Gay Marriage
 

Many in the Right are calling marriage a "union between a man and a woman". I think it should be a "union between two adults". I support gay marriages and think they should be legal.

What do you think?

Legal.

I see nothing wrong with the concept. Marriage is just a legal document saying that you have very deep feelings for somebody. If those feelings already exist, forbiding such a document won't make them go away, it'll just irritate the 'victims' of the law.

Well, unfortunately, marriage has many legal benefits (as well as a few drawbacks) for those involved, and simply being "living partners" or whatever one chooses to call it do not afford a couple the same benefits. So marriage is technically more than just a document saying you have very deep feelings for somebody, because so many things are affected by having that document.

So, if the Right want to play word games, why can't the Left?

Let them have the word "Marriage". Okay, only a man and a woman can marry. Let's have "Civil Unions", wherein two adults of either gender commit to one another in a legal sense, thereby gaining all the rights afforded to "married people". But we don't call it "marriage".

Then, when the Right starts screaming about it, the Left can say: "Look, we gave you 'Marriage', and we came up with a great compromise which should make everyone happy. You've protected the 'sanctity' of marriage and now you're pitching a fit over this. Admit it, you're doing this because you don't like gay people."

And then they look like complete assholes, because they weren't defending anything but their own bigoted ideas.

I basically agree with you. However, I think part of the sticking point is that gay couples don't want to be seen as different or have their union looked upon as any different than a straight union, a.k.a. "marriage". I partially agree with them, but then I think, "Dude, just take what you can get."

I think "marriage" should be outlawed and everyone can have "civil unions". What we've got there is equality, and I think that's basically what the gay side wants.

Why play word games to begin with?

Sorry if I'm confused, but whats wrong with using marriage for both cases?

Bible references? Who cares. Religion shouldn't be the basis of laws.

If a man loves a woman, then he should be able to marry her.
If a man loves a man, then he should be able to marry him.
etc..

It's that simple. Sorry for my obvious ignorance of the finer parts of the issue but I am somewhat confused.

I agree, word games shouldn't be played. It's the Right doing it.

It should be legal. We've talked about this before but it seems really odd that so many right wingers apparently see a state recognized contract as sacred. Refresh my memory, wasn't Clinton the guy who signed the defense of marriage act?

And so you have defined the reasons for the contraversy. Not right wing - but extreme right wing religious are opposed to anything contrary to their interpretation of the bible. It is their right. However once they would imposed those beliefs on others, then we have a fundamental violation of the Constitution.

Underlying the demands from the religious right: they are obligated to save us from ourselves. Heavens forbid we should let gays and lesbians 'marry'. That would mean we all commit mortal sin. Something fundamentally new in the American public. There has been a massive change in the American political landscape. Something just under 50% of Americans say there is nothing wrong with religious beliefs being used to create laws. And so we have the religious extremists justifying hate.

Major factions of the Catholic Church would simply murder those who opposed their interpretation of church doctrine. I believe a whole Jesuit town in France was massacred in maybe the 1500s simply because the emotion called 'religion' was more important than even the purpose of religion.

Religion is simply a relationship between you and your god. Period. Once religion is imposed on others, then we have evil. A fundamental violation of American principles. However in their zeal to save us from ourselves, the religious right extremists would deny all this. And so they promote hate upon people they fear - gays and lesbians.

Once religion violates its fundamental roots - a relationship between a person and his god - the religion becomes the reasons for murder, death, massacres, and other social diseases.

Griff, Clinton did sign it, but given that he was staring down a Republican Congress and all...

Gay marriages should be as legal as straight ones. Why not? I challenge anyone who opposes gay marriages to present non-religious amoral reasons as to why they should not be allowed.

If gays aren't allowed to marry, then all their natural children will be "bastards".:rolleyes:

I say let 'em get married. The reason: when a 'gay' relationship ends, unless one is older and wealthy and the the other young and greedy, there isn't a nasty court battle over who gets the silver or custody of the poodle. They've had it too damn easy for years. Let the have to put up with what us straights have been putting up with since forever, lawyers, judges, and property settlements. Let 'em get married, then let them get divorced, and see how well they like it!!

Damn, the lawyers would have a field day.

Personally, I don't care who does what with whom as long as I don't have to watch it.

