- Sale items. Buy now - stock going fast. Specials
- You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
Forums > Social Chat > Gay marriage
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
So quite out of the blue last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that gay marriage is now legal in the state of Massachusetts. This sets up an interesting legal situation because there is a federal law called the "Defense Of Marriage Act" (DOMA) that defines a marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
However, the Constitution has an "Establishment Clause" that basically says that one state must grant full faith and credit to any establishment of another state, including a marriage. So if Jon and Steve get married in Massachusetts, all other states have to recognize the marriage. DOMA is clearly unconstitutional and will get knocked down no problem.
But what strikes me is the public outcry. People start spouting Bible this and Jesus that. The hatred is killing me. I feel unsafe and I desperately want to flee the country.
WHY is it that Americans can't seem to get the idea through their thick skulls that the Constitution, and NOT THE BIBLE, is the law of the land? Why is it that Americans are so friggin' hateful and bigoted? Of all first-world nations, we are the most religiously extreme, the most bigoted, and in general the most socially backward. When did this happen?
And how can we change this?
So quite out of the blue last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that gay marriage is now legal in the state of Massachusetts. This sets up an interesting legal situation because there is a federal law called the "Defense Of Marriage Act" (DOMA) that defines a marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
However, the Constitution has an "Establishment Clause" that basically says that one state must grant full faith and credit to any establishment of another state, including a marriage. So if Jon and Steve get married in Massachusetts, all other states have to recognize the marriage. DOMA is clearly unconstitutional and will get knocked down no problem.
But what strikes me is the public outcry. People start spouting Bible this and Jesus that. The hatred is killing me. I feel unsafe and I desperately want to flee the country.
WHY is it that Americans can't seem to get the idea through their thick skulls that the Constitution, and NOT THE BIBLE, is the law of the land? Why is it that Americans are so friggin' hateful and bigoted? Of all first-world nations, we are the most religiously extreme, the most bigoted, and in general the most socially backward. When did this happen?
And how can we change this?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Right, but my point is that this would just make all of us tools of your vision of society, whether we agree with it or not. That's not freedom, either, is it?
Quote:
Marriage is one of those things that will never accomodate everyone. By appeasing the homosexual liberal population, there are less voices speaking against the institution, and there are therefore less people willing to question it.
One step forward, two steps back.
Right, but my point is that this would just make all of us tools of your vision of society, whether we agree with it or not. That's not freedom, either, is it?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
36 posts
Location: Ontario, Canada
36 posts
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Wrong.
Marriage invariably creates a hierarchy; it is more favourable to speak of your "husband" or "wife" than to speak of your "partner" or "lover". Placing that social value on marriage then effectively oppresses people who would rather not or who cannot get married. There should be more options in life than the common "grow up, get married, and have a family" narrative.
And I'm not discriminating against those who would prefer to get married (I think you're really missing my point).
I just don't think that mutual commitment should take its current "marriage" form. It is for this reason that I adore the idea of commitment ceremonies, where people will commit themselves to one another in front of their family, friends and/or god(s). In this way, people can solidify or re-iterate their adoration for one another without the judgement or approval of an external structure (ie, the state or the church).
To each their own, but society's benefits should be open to all.
Wrong.
Marriage invariably creates a hierarchy; it is more favourable to speak of your "husband" or "wife" than to speak of your "partner" or "lover". Placing that social value on marriage then effectively oppresses people who would rather not or who cannot get married. There should be more options in life than the common "grow up, get married, and have a family" narrative.
And I'm not discriminating against those who would prefer to get married (I think you're really missing my point).
I just don't think that mutual commitment should take its current "marriage" form. It is for this reason that I adore the idea of commitment ceremonies, where people will commit themselves to one another in front of their family, friends and/or god(s). In this way, people can solidify or re-iterate their adoration for one another without the judgement or approval of an external structure (ie, the state or the church).
To each their own, but society's benefits should be open to all.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I agree, which is why ultimately, I believe that the government should only recognize civil unions because of the legal and economic benefits (for example, it simplifies things like visitation rights in the hospital and health coverage).
HOWEVER, denying gay people marriage does nothing to promote or oppose marriage. All it does is underscore our place as second-class citizens with fewer options available to us than the majority of society.
You are not "discriminating" against someone for making a choice. If you choose not to enter a union, then that's your choice. However, as a gay man, I do believe that marriage is a valuable institution and frankly, I resent the idea that I should be denied that opportunity just because marriage is inherently a flawed institution.
I love children with a passion. I do want to have a family. But the legality of the situation without some sort of domestic partner benefits recognition (allowing both me and my partner to, say, give consent for medical procedures for our child) is untenable without marriage or a similar institution.
I agree, which is why ultimately, I believe that the government should only recognize civil unions because of the legal and economic benefits (for example, it simplifies things like visitation rights in the hospital and health coverage).
HOWEVER, denying gay people marriage does nothing to promote or oppose marriage. All it does is underscore our place as second-class citizens with fewer options available to us than the majority of society.
You are not "discriminating" against someone for making a choice. If you choose not to enter a union, then that's your choice. However, as a gay man, I do believe that marriage is a valuable institution and frankly, I resent the idea that I should be denied that opportunity just because marriage is inherently a flawed institution.
I love children with a passion. I do want to have a family. But the legality of the situation without some sort of domestic partner benefits recognition (allowing both me and my partner to, say, give consent for medical procedures for our child) is untenable without marriage or a similar institution.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Divi it's only a heiarchy if the people involved make it one, which is an issue of personal volition.
Seriously, marriage can be whatever you want it to be really.
Divi it's only a heiarchy if the people involved make it one, which is an issue of personal volition.
Seriously, marriage can be whatever you want it to be really.
member
36 posts
Location: Ontario, Canada
36 posts
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Seems like I can't ever get into a debate without getting complex.
I'll say it again; I believe in anti-oppression, and that oppression can be absent from our lives if we choose it to be.
Therefore, I believe that families should be open and should be entered into and exited from freely (consensually based on all parties involved). Thus, I don't believe in the "right" to custody over anyone (by this I mean people under the age of majority). Therefore, parental "rights" don't mean much to me.
Agency of the child is a different story, and doesn't belong on this thread, so I won't get into it here.
Remember that I'm coming from a very theoretical standpoint, and that in this perspective there ideally would be no such thing as marriage as it stands now. No one would be afforded any privilege (social, economical or otherwise) over anyone else, and no one would oppress anyone else (There goes divi spouting off her idealist jargon again...).
So remember I'm not suggesting that in today's society same-sex couples shouldn't get married, but rather that the institution of marriage shouldn't exist as it does now. No one group of people should have a privilege over any other.
And Astar, you wrote that marriage only creates a hierarchy if people make it out to be one. Isn't this the case with all hierarchies anyway????
Friends of mine call it all of the time; they will mention their "partner", and there will be very little reaction. When they mention that they are married, they are treated with more respect, and are awarded with more attention and interest.
Marriage, in my opinion, is a social privilege, and no one's status should earn them more respect than others. Simple.
In an ideal world, no one would judge anyone else based on their status. In this perfect world, there would also be no structures to uphold inequality.
I'm also not advocating for an immediate dismantling of the whole system (even though it would be nice...), but rather trying to offer a different perspective. Just as same-sex couples have been oppressed by being denied marital privileges, so have other groups of people (sometimes in more subtle ways, sometimes not). Same-sex marriage does not make marriage an equitable institution.
