Gay Marriage Question

[RenaissanceMan]

Well i just dont think its right, thats all, i think it for moral reasons, not for money reasons.

Meaning homosexuality and bisexuality is immoral? If it IS moral...then what is immoral about legalizing a (presumably loving) union of two people and giving it an appropriate and respectable name?

 

[-live-]

no didnt say being gay was imoral, if you read it i said the marriage was. but thats my opinion, and im not saying your opinions bad so dont worry about it.

 

[iman]

Absurd! Why should society dictate my morals and ehtics? The ONLY objection society could defend is that the current laws are ill suited to handling the property & children as partners leave the marriage through death or divorce.

If we start legislating morals, you'll find sites like justusboys.com being closed down due to moral objections.

Anyone besides me see the irony in so called "Christian" people working so hard to take away our freedom to choose - which they themsleves would admit is god-given?

Morals and ethics are precisely what the law is about. What the hell do you think all that legislation governing human interaction is about?

Sexual preference is one of those areas that people do not get to make a real choice about. The larger society does not have a right to discriminate against gay people because they were born with a particular sexual preference.

Polygamy has always been a choice made by different societies, it is an economic matter. If any society wants to legalize polygamy it is fine with me, but it is not likely this this one will. If this society legalized polygamy for st8's, then society would also be obligated to allow polygamy for gay marriages. It is all a matter of equality for st8's and gay's.

50% of st8 marriages end in divorce with one partner, it would place an unacceptable burden on society to allow polygamy. I would be opposed to polygamy, but that has nothing to do with giving gays equal rights with st8's.

 

[Pringle]

What a shock, you can't explain your idiotic ideas? Try this ...

I work hard every day, earn a solid income, pay taxes, contriubte to social security, and put money into a 401k. (I've done this for about 25+ years now) My spouse is retired and does a million different things in a week, including making sure I am well cared for and free to focus on work priorities.

If I were to become ill, the law would automatically protect my spouse's right to visit me in the hospital, and to mae decisions for me if I were unable to do so myself.

If I were to pass away, my spouse would automatically become the owner of any of my accounts, plus social security benefits as a survivng spouse - with little to no tax exposure.

Great protections for a couple sharing their lives together ... but one small problem ...

Like me, my spouse has a penis, and that means that none of the legal rights and protections afforded to other spouses are availabe to him. In this example, a PWV (person with vagina) would be entitled to rights and privledges unavailable to a PWP (person with penis).

What part of that makes sense to you, sebbles? Anyone?

What a lovely way to talk to an 18 year old who is obviously in the process of forming opinions and coming to terms with a gay lifestyle. I'm sure your tone will be constued as most helpfull in increasing the young mans awareness of the bigger issues that he may (or may not) have missed.

In the UK we have the Civil Partnership Act which deals with the items you mention and so perhaps Sebbles as never had experience of the "down side" of not allowing such partnerships to exist.

I agree with where you are coming from but I don't feel comfortable with the way you portrayed your points. This site should be a place where people can listen to these sometimes new points of view (maybe they have never had anyone to discuss them with before) and perhaps grow with it. Refering to someones opinions as "idