Why not allow gay marriage?

[Bartholomew]

I'm really interested to hear, from those of us who oppose gay marriage, why they do so.

If you oppose it because of a personal repulsion, why should it, by extension, be law?

If you oppose it because of religious views, why do you not recognize that this is a secular issue as well, and that the church is a separate entity from the state?

Please, do not use the flimsy argument that marriage is defined as being between man and woman.


the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

If your only reason for opposing gay marriage is the way a certain document defines the word, why not allow the majority to redefine the word in that document? If you object to this, you must have a deeper reason for opposing gay marriage.

So what is it?

[TsukiRyoko]

Most of the arguments I have heard pertain to the idea of holding up tradition and the sanctity of marriage. I personally do not see eye to eye with anti-gay rights advocates, so I'm probably not the person to be belting out their beliefs.

[Bartholomew]

What is the value of tradition when it makes a group of people miserable? More to the point, from whence does this tradition come? A religion, perhaps?

[blacbird]

What it comes down to is:

God don't like it.

caw

[TsukiRyoko]

What is the value of tradition when it makes a group of people miserable? More to the point, from whence does this tradition come? A religion, perhaps?
The point of tradition, in my opinion, is to avoid change. Change has a much higher potential to be unpredictable, scary, and "uncontrollable". Applied to the gay marriage situation, I imagine there's an issue of respect to a time honored tradition (which is just one of many religious aspects to the belief). Frankly, I don't see the danger in changing up the norm and letting gay marriage become part of the institution, but there are plenty of people that do, and those people will most likely be saying something along the terms I mentioned above.

However, I have a gay friend who gave me a fun perspective on gay marriage. Someone asked him if he though gays should be able to get married, and he surprisingly said no. He reasoned himself by saying, "Marriage is the first step to ruining your life. I don't think anyone should get married. Don't drag homosexuals into a heterosexual mess just for a tax cut."

[TsukiRyoko]

What is the value of tradition when it makes a group of people miserable? Who knows? Tradition isn't just heterosexual marriage- in some religions and cultures, it's not having sex, smoking, drinking, sometimes getting as severe as only going to the bathroom once and day and refraining from things like laughter and crying. Why are these traditions held up? Usually because the big guy upstairs will reign down hell if you don't, according to the group of people.

[Lyv]

Yes, the "traditional" talking point comes up, but it doesn't hold up. At all. Traditional marriage has included such charming aspects as women being men's property and people of the different races not being allowed to marry.

I don't see eye to eye with those opposed to same-sex marriage either. So much so that I became a gay rights activist three years ago and was deeply involved in the same-sex marriage issue here in MA. I'm pretty sure I've heard every argument there is, and there isn't a single one that makes any sense. I usually can see both sides of an issue and understand why the other side feels as they do. But on this one--I don't see it. I've even tried, since some of my closest friends were (and a couple still are) on the other side of this issue from me.

[Zoombie]

I too have yet to find a single good reason to deny anyone marrige beyond, say, "He regularly beats her up and is forcing her to do it" or "She is a woman who marries men for their money and then kills them."

Or any variation of thereof.

[TsukiRyoko]

Yes, the "traditional" talking point comes up, but it doesn't hold up. At all. Traditional marriage has included such charming aspects as women being men's property and people of the different races not being allowed to marry. And these institutions also took a long time to break, simply because the word "tradition" has enough power to keep a resolution on hold for FOREVERRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!


I don't see eye to eye with those opposed to same-sex marriage either. So much so that I became a gay rights activist three years ago and was deeply involved in the same-sex marriage issue here in MA. I'm pretty sure I've heard every argument there is, and there isn't a single one that makes any sense. I usually can see both sides of an issue and understand why the other side feels as they do. But on this one--I don't see it. I've even tried, since some of my closest friends were (and a couple still are) on the other side of this issue from me.
I don't think the opposing arguments has any strength behind them either, and I think they're fueled by prejudice, discrimination, and fear. I also think the vicious cycle of discrimination (from the government, to be precise) should be broken and that allowing gay marriage is among the first steps to creating a much more peaceful, equal society and is thus very, very, undeniably, extremely important.

[DamaNegra]

Because being gay is a deviation from nature, and allowing gay marriages will just lead the nation to moral debauchery and decadence.

Or... eh... you know, something like that.

[Norton]

Because being gay is a deviation from nature
Who said that? :)

[DamaNegra]

Who said that? :)

I've heard it a lot. Because, you know, there are no gay animals and such (hush! I know there are) so humans who engage in such activities are going against nature. Also, the argument is risen (sp?) that since sex is a biological process meant for reproduction between a man and a woman, sex between two people from the same sex is a deviation from the standards set by nature. Hmm, what else? Being gay is also identified with moral decadence, because it goes against the precepts set by God, also it is identified with the carrying of diseases such as AIDS and other evils of society.

[Donkey]

To deny gays the right to marriage is merely an extension of the need that many narrow minded people have; the need to illogically deny the existence of people who are born gay.

[maxmordon]

Why not make like the Brits and allow "civil unions"? same thing with a different name and without the religious connotation

[Norton]

there are no gay animals
We are not animals. We are human.
And sex is not only "biological process meant for reproduction" for us. :)
Being gay is also identified with moral decadence, because it goes against the precepts set by God
I don't think God even care about it. All these "precepts" made by mankind.

[Lyv]

Why not make like the Brits and allow "civil unions"? same thing with a different name and without the religious connotation
I'd like to clarify something before I answer. Do you mean that gay people could get married if they got married in a church, or do you mean gay people could only have civil unions?

[DamaNegra]

We are not animals. We are human.
And sex is not only "biological process meant for reproduction" for us. :)

I don't think God even care about it. All these "precepts" made by mankind.

As a disclaimer, though, none of these are my arguments. I've got no problem with gays marrying or doing whatever they want to do. I'm just answering Bart's question with the arguments I've heard from other people.

[maxmordon]

I'd like to clarify something before I answer. Do you mean that gay people could get married if they got married in a church, or do you mean gay people could only have civil unions?

The second one, having a seqular marriage equivalent

[JoNightshade]

What was the actual point of this thread? To engage in a real dialogue, or to sit around making fun of those who may hold beliefs different from your own? That's some real tolerance going on here.

I'm really interested to hear, from those of us who oppose gay marriage, why they do so.

I'm not opposed to civil unions, or homosexuals doing whatever the heck they want with their lives. I don't care if two men want to live together, two men and a woman, or a woman and a donkey. You can do what you like.

But what scares me is that 15 years from now, when my future-kid is in school, and someone finds out that he believes, for religious reasons, that homosexuality is morally wrong - what scares me is that all of his classmates and his teachers are going to express exactly the same wonderfully understanding, tolerant, respectful thoughts and attitudes you all have just expressed here. Yep. They'll tell him that his beliefs are bigoted and what a horrible, stupid, backward person he is. Oh, right, and that his parents must be the worst people ever. In essence, he'll get the same treatment I got when I confessed to believing that God made the universe.

And as a parent, there will be nothing I can do about it, because after all, it's the law.

And yes, I realize you could make the argument that this is the sort of treatment homosexuals have gotten for decades. And you'd be right. But that doesn't make turning the tables any more right or fair. Those who advocate tolerance should consider practicing it.

[Lyv]

The second one, having a seqular marriage equivalent
That's separate but not equal. It's discrimination.

And it makes no sense, since to many of us, marriage has nothing to with religion. I'm an atheist. I'm married. Strictly secular all the way. But I would be married under your system because I'm straight. Yet, a religious gay couple would not be married. Even if their church believes that marriage should be between any two loving adults.

And I'm sure not giving up the word "marriage," as has been suggested above and elsewhere. That just moves the line from between straight and gay to between religious and non-religious folks. The line is divisive no matter which two groups you put it between.

[blacbird]

Whatever happened to the precept: "It ain't none of your damn business"?

Oh, crap. I forgot. For the religious right, everything is part of their business.

caw

[Lyv]

And yes, I realize you could make the argument that this is the sort of treatment homosexuals have gotten for decades. And you'd be right.
Well, let's not forget that treatment also includes things like not being allowed to be at the bedside of the dying love-of-your-life. Losing custody of a child you both raised. Being denied over a thousand benefits that straight people get, even if the only reason they get married is for one or more of those benefits. Children of gay parents lose out on those benefits, too. Maybe you could think of those children when you're thinking of your own child. I've seen them weeping with joy when their parents were finally allowed to marry here in Massachusetts and imploring legislators to protect their parents' marriage when the question of gay marriage almost went to the ballot.

Divorce is legal (though Jesus was against it...allowing it only in the case of adultery....he didn't even make allowances for things like physical abuse, yet many of those using the Bible to fight gay marriage are themselves divorced), but you are free to teach your child it's a sin. He might get laughed at for believing that, but is that a reason to outlaw it?

[maxmordon]

That's separate but not equal. It's discrimination.

And it makes no sense, since to many of us, marriage has nothing to with religion. I'm an atheist. I'm married. Strictly secular all the way. But I would be married under your system because I'm straight. Yet, a religious gay couple would not be married. Even if their church believes that marriage should be between any two loving adults.

And I'm sure not giving up the word "marriage," as has been suggested above and elsewhere. That just moves the line from between straight and gay to between religious and non-religious folks. The line is divisive no matter which two groups you put it between.

I am just trying to find some balance between conservatives who want to keep the marriage as something between a man and a woman and homosexual couples that want the same rights.

And there is a history that have worked, I am not making this up out of the blue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Union

I am just trying to see what would please the larger number of people. Yes, it may look as discrimination (while convervatives may argue that is just marriage with another name, though is pretty much that) but just trying to seek a third option to this

[TsukiRyoko]

In essence, he'll get the same treatment I got when I confessed to believing that God made the universe.

And as a parent, there will be nothing I can do about it, because after all, it's the law.


TOlerance is one thing, denying equal rights is another. You can't make tolerance a law, but you can legally give equal rights, and in this country we have the means to do so.

Admitting you believe that God created the universe and not being able to marry are two very different things. If you admit you believe in God, chance are that the worst you're going to get is have someone laugh at you or challenge your beliefs. No one is legally telling you, "You can't do that, it's against our beliefs as a country." With gay marriage, that's exactly what's happening. If your kid gets ridiculed for their beliefs in school, there's not much you can do about that- just like the other bullying.

Being a Wiccan, I faced an awful lot of religious discrimination in my school. I faced so much that it wasn't until college that I even openly admitted it to someone who asked. I was told I was a bad person, that I was going to hell, that I was somehow going to pay for it in the afterlife, and I was even beat up for it on one occasion. There's not much you can do to stop bullying of any kind in school, and if your kid grows up and ends up having enough balls to openly admit his personal beliefs, then kudos to him. But the fact is, discrimination will still remain in its many, many ugly forms, and that is why equal rights movements such as the one on gay marriage hold so much power and should absolutely be seen through and given support- to promote tolerance of all sorts. Even in the face of discrimination, people should be able to do certain things, and even though they may have to take some shit for it, they absolutely should not have those rights taken away from them.

[TsukiRyoko]

I am just trying to find some balance between conservatives who want to keep the marriage as something between a man and a woman and homosexual couples that want the same rights.


Equal should be equal. Allowing gays rights to secular marriages but not religious ones is like having two water fountains with "White" and "Colored" over it. Yeah, everybody gets to drink the water, but who says it's equal? It's degrading, and I think that if homosexuals should be allowed to marry, they should be able to get married in any building, any circumstances, and under any god of their choosing and that their rights should be exactly, 100% equal to that of a straight couples. People are people.

[JoNightshade]

Well, let's not forget that treatment also includes things like not being allowed to be at the bedside of the dying love-of-your-life. Losing custody of a child you both raised. Being denied over a thousand benefits that straight people get, even if the only reason they get married is for one or more of those benefits. Children of gay parents lose out on those benefits, too. Maybe you could think of those children when you're thinking of your own child. I've seen them weeping with joy when their parents were finally allowed to marry here in Massachusetts and imploring legislators to protect their parents' marriage when the question of gay marriage almost went to the ballot.

Although I didn't actually offer an explanation for why I oppose gay marriage (though I did imply it was on religious grounds), I did say that I was not against civil unions. Which would in fact include everything you just stated.

I just wanted to point out why some of you may encounter resistance, fear, and anger when discussing this issue with others on the other side of the spectrum. Treating anyone who dissents with disrespect and scorn before you've heard their reasoning is probably not the way to go. So far I'm the only person here who's admitted to opposing gay marriage, and yet everyone here is already perfectly clear on what I and anyone else who shares my opinion believe.

[TsukiRyoko]

Although I didn't actually offer an explanation for why I oppose gay marriage (though I did imply it was on religious grounds), I did say that I was not against civil unions. Which would in fact include everything you just stated.

I just wanted to point out why some of you may encounter resistance, fear, and anger when discussing this issue with others on the other side of the spectrum. Treating anyone who dissents with disrespect and scorn before you've heard their reasoning is probably not the way to go. So far I'm the only person here who's admitted to opposing gay marriage, and yet everyone here is already perfectly clear on what I and anyone else who shares my opinion believe.
We're not denoting your beliefs, we're simply stating ours. You're the first on your side to step up to the plate. By all means, give reason as to why you oppose gay marriage so that we on the more liberal side of the issue can gain some clarity on why someone would want to oppose gay marriage.

[Lyv]

Although I didn't actually offer an explanation for why I oppose gay marriage (though I did imply it was on religious grounds), I did say that I was not against civil unions. Which would in fact include everything you just stated.
Not everything.

I just wanted to point out why some of you may encounter resistance, fear, and anger when discussing this issue with others on the other side of the spectrum. Treating anyone who dissents with disrespect and scorn before you've heard their reasoning is probably not the way to go.
Which I've not done. But since you're giving advice, I'll give some of my own. Playing victim and mischaracterizing the words of others isn't the best way to go.

You also leave out some reasons why we encounter resistance. All the respect in the world doesn't always get respect in return. Sometimes people don't want to be challenged. Sometimes even in a discussion thread, some people don't want to have their ideas discussed. Not me. I'm game for a good talk.

I've actually managed to civilly discuss the issue face to face for the past few years, and have brought quite a few people around on the issue. I've been told I'm going to hell, I've gotten some death threats but I've been calm and polite and logical.

So far I'm the only person here who's admitted to opposing gay marriage, and yet everyone here is already perfectly clear on what I and anyone else who shares my opinion believe.
Please show me where I said I was perfectly clear on what you believe. I commented on what you said. Show me where I commented on what everyone who shares your opinion believes. I did say I've been a gay rights activist and as such have heard pretty much all the arguments, and none of them make sense to me. What you got out of that it amusing, but if you stick to what I said instead of getting defensive and misstating my words, we might actually be able to have a nice discussion. I've done that with many, many people, including some angry ones.

[Bartholomew]

The purpose of the thread was to promote dialogue between two sides that don't really want to talk.

While I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject, as the person who started the topic, I ask that we all remember that we're human beings here. For every person that posts, there are likely ten reading. We each represent our side here. If we do something rude, especially in a topic like this, it is far more damaging to the group we represent than we can possibly realize.


I'm not opposed to civil unions, or homosexuals doing whatever the heck they want with their lives. I don't care if two men want to live together, two men and a woman, or a woman and a donkey. You can do what you like.

Please explain the difference between a civil union and a marriage. I don't mean tax differences either. I want to know how you see the two relationships, and their human aspects, as different.

At the heart of the matter, is it the word marriage you're trying to protect, or something about the concept?


But what scares me is that 15 years from now, when my future-kid is in school, and someone finds out that he believes, for religious reasons, that homosexuality is morally wrong - what scares me is that all of his classmates and his teachers are going to express exactly the same wonderfully understanding, tolerant, respectful thoughts and attitudes you all have just expressed here. Yep. They'll tell him that his beliefs are bigoted and what a horrible, stupid, backward person he is. Oh, right, and that his parents must be the worst people ever. In essence, he'll get the same treatment I got when I confessed to believing that God made the universe.


I don't feel that homosexuality necessarily breeds intolerance. If you feel you got dog piled, I apologize. That was never my intention.

Broadbrushing an entire group of people as backwards, bigoted, horrible and stupid is not something I see myself doing, with very few exceptions.

But for someone worried about broadbrushing and the effects it will have on your children, I find it interesting that you're so quick to do it yourself. Because when you paint an entire group of people as "morally wrong" (a polite phrase for "evil," near as I can tell) you're doing the exact same thing.

At this point, it doesn't matter who cast the first stone. We need to come to a point where we've thrown the last stones.

[TsukiRyoko]

At this point, it doesn't matter who cast the first stone. We need to come to a point where we've thrown the last stones.
Well said, my boy :)

[maxmordon]

I think my opinion is influenced also by the fact that marriages here are carried first over the Town Clerk and later have your little religious act, (if you want to) some people go around by waiting some years (about a decade) before to have their religious marriage since 90% of the country is at least nominally Catholic since the divorce is (or was, I am not sure now) quite a problem with the Catholic Church


I, shall admit, doubt the existence of actual equality in life there is always rich vs. poor, conservatives vs. liberals, white vs. black vs. asian vs. latino vs. natives vs. little green men from the planet X. In bottom line, even though law is always equal that's not the case of a piece of paper against the people, since everyone believes they are right and their feces smell like cotton candy. (or at least the majority)

Is it fair? Is not, that's a life lesson from dad. Life is not fair, even though the law says that should be as closest as possible. A large percentage of the populace is mean and selfish and you should try to at least attempt to make it livable. Fight or succumb!

Is it too obvious I have become a tad cynical on my political views? at least I feel like that

Anyway, now I noticed this does sound like a rambling. I was just try to apply in US something that worked in a lot of places and even though there have been some complains, seems to work to a lot of people.

[Christine N.]

We also teach our children that God said "Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged." and "He that is without sin cast the first stone."

Funny how those who are anti-gay marriage (those with religious reasons) conveniently forget those when the topic comes up.

If you take religious objections away from it, all you've got left is the desire to control other people's lives. Government should not do that, obviously, not to that level. Would any of US like it if FedGov told us who we could and could not marry? As I said in the other thread, it's a tricky issue, because marriage is the one institution that can be both religious and civil, and they cross over. But, since the government is who issues the marriage licenses, I'd say they get the final vote. I'm sure a church has the right to refuse to marry any given couple, and I think that's their right.

Personally, I'd like to toss the word "TOLERANCE" from the English language. Tolerance has a connotation that we will 'put up with' something. "I'll tolerate it, even though I don't like it." It breeds contempt. I'd like to see all tolerance replaced with "ACCEPTANCE". Not necessarily total acceptance, but the acceptance that each person is a HUMAN first, one that is different than I am, and that they may live and think differently from myself, but that it's OK. I accept them as a person, even if I don't agree with with them.

I think the world would be a better place.

[JimmyB27]

What was the actual point of this thread? To engage in a real dialogue, or to sit around making fun of those who may hold beliefs different from your own? That's some real tolerance going on here.
I'm not opposed to civil unions, or homosexuals doing whatever the heck they want with their lives. I don't care if two men want to live together, two men and a woman, or a woman and a donkey. You can do what you like.

But what scares me is that 15 years from now, when my future-kid is in school, and someone finds out that he believes, for religious reasons, that homosexuality is morally wrong - what scares me is that all of his classmates and his teachers are going to express exactly the same wonderfully understanding, tolerant, respectful thoughts and attitudes you all have just expressed here. Yep. They'll tell him that his beliefs are bigoted and what a horrible, stupid, backward person he is. Oh, right, and that his parents must be the worst people ever. In essence, he'll get the same treatment I got when I confessed to believing that God made the universe.

And as a parent, there will be nothing I can do about it, because after all, it's the law.

And yes, I realize you could make the argument that this is the sort of treatment homosexuals have gotten for decades. And you'd be right. But that doesn't make turning the tables any more right or fair. Those who advocate tolerance should consider practicing it.
Perhaps we should be tolerant and understanding of people who believe that black people are inferior too. Or of people who believe that women should be the property of their husbands.

[Christine N.]

Well, now Jimmy, it's Jo's right to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and her right to teach her child that as well.

It wouldn't be right if she were (hypothetically) to teach her child to beat gay people. But, perhaps, she might also teach her child that although she doesn't agree with their lifestyle, they are still people and and such deserve respect. I would hope other people would teach their children the same about Christians - we don't all agree but we must respect.

And if I ever heard a teacher telling a child what Jo's described, I'd be sure she was fired. Never is it okay for a teacher to belittle a child's beliefs or undermine a parent. I've been in classes where there have been, for example, children who were Jehovah's witnesses. When we discuss holidays, which they cannot celebrate, the teacher leaves an alternative activity for them.

All about acceptance.

[GLAZE_by_KyrstinMc]

First off I approve of Gay Marriage.

But, I've spoken to people on the topic and they say that marriage is a Holy relationship between a man and a woman. Some people I know think it's fine to be gay and live with your boyfriend/girlfriend but marriage should not be allowed between them.