I couldn't care less what consenting adults do because they are able to take resonsibility for their actions. I don't really see why gay adults can't enjoy some of the legal protections provided by the legal institution of marriage.

The adult question is easy. It gets really tough for me when children get involved.

As soon as the gay marriage question gets resolved, the children question will be next.

Can/should gay male couples be allowed to adopt? Call me a neanderthal but I am not ready for that.

OK Beestie you're a neanderthal. Me too.
The adults making there own decisions I can take a rational tact. The adoption on the other hand doesn't feel right in my gut and no amount of rationalization will make it go away.

What's wrong with them having children? Any specific points?

Ok so lets think about this. Lets say gay couples can legally marry, but cannot have kids. This is impossible. Single people can have kids, kids can have kids but gays cant? It's ireconcilable.

What if a married lesbian couple get impregnated assuming it's legal to marry but not spawn. What is the punishment for getting pregnant and/or giving birth? How can it be a crime to get pregnant? If the lesbians are biologically capable of bearing children, how does this affect the gay couples who are not? Should we sue God for not making men capable of bearing children? Should we sue the Tobacco companies for somehow having a hand in this? The scenarios give me a headache. The lawyers would be billing the gov't for the next 100 years contemplating the legal consequences.

While I am not against same sex marriage per se, same sex couples having or adopting kids makes me nervous. From a psychological perspective kids need the influence of a mother and a father.* Since children are such a large part of the original intent of creating the arrangement of marriage, I cant understand how all the details would work if there were gay marriage.

It isn't as simple as one would think to just say one way or the other. Or maybe I'm missing it completely.

* - says me a single guy with no kids or plans to have them.

I ran across this article the other day while doing research for a paper on primates. It's pretty interesting.

Excerpt:<blockquote>Wild male Sumatran orangutans at two study sites engaged in homosexual behavior. These observations demonstrate that homosexual behavior is not an artifact of captivity or contact with humans. In separate instances, homosexual behavior was associated with affiliative and agonistic behaviors. These observations add orangutans to the list of primates in which homosexual behavior forms part of the natural repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior.</blockquote>

This seems to suggest that the idea of homosexuality being "unnatural" is completely off base.

It seems to me that a whole slew of people have been raised by single mothers, and they seem to be getting on okay. In the absence of a father, the child will simply find some other male role model (and vice-versa for women).

I understand your point here. I dont think the 2 are the same though.

Seeing 2 women or 2 men as a couple raise a child still leaves the child without one or the other in the team.

I still dont agree with it.

If children being raised by single parents turn out just fine, then how can adding another parent of the same sex possibly change the results for the worse?

It shows a parental relationship of 2 same sexes, without a opposite sex influence. Having 2 daddys or 2 mommies. I object and think it's confusing for kids.

Sure there are single moms and dads, but they're single or with the opposite sex partners. This tends to show a relationship of opposite sex partners and allows them to define their own sex role from a parental example. A man or a woman.

I'm not saying I know it all. This is my opinion though. I dont think its good for kids.

What do you mean by "opposite sex influence"?

an opposite sex influence in the parent(s)

Would a girl have the parental influence of a woman from a gay couple? How about a boy from a lesbian couple? It's true there would be other role models, but the primary parental roles may not have their particular biological match.

It could also be said that one partner in same sex couples do have opposite sex traits, the butch lesbian, for example. While this is true it doesnt give the opposite sex parent the same biology and development experience as the real deal.

Can a woman relate to having an errection*? Most likely not. Is it important to have that type of sexual development experience to be somehow subliminally relatable to your kids? That's your call.

You, as a male, can relate to dad in some way when you're growing up, you can talk to him about girls, sex, (having sex with girls instead of alone in the shower) and other gender related topics. This may be more difficult with a woman, or an opposite sex parent.

In the end, if you ask me, I say its confusing for the child and I dont agree with it.

* - does not apply to Maggie

My dad died when I was 3, so I'm one of those people raised by a single-parent woman. I never ever had any sort of father figure growing up, real or replacement.

Originally posted by juju

My problem isn't gay couples having children. Its with gay couples adopting children. And its not so much a problem as an unsettling question.

Lesbian couples can have children. Male couples (duh) cannot so they have to adopt.

It goes to the question of what is the marriage for? If two gays want to institutionalize their commitment to each other be it civil, religious or whatever then honestly, I can find no fault in that and think it is actuallly a sign of character.

