civil rights movement; equal rights for all free people regardless of race was. You're talking about abolitionism.

deprived of property rights,

Try to buy a house in a nice residential neighborhood with your same sex partner and see how far you get. It may go well, or you may face an invisible wall. Kinda like non-whites faced.

systematically tortured and exploited, had their basic family units torn apart over and over again, treated like chattel

This would be abolition, not civil rights.

and therefore actually defined as less than human.

You're kidding me, right?

Other assertions include, never been raped,

Heh.

never been lynched,

Matthew Shepherd, Barry Winchell, Gwen Araujo.

never been framed other people's crimes,never been wrongfully accused of non-existent crimes.

Yet, at the same time, gays have been harrassed, attacked, murdered, denied housing, equal legal protection, adoption rights, marriage rights, custody and visitation of children, employment and promotion. The parallels are there.

[the4thpip]

Thanks for that last post, Gilda.
I am not sure if thespianphryne was saying what other people supposedly say without endorsing it, or if thespianphryne was just making up offensive stuff.

[thespianphryne]

Thanks for that last post, Gilda.
I am not sure if thespianphryne was saying what other people supposedly say without endorsing it, or if thespianphryne was just making up offensive stuff.

My dear fellow! I was saying stuff to be entirely offensive. Yes, yes I was. All those things I said in my post? I believe them - with all the strength of my vindictive little heart.


/unwarranted sarcasm

By the way, Gilda, thanks for the deconstruction of those tepid arguments that some people like to hurl about. I ought to have done what you did, but I was too busy balefully facepalming while considering the whole thing.

[AaronJ]

I've read this whole fucking thread, and I still don't see what problem two guys or two gals marrying each other would cause.

Seriously.

If people are in love, let them marry. How does it affect anyone else?! If you are in love with your spouse, then two guys getting married isn't going to change that.

Good lord people, are we living in the 8th century? Let it go. There are gay people, they live and walk among you. Deal. This is the 21st century. We should be a at least a tad more advanced.

Homosexulaity is a reality. People love each other. People love people of other races, other sexes, the same races, the same sex, whatever.

They are all people. Shouldn't we be happy that they love each other, and don't want to kill each other?

Not to sound all 60's, but you know "love" is a good thing. It really is. If we had more of it, we would be better off.

[BetterThanYou]

A blind person is unable to pass the test required to get a license. She's a practical danger to others.

Neither can infertile couples, couples with sterilized member, the elderly. Reproductive ability is not a prerequisite for legal marriage anywhere in the United States.

Adoption, as I understand it is a special exemption, since by adopting they are in a way performing a public service.



How are adoption, artificial insemination, children from previous relationships, or surrogacy a violation of the institution itself? These are the same methods used by infertile heterosexual couples.

Artificial insemination need not be outside the marriage, most cases of AI are in fact done with both couples genes.
Children of previous marriages were concieved before the marriage, and can not therfore violate the marriage. and in cases of surrogecy, the mothers egg, after being fertilised by the father, is implanted in a third woman, from my understanding her genes don't enter into it.
Again you may not like the argument, but that doesn't make it invalid. There is no way, for a gay couple to have children without going outside of the marriage. Its not a case that it might happen, but that it has to happen that way.
Infertile couples, while unable to produce children, won't produce illegetimate children unless they break the bonds of marriage, if they are not infertile they can produce children within marriage. A gay couple can not produce children within the marriage and must produce children outside the marriage.
Whether you wan to admit it or not, its a massive difference.


Loving v. Virginia

And yet none of the state marriage bans have been overturned.
That seems flatly contradictory.


The Supreme Court has never done this. Do you have any reference to state courts doing so? The federal laws regarding marriage don't, so far as I know, mention procreation, and I've seen no state law that does so. Are you willing to deny infertile couples and the elderly marriage?
Which?
never ruled that marriage serves a public purpose? or that the government has an inhearant right to regulate marriage?





Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Barbara Madsen said the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman, is constitutional because it furthers the state's interest of stable, child-producing unions
"The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children's biological parents," Madsen wrote.
As such, DOMA does not violate the state Constitution's privileges and immunities clause, which requires that any benefit granted to one group must be granted equally to all. "Allowing same sex couples to marry does not, in the Legislature's view, further these purposes," she wrote.





Also, if childrearing is important, why not give the same right and protections to those families headed by homosexual couples? Why should an infertile heterosexual couple that adopts a child have rights that a homosexual adoptive couple does not?

I am not sure whether its having children, or not having illegitimate children which is the primary "good'. I belive it to be the second.
The difference is subtle, but substansial.


Nope. This is a big red herring. There's not test for procreative ability, but this does support gay marriage. Protect the childrearing interests of those homosexual couples who adopt of have a child through artificial insemination.