Also, what about those gay-rights groups such as Égale who think that obtaining gay marriage privileges is the end of the gay rights struggle? Those people scare the crap out of me.
By them being able to think the way they do, they are obviously a middle-class privileged group ho do not understand forms of systemic oppression which take place outside of their social category.
That is where I break away from gay advocacy. Normally, I like to unify myself as much as possible, but I think that a group like Égale does far more harm than it does good.
So, unfortunately, I think you're right, Lightening. That being queer doesn't necessarily make one a revolutionary (sigh).. if only....
That's it for now
Later days, all
Seems like I can't ever get into a debate without getting complex.I'll say it again; I believe in anti-oppression, and that oppression can be absent from our lives if we choose it to be.
Therefore, I believe that families should be open and should be entered into and exited from freely (consensually based on all parties involved). Thus, I don't believe in the "right" to custody over anyone (by this I mean people under the age of majority). Therefore, parental "rights" don't mean much to me.
Agency of the child is a different story, and doesn't belong on this thread, so I won't get into it here.
Remember that I'm coming from a very theoretical standpoint, and that in this perspective there ideally would be no such thing as marriage as it stands now. No one would be afforded any privilege (social, economical or otherwise) over anyone else, and no one would oppress anyone else (There goes divi spouting off her idealist jargon again...).
So remember I'm not suggesting that in today's society same-sex couples shouldn't get married, but rather that the institution of marriage shouldn't exist as it does now. No one group of people should have a privilege over any other.
And Astar, you wrote that marriage only creates a hierarchy if people make it out to be one. Isn't this the case with all hierarchies anyway????
Friends of mine call it all of the time; they will mention their "partner", and there will be very little reaction. When they mention that they are married, they are treated with more respect, and are awarded with more attention and interest.
Marriage, in my opinion, is a social privilege, and no one's status should earn them more respect than others. Simple.
In an ideal world, no one would judge anyone else based on their status. In this perfect world, there would also be no structures to uphold inequality.
I'm also not advocating for an immediate dismantling of the whole system (even though it would be nice...), but rather trying to offer a different perspective. Just as same-sex couples have been oppressed by being denied marital privileges, so have other groups of people (sometimes in more subtle ways, sometimes not). Same-sex marriage does not make marriage an equitable institution.
Also, what about those gay-rights groups such as Égale who think that obtaining gay marriage privileges is the end of the gay rights struggle? Those people scare the crap out of me.
By them being able to think the way they do, they are obviously a middle-class privileged group ho do not understand forms of systemic oppression which take place outside of their social category.
That is where I break away from gay advocacy. Normally, I like to unify myself as much as possible, but I think that a group like Égale does far more harm than it does good.
So, unfortunately, I think you're right, Lightening. That being queer doesn't necessarily make one a revolutionary (sigh).. if only....
That's it for now
Later days, all
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
But all you do by denying gays the right to marry is make it a stratification. THEY can get married, WE can't. Therefore, marriage is a status symbol because as second-class citizens, that's what we're not allowed to do.
Want to get rid of marriage as a status instutition? Make it available to all.
But all you do by denying gays the right to marry is make it a stratification. THEY can get married, WE can't. Therefore, marriage is a status symbol because as second-class citizens, that's what we're not allowed to do.
Want to get rid of marriage as a status instutition? Make it available to all.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Divi im not sure what point I thought you were makeing that I was responding when I posted that, or what point I thought I was makeing. Stupid brain.
Divi im not sure what point I thought you were makeing that I was responding when I posted that, or what point I thought I was makeing. Stupid brain.
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Please excuse this momentary tangent to our regularly scheduled marriage discussion
Not true. In my recent grant class I was intrigued by the story of a single mother. She is a (currently) partnerless lesbian. She is also a freelance artist. She wanted a child. She took her savings and went to an agency that helped her go to China and adopt a little orphaned girl. She is now the very proud mother of an 18 month old, who actually is displaying early symptoms of mental illness. Social Services has looked at the case and they allowing them to remain a very happy a family. As a (oneday to be) doctor, I think you would be in a much better position than her for this type of situation.
I do think however that there is a different standard for males than females in such situations, though that has changed drastically even over the past few years, so hopefully by the time you get to the point where you want to dedicate a portion of your life to family, it will be easier for you.
Unless of course you are one of those males (and I truly do not feel you are like this) who believes part of the point to having children is to carry on their genetic branch of the family tree. Then that just leaves it all up to a Melissa Ethridge..on a donation basis...surrogate type thing.
I truly believe in this case where there is a will, there is a way.
I now return you to your discussion. Thank you
Quote:
I love children with a passion. I do want to have a family. But the legality of the situation without some sort of domestic partner benefits recognition (allowing both me and my partner to, say, give consent for medical procedures for our child) is untenable without marriage or a similar institution.
Please excuse this momentary tangent to our regularly scheduled marriage discussion
Not true. In my recent grant class I was intrigued by the story of a single mother. She is a (currently) partnerless lesbian. She is also a freelance artist. She wanted a child. She took her savings and went to an agency that helped her go to China and adopt a little orphaned girl. She is now the very proud mother of an 18 month old, who actually is displaying early symptoms of mental illness. Social Services has looked at the case and they allowing them to remain a very happy a family. As a (oneday to be) doctor, I think you would be in a much better position than her for this type of situation.
I do think however that there is a different standard for males than females in such situations, though that has changed drastically even over the past few years, so hopefully by the time you get to the point where you want to dedicate a portion of your life to family, it will be easier for you.
Unless of course you are one of those males (and I truly do not feel you are like this) who believes part of the point to having children is to carry on their genetic branch of the family tree. Then that just leaves it all up to a Melissa Ethridge..on a donation basis...surrogate type thing.
I truly believe in this case where there is a will, there is a way.
I now return you to your discussion. Thank you
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
member
36 posts
Location: Ontario, Canada
36 posts
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Lightening, you're not catching my point.
Marriage is not fully available to all. It is not all cut and dry as being open to both opposite sex/same sex marriage.
What about immigrants who have trouble gaining status, let alone marriage rights?
What about people living in severe poverty who can't even afford a marriage license?
What about the complexities surrounding people who are trans-?
What about people who want to be married to more than one person?
Like I said (again and again), marriage is inherently an inequitable institution. Appeasing one of the groups who currently cannot enjoy its benefits will ensure that the unequal treatment will only continue.
I don't think that all people should be "brought up" to the same level. If we did this economically, the world would be devoid of resources within decades. I think that we in privileged society should take a step back and humble ourselves to a more sutainable, more equitable level.
This is at the heart of my debate. Rather than fight to be included in someone else's world, I would rather that the institutions didn't exist at all, so that I could more easily shape my own reality with my own decisions.
Who cares if in this statist, classist, heterosexist society some people have more rights than others? You have the choice to live in this society or work to change it, as a whole.
Lightening, you're not catching my point.
Marriage is not fully available to all. It is not all cut and dry as being open to both opposite sex/same sex marriage.
What about immigrants who have trouble gaining status, let alone marriage rights?
What about people living in severe poverty who can't even afford a marriage license?
What about the complexities surrounding people who are trans-?
What about people who want to be married to more than one person?
Like I said (again and again), marriage is inherently an inequitable institution. Appeasing one of the groups who currently cannot enjoy its benefits will ensure that the unequal treatment will only continue.
I don't think that all people should be "brought up" to the same level. If we did this economically, the world would be devoid of resources within decades. I think that we in privileged society should take a step back and humble ourselves to a more sutainable, more equitable level.
