Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

I'm done debating over this topic right now. Apparently someone cant bring up a good point without it being knocked down or being termed as a game. which i though sheild brought up a very good point. This is how i see the outcome of same sex marriage: African Americans fought for equal right and won. Women fought for equal rights and won,and in the future when our government realizes that times are changing and its not the 1800's anymore, gay people will win over their rights to.

Sorry that you don't like the term "game." I just want to make you think about your position a bit more. And just so you know, I completely disagree with you in regards to same sex marriage vs. civil rights and suffrage. There is no comparison and I'm happy to debate that with you too.

What's worse for you is that things are definitely NOT trending in a positive direction for same-sex marriage. States across the union are outlawing it. Some of those states will of course face challenges in the Supreme Court, which, again, is becoming increasingly conservative.

It is my opinion tha you are misinformed about the nature of this debate, and you are certainly wrong about both public opinion and the general direction of the same sex marriage movement. It's regressing, not advancing - and it's because the movement is simply flawed and contradictory. Either you allow "anything goes" or you still discriminate against certain couples, so long as you don't discriminate against gays. Period. Since most people are opposed to anything goes, that means they are in favor of some form of discrimination, as long as it's legal. And people recognize that lowering the bar to allow same-sex marriages is the wrong move if they want to keep other forms of marriage out.

So if you are pro-same sex marriage, you are basically forced into an "anything goes" or "no government intervention" in marriage position. And right now, that position has ZERO traction with the electorate.

[papa lazarous]

I am inclined to agree that this is not an issue of civil rights, the comparison with the women's movement and black rights which seems to have come up a number of times I think confuses the issue. What we are discussing is two totally different things: a legal recognition of a choice to share ones life with another, and a union in the eyes of god which is based on religious tradition.

There isnt a religion in the world that is willing to accept homosexuality, so don't ask them. If you use condoms you aren't Catholic, it isn't negotiable. Pork? not Muslim. To use a stupid analogy: you cant play soccer with a baseball bat, so go play baseball. The laws of the western world are based, as far as my limited knowledge goes, on teachings passed down verbally and eventually written down by a tribe of Jews in some crappy desert somewhere. These teachings have shaped our morality from then on, thats where good and evil came from, its a matter of perspective.

Religion is inextricably connected with the law, and as such I don't see homosexual marriage as ever being totally accepted. What is needed is a convinient and acceptable loophole, or some kind of alternative arrangement. If as a couple you need more validation than that then start your own church, hope it catches on, and come back in a few thousand years.

[Dirty Name]

Religion is inextricably connected with the law, and as such I don't see homosexual marriage as ever being totally accepted. What is needed is a convenient and acceptable loophole, or some kind of alternative arrangement.

The least disruptive and most convenient solution is the legal contract. Such agreements, like power of attorney, etc. carry the force of law and equalize the majority of the discrepancies between traditional and same sex marriage.

What remains are benefits like tax filing status, social security survivor benefits and insurance benefits.

The first two, in my opinion, exist for the purpose of protecting those people who make career and financial sacrifices in order to prepare themselves for raising children - regardless if they every actually have any.

The last one I believe should be left up to the individual companies - the federal government shouldn't be telling business owners what constitutes a family and what doesn't. Under the current laws of this country, companies are free to define families and dependents as they wish. That would instantly change if we suddenly granted legal recognition to same-sex couples.

[catmik4]

I believe that anyone should be able to legally cohabitate, however i believe that man with man or woman with woman should not be called a marriage...perhaps a union...marriage should be the designate of thos couples who will be having children naturally

[catmik4]

Quote by: Suburbanite well, it is not a question in my mind that i is a distraction from real issues, but it doesn't mean I dont agree with the other options either. It is frankly none of anyone's business and it is no one responsibility to uphold morals that have no practical application. Jesus is not the president, and if he was I'd be a bit more encouraged to assassinate him. That said, it is not the government's responsibility to even speak on the issue of marriage whatsoever.

You would be tempted to assinate Jesus? Apparently you are not christian...you are probably homosexual....none of that matteers to me, however, i feel you should see a professional as to why you are so hostile to religion

[catmik4]

Quote by: Haik The fact that there are laws against it is about as ridiculous as the segregation laws in the early 1900s against blacks. I think in the next few generations of youth it will be more widely accepted.