Yet adoption itself, by clearly deliniating who the new legal "parents" are, and what the relationship between the parents and child is, makes that unecessary.
No there is no "procreative test" there is however an expectation that in return for the privaleges associated with marriage, of which there are legion, that certain conditions must be met, the chief one of which is that no illegitimate children will be produced by those taking part,and that any that are produced will be legitimate Gay couples can not meet this expectation. Not they aren't likely to, but they physically can't do it.
Just as there is an expectation that in exchange for the privalege of driving, one will drive in a manner not dangerous to others, which is one that the blind can not meet.
It doesn't mean that the blind man is being discriminated against anymore than it means that gay couples are being discriminated against.

As an aside, there is the pretty settled law that a marriage can be annuled by the courts if the courts can prove that the sole reason for the marriage is
to gain a privalege that one would not otherwise be entitled to,(green card, US residence, etc.) given that the examples of the "need" for gay marriage are always illustrated by "privileges" that gay couples need, 9hospital visitation etc.) and don't currently possess, wouldn't all gay marriage fall into that category?

[Tommy]

There is no way, for a gay couple to have children without going outside of the marriage. Its not a case that it might happen, but that it has to happen that way.
I would check up on your science. You can remove the reproductive material from a female egg and insert the material of two male donors and produce a viable embryo.

[Spike-X]

I'm not gonna weight in on this one yet again. I will say this though -

Anyone who's offended by the idea of same-sex couples marrying deserves to be.

[Spike-X]

Disregard what I said above. this ridiculousness can't go unchallenged.

AFAIK the supreme court, and several state courts have all ruled that the government has an inherant right to limit marriage as a government recognised institution to only those who fulfill the societal obligations marriage is supposed to create an vehicle for. Namely procreation and child rearing.

Really? Can you show me the court decisions that say only people who are able and willing to conceive children are allowed to get married? I'd be really interested in seeing those.

[Nick Soapdish]

Artificial insemination need not be outside the marriage, most cases of AI are in fact done with both couples genes.

So it's not illegitimate if most of the time it isn't outside the marriage? :confused:

And this part I'm totally confused about ...

Infertile couples, while unable to produce children, won't produce illegetimate children unless they break the bonds of marriage, if they are not infertile they can produce children within marriage. A gay couple can not produce children within the marriage and must produce children outside the marriage.

How many infertile couples are not infertile? It sounds like you're talking about exactly the same situation here. A gay couple won't produce children without AI or going outside the marriage. Neither will an infertile couple. Unless they're fertile.

What I'm gathering here is that you're arguing that any children produced by AI are illegitimate. Is that the gist of it or am I barking up the wrong tree here?


I am not sure whether its having children, or not having illegitimate children which is the primary "good'. I belive it to be the second.
The difference is subtle, but substantial.


And neither of which were described as "the primary good" in the text that you quoted from somewhere or another.


As an aside, there is the pretty settled law that a marriage can be annuled by the courts if the courts can prove that the sole reason for the marriage is
to gain a privilege that one would not otherwise be entitled to,(green card, US residence, etc.) given that the examples of the "need" for gay marriage are always illustrated by "privileges" that gay couples need, (hospital visitation etc.) and don't currently possess, wouldn't all gay marriage fall into that category?

It would if the couple doesn't actually love each other. A loving relationship is enough for the courts ... which does raise the interesting question of the state looking at the quality of the relationship.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I would like to see the ruling.
Google up Loving v. Virginia.

[Cam63]

I've read this whole fucking thread, and I still don't see what problem two guys or two gals marrying each other would cause.

Seriously.

If people are in love, let them marry. How does it affect anyone else?! If you are in love with your spouse, then two guys getting married isn't going to change that.

Good lord people, are we living in the 8th century? Let it go. There are gay people, they live and walk among you. Deal. This is the 21st century. We should be a at least a tad more advanced.

I can't understand why people are sticking their noses into the love/sex life of others.

They should mind their own business.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And yet none of the state marriage bans have been overturned.
That seems flatly contradictory.
None of the appeals has reached the US Supreme Court yet. Takes time.

[Sally Sensational]

From what I have heard, most of the state gay marriage bans already have pending cases to determine their constitutionality. Here in Louisiana, the fact that the ban would most likely be overturned was announced in the same newscast as the fact that it had passed.

And, yes, before anyone chimes in to "correct" me, I know that the primary stated reason that La's ban will be overturned is because there were two issues voted on in one amendment - gay marriage AND defining marriage as a man and a woman - and La state law limits constitutional amendments to one issue only.

[Gilda Dent]

Adoption, as I understand it is a special exemption, since by adopting they are in a way performing a public service.

Exactly. So lets give those children adopted by gay couples the benefit of having two married parents. That is good for the children, I assume.