Some people also think that relationships should only exsist for making children, and obviously man/man and woman/woman cannot make babies together, so they think what gay people are doing is dirty.

I love all types of people myself so I have no objections!

[Don]

This should a non-issue, as Max pointed out early on, and later restated.

The problem is caused by ignoring the difference between religion and the state. The state should grant a contract to any two or more people who want to merge their households legally. The church should decide who qualifies for their particular ceremonial blessing.

Calling both those things marriage is where the problem arises. Personally, I'd recommend civil union for the legal document, and marriage for the religious ceremony.

[JimmyB27]

Well, now Jimmy, it's Jo's right to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and her right to teach her child that as well.

It wouldn't be right if she were (hypothetically) to teach her child to beat gay people. But, perhaps, she might also teach her child that although she doesn't agree with their lifestyle, they are still people and and such deserve respect. I would hope other people would teach their children the same about Christians - we don't all agree but we must respect.

And if I ever heard a teacher telling a child what Jo's described, I'd be sure she was fired. Never is it okay for a teacher to belittle a child's beliefs or undermine a parent. I've been in classes where there have been, for example, children who were Jehovah's witnesses. When we discuss holidays, which they cannot celebrate, the teacher leaves an alternative activity for them.

All about acceptance.
Bugger.

I've been trying to clarify my thoughts - is intolerance of intolerance really a bad thing? - but all I'm coming back to is the fact that my comment is dangerously close to accusing Jo of ThoughtCrime.
I'm swaying at the moment between 'No, dammit, I'm right!' and 'But that's what the other side says too!'.
For the moment at least, I retract my previous statement with apologies to Jo. You have your opinion, I have mine. (And at least yours isn't of the whacko-crazy type that wants to burn all homosexuals at the stake).
There is documentation of gay or lesbian behaviour among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures. That argument does not fly.
I read not long ago in New Scientist, about an exhibition documenting all the 'perverse' sexual behaviours you can find in nature. You'd be surprised. (Goes looking for a link - ETA, found one. http://www.nyartbeat.com/event/2008/DFF0).

[Ken]

those opposed will change their minds when the legislation goes through and they see that the world has remained in tact.

[TsukiRyoko]

I, shall admit, doubt the existence of actual equality in life there is always rich vs. poor, conservatives vs. liberals, white vs. black vs. asian vs. latino vs. natives vs. little green men from the planet X. In bottom line, even though law is always equal that's not the case of a piece of paper against the people, since everyone believes they are right and their feces smell like cotton candy. (or at least the majority)

Is it fair? Is not, that's a life lesson from dad. Life is not fair, even though the law says that should be as closest as possible. A large percentage of the populace is mean and selfish and you should try to at least attempt to make it livable. Fight or succumb!

It's true, there's a lot of inequality in nature. But we're just humans, and contrary to what a post earlier in this thread said, we are a species of animals. We are noone to decide who deserves more, and having laws in place such as the one American has one gay marriage is us trying to do just that.

[TsukiRyoko]

Perhaps we should be tolerant and understanding of people who believe that black people are inferior too. Or of people who believe that women should be the property of their husbands.
They're not dead yet. That's a form of tolerance.

[JimmyB27]

It's true, there's a lot of inequality in nature. But we're just humans, and prior to a post earlier in this thread, we are a species of animals.
Prior to that post we were a species of animal? Implying that now, with the advent of the post in question, we no longer are? Which momentous post could bring about such a change?

;)

[TsukiRyoko]

First off I approve of Gay Marriage.

But, I've spoken to people on the topic and they say that marriage is a Holy relationship between a man and a woman. Some people I know think it's fine to be gay and live with your boyfriend/girlfriend but marriage should not be allowed between them.

Some people also think that relationships should only exsist for making children, and obviously man/man and woman/woman cannot make babies together, so they think what gay people are doing is dirty.

I love all types of people myself so I have no objections! I have heard the "reproduction" argument myself, and that's such a load of willy I don't even know where to start. FIrst off, people who are "reproduction means no gays!" believe that sex between two men or two women is dirty because it unproductive. Shouldn't they be doing a rally against condoms? Or, how about an infertile couple? Maybe we should geta doctor with a big old probe to shove into every orofice to tell you how fertile, and therefore worthy of marriage, you are. Low sperm count? None for you, gay man!

I've heard the reproduction argument many times in my life, and if they practice what they preach, then they shouldn't have a "healthy" sex life, just a constructive one. Ask anyone of these "reproductionists" about the Kama Sutra or something and their eyes light up. There are very few American couples that truly stick to the "no sex unless we want children cuz it's ka-ka" thing, and most of them are here in WV at the Palace of Gold.

[TsukiRyoko]

Prior to that post we were a species of animal? Implying that now, with the advent of the post in question, we no longer are? Which momentous post could bring about such a change?

;)
What could bring about such change, you ask? Does 2.5 hours of sleep count as a good answer? Cause that's what I'm on, and lemm me tell ya- pot's WAY better than sleep deprivation. Stick to the plant.

[cethklein]

A real, good Christian won't need the government to tell them whether it's ok for gays to marry. this is part of why it should be legal in all 50 states. Also, its their life. no one should tell them how to live it. I'm not gay but if they want to be, more power to them.

People need to quit worrying about other people's sins and focus on their own. Jesus said that, "let he who is free from sin cast the first stone". If it's good enough for Him it should be good enough for his followers right?

[Celia Cyanide]

Although I didn't actually offer an explanation for why I oppose gay marriage (though I did imply it was on religious grounds), I did say that I was not against civil unions. Which would in fact include everything you just stated.

Why do you support civil unions for gay couples, but not marriage?

[Sheryl Nantus]

*points to Canada*

working just fine there.

has been for years.

can't get a better example of how it would work in the US than with your closest neighbor, eh?

:D

[endless rewrite]

Civil unions are often blessed in church, mainly the Anglican church in the UK. As the following story shows there is little difference between a civil union and a marriage ceremony if the partners involved want a religious ceremony. It is my belief that in a short period of time there will be no difference at all, everything evolves. Those that have strong objections to two people who love each other getting married will join less progressive churches.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2130668/Male-priests-marry-in-Anglican-church's-first-gay-'wedding'.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2130668/Male-priests-marry-in-Anglican-church%27s-first-gay-%27wedding%27.html)

[SHBueche]

Kudos to Lyv (I think), new member, yes I'm thinking of a married partner being allowed to make life-or-death decisions, if necessary and of course there's the healthcare matter to consider.

This question reminds me that a certain VP candidate (ahem, I shall not mention her name) belongs to a church where they have tried to convert gays to heterosexuality ... now that, I do not understand at all!

[SHBueche]

On a positive note, two good male friends of mine were married last weekend in San Francisco.

[Cranky]

Why do you support civil unions for gay couples, but not marriage?

I can't speak for Jo (and I won't presume such), but my guess is for a lot of people is that it's very much like disrespecting someone's religious beliefs, trying to legislate their church.

If the church itself is okay with blessing or performing a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple, then that's okay. Why should the state be telling a religious organization that they MUST allow it? If a civil union were to grant a homosexual couple every right that a heterosexual couple currently has, then what is the problem? They could join a church that conforms to their beliefs, like everyone else.

That's my take, and pretty close to my beliefs as well. I think gay couples should be allowed to get a civil union (hey, that's technically what I have, since my husband and I got married by a JP, not in a church!). If they want to be "married", then they can find a church that will do it, same as my husband and I could do. *probably will do, next year for renewing our vows*

And as far as I'm concerned, I'm just as married as anyone else who got married in a church. Aren't atheists married? Do you have to believe in God or a higher power to be married? I don't think so.

*shrug*

Just my take on it.

[whistlelock]

You know, I read an article not too long ago about gay marriage. The writer was against it but made an interesting point- it's coming whether you like it or not. He pointed to the demographic- which I cannot find now- that said more people under the age of 35 supported gay marriage than were against it and that more people over the age of 45 were against it than were for it.

And, as more people who are over the age of 45 die per year than those under the age of 35, very soon a simple majority of people who support gay marriage (either by directly supporting it or not caring about it at all) will exist.

Then the proposal will finally pass. Unless of course your state has put it into their constitution. Like Texas did.

[mscelina]

I am a bit dismayed by how this thread has gone. One person was brave enough to step up first and speak her mind, and she was thrashed for it. Nice.

It amazes me how intolerant this country is as a whole. Liberals and conservatives, religious right and ... (good grief--how can I come up with the opposite?)...um, the rest of the religious-minded population. Race. Gender. Sexual Orientation.

Our Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

*bolding mine*

Safety and happiness. I submit to you that the end of the gay marriage debate lies embedded in the oldest document of our legal existence, fellow Americans. *shrug* Of course, I could be wrong. Either way, why buiild up the bitterness around thi issue further? Perhaps the best road to political change lies in moderation, not extremism. Perhaps others could be swayed to one side of the issue if their thoughts were belittled every time they spoke up. Perhaps, we might consider that tolerance is a two-way street?

Some of you guys know I've worked for gay rights for twenty years. I don't have to state my position on this, do I? But in the end, after years of dealing with some of the most vociferous groups on the planet in regards to this issue, I've discovered that I essentially wasted two decades beating my head against the same walls.


it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness

It's all summed up for you right there.

[dgiharris]

An argument against gay marraige
I will start off by saying that I believe gays should be allowed to marry, they have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

However, I do not think people understand the implications of this right or its impact on society.

We are on the threshold of granting full rights and priveleges to gays. However, the entire socio-political-economic structure of our society is rooted in the traditional marraige and traditional roles for men and women.

I've yet to think through the implications of this and will do so over the next few days (if the thread survives that long) but the first allegory to come to mind would be when blacks were freed from slavery then given equal rights after the civil rights movement (please don't go on a red herring about the difference between being born black and 'choosing' to be gay, we can have that argument later)

The U.S. ESPECIALLY the south, had a structure built around slavery. Thus when it was abolished, the structure had to change. Same with the civil rights movement, their were thousands of glass cielings (some still exist today) that hindered the progress of blacks.

Now think about the way things are today for blacks. We are overcoming a systemic racism that was rooted in the 'initial' structure of this country. This is one reason why there are so many poor black areas, why comparatively, opportunity for blacks (percentage basis) are not on par with whites....

So what the hell does this have to do with gay rights?

Just as blacks had/have a systemic structure against them so to do gays. The structure of our society is built upon the male/female model. Any couple not following that model has a systemic 'sexism' against them just as blacks have a systemic racism against them. I'm not saying that this country is 'racist or sexist' but rather that the structure of this country has a negative impact on those not aligned with it.

Now comes the argument against gay marraige.

If gay marraige and even gay relationships are tolerated and encouraged, there will be more gay marriages and relationships (simple math, yes, you are born gay but openly allowing something will ALWAYS increase that something). These relationships damage or put at risk our current socio-economic-political-structure. Just as the Southern Society had to change, so to will our national society.

This change will impact many things we have never thought to consider. In the short term it will do damage to the country. Damage being defined as a 'cost' society will have to pay in order to adjust to a new structure.

For instance, should their be gay bathrooms? In health and sex ed classes they will have to redefine (and define) the curriculum. We will have to put a legal infrastructure in place to redefine sexual harrassment (current laws/bills are baised towards male/female harrassment. What about female female harrassment?). Child custody laws will completely have to be rewritten (billions of dollars in lawsuits waiting to happen). What about 'gay' harrassment laws. The military will have to rethink enabling openly gay members to serve and a ton of protocol regulations will have to be written.

Yes, I realize we have a smattering of these laws and contingencies, but NOTHING on the order of magnitude that will be required if we 'really' grant full rights to gays.

So, the argument against gay marraige would be one against change. It will fundamentally change the structure of this society, those changes will have costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, and will have unforeseen consequences that will impact those who are currently aligned with the male/female structure that this country was founded on.

And I haven't even scratched the surface on human belief structures (mainly religion) that feel gays and gay marraige is wrong. This belief structure is engrained in the majority of Americans.

Well, there is an argument.

Let the fun begin

Mel...

[MarkEsq]

I am a bit dismayed by how this thread has gone. One person was brave enough to step up first and speak her mind, and she was thrashed for it. Nice.



You know, I just read this entire thread and I have to disagree. I don't think she was "thrashed" at all. The one person who jumped on Jo posted a thoughtful retraction and apology.

Kudos to Jo, though, for even posting. Obviously the majority here disagree with her but she still had the courage to post her opinions and that's not easy to do. I, for one, would love to see more people who agree with her on this post and give us their point of view.

"I love that there are gay men. It means more chicks for me!"
"You realize there are lesbians out there, too, right?"
"Oh yeah, sure, but they'd let me join in, wouldn't they?"
"No. They are lesbians."
"Dammit."

[selkn.asrai]

We are not animals. We are human.

(I don't know if this was sarcasm or not, so Norton, please forgive.)


Oh, but we are animals.

Non-human species do not define stupidity, inferiority or soullessness monstrosity. Only very recently did homosapiens become the careless and penultimate predators that we are today--we were creatures that feasted and were fed upon for nearly 40,000 years.

Webster's: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation.

Homosapien elitism has toppled the world into extreme and markedly unnatural chaos that, only now, is a portion of the population trying to rectify.

:end rant:

[mscelina]

Jimmy did, yes. And I agree it was thoughtful and well-written. And I should have mentioned it. Mea culpa. I was busy looking up things. Sorry, Jimmy.

However, I'm speaking mostly as an activist turned moderate--I know how bitter the front lines are in this particular argument. It's ugly on BOTH sides. Although I still do my work for AIDS research and charities, I've begun to take a closer look at how these alleged 'political' arguments work at their most basic level. My POV has gotten me into horrific arguments with men I've worked with for years, so bear with me.

I don't care what the issue is, extremist or reactionary behavior does not obtain political goals.

Let's take civil rights and women's rights as an example. Take the emotion out of it. Look at the laws of our country or the principles upon which they were built. Take into consideration that those principles evolve from a time where blacks were slaves, women were chattel, children were property and homosexuals were killed for their behavior. Think of how long it took for actual changes on those issues--slavery continued until the North defeated the South in the civil war, but actual acceptance didn't begin until the Civil Rights Movement a hundred years later. Women got the vote fifty-odd years after the black man did. In each movement there were (a) visible references at the head of the movement that encouraged others in the same minority group to do the same--Carrie Chapman Catt? Martin Luther King?-- and (b) a willingness to go no further than civil disobedience to accomplish their goals. By the same token there was one other aspect--a fringe group willing to cross that line of civil disobedience. Once the existence of a radical group and leader--Alice Paul? Bobby Seale?--was in place, the group that practiced civil disobedience was more acceptable to the American people. Sure, preachers were still speaking out against both movements in the pulpits and bigotry still flourished, but each movement accomplished a single goal (civil rights act of 1964, enfranchisement of women in 1920) that led to continued and greater social equality for both subgroups. So my *theory* (note the disclaimer) is that this issue will remain a hot topic of contention until the movement provides the things I've described above.

When I ventured to bring this up to a group I worked closely with, they dismissed it because--and I quote-- "You're a straight woman and have no idea what we're working for."

*shrug*

So whenever I can I try to promote a more moderate approach to gay marriage or the rights of homosexuals in this country regardless of which side I'm speaking to. As I said, it's just my own personal political theory. It can be easily disregarded as such.

[C A Winters]

I can't speak for Jo (and I won't presume such), but my guess is for a lot of people is that it's very much like disrespecting someone's religious beliefs, trying to legislate their church.

If the church itself is okay with blessing or performing a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple, then that's okay. Why should the state be telling a religious organization that they MUST allow it? If a civil union were to grant a homosexual couple every right that a heterosexual couple currently has, then what is the problem? They could join a church that conforms to their beliefs, like everyone else.

That's my take, and pretty close to my beliefs as well. I think gay couples should be allowed to get a civil union (hey, that's technically what I have, since my husband and I got married by a JP, not in a church!). If they want to be "married", then they can find a church that will do it, same as my husband and I could do. *probably will do, next year for renewing our vows*

And as far as I'm concerned, I'm just as married as anyone else who got married in a church. Aren't atheists married? Do you have to believe in God or a higher power to be married? I don't think so.

*shrug*

Just my take on it.


Well said.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Please, do not use the flimsy argument that marriage is defined as being between man and woman.

I'm just curious why you felt it necessary to label this as flimsy. If it is somebody's reason then its valid to them and therefore just as valid as any other argument.

[Lyv]

I am a bit dismayed by how this thread has gone. One person was brave enough to step up first and speak her mind, and she was thrashed for it.
Actually, that "brave" person came out swinging and made some accusations about things others said that weren't true. I've asked her to back up a few, and I hope she does or posts a retraction. Whatever the outcome, I'll happily post with her.

Back to the issue...

Some of you guys know I've worked for gay rights for twenty years. I don't have to state my position on this, do I? But in the end, after years of dealing with some of the most vociferous groups on the planet in regards to this issue, I've discovered that I essentially wasted two decades beating my head against the same walls. That must be frustrating. I am fortunate enough to have seen minds and hearts change, even some we never thought would, resulting in the preservation of marriage equality. If the vote had gone the other way, I'd surely feel I'd been beating my head against the wall. But I'm sure you've made a difference.

[Norman D Gutter]

I need to do more study of this, but I believe marriage first developed as an institution as a means to protect women from the predations of men, who were generally stronger than women, and believed they could take any woman they wanted—a different woman every night in the tribal setting—and have her. A woman had no protection. Marriage gave her that protection. That is not to say the marriage relationship was always perfect, or even close to perfect. The stronger man might still abuse. Society might hold a married woman as property of the husband. Laws protecting the woman even within marriage were added (I'm looking at this through a Christian lens with a Western filter; possibly an Islamic or Animist lens may give a different picture of marriage). But I think originally marriage served the purpose I stated. Possibly a cultural anthropologist, or whatever type of profession knows about these things, would prove me wrong. That’s why I say I need to study this more.

So one question for me is if you expand the definition of marriage, will those protections for women begin to be erased, however fast or slow it might be? Will polygamy be an unintended consequence of a redefinition of marriage? Will woman begin go back on a road to being passed around between the dominant males? That wouldn't happen overnight, but could it happen with time? I believe that is a legitimate concern. Whether I give too much weight to this concern is another matter.

All of the things suggested for rights for homosexuals—hospital visits, life or death decisions, etc.—are not really issues about marriage, but rather about institutions. If the hospital will not allow a homosexual to the besides of a critically ill partner, the beef is with the hospital, not with the government. What is prohibiting hospitals from changing their policy and allowing homosexual partners visiting rights? Nothing. If a homosexual needs a partner to make life or death decisions, prepare a living will, something that everyone should do any way. Property can be bought together; executors can be appointed; guardians can be indicated in wills, etc. This issue of taxes and preference for married couples could be solved the other way: remove the preference. Or go to a flat tax, or something like it. I see a number of ways to correct these types of problems without having to resort to homosexual marriage.

The issue of dependent children is tougher, I agree. If a man and a woman are married, have children, and then one declares homosexuality and wants out of the marriage, what about the children? Should they be treated differently than if one partner wanted out of the marriage simply because they were tired of the partner and found something better on the side? I don’t know, but it seems to me the beef here may be with the courts as an institution, not with the definition of marriage.

However, all that being said, I am still thinking though the issue. I’m thinking in part of the effects of legalized abortion. While I ache for the millions of babies killed, I also see how this has more sharply defined the difference between devout Christians and non-Christians or nominal Christians. Abortion is legal, yet the devout Christian will eschew it, even if that means carrying to term a known Down’s Syndrome baby. The stand becomes one of principles and ethics, not law. If the law is changed to allow homosexual marriage, perhaps this will even more sharply define that divide.

A person very close to me is a homosexual; to protect privacy, I won’t say how close. But I believe that I should not alter my beliefs or positions on public policy merely for personal benefit. If I believe something is wrong, it’s wrong even if the public policy works against me personally or against a loved one.

Thoughtfully,
NDG

[mscelina]

Lyv, Jo Nightshade is one of the most forthright and courageous people on this board. I realize that you don't know her yet, as you are a new poster on AW. (welcome by the way!) Her point was simple--people have a right to raise their children as they will and not have their work undercut by a teacher. No matter what the issue is, I'll agree with her on that (having been told by a teacher when I was in grade school that because I was raised Catholic I wasn't really a christian and therefore doomed to hell. Since then I've certainly tried to live up to my ultimate fate.) Jo answered the OP. *shrug*

Hope you enjoy your time with us. It can get a little hot from time to time, Lyv. ;)

[Lyv]

Kudos to Lyv (I think), new member, yes I'm thinking of a married partner being allowed to make life-or-death decisions, if necessary and of course there's the healthcare matter to consider.

This question reminds me that a certain VP candidate (ahem, I shall not mention her name) belongs to a church where they have tried to convert gays to heterosexuality ... now that, I do not understand at all!