The rule of law is important in society to keep same society from choas, if you don't like a law try to get it changed, don't critize the law, at the time it was made it probably seemed reasonable

[Dirty Name]

Yes, same-sex couples can be considered the literal equivalent of an opposite sex couple. Unless I have this mistaken, your main distinguishing point between same-sex and oposite-sex couples is that same-sex couples will, clearly, not have children within the marriage. Yes?

No, not exactly. My point is that, in the eyes of the state (a top-down, big-picture view), opposite sex couples have the potential to produce offspring within their relationship while homosexual couples have zero potential to do so. And it is that fundamental difference which makes the traditional sexual union instantly relevant and the homosexual union completely irrelevant - no different from my aunt and grandmother living together in a non-sexual relationship. The state gives them no benefits either, so what makes Sue and Mary's lesbian relationship any more important in the eyes of the state than my Aunt Carol and Grandma growing old together in the same house and sharing everything?

The situation you describe with you and your wife is the exception to the rule, and quite frankly, the state has no right to either ask you your intentions with regard to children, nor does it have any right to seize your wife's medical records to determine her suitability for procreation. Any attempt to make the system "perfect" by eradicating all infertile relationships would be both an invasion of privacy and a complete waste of money.

Your solution, on the other hand, is far more radical - you propose tossing out 200 years of law, tradition and success, and for what? Benefits for a niche group of people already treated fairly under the law, and the legal ramifications of such a change are wide open.

[Dirty Name]

I like this topic and just like the poll says it is a civil issue anyone should be able to marry anyone they want.

That's not the question. The question is this: Should our government consider same-sex marriages literally equal to heterosexual unions?

If you say YES, then are you also saying that my aunt and grandmother should also receive marriage benefits like tax breaks for married couples, social security survivor benefits, etc. And should my aunt's employer be forced to extend medical coverage to Grandma because she is in a committed, loving relationship with my aunt - even though it's non-sexual?

I mean, all you people who come in here and drop your opinions without thinking of the ramifications are really just illustrating how completely uninformed you are.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name No, not exactly. My point is that, in the eyes of the state (a top-down, big-picture view), opposite sex couples have the potential to produce offspring within their relationship while homosexual couples have zero potential to do so. And it is that fundamental difference which makes the traditional sexual union instantly relevant and the homosexual union completely irrelevant - no different from my aunt and grandmother living together in a non-sexual relationship. The state gives them no benefits either, so what makes Sue and Mary's lesbian relationship any more important in the eyes of the state than my Aunt Carol and Grandma growing old together in the same house and sharing everything? The situation you describe with you and your wife is the exception to the rule, and quite frankly, the state has no right to either ask you your intentions with regard to children, nor does it have any right to seize your wife's medical records to determine her suitability for procreation. Any attempt to make the system "perfect" by eradicating all infertile relationships would be both an invasion of privacy and a complete waste of money. Your solution, on the other hand, is far more radical - you propose tossing out 200 years of law, tradition and success, and for what? Benefits for a niche group of people already treated fairly under the law, and the legal ramifications of such a change are wide open.

Laws exist to bring benefits to niche groups of people, and now that we have begun to question marriage, and to define marriage, the legal ramifications are already open. How about a marriage including someone who has had a sex change? Is that a same-sex marriage? An opposite-sex marriage? Also no potential for children there, is there? If you don't think that such marriages will be scrutinized as the debate over this issue continues, I think you are deluding yourself. We have already taken this argument to naturally include bestiality and incest; nobody even blinks any more when people say things like you did, that opening marriage up to gay couples means you have to "accept everything!"

If society will not invade mine and my wife's privacy by asking if we will have children, it also cannot do that with gay couples. After all, Melissa Etheridge and her partner had children. There are couples all over the world that have children with only one member of the couple biologically involved. My wife and I could have children of our own, if we found a surrogate mother; she still has ovaries.

There are too many possibilities. Either you limit marriage arbitrarily, or you make it available to any reasonable group; it is ridiculous to equate a gay marriage with bestiality or incest. If you are saying that a man marrying a man is the same as a man marrying a sheep, you are the wrong person to be arguing this, as you are clearly biased.