Artificial insemination need not be outside the marriage, most cases of AI are in fact done with both couples genes.

So now marriage is about maintaining genetic lines? This is the first I've heard of this. How about those marriages in which one member or the other is sterile. Should they be denied marriage rights?

Children of previous marriages were concieved before the marriage, and can not therfore violate the marriage.

Yet those people with children from previous relationships aren't denied marriage rights if they're heterosexual, but are if they're homosexual. If it's about the children, why deny the children of the homosexuals these protections?

and in cases of surrogecy, the mothers egg, after being fertilised by the father, is implanted in a third woman, from my understanding her genes don't enter into it.

It depends. The notable custody cases, particularly baby M, are the genetic offspring of the birth mother. Should those children be denied the security of being raised by married parents?

Again you may not like the argument, but that doesn't make it invalid.

It's valid only if you're willing to deny the elderly, the infertile, post-hysterectomy women, men who've had vasectomies, or any other pair who are either individually or mutually infertile marriage rights.

There is no way, for a gay couple to have children without going outside of the marriage. Its not a case that it might happen, but that it has to happen that way.

This "going outside the marriage" thing is interesting. Why does that matter?

The same is true of any woman who is post-hysterectomy, men with extremely low sperm count/motility or who've had testicular cancer, the elderly, or any couple with at least one sterile member or who are mutually infertile.

Infertile couples, while unable to produce children, won't produce illegetimate children unless they break the bonds of marriage,

What does being "illegitimate" have to do with anything? Are those infertile couples that go that route not allowed to marry?

I'm not seeing at all how this relates. As an example, I'm sterile. I cannot have children through any means with any person. Yet, I can marry a man, but not a woman. In both cases, having children requires outside intervention. The only reason to deny me the right to legally marry my wife is prejudice.

if they are not infertile they can produce children within marriage.

I'm pretty sure there aren't any infertile couples that are fertile.

A gay couple can not produce children within the marriage and must produce children outside the marriage.

Hmmm. So the lesbian couples who used donor sperm produced children outside their marriage? Do heterosexual couples that use donor sperm have children from "outside the marriage?"

Whether you wan to admit it or not, its a massive difference.

Nope. Infertile couples can't have children without outside intervention. Some don't even want children. Gay couples can't have children without outside intervention. Some don't even want children.

This is a direct parallel.

And yet none of the state marriage bans have been overturned.
That seems flatly contradictory.

Nebraska's amendment was overturned in Federal court in 2005 (and is under appeal), and New Jersey's supreme court overruled lower court common law rulings.

However, none of the laws have been tested in the US Supreme Court. Sometime in the next few years a case will come up and we'll see. I'm confident a combination of the full faith and credit clause, the 14th amendment, and Loving as precedent will result in an overturning of DOMA and state laws and result in some uniform marriage rights across the country.

Which?
never ruled that marriage serves a public purpose? or that the government has an inhearant right to regulate marriage?

Your claim was that the US Supreme Court and "several state courts" have ruled that marriage can be limited to those couples capable of "procreation and child rearing".

You produced one state court decision that supports your claim, though you haven't cited it. The reasoning there, you'll note quotes what I'll assume is the state's DOM law, which would have been specifically created to limit gay marriage, so this becomes a circular argument.

I'll also note that this reasoning would deny blended families, infertile couples, and the elderly marriage if applied on it's face.

I am not sure whether its having children, or not having illegitimate children which is the primary "good'. I belive it to be the second.

Are adopted children, those produced by artificial insemination from a sperm donor, and surrogates all "illegitimate"? Why should it matter where the children come from if the purpose is to promote a safe environment for child rearing.

The difference is subtle, but substansial.

Children all deserve a safe, stable family environment, not just the "legitimate" ones.

I'm just curious. Do you tell parents who've used extraordinary means such as adoption, donor sperm, or surrogacy that their children are "illegitimate" and they shouldn't be married for this reason?

Yet adoption itself, by clearly deliniating who the new legal "parents" are, and what the relationship between the parents and child is, makes that unecessary.

Opposite sex couples have a clearly delineated legal relationship to their children even if they aren't married. Therefor, opposite sex marriage, by this line of reasoning, is "unnecessary".

No there is no "procreative test" there is however an expectation that in return for the privaleges associated with marriage, of which there are legion, that certain conditions must be met, the chief one of which is that no illegitimate children will be produced by those taking part,and that any that are produced will be legitimate Gay couples can not meet this expectation.

This is literally the first time I've heard this argument.

Just curious. My wife and I are adopting a child. Will she be an "illegitimate" child? We're married in our church, but not legally. Well, except that we are registered domestic partners in California, where we have full marriage rights. How about the Osbournes next door? They have an adopted Korean girl. Is she "illegitimate"?

