Gay Marriages

[Vince Liberty]

I'm somewhat amused by the discussion here, but had a question for one of the "gays are freaks" crowd: can you explain to the rest of us why you believe that, say ,a 51-hour Vegas marriage by Britney Spears is representative of some "sacred" institution of love and commitment, but that, say, a marriage (in San Francisco yesterday) of two people who have been in a loving, monogamous relationship for 51 YEARS is an "assault" on this institution?

Just wondering,

[sandiegogreen]

Much of the argument from the religious right is that same sex marriage will destroy the "sacred" institution of marriage. If the institution of marriage wasn't in trouble already, why would Bush feel it necessary to pour millions of dollars into strengthening it? With the divorce rate, domestic violence, extra-marital affairs and child abuse in families, maybe same sex marriages would actually bring a little sanity to their sacred institution.
It all comes down to civil rights. If a gay couple can have a loving and committed relationship for 25 years, raise children, pay taxes, pay into social security....why should they be denied the same benefits heterosexual couples receive?
FYI....there are over 1000 benefits that married couples are currently entitled to, but are denied to gay couples.

[Old Blue Light]

Hello all! This is my first post so I will be forthright in my overall intentions on this forum. I will most certainly offend some without any preconceived intention. And so I make my apology ahead of time with the hope that we should not lose sight of the issue discussed.
On the topic of gay marriages: It is entirely silly to argue for gay marriage unless you are homosexual. There is no rationality in this point of view. True, a legal marriage is beneficial to the betrothed in the social benefits received, but this is to encourage man and woman to marry. It always has been, in order to bolster a moral fiber. This provides a safe, guided model for future generations. Sexuality is a moral issue. For if not, we would have middle-aged men with prepubescent children. A line must be drawn for the public to live by. The institute of marriage is none other than the culmination of these ideals. Think about it. Of course for heterosexuals, we think of nothing for ourselves but a good marriage(or equivalent) with a member of the opposite sex someday, to have children. We would have nothing less.
Anyway, why should homosexuals want to get married? For the benefits? I don't see this as a legitimate reason to legislate it. For love, this would be unreasonable to ask when you have the personal freedom to love how you like. To legitimize that love, in whose eyes? Do you absolutely need public recognition, or just want to stir up the system? Of course, as long as someone says no, you will always become more determined until the actual fight becomes the issue rather than the original endeavor. Every human has a complete and total right to act to their preference and should never be persecuted for those reasons. However, it is not in the interest of heterosexual humanity, nor in fact for yours to debate this issue. Leave it alone and enjoy your abundant liberty, as it should always be. Personal, never legal.

[Paavo]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Old Blue Light,)
Hello all! This is my first post so I will be forthright in my overall intentions on this forum. I will most certainly offend some without any preconceived intention. And so I make my apology ahead of time with the hope that we should not lose sight of the issue discussed.
On the topic of gay marriages: It is entirely silly to argue for gay marriage unless you are homosexual. There is no rationality in this point of view. True, a legal marriage is beneficial to the betrothed in the social benefits received, but this is to encourage man and woman to marry. It always has been, in order to bolster a moral fiber. This provides a safe, guided model for future generations. Sexuality is a moral issue. For if not, we would have middle-aged men with prepubescent children. A line must be drawn for the public to live by. The institute of marriage is none other than the culmination of these ideals. Think about it. Of course for heterosexuals, we think of nothing for ourselves but a good marriage(or equivalent) with a member of the opposite sex someday, to have children. We would have nothing less.
Anyway, why should homosexuals want to get married? For the benefits? I don't see this as a legitimate reason to legislate it. For love, this would be unreasonable to ask when you have the personal freedom to love how you like. To legitimize that love, in whose eyes? Do you absolutely need public recognition, or just want to stir up the system? Of course, as long as someone says no, you will always become more determined until the actual fight becomes the issue rather than the original endeavor. Every human has a complete and total right to act to their preference and should never be persecuted for those reasons. However, it is not in the interest of heterosexual humanity, nor in fact for yours to debate this issue. Leave it alone and enjoy your abundant liberty, as it should always be. Personal, never legal.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You're talking about marriage as it would have something to do with religious reasonings, as it has in the past. With 50% of marriages ending up in divorce and being able to get married drunk in Las Vegas, that argument's pretty much dead, no?
As for marriage for economic reasons, that's more how it's to be viewed in this day and age.

Even if there still would be something spiritual about marriage, shouldn't gay couples have the right to have the same economical advantages as heterosexual ones?