However; should the government offer protections concerning, as you said, social security benefits, tax filing status, and insurance benefits? Why not? The ability to file taxes jointly is not about children; it is a recognition that a married couple's assets and debts are inextricably linked. It would be impossible to separate my deductions from my wife's. Do we both declare our mortgage payments? Do we split them evenly? But what if I pay more? If a gay couple lives together and share bank accounts, they should be able to do the same. If your grandmother and aunt share bank accounts, one CAN declare the other as a dependent. I know, it is not the same, but there is a tax benefit involved in living together and sharing responsibilities. Similarly, social security benefits for widows/widowers are intended to maintain a survivor who had been supported by the deceased; again, nothing to do with children. So what have they to do with heterosexuality?

People want marriage; there is no just reason to deny them. Give them what they want.

[Dirty Name]

As to the question about the benefits for the grandmother and aunt, even though they do live together for some what years, there are not in a relationship. There is a big difference between two family members living together and a same-sex marriage. The keyword there is marriage

From the state's point of view, what EXACTLY is the difference between my aunt and grandmother, who are going to both live together in the same house until both of them die, versus two men who demand marriage benefits? Perhaps I wasn't clear in my earlier question...so please assume going forward that my aunt and my grandmother are demanding the exact same recognition as other same-sex unions. Why should they not be recognized? They are in a loving, committed relationship - the only difference being that they aren't in a sexual relationship. Is the sexual nature of the relationship the key in your view? If not, what then?

Why should the state hand out tax breaks, social security survivor benefits and a legal status that will force businesses to recognize them as equal to traditional couples, for one type of relationship and not the other?

Ironically, you seem to be in COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH ME that it's OK to discriminate against certain types of relationships. But you choose to draw the line in a very bizarre place and I'd like an explanation of what you would require for a maritial union in your idea world.

[Dirty Name]

We have already taken this argument to naturally include bestiality and incest;

For the record, I have never, ever (in over 200+ pages on this forum) stated that "bestiality" would be included under "anything goes." When I say that, I mean that there is literally nowhere you could draw a line in terms of the number of people in a marriage, nor could you draw any line in terms of the relationship between the people without being guilty of the exact sort of discrimination traditionalists now stand (wrongly) accused of.

If society will not invade mine and my wife's privacy by asking if we will have children, it also cannot do that with gay couples.

It doesn't have to. No one's privacy is invaded when determining the gender composition of a couple.

After all, Melissa Etheridge and her partner had children.

"Having children" and creating them strictly within a homosexual relationship are two utterly different concepts. The latter is biologically impossible. The former invovles a third party, with varying degrees of legal, social and economic implications for everyone involved, including the state.

No matter how you slice it, there is a SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE between opposite sex couples and same sex couples - you are fooling yourself if you honestly believe there is no literal difference.

What you are actually trying to do is say they are philosophically equal. That basically, homosexual couples can and do contribute equally to society. They have families, they raise children, just like straight couples do.

While those statements are undeniable true in many cases, they are both the exception to the rule and it does nothing to make your case that such couples are in fact literally equal to traditional couples... There is so much more to be considered - pregnancy, childbirth, career sacrifices - and two of those three can ONLY be experienced via an opposite sex union.

My point here, again, is that there is no literal equality between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples in terms of biological reproduction. The two entities simply are not equal in that regard.

THEREFORE, you are talking about philosophical equality - where all "men" are considered equal in the eyes of the law. And that is why your position is fundamentally flawed - because you cannot apply philosophical equality to one group (gays) and not apply it to other groups (polygamists, incestuous couples, unions of convenience - like my aunt and grandma).

[Dirty Name]

There are too many possibilities. Either you limit marriage arbitrarily, or you make it available to any reasonable group;

You are so close to actually GETTING my point. Let me see if I can now nudge you a bit:

First, it is my contention that the current limits on marriage make perfect logical sense. Our society grants marriage benefits to any sexual relationship, so long as it has the potential to create offspring within that relationship. Further, there is no other point at which the line can be drawn where it makes MORE sense.