Not they aren't likely to, but they physically can't do it.

Nor can those past child-bearing age, women who've had a hysterectomy, men who've had testicular cancer or mean and women been treated for various childhood cancers, people with certain genetic disorders.

We allow people who cannot physically produce children to marry. I cannot produce children with anybody, but I can still marry a man (well, most places).

Just as there is an expectation that in exchange for the privalege of driving, one will drive in a manner not dangerous to others, which is one that the blind can not meet.

Many heterosexual couples cannot meet the procreational requirement you list above. They aren't denied marriage rights.

It doesn't mean that the blind man is being discriminated against anymore than it means that gay couples are being discriminated against.

There needs to be a good reason for the restriction, and you haven't produced one that doesn't exclude heterosexual couples. That infertile heterosexual couples can marry but homosexual couples cannot demonstrates the direct bias here. This reasoning was invented purely for the purpose of attacking gay marriage and did not exist until gays started making noise about getting treated fairly.

As an aside, there is the pretty settled law that a marriage can be annuled by the courts if the courts can prove that the sole reason for the marriage isto gain a privalege that one would not otherwise be entitled to,(green card, US residence, etc.) given that the examples of the "need" for gay marriage are always illustrated by "privileges" that gay couples need, 9hospital visitation etc.) and don't currently possess, wouldn't all gay marriage fall into that category?

By this reasoning, any couple either not intending or not desiring children would fall into that category.

By the way, the answer is no. My mother and my wife's mother are both immigrants who came to the US to marry, so I know something about this. What the INS looks for is a legitimate intent to live as a married couple in a single household. Children help as evidence of this, but aren't a requirement.

[BetterThanYou]

Exactly. So lets give those children adopted by gay couples the benefit of having two married parents. That is good for the children, I assume.

Well hey since Gilda dent said it we can all just stop arguing, disband the supreme court, and replace the house and senate with trained monkeys. (oh wait we just did) Who needs things like legal analysis, debate or democracy, we have Gilda Dent to tell us what to do.
:D


So now marriage is about maintaining genetic lines? This is the first I've heard of this. How about those marriages in which one member or the other is sterile. Should they be denied marriage rights?

Again with the "rights" Marriage isn't a right.
Look if two guys want to get married, they can, right now, in any state. It won't be recognised as a legal marriage, but so what?
See the problem with calling this a rights thing, or a civil rights thing, is that no one, not gays, not staights, not even alpaca's, have the right to a legally recognised marriage.
Now IMO the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, however if its going to be, then it should be consistant. Either there is a rational legitimate reason why marriage is a state and federally funded institution, in which case there is a legitimate reason for barring certain couples, or, there is no legitimate reason for the government to regulate marriage, in which case it needs to stop doing so. But saying that you have the "right" to have your relationship recognised, subsidised, and funded by the taxpayers is pure s**t


Yet those people with children from previous relationships aren't denied marriage rights if they're heterosexual, but are if they're homosexual. If it's about the children, why deny the children of the homosexuals these protections?

Simple, in order for the homosexual couple to have children, they have to want it really really bad. Your not gonna go through 18 months to adopt a child, or get some cutting edge cloning tech, and leave the kid on a doorstep.




It depends. The notable custody cases, particularly baby M, are the genetic offspring of the birth mother. Should those children be denied the security of being raised by married parents?

uhh they already are.
thats kinda the point.


It's valid only if you're willing to deny the elderly, the infertile, post-hysterectomy women, men who've had vasectomies, or any other pair who are either individually or mutually infertile marriage rights.

No. But nice try.
Explain to me how them being infertile creates one single illegitmate child?
unless of course they screw someone else.

This "going outside the marriage" thing is interesting. Why does that matter?

1) a child born out of the marriage has less right to any assests of that marriage.
IE if you're a bastard, you probably aint getting daddy's money.
2) while any child born within the marriage has automatic inheritance rights, illegitimate children don't. Have any of sally hemmings kids ever gotten a piece of the jefferson estate?
Also a child born outside of the marriage is less likely to have the same opportunities as his siblings, if baby A is from mommy and baby B is from the french maid, guess which baby is going to public school?
The bottom line is, not always, but usually, marriage forces the people to take responsibillity for the kids they have. This is necessary because despite what mummy and daddy told you, most of us are accidents.
Sad but true, me I was born cause of a rock concert and young hormones.