This is at the heart of my debate. Rather than fight to be included in someone else's world, I would rather that the institutions didn't exist at all, so that I could more easily shape my own reality with my own decisions.
Who cares if in this statist, classist, heterosexist society some people have more rights than others? You have the choice to live in this society or work to change it, as a whole.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
It's not an either/or. I can choose to work to change it or not to work to change. However, like it or not, I live in it.
So as long as I'm here, I'll take my rights. Now.
Quote:
You have the choice to live in this society or work to change it, as a whole.
It's not an either/or. I can choose to work to change it or not to work to change. However, like it or not, I live in it.
So as long as I'm here, I'll take my rights. Now.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Member
18 posts
Location: Chicago, Il., USA
Member
18 posts
Location: Chicago, Il., USA
Posted:
So nice to have found this site if belatedly.
So nice to have found this site if belatedly.
Head in hands so much to learn...
member
79 posts
Location: Sydney,NSW
79 posts
Location: Sydney,NSW
Posted:
so do people think it is right to get married or not??
so do people think it is right to get married or not??
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,848 posts
Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Pooh-Bah
1,848 posts
Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Posted:
er, so, like, why the three year bump HTP?
er, so, like, why the three year bump HTP?
"i am exotic, and must keep my arms down" - Rougie
"i don't understand what penises have to do with getting married" - Foxie
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Posted:
Gay men cant get married anywhere. A civil union is not a marriage. A marriage is the specific union between a man and a woman in a church. Excluding all the other religions for conveniance sake, the christian church havnt recognised the idea of two people of the same sex entering into marriage, and I doubt they ever will.
Wheather they will allow civil unions to be carried out in church by a Priest is another matter though, im sure that will happen but not for a looong time, probably not for at least 100 years, since its been about 2000 now and it still hasnt come around in that time. - Or can you have a union in a church? I know you can have a blessing though.
Gay men cant get married anywhere. A civil union is not a marriage. A marriage is the specific union between a man and a woman in a church. Excluding all the other religions for conveniance sake, the christian church havnt recognised the idea of two people of the same sex entering into marriage, and I doubt they ever will.
Wheather they will allow civil unions to be carried out in church by a Priest is another matter though, im sure that will happen but not for a looong time, probably not for at least 100 years, since its been about 2000 now and it still hasnt come around in that time. - Or can you have a union in a church? I know you can have a blessing though.
Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat
'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
i think there are a few christian parishes that are marrying but not with the parent church consent
i think there are a few christian parishes that are marrying but not with the parent church consent
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
enthusiast
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
Posted:
It depends on the church, there are some denominations that will marry (as opposed to civilly unite (is that even a phrase?) a couple requesting it, regardless of gender.
Not mainline denominations (although in Australia the Uniting Church tends to be fairly sympathetic towards gay people)
It depends on the church, there are some denominations that will marry (as opposed to civilly unite (is that even a phrase?) a couple requesting it, regardless of gender.
Not mainline denominations (although in Australia the Uniting Church tends to be fairly sympathetic towards gay people)
"You've gone from Loey the Wonder Lesbian to everyone wondering if you are a lesbian." - Shadowman
Yesterday is yesterday. If we try to recapture it, we will only lose tomorrow.
member
36 posts
Location: Edinburgh
36 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Interestingly enough, the Scottish Parliament has just allowed couples in homosexual civil unions the same legal right to adopt, bringing them into line with England. Both countries have previously legalised homosexual civil unions.
All this uproar about it in most countries, I hadn't realised that the Scots and the English had snuck it through completely...
Interestingly enough, the Scottish Parliament has just allowed couples in homosexual civil unions the same legal right to adopt, bringing them into line with England. Both countries have previously legalised homosexual civil unions.
All this uproar about it in most countries, I hadn't realised that the Scots and the English had snuck it through completely...
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Posted:
Surely then its not a real marriage. Thats abit like gettied married, but using someone dressed as a vicar.
Written by: faithinfire
i think there are a few christian parishes that are marrying but not with the parent church consent
Surely then its not a real marriage. Thats abit like gettied married, but using someone dressed as a vicar.
Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat
'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?
BRONZE Member
Cooler than bubblegum!
2,501 posts
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Cooler than bubblegum!
2,501 posts
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posted:
I thought it was important to bring this thread back into the discussion fold given the recent ruling overturning prop 8. This will likely head to a higher court in appeal and have national implications.
I am hopeful, given that the 2 largest states in the US have had their bans on same-sex marriage struck down as unconstitutional. It is now an uphill battle for right wing conservatives and religious interests groups, instead of the oppressed minority.
I thought it was important to bring this thread back into the discussion fold given the recent ruling overturning prop 8. This will likely head to a higher court in appeal and have national implications.
I am hopeful, given that the 2 largest states in the US have had their bans on same-sex marriage struck down as unconstitutional. It is now an uphill battle for right wing conservatives and religious interests groups, instead of the oppressed minority.
The popcorn extends life... The popcorn expands consciousness...
GOLD Member
Fire Artist and Hooper
181 posts
Location: U.S.A
Fire Artist and Hooper
181 posts
Location: U.S.A
Posted:
DOWN WITH PROP 8!!!!!!!
now if the rest of the world could just get on board...
DOWN WITH PROP 8!!!!!!!
now if the rest of the world could just get on board... If you can't stand the heat, get out of my way.
GOLD Member
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Posted:
Marriage needs to be abolished PERIOD in terms of it being a governmental issue involving the IRS and benefits. There are many minority groups needing marriage rights because of this flawed system, here is a blog entry about it I really agreed with 100%.
Originally Posted By: Erik Viker is the original author and I copy pasted due to it being a facepage linkOn marriage equality Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 10:16am
I am a straight, married man. I support the right of a church or synagogue to withhold a marriage sacrament, blessing or religious status from couples they do not approve of. But I oppose the government using tax dollars to discriminate against Americans. Several states now allow some form of marriage equality for same-sex couples, about ten percent already! We need to give this issue some serious thought.
Legally "marriage" is an agreement supported by the government between two people allowing for mutual risk management and shared property. It's sexually discriminatory to allow one person to enter into this agreement but not another, based solely on who they find attractive or the shape of their bodies (and when was the last time a court clerk, much less a clergyperson, actually checked?). It's comparable to requiring both parties involved in a title transfer to have different eye color. If a church wants to withhold a certain blessing or religious status for a relationship, so be it, but laws pronouncing the "sanctity" of marriage (as in "sacredness") are beyond the scope of government. The government shouldn't be involved in sacredness.
The best solution: Everybody gets a civil union regardless of gender, and governments get out of the marriage business entirely and leave "marriage" to the churches. For the purposes of this essay I maintain that this two-model solution is best, but recognize that whatever we call the legal arrangement, it should offer exactly the same benefits to the Americans involved regardless of the shape of their bodies and who they find attractive. So let's make ALL of these agreements legal partnerships in the eyes of the government, which they already are, regardless of gender, and let churches, if they so choose, bestow or withhold some special religious status at their discretion. People who adhere to those belief systems can abide by their churches' expectations as they see fit.
But what about the opposing views? Let’s have a look.
“The government must protect the ‘sanctity of marriage’ by restricting it to couples of the opposite sex.”