Thanks! And congratulations to your friends.

One of my best friends talks often about being denied even basic information when his longtime and chronically ill love was hospitalized. Soon after we got same-sex marriage, the two married. And just after that, there was another hospitalization. And for the first time, because he said the magic words, "We're married," he was given the same access to his husband that I am given to mine.

We're doing fine in Massachusetts. They're doing fine in Canada. Generations of children raised by gay parents are doing fine, except for being stigmatized and discriminated against. Opposition to gay marriage is fading, partly because we can see with our own eyes that nothing bad happens when we allow gay marriage.

[Lyv]

Lyv, Jo Nightshade is one of the most forthright and courageous people on this board.
Be that as it may, in her posts, including her first in this thread, she mischaracterized others' words. I challenged her on it, and I did so with civility. I think that's an appropriate reaction.

I'm not actually new. I just don't post that often and I am often gone for long periods. But new or not, if I post the way JoNightshade did, I will expect to be taken to task for it.

[Cranky]

Let's not have this thread degenerate into another discussion about other posters, please.

Stick to the topic at hand.

[Takvah]

Why does it have to be "marriage". Marriage by definition has been, a legal union of man and woman, as husband and wife. Now people want it to be a legal union between two persons. Why can the language not be exact, and when speaking of MAN TO WOMAN you use the term marriage and when speaking of same sex couplings another. I assure you, I will not feel slighted because the word that is chosen for woman to woman or man to man, does not apply to me.

I am all for gays enjoying the same rights and privileges that people that are married do. For me, I believe the issue becomes about a word, and the way people are demanding that it be fit to their circumstance. There are different terms in business for two companies uniting. Depending on the circumstances, those terms are applied to more readily explain how it came to be... merger, acquisition, what have you. Why does a union between gays HAVE TO BE CALLED A MARRIAGE? It seems even if civil unions are legal in this country and all of the rights and privileges granted through "marriage" are allowed within the context of that "union", people will not be happy.

I'm sorry but the, "it's the same thing" argument doesn't hold water with me. It's not... it's different. It's not a union between a man and a woman. All of the emotions, desires, needs fulfillment etc. of a gay relationship are the same and there should be no penalties because people find it religiously or societally immoral. There is no legal recourse to deny people the same rights, but we don't need to call it the same thing. I'm sorry, and I know I will surely be chastised for the statement... but when I hear gays say, "We're married," I think... no you're not.

The arguments that I see around gay unions, seem to really center around the term marriage... and I think that will remain. Women fought for the same rights as men, but they didn't declare, "We're men too!" There are differences... and I think that sometimes they should be respected.

Just this guy's opinion. Cheers.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I feel the need to point out that marriage has pretty well been destroyed during the past few decades with the divorce rate skyrocketing, the common-law marriage concept replacing any religious ceremony (so if you live with a guy long enough you are technically married, whether you want to or not) and just the viewpoint of society that having a second, third and fourth marriage is perfectly normal and acceptable.

Given that track record I'm not sure if gays should even WANT to call it marriage, given what we heteros have done to screw up the definition.

:D

[Lyv]

All of the things suggested for rights for homosexuals—hospital visits, life or death decisions, etc.—are not really issues about marriage, but rather about institutions.
Forgive me for pulling out just one point, but I wanted to point out that it isn't just about institutions. It's also simply about equality. And it's about over one thousand rights and benefits that accompany marriage. I'll try to find a list if you've never read one (I know I didn't know a fraction of it until a couple of years ago).

[mscelina]

Women didn't claim "We're men too!" Women said "We're human too." What? Do you think that gay activists want to be taken as straight men or women? Seriously?

What kind of silly straw man argument are you regurgitating now? The topic at hand is equal rights for all American citizens. It's not about the freaking nomenclature. Homosexual citizens should have the same inalienable rights as any other subgroup of American culture. That process shouldn't be hung up by a word, Takvah. That's just ridiculous. It's another way to promote 'separate but equal' and we all know how well THAT worked.

[dgiharris]

I feel the need to point out that marriage has pretty well been destroyed during the past few decades with the divorce rate skyrocketing, the common-law marriage concept replacing any religious ceremony...:D

The moment we made a 'game show' out of marraige (Bachelor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Joe Millionaire, etc) , that was pretty much the nail going into the coffin.

To Takvah's point.

I have to disagree. The REAL reason behind gays wanting the term 'marriage' is that marriage has a very real and very legal connotation. The problem with 'civil unions' is that each legislative body conspires to not give civil unions that sames rights as marraige. If Civil Unions were legally equavalent to marriage there woudl be no problem. However, its not. Too many loophopes. Therefore, the best way to get those rights is to just fall under the same legal umbrella as marraige and the best way to do that is to be married.

Mel...

[Takvah]

Well mscelina thanks for taking it to me. I would suggest to gays that they not allow the process to be hung up by a word. As for your hostility... it's usually becoming but in this case, I'm just going to dismiss it and leave it at that.

[Takvah]

The moment we made a 'game show' out of marraige (Bachelor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Joe Millionaire, etc) , that was pretty much the nail going into the coffin.

To Takvah's point.

I have to disagree. The REAL reason behind gays wanting the term 'marriage' is that marriage has a very real and very legal connotation. The problem with 'civil unions' is that each legislative body conspires to not give civil unions that sames rights as marraige. If Civil Unions were legally equavalent to marriage there woudl be no problem. However, its not. Too many loophopes. Therefore, the best way to get those rights is to just fall under the same legal umbrella as marraige and the best way to do that is to be married.

Mel...

That was my point, make them equivalent and let the "terms" define the sexuality.

[mscelina]

Takvah, you kill me. ;)

[Jersey Chick]

I have no problem with gays being allowed to marry and to call it marriage. And I'm a little confused by the people who are all for gay marriage, as long as it isn't called marriage. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Marriage is marriage, as far as I'm concerned. To say, "well, they can be married as long as they don't actually use the word married (or any variation thereof)" seems a bit silly to me.

As for gay marriage ruining society, I think that's already kind of been taken care of by the hetero married couples to a certain extent. The divorce rate's what? Almost 50%? It's a sad commentary when I realize that, of a great deal of my daughter's friends, my husband and I are the odd couple because it's our first marriage each, and both kids are ours.


I'm not a religious person, (a recovering Catholic, to be precise) but I think it would be a terrible precedent to allow the government to tell the church (or synagogue, or mosque or any other religious institution) that they must recognize something that has already been deemed unacceptable by said organization. Separation of church and state and all that - the church believes what it will, and it's just one of many things we don't agree about (the church and I, that is).

[Williebee]

Somewhere along the line "marriage" went from being a religious ceremony to being a legal definition. Would that we could separate the two again.

An earlier post indicated that equality would mean that two people, regardless of sex should be allowed to get married anywhere they want. Actually, it doesn't. A man and woman can't get married anywhere they want. Some churches won't marry you if you aren't of their faith, for example. IMO, that means you need to either work to change your church, or change churches.

Perhaps we could reach the point where we have separated the civil and religious for ALL unions. (If nothing else, the lawyers should be happy, more paperwork, more fees. :) )

The legal/financial ramifications that DGLHarris brought up are very real, and will make for interesting, tumultuous times. Historically, speaking doing the right thing often does. We'll grow and adapt, or we won't.

From an Arbiter's POV - This thread started out pretty aggressively anti-dissent. An attaboy/girl/poster to Jo for being willing to step into the lion's mouth, so to speak. Hopefully, we can continue on in an intelligent, open fashion, and so get to hear more points of view.

[Williebee]

The moment we made a 'game show' out of marraige (Bachelor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Joe Millionaire, etc) , that was pretty much the nail going into the coffin.

Gotta go back farther than that, like "The Newlywed Game".

OT - I'm pretty sure that we don't get to "equal" until civil unions have the same rights and responsibilities in all states.

I'm also pretty sure that "marriages" will never be equal. They aren't equal from faith to faith now.

[ClaudiaGray]

Did you know the Pilgrims refused to have ministers perform marriage ceremonies, because there was no record of a minister doing so in the Gospels? They insisted upon marriages being a governmental institution only.

[TerzaRima]

Not allowing gays to marry does discriminate against a growing number of kids. When you have married parents and one dies, for example, the other parent has a legal claim on you--if that's not the case, your grandparents of another blood relative can show up with a more legitimate claim and remove you from the only home you've ever known. If your parents aren't married, only one of them has the right to visit you in the hospital, receive medical information about you, insure you on their health plan, get FMLA leave to care for you when you're sick, etc.

This is why the American Academy of Pediatrics came out against the Defense of Marriage Act. We're not just talking about couples, but families.

[BenPanced]

Sorry, but "we'll call it 'marriage' for straight people and 'something else' for gays and lesbians" doesn't wash with me. Let's ask black people how well "separate but equal" worked for them.

[tiny]

Well, let's not forget that treatment also includes things like not being allowed to be at the bedside of the dying love-of-your-life.


I'll not get into the discussion, because I see it as an endless circle, but this statement I had to clear up. Family is allowed in the hospital with a loved one, girlfriends, no matter how long, are not. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight, it has to do with being family and yes, I know that "marriage" would make them family, but it's NOT a gay vs. straight issue so let's not make it into something it's not.

And on that note, power of attorney fixes the inability to be there. Yes, I know this for a fact, because I have it.

[Lyv]

Family is allowed in the hospital with a loved one, girlfriends, no matter how long, are not. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight, it has to do with being family and yes, I know that "marriage" would make them family, but it's NOT a gay vs. straight issue so let's not make it into something it's not.

You contradict yourself. You say that marriage would make "them" (meaning gay people) family, but then say it isn't a gay/straight issue. If one group can marry and be considered family, while another can't, yes it is a gay/straight issue.

And, actually, my gay friends who had POAs still were treated very differently once they were married. It's just not as simple as you're making it.

[tiny]

You contradict yourself. You say that marriage would make "them" (meaning gay people) family, but then say it isn't a gay/straight issue. If one group can marry and be considered family, while another can't, yes it is a gay/straight issue.

And, actually, my gay friends who had POAs still were treated very differently once they were married. It's just not as simple as you're making it.

Nope, because girlfriends and boyfriends in straight relationships encounter the same issue at the hospital. They may have more avenues to fix it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a issue across the boards for both gay and straight people attempting to access a loved one in the hospital. And with that, I'm off this circle.

[Lyv]

Nope, because girlfriends and boyfriends in straight relationships encounter the same issue at the hospital. They may have more avenues to fix it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a issue across the boards for both gay and straight people attempting to access a loved one in the hospital.

Again, you contradict yourself. "...more avenues." Straight people can marry and have that access. Gay people can't. That is a gay/straight issue.

POA isn't the same. You have to prove you've got it. All I have to do is say, "My husband" and I've got access. No delay.

[benbradley]

...
Please, do not use the flimsy argument that marriage is defined as being between man and woman.

If your only reason for opposing gay marriage is the way a certain document defines the word, why not allow the majority to redefine the word in that document?
It's useful to point out that the definitions of words drift, and even become redefined, all the time due to natural evolution of the language. I have no problem with redefining marriage in this case, though in general whether I agree with intentional word redefinitions depends on context (I've seen cases where such redefinition is done to be manipulative).
What it comes down to is:

God don't like it.

caw
Expanded, some of those who believe they know God's Will believe that God doesn't like it.
Why not make like the Brits and allow "civil unions"? same thing with a different name and without the religious connotation
Within my lifetime interracial marriage was illegal. Perhaps they could have called those civil unions instead?

But seriously, the word marriage has social significance as well as giving legal rights.
...
I'm not opposed to civil unions, or homosexuals doing whatever the heck they want with their lives. I don't care if two men want to live together, two men and a woman, or a woman and a donkey.
Actually, I don't agree with all that, as a donkey can't give informed consent.
Whatever happened to the precept: "It ain't none of your damn business"?

Oh, crap. I forgot. For the religious right, everything is part of their business.

caw
Just ask Peter McWilliams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams). Oops, sorry, he's dead...
those opposed will change their minds when the legislation goes through and they see that the world has remained in tact.
Whether the world is remaining intact is up to interpretation. I stumbled across something just the other day saying how the USA has been falling apart since prayer was stopped in public schools [technically it was only prayer led by school representatives that was stopped - students are still free to pray on their own and start their own prayer groups].

Though I don't quite understand, didn't adding "In God We Trust" to coins "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegience make up for that?

[Death Wizard]

Perhaps we should be tolerant and understanding of people who believe that black people are inferior too. Or of people who believe that women should be the property of their husbands.

I agree entirely with your point.

[Death Wizard]

Sorry, but "we'll call it 'marriage' for straight people and 'something else' for gays and lesbians" doesn't wash with me. Let's ask black people how well "separate but equal" worked for them.

Excellent point.

[kuwisdelu]

Though I don't quite understand, didn't adding "In God We Trust" to coins "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegience make up for that?

Of course not, because kids can't be forced to say that part.

Remember, students and gays alike must be dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of heaven.

[Takvah]

Sorry, but "we'll call it 'marriage' for straight people and 'something else' for gays and lesbians" doesn't wash with me. Let's ask black people how well "separate but equal" worked for them.

I'm sorry but we're not talking about separate schools here, or anything of the sort. There would be no "test" within the law that would in any way distinguish between marriages and unions other than one word meaning man to woman and the other same sex. I really find this to be a viable compromise because gays get their "marriage" and religious folks get their so-called protection. I agree that legislatures cannot be allowed to separate the terms within the context of the law.

[InfinityGoddess]

Sorry, but "we'll call it 'marriage' for straight people and 'something else' for gays and lesbians" doesn't wash with me. Let's ask black people how well "separate but equal" worked for them.

As someone who is also gay, I agree. "Separate but equal" is not equality by a long shot.

[kuwisdelu]

I'm with the people who want the government out of marriage and religion out of government. Churches can marry people; it comes with no legal benefits or binds. Governments can civil unionize people; churches don't have to recognize a thing, but you get all the legal fun. Call it "marriage" and "civil union" or "religious marriage" and "civil marriage," whatever. I don't care.

[mscelina]

I disagree. It would establish the precedent of considering gay unions on a different level from straight ones. If there is a viable legal difference between 'civil unions' and 'marriages' then those would apply to straight couples as well. If the legal contract (which is after all what we're discussing here) has different guidelines specific to the genders participating in the said contract there are a lot of legal loopholes that can affect other aspects of our lives. Why not just keep it simple and on the same level for everyone. Let's not get caught up in legalese that will differentiate between civil unions (as Cranky and I both have) and marriages.

[rugcat]

Somewhere along the line "marriage" went from being a religious ceremony to being a legal definition. Would that we could separate the two again.I really think that is the crux of the matter. Marriage is a blended secular/religious institution.

If a church doesn't wish to perform or even acknowledge a same sex marriage, that is their right. But as a civil matter, with a long legal set of precedents and rules, marriage should be available to gays as well as straights. Anything else is legal discrimination, no matter what your reasons for opposition.

[Norman D Gutter]

I'm with the people who want the government out of marriage and religion out of government. Churches can marry people; it comes with no legal benefits or binds. Governments can civil unionize people; churches don't have to recognize a thing, but you get all the legal fun. Call it "marriage" and "civil union" or "religious marriage" and "civil marriage," whatever. I don't care.
And what about use who have been married for decades? Would we thus have to go to the courthouse and establish a civil union for purposes of State?

[Cranky]

And what about use who have been married for decades? Would we thus have to go to the courthouse and establish a civil union for purposes of State?

I doubt it. You have a marriage license, right? They are state issued, I believe, so I doubt that would have any effect whatsoever.

That's the document that I have, and I'm considered "married" for state purposes. And for my own.

ETA: I assume you do, because as IIRC, when my mother and stepfather got married in the Catholic Church, they also had to sign their marriage license. I remember that clearly, for some reason.

[mscelina]

Wow, Norman. Never thought of that one.

My parents were married in France and they were married twice--first the civil union, then the religious marriage in church. *shrug* The result did not produce good little Catholics--for that matter, it didn't produce a good marriage. Can you just imagine the legalese bureaucracy that would spring up if everyone in this country had to get married TWICE?

*shudders*

[Don]

And what about use who have been married for decades? Would we thus have to go to the courthouse and establish a civil union for purposes of State?
Those could be grandfathered in.

kuwisdelu has restated the definitive answer. Get government out of marriage and religion out of government. Call it bananas and potatos for all I care, but recognize that the civil contract and the religious ceremony are two different things.

[kuwisdelu]

Those could be grandfathered in.

kuwisdelu has restated the definitive answer. Get government out of marriage and religion out of government. Call it bananas and potatos for all I care, but recognize that the civil contract and the religious ceremony are two different things.

Personally, the only downside I see is the added benefit for the religiously married to snarkily comment "yes, but you're not married." :rolleyes: Perhaps another method is better solely to avoid that annoyance? Hmm..

[Lyra Jean]

Looking at it from a Christian viewpoint. I just know that I am not a religious right nutzoid. The Bible was written for Christians so that Christians would have a guidebook on how to live life. So I believe homosexuals should be able to get married. Because if you are not a Christian than the "rules" in the Bible do not apply to you. After all atheists, Wiccans, pagans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, (any other non-christian group here) get married all the time. Why not homosexuals as well?

um please don't hurt me. I don't come here often.

[mscelina]

Why don't we just make marriage illegal? It's a contract broken by over 50% of the people who undertake it...

No, that's not my position. But it is an option. If the distress over the rights of homosexuals to marry lies solely in the word then why not eliminate the word?

[Don]

Personally, the only downside I see is the added benefit for the religiously married to snarkily comment "yes, but you're not married." :rolleyes: Perhaps another method is better solely to avoid that annoyance? Hmm..
Just two new words. How about hitched and godjoined? :D

[mscelina]

:headdesk:

Oh no. I've been fighting about the term 'hitched' with my redneck cousins for years. But, now that I think about it maybe 'gobsmacked' would be an appropriate term.

[rugcat]

:headdesk:

Oh no. I've been fighting about the term 'hitched' with my redneck cousins for years. But, now that I think about it maybe 'gobsmacked' would be an appropriate term.I think hitched combines the idea of being bound together with the idea of being a team working toward a common goal, like two oxen.

Oops. Maybe it's not such a great term.

[pconsidine]

I think it's a pretty clear indication of just how unequal the situation is to just look at the number of hoops a gay couple has to jump through, with powers of attorney, legally shared property, etc. etc., to achieve the same thing a straight couple can do just by walking down to City Hall. Of course, speaking as one whose marriage contract was prematurely ended (read, "a divorced guy"), my opinion on the subject is clearly suspect.

As an aside, I do want to say that the OP was anything but an invitation to level-headed discussion on the topic. The fact that Jo was the only one to respond to it, and only after reaching a certain level of frustration (if I read the subtext of her initial response correctly), should have been a sign of that.

[mscelina]

:D

I've been having a chat with Takvah about this in rep points. Here's my point: I quoted the Declaration earlier. Think about how precisely each word was chosen for that document and why. Think about the terms that were crossed out and replaced. What we've been arguing about here is a word and not the issue. However, we all know what the power of the written language is about. We're writers; it's our job. And for me, PERSONALLY, I cannot approve of a compromise wherein the same legal status is subject to different and distinct terminology. If people are equal in the eyes of the law, they should be equal in the eyes of the dictionary. I am of the opinion that if different terms are used (marriage vs civil union) then that will establish the basis for a legal precedent in which a back door is left open to restrict the civil unions in the future.

maybe I finally spit it out clearly this time.

Sorry, Takvah, for putting this out in the forum. Those darn rep point comment boxes aren't big enough. Besides, I know it must be hard for you to read all that little print...

;)

[JoNightshade]

Since I've been asked, I'll say why I don't believe in gay marriage. First, a couple of qualifiers:

1. Religious reasons apply only to me. In my religion, it's not okay for a man to have sex with a man, or a woman with a woman. It's also not okay to have sex outside of marriage. It's also not okay to get a divorce unless certain things happen. But outside of that religion, my beliefs are totally irrelevant. I do not hold anyone else to my beliefs or expect them to abide by them in any way.
2. This does not mean I treat anyone else with disrespect or disgust or discrimination. I do not treat anyone any differently because of how they behave sexually. Currently I don't happen to have any gay friends, but I certainly have in the past. I also have good friends who are co-habiting out of wedlock, and I have friends who have sex with multiple partners who don't hang around. I have friends who have been divorced for reasons I don't agree with, who have elaborate step-families, etc. etc. Not one of them would consider me discriminatory or bigoted.
3. Nevertheless, if any one of them asked me if I believed what they were doing was right, I would say no, I do not believe it is right. Actually most of them already know perfectly well what I believe.

If I offended anyone by my earlier posts, I apologize. I've just gotten very, very tired of seeing people of any belief system lumped together as a whole. If there's one thing I believe, it's that we're all individuals, and we should be treated as such. I hate how our system polarizes people and convinces us we're on opposite sides of some kind of battle. I hate how people instantly make assumptions about what and who I am based on one single piece of information, without taking the time to know me at all. And I'm sure lots of other people - on both sides - feel this way too.