[sandiegogreen]

Friends....
I appreciate that we are engaging in an intelligent discussion on this issue (unlike some previous posts that resorted to name calling and reinforced bigotry).
The institution of marriage has its roots in religious doctrine and practice. It was actually an outgrowth of the new concept (at the time) of property rights. It became a civil institution when people demanded the right to pass on property as inheritance rather than the state or church automatically laying claim to people's property.
That's where the injustice comes in today. If a gay couple spends their lives acquiring property (home, cars, whatever) it is only through legal civil marriage that, if one of them dies, a spouse would be considered next of kin. Why should a family member of the deceased, possibly even someone in the family that rejected their gay relative, be the next in line to inherit that person's property? Doesn't make sense and isn't fair.
A legal definition of marriage for same sex couples has nothing to do with sexuality or religion. It's only about civil rights and benefits. Those who oppose same sex marriage want to make it a religious or moral issue so they attract more people to their point of view and keep a segment of society as second class citizens.
It's not that public recognition is needed. People can be against marriage equality for personal religious or moral reasons, but what we are talking about is equality under a constitution that governs us all.
It wasn't until 1958 that there were constitutional challenges to laws in some states that banned inter-racial marriages. Many in this country were horrified that blacks and whites should legally be able to marry. Same thing today with gay couples.

[PeterAngelo]

Marriage has ALWAYS been a property transfer - always.

Brides used to have dowrys to entice the groom and his family to take her.

There are six family structures on the planet - all dependant on the geography of the culture involved.

In Tibet when a woman marries one brother she is bride to ALL the brothers - no matter how many. There is so little useable land in the high mountain country that property MUST stay in the family - therefore inheritance is always home no matter who dies or when.

Humans are pragmatic and will set up whatever works.

We are at a period where romance - love - companionship - "like mindedness - or whatever - can be included in the mix if people actually have an unrestricted choice of what a family means to them.

We are fluid enough in modern times to have multiple cultures in one country - I think it is called America.

This part of our social evolution is very interesting. It combines every social taboo anyone ever heard of (except sicko child stuff) in one convulsion.

Sodom and Ghomorrah describes what Boston may be like this summer.

I hope the religious right leaves town and turn to salt - hooray!! - then we can party like there's no tomorrow.

RELIGIOUS RIGHT - AMERICAN TALIBAN - VAPORIZE NOW.

[Matthew Cromer]

My belief is that gay couples and straight couples should be treated the same under the law.

[Just The Facts]

if your belief is that gays and others should be treated the same, should also other groups we despise, like terrorists, Arabs, murderers, rapists.. not relating them to gays, but at what point to we NOT consider everyone equal ? In a remark about GAYS transmitting AIDS, I said AIDS or whatever other disease they transmit to one another. I'm on this planet as are all of you, and unfortunately, I am forced as you to deal with every day events and stunts. Gays getting married to me is of no concern.. it is not the paper that makes the marriage in my eyes, its the devotion two people have for each other. My belief is that gays coming out and being pushed on others is offensive and I DO relate it to the Superbowl event, only this just won't stop. The image of knowing what two gays will do to each other, is immoral.. but as a person who to enjoys a good sex partner, we need to more concentrate on what sex is really intended for.. reproducing.. so if two gays are going at it, it is not moral, it is not of healthy thought or without unusual actions. Sure heterosexuals do the nasties as well.. but it is kept secret, they don't come out and demand special treatments because they are different, or a group of people over 7 feet tall should also get special treatment because their air is more polluted than a 4 foot midget.. ok.. I think you see how far off track I went, now do you all see how about 20 years ago, this topic was off track. Why don't we just eliminate the marriage license and solve the whole problem.. You can have a contract or agreement to enjoy one another company.. With every action there is a reaction.. if we give in here, we'll have to give in somewhere else, until there is nothing else to give into. Lets stop schools from allowing our kids to dress like monsters, or carry weapons to school for protection, or be allowed to walk around topless or wear thongs to school.. I better stop, I'm encouraging the behavior.. lol

[Just The Facts]

665 Gay Marriages Take Place in S.F.
1 hour, 2 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!


By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Despite accusations that the mayor is riding roughshod over the law, conservative groups failed to stop San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday as hundreds more gay couples rushed to tie the knot before the opportunity slipped away.

STAND BY FOR 665 LAWSUITS AND THE TAXPAYERS WILL PAY WHEN FEDERAL LAW BANS AND IGNORES THE MARRIAGES BY GAYS. EACH COUPLE WILL FILE SUIT, CLASS ACTION probably. And the bill will mean more financial problems for California not to mention people who will boycott products from California, violence, murders all related to the marriages. All at a cost to tax payers.. you may not think it is no big deal.. did you know California is ready for Bankruptcy? And when that happens.. everything goes up, along with taxes, products, insurance, think about gay marriages when you just realized you can't keep your house, or get one now..