There is nothing sanctified about the legal aspects of marriage. Legally, marriage is nothing more than a business arrangement. No ceremony is required and no promises must be made other than the covenants embedded in the statute authorizing the agreement. To be married in most if not all jurisdictions, both parties simply pay for and sign a license, in the presence of an entity authorized to witness their signatures, upon which is appended the signatures of witnesses to the parties' signatures. Whether you go through a two-hour cathedral ritual with all the bells and whistles or get together with your pastor to sign the paperwork at your kitchen table with the minimum number of witnesses, you are just as married legally either way. A marriage is just as legal whether it's solemnized by a clerk at the courthouse or by the Pope himself. The government makes you both sign a form saying one of you is a man and one is a woman (based on an easily-faked driver license). Nobody verifies the claim by asking to see your private bits. Nobody from the government comes around a year later to see if you’re trying to procreate.
How about all those marriages between loveless partners staying together for the sake of the kids, or out of habit, or for financial security only? These marriages are not suddenly less valid legally because the romance is gone (if it ever existed).
Governmentally, “marriage” is executed by several signatures on a piece of paper, with no ceremony or other ritual usually required. The government involvement in marriage is an artifact from our pre-Constitution years, when the church and the state were intertwined, when you could be placed in the stocks for violating an ordinance against public blasphemy. What exactly are the marriage traditionalists trying to preserve? The right to sign a piece of paper with somebody whose genitalia differs from their own?
“The Bible condemns homosexuality.”
Leviticus is one Old Testament book condemning homosexuality as an "abomination." Leviticus also states it is an abomination to eat shellfish and pork. It also condemns wearing clothing made from two kinds of material. Don't many people who use the Bible to justify calling homosexuality a sin enjoy bacon and oysters or wearing cotton blends?
Many people using the Bible to oppose gay marriage turn exclusively to the New Testament for doctrinal reasons, especially the writings of Paul. But if you think everything he wrote was infallible, you should abide by ALL these instructions, not just the ones that conveniently support your personal aversion to gay people.
Do you allow women to speak in church? You violate 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Do you spend any time with non-Christians? You violate Romans 16:17 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.
Does your wife cover her head in church? If not, you should shave her head, says 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.
Do you approve of women wearing braids, gold or jewelry? If so, you violate 1 Timothy 2:9.
If you drink water, you violate God's law according to Paul, because 1 Timothy 5:23 says "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."
So, how do you continue justifying your condemnation of gays by using the New Testament? You can't use it to bash the gays while allowing hatless, talkative hairy women in church. Are you a cherry-picking hypocrite? Or do you obey ALL the precepts in the Bible?
Don't blame the Bible for your discomfort with gay marriage, unless you strictly adhere to ALL those other prohibitions. In any case, the government should use only the Constitution, not other literature, to develop our laws. In your private family and church life, do whatever your heart, or your pastor, desires, but leave your religious moralizing out of our tax-funded government.
“Marriage has always been between one man and one woman.”
It seems a little bit suspicious when the first reaction to something new is “But it’s always been done this way!” We can be conservative about many things, and we can respect tradition, but not at the expense of civil rights.
As we matured as a nation, consider how our society has changed what it does and doesn't approve of: women voting, people no longer owning other people, legal contraception, legal alcohol consumption by adults, women owning property, marriage between people of different races.
Those who claim gay marriage or civil union somehow restrict the rights of those who believe marriage should be only between one man and one woman are never able to explain how their rights are specifically being violated. Nobody is taking away anyone’s right to believe what they wish to believe.
“It’s the will of the people to prohibit gays from marrying.”
Our nation is a constitutional representative republic, not a pure democracy. Our Constitution established our nation, and serves as the supreme law of the land. It is interpreted as needed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Elected legislators represent us to make laws at the state and federal levels, but local and federal laws may be deemed in conflict with Constitutional principles by the Supreme Court, even in some in cases where majority public opinion seems to disagree. The majority does not always rule in civil rights issues. We adhere to the rule of law, not the rule of man. This is basic 8th grade social studies material.
In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court (by a healthy two-thirds majority) struck down the law criminalizing sexual activity between gays. This decision voided all state laws in America criminalizing gay sex. The one incontrovertible determining factor of “gayness,” sexual activity between same-sex partners, was itself deemed by the highest court in America to be LEGAL activity. Being gay has become NORMAL according to the rule of law. When a case questioning the validity of a law against gay marriage finally arrives at the Supreme Court, the same result will probably take place. How could any reasonable legal mind expect support of a ban on gays having the same rights to a legal contract as heterosexual citizens do, when the very physical behavior defining homosexuality has already been deemed legal?
If you don’t like the Constitutional arrangement of representative government and Supreme Court oversight, the Constitution provides a means for amending itself and I suggest you begin efforts to follow that procedure. Good luck and have fun. Relevant Constitutional references (the final reference is especially important here):
Article 1, Section 8: “No State shall …pass any ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”
Article IV, Section 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Amendment 14, Section 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That’s “equal protection of the laws,” in case you missed it.
"The heterosexual family is the building block of society because it can procreate."
Does this mean you would invalidate the marriages of infertile couples, couples who are child-free by choice, and senior citizens who marry for the companionship of a loved one because they cannot "procreate?" Of course not. No churches require a fertility test before solemnizing marriages, and the government certainly doesn’t either.
If marriage exists primarily to encourage procreation, then why is it a government issue at all, and why allow non-procreating couples to enjoy the benefits of marriage?
"A mom and dad are the best solution to raising kids so that they have the best chance of turning out to be normal, productive citizens."
Do you have scientific evidence to support this claim, in light of the very high number of divorced/single parents who have reared children who become productive and emotionally healthy adults? How about the gay couples who adopt and rear healthy well-adjusted children? What about all the dysfunctional or criminal adults reared by two-parent families? This whole "protect marriage" thing seems especially silly when we consider that the biggest threat to heterosexual marriages are the heterosexuals themselves. This is the institution that ends in divorce over half the time. Remember the impulse marriages of Britney Spears? Is this what we’re protecting?
“If we allow gays to marry, why not allow multiple partners in marriage?”
Certain legal agreements supported by the government are already limited to only two participants, such as 50-50 business partnerships. Another contributor is the percentage of citizens affected: I suspect there are relatively few oppressed polygamists out there, compared to the percentage of gay citizens in America. Eliminating the use of tax dollars to discriminate on the basis of physical attributes should be the first item on the agenda. The government should allow every adult American couple exactly the same opportunity, regardless of the shape of their bodies, to sit down and sign a legal contract for mutual risk management and shared property. A civil union.
“What about the person who wants to marry a child? How do we prohibit that if we allow gays to marry?”
It is absurd to even hint at equating homosexuality with pedophilia with all the scientific evidence indicating gays are less likely to abuse children than straights are.
The marriage agreement does in fact allow teenagers to participate in many cases, with some states allowing citizens to enter into the contract at 17, some even younger. Recognizing full citizenship rights at a certain age is constitutional (18 for voting rights, for example). Requiring adult status for this contract is appropriate, but limiting the benefits to only certain citizens on the basis of the shape of their bodies is discriminatory. How do you support this discrimination, other than due to religious beliefs which have no place in government?
“If we allow gay marriage, why not let a person who loves their pet to marry their pet?”
Despite Bill O’Reilly’s silly pet turtle question, the entire argument is absurd. Participants in legal agreements must be sentient citizens. We all know this.
“If we allow gay marriage, why not allow relatives to marry, too?”