Okay, now to why I do not support gay marriage. Actually it has relatively little to do with my religious beliefs.

In my opinion, the institution of marriage exists to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. That is its purpose. Yes, individuals may choose not to have children; that is perfectly fine and there is nothing wrong with that. But taking society as a whole, the function of marriage is to provide a stable, loving home for childrearing. So when I look at the issue of marriage, I ask myself: what is best for the child?

In a perfect world, the best position for any child is to grow up in a home with his biological parents – one mother and one father, the people whose DNA he shares. (In fact, even in this imperfect world, the statistics still show (http://www.clasp.org/publications/marriage_brief3_annotated.pdf)that this is ideal.) His development as a stable, healthy human being is best accomplished by seeing the example of the woman and the example of the man, and how they interact with one another. In a perfect world, both of his parents would love him and one another to the best of their abilities.

This is not a perfect world. Parents are not perfect, and they do not always love each other as they ought to. This is why divorce is legal: to protect the child (and the wronged/abused spouse) from an unhealthy environment.

This does not mean that single parenthood is “just as good” as two loving parents, male and female. Obviously many single parents rise to the occasion and manage to raise wonderful individuals in spite of the challenges before them. Nevertheless I do not think any single mom or single dad would say that they would rather raise a child alone than with a loving, supportive spouse. So divorce is an unfortunate amendment to the laws of marriage simply because people are not perfect.

[Side note: Yes, the institution of heterosexual marriage is in a horrifying state these days. But that's a separate issue, in my opinion, and is not a valid argument in favor of homosexual marriage.]

Likewise, sometimes parents die, or for whatever reason abandon their children. This is why we have adoption. Ideally, everyone who had a child would love and care for it, but sometimes this is not possible or wise. We would certainly like every child to be raised by two loving biological parents, but because this is an imperfect world that is not always possible. So adoption is, like divorce, a compensation for an imperfect world.

[Side note: I do not oppose single-parent adoption or homosexual adoption, because it is far better for a child to have one parent or two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.]

Then we come to homosexual marriage. To begin with, there is no physical or genetic way in which these two people can produce a child that shares their DNA. So right from the start, the ideal situation for the child has been eliminated. One parent, if not both, will be unrelated to any children in the household. So in terms of child welfare, homosexual marriage is not an ideal situation. Nor is it a “compensation” for an imperfect world, like divorce or adoption. So what is it? I'm not sure.

But what about love? Shouldn’t we marry for love? Straight people have the right to marry whoever they desire; why shouldn’t gay people be able to do the same?

The statement that I could marry whoever I want is false. As a straight woman, I had all sorts of restrictions placed on who I could and could not marry, completely irrespective of my sexual proclivity. The first man I fell in love with was my high school English teacher. Did I marry him? I couldn’t, because he was already married and wished to remain so. The law prohibited us from getting married because he could not be married to two women at the same time. Was that unfair? I might have felt it was. In fact, there’s far more historical support for polygamy than for homosexual marriage. The Old Testament is filled with men who married any number of women. But overall, this is not the ideal situation for a child. And so we don’t allow it.

I was also quite sexually attracted to my first cousin. We’re of the same age, he’s a nice guy, and sexy as hell. Just for the sake of argument, let’s say he’s my brother rather than my cousin. If we loved each other, why shouldn’t we be allowed to marry? Chances of our children suffering any ill consequences are very low, biologically. Or maybe we would adopt, or simply refrain from having children altogether. Why should this be illegal? Simple: because over time, if such actions were repeated for a generation or two, genetic mistakes would begin to pile up. Although our single marriage might be perfectly wonderful, for society as a whole, incestuous marriages do not produce healthy, well-adjusted children. And so we don’t allow it.

Likewise, I found myself attracted to my female classmate in college. In our relationship, I assumed the “protective male” role. Did I love her? Yes, and I still do. She's one of my best friends. Did I marry her? No, because we were of the same sex.

The point I’m coming to here is that sexual attraction in itself is not a compelling reason for marriage. Sexual attraction is natural, it’s a part of our biological makeup as humans, but it does not control us. People act as if falling in love is something random and unpredictable – something we can’t control or predict. I disagree. Romantic love is a concept that’s only emerged as a real concept in the last century or so. That doesn’t mean romantic love isn’t nice, but it certainly isn’t some all-powerful force we’re compelled to obey.

Do I think some people are “wired” to be sexually attracted to the same sex? It’s certainly possible. It’s equally possible that people are “wired” to be obese or alcoholic. But you know what? We’re not animals. We’re not compelled to obey our every impulse. I have free will and an intellect, and I choose to use both. I have a friend whose parents are both alcoholics. You know what? She doesn't drink. Likewise, I didn’t hop into bed with every man (or woman) I found myself attracted to, no matter how strong my desire was, because intellectually I knew it was not in my best interests. I chose to disregard my sexual impulses until the right situation came along.

As an individual, I have always found myself sexually attracted to tall, slender men with dark complexions. Did I marry a tall, slender man with a dark complexion? No, I chose to marry a short, tubby guy so white he could blind you if he took off his shirt. Why? Because for me, love was not about sexual attraction, although that came later as I began to see who he was from the inside out. It’s not about him being a man, either. It’s about the fact that we share the same dreams and goals and ideas. It’s about the fact that we agree about how children should be raised. It’s about our commitment to one another. It’s about being best friends.

But does that mean he’s the only guy on the planet I could have married? Absolutely not. I’m sure I could have walked away from him (initially) and eventually found someone else to be happy with. Or not; maybe I would have remained single for the rest of my life. This was also a possibility I was willing to accept.

So that's why I don't support gay marriage. You may disagree with me on any number of points made here, but that's your right. Nevertheless, I do not think my opinion makes me evil or discriminatory or anything negative at all. It's my opinion.

[Norman D Gutter]

Those could be grandfathered in.

Could being the operative word. But would they? Probably so, but no one knows.

From the late 1500s till 1837, the authorized church in England was responsible, by law, to register all births in their parish, the church being considered an arm of the government. Many people, however, had nothing to do with the established church and never had their children's births recorded. Parliament passed a law, turning that responsibility over to the State on 1 July 1837. The month of June 1837, especially the last day or two, saw a flood of people who had never registered their children with the church coming to the church and registering the birth of their children, and sometimes of themselves, fearing what would happen once the law went in effect. If their birth wasn't registered by the church, would they be forced to register with the government, and pay a fee? Many were suspicious of government, and wanted no part of the State knowing who they were and when they were born.

A poor example perhaps (though a good example why the church never should have been an arm of the government in the first place), but would a change in the law result in a rush of people who are legally married deciding to form civil unions, our of fear that the government would no longer recognize their marriage? Because all clergy are likely to lose their authorization to perform marriages.

Just something to think about as this decision is made.

NDG

[Jersey Chick]

Not to mention the fact that civil unions are not necessarily recognized by all 50 states. So, in NJ, you'd be civilly unionized (an incredibly stupid term, if you ask me) but go to one that doesn't and whoops! No you aren't civillay unionized! Idiotic to say the least.

[JoNightshade]

Uh, incidentally, I'm getting quite a lot of reps from people who agree with me but are scared to step in for fear (I assume) of being bludgeoned or labeled bigots.

[maestrowork]

It's very simple:

- call everything civil unions. There should be no "gays vs. straights" separation then. It's a secular issue. Two adults who want to build a life together should be able to do so and have the same benefits and restrictions as everyone else. Don't call it marriage, then. So, yes, that means you and you and you who are not "married" by the church. You have a civil union, not marriage.

- if you want to get married, and since it's a "religious term," then get a church to marry you. If that's really want you care about, the "sanctity" of the definition. And that includes religious gays and lesbians.

- The whole thing about "marriage is defined as a holy union between a man and woman" doesn't mean it can't be changed. Many things have changed over the centuries, even within the Church itself. The inclusion of women, for example. Even the Church's stance of homosexuality has changed over time. Nothing is set in stone, especially if you consider the term "marriage" is actually a relative recent thing, and it's made up by humans, not God.

- Bottom line, everyone should have the same basic rights. For the government to tell us one group of people (and please, don't even bring out the pedophile/man-dog argument) can or can't do something is just wrong, especially in the spirit of the American constitution.

- If you believe homosexuality is wrong because of moral or religious reasons, that's your right. However, it shouldn't dictate how our government and laws work. Church vs. State. We can't dictate how people live: that if you're a single parent, or if you're married and then you come out as gay, etc. etc. does that make your life and your family any less valid than a man/woman pair and their family? Who's the say that? Aren't we condescending in thinking that there's only one good way of having a family?

And to include discriminatory language and restriction in our constitutions is simply wrong. Can you EVER imagine a constitutional amendment banning interracial unions/marriages?


And let's take away the definition of marriage... the fact is, right now only a handful of states even accept civil unions between gay people. We're not even close to having equality (#1). They can't even have civil unions now. Argue about "marriage" all you want, but our country has fallen really short as far as equal rights are concerned.

[Takvah]

:D

I've been having a chat with Takvah about this in rep points. Here's my point: I quoted the Declaration earlier. Think about how precisely each word was chosen for that document and why. Think about the terms that were crossed out and replaced. What we've been arguing about here is a word and not the issue. However, we all know what the power of the written language is about. We're writers; it's our job. And for me, PERSONALLY, I cannot approve of a compromise wherein the same legal status is subject to different and distinct terminology. If people are equal in the eyes of the law, they should be equal in the eyes of the dictionary. I am of the opinion that if different terms are used (marriage vs civil union) then that will establish the basis for a legal precedent in which a back door is left open to restrict the civil unions in the future.

maybe I finally spit it out clearly this time.

Sorry, Takvah, for putting this out in the forum. Those darn rep point comment boxes aren't big enough. Besides, I know it must be hard for you to read all that little print...

;)

I just wish you had been so eloquent in there... it would have spared you the secondary effort. I think that your own argument defeats itself. Writers should choose the word that best applies to the situation. Language, especially in law... should strive to be precise. People assume marriage to mean, man to woman. I just don't think that imparting the same rights to gays and straights, but using two different terms for their legal unions diminishes in ANY WAY, the fact that they are equal under the law. What it does, is distinguishes the fundamental difference which is that one is man to woman and the other is same sex. If I write, "Terry and Alice were married," I bet the vast majority of my readers would believe Terry was a man. Is Terry a man? Maybe not. If I write, "Terry and Alice were civilly joined", I think that people would assume Terry is a woman... otherwise, why not use the term married?

Oh God, I am giving myself a headache. We'll agree to disagree... but I'm not bending on this one. I think that the "word" is the root of the issue with a great many people... both for and against.

[Lyv]

And how does it help children to deny their parents the right to marry? To give them less security? Put them at a financial disadvantage? I wish the "for the children" people would listen to the kids themselves. They'll tell you what's best for them is equality for their parents. A lot of them here in MA told legislators just that, and many of them listened.

How many generations of happy, healthy, kids raised by gay parents is it going to take to put the "for the children" argument to rest?

[pconsidine]

Uh, incidentally, I'm getting quite a lot of reps from people who agree with me but are scared to step in for fear (I assume) of being bludgeoned or labeled bigots.Well, I'll step up and say publicly that I agree in principle, but that my feelings about the matter reach a bit beyond the scope of the current discussion, so I won't really go into detail here.

[Bartholomew]

Uh, incidentally, I'm getting quite a lot of reps from people who agree with me but are scared to step in for fear (I assume) of being bludgeoned or labeled bigots.

Hi, people who've repped Jo. This really is about dialogue! Share.

I'm on my school computer; I'll reply more in depth later.

[Williebee]

In a perfect world, the best position for any child is to grow up in a home with his biological parents – one mother and one father, the people whose DNA he shares. (In fact, even in this imperfect world, the statistics still show that this is ideal.) His development as a stable, healthy human being is best accomplished by seeing the example of the woman and the example of the man, and how they interact with one another. In a perfect world, both of his parents would love him and one another to the best of their abilities.

Well stated, Miss Jo, with my thanks.

"In a perfect world" we perhaps wouldn't need this conversation. But, it isn't a perfect world. And that makes the statistics you reference, perhaps, incomplete.

We don't know what the statistics would be for children in "free" gay marriages yet.

As to others who are observing, but not bringing forth their opinions, I would hope that they would enter into the discussion. It may have started out roughly, but the last several pages would indicate a very earnest level of discourse.

[Bartholomew]

I'm just curious why you felt it necessary to label this as flimsy. If it is somebody's reason then its valid to them and therefore just as valid as any other argument.

Because it is generally symptomatic of deeper reasoning, and I didn't want people to argue semantics.

[Celia Cyanide]

I can't speak for Jo (and I won't presume such), but my guess is for a lot of people is that it's very much like disrespecting someone's religious beliefs, trying to legislate their church.

If the church itself is okay with blessing or performing a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple, then that's okay. Why should the state be telling a religious organization that they MUST allow it?

Legalizing gay marriage is not telling a religious organization that they MUST allow gay marriage any more than it tells them they MUST allow all straight marriages. Many churches do not acknowledge certain marriages for various reasons, even though they are considered legal. For example, some churches will not allow anyone to remarry after divorce. Still, they can do it legally if they want to.

[kuwisdelu]

*snip*

Personally, I disagree with your premise that the purpose of marriage is to raise children. Furthermore, I'd question the logic that if an unmarried couple is raising a child, marriage automatically provides a better environment for raising that child (correct me if I'm misinterpreting). And from there, I'd question--if that is assumed to be true--why, if an unmarried homosexual couple adopts a child, why would their being married not provide a better environment for the child? Conversely, how would that environment get any worse? I ask, since you say you're not opposed to gay adoption.

PS
I don't think you're a bigot. I just think you're wrong (but for much better and more articulate reasons than I usually hear!). ;)

[mscelina]

Okay, Takvah--we'll agree to disagree. It's not like we haven't done it before. ;)

Jo and people who repped Jo--there's a huge difference between having an opinion that you use in application to your life and being bigoted. There is a wobbly line between the two on hot-button issues like gay marriage. Jo negotiated it well, IMO. Emulate her and share. :)

[Don]

Uh, incidentally, I'm getting quite a lot of reps from people who agree with me but are scared to step in for fear (I assume) of being bludgeoned or labeled bigots.
That happens a lot to me too, Jo, although not necessarily in this topic. It's because you're brave. Be proud!

As for those lurkers; thanks for the points, but don't be afraid to speak out. Those of us with minority opinions can use all the support we can get. :)

[Lyv]

No one's been called a bigot and no one's been bludgeoned. Maybe it's not fear keeping people from posting.

[Don]

No one's been called a bigot and no one's been bludgeoned. Maybe it's not fear keeping people from posting.
Fear has a lot to do with it. This place used to be a shark tank. :roll:

[maestrowork]

If marriage does provide a safer, better environment for children (we can argue about that, since a lot of children come from broken, dysfunctional heterosexual marriages), then more the reasons to allow gay marriages, for the sakes of these people's children.

Still, people don't get married because of "oh, because we're going to have children and provide a safe household for them." Most people don't even THINK of children when they get married, and many married couples don't have children and never will. So the whole thing about marriage = children seems a bit overstretched to me -- it's more of an argument to support a belief or view point/ideology than the true reality. The reality is, two committed people who love their families would provide for a great environment for their children -- gay or straight. To suggest that gay people would be lesser parents than heterosexuals would be wrong, IMHO. Plus, gay people can be biological parents as well -- the whole argument that gay people can't have children is a flimsy one, in the days of medical technologies (not to mention gay parents who were in heterosexual marriages before).


Also, I agree with Celia. Just because you allow it doesn't mean the Church has to perform it. But it's a whole lot of different than actually BANNING it. You don't have to read or publish a book if it's not your thing, but to actually BAN a book? It's something like that.

[Jersey Chick]

I might not agree with her position, but I would hardly label Jo (or anyone) a bigot based on that alone. That's not what makes someone a bigot, IMO. Especially since she's been forthcoming in her reasons why, which are perfectly valid as well. There's a huge difference between "I don't think gays should be allowed to marry" and "I hate homosexuals. Period. End of discussion. No reasons needed."

[maxmordon]

Wow, Norman. Never thought of that one.

My parents were married in France and they were married twice--first the civil union, then the religious marriage in church. *shrug* The result did not produce good little Catholics--for that matter, it didn't produce a good marriage. Can you just imagine the legalese bureaucracy that would spring up if everyone in this country had to get married TWICE?

*shudders*

As I pointed out before, this is the case in a lot of Catholic countries (as my country, for example)

[maestrowork]

I might not agree, but I would hardly label Jo (or anyone) a bigot based on that alone. That's not what makes someone a bigot, IMO. Especially since she's been forthcoming in her reasons why, which are perfectly valid as well. There's a huge difference between "I don't think gays should be allowed to marry" and "I hate homosexuals. Period. End of discussion. No reasons needed."

I surely hope no one is saying Jo is a bigot. We may not agree, but I think there is a difference.

[maxmordon]

We also teach our children that God said "Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged." and "He that is without sin cast the first stone."

There is a movie (one of my favorite ones, by the way) called Su Excelencia and there is this line of Cantinflas, "that poor carpenter, who died almost two thousand years in the cross for saying love thy neighbor, but seems you all have heard all these years Loathe thy neighbor!"

[Jersey Chick]

That was the point I was trying to make - I'm not saying she is.

eta - this is in response to ray's post. :D

[Danger Jane]

Gah, another of those "I won't get involved" "dammit yes you will" "no I won't!" self-examinations....

...Anyway, I'm one of those who believe that hetero and homosexual marriages should be equal under the law, churches can marry whom they choose, and people can use the terminology that pleases them.

I guess I might have a strange perspective on this, since I am of the belief that the Bible actually does not condemn homosexuality (at least any more than it does out-of-wedlock heterosexual sex), but due to a series of misinterpretations and mistranslations, most people strongly believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. That, coupled with my personal relationship with God (something many Christians should understand), lead me to believe that God doesn't mind me having a girlfriend, one I intend to marry, but also being Catholic.

It was a big problem for me, reconciling that objectively, I COULD chose some other life than one shared fully with the girl I love (emotionally first, always before sexually), like celibacy or else just "sucking it up" and marrying a guy so I could have a family. But after a lot of prayer and soul-searching, I came to the conclusion that...ahem...it's okay.

Interestingly, the emotional problems and unprecedented levels of stress I experienced last winter have entirely vanished since coming to terms with this.

[JoNightshade]

Personally, I disagree with your premise that the purpose of marriage is to raise children. Furthermore, I'd question the logic that if an unmarried couple is raising a child, marriage automatically provides a better environment for raising that child (correct me if I'm misinterpreting).

Did you look at the link I included? The article addresses this issue. You're paring things down to individual examples - one unmarried couple raising one child. True - perhaps for them marriage or no marriage wouldn't make any difference. But for society as a whole, the larger picture, it matters quite a bit.

And from there, I'd question--if that is assumed to be true--why, if an unmarried homosexual couple adopts a child, why would their being married not provide a better environment for the child? Conversely, how would that environment get any worse? I ask, since you say you're not opposed to gay adoption.

At the risk of derailing... Regarding the issue of single parent and homosexual adoption - I think preference on any adoption should go to stable, two-parent households. (And my personal opinion is that a LOT more Christians need to step up to bat on this one if they want their opinions to be taken seriously.) But if a child needs a home, and a single person wants to take that child, so be it. One parent is better than none. As for homosexual adoption, I'd like to see it handled in the same way as single-parent adoption. That is, one of the two individuals becomes the child's legal parent. The other is free to assume legal responsibility for the child if the single parent so wishes. It's equivalent to, say, a single mom living with a sister or an aunt who also looks after the child and has the authority to take them out of school or be with them at the hospital or whatever. We're still missing a dad, which in my opinion is still not optimal, but two responsible caring adults is better than none.

As I see it, this issue is completely separate from homosexual marriage. Going back to the analogy of the sister or aunt living with a single mom - the sister and mom are not required to be married to validate that relationship.

So no, I do not think that this special set of circumstances warrants the government/societal sanction of a practice that, in my opinion, is not in the best interests of the majority of children.

However, as others have pointed out, I think our society does need to make some changes in terms of the legal hoops people have to jump through to create different kinds of legal relationships. It shouldn't be as difficult as it is.

PS
I don't think you're a bigot. I just think you're wrong (but for much better and more articulate reasons than I usually hear!). ;)

Thanks! BTW, I think you're wrong too. ;) (And honestly I didn't meant to accuse everyone of accusing me of that - it just seemed to be the way this thread was heading, initially. I think we're okay now.)

[InfinityGoddess]

Incidentally, I'd like to ask people in general who believe marriage is about having kids what they think of heterosexual couples who marry but choose not to have children. Because really, marriage is more about love and wanting access to your partner in time of need (such as in the hospital) than just simply reproducing. Kids can be in the equation too, but they surely can't be the only reason for a couple getting together.