But if we decide to alter the law by lifting the restriction from where it currently makes sense, where do we move the line to? Either you accept "anything goes" or you move the line to a new place, where you still discriminate against certain groups.

Which brings us back to my original question: What makes a same-sex relationship more special (and therefore worthy of elevated legal status) than my grandmother and aunt's loving relationship?

he ability to file taxes jointly is not about children; it is a recognition that a married couple's assets and debts are inextricably linked.

You are ignoring the obvious! WHY ARE THEY INEXTRICABLY LINKED? Why should they be? Who gives a flying CRAP if two people want to link their assets and debts together? Who really cares? What possible motivation would the state have to grant benefits to two people JUST because they claim they are in love? Why could that possibly be important?

Unless, of course, there is something larger than that couple at stake. Like, say, their future child.

[Dirty Name]

If a gay couple lives together and share bank accounts, they should be able to do the same.

Why? Sharing a bank account magically qualifies a couple for a tax break? Would you agree that a polygamist who shares his bank account with 17 women should all qualify for the same tax breaks? What about a brother and a sister who share a joint account? Should they, too, be allowed to file joint tax returns? Why?

Similarly, social security benefits for widows/widowers are intended to maintain a survivor who had been supported by the deceased; again, nothing to do with children.

Wrong. This has everything to do with children. If children were not a factor, most couples wouldn't have one spouse supporting the other. Instead, both spouses would be working and would have careers. If one of them dies, the other still has a job. On the other hand, and speaking generally, of course, if I died right now, my wife could not go out and get a job on her own BECAUSE of our children. When the children are fully grown, she is still "behind the curve" because she sacrificed her prime earning years so she could raise children (which is ultimately a huge benefit to the state, by the way).

Sorry, but these laws, loopholes and benefits have so much more to do with children, motherhood and parenting than you seem willing to believe..

[Dirty Name]

People want marriage; there is no just reason to deny them. Give them what they want.

I'll ask this again... where would you draw the line? What seems "reasonable" to you?

[Son of Belial]

Heh. I just realized the poll should have an option for "gay." That would be great. "In my opinion, homosexual marriage is gay."

Anyway, I talked to someone I worked with about this. His concern was that if homosexuals were allowed to get married, people who weren't normally homosexual might start to convert or something. Basically he said most of the gays he knew were gay from childhood... they pretty much knew at least something about them was different. He was afraid that if gay marriage became the norm, others might follow. Which kind of contradicts the idea of being born that way, but I kind of see what he's saying.

Personally, I don't care. I'm not gay, but as much as women have done little other than hurt and use me, I'm willing to learn. And Ish taught us that it doesn't have to include anal, which makes me feel better about it.

[Dirty Name]

I think America should continue to allow them to do whatever it is they like, but insted of calling it a marrage refer to it as a union. From a christians point of view "God will deal with them as he sees fit"

Again, thank you for your opinion. As I have stated countless times, America already does allow them to do whatever they like. They are allowed to have a wedding ceremony, and to call themsevles married. The only thing is, we don't legally recognize their marriage for the purposes of qualifying for certain benefits like joint tax filing status and social security survivor benefits.

And since same-sex couples don't have the exact same needs as opposite sex couples, there's no real reason we should grant them the exact same benefits.

[Dirty Name]

Wonderful! Thank you all for your completely uninformed opinions.

The things you speak of are already available. The debate regarding same sex marriage isn't about whether or not they should be allowed to live together or to marry one another. It's about whether or not we elevate same-sex unions to the point where we consider them philosophically equal with traditional marriages.

The question then becomes, why do we stop there? If we are talking about philosophical equality, then everyone is equal no matter how warped, harmful or useless their union is to society. At some point, you either say "anything goes" or you agree that it's OK to discriminate against certain kinds of relationships.

The challenge for you people is to explain why you think the restriction on marriage makes more sense if it's moved from it's current position.

I suspect many of these new and useless posts are a direct result of the poll question being improperly formulated.

[Blinky305]

in my opinion, I really don't care about homosexual marriage because they are going to do what they feel like it. As long as they don't disrespect me, they can have a happy life.

[deedee]

I voted:

An unacceptable redefinition of a traditional concept.