Now if two people are single and an accident happens, chances are damn good theres either gonna be an abortion, adoption, or runaway dad in that kids future. If that couple is married, they are more likely to have, and raise that child.
Gay couples don't have to worry about accidents.
Adam and steve are never gonna get preggers by mistake, neither are dorothy and ellen.
But y'know, jim and jan, they might.
Now whats better, to have them stick together, and raise thier kid, or for jim to join the merchant marines?
Marriage, by raising the stakes, and clealry delinating responsibillity and privileges, makes it more likely that that kid will be screwed up by two parents, than just getting screwed up by one.
Now the fact is, illegtimate children are a burden on the stae, they are more likely to be in trouble with the law, more likely to be poor, more likely to be abonded by at least one parent etc. So it does make sense that there is a real state interest in seeing less illegtimate children born. But in order to ensure that there would be less born, there was a need for an incentive. Marriage is it. well marriage, the societal standing of being married, the tax breaks, perks, etc.


The same is true of any woman who is post-hysterectomy, men with extremely low sperm count/motility or who've had testicular cancer, the elderly, or any couple with at least one sterile member or who are mutually infertile.

Again how are any of them going to have an illegitimate child unless they break the marriage compact?



What does being "illegitimate" have to do with anything? Are those infertile couples that go that route not allowed to marry?

By nature, any couple who uses AI, wants a child.
This isn't about the planned children, its about the "oops I forgot my pills" children.

[BetterThanYou]

I'm not seeing at all how this relates. As an example, I'm sterile. I cannot have children through any means with any person. Yet, I can marry a man, but not a woman. In both cases, having children requires outside intervention. The only reason to deny me the right to legally marry my wife is prejudice.

Sure if your a closeminded person who can only see thier own perspective.
See we don't have to worry, as a society, that you and your wife are gonna have a quikie at the local BK and throw the result on a doorstep with a note do we?
So then why should we use the same enticment on you that we use on those we do have that worry about?
Why bribe gay couples with the benefits of marriage, in an effort to ensure they raise thier unwated kids, when they can't have unwanted kids?



I'm pretty sure there aren't any infertile couples that are fertile.


huh???:confused:

Hmmm. So the lesbian couples who used donor sperm produced children outside their marriage? Do heterosexual couples that use donor sperm have children from "outside the marriage?"

Yes but again in both cases, those are wanted, planned pregnancies, and there is no need, to create a framework that entices them to be parents now is there?
On the other hand a T.I.N.K. yuppie couple who forget protection at the latest company orgy might be more likely to keep and have the kid if they are married. If they get married becasue of the kid, they are more likely to stay that way for the benefits.


Nope. Infertile couples can't have children without outside intervention. Some don't even want children. Gay couples can't have children without outside intervention. Some don't even want children.

The gay couple doesn't have to worry about unwanted kids. They will never have any. Theres no need to bribe them with a license.

This is a direct parallel.

Sure if your too closeminded to see my point.



Nebraska's amendment was overturned in Federal court in 2005 (and is under appeal), and New Jersey's supreme court overruled lower court common law rulings.

And several similar laws have been upheld.
But again, what do we need to courts for? We got gilda dent to tell us right from wrong.

However, none of the laws have been tested in the US Supreme Court. Sometime in the next few years a case will come up and we'll see. I'm confident a combination of the full faith and credit clause, the 14th amendment, and Loving as precedent will result in an overturning of DOMA and state laws and result in some uniform marriage rights across the country.

If marriage were a right I'd agree, Im hoping the courts will be smart for once and rule that the federal government has no business in marriage at all.



Your claim was that the US Supreme Court and "several state courts" have ruled that marriage can be limited to those couples capable of "procreation and child rearing".

Nooo.
It was that the supreme court, and several state courts have ruled that the courts have an inherant right to regulate and license marriage, because the institution of marriage performs some societal purpose. Like it or not, that purpose has always been understood to be creating a framework which supports the two parent family, and entices people to engage in that model.
Part of it is its use as a bludgeon, part of it is its use as a bribe, but the end result is, because of marriage, people are more likely to raise thier kids together.
Now since, by defintion, there is no way for a gay couple to ave an unwanted child, theres no need to ensure that they both raise him.




You produced one state court decision that supports your claim, though you haven't cited it. The reasoning there, you'll note quotes what I'll assume is the state's DOM law, which would have been specifically created to limit gay marriage, so this becomes a circular argument.


Listen gilda like it or not, marriage evolved the way it did in response to a need. a need which gay marriage simply doesn't fulfill. Now I dislike the idea of essentially bribing people not to be deadbeat dads and abondoning mothers, but it has to be done. Like it or not, there would be a lot more deadbeat dads and infants found in garbage cans if there wasn't marriage, but that need, ins't fulfilled by gay marriage. We dont have to worry that you and your girlfriend will have a kid by mistake. We don't have to bribe you to take care of your unwanted kids.

I'll also note that this reasoning would deny blended families, infertile couples, and the elderly marriage if applied on it's face.