The question about consanguinity is a good one. The marriage contract is a legal one rather than romantic or sexual. Our cultural aversion to incest, even between adults, makes the matter of close relatives legally marrying unlikely, even more so than the aversion many citizens have toward gay marriage. Concerns about spawning unhealthy children are part of this aversion, but there's that faulty assumption that marriage is all about children! In practice, I fear we'd be surprised to learn just how much adult incest goes on (even outside of the Jerry Springer Show). In a nod of respect toward the assertion that community consensus should have some weight as our nation's laws evolve, I'm willing to support equal legal relationship rights for gay couples and any straight couples who are not related by parent-child or sibling connections (having at least one parent in common). Let the cousins love each other.
“A civil union or power of attorney can provide similar benefits to marriage, but let marriage remain between a man and a woman.”
A same-sex couple in a civil union cannot get the "married filing jointly" federal tax breaks. To gain the same shared property and medical authorizations afforded to straight couples by marriage, same-sex couples must pay for extensive legal services. Hardly “equal protection of the laws.” And if the power of attorney option is such a good solution, then let's just require all relationship-minded couples regardless of the shape of their bodies to get powers of attorney and leave "marriage" to the churches.
“Gay marriage is unnatural.”
We cannot allow “nature” to serve as the basis for our laws. In nature, creatures murder each other all the time. It's NATURAL, but we prohibit it for sound reasons of societal protection. Shall we be so quick to base our laws on nature as we observe it, or do we evolve as a civilization and continue to refine how to coexist with many people effectively and respectfully? Some natural behavior is counterproductive and we discourage it. Gay marriage isn't dangerous to society or individuals.
Besides, nature has offered many examples of same-sex mating, especially in various bird species. And dolphins, arguably the second-smartest mammals on our planet, very often engage in homosexual play as adolescents before settling into a mated pairing. Being gay is natural after all!
“Gay sex is disgusting and shouldn’t be encouraged.”
Oh, come on. Do you have any idea the kinds of freaky stuff consenting straight adults get into? This one is a non-starter.
“Gays are always demonstrating sexual behavior in public at pride parades and protests.”
It’s bigoted to judge an entire population by the behavior of a misbehaving fraction of that population. Lurid examples of public lewdness by some small portion of the gay population have nothing to do with gay people and straight people getting the exact same legal contract benefits, which is the original issue. Many people are understandably equally appalled by straight couples making out in public.
“America is a Christian nation and therefore should abide by Christian principles, which include condemnation of gays.”
The United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation, although it might have been founded by people who were predominantly Christians of one denomination or another. The nation was founded upon the Constitution. The words "Jesus," "church" and "Christian" do not appear in the United States Constitution. The word "religion" appears only where Congress is expressly prohibited from making laws establishing a state religion. The word "religious" appears only where it is decreed that no specific religion is required to get elected in America.
Our leaders may profess whatever faith they choose, or none, and we decide who to vote for. Many of our leaders, past and present, have spoken about or written about their beliefs, exercising a right which is supported by the First Amendment, but they were acting as CITIZENS, not setting policy.
Perhaps gay people make you personally uncomfortable? If so, that should have nothing to do with our tax dollars. Perhaps you believe your God has condemned gayness? If so, that should have nothing to do with our tax dollars either. If we finally recognize we have evolved beyond the religious origins of much of our legal system, we can see the value of letting churches and other religious institutions mandate the behavior of their adherents while separating "marriage" as a religious function from "civil union" as a legal function. In many ways, we already have done so.
Marriage needs to be abolished PERIOD in terms of it being a governmental issue involving the IRS and benefits. There are many minority groups needing marriage rights because of this flawed system, here is a blog entry about it I really agreed with 100%.
Originally Posted By: Erik Viker is the original author and I copy pasted due to it being a facepage linkOn marriage equality Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 10:16am
I am a straight, married man. I support the right of a church or synagogue to withhold a marriage sacrament, blessing or religious status from couples they do not approve of. But I oppose the government using tax dollars to discriminate against Americans. Several states now allow some form of marriage equality for same-sex couples, about ten percent already! We need to give this issue some serious thought.
Legally "marriage" is an agreement supported by the government between two people allowing for mutual risk management and shared property. It's sexually discriminatory to allow one person to enter into this agreement but not another, based solely on who they find attractive or the shape of their bodies (and when was the last time a court clerk, much less a clergyperson, actually checked?). It's comparable to requiring both parties involved in a title transfer to have different eye color. If a church wants to withhold a certain blessing or religious status for a relationship, so be it, but laws pronouncing the "sanctity" of marriage (as in "sacredness") are beyond the scope of government. The government shouldn't be involved in sacredness.
The best solution: Everybody gets a civil union regardless of gender, and governments get out of the marriage business entirely and leave "marriage" to the churches. For the purposes of this essay I maintain that this two-model solution is best, but recognize that whatever we call the legal arrangement, it should offer exactly the same benefits to the Americans involved regardless of the shape of their bodies and who they find attractive. So let's make ALL of these agreements legal partnerships in the eyes of the government, which they already are, regardless of gender, and let churches, if they so choose, bestow or withhold some special religious status at their discretion. People who adhere to those belief systems can abide by their churches' expectations as they see fit.
But what about the opposing views? Let’s have a look.
“The government must protect the ‘sanctity of marriage’ by restricting it to couples of the opposite sex.”
There is nothing sanctified about the legal aspects of marriage. Legally, marriage is nothing more than a business arrangement. No ceremony is required and no promises must be made other than the covenants embedded in the statute authorizing the agreement. To be married in most if not all jurisdictions, both parties simply pay for and sign a license, in the presence of an entity authorized to witness their signatures, upon which is appended the signatures of witnesses to the parties' signatures. Whether you go through a two-hour cathedral ritual with all the bells and whistles or get together with your pastor to sign the paperwork at your kitchen table with the minimum number of witnesses, you are just as married legally either way. A marriage is just as legal whether it's solemnized by a clerk at the courthouse or by the Pope himself. The government makes you both sign a form saying one of you is a man and one is a woman (based on an easily-faked driver license). Nobody verifies the claim by asking to see your private bits. Nobody from the government comes around a year later to see if you’re trying to procreate.
How about all those marriages between loveless partners staying together for the sake of the kids, or out of habit, or for financial security only? These marriages are not suddenly less valid legally because the romance is gone (if it ever existed).
Governmentally, “marriage” is executed by several signatures on a piece of paper, with no ceremony or other ritual usually required. The government involvement in marriage is an artifact from our pre-Constitution years, when the church and the state were intertwined, when you could be placed in the stocks for violating an ordinance against public blasphemy. What exactly are the marriage traditionalists trying to preserve? The right to sign a piece of paper with somebody whose genitalia differs from their own?
“The Bible condemns homosexuality.”
Leviticus is one Old Testament book condemning homosexuality as an "abomination." Leviticus also states it is an abomination to eat shellfish and pork. It also condemns wearing clothing made from two kinds of material. Don't many people who use the Bible to justify calling homosexuality a sin enjoy bacon and oysters or wearing cotton blends?
Many people using the Bible to oppose gay marriage turn exclusively to the New Testament for doctrinal reasons, especially the writings of Paul. But if you think everything he wrote was infallible, you should abide by ALL these instructions, not just the ones that conveniently support your personal aversion to gay people.
Do you allow women to speak in church? You violate 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Do you spend any time with non-Christians? You violate Romans 16:17 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.
Does your wife cover her head in church? If not, you should shave her head, says 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.