[Jersey Chick]

Or couples who can't have children. How would they factor in?

[TerzaRima]

Or those who marry but can't have kids. Is such a union less valid than one undertaken by a fertile couple?

[dgiharris]

Another argument against Gay Marraige

Jo's post brought a fundamental truth to light that will make me reevaluate my views on gay marriage (currently, i'm for gay marriage)

The biggest logical argument I can see against it is that it is not in the best interest of evolution of the species.

Under our evolutionary model, the goal of every species is not just survival but to thrive. Our biological makeup is hardwired to constantly seek out the best mate with the intent of producing the best offspring.

The statistics support this, look at the trend of increasing physical and mental accomplishments. The Olympic records of the 1970s wouldn't even place a medal in College and sometimes High school varsity sporting events.

A gay lifestyle is not in the best interest of the species. It does not allow for individuals to pass on their collective genes to produce a better offspring. Applied whollistically, it would lead to a degradation and stagnation of the gene pool.

Furthermore, it undercuts one of the most powerful instincts in nature, that being biology.

In normal models (and in the majority of cases), when parents have children, there is a biological link to the child that COMPELS the parent, against all logic, against all reason, to care for and provide for the child. Will gays adopting children feel this same link? What happens when they divorce and the child has no biological link to either?
Sure, many gays will 'love' the child but compared as a whole to the biological link, would that love be equal to the love of a biological parent?

Overall, as a mathematical model, the best genes do not propogate under a gay scenario, in fact, they lead to the stagnation and degradation of the gene pool.

Cloning is too new to be considered a viable alternative yet, and mathematically there are serious problems with cloning (making a copy of a copy of a copy) for it to be a long term solution..

Surrogate mothers are a potential fix, however, the economic impact of this on a large scale would set (finding a mother) above finding the best genetic pairing and again, the best genes do not move forward. Also, not all gay and lesbian couples are affluent, so this will be beyond the means of the majority of gays.

The end effect would be a growing number of childless adults becoming elderly and placing an increase burden on our social systems. For the same link that compels a parent to look after a child also compels a child to look after their aging parents. Under a gay model, the number of elderly childless adults increases almost geometrically over time. This would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in increase social services costs.

Well that's enough for now. In short, not good for the species as applied whollistically or over time.

Mel...

[Lyv]

I still don't understand how less security, stability and respect, and fewer financial advantages are better for the children of gay parents, adopted or not. If the concern is what's best for children, why do the worst thing for them?

Even the US government puts the following on a child welfare website (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm):

The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents.
Study after study concludes the same thing. We see generations of children prove the same thing. We see these children asking for equality for their parents. We see young people asking for the right to marry someday. You won't convince them you want what's best for them if you're against gay marriage.

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQBfrImBYBA) shows but one child of gay parents. Listen to those directly affected, Jo. Let them tell you what they think is best for them.

Earlier, Jo, you referred to your future-child being laughed at for believing homosexuality is a sin. What if that child is gay?

[maxmordon]

I guess I might have a strange perspective on this, since I am of the belief that the Bible actually does not condemn homosexuality (at least any more than it does out-of-wedlock heterosexual sex), but due to a series of misinterpretations and mistranslations, most people strongly believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. That, coupled with my personal relationship with God (something many Christians should understand), lead me to believe that God doesn't mind me having a girlfriend, one I intend to marry, but also being Catholic.

That's why Bible shouldn't in my opinion, being taken literary, it's a guideline to help us live better that has been translated at least 3 or 4 times before reaching to us, so they are transfiguraded through time and people, who are above all still humans. Not even the Catholic Church considers the Old Testament as literal (but allegorical) but sadly, people adore to misquote or put them out of context just to prove they are right.

I am a Catholic, but nonetheless I would like to read The Bible among others religious books (like the Qu'ran and the Popol Vuh) before doing my Confirmation. Read more about the different faces of God as that primordial spirit and develope a better relationship with Him.

By the way, have a nice wedding/civil union/whatever/Etc.

[kuwisdelu]

Did you look at the link I included? The article addresses this issue. You're paring things down to individual examples - one unmarried couple raising one child. True - perhaps for them marriage or no marriage wouldn't make any difference. But for society as a whole, the larger picture, it matters quite a bit.

I study statistics, so I like them. However, in this particular matter, I don't think it's a decision that ought to be made with statistics. Because, ultimately, the whole point of protecting peoples' rights (such as the right of a gay person to marry someone of the same sex--which is what I think it is) is about the defense of those in the minority.

But I think that misses the point of my argument. What I'm saying is that the logic doesn't seem to work out. You've said you don't have a problem with gay adoption, even if it's not what's preferable, because having a caring parent(s) is better than none. Okay. What I'm asking is, if a child is adopted by a homosexual who has a partner, what difference does it make if they are "married" or not?

The statistics you showed suggested children raised by same-sex couples most often turn out similarly to children raised by divorced couples--but this is mostly because children raised by same-sex couples have gone through a parents' divorce. That seems to suggest same-sex couples--married or not--are just as capable child-rearers as regular ol' straight married couples, and that it's hard to fix up the past.

So I'm not sure why this is an argument against gay marriage.

I think preference on any adoption should go to stable, two-parent households.

This statement seems in direct contradiction to

As for homosexual adoption, I'd like to see it handled in the same way as single-parent adoption.

this one.

That is, one of the two individuals becomes the child's legal parent. The other is free to assume legal responsibility for the child if the single parent so wishes. It's equivalent to, say, a single mom living with a sister or an aunt who also looks after the child and has the authority to take them out of school or be with them at the hospital or whatever. We're still missing a dad, which in my opinion is still not optimal, but two responsible caring adults is better than none.

Legally, how you view it? Yes, they're the same. Emotionally, I personally wouldn't think so.

[kuwisdelu]

Another argument against Gay Marraige

Jo's post brought a fundamental truth to light that will make me reevaluate my views on gay marriage (currently, i'm for gay marriage)

The biggest logical argument I can see against it is that it is not in the best interest of evolution of the species.

Under our evolutionary model, the goal of every species is not just survival but to thrive. Our biological makeup is hardwired to constantly seek out the best mate with the intent of producing the best offspring.

The statistics support this, look at the trend of increasing physical and mental accomplishments. The Olympic records of the 1970s wouldn't even place a medal in College and sometimes High school varsity sporting events.

A gay lifestyle is not in the best interest of the species. It does not allow for individuals to pass on their collective genes to produce a better offspring. Applied whollistically, it would lead to a degradation and stagnation of the gene pool.

Furthermore, it undercuts one of the most powerful instincts in nature, that being biology.

In normal models (and in the majority of cases), when parents have children, there is a biological link to the child that COMPELS the parent, against all logic, against all reason, to care for and provide for the child. Will gays adopting children feel this same link? What happens when they divorce and the child has no biological link to either?
Sure, many gays will 'love' the child but compared as a whole to the biological link, would that love be equal to the love of a biological parent?

Overall, as a mathematical model, the best genes do not propogate under a gay scenario, in fact, they lead to the stagnation and degradation of the gene pool.

Cloning is too new to be considered a viable alternative yet, and mathematically there are serious problems with cloning (making a copy of a copy of a copy) for it to be a long term solution..

Surrogate mothers are a potential fix, however, the economic impact of this on a large scale would set (finding a mother) above finding the best genetic pairing and again, the best genes do not move forward. Also, not all gay and lesbian couples are affluent, so this will be beyond the means of the majority of gays.

The end effect would be a growing number of childless adults becoming elderly and placing an increase burden on our social systems. For the same link that compels a parent to look after a child also compels a child to look after their aging parents. Under a gay model, the number of elderly childless adults increases almost geometrically over time. This would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in increase social services costs.

Well that's enough for now. In short, not good for the species as applied whollistically or over time.

Mel...

The problem with that argument is that it seems to assume an awful lot more people are gay than there actually are. With the problems of overpopulation and how many orphans there are and kids in the foster care system, I'd say evolution is definitely not an issue. In fact, we could use more couples out there not having biological children and raising kids who aren't their own.

[MarkEsq]

The biggest logical argument I can see against it is that it is not in the best interest of evolution of the species.



Anyone else see the irony of an evolutionary argument being used in favor of banning gay marriage?

Mel, you're a genius. :)

[Don]

Anyone else see the irony of an evolutionary argument being used in favor of banning gay marriage?

Mel, you're a genius. :)
Yeah, you gotta give Mel that. Eugenics hasn't been 'in' since the 30's. :D

[BenPanced]

I'm sorry but we're not talking about separate schools here, or anything of the sort. There would be no "test" within the law that would in any way distinguish between marriages and unions other than one word meaning man to woman and the other same sex. I really find this to be a viable compromise because gays get their "marriage" and religious folks get their so-called protection. I agree that legislatures cannot be allowed to separate the terms within the context of the law.
Then what are you going to call the "civil unions" between straight folks who get married at a courthouse but not in a church? Are they married or is there going to be yet another term?

[BenPanced]

In normal models (and in the majority of cases), when parents have children, there is a biological link to the child that COMPELS the parent, against all logic, against all reason, to care for and provide for the child. Will gays adopting children feel this same link? What happens when they divorce and the child has no biological link to either?
Sure, many gays will 'love' the child but compared as a whole to the biological link, would that love be equal to the love of a biological parent?
What of the case where one of the biological parents is a partner in a gay relationship? Many lesbians are artificially inseminated and carry the baby to term. What about male sperm donors? Are you saying they would have less of a biological link to a child that actually shares their genes?

[maxmordon]

Civil unions are often blessed in church, mainly the Anglican church in the UK. As the following story shows there is little difference between a civil union and a marriage ceremony if the partners involved want a religious ceremony. It is my belief that in a short period of time there will be no difference at all, everything evolves. Those that have strong objections to two people who love each other getting married will join less progressive churches.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2130668/Male-priests-marry-in-Anglican-church's-first-gay-'wedding'.html

Exactly, is not perfect. But something is something and not nothing

[Jersey Chick]

Wait, so now, if we allow gay marriage, there will be more gay people? Does not allowing gay marriage make gay people less gay? I fail to see the logic in that. Seriously, how does allowing already-gay people to get married make for more gay people? Maybe my blonde is showing, but this just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[pconsidine]

The biggest logical argument I can see against it is that it is not in the best interest of evolution of the species. Actually, I don't think it affects the health and welfare of the species at all in and of itself. If a gay married couple were to adopt a child, I don't think there would be any affect on the general survivability of that child's genes, except perhaps to extend them, due to a higher level of care than the child's natural family could or would have provided.

Where it does become an issue (in my mind, at least) is when gay couples have their own kids through artificial insemination or other scientific means – an issue which goes far beyond gay marriage, or even homosexuality in general, seeing as there are plenty of straight couples who do the same thing. That's where the survivability of humans becomes more questionable, as genes that could not have been perpetuated by natural means are now being carried on to another generation.

However, as I previously said, that's way beyond the scope of the current conversation.

[mscelina]

Wait, so now, if we allow gay marriage, there will be more gay people? Does not allowing gay marriage make gay people less gay? I fail to see the logic in that. Seriously, how does allowing already-gay people to get married make for more gay people? Maybe my blonde is showing, but this just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

You're not blond at the moment, JC. You're redheaded like me. That's why it didn't make any sense to you.

[kuwisdelu]

Wait, so now, if we allow gay marriage, there will be more gay people? Does not allowing gay marriage make gay people less gay? I fail to see the logic in that. Seriously, how does allowing already-gay people to get married make for more gay people? Maybe my blonde is showing, but this just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Don't worry; it doesn't make sense; everything's okay.

Where it does become an issue (in my mind, at least) is when gay couples have their own kids through artificial insemination or other scientific means – an issue which goes far beyond gay marriage, or even homosexuality in general, seeing as there are plenty of straight couples who do the same thing. That's where the survivability of humans becomes more questionable, as genes that could not have been perpetuated by natural means are now being carried on to another generation.

In the case of artificial insemination, they're usually genes that could be carried on, it's just a different way of doing it. Usually it's just helping out a couple having trouble conceiving (and these days, infertility doesn't always have much to do with genes), or bypassing the sex.

You're not blond at the moment, JC. You're redheaded like me. That's why it didn't make any sense to you.

I love redheads!

/off-topic

[Jersey Chick]

Whew - okay - now that that's cleared up...

[mscelina]

Gee, kuwisdelu--you mean you really couldn't tell?

*wink*

[TsukiRyoko]

[Side note: Yes, the institution of heterosexual marriage is in a horrifying state these days. But that's a separate issue, in my opinion, and is not a valid argument in favor of homosexual marriage.]

Likewise, sometimes parents die, or for whatever reason abandon their children. This is why we have adoption. Ideally, everyone who had a child would love and care for it, but sometimes this is not possible or wise. We would certainly like every child to be raised by two loving biological parents, but because this is an imperfect world that is not always possible. So adoption is, like divorce, a compensation for an imperfect world.

[Side note: I do not oppose single-parent adoption or homosexual adoption, because it is far better for a child to have one parent or two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.]

Then we come to homosexual marriage. To begin with, there is no physical or genetic way in which these two people can produce a child that shares their DNA. So right from the start, the ideal situation for the child has been eliminated. One parent, if not both, will be unrelated to any children in the household. So in terms of child welfare, homosexual marriage is not an ideal situation. Nor is it a “compensation” for an imperfect world, like divorce or adoption. So what is it? I'm not sure.

But what about love? Shouldn’t we marry for love? Straight people have the right to marry whoever they desire; why shouldn’t gay people be able to do the same?

The statement that I could marry whoever I want is false. As a straight woman, I had all sorts of restrictions placed on who I could and could not marry, completely irrespective of my sexual proclivity. The first man I fell in love with was my high school English teacher. Did I marry him? I couldn’t, because he was already married and wished to remain so. The law prohibited us from getting married because he could not be married to two women at the same time. Was that unfair? I might have felt it was. In fact, there’s far more historical support for polygamy than for homosexual marriage. The Old Testament is filled with men who married any number of women. But overall, this is not the ideal situation for a child. And so we don’t allow it.

I was also quite sexually attracted to my first cousin. We’re of the same age, he’s a nice guy, and sexy as hell. Just for the sake of argument, let’s say he’s my brother rather than my cousin. If we loved each other, why shouldn’t we be allowed to marry? Chances of our children suffering any ill consequences are very low, biologically. Or maybe we would adopt, or simply refrain from having children altogether. Why should this be illegal? Simple: because over time, if such actions were repeated for a generation or two, genetic mistakes would begin to pile up. Although our single marriage might be perfectly wonderful, for society as a whole, incestuous marriages do not produce healthy, well-adjusted children. And so we don’t allow it.

Likewise, I found myself attracted to my female classmate in college. In our relationship, I assumed the “protective male” role. Did I love her? Yes, and I still do. She's one of my best friends. Did I marry her? No, because we were of the same sex.

The point I’m coming to here is that sexual attraction in itself is not a compelling reason for marriage. Sexual attraction is natural, it’s a part of our biological makeup as humans, but it does not control us. People act as if falling in love is something random and unpredictable – something we can’t control or predict. I disagree. Romantic love is a concept that’s only emerged as a real concept in the last century or so. That doesn’t mean romantic love isn’t nice, but it certainly isn’t some all-powerful force we’re compelled to obey.

Do I think some people are “wired” to be sexually attracted to the same sex? It’s certainly possible. It’s equally possible that people are “wired” to be obese or alcoholic. But you know what? We’re not animals. We’re not compelled to obey our every impulse. I have free will and an intellect, and I choose to use both. I have a friend whose parents are both alcoholics. You know what? She doesn't drink. Likewise, I didn’t hop into bed with every man (or woman) I found myself attracted to, no matter how strong my desire was, because intellectually I knew it was not in my best interests. I chose to disregard my sexual impulses until the right situation came along.

As an individual, I have always found myself sexually attracted to tall, slender men with dark complexions. Did I marry a tall, slender man with a dark complexion? No, I chose to marry a short, tubby guy so white he could blind you if he took off his shirt. Why? Because for me, love was not about sexual attraction, although that came later as I began to see who he was from the inside out. It’s not about him being a man, either. It’s about the fact that we share the same dreams and goals and ideas. It’s about the fact that we agree about how children should be raised. It’s about our commitment to one another. It’s about being best friends.

But does that mean he’s the only guy on the planet I could have married? Absolutely not. I’m sure I could have walked away from him (initially) and eventually found someone else to be happy with. Or not; maybe I would have remained single for the rest of my life. This was also a possibility I was willing to accept.

So that's why I don't support gay marriage. You may disagree with me on any number of points made here, but that's your right. Nevertheless, I do not think my opinion makes me evil or discriminatory or anything negative at all. It's my opinion. Had to downsize you post a bit, but I'm mostly commenting on your latter argument about why gay marriage should not be allowed. Your argument was very good and showed a lot of valid poitns from your side, but I still think it should be allowed for one reason: straights have the legal ability to marry anyone who fits the legal discription of "single". Marriage is ideally an institution that should be based on love, for the sake of procreation, and should last a lifetime. However, this doesn't mean this is why people marry. If I find a single guy and he asks me to marry him, the state will let me do it with no questions asked. I think gays should have the exact same rights. Will they be able to make their own children? Not with assistance from somewhere else, or they'll have to adopt. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. I know a straight couple who got married and ended up adopting many children because they couldn't have one of their own. Should they have not been allowed to marry because they could reproduce? I don't think so. They adopted a familky of needy, abandoned kids (11 in total, and they made the decision to adopt so many so as to not break up the siblings). Their kids are happy, functioning, and all their many needs are being met. They're a good family together, the parents are thrilled to finally have kids, and they do a very good job parenting. Why couldn't a gay couple do the same if they wanted kids? Sure they can make kids with their own genetic make-up, but does that really matter? I don't know if this law is in all states, but I know it's in most- you can't adopt unless you're married. By keeping marriage rights away from gay couples, many absolutely cannot adopt, even if they really want a kid, and that's because of legal and social prejudices.

Moreso, even if a gay couple wanted to get married for no other reason than to have a ring on their finger, they should be able to do so. Why? Because a straight couple can do it, too. It may not be seen as morally right or socially acceptable, but straight couples do it all the time. Equal rights is about being fair- legally, "fair" doesn't always mean "correct". A straight couple can be married under just about any circumstance, and I think homosexuals should be able to do the same thing.

[TsukiRyoko]

Gah, another of those "I won't get involved" "dammit yes you will" "no I won't!" self-examinations....

...Anyway, I'm one of those who believe that hetero and homosexual marriages should be equal under the law, churches can marry whom they choose, and people can use the terminology that pleases them.

I guess I might have a strange perspective on this, since I am of the belief that the Bible actually does not condemn homosexuality (at least any more than it does out-of-wedlock heterosexual sex), but due to a series of misinterpretations and mistranslations, most people strongly believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. That, coupled with my personal relationship with God (something many Christians should understand), lead me to believe that God doesn't mind me having a girlfriend, one I intend to marry, but also being Catholic.

It was a big problem for me, reconciling that objectively, I COULD chose some other life than one shared fully with the girl I love (emotionally first, always before sexually), like celibacy or else just "sucking it up" and marrying a guy so I could have a family. But after a lot of prayer and soul-searching, I came to the conclusion that...ahem...it's okay.

Interestingly, the emotional problems and unprecedented levels of stress I experienced last winter have entirely vanished since coming to terms with this.
My personal set of religious beliefs are actually somewhat scientific, if you will. There's evidence of people all around the world throughout history who, before even knowing there were other people on the planet on a different land mass, had religion. If you read up on religious beliefs around the world, many of them coincide with one another and have deep roots in history, many of these roots spreading before these people had the chance to be influenced by other walks of life. I believe that whatever higher power (who, for the sake of this discussionand my own and other's religious beliefs, I will keep nameless) is out there has instilled certain beliefs in our hearts that we follow ever day, just because it feels "right". I also think that ever person's purpose and relationship with that higher power is very personal and should be treated as such. Because of this, despite many of the religious texts I've read in my life, I choose not to follow something someone else wrote word-for-word. I also think that this higher power does not look down on entire groups of people for how they live their lives, who they choose to stay with, how much money they have in their pocket, or what they lecture other people on, but instead focuses on the essence of that person and... hell, in my experience, that's all that really matters.

[Danger Jane]

I'm not sure how the evolution argument applies when we, as a species, have slowed the process down exponentially simply by our humanity--by understanding that just because someone isn't strongest, smartest, or most "attractive", that doesn't mean they're unfit for survival. Especially in our modern age where we can help those with previously fatal genetic disorders live a relatively comfortable life, I'm not sure the evolution/survival of the species argument holds.

It shouldn't be disregarded, either, that the desire to have a child transcends sexuality (and gender), and many people, married or not, gay or straight, just know they are meant to be a parent. Which would take care of the "but the sex isn't potentially procreative" problem, except many believe it's unhealthy for kids to be raised in a "homosexual lifestyle".