No just if applied based on your misunderstanding of my point. Now that might be my fault, I can't always clearly express what I am trying to say, but then again I don't think thats the case. I think your pissed because you feel slighted, or "opressed", I think you made up your mind long ago that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a homophobic bigot who wants to stone you, and that you deride arguments before actually considering them because of that.
[/quote]

Children all deserve a safe, stable family environment, not just the "legitimate" ones.
[/quote]
Thats the reason there is marriage.
So that less children will be illegtimiate. Like it or not, those who aren't start out behind the 8-ball.



Opposite sex couples have a clearly delineated legal relationship to their children even if they aren't married. Therefor, opposite sex marriage, by this line of reasoning, is "unnecessary".


Really? tell that to any "dad" who tries to get custody rights.


There needs to be a good reason for the restriction, and you haven't produced one that doesn't exclude heterosexual couples.

Would it matter if I did?
Relax i'm just bigot, you dont have to actually read or think about what i'm saying,you just have to pretend to long enough for me to post, so you can repeat yourself over and over again. Isn't it nice knowing that the populations of at least 11 states are majority homophobes?
;)

That infertile heterosexual couples can marry but homosexual couples cannot demonstrates the direct bias here. This reasoning was invented purely for the purpose of attacking gay marriage and did not exist until gays started making noise about getting treated fairly.

Riiiight. Marriage was around for thousands of years, serving the exact same purpose, becuase it wasn't necessary. There is no need to ensure people act responsibly, no need to bribe them into taking care of thier kids, its not like any man ever abandoned a pregnant woman or any woman ever asked her boyfriend to jump on her stomach when pregnant.
Now don't get me wrong, marriage does serve other purposes besides bribing people into acting more like adults when they have children. Its also about ensuring property and inheritance rights for both children and spouses, but again for the same reason.
A woman is assumed to be her husbands inheritor, in lieu of a will, not because the assumption is that she and he are one unit, but because after his death, she will still be expected to support thier children.
IE she is serving as a conduit to the kids.
The same applies when a mans wife dies.
again, its about insuring that people have both the tools to, and the motivation to, be better parents, especially in situations where they never wanted to be parents in the first place. Face it, this isn't a situation gays need fear.
You will never accidently get your wife pregnant gilda.
ever.
So theres no reason to try and bribe or bludgeon you into taking care of your unwanted kids now is there?




By the way, the answer is no. My mother and my wife's mother are both immigrants who came to the US to marry, so I know something about this. What the INS looks for is a legitimate intent to live as a married couple in a single household. Children help as evidence of this, but aren't a requirement.
Never said they were, I said that marriages deemed to be solely for privaleges, such as citizenship, can be annuled.
Had you mom and dad intended on being married in name only, the marriage could have been ruled invalid. Not because they didn't intend to have kids, but because they were marrying (in this hypothetical) for the benfits of marriage only.
My point was, since vitually every case I have heard for gay marriage focused on the privaleges they aren't getting, and since them being married wouldn't fulfill the functions marriage is supposed to, it seems to me like the only reason gays want marriage is for the benefits they would get. Which would by default make it invalid.

[Agent Helix]

Edit: Nevermind. I see that this is a person with six posts at an ostensibly comic book related forum, all about gay marriage, and all unintelligible, hate-filled screeds.

Not worth any expenditure of effort.

[Charles RB]

BetterThanYou, is your entire life and stance motivated by hatred?

[Spike-X]

I want my five minutes back.

[the4thpip]

mwa-muh-mwah-man

http://www.dragonsaretooseldom.com/Images/gsockpuppet3.gif

[Sam T.]

ummmm...I'm not even getting into this one!!:rolleyes:

[the4thpip]

ummmm...I'm not even getting into this one!!:rolleyes:
But I washed it first!

http://www.legendsandlore.com/images/gsockpuppet1.gif

[Charles RB]

I want my five minutes back.

You didn't just skim it? You could've saved a whole four minutes that way.

[Spike-X]

You didn't just skim it? You could've saved a whole four minutes that way.
I know. I really should learn to manage my time better.

Speaking of which, did you know it only takes about ten seconds to put somebody on ignore?

[Charles RB]

Speaking of which, did you know it only takes about ten seconds to put somebody on ignore?

You wish it was quicker too, eh?

[Camron Amaya]

I don't have any gay friends, nor do I find appealing the activities gay men are involved in. With that said, gay marrige should be legal. They have as much right as anyone. It's not a very big request in my mind.

All the super-religious-take-everything-in-the-Bible-litteraly-making-homemade-nukes-in-my-basement-to-bring-the-Armageddon-quicker-and-reserve-my-place-in-Heaven-besides-God Christian wackos (and anyone else for that matter) that belives this is wrong and belives homosexuality is wrong, need to shut the hell up. Gay men aren't forcing their pracitses and activites on you or anyone else, so don't force your belifs and religion on them.