[sandiegogreen]

Marriage has become a legally binding social contract. Like it or not, nearly everything we do in this society requires a contract or at least a signiture.
There are over 1000 special rights and benefits that come with marriage. For example, if a gay or lesbian couple are raising a child, either adopted or from a previous marriage, only one of them can be a legal guardian of that child. If that person dies, their partner has no right to continue raising the child and the state could step in and take the kid or put them in a foster home or up for adoption. There are so many aspects to the legal contract of marriage that we just assume or take for granted but that gay people, who are just trying to live their lives like everyone else, have never been allowed to benefit from. It's time to end the discrimination.
As far as god given rights...it's just a figure of speech. You can't prove the existence of gods therefore, it's only a belief that any rights are god given, not fact. And, why would a god give rights to Americans and ignore the rest of the world he supposedly created. God didn't give heterosexuals any special right to be married. The legislatures and courts did that.

[Just The Facts]

Hey, I love Ellen Degenerous.. and I can see the benefits of getting married, but if it offends so many who for years held marriage sacred, how to gays have the right to tear them apart and ruin what they cherish? Why not call it a Bonding instead of a marriage? If not, will I have to look at an additional block on a federal form when it asks, Married straight, Married Gay, Divorced, Single, widowed.. another things.. who gets the diamond.. lol

[lcswoosh]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Just The Facts,)
665 Gay Marriages Take Place in S.F.   
1 hour, 2 minutes ago  Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!


By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Despite accusations that the mayor is riding roughshod over the law, conservative groups failed to stop San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday as hundreds more gay couples rushed to tie the knot before the opportunity slipped away.

STAND BY FOR 665 LAWSUITS AND THE TAXPAYERS WILL PAY WHEN FEDERAL LAW BANS AND IGNORES THE MARRIAGES BY GAYS. EACH COUPLE WILL FILE SUIT, CLASS ACTION probably. And the bill will mean more financial problems for California not to mention people who will boycott products from California, violence, murders all related to the marriages. All at a cost to tax payers.. you may not think it is no big deal.. did you know California is ready for Bankruptcy? And when that happens.. everything goes up, along with taxes, products, insurance, think about gay marriages when you just realized you can't keep your house, or get one now..<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Do you have a mental issue?!?! How does gay marriage lead to bankruptcy? Get real!

No one's going to boycott California for gay marriages. That's just unrealistic. I applaud the mayor of San Francisco.

[terstorm]

I only see letting gays and lesbians marry as a human dignity issue. When the amendment got squashed in MA, and all the supporters outside burst out into song singing the Star Spangled Banner, I got misty eyed. Yeah, it's our national anthem and that usually does that to me, but the fact that they were singing for indivdual rights and human dignity and freedom-----all things the United States is about.

I'm sure the argument now about gay marriage is not too dissimilar to the arguments about interracial marriage and its morality and it being forced down the throats of people when the ban on that was overturned.

It's a human dignity issue really, not a liberal or conservative one. You're for human dignity or you're not.

[jofis]

There is a major difference between interracial marriage and same sex marriage. There is no Constitutional protection against different standards of law for marriage, but there is the 15th Amendment which protects against different standards of law for different races. Whether that is right or wrong is another question entirely. The federal government has no authority to write the marriage laws in each state. Some states allow marriage between first cousins while others do not. That, much like homosexuality, is a question of beliefs. Unfortunately, marriage has become a conglomeration of beliefs and property rights.

Marriage should be entirely abolished as a legal concept and kept solely as a moral/ideological/religious value. It should be replaced by "kinship agreements" where two individuals can choose to name the other as their next of kin. These individuals should not be required to be lovers. If two male friends or two siblings choose to enter into one of these agreements, that would also be acceptable. Marriage could then be defined as an expression of love by themselves or based upon their religious faiths.

[Sassi]

OK. This will probably really annoy some people, but hey. I am christian and I can deal with the consequences of pointing out something about the shitty society that we live in today.
WHY THE HELL SHOULD THE CHURCH DENY GAY MARRIAGES WHEN HALF THE PREIST ARE GAY PEDOPHILES ANYWAY???
It's a valid point. I think that is rediculous how they can have so much power over what we should be able to deiced for ourselves, and technically I do think that gay marriages should be allowed. The real issue I think is weather gay married couples should be able to adopt and bring up children- I think that there are many vaild points for both yes and no side, but really, when it comes down to it, I think that is should be up to the couple. If they think they can raise kids within a gay family, then hey I think they could. I get really frusterated with the Catholic and Anglican systems, especially in Australia at the moment. I think that it is stupid that the so called "preists" and "arch- whatevers" can say that yes, it's ok for a gay pedophile to conduct sunday school in a boy school, but NO it's not ok for a man to marry a man because they love each other. Marriage is not based on what sex you are, it is based on the belief of love. If a church cannot marry a gay couple, then they are preaching tot he public that GOD IS NOT LOVE. I think that, if man weren't meant to be with man and woman wasn't meant to be with woman then God wouldn't have given us the choice in the first place. If it wasn't meant to happen, then it wouldn't happen, but it does. So I say accept people for who they are.
Also... I think that there are differences in our opinions where CULTURE is concerned. It is not so much a marriage thing that the bride has her property and then when she marries the property straight away belongs to the husband cuz as you can see, that dosn't happen in the more Western countries anymore. It is more to do with culture than anything I think, not actual marriage issues itself.
Thanks for listening darl, hope I didn't annoy too many people. xoxox