That's a phrase that confuses me. I consider myself a fairly average person (aside of course from my killer good looks, charm, wit, etc :tongue) and plan to lead a fairly normal life. I'm not sure how being a lesbian makes my lifestyle "gay". I guess what I'm getting at is it's a strange way to categorize people.

[Danger Jane]

Actually, I don't think it affects the health and welfare of the species at all in and of itself. If a gay married couple were to adopt a child, I don't think there would be any affect on the general survivability of that child's genes, except perhaps to extend them, due to a higher level of care than the child's natural family could or would have provided.

Where it does become an issue (in my mind, at least) is when gay couples have their own kids through artificial insemination or other scientific means – an issue which goes far beyond gay marriage, or even homosexuality in general, seeing as there are plenty of straight couples who do the same thing. That's where the survivability of humans becomes more questionable, as genes that could not have been perpetuated by natural means are now being carried on to another generation.

However, as I previously said, that's way beyond the scope of the current conversation.

But homosexuality is not a natural method of ensuring that genetic material is not passed down to a next generation, because monozygotic twins and triplets can have mixed sexual orientations, ie, one 100% gay, one 100% straight.

[Donkey]

Another argument against Gay Marraige
The biggest logical argument I can see against it is that it is not in the best interest of evolution of the species.

Under our evolutionary model, the goal of every species is not just survival but to thrive. Our biological makeup is hardwired to constantly seek out the best mate with the intent of producing the best offspring.

Here is an opposing model to consider:
We are overpopulating this planet. In nature, when other species begin to overpopulate an area, overextending resources, fairly drastic solutions are introduced. The case of the lemmings is a good example of that. There are many, many examples that could be researched and listed. Most specifically, however, I remember reading about a species of monkeys that has a sharp increase in homosexual births when the population runs high. I believe that increased homosexuality is just one of many ways that nature is dealing with our current problem of there simply being too many of us.

[TerzaRima]

Will gays adopting children feel this same link? What happens when they divorce and the child has no biological link to either?

Would you have the same hypothetical about straight couples and their adopted children? I have no stats on this, but I think that heterosexual adoptive parents would (vigorously) dispute the notion that they're not as bonded to their kids as birth parents.

Also, when you talk about public policy as a way to promote "the best genes", things promptly get tricky. Things like fertility treatment, aggressive care for very premature babies and children with chronic illnesses, are not done to promote uberpeople nor should they be.

[maxmordon]

I'm not sure how the evolution argument applies when we, as a species, have slowed the process down exponentially simply by our humanity--by understanding that just because someone isn't strongest, smartest, or most "attractive", that doesn't mean they're unfit for survival. Especially in our modern age where we can help those with previously fatal genetic disorders live a relatively comfortable life, I'm not sure the evolution/survival of the species argument holds.

It shouldn't be disregarded, either, that the desire to have a child transcends sexuality (and gender), and many people, married or not, gay or straight, just know they are meant to be a parent. Which would take care of the "but the sex isn't potentially procreative" problem, except many believe it's unhealthy for kids to be raised in a "homosexual lifestyle".

That's a phrase that confuses me. I consider myself a fairly average person (aside of course from my killer good looks, charm, wit, etc :tongue) and plan to lead a fairly normal life. I'm not sure how being a lesbian makes my lifestyle "gay". I guess what I'm getting at is it's a strange way to categorize people.

That's something that bothers me. Everyone polarizes things, Conservative and Liberals, Straight and Gay, etc. but the truth is not like that. Why sexuality most be restricted to white, black and some shade of gray? I have a friend who had a very liberal upbringing and during her whole life she said she was a Lesbian... until she fell in love of a guy and they have been together ever since (around 4 years!)

Something funny she said "Women: Better looking, half the time better lovers, on hundred times more annoying"

[pconsidine]

But homosexuality is not a natural method of ensuring that genetic material is not passed down to a next generation, because monozygotic twins and triplets can have mixed sexual orientations, ie, one 100% gay, one 100% straight.I don't think there's any reason to think homosexuality only exists to prevent genes from being passed to a next generation, although one could make the case that multiple births are already "unnatural" to begin with and so aren't a good basis for drawing conclusions. However, if one were to take a completely nature-bound perspective, there's certainly reason to think that a person who was meant to reproduce would naturally be attracted to their corresponding reproductive partner (unless we're talking about asexual reproducing organisms that don't have such a thing).

I should also state here that none of this affects my feelings about gay marriage, which I am in favor of. As I said before, this issue goes far beyond the topic at hand for me.

[TsukiRyoko]

I'm not sure how the evolution argument applies when we, as a species, have slowed the process down exponentially simply by our humanity--by understanding that just because someone isn't strongest, smartest, or most "attractive", that doesn't mean they're unfit for survival. Especially in our modern age where we can help those with previously fatal genetic disorders live a relatively comfortable life, I'm not sure the evolution/survival of the species argument holds.

It shouldn't be disregarded, either, that the desire to have a child transcends sexuality (and gender), and many people, married or not, gay or straight, just know they are meant to be a parent. Which would take care of the "but the sex isn't potentially procreative" problem, except many believe it's unhealthy for kids to be raised in a "homosexual lifestyle".

That's a phrase that confuses me. I consider myself a fairly average person (aside of course from my killer good looks, charm, wit, etc :tongue) and plan to lead a fairly normal life. I'm not sure how being a lesbian makes my lifestyle "gay". I guess what I'm getting at is it's a strange way to categorize people.
I like the point you bring up concerning the survivability of our race. It's true that a homosexual relationship will not produce children, and thus won't help our species. But, neither does grandma who's in a bed in some hospital somewhere on oxygen, 3 intraveinous lines, who depends on 16 pills every day to stay alive. In a religious sense, the recreation argument holds water, but only on a religious standpoint- religion and government don't mix, shouldn't mix, and shouldn't influence one another. The God on the dollar bill thing I can handle, but letting the church influence our laws to such a degree is unacceptable.

I'm not a lesbian, but I have dated women in the past and probably will in the future. I have also dated men in the past and will probably do so in the future (I'm with a man right now, actually), so I guess that makes me bisexual despite my dislike of the term (I think it makes me sound like an alien. I come from the planet of bisexuals and we're here to suck out your brain and probe you!). If I choose to marry a woman for the same reasons I would marry a man, I should be able to. Due to certain "women" issues, I may not be able to have kids of my own. The solution? I will most likely adopt, regardless of who I'm with at the time. I don't think the law should tell me who is suited to help me raise a kid, especially when John and Jane Smith down the street have 7 kids covered in bruises and have been married for 20 years. Will a homosexual relationship function? Depends on who's in the relationship, just like a straight couple, and whether or not it will function isn't up the law in my opinion, especially when we're living in an overwhelmingly dysfunctional world. If two people can make life work well, regardless of their anatomy, then by all means they should have the right to have the chance to show that they can. It is not up to anyone to determine whether a homosexual lifestyle will be deter the healthy development of a child, and frankly I don't see how it can. We can't hide kids from the "scary gays", not in public, not in our families, not amongst our friends, and it certainly shouldn't affect how a family holds up. All nationalities can marry without problems, yet they're still negative social connections with every race. People with disabilities can marry, and yet there's negative social connections with those too. The same goes for old people, young people, people of all social classes and statuses, and people in every line of work and belief system. If they can marry, why can't gay couples? If the marry, how will they be more likely to function than a homosexual couple? Do healthy children really depend on who sticks what where and whether their pelvises match? To deprive and/or strip an entire group of people of the same rights that damn near everyone else has is wrong, I don't care what the circumstances are surrounding it. Give to all or give to none, that's the way it should be. We can't watch every married couple and determine whether they're suited to be married, and I often think that the opposite party's argument suggests that we should be able to do so. "It's not healthy," and, "It'll hinder the children," are extremely circumstantial situations and depend on many elements - few of which the government can watch with a hawk's eye. They don't worry about how healthy a stereotypical straight couple will function together, why apply the same type of thinking to a gay couple?

[Danger Jane]

I don't think there's any reason to think homosexuality only exists to prevent genes from being passed to a next generation, although one could make the case that multiple births are already "unnatural" to begin with and so aren't a good basis for drawing conclusions. However, if one were to take a completely nature-bound perspective, there's certainly reason to think that a person who was meant to reproduce would naturally be attracted to their corresponding reproductive partner (unless we're talking about asexual reproducing organisms that don't have such a thing).

I should also state here that none of this affects my feelings about gay marriage, which I am in favor of. As I said before, this issue goes far beyond the topic at hand for me.

Ah, all right. Apologies for misreading your post (and where the hell did that misread come from?). Looks like somebody has low blood sugar...

[TsukiRyoko]

I don't think there's any reason to think homosexuality only exists to prevent genes from being passed to a next generation, although one could make the case that multiple births are already "unnatural" to begin with and so aren't a good basis for drawing conclusions. However, if one were to take a completely nature-bound perspective, there's certainly reason to think that a person who was meant to reproduce would naturally be attracted to their corresponding reproductive partner (unless we're talking about asexual reproducing organisms that don't have such a thing).

I should also state here that none of this affects my feelings about gay marriage, which I am in favor of. As I said before, this issue goes far beyond the topic at hand for me.

Actually, there's a few arguments suggesting not only that homosexuality is a biological thing, but that it's the solution to our overpopulation, almost as if we're shutting off our instincts to be attracted to the opposite sex for the sake of reproduction because our growing numbers are a problem to the earth. I'll see if I can find anything on it, it's been so long since I've read anything about it. It pretty much suggested that the only reason we haven't mutated beyond genitals is because we may still need to reproduce in case of an emergency, but in today's growing world, more children are the last thing we need. If I can find anything I've read about it on the subject, I'll be sure to post it.

[Bartholomew]

Another argument against Gay Marraige

Jo's post brought a fundamental truth to light that will make me reevaluate my views on gay marriage (currently, i'm for gay marriage)

The biggest logical argument I can see against it is that it is not in the best interest of evolution of the species.

Under our evolutionary model, the goal of every species is not just survival but to thrive. Our biological makeup is hardwired to constantly seek out the best mate with the intent of producing the best offspring.

The statistics support this, look at the trend of increasing physical and mental accomplishments. The Olympic records of the 1970s wouldn't even place a medal in College and sometimes High school varsity sporting events.

A gay lifestyle is not in the best interest of the species. It does not allow for individuals to pass on their collective genes to produce a better offspring. Applied whollistically, it would lead to a degradation and stagnation of the gene pool.

Furthermore, it undercuts one of the most powerful instincts in nature, that being biology.

In normal models (and in the majority of cases), when parents have children, there is a biological link to the child that COMPELS the parent, against all logic, against all reason, to care for and provide for the child. Will gays adopting children feel this same link? What happens when they divorce and the child has no biological link to either?
Sure, many gays will 'love' the child but compared as a whole to the biological link, would that love be equal to the love of a biological parent?

Overall, as a mathematical model, the best genes do not propogate under a gay scenario, in fact, they lead to the stagnation and degradation of the gene pool.

Cloning is too new to be considered a viable alternative yet, and mathematically there are serious problems with cloning (making a copy of a copy of a copy) for it to be a long term solution..

Surrogate mothers are a potential fix, however, the economic impact of this on a large scale would set (finding a mother) above finding the best genetic pairing and again, the best genes do not move forward. Also, not all gay and lesbian couples are affluent, so this will be beyond the means of the majority of gays.

The end effect would be a growing number of childless adults becoming elderly and placing an increase burden on our social systems. For the same link that compels a parent to look after a child also compels a child to look after their aging parents. Under a gay model, the number of elderly childless adults increases almost geometrically over time. This would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in increase social services costs.

Well that's enough for now. In short, not good for the species as applied whollistically or over time.

Mel...

That seems more of an argument against homosexuality in general than against gay marriage. I'd like to keep on topic. Marriage is a contrivance of society; gays are going to have relationships regardless of the world's opinion.

Even if you apply your idea ONLY to gay marriage, the idea that it shouldn't be allowed because it somehow muddies the gene pool just doesn't jibe well with me. What if we start applying that idea to other groups of people?

[Bravo]

But homosexuality is not a natural method of ensuring that genetic material is not passed down to a next generation, because monozygotic twins and triplets can have mixed sexual orientations, ie, one 100% gay, one 100% straight.

can you run that one again?

i cant make sense of this.

[TerzaRima]

one 100% gay, one 100% straight.

As a lot of posts attest, I think human sexuality is a bit more fluid than this. We're not talking about eye color. I don't think the genetics here are exactly Mendelian, either, which is not to say I know what they are.

[Danger Jane]

can you run that one again?

i cant make sense of this.

That confusing post was the result of a total misread of another post, which is why it is irrelevant, and I haven't eaten in too many hours, which is why it's nonsense. Basically I was responding to an argument I thought I saw, but didn't, so the irrelevant post has been deleted, since it adds nothing to the conversation.

[Danger Jane]

As a lot of posts attest, I think human sexuality is a bit more fluid than this. We're not talking about eye color. I don't think the genetics here are exactly Mendelian, either, which is not to say I know what they are.

Of course. I do think, however, that some people are exclusively attracted to one sex, myself being one of them, and God knows I TRIED to like boys.

[mscelina]

Hmmph. I didn't have to try. ;)

And neither did my brother.

[Death Wizard]

This is one of those topics that makes my blood boil. I'm as heterosexual as it gets, but who cares? It makes me no better and no worse than anyone else. Whom am I to tell homosexuals that they can't get married? Why would I even try? If a person's a law-abiding and loving individual, then who cares what else they are?

Get married, love each other deeply (either man to woman, man to man, or woman to woman), and have fun.

And should gays be allowed to adopt? Of course.

[Keyan]

Evolution is a very tricky argument...

Another argument against Gay Marraige

Jo's post brought a fundamental truth to light that will make me reevaluate my views on gay marriage (currently, i'm for gay marriage)

The biggest logical argument I can see against it is that it is not in the best interest of evolution of the species.

Under our evolutionary model, the goal of every species is not just survival but to thrive. Our biological makeup is hardwired to constantly seek out the best mate with the intent of producing the best offspring.

The statistics support this, look at the trend of increasing physical and mental accomplishments. The Olympic records of the 1970s wouldn't even place a medal in College and sometimes High school varsity sporting events.

A gay lifestyle is not in the best interest of the species. It does not allow for individuals to pass on their collective genes to produce a better offspring. Applied whollistically, it would lead to a degradation and stagnation of the gene pool.

Actually, going by that argument, marriage itself is detrimental to evolution. The ideal situation in breeding terms is for a limited number of males, with the "best" genes, to produce offspring by a number of women. Ideally, this should be linked to some kind of competitive endeavour that will demonstrate the "best" genes. So it would be something like, unsuccessful men aren't allowed to marry. Moderately successful men are allowed to marry once. Very successful men are allowed multiple wives.

By the same token, from an evolutionary standpoint, women should be permitted more than one father for her children. Some combinations will be okay, some will be awful, some will be fabulous.

Everyone should have lots of kids, and the weaklings should die young, before they consume too many resources.

Furthermore, it undercuts one of the most powerful instincts in nature, that being biology.

In normal models (and in the majority of cases), when parents have children, there is a biological link to the child that COMPELS the parent, against all logic, against all reason, to care for and provide for the child. Will gays adopting children feel this same link? What happens when they divorce and the child has no biological link to either?
Sure, many gays will 'love' the child but compared as a whole to the biological link, would that love be equal to the love of a biological parent?

But how does gay marriage prevent other people from having bio-kids? It sounds as though you assume that gay marriage will (a) discourage gay guys from having children in heterosexual relationships and (b) take children who would otherwise be living in happy biological families, and adopt them into riskier gay families.

In reality, if a guy is gay, he's not likely to be in a het marriage anyway; and any kid adopted by a gay couple wasn't being raised by happy biological parents.

As for the "compelling" part of it - some bio-parents are child-abusers, too.

Overall, as a mathematical model, the best genes do not propogate under a gay scenario, in fact, they lead to the stagnation and degradation of the gene pool.

I'd love to see this math model, and the underlying assumptions.


The end effect would be a growing number of childless adults becoming elderly and placing an increase burden on our social systems. For the same link that compels a parent to look after a child also compels a child to look after their aging parents. Under a gay model, the number of elderly childless adults increases almost geometrically over time. This would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in increase social services costs.



So you're arguing that if gays and lesbians weren't allowed to marry, they would all be in happy and stable heterosexual marriages, with children who cared for them when they were old?

Somehow I'm not quite convinced.

[Death Wizard]

Evolution is a very tricky argument...



Actually, going by that argument, marriage itself is detrimental to evolution.

Excellent point.

[katiemac]

We are not animals. We are human.
And sex is not only "biological process meant for reproduction" for us. :)

We've mostly moved past the discussion of homosexuality in other species, but since a few evolutionary topics have been mentioned, I think it's worth noting that humans are not the only animals (and I use "animals" in the scientific term) that participate in sex for pleasure.

In fact, there are entire social structures and hierarchies in some species of monkeys built upon the sexual stimulation between female dominants and (female) subordinates.

[TsukiRyoko]

We've mostly moved past the discussion of homosexuality in other species, but since a few evolutionary topics have been mentioned, I think it's worth noting that humans are not the only animals (and I use "animals" in the scientific term) that participate in sex for pleasure.

In fact, there are entire social structures and hierarchies in some species of monkeys built upon the sexual stimulation between female dominants and (female) subordinates.
Dolphins and porpoises are also known for having sex for pleasure.

[benbradley]

This is one of those topics that makes my blood boil. I'm as heterosexual as it gets, but who cares? It makes me no better and no worse than anyone else. Whom am I to tell homosexuals that they can't get married? Why would I even try? If a person's a law-abiding and loving individual, then who cares what else they are?
I recently heard/read somewhere that there are two kinds of people: those who want to control others, and those who don't.

[joyce]

I didn't get married to have kids....I'd been spayed years before. In fact I thought I was sterile the first go around and was quite surprised to find out I wasn't. The argument we'd be having not very long ago would be can a white person marry a black or any person of another race. This century it's the gays who are getting all the crap. I guess we're messing up the evolutionary scheme of things by mixing the races. I mean what happens when all us fine white people have something else mixed in our blood? A bunch of beautiful kids? I personally don't understand how gay people will mess up the evolution of man. I guess they might hit us with a gay virus and then nobody will have sex with the opposite sex and we as humans will die out. I guess Mother Nature would be happy if that happened.

[Christine N.]

I'd like to address this part of Jo's post:

The point I’m coming to here is that sexual attraction in itself is not a compelling reason for marriage. Sexual attraction is natural, it’s a part of our biological makeup as humans, but it does not control us. People act as if falling in love is something random and unpredictable – something we can’t control or predict. I disagree. Romantic love is a concept that’s only emerged as a real concept in the last century or so. That doesn’t mean romantic love isn’t nice, but it certainly isn’t some all-powerful force we’re compelled to obey.


I'm curious if you think that gay relationships are only about sexual attraction and romantic love? Because I know some gay couples that are more loving, more faithful, and more committed to each other than most hetero couples.

These are the people who want to be married, because they've found the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with, build a life with, grow old with. Be beside them in the hospital when they're ill, and be able to be treated like the true spouse they already are in their hearts. I think they deserve it. I'm not trying to pile on you, Jo, I'm just asking for clarification.

Will legal gay marriage lead to more couples rushing in and then out again? Probably, but then what will be new? Thousands of hetero couples do that a day.

And I'm not buying the evolutionary thing - we're not yet at zero population growth. We're still increasing - the elderly are living longer and we have lower infant mortality. Even though most people are having fewer children, we're not even yet.

[Bravo]

And I'm not buying the evolutionary thing - we're not yet at zero population growth.

no, but most of western europe and russia are.

[maestrowork]

I have a friend who had a very liberal upbringing and during her whole life she said she was a Lesbian... until she fell in love of a guy and they have been together ever since (around 4 years!)

And I have a friend who's been a straight woman all her life and she even dated another (male) friend of mine. But a few months ago she announced that she's now a lesbian. I asked, "You mean you're a bisexual." And she said, "no, I'm 100% lesbian. And I'm very, very happy." Apparently, she fell in love with another woman and realized that's what she's been wanting all along, but she just didn't know it. Or something like that.

Sexuality is a mystery.

[Don]

I recently heard/read somewhere that there are two kinds of people: those who want to control others, and those who don't.
Check my signature. :D Last quote.

[maestrowork]

This is one of those topics that makes my blood boil. I'm as heterosexual as it gets, but who cares? It makes me no better and no worse than anyone else. Whom am I to tell homosexuals that they can't get married? Why would I even try? If a person's a law-abiding and loving individual, then who cares what else they are?

Get married, love each other deeply (either man to woman, man to man, or woman to woman), and have fun.

And should gays be allowed to adopt? Of course.