Do you approve of women wearing braids, gold or jewelry? If so, you violate 1 Timothy 2:9.
If you drink water, you violate God's law according to Paul, because 1 Timothy 5:23 says "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."
So, how do you continue justifying your condemnation of gays by using the New Testament? You can't use it to bash the gays while allowing hatless, talkative hairy women in church. Are you a cherry-picking hypocrite? Or do you obey ALL the precepts in the Bible?
Don't blame the Bible for your discomfort with gay marriage, unless you strictly adhere to ALL those other prohibitions. In any case, the government should use only the Constitution, not other literature, to develop our laws. In your private family and church life, do whatever your heart, or your pastor, desires, but leave your religious moralizing out of our tax-funded government.
“Marriage has always been between one man and one woman.”
It seems a little bit suspicious when the first reaction to something new is “But it’s always been done this way!” We can be conservative about many things, and we can respect tradition, but not at the expense of civil rights.
As we matured as a nation, consider how our society has changed what it does and doesn't approve of: women voting, people no longer owning other people, legal contraception, legal alcohol consumption by adults, women owning property, marriage between people of different races.
Those who claim gay marriage or civil union somehow restrict the rights of those who believe marriage should be only between one man and one woman are never able to explain how their rights are specifically being violated. Nobody is taking away anyone’s right to believe what they wish to believe.
“It’s the will of the people to prohibit gays from marrying.”
Our nation is a constitutional representative republic, not a pure democracy. Our Constitution established our nation, and serves as the supreme law of the land. It is interpreted as needed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Elected legislators represent us to make laws at the state and federal levels, but local and federal laws may be deemed in conflict with Constitutional principles by the Supreme Court, even in some in cases where majority public opinion seems to disagree. The majority does not always rule in civil rights issues. We adhere to the rule of law, not the rule of man. This is basic 8th grade social studies material.
In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court (by a healthy two-thirds majority) struck down the law criminalizing sexual activity between gays. This decision voided all state laws in America criminalizing gay sex. The one incontrovertible determining factor of “gayness,” sexual activity between same-sex partners, was itself deemed by the highest court in America to be LEGAL activity. Being gay has become NORMAL according to the rule of law. When a case questioning the validity of a law against gay marriage finally arrives at the Supreme Court, the same result will probably take place. How could any reasonable legal mind expect support of a ban on gays having the same rights to a legal contract as heterosexual citizens do, when the very physical behavior defining homosexuality has already been deemed legal?
If you don’t like the Constitutional arrangement of representative government and Supreme Court oversight, the Constitution provides a means for amending itself and I suggest you begin efforts to follow that procedure. Good luck and have fun. Relevant Constitutional references (the final reference is especially important here):
Article 1, Section 8: “No State shall …pass any ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”
Article IV, Section 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Amendment 14, Section 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That’s “equal protection of the laws,” in case you missed it.
"The heterosexual family is the building block of society because it can procreate."
Does this mean you would invalidate the marriages of infertile couples, couples who are child-free by choice, and senior citizens who marry for the companionship of a loved one because they cannot "procreate?" Of course not. No churches require a fertility test before solemnizing marriages, and the government certainly doesn’t either.
If marriage exists primarily to encourage procreation, then why is it a government issue at all, and why allow non-procreating couples to enjoy the benefits of marriage?
"A mom and dad are the best solution to raising kids so that they have the best chance of turning out to be normal, productive citizens."
Do you have scientific evidence to support this claim, in light of the very high number of divorced/single parents who have reared children who become productive and emotionally healthy adults? How about the gay couples who adopt and rear healthy well-adjusted children? What about all the dysfunctional or criminal adults reared by two-parent families? This whole "protect marriage" thing seems especially silly when we consider that the biggest threat to heterosexual marriages are the heterosexuals themselves. This is the institution that ends in divorce over half the time. Remember the impulse marriages of Britney Spears? Is this what we’re protecting?
“If we allow gays to marry, why not allow multiple partners in marriage?”
Certain legal agreements supported by the government are already limited to only two participants, such as 50-50 business partnerships. Another contributor is the percentage of citizens affected: I suspect there are relatively few oppressed polygamists out there, compared to the percentage of gay citizens in America. Eliminating the use of tax dollars to discriminate on the basis of physical attributes should be the first item on the agenda. The government should allow every adult American couple exactly the same opportunity, regardless of the shape of their bodies, to sit down and sign a legal contract for mutual risk management and shared property. A civil union.
“What about the person who wants to marry a child? How do we prohibit that if we allow gays to marry?”
It is absurd to even hint at equating homosexuality with pedophilia with all the scientific evidence indicating gays are less likely to abuse children than straights are.
The marriage agreement does in fact allow teenagers to participate in many cases, with some states allowing citizens to enter into the contract at 17, some even younger. Recognizing full citizenship rights at a certain age is constitutional (18 for voting rights, for example). Requiring adult status for this contract is appropriate, but limiting the benefits to only certain citizens on the basis of the shape of their bodies is discriminatory. How do you support this discrimination, other than due to religious beliefs which have no place in government?
“If we allow gay marriage, why not let a person who loves their pet to marry their pet?”
Despite Bill O’Reilly’s silly pet turtle question, the entire argument is absurd. Participants in legal agreements must be sentient citizens. We all know this.
“If we allow gay marriage, why not allow relatives to marry, too?”
The question about consanguinity is a good one. The marriage contract is a legal one rather than romantic or sexual. Our cultural aversion to incest, even between adults, makes the matter of close relatives legally marrying unlikely, even more so than the aversion many citizens have toward gay marriage. Concerns about spawning unhealthy children are part of this aversion, but there's that faulty assumption that marriage is all about children! In practice, I fear we'd be surprised to learn just how much adult incest goes on (even outside of the Jerry Springer Show). In a nod of respect toward the assertion that community consensus should have some weight as our nation's laws evolve, I'm willing to support equal legal relationship rights for gay couples and any straight couples who are not related by parent-child or sibling connections (having at least one parent in common). Let the cousins love each other.
“A civil union or power of attorney can provide similar benefits to marriage, but let marriage remain between a man and a woman.”
A same-sex couple in a civil union cannot get the "married filing jointly" federal tax breaks. To gain the same shared property and medical authorizations afforded to straight couples by marriage, same-sex couples must pay for extensive legal services. Hardly “equal protection of the laws.” And if the power of attorney option is such a good solution, then let's just require all relationship-minded couples regardless of the shape of their bodies to get powers of attorney and leave "marriage" to the churches.
“Gay marriage is unnatural.”
We cannot allow “nature” to serve as the basis for our laws. In nature, creatures murder each other all the time. It's NATURAL, but we prohibit it for sound reasons of societal protection. Shall we be so quick to base our laws on nature as we observe it, or do we evolve as a civilization and continue to refine how to coexist with many people effectively and respectfully? Some natural behavior is counterproductive and we discourage it. Gay marriage isn't dangerous to society or individuals.
Besides, nature has offered many examples of same-sex mating, especially in various bird species. And dolphins, arguably the second-smartest mammals on our planet, very often engage in homosexual play as adolescents before settling into a mated pairing. Being gay is natural after all!
“Gay sex is disgusting and shouldn’t be encouraged.”
Oh, come on. Do you have any idea the kinds of freaky stuff consenting straight adults get into? This one is a non-starter.
“Gays are always demonstrating sexual behavior in public at pride parades and protests.”