[Just The Facts]

These so called gays, fags, queers, whatever they want to be called.. I agree with CitizenCOP, they are mere freaks, but then again we all are in a way. Anyway.. listen to their hissy fits.. like little children when you hurt their feelings. Get married, I could care less, but respect you afterwards, no.. and that is my choice to not like, respect or want to eat in the same building as two queers.. is that word politically correct or is it fags of America something like that.
If you keep it quiet, don't share your freaky ways, then I'll respect you for that and be your friend if you were a good person. But to think that I should go along with what I consider freaky, disgusting, immoral and unsafe for our children is a violation of my right to feel safe and persuit of happiness. A right that was put in the constitution when they hung queers.

[lcswoosh]

They never "hung queers" in the US...and you're letting your bigoted opinion get in the way of the facts, that there is no detrimental effect on children just for being around gays.

[percivale]

I will apologize in advance for not reading this entire thread (8 pages, whew!). Since I haven't done the legwork, please do not consider this a "response" to any previously stated points. I am only stating my opinion here. That being said...

As a Libertarian, I really don't believe that most of the aspects of what we call "marriage" are legitimate in terms of governmental control. The state has only one real "compelling interest" that could not easily be covered through a simple legal (prenuptual) contract. That ONE thing is the distribution of property through inheritance to minor children (which, btw, already exists and covers the children of non-married parents as well as married ones). What religion (if any) I practice, who I spend my life with, what living arrangements I have, and when/if I choose to change or end those things are not legitimate functions of government.

However, this society (meaning in the USA, since the current debate in this country is what I suspect prompted this topic) has chosen to offer certain advantages (and restrictions) to those citizens who choose to marry. Taxes are collected to perpetuate this structure, and as such, I feel that any man/woman/man/man/woman/woman who is asked (forced, actually) to pay to support that structure, should have equal access to the benefits (and an equal responsibility to abide by the restrictions) of that structure.

I have never heard a single compelling argument against gay marriage that does not, at it's core, have a wholly religious basis. And, since our Constitution states very clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," I don't see how any religious argument can be germaine to the issue. Even if one does accept religous arguments as legitimate for this issue, there are (albeit few) religions legally recognized in this country that do allow for same sex unions, and to deny one religion's unions, while accepting another's, seems pretty much to be an "establisment of religion.

So, I am firmly in support of gay and lesbian marriage.

percivale

[TANSTAAFL]

Good points percivale - but I'd like to pose the challenge of what business is it of the government to sanction ANY type of marriage?

[terstorm]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Just The Facts,)
These so called gays, fags, queers, whatever they want to be called.. I agree with CitizenCOP, they are mere freaks, but then again we all are in a way. Anyway.. listen to their hissy fits.. like little children when you hurt their feelings. Get married, I could care less, but respect you afterwards, no.. and that is my choice to not like, respect or want to eat in the same building as two queers.. is that word politically correct or is it fags of America something like that.
If you keep it quiet, don't share your freaky ways, then I'll respect you for that and be your friend if you were a good person. But to think that I should go along with what I consider freaky, disgusting, immoral and unsafe for our children is a violation of my right to feel safe and persuit of happiness. A right that was put in the constitution when they hung queers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Poor Just the Facts...

this is why i use the human dignity argument.

He hasn't explained how it threatens him.
Also, there's gay people everywhere, some just aren't visible. I know quite a few that are your everyday All-American football types (male) or your superfeminine pretty girl (female). Do any of these people live in your town Just the Facts? If you go out to dinner they've probably served it to you. If you shop in a store they've probably provided you customer service. Many serve in our nation's armed forces and have for centuries protecting your right to your bigoted speech. Ain't it great!? Yet you don't respect their dignity or right to exist instead using junk science and shrill long-debunked rhetoric.

Your position sounds remarkably like . . . nah I won't violate Godwin's Law here.

I wonder if you're a Christian. I'm not sure which sect of Christianity you belong to but mine says love everyone and respect their human dignity. I ought to pray that God opens up that lump of coal in your chest.