Well said. I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish people will STOP telling others how to live their lives and what they can or cannot do and what is NORMAL and not normal. LEAST of ALL to legislate anything to prohibit people from living their lives and following their dreams. If gay people want to love each other, get married and have a family and a fulfilled life, why not? I think it's hypocritical to on one hand condemn someone for being promiscuous, etc. and then flip around and say, "Oh, no, you can't get married to the person you want to spend the rest of your life with -- that's bad." Say what?

Seriously, why should I care if my neighbors Jill and Sandra or Bill and Gary want to get married and have children? Or my friend Carrie wants to be a single parent, etc. etc. It doesn't affect my relationships or my life. It doesn't make my relationships or (eventual) marriage any less valid and right.

Let's just get out of other people's lives and live your own.

End of story.

[cethklein]

Agreed. I consider myself a devout Christian, although I don't attend church hardly ever but that's due to my dislike and distrust of organized religion. I wouldn't marry a man as it's against that religion (and the obvious fact that I'm straight). But if people want to marry the same sex, go for it. We have so many bigger issues ot worry about.

[maestrowork]

We've mostly moved past the discussion of homosexuality in other species, but since a few evolutionary topics have been mentioned, I think it's worth noting that humans are not the only animals (and I use "animals" in the scientific term) that participate in sex for pleasure.

In fact, there are entire social structures and hierarchies in some species of monkeys built upon the sexual stimulation between female dominants and (female) subordinates.

And if we really want to talk about evolution or anthropology, I have news for you: humans are not meant to be monogamous anyway. Humans are by nature polygamous -- males tend to need to mate with multiple partners to further spread their genes, and females want to have the strongest and best males as partners to create the strongest, best offspring. None of them is limited by their choices. Monogamy is a "civil" thing to do, for various reasons (Medievalist would tell you about them all -- most important is the idea of "properties.").

So if we want to go down that path and argue about what is natural, then maybe we should start suggesting people to forget about marriage altogther, and mate with anyone they want and be in polygamous relationships since that's probably the most natural thing for humans to do.

[joyce]

My first husband was half black and half white and we married in the late 70's. Oh my gosh how I remember hearing crap about how what I was doing was against God's laws. I was going to burn in hell! Then I heard..."What will people think", "No good white man will ever have anything to do with you. You're doomed to live your life as a black person." Gag me with a wooden spoon. First of all, nothing ever was said to me and I've been happily married to a good old southern white man straight from Virginia, for 20 years now. He adopted my daughter, who by the way is gorgeous and of mixed heritage. Who care's who marries who? As long as you are nice to me, I could care less if you're married to a Zebra. And as far as I'm concerned, my God loves me regardless of who I love and who I don't. To me this is one of those issues that needs to be separated from church and state. Just my humble opinion.

[Death Wizard]

Well said. I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish people will STOP telling others how to live their lives and what they can or cannot do and what is NORMAL and not normal. LEAST of ALL to legislate anything to prohibit people from living their lives and following their dreams. If gay people want to love each other, get married and have a family and a fulfilled life, why not? I think it's hypocritical to on one hand condemn someone for being promiscuous, etc. and then flip around and say, "Oh, no, you can't get married to the person you want to spend the rest of your life with -- that's bad." Say what?

Seriously, why should I care if my neighbors Jill and Sandra or Bill and Gary want to get married and have children? Or my friend Carrie wants to be a single parent, etc. etc. It doesn't affect my relationships or my life. It doesn't make my relationships or (eventual) marriage any less valid and right.

Let's just get out of other people's lives and live your own.

End of story.

Exactly!

[Death Wizard]

I've always believed that a person of faith -- whatever faith -- should use that faith to determine his or her own behavior, not someone else's behavior. So I don't buy the "my religion is against it argument" or the "my god says it's wrong" argument.

[maestrowork]

My first husband was half black and half white and we married in the late 70's. Oh my gosh how I remember hearing crap about how what I was doing was against God's laws.

Joyce, I think your post underlines exactly some of the issues I see with this whole gay marriage thing -- people don't like change, and they don't like to see their traditional values challenged, and so they will bring out religion or what not because what stronger words are there than God's? But the fact is, where in the world did Jesus say anything about interracial marriage?

We saw that (hey, we still see it now) about interracial relationships, and we're seeing that now with gay marriage. It's not to say these people in the past or present are mean, horrible people but they simply couldn't or can't wrap their minds around the differences and change, and they need something to assure them that they're right. I have older folks telling me they could never see a black man becoming the President -- that's their belief. It doesn't make them bad people, but they just can't wrap their minds around the change they see, and thus such changes have to be bad, because they are good people and they don't agree.

[Phoebe H]

I'd like to throw something else out that never gets mentioned.

One of the problems with banning same-sex marriage is trying to define 'same-sex'.

I know quite a few people who are in same-sex marriages, and have been for *years*, long before Massachusetts. When the marriage took place, they were considered to be one male and one female, but then after they married one of them changed. Guess what? The marriage doesn't end at that point -- you stay married. It doesn't seem to have undermined the sanctity of anything -- in fact, the dedication you have to have to your partner to remain married after going through an experience like that should be an inspiration to *everyone*.

My fiance and I are both (male-to-female) transsexuals. Because no two government bodies agree on what exactly defines someone's gender, we are both walking around right now with mismatched ID. (Driver's License says 'F', Passport says 'M'.) Does this mean that I could marry anyone I wanted to, depending on which ID I chose to show? Or no one, because they don't match?

At the moment, one of us is pre-op and one of us is post-op, so if you go strictly by genitals, at the moment we are 'opposite' and could get married. But a year ago we couldn't have, and in another year or two we won't be able to again. What kind of sense does that make?

Or what about intersex people? I know one person who was born with both genitals, hir Birth Certificate said "Male and Female". Who does zie marry?

The truth is...reality is far more complex than most people want to admit.

[joyce]

Joyce, I think your post underlines exactly some of the issues I see with this whole gay marriage thing -- people don't like change, and they don't like to see their traditional values challenged, and so they will bring out religion or what not because what stronger words are there than God's? But the fact is, where in the world did Jesus say anything about interracial marriage?

We saw that (hey, we still see it now) about interracial relationships, and we're seeing that now with gay marriage. It's not to say these people in the past or present are mean, horrible people but they simply couldn't or can't wrap their minds around the differences and change, and they need something to assure them that they're right. I have older folks telling me they could never see a black man becoming the President -- that's their belief. It doesn't make them bad people, but they just can't wrap their minds around the change they see, and thus such changes have to be bad, because they are good people.

I agree. I figured I've lived my life by example. If I showed one person that my first marriage and child did not make me end up on a the streets being a prostitute or made me some horrible person, and that people are just people, then I did my job. When my daughter was younger I had people ask me what sort of problems did she have in school. Inside I wanted to laugh. I would reply that the only problem is that every guy in school wants to go out with her because they think she's hot looking. I know they were looking for a different response. I guess she was suppose to be feeling rejected, picked on and different. I always taught her to be proud of who and what she is. In fact her "white" step-father told her to tell people when they asked her what she was to just say, "I'm an American." Trust me, that shuts people of really quick.:)

[Lyv]

We don't often get to vote on straight marriage. But in 2000, speaking of interracial marriage, 40 percent of voters in Alabama voted to keep a ban on interracial marriage on the books. I don't even remember hearing about that until a Massachusetts legislator married to a person of a different race wrote about it in a piece about her support of marriage equality.

Spain's another country that allows gay marriage. They seem to be doing fine as well. If gay marriage harmed anyone, you think we'd see some evidence.

[Jersey Chick]

I found out I was in an interracial marriage by pure accident filling out some kind of form or other (can't remember what it was) - my husband's half Native-American. The US gov't considers us two different races. Weird. Funny thing is, no one else would ever think it. And really, why are so many people so concerned with who marries whom? (or it is who marries who?) - in the ultimate scheme of things, does it really matter?

[joyce]

We don't often get to vote on straight marriage. But in 2000, speaking of interracial marriage, 40 percent of voters in Alabama voted to keep a ban on interracial marriage on the books. I don't even remember hearing about that until a Massachusetts legislator married to a person of a different race wrote about it in a piece about her support of marriage equality.

Spain's another country that allows gay marriage. They seem to be doing fine as well. If gay marriage harmed anyone, you think we'd see some evidence.

I do love the south, yes I do, but I have to admit we've got some problems still down here. Very interesting, I didn't know that. Thank goodness where I live everyone of every race, religion, sexual preference and political belief have always seemed to get along. The worse problem we seem to be having is whether to allow dogs on the beach or not. I live in a rebel community so dogs as well as their owner are allowed.

[Death Wizard]

My first husband was half black and half white and we married in the late 70's. Oh my gosh how I remember hearing crap about how what I was doing was against God's laws. I was going to burn in hell! Then I heard..."What will people think", "No good white man will ever have anything to do with you. You're doomed to live your life as a black person." Gag me with a wooden spoon. First of all, nothing ever was said to me and I've been happily married to a good old southern white man straight from Virginia, for 20 years now. He adopted my daughter, who by the way is gorgeous and of mixed heritage. Who care's who marries who? As long as you are nice to me, I could care less if you're married to a Zebra. And as far as I'm concerned, my God loves me regardless of who I love and who I don't. To me this is one of those issues that needs to be separated from church and state. Just my humble opinion.

I feel the same about interracial relationships as about gay marriages. Whatever works is great.

[Death Wizard]

I live in South Carolina. I love the mountains and the weather. But the rest of it isn't so great.

[Death Wizard]

I'd like to throw something else out that never gets mentioned.

One of the problems with banning same-sex marriage is trying to define 'same-sex'.

I know quite a few people who are in same-sex marriages, and have been for *years*, long before Massachusetts. When the marriage took place, they were considered to be one male and one female, but then after they married one of them changed. Guess what? The marriage doesn't end at that point -- you stay married. It doesn't seem to have undermined the sanctity of anything -- in fact, the dedication you have to have to your partner to remain married after going through an experience like that should be an inspiration to *everyone*.

My fiance and I are both (male-to-female) transsexuals. Because no two government bodies agree on what exactly defines someone's gender, we are both walking around right now with mismatched ID. (Driver's License says 'F', Passport says 'M'.) Does this mean that I could marry anyone I wanted to, depending on which ID I chose to show? Or no one, because they don't match?

At the moment, one of us is pre-op and one of us is post-op, so if you go strictly by genitals, at the moment we are 'opposite' and could get married. But a year ago we couldn't have, and in another year or two we won't be able to again. What kind of sense does that make?

Or what about intersex people? I know one person who was born with both genitals, hir Birth Certificate said "Male and Female". Who does zie marry?

The truth is...reality is far more complex than most people want to admit.

What a great post!

[joyce]

I found out I was in an interracial marriage by pure accident filling out some kind of form or other (can't remember what it was) - my husband's half Native-American. The US gov't considers us two different races. Weird. Funny thing is, no one else would ever think it. And really, why are so many people so concerned with who marries whom? (or it is who marries who?) - in the ultimate scheme of things, does it really matter?

Your quote made me realize I'm messing with evolution again. My hubby is 1/3 Native American so I guess I'm in another interracial relationship. I hope this marriage lasts because who knows what I'll end up marrying next. Wow, I guess I'm really going to hell. :D

[Death Wizard]

Your quote made me realize I'm messing with evolution again. My hubby is 1/3 Native American so I guess I'm in another interracial relationship. I hope this marriage lasts because who knows what I'll end up marrying next. Wow, I guess I'm really going to hell. :D

Ha!!!

[Jersey Chick]

Your quote made me realize I'm messing with evolution again. My hubby is 1/3 Native American so I guess I'm in another interracial relationship. I hope this marriage lasts because who knows what I'll end up marrying next. Wow, I guess I'm really going to hell. :D
We'll just blame you when we're all in the handbasket and it's getting very warm! ;)

[Lyv]

I used to live in Florida. I almost wish I were down there now to try to help defeat the constitutional amendment. It's hard to get a feel for how it's going there, and I expect it to pass, but I've been pleasantly surprised to see some opposition to the amendment. These fights get so ugly.

[joyce]

We'll just blame you when we're all in the handbasket and it's getting very warm! ;)

It could be that lighter you're carrying from another thread!:D

[Jersey Chick]

:D

[maestrowork]

I do love the south, yes I do, but I have to admit we've got some problems still down here.

It's not just the south. As an Asian, I see that everywhere in the dating scene (midwest, east coast). It's fine when it comes to friendship, but there are women who would not consider me a potential partner simply because I'm not of the same race. The reason for not going out with me: I'm Asian. Seriously, I'm not making this up. I don't necessarily see it as racism, but certainly something is stopping them from making the leap into having an interracial relationship. Or maybe just because I smell.

[Autodidact]

In a perfect world, every child would be loved, wanted and planned for. That's what happens in lesbian and gay families.

Also, every reputable study finds that children of gay and lesbian parents do AT LEAST as well as children of heterosexual parents.

[Norman D Gutter]

...I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish people will STOP telling others how to live their lives and what they can or cannot do and what is NORMAL and not normal....Let's just get out of other people's lives and live your own....
I have a dream of raping almost every hot babe I see on the street.* Are you going to preach at me if I try to change the laws to allow rape?

Come on, laws legislate morality all over the place. I see no one has responded to my point, way up thread, that marriage was "created" (i.e. somehow became a human institution) primarily as a way to protect women from the predatory practices of dominant males. I believe if you change marriage, you will unwittingly change those protections for women. It will be a slow process, but I believe it will happen.

NDG
*Not really; given for example.

[Lyv]

Actually from what I've read, marriage was about financial concerns not protecting women. And it definitely wasn't about having children. It was about transfer of property, and women were part of that property.

[Don]

I have a dream of raping almost every hot babe I see on the street.* Are you going to preach at me if I try to change the laws to allow rape?

Come on, laws legislate morality all over the place. I see no one has responded to my point, way up thread, that marriage was "created" (i.e. somehow became a human institution) primarily as a way to protect women from the predatory practices of dominant males. I believe if you change marriage, you will unwittingly change those protections for women. It will be a slow process, but I believe it will happen.

NDG
*Not really; given for example.
Comparing violent aggression against someone to the desire of two people to live as they see fit and be left alone to do so strikes me as (remaining portion of answer redacted as a courtesy to the mods).

[Death Wizard]

I have a dream of raping almost every hot babe I see on the street.* Are you going to preach at me if I try to change the laws to allow rape?

Come on, laws legislate morality all over the place. I see no one has responded to my point, way up thread, that marriage was "created" (i.e. somehow became a human institution) primarily as a way to protect women from the predatory practices of dominant males. I believe if you change marriage, you will unwittingly change those protections for women. It will be a slow process, but I believe it will happen.

NDG
*Not really; given for example.

I'm missing some kind of insider joke here, right?

[Jersey Chick]

I have a dream of raping almost every hot babe I see on the street.* Are you going to preach at me if I try to change the laws to allow rape?

Whether or not you are serious is immaterial, as this is in pretty poor taste, considering rape is a violent, brutal crime and gay marriage is nothing of the sort.

[kuwisdelu]

Come on, people. Everyone's a little bit gay. ;)

PS
Why suddenly so many Native American partners? Did we suddenly become popular? I guess someone's been answering the question "what can brown do for you?" :D

[LimeyDawg]

Well, Norman is right about one thing: laws were created. This also means they can be changed.

[Williebee]

OK, Norm, I'll bite. Show me something that proves your point that marriage was originally created to protect women.

While you're at it, think about this, in a world of semi-automatic weapons, tazers and mace, what does a woman need to marry you and me for?

[Danger Jane]

I have a dream of raping almost every hot babe I see on the street.* Are you going to preach at me if I try to change the laws to allow rape?

Come on, laws legislate morality all over the place. I see no one has responded to my point, way up thread, that marriage was "created" (i.e. somehow became a human institution) primarily as a way to protect women from the predatory practices of dominant males. I believe if you change marriage, you will unwittingly change those protections for women. It will be a slow process, but I believe it will happen.

NDG
*Not really; given for example.

I'm not seeing how these two situations are comparable. Rape is a cause of definite harm, both physical and emotional, against a victim. Gay marriage...is not. They have nothing in common other than both being outlawed in all/most places.

Can you elaborate on how legally sanctioning gay marriage will destroy the societal conventions in place, in your eyes, to protect women?

And yes, I was also under the impression that marriage was originally a legal institution meant for the transfer of property, not to protect women against rape.

[Bartholomew]

I don't really care WHY marriage as an institution came into being; I care about what it signifies between a couple in today's society. The reasoning of the prior centuries is not valid for modern people in a case like this.

[Norman D Gutter]

Ray said, "I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish people will STOP telling others how to live their lives", but yet everyone is willing to say violence committed against a person--male or female, is wrong. So we are, via laws, telling people what is and is not acceptable to society. That was the point I was making. This idea of legislating morality always comes up, but all laws legislate morality. I used an absurd, extreme example to illustrate this.

All the time I have tonight,
NDG

[Danger Jane]

Ray said, "I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish people will STOP telling others how to live their lives", but yet everyone is willing to say violence committed against a person--male or female, is wrong. So we are, via laws, telling people what is and is not acceptable to society. That was the point I was making. This idea of legislating morality always comes up, but all laws legislate morality. I used an absurd, extreme example to illustrate this.

All the time I have tonight,
NDG

I think there's an unspoken assumption in Ray's post, though. That people are free to live their lives (ie, pursue happines) but when that right/pursuit/"lifestyle" intersects with the well-being or happiness of another, that's where the responsibility of the state to come in, and generally that's our guideline for whether something should or should not be legal. Do as you see fit, unless it harms or has great potential for harming others.

[TsukiRyoko]

Ray said, "I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish people will STOP telling others how to live their lives", but yet everyone is willing to say violence committed against a person--male or female, is wrong. So we are, via laws, telling people what is and is not acceptable to society. That was the point I was making. This idea of legislating morality always comes up, but all laws legislate morality. I used an absurd, extreme example to illustrate this.

All the time I have tonight,
NDG
You're not talking about matters of what's socially acceptable, you're heading into the region of free will. If both members of a gay couple decide to get married, that's consent. If I hold you down and shove a baseball in your butt, that's victimizing. Give me one good reason as to why you're comparing gay marriage to doing something violent against someone's will is related- other than how it's accepted by society- and I'll most likely have no problem with your reasoning. Until then, I think it's a bunch of hooie.

Gay marriage, in and of itself, is not raping, beating, murdering, skinning, bludgering, bruising, or taking away free will in any way, shape, or form.

Using rape as an example in an analogy of gay marriage is not only foul play, but it's very poor reasoning skills, and if you serious consider gay marriage and rape on the same level og "wrong-ness" then I am very, very sorry you feel that way.

[Williebee]

I had a Sociology teacher long ago who taught me one of the things I try to live by. Such a simple declaration:

"Your rights end at your nose."

[Lyra Jean]

If marriage is a Christian institution then why are non-Christians allowed to get married. Non-Christians still call their union marriage. So why can't gay people get married and call it marriage since people who are non-Christians can?

[Celia Cyanide]

Ray said, "I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish people will STOP telling others how to live their lives", but yet everyone is willing to say violence committed against a person--male or female, is wrong.

Because it HURTS PEOPLE????? Gay marriage does not.

So we are, via laws, telling people what is and is not acceptable to society. That was the point I was making. This idea of legislating morality always comes up, but all laws legislate morality. I used an absurd, extreme example to illustrate this.

No. Laws are created to keep order and bring peace. Violent crimes are illegal because they hurt people, and would lead to chaos if not kept under control. It's not wrong to drive fast, but we have laws to control how fast people drive. It's wrong to be racist, or to lie, or to backstab, but we don't have laws against any of those things.

[maestrowork]

"how to live their lives" and not "how to hurt others while living their lives."

Thanks.

[Keyan]

Actually from what I've read, marriage was about financial concerns not protecting women. And it definitely wasn't about having children. It was about transfer of property, and women were part of that property.

Actually, I read it was more about establishing paternity. Since there was no other reliable way to do it. But the idea of marriage as being between one woman and one man is cultural, not universal.

And it's more to protect the rights of men who are less competitive and might not get wives at all if the more successful ones had three or four.

But of course property got tied into it, since the idea was that eventually the property was inherited by the offspring.

[BenPanced]

Let me ask you this: if, as a gay man, I married my current boyfriend, how would it harm YOUR marriage (broad "YOUR", talking to the straight folk)? Will your marriage suddenly become null and void?

Trust me. Straight people are making a mockery of marriage on their own without my help.

[pconsidine]

So if we want to go down that path and argue about what is natural, then maybe we should start suggesting people to forget about marriage altogther, and mate with anyone they want and be in polygamous relationships since that's probably the most natural thing for humans to do.Something I thought of – given how long it takes a human child to grow to self sufficiency (and how completely helpless they are for a good chunk of the time until then), wouldn't it make sense for humans to be at least nominally monogamous? Otherwise, the odds of even having a next generation would be pretty slim.