It’s bigoted to judge an entire population by the behavior of a misbehaving fraction of that population. Lurid examples of public lewdness by some small portion of the gay population have nothing to do with gay people and straight people getting the exact same legal contract benefits, which is the original issue. Many people are understandably equally appalled by straight couples making out in public.
“America is a Christian nation and therefore should abide by Christian principles, which include condemnation of gays.”
The United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation, although it might have been founded by people who were predominantly Christians of one denomination or another. The nation was founded upon the Constitution. The words "Jesus," "church" and "Christian" do not appear in the United States Constitution. The word "religion" appears only where Congress is expressly prohibited from making laws establishing a state religion. The word "religious" appears only where it is decreed that no specific religion is required to get elected in America.
Our leaders may profess whatever faith they choose, or none, and we decide who to vote for. Many of our leaders, past and present, have spoken about or written about their beliefs, exercising a right which is supported by the First Amendment, but they were acting as CITIZENS, not setting policy.
Perhaps gay people make you personally uncomfortable? If so, that should have nothing to do with our tax dollars. Perhaps you believe your God has condemned gayness? If so, that should have nothing to do with our tax dollars either. If we finally recognize we have evolved beyond the religious origins of much of our legal system, we can see the value of letting churches and other religious institutions mandate the behavior of their adherents while separating "marriage" as a religious function from "civil union" as a legal function. In many ways, we already have done so.
~Rock on!~
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life
(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)
BRONZE Member
Cooler than bubblegum!
2,501 posts
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Cooler than bubblegum!
2,501 posts
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Flint_413DOWN WITH PROP 8!!!!!!! now if the rest of the world could just get on board...
The rest of the world sailed that ship out to sea ages ago!
Originally Posted By: Flint_413DOWN WITH PROP 8!!!!!!!
now if the rest of the world could just get on board... The rest of the world sailed that ship out to sea ages ago!
The popcorn extends life... The popcorn expands consciousness...
stranger
9 posts
9 posts
Posted:
@EpitomeofNovice: that's a very interesting article, and I agree with most of it. I just want to add something to some of the paragraphs:
"A mom and dad are the best solution to raising kids so that they have the best chance of turning out to be normal, productive citizens."
This is a complicated issue. "The Family" (as in immediate family, meaning mom, dad, children, and maybe the grandparents) as an isolated social unit is actually a relatively new concept. For comparison, let me point out the various communes existing in the world where the borders between immediate family and other people in the community are much less defined than in (for example) cities. IMO, a life in a relatively small community, basing social interaction on trust, is much healthier for a child, and the family nucleus loses much of its importance in those circumstances. As keen as we are to call our civilization one big community, it doesn't really show in practice. Fearing your naighbours has become common, and the huge numbers of people living in close proximity have resulted in isolation rather than connection.
“If we allow gay marriage, why not allow relatives to marry, too?”
There is an evolutionary incentive to disallow incest. I don't have a problem with the occasional related couple loving each other, but a community that has a sustained philosophy of intermarriage is a problem if you ask me. There is a very small village in my country, very isolated (not geographically, socially, and as far as i know the isolation is self-inflicted), and even if in the past the people were unrelated, it is no longer so. There is a long custom of marrying inside the village, and everyone has become related to everyone else in the village long ago. This would not be a problem in and of itself, but the village now has big problems with genetics. There is now a scary amount of people with various deformities (missing chins, idiocy....). I'm not proclaiming myself as opposed to incest regardless of the circumstances, but i guess everyone knows the benefits of a big gene pool....
There is no gay marriage in our country, but i really really hope we get there soon. Sadly, it does not seem to be a pressing issue here. Anyways, good luck to all the gay couples out there!
@EpitomeofNovice: that's a very interesting article, and I agree with most of it. I just want to add something to some of the paragraphs:
"A mom and dad are the best solution to raising kids so that they have the best chance of turning out to be normal, productive citizens."
This is a complicated issue. "The Family" (as in immediate family, meaning mom, dad, children, and maybe the grandparents) as an isolated social unit is actually a relatively new concept. For comparison, let me point out the various communes existing in the world where the borders between immediate family and other people in the community are much less defined than in (for example) cities. IMO, a life in a relatively small community, basing social interaction on trust, is much healthier for a child, and the family nucleus loses much of its importance in those circumstances. As keen as we are to call our civilization one big community, it doesn't really show in practice. Fearing your naighbours has become common, and the huge numbers of people living in close proximity have resulted in isolation rather than connection.
“If we allow gay marriage, why not allow relatives to marry, too?”
There is an evolutionary incentive to disallow incest. I don't have a problem with the occasional related couple loving each other, but a community that has a sustained philosophy of intermarriage is a problem if you ask me. There is a very small village in my country, very isolated (not geographically, socially, and as far as i know the isolation is self-inflicted), and even if in the past the people were unrelated, it is no longer so. There is a long custom of marrying inside the village, and everyone has become related to everyone else in the village long ago. This would not be a problem in and of itself, but the village now has big problems with genetics. There is now a scary amount of people with various deformities (missing chins, idiocy....). I'm not proclaiming myself as opposed to incest regardless of the circumstances, but i guess everyone knows the benefits of a big gene pool....
There is no gay marriage in our country, but i really really hope we get there soon. Sadly, it does not seem to be a pressing issue here. Anyways, good luck to all the gay couples out there!
GOLD Member
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Posted:
WoopWoop, where are you located if you don't mind me asking?
BTW I don't think that there was anything that encouraged incest, it is illegal in most states to marry a 2nd or 3rd cousin here and using incest in an argument about gay marriage is just pretty silly if you think about it.
I believe all people regardless of if they're straight, LGBT, polyamorous, practice polygamy, are asexual and want to share their life with their best friend and legally be able to share responsibility should be free to do that. Of course this is looking at marriage as a contract which in governmental terms it is. Why should anyone be forced to do everything alone when regardless of life circumstance some are allowed to work as a unit legally and not others?
I could see extended families who could benefit on paper to be able to work together as a family unit without incest being involved. I don't think marriage/civil union equates to "procreation" in many cases, I know enough married people who don't ever want to have children but share their life with their partner. I'm not one of them *is married and waiting for the right time to have the little ones* but just because a family unit is different than my own doesn't make it less of one and they need the rights even more for social acceptance, buy property, hospital visits, and a slew of other legal issues.
WoopWoop, where are you located if you don't mind me asking?
BTW I don't think that there was anything that encouraged incest, it is illegal in most states to marry a 2nd or 3rd cousin here and using incest in an argument about gay marriage is just pretty silly if you think about it.
I believe all people regardless of if they're straight, LGBT, polyamorous, practice polygamy, are asexual and want to share their life with their best friend and legally be able to share responsibility should be free to do that. Of course this is looking at marriage as a contract which in governmental terms it is. Why should anyone be forced to do everything alone when regardless of life circumstance some are allowed to work as a unit legally and not others?
I could see extended families who could benefit on paper to be able to work together as a family unit without incest being involved. I don't think marriage/civil union equates to "procreation" in many cases, I know enough married people who don't ever want to have children but share their life with their partner. I'm not one of them *is married and waiting for the right time to have the little ones* but just because a family unit is different than my own doesn't make it less of one and they need the rights even more for social acceptance, buy property, hospital visits, and a slew of other legal issues.