My question (and I don't know the answer) is what do we (legislatively) say about gay adoption. To be clear about my position (since you asked in another post), the idea of making it against the law for gays to have their own children is preposterous and and unacceptably discriminatory.

I don't know nor do I really care where homosexuality comes from - it is a reality and a lot of good people are homosexual. We must find a way to not shun these people by treating them like outcasts. But I don't know how that translates into the children question. And that's not to say that homosexuals can't be loving parents its to say I don't know what a kid raised in a homosexual house "looks like." Maybe its fine - I don't know. I'm not predisposed to an answer - I would just like some more information before deciding (the adoption question).

Adoptions into gay families is a tough issue even for me. I know that in a logical sense there is nothing wrong with a gay couple raising a child, yet at times I feel like I should say no.

In the end I think what it comes down to is the dedication of the family to the child and their ability to raise a child.

Yes it will be a bit odd for the child to grow up in a gay family, yes they'll get teased, yes they'll have some tough concepts to understand very early on. But in the end it's still better for the child to grow up in a gay family than a foster home.

fnf wrote:
Nice way to put it.

I bet a lot of kids in a foster home would choose a gay household over no household. And their opinion matters considerably more than mine does.

My take?
Have at it, boys!

Which would be more detrimental to the child: an unhappy marriage between a woman and a man who would have been gay, or being raised by that man married to another man?

(Admittedly, it felt wierd to write 'man married to another man'. If I feel wrong or awkward with a word or sentence, it's an indicator to me that it's incorrect. They might be correct to say that marriage is associated with 'union between a man and a woman'.)

single parent Vs mommy-mommy, they're not the same IMO.

Lemme see if I can find something written on this.

Many people have told me straight to my face how damaging a fatherless family is to a child.

Nothing could possibly be more damaging than their stupid prejudices.

Are you referring to the prejudices of those who say a fatherless family is damaging, Toad? Just want to clarify.

Yes.

I've listened to hours of talk radio against gay marriage, and read extensive anti-gay diatribes on the web, and read political grandstanding on the issue. At no time has any legal argument even been made, let alone substantiated, against gay marriage.

Here is a list of the arguments I've seen:

1) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and marriage to 'poltergeists' (O'Reilly today).

2) It is a case of judicial activism, against the wishes of 62% of the population.

3) Marriage is defined in the dictionary as being between a man and a woman.

4) It would be a "special privilege" only for gays. Currently, gays have equal rights as heterosexuals to enter heterosexual marriage.

5) It's against the Bible.

6) It's unnatural.

7) I don't want to tell my children about it.

8) It's yucky.


Are there any arguments against gay marriage that weren't also used and discredited against interracial marriage, or any number of other civil rights?

First of all, not attacking you just listing counter argumnets...

Gay marriage -- no prob, I'll come to the wedding and sniff into my hankie. Throw rice.

A child being raised by the State -- uh oh.

A child being raised by a caring, decent parent -- wonderful!

A child being raised by *two* caring, decent parents -- wow, we just hit the motherlode!

2 parents + grandparents, uncles, aunts, siblings, friends, community -- As Good As It Gets.


I don't see where gender comes into it.

- Pie

FileNotFound - Indeed. Counterarguments are so obvious to me that I wish they weren't even necessary. But all of these arguments were being advanced with all seriousness. As for the source of the statistic, it was from O'Reilly, who has been known to make up statistics on the spot.

Well, it COULD explain your pussy music tendencies...

Of course gay marriage should be legal.

Of course gay partners should be allowed to birth or adopt children and raise them in loving homes. Of course all children deserve loving homes.

And of course gay people should be teachers, writers, insurance claims adjusters, cashiers, artists, doctors, business people,...wait they are.

It is a question of basic human rights.

What pisses me off about the whole issue is that we have given the White House a new issue to use to sidestep the economy and the war in Iraq.

Bush gets to oppose gay marriage, alienating a special interest group who he never expected to support him. It will cost him nothing and further ingratiate him with evangelicals, who are willing to ignore his worldly foibles in favor of social conservatism.