I think they should call it 'civil unions'. That way they receive their benefits and they don't change the legal description of a marriage. The legal description of a marriage defined by Black's Law states that marriage is a union between a 'man and a woman'.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Wonderful! Thank you all for your completely uninformed opinions. The things you speak of are already available. The debate regarding same sex marriage isn't about whether or not they should be allowed to live together or to marry one another. It's about whether or not we elevate same-sex unions to the point where we consider them philosophically equal with traditional marriages. The question then becomes, why do we stop there? If we are talking about philosophical equality, then everyone is equal no matter how warped, harmful or useless their union is to society. At some point, you either say "anything goes" or you agree that it's OK to discriminate against certain kinds of relationships. The challenge for you people is to explain why you think the restriction on marriage makes more sense if it's moved from it's current position. I suspect many of these new and useless posts are a direct result of the poll question being improperly formulated.

First: tone it the hell down. I'm sorry you've been arguing this for 200 pages and haven't won yet; maybe, rather than a statement about your persistence, it is a statement about your stubborn refusal to understand.
You are contradicting yourself. You say that the basis for the line where marriage is defined should be drawn at this eminently logical, practical place -- and then you say the entire debate is about the concept of philosophical equality. Clearly, it isn't; it is about the practical nature of marriage as an environment created solely for the purpose of child-bearing. You bring this up again and again: with social security, as the sole justification for tax breaks, and, you claim, as the sole defining characteristic of a reasonable definition of marriage. And yet, when I point out that there are couples who cannot have children, you gloss that over as unimportant. Which is it? Is it unimportant, or is the only rational basis for drawing the line that defines marriage? If it is the basis for defining marriage, then you should say that my marriage doesn't count; otherwise, it is you that is being arbitrary. This argument that the government cannot invade my privacy is ridiculous, and you know it; you can't even argue it rationally. If a lesbian has extramarital sex with a man and becomes pregnant, and she and her "wife" raise the child as their own, the government couldn't invade their privacy, either. They could declare it a miracle, and the government couldn't say a thing, by your standards.

Our society grants marriage benefits to any sexual relationship, so long as it has the potential to create offspring within that relationship. Further, there is no other point at which the line can be drawn where it makes MORE sense.

This makes it pretty clear to me; my marriage is on the wrong side of this line. There's no way you can get around that, not by how you have defined your own position. You think people who don't reproduce, who can't reproduce, should not be considered "married." Which means that you are not arguing against gay marriage; you are arguing for the marriage of breeders -- which I am not one.
If you think that my marriage, which cannot produce children, should be considered a marriage, then you have a line you are drawing for marriage that is not based on reproduction -- not if it includes me. If you would include me, you must include same-sex marriages, unless YOU can show me a point, no more arbitrary than mine, that allows my marriage but not a gay one.
I define marriage as a partnership between two people, entered into by two consenting adults, who wish to be connected in some way. That connection should be recognized by the state. The sharing of their lives, of their homes and resources, should be recognized by the state. You want to take away married tax breaks? Sure, I don't care. There's no reason for me to have them, if they're only to provide for children. But then take them away from all couples: just give tax breaks for dependent children, not for childless couples.

As for your "everything goes" argument: polygamy and incest, both, are situations where the power in the couple cannot be equally shared; they are by nature exploitative. (That is, for cases of parent-child incest). That is not a marriage. For cases of sibling incest, I see no reason why that should not be allowed to marry. What is wrong with two people who love each other getting married? Because it's gross? It's no worse than Anna-Nicole Smith's marriage, in my eyes. Because the kids could be damaged in some way? We do not want to get into the eugenics business, do we? If you want to argue against those kids, shouldn't you do the same for people who have Down's syndrome? Shouldn't we sterilize them? How about two people with recessive genetic disorders? Shouldn't they not be allowed to breed? Let's make this all the same for all people. Otherwise, it is not fair, it is not just, and it should NOT be the law.
And if your aunt wants to marry your grandmother, I say, mazel tov. If not, they have no place in this debate, which should be about marriage -- clearly, considering your response to my last post, you do not believe marriage has anything to do with finances or cohabitation, so drop it.