[veinglory]

Ray said, "I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish people will STOP telling others how to live their lives", but yet everyone is willing to say violence committed against a person--male or female, is wrong.

I have trouble believing you are serious. Being hurt is wrong at a basic biological level. The taboo against killing or seriously hurting people is essentially culture free and so not a moral issue (the basis for getting exemptions that socially license murder is a different issue). It doesn't need to be argued morally let alone according to religiously based morality. I do not see any equivalence and suggest you choose a more apt example.

[kuwisdelu]

Here's a thought – given how long it takes a human child to grow to self sufficiency (and how completely helpless they are for a good chunk of the time until then), wouldn't it make sense for humans to be at least nominally monogamous? Otherwise, the odds of even having a next generation would be pretty slim.

Not as long as the mother sticks around to take care of it.

Used to be the tribe would take care of the mother, too.

[Cranky]

Come on, people. Everyone's a little bit gay. ;)

PS
Why suddenly so many Native American partners? Did we suddenly become popular? I guess someone's been answering the question "what can brown do for you?" :D

:ROFL:

My husband is also part Native American, and I have first cousins that are full Lakota Sioux. *adopted by my uncle* The other first cousins are 1/2 Lakota, and another two (from my mother's side of the family) are 1/2 Dakota. My best friend in elementary school was a girl who grew up on one of the nearby reservations. So I grew up around that culture, to a certain extent. One of the things I miss about the state I was born in. :)

[Lyv]

Let me ask you this: if, as a gay man, I married my current boyfriend, how would it harm YOUR marriage (broad "YOUR", talking to the straight folk)? Will your marriage suddenly become null and void?

Trust me. Straight people are making a mockery of marriage on their own without my help.
I dunno, Ben. I keep waiting. We've had gay marriage here for four years and my marriage to my husband is still strong. Last year, while celebrating a victory for marriage equality(our legislators voted to keep the question off the ballot), I turned to one of my gay married friends and asked, "So is my marriage destroyed now?"

The effect I see from gay marriage is more happiness and stability and fairness. Not enough, of course, since it's only at the state level, but more. Kids celebrated that the parents they love got to marry. Loving couples, some together for decades, got to get married and gain a few of the benefits I take for granted. I don't see a downside. And as time goes on, it's going to get harder to argue that gay marriage causes harm. I mean, the nutjobs can blame floods and earthquakes on it, but really, there's no reasonable argument against allowing gay people to get married exactly like the rest of us do.

[kuwisdelu]

Let me ask you this: if, as a gay man, I married my current boyfriend, how would it harm YOUR marriage (broad "YOUR", talking to the straight folk)? Will your marriage suddenly become null and void?

Because thinking about other people being happy really grinds my gears, that's how. Seriously, if you guys can figure out how to have a marriage free from a woman's nagging, how can that be fair for the rest of us?

Excuse me, now, I need to hide my balls.

[Jersey Chick]

How many times do I have to tell you? I don't nag! ;)

[TsukiRyoko]

Because thinking about other people being happy really grinds my gears, that's how. Seriously, if you guys can figure out how to have a marriage free from a woman's nagging, how can that be fair for the rest of us?

Excuse me, now, I need to hide my balls.
Remember, for every happy guy couple, there's a couple of two nagging women. Nature balances itself out.

[Keyan]

Something I thought of – given how long it takes a human child to grow to self sufficiency (and how completely helpless they are for a good chunk of the time until then), wouldn't it make sense for humans to be at least nominally monogamous? Otherwise, the odds of even having a next generation would be pretty slim.

But that assumes that the only childcare unit is two biological parents. If you look across times and geography, that's only one option, and not even a very good one for the child. What a child needs is someone to provide material support (cash, food, etc) and someone to provide emotional and child-raising care.

Other options:

1. A care group consisting of the bio-mother and her relatives (e.g. aunts, grandmothers, uncles, grandfather). There is no compelling reason for a woman to leave home when she has a child. In this case, the child becomes a dependent of the mother and her relatives.

2. A care group of all the wives of the child's father (in a polygynous marriage), supported by a wealthy man and his brothers.

3. A care group of the bio-mother and one or more employees, including live-in nurses.

The idea of two parents taking care of a kid in isolation essentially is to provide a mobile nuclear family that can move around in response to employment opportunities. It's more geared to a certain type of economy than to any bio-need of the kid/s.

[Don]

Here's yet another option:

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein postulated a 'line marriage' which began with a couple, then added spouses of alternating sexes every few years. At the time of the story, the family had several spouses of each sex, ranging from their eighties to their twenties. The first spouses had been dead for some time, and only the oldest of the current family remembered them.

The advantages mentioned included the care for children, since the death of one spouse would not leave the child in a single-family household. In addition, the accumulation of capital in the line marriage was very effective. The homestead was old and large, since it had been expanded regularly since the marriage of the first spouses.

Wouldn't it be interesting to be a member of a marriage a hundred years old, knowing the marriage would far outlast you and your current spouses?

[Jenan Mac]

But what scares me is that 15 years from now, when my future-kid is in school, and someone finds out that he believes, for religious reasons, that homosexuality is morally wrong - what scares me is that all of his classmates and his teachers are going to express exactly the same wonderfully understanding, tolerant, respectful thoughts and attitudes you all have just expressed here. Yep. They'll tell him that his beliefs are bigoted and what a horrible, stupid, backward person he is. Oh, right, and that his parents must be the worst people ever. In essence, he'll get the same treatment I got when I confessed to believing that God made the universe.

It would seem reasonable that a child professing belief in the Christ would get the same response as the 15 year old girl in hijab, or the 15 year old wearing a pentacle, or the kid with payess...whatever those responses are.

And it would also seem reasonable that a child who makes moral judgments about activities he is not being invited to take direct part in (be it gay sex, snake handling, or eating pork) is experiencing firsthand the joys of freedom of expression-- that of learning, for good or ill, to consider one's audience.



And as a parent, there will be nothing I can do about it, because after all, it's the law.

And yes, I realize you could make the argument that this is the sort of treatment homosexuals have gotten for decades. And you'd be right. But that doesn't make turning the tables any more right or fair. Those who advocate tolerance should consider practicing it.

And therein lies the rub-- there are those in every discussion who wish to exercise their freedom of speech without expecting a response. Which is unreasonable, no matter who is making the demand.
If I'm wearing a Gay Pride (or Autism Awareness, or Cthulhu for President, or Clemson University) t-shirt, I can reasonably expect comment. Some will be pleasant comments, some not, and that's also expected. Where I find it unreasonable would be for someone to actively seek to make it illegal for me to attend Clemson, because their holy book says only Florida State is holy.

[Jenan Mac]

Wouldn't it be interesting to be a member of a marriage a hundred years old, knowing the marriage would far outlast you and your current spouses?

Sometimes just one Mr. Mac and eleven years of marriage exhausts me. I'm not sure my brain can wrap around polygamy on that level.
OTOH, there are days I don't think I'd mind it. If I really liked my sister-wives, it could be kind of interesting.

[Godfather]

this talk that gays shouldn't marry because it's immoral, and hurts the sanctity of marriage is a load of nonsense. if that's the case, outlaw divorce! do it, and campaign to the gills for it, because i'll tell you one thing plain and simple, saying that the marriage of a loving couple (regardless of gender) is damaging is absurd, idiocy and hypocrisy at a most base level.

and those that oppose homosexuality because the bible tells you to, well you should also know that eating shellfish is a slightly lesser abomination than gay sex. yes, that's true, the bible condmens a lot of things. i think it is disgraceful how people decide moral code selectively from the bible. gays are an easy target, aren't they?

(five minutes ago i was filled entirely with joy, and now i'm angry. grrr.)

[Jimmyboy1]

I believe gays should be legally able to experience the same experience of a devastating, gut wrenching, life altering divorce that the rest of us enjoy.
It's only fair.

[BenPanced]

No, thanks. I have better excuses for my drinking habits.

[willietheshakes]

No, thanks. I have better excuses for my drinking habits.

Of course you do -- you're a writer!

[Death Wizard]

Where I find it unreasonable would be for someone to actively seek to make it illegal for me to attend Clemson, because their holy book says only Florida State is holy.

I live in Clemson, but I'm a fan of Florida State.

Uh-oh .......

[Death Wizard]

I believe gays should be legally able to experience the same experience of a devastating, gut wrenching, life altering divorce that the rest of us enjoy.
It's only fair.

Hysterical!

[Zoombie]

Whew, finally read the whole thread!

Story time!

<sits down in a chair> A while ago, I met an awesome gal who drew sexy pictures on Deviant Art. That is, a repository for art and softcore porn. Anywho, one day, I was perusing her pictures and found a picture that we had both nicknamed "Hottie McHotbod". Real cute guy, shirtless, the whole manila.

First time, I was like, "eh, he's okay...if I were a girl, I'd definitely want to sleep with him."

Flash forward a few months. She's got more pictures up, including more of Hottie McHotbod. Yummy! And then I just kinda...<ahem> had some fun while looking at said picture. And thus, I realized that I liked BOTH sexes!

Or as I call them, both sexys.

Now, this was a bit of a shock to me, as before, the idea of two guys doing the horizontal monster mash filled me with queasiness. Like, I remember when a troll or a bot on this very forum sent me some gay porn over a PM (yeah, that was weird) and I felt all manner of squicked.

But now, a mere YEAR later, my mindset had changed. Odd, huh? But now I have an even more personal stake in this. Yes, before I only had a personal stake in this argumentation because IT IS NOT THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO DENY ANYONE ANY RIGHTS. To quote one of my favorite guys ever:

"Its the government's job to handle the courts, the police, the army and corruption. They should leave compassion to those that FFING HAVE IT!"

And so, I don't think we should have laws preventing gay marriage. That's taking rights AWAY from people. But I also think that we should not take the right to deny marriage from religious organizations

We shouldn't use the government to bludgeon other people into thinking what we think. My friend's mum didn't need a LAW to make her think about homosexual marriage. She just needed a two hour discussion with me. Now, whether she had changed her mind or not, I don't know...I haven't seen her in months. BUT I DO KNOW THAT SHE CONSIDERED A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT!

And that's a big mega victory for me.

So, really, if a chuch is being discriminatory, we shouldn't drop the lawyer bombs on it. You should just...not go to it.

And now that we come too it, I think we should get rid of hate crimes and hate speech laws. This is a FREE country and we're aloud to say WHATEVER THE HELL WE WANT!

I can and should be able to gather up my neo-nazi freinds and parade down the street. Now, the instant I and my neo-nazi freinds try to, say, beat the sh*t out of a black person or a Jewish person, THEN the police get involved. NOT BEFORE!

Obviously, I'm not a neo-nazi. But I would gladly give MY LIFE to let them say what they will without being harassed by the police.





Just so long as I get to yell obscenities at them. ^_^

See, a high tide floats all boats. Letting everyone be as free as possible (within their personal bubbles) means that we're all happy. If something offends you, deal with it personally...don't go to the government and get a law passed. If a store decides to kick all black people out, DON'T shop at the store. If a company decides that it's going to...I don't know, blow up the moon...protest it.

A rather interesting example of consumer power was shown to me recently. Anyone else see the Dove's "Real Beauty" ad campaign, where they had realistically pretty people and not uber-thin fashion models? Dove got a really good reaction from that...and eventually, other ads are going to try and ape that because it made money.

I personally believe in moralistic capitalism. That is...put yer money where yer mouth is. Because, while you can always change from, say, a Windows computer to a mac, or from a mac to a Linux machine...you can't easily change governments.


Hmm, that rambled a bit more than I wanted. Ah well, whatever. I think I touched everything I wanted.

Other than, a few shout outs:

Whoo, Nightshade! Go you! You stated your position and stuck too it without being a jerk.

Actually, that was the only shout out I can think off...

Gnight everyone!

[Keyan]

Okay, now to why I do not support gay marriage. Actually it has relatively little to do with my religious beliefs.

In a perfect world, the best position for any child is to grow up in a home with his biological parents – one mother and one father, the people whose DNA he shares. (In fact, even in this imperfect world, the statistics still show (http://www.clasp.org/publications/marriage_brief3_annotated.pdf)that this is ideal.) His development as a stable, healthy human being is best accomplished by seeing the example of the woman and the example of the man, and how they interact with one another. In a perfect world, both of his parents would love him and one another to the best of their abilities.

I agree that marriage, from a societal POV is about childcare, but I think there's a major cultural bias here. Children do best in extended families, where there are a number of adults responsible for their care. Unlike the hassled parents of a nuclear family, there's generally someone around to provide nurture. And multiple role models to choose from.

The nuclear family is for the convenience of the modern economic system: it provides mobility. An employee can pick up and move any time.

Marriage from a societal POV is also about partner-care. Having someone else who cares for you relieves society in general of doing it. This is something quite important in gay marriages.




Then we come to homosexual marriage. To begin with, there is no physical or genetic way in which these two people can produce a child that shares their DNA. So right from the start, the ideal situation for the child has been eliminated. One parent, if not both, will be unrelated to any children in the household. So in terms of child welfare, homosexual marriage is not an ideal situation. Nor is it a “compensation” for an imperfect world, like divorce or adoption.

So if there were a medical technique that would allow a baby to be born with both their genetic contributions, it would be okay?



So that's why I don't support gay marriage. You may disagree with me on any number of points made here, but that's your right. Nevertheless, I do not think my opinion makes me evil or discriminatory or anything negative at all. It's my opinion.

Agree with your right to disagree, though I support gay marriage.

Quite apart from any rights involved, I think it is socially preferable for people to be partnered, because they take over some of the responsibility for the partner's mental, emotional, and physical health. This is a positive for society.

[TsukiRyoko]

So if there were a medical technique that would allow a baby to be born with both their genetic contributions, it would be okay?


Here's a thought! Even with cloning and stuff, a lesbian couple would still have a girl due to the fact that neither of them can produce Y genes. If they wanted a boy, they'd still need a third party, sadly.

[HeronW]

If marriage is 'commitment/love/etc', considering the over 50% divorce rate between f/m couples--that's a crock. For raising children? Single parent families are the norm with grandparents doing even more parenting than parents.

Same sex phobia is based on fear--that opp. sex really isn't that different.

1/2 of one chromosome and we build mountains out of molehills.

[Twizzle]

Um, splitting the issue of church and state marriages (and I do feel the state has no business telling the church how to define marriage or vice versa) and just focusing on the govt...

I'm not saying I'm personally for or against. but I will say I'm confused. when you go to town hall they don't, and can't, ask you if you're in love, planning to procreate, or if you'll even HAVE sex, and they certainly can't deny you a marriage license based on these criteria. (hmm...that would be that whole right to privacy thing.) Of course, each state does establish their own reqs-which are supposed to be minimal enough to satisfy that this is a consensual contract between two adults, but not intrusive enough to impede your rights.

So, I'm still not getting it. You can certainly ascribe whatever personal, societal, or cultural mores to marriage you like, can have whatever personal opinions/definitions you like, but legally, and remembering that whole right to privacy thing-pursuit of happiness thing, why should gay people not be allowed to marry? Cause I'm stumped. I don't see a legal reason they should be denied.

[mscelina]

So if the societal POV of marriage is to raise children, then I'm not really married, right? *shrug* My husband and I have not spawned. Does that make our marriage less of a marriage? I had children in my previous marriage but their father and I divorced. Does that make me less of a parent?

*looks at the tens of thousands of dollars of college bills in the file cabinet*

Uh....yeah.

According to the law.com legal dictionary (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1217&bold=||||), this is the current legal definition of marriage:

marriage
n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in
several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.

Now then. Regardless of the religious perspective of marriage, this is a fairly well-established legal definition of the contract. (I also found it interesting that there were no definitions for gay marriage or civil unions in that dictionary--go figure) Allowing gay marriage would change the man and woman to two individuals (IMO) but the definition would remain the same.

Why don't we try to drop the whole raising children angle? It is not really a facet of this particular argument and it's beginning to tick me off. This should be about allowing all American citizens over the age of 18 the same civil rights or denying them that. It really is just that simple.

[BenPanced]

So if the societal POV of marriage is to raise children, then I'm not really married, right? *shrug* My husband and I have not spawned. Does that make our marriage less of a marriage? I had children in my previous marriage but their father and I divorced. Does that make me less of a parent?
Going on that argument, my parents' marriage must have been three times better than yours.

Now then. Regardless of the religious perspective of marriage, this is a fairly well-established legal definition of the contract. (I also found it interesting that there were no definitions for gay marriage or civil unions in that dictionary--go figure) Allowing gay marriage would change the man and woman to two individuals (IMO) but the definition would remain the same.
Emphasis mine.

People are forgetting one thing: marriage, by definition, is a legal contract. It has nothing to do with how much in love you are with each other and how many jordan almonds you'll need for the reception or if the bride can still technically wear white or if she'll need "off white". Marriage was started as a construct of property. I mean, hello? Dowry, anybody?

[Bravo]

Marriage was started as a construct of property. I mean, hello? Dowry, anybody?

it depends on what you mean by property, your addition of "dowry" there confuses me.

if you mean to say that marriage was created as a means to make inheritance easier than, yes partly.

but by and large, it was constructed for three reasons: for legal sexual expression, to tell who's kids were who's (and therefore, which kids you were obligated to take care of), and to define a lineage for inheritance.

[mscelina]

Exactly, Ben.

So does that mean that in the current societal view children are the property?

Pffffffffffffft.

It's so much easier to debate around this issue than on it. Once people look at the nomenclature used in the current legal definition of the contract, perhaps prejudice will fall by the wayside in favor of equality.

Oh wait, I forgot. That's a pipe dream never mind.

[mscelina]

it depends on what you mean by property, your addition of "dowry" there confuses me.

if you mean to say that marriage was created as a means to make inheritance easier than, yes partly.

but by and large, it was constructed for three reasons: for legal sexual expression, to tell who's kids were who's (and therefore, which kids you were obligated to take care of), and to define a lineage for inheritance.

Historically, perhaps. But does that definition really apply now? Illegitimacy is a normal societal condition. Sexual expression (with the obvious exceptions) is encouraged. A lineage for inheritance does not apply to same sex or, in some cases like mine, heterosexual marriages. So I submit that the original reasons for the legal institution of marriage no longer apply to society as a whole.

Not arguing with you per se, Bravo--I see your point and agree with it. I'm arguing with the concept that the historical premises for marriage are still intact regardless of modern culture.

[BenPanced]

it depends on what you mean by property, your addition of "dowry" there confuses me.

if you mean to say that marriage was created as a means to make inheritance easier than, yes partly.

but by and large, it was constructed for three reasons: for legal sexual expression, to tell who's kids were who's (and therefore, which kids you were obligated to take care of), and to define a lineage for inheritance.
Confusion noted and duly apologized for, especially since in previous discussion on the subject, I've argued the points you've made.

[willietheshakes]

Why don't we try to drop the whole raising children angle? It is not really a facet of this particular argument and it's beginning to tick me off. This should be about allowing all American citizens over the age of 18 the same civil rights or denying them that. It really is just that simple.

Well, no, actually -- this thread (originally) isn't about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage. The initiating question was "I'm really interested to hear, from those of us who oppose gay marriage, why they do so", and the issue of children and domestic arrangement has become a factor of that...

[mscelina]

And why is that? Are gay couples physically capable of producing children together? No. Therefore, the raising of children can only be an adjunct to the issue of gay marriage--a child would originate from sources outside the marriage.

The adoption of children by gay couples is a completely different issue and a distraction to this one. Custody issues involving children from previous marriages is also a completely different issue.

And I've yet to see anything to indicate that the home of a gay couple is somehow detrimental to the development of a child.

I do not see any logical connection between gay couples raising children and the logical extension of equal rights to all members of American society. *shrug* We were asked to list reasons for opposing gay marriage, not for why we oppose gay couples raising children.

[willietheshakes]

And why is that? Are gay couples physically capable of producing children together? No. Therefore, the raising of children can only be an adjunct to the issue of gay marriage--a child would originate from sources outside the marriage.

The adoption of children by gay couples is a completely different issue and a distraction to this one. Custody issues involving children from previous marriages is also a completely different issue.

And I've yet to see anything to indicate that the home of a gay couple is somehow detrimental to the development of a child.

I do not see any logical connection between gay couples raising children and the logical extension of equal rights to all members of American society. *shrug* We were asked to list reasons for opposing gay marriage, not for why we oppose gay couples raising children.

Hey, I'm not arguing the point, merely mentioning that, given the fact that someone believes that a gay couple is not the best parenting solution is a factor in their opposition to gay marriage puts it within the purview of the question as asked in the initial post -- it is "a facet of this particular argument", whether it's beginning to tick you off or not.

(For the record, I agree with you on the points of your argument.)

[mscelina]

And my point is that children are mentioned nowhere in the legal definition of marriage which is what we are proposing to support or oppose. *the ticking me off thing is more of my smartalec nature as opposed to the rarely-seen and oft-wished for rational one*

;)