:angry:

Sorry I'm late on this. No Juju, just gut feeling. I am not for making it illegal because I don't have a rational case for that. I'm just uncomfortable with it.:confused:
I can believe O'Reilly's 63%. I think there is probably 63% that would make the Bible law, if they could.:eek:

Jesus! Where do I start?

Maybe with some research and reading on my new online library.

I'll be back. I wont forget this but there are lotsa things to be done before this.

Nope
 

Legal rights, yes. Marriage...sorry but marriage is between a man and woman, get your own word.

Reminds me of a Chris Rock routine about single mothers, sure, you can do it...but that doesn't make it a fucking good idea!

Is being raised by the state better? There are plenty of kids in need of addoption.


Also marriage 'was' a union between man and woman. Now it's a union between two conscenting adults. Welcome to the new world. (If you don't like it, I can suggest a way to leave)

Oh, opinions not allowed here? Am I too un-PC?

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Opinions are allowed AND are appreciated here.

However, put on your suit of armor and get ready for the firey barbs if your opinions aren't in line with some folks. For the most part, as long as you're open minded and willing to hear other sides of things, you'll do well here.

(Kevlar and Asbestos, perfect for a flame war!)

Dagney

Opinions are more than welcome; however, we tend to like folks that back up their opinions with facts and/or qualifiers.

So, why do you think that marriage is only for a man and woman?

The lack of gay marriage weakens the entire concept of marriage and will lead to fewer heterosexual couples marrying.

When loving couples are prohibited from marrying, the importance of marriage is diminished in the culture. As homosexuality continues to gain acceptance, as it surely will, the practice of not marrying will spill over into the hetero space.

Gays already lead the culture in many ways, and there is no reason to believe this will not be one of them. Fighting the culture war harder will only hasten its progress. Marriage will become unfashionable for large numbers of ordinary people.

Actually I believe that gay marriage would weaken the concept of marriage.

I have nothing against gays, but I am so tired of every minority group wanting to reshape the world to their needs. I also think that most groups that go on about demanding equal treatment really want special treatment.

The whole PC thing I guess is what really pisses me off, you're not allowed to have an opinion anymore, or set standards for your organization (think Boy Scouts) for fear of offending someone somewhere.

How is being allowed to marry the person you love special treatment?

Right, special treatment should be limited to majorities!

In the bible homosexuality is a sin. So no it should not be allowed.



Yes I know adultary is to. So shut up!

It's special treatment because they want to redefine (and in my OPINION make a mockery of) what many consider SACRED, simply to satisfy their OWN agenda.

I hate you more every day. Why don't you shut up? No really. Please do.

Who cares about the bible? The bible is NOT law. Never should be.

You're not answering the question:

How is being able to marry the person you love special treatment.

Special treatment is asking that the laws & traditions which clearly define marriage as being of a man and a woman be rewritten for their benefit.

That said, I believe they SHOULD be able to have some kind of service/union and gain the legal benefits that come with it for the one they love.

Merely a question, but why on earth are you expending the energy to hate? It does no one any good, and if your ego needs boosted THAT badly, perhaps you should direct your wrath at another target.

And by the way, for millions of Christians, the Bible IS law. You may not like it, but that's how they run their lives.

Do you say that women asking for the right to vote was also special treatment because voting was established and clearly defined as a right of "a white male land owner".

They're not asking for special treatment but equal treatment. Your inability to grasp this is distressing.

It's my energy, I can put it where I want. Be it counting the dots on the wall or hating retards. My ego is fine thank you very much for your concern.

Welcome to the wonderful United States of America where US Law is NOT the Bible. There is this thing here that's known as "seperation of church and state", it used to be followed much more closly, but it's still very much in effect.

If you'd like a country without sepration of church and state, try Afghanistan, Iran or some other islamic nation where women get stoned in the streets, are considered mans property and can't show their faces.

No on the voting thing, some things need to be changed, and some things DO NOT need to be changed. Sorry I know that's kind of lame, not sure how to compare the two. It's like right vs. wrong, hard to define but you know it when you see it.

They should have equal treatment as far as I'm concerned...but don't change what I have & believe in in order to accomodate your desires.

For example, what if beastililty eventually becomes more mainstream & acceptable in our culture, with people "coming out", having their own parades and television series, and forming poltical groups.

Should I then say, sure it's OK, you can marry your cow, just because marriage to millions is a sacred union of man and woman, I have no right to deny you your equal treatment.