It goes for anything. I hate the idea of someone elses religion or belif dictating what I can and can't do. If you don't belive in something then don't support it. If you think it's evil that's fine, but leave the rest of us alone. Let us go to hell then. Please!

[Agent Helix]

nor do I find appealing the activities gay men are involved in.

What, like racquetball? Because I hear those gays are nuts for racquetball.

[the4thpip]

What, like racquetball? Because I hear those gays are nuts for racquetball.
It's those cute shorts, really.

[Agent Helix]

It sickens me.

[Camron Amaya]

What, like racquetball? Because I hear those gays are nuts for racquetball.



Yes I despise racquetball! I hear their loose butts give them maximum efficiancy and agility in sports such as this. A republican told me this.

Lmao you know what I meant foolio.

[Corrina]

I want my five minutes back.

Boy, i'm glad I didn't keep reading his junk. I stopped at "marriage is not a right," which is demonstrably false, which told me, he wasn't paying attention.

The patronizing tone didn't do much for me, either.

[Sharpandpointies]

There's a big, fat ignore button out there, folks, for just this sort of occasion.

Keeps the flames down and prevents a lot of stress in your life, too.

[Nick Soapdish]

Infertile couples, while unable to produce children, won't produce illegetimate children unless they break the bonds of marriage, if they are not infertile they can produce children within marriage.
I'm pretty sure there aren't any infertile couples that are fertile.
huh???:confused:


Go back and try reading your own post.

I understand the desire to skim it because it is a bit disjointed, but it'll explain why Gilda and myself were confused which apparently in turn confused you.

If marriage were a right I'd agree, Im hoping the courts will be smart for once and rule that the federal government has no business in marriage at all.

There isn't any "if" about it right now. Currently, the courts have ruled that it is a right. The "if" is whether or not they will decide to change their minds and say it isn't a right, but that doesn't change what it is right now.

And while I think it would solve a bunch of problems for the government to get out of the marriage business, ceding it to religion (even though it's been both a civic and religious institution for thousands of years) and only do civil unions, I don't see it happening. It's at least a couple centuries too late for that and the idea of telling thousands (and probably lots more) of couples that they aren't married is a pretty ballsy move by the courts.

The rest of your post was a bit more jumbled, but it sounds like you're arguing that the only real benefit of marriage is avoiding illegitimate children. It's an important benefit, but far from the only one.

[Nick Soapdish]

Boy, i'm glad I didn't keep reading his junk. I stopped at "marriage is not a right," which is demonstrably false, which told me, he wasn't paying attention.

The patronizing tone didn't do much for me, either.

Sometimes I'm a glutton for this sort of thing. :(

[Camron Amaya]

There's a big, fat ignore button out there, folks, for just this sort of occasion.

Keeps the flames down and prevents a lot of stress in your life, too.

I may be missunderstanding this but are you talking about me and the other dude? I was just kidding with him, I hope you didn't get offended by that racquetball joke lol. That wasn't my intention :(

[Sharpandpointies]

I may be missunderstanding this but are you talking about me and the other dude? I was just kidding with him, I hope you didn't get offended by that racquetball joke lol. That wasn't my intention :(

Actually, I'm talking about the guy at whom everyone seems to be angry. We've got the nice, smoldering beginnings of a flame war here, when all it requires is for people to just decide this guy has nothing they want to hear, and slap an ignore on him.

Wait, this is the internet. Where's my head...?

[Agent Helix]

I was talking about racquetball, the country club sport of sinners.

[Camron Amaya]

Actually, I'm talking about the guy at whom everyone seems to be angry. We've got the nice, smoldering beginnings of a flame war here, when all it requires is for people to just decide this guy has nothing they want to hear, and slap an ignore on him.

Wait, this is the internet. Where's my head...?

Lol I didn't read the whole thread so I didn't catch it or know who this guy is.

[Sharpandpointies]

Lol I didn't read the whole thread so I didn't catch it or know who this guy is.

I think his name is BetterThanYou.

[Spike-X]

I was talking about racquetball, the country club sport of sinners.
You can hate racquetball without necessarily hating racquetball players, of course.

[Agent Helix]

Of course.

But I wouldn't want to associate with any of them.

[Camron Amaya]

Of course.

But I wouldn't want to associate with any of them.

I hear they smell like cabbage.

[Agent Helix]

No, that's carnival folk.

[Spike-X]

I hear they're going to start teaching our children racquetball in schools. In schools!!

Why are these people trying to shove their balls down our children's throats?!?!

[Camron Amaya]

I hear they're going to start teaching our children racquetball in schools. In schools!!

Why are these people trying to shove their balls down our children's throats?!?!


LMAO

Nicely done.

[the4thpip]

Yesterday, my Thanksgiving dinner hunting boyfriend sent me a text message:

What kind of bird is a capon?

my reply:

A cock without balls.