~Rock on!~
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life
(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)
stranger
9 posts
9 posts
Posted:
I'm from Slovenia, which is a small country in central Europe with a population of a measly 2 million. I know involving myself in a debate involving a country on the other side of the planet is a bit weird, but if i didn't do it i'd never be able to include myself in any conversation
I seem to have forgotten to connect my writing with gay marriage. I guess I have a problem explaining my thoughts well enough so i can be understood.
My point was not condemning incest (and i don't believe the article incourages it), but pointing out that gay marriage and incest are two completely unconnected problems, and the question “If we allow gay marriage, why not allow relatives to marry, too?” is patently preposterous. The laws prohibiting incest have a very practical basis, while gay marriage does not pose any of the problems that incest does. The only argument that could be loosely connected is the one about the ability to procreate, and the article you posted explains the stupidity of it quite nicely.
I agree with your opinion of extended families and allowing gay marriage, polygamy etc. To me the laws prohibiting them are relics of the past that may once have had some practical purpose, but certainly not anymore. I'm afraid changing the current situation is going to be difficult at best tho..
I'm from Slovenia, which is a small country in central Europe with a population of a measly 2 million. I know involving myself in a debate involving a country on the other side of the planet is a bit weird, but if i didn't do it i'd never be able to include myself in any conversation
I seem to have forgotten to connect my writing with gay marriage
. I guess I have a problem explaining my thoughts well enough so i can be understood. My point was not condemning incest (and i don't believe the article incourages it), but pointing out that gay marriage and incest are two completely unconnected problems, and the question “If we allow gay marriage, why not allow relatives to marry, too?” is patently preposterous. The laws prohibiting incest have a very practical basis, while gay marriage does not pose any of the problems that incest does. The only argument that could be loosely connected is the one about the ability to procreate, and the article you posted explains the stupidity of it quite nicely.
I agree with your opinion of extended families and allowing gay marriage, polygamy etc. To me the laws prohibiting them are relics of the past that may once have had some practical purpose, but certainly not anymore. I'm afraid changing the current situation is going to be difficult at best tho..
GOLD Member
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Posted:
It's all good Woop! I was slightly confuzzled
As preposterous as it sounds there are people here in my country who have made that argument, most of them lacking in education and living in the bible belt region. Lucky you have never heard such silliness connected and swept up by the GOP and special interest groups to fuel their fear mongering propaganda.
LOL same topic but a serious tangent! All of the things brought up in that article are common arguments against gay marriage and it's all like wow, but good to know you see these laws as archaic. Maybe someday people will be less busybodies and take care of their own business so there is no opposition to moving forward with equal rights for everyone.
It's all good Woop! I was slightly confuzzled
As preposterous as it sounds there are people here in my country who have made that argument, most of them lacking in education and living in the bible belt region. Lucky you have never heard such silliness connected and swept up by the GOP and special interest groups to fuel their fear mongering propaganda.
LOL same topic but a serious tangent! All of the things brought up in that article are common arguments against gay marriage and it's all like wow, but good to know you see these laws as archaic. Maybe someday people will be less busybodies and take care of their own business so there is no opposition to moving forward with equal rights for everyone.
~Rock on!~
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life
(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
apart from the fact that I do welcome the decision to legalize gay marriages, the (truly innocent) question remains: what would be wrong with a sibling relationship?
As much as I would never ever want to have an intimate relationship with my 9yr older brother (*shudders at the mere thought of it*) or would want to marry my mother almost double my age (*more shuddering*) and as much as this is not at all connected to "gay/ same sex marriage" therefor utterly !offtopic! - my question still is:
why (as long as it concerns two consenting adults) could two brothers, sisters or sister and brother or any members of the same family not be allowed to have a legal relationship or marriage? (the emphasis is on "consenting")
As to the "healthy offspring" argument: following this line of argumentation every couple should undergo a DNA-test to prevent "unhealthy" or handicapped-prone DNA from procreating... excuse if this comes across as silly... As much as two opposite, unrelated genders can choose not to procreate, so could family members... from some pov I can't really see any argument but social norms, values and ethics speaking against family marriage. And there in fact has been a time where incest was exclusive subject of the royals, starting from (grand)parents - (grand)children to brothers/ sisters and cousins not that long ago in the past...
@woopwoop: thanks for participating
Thus as much as the law *prohibits* relatives to have a legal relationship (for whatever reasons btw) it can prohibit or promote any other kind of relationship. ... ...
Following this line of argument, the law is not necessarily reflecting common sense, but it represents the values and ethics of a society. Law and punishment greatly varies across this planet, no?
Everybody is entitled to voice their opinion on any law or practice that is in effect, but it is not up to us to judge. Meaning if one state is carrying out death penalty (no, I'm not talking about the US here, but for example Thailand vs. Drug traffickers/ users) it's completely up to them. Anyone who doesn't agree with it can say so, no matter where on earth they live (hail the great interweb).
apart from the fact that I do welcome the decision to legalize gay marriages, the (truly innocent) question remains: what would be wrong with a sibling relationship?
As much as I would never ever want to have an intimate relationship with my 9yr older brother (*shudders at the mere thought of it*) or would want to marry my mother almost double my age (*more shuddering*) and as much as this is not at all connected to "gay/ same sex marriage" therefor utterly !offtopic! - my question still is:
why (as long as it concerns two consenting adults) could two brothers, sisters or sister and brother or any members of the same family not be allowed to have a legal relationship or marriage? (the emphasis is on "consenting")
As to the "healthy offspring" argument: following this line of argumentation every couple should undergo a DNA-test to prevent "unhealthy" or handicapped-prone DNA from procreating... excuse if this comes across as silly... As much as two opposite, unrelated genders can choose not to procreate, so could family members... from some pov I can't really see any argument but social norms, values and ethics speaking against family marriage. And there in fact has been a time where incest was exclusive subject of the royals, starting from (grand)parents - (grand)children to brothers/ sisters and cousins not that long ago in the past...
@woopwoop: thanks for participating
Thus as much as the law *prohibits* relatives to have a legal relationship (for whatever reasons btw) it can prohibit or promote any other kind of relationship. ... ...
Following this line of argument, the law is not necessarily reflecting common sense, but it represents the values and ethics of a society. Law and punishment greatly varies across this planet, no?
Everybody is entitled to voice their opinion on any law or practice that is in effect, but it is not up to us to judge. Meaning if one state is carrying out death penalty (no, I'm not talking about the US here, but for example Thailand vs. Drug traffickers/ users) it's completely up to them. Anyone who doesn't agree with it can say so, no matter where on earth they live (hail the great interweb).
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
addict
489 posts
Location: Perth
489 posts
Location: Perth
Posted:
FireTom, interesting point. I can't really think of any reason that would cause sibling relationships to be banned.
Is the risk of unhealthy offspring a "burden on society" thing or a "humane" thing. Can we force people to have abortions once a baby has been proven in utero to have deformities?
If two people are in love (or more than two for that matter) they should be able to express this and form a legal union...
FireTom, interesting point. I can't really think of any reason that would cause sibling relationships to be banned.
Is the risk of unhealthy offspring a "burden on society" thing or a "humane" thing. Can we force people to have abortions once a baby has been proven in utero to have deformities?
If two people are in love (or more than two for that matter) they should be able to express this and form a legal union...
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gay marriage] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Gay marriage [59 replies]
- Forums > Gay Marriage, just in time for Valentine's Day! [21 replies]
- Forums > A thought on gay marriage [24 replies]
- Forums > discrimination from family [21 replies]
- Forums > Gay marriage across the glode [8 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com