...which would be a kick-ass Jeopary answer!!

[Ed Cunard]

I've said it before, I'll say it again--
I wish stupidity was a carcinogen.

[BetterThanYou]

There isn't any "if" about it right now. Currently, the courts have ruled that it is a right. The "if" is whether or not they will decide to change their minds and say it isn't a right, but that doesn't change what it is right now.

I disagree.
And in truth so do the courts, this is one of many subjects the courts can't agree on.

And while I think it would solve a bunch of problems for the government to get out of the marriage business, ceding it to religion (even though it's been both a civic and religious institution for thousands of years) and only do civil unions, I don't see it happening. It's at least a couple centuries too late for that and the idea of telling thousands (and probably lots more) of couples that they aren't married is a pretty ballsy move by the courts.

No ballsier than Kelo.

The rest of your post was a bit more jumbled, but it sounds like you're arguing that the only real benefit of marriage is avoiding illegitimate children. It's an important benefit, but far from the only one.
I think its the primary one.
At the end of the day all social institution serve the same purpose, allowing the society (group) to control, influence, or at least fool themselves into thinking they can control or influence, behavior by individuals that might constitute a danger to the society.
Doesn't matter if its the courts, the DMV, or the Oscar comittee, its all about control.
Sex, is one of those behaviors most dangerous to society, because its the only one that can create new members of the society.
For millenia, marriage was, essentially, a license to have sex.
Thats what it evolved to do, to help society exercise control over individual members sexual actions, and force them to deal with the consequences of those actions. Thats really, has always been what marriage is about.
Even to this day there are many places in the US where a single mother is persona non grata. Granted theres the same sexism wrapped up in there that leads to men and women with the same behavior being referred to as either studs or sluts based soley on genitalia, but at its heart its a recognition that society needs some way to control or at least channel individuals sexual desires for the benefit of all.
That is the function marriage evolved to perform. Because without both the motivation to get married that it provides, and the societal club against "loose" behavior it supports, helps ensure more children are raised to be a part of that society. Without it, there would be far more wards of the state, far more homelss kids, far more deadbeat dads, etc.
However there is no need by society to regulate the sexual actions of gays because there are no consequences of gay sex that affect society.
Yes like everyone they can get diseases, and yes they can get hurt, emotionally or physically, but they can't pop out a rugrat and drop it off at the local firestation for someone else to raise.
So theres no need for an institution to either force or bribe them into dealing responsibly with the unwanted consequences of thier sexual actions.
The fact that so many consider marriage, and its attending benefits, a "right" is, to me at least, both an indictement of how shallow our society has become in its thinking, and a proof of how effective at its purpose marriage is.
When a cage becomes so nice that other people are demanding to be let in, you know its a damn fine cage, but at the end of the day, its still a cage.
It isn't about freeing people, its about placing them in voluntary bondage.
About controlling thier actions, and to a lesser extent thier thoughts.
I mean really think about it, in what way is any part of marriage a "right"
Is it your "right" to have other people value your personal relationship as much as you do? Is it your "right" to force them to recognise it? Is it your "right" be called Mr and Mrs ________________?
What part of marriage is the "right" part?
What about marriage IYO are you entitled to?
More to the point, what part of having your marriage legally recognised are you entitled to?
Take away the tax credits, the consent laws, the hospital visitation, the joint healthcare, all the things people associate with being a benefit of gay marriage, and ask yourself, does marriage need to be changed in order to provide those?
Does it take marriage to provide them at all?
If no marriages were recognised by the government, and all marriages were treated as Gilda's is, would it make any difference to the gay community?
Would derecognising the mariages of straights be enough to make you feel "equal"
At the end of the day, marriage IMO should have never even become a state issue, much less a federal one.
But government, by its nature, seeks to increase its control over its subjects, and one of the easiest ways to do this is to take a preexisting social institution and make it a government one.
Which is why we are arguing about this subject today, I just don't get how a cage became a right.

[Gilda Dent]

Marriage is a right. Loving v. Virginia. You are factually wrong on this.

The federal government has identified 1049 rights, responsibilities, and duties for married couples. There is no requirement regarding procreation.

Infertile couples can marry if they are heterosexual. There is no argument related to childrearing that eliminates homosexual couples without also eliminating infertile heterosexual individuals and couples.

It isn't about freeing people, its about placing them in voluntary bondage.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

[Charles RB]

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

I'm not sure if you mean marriage or bondage here, and I'm too scared to what to find out.

[Kahnno6]

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.


Wow, shifting gears from serious to humurous like that could be dangerous!! :eek: :D

[Gilda Dent]

I'm not sure if you mean marriage or bondage here, and I'm too scared to what to find out.

Why does it have to be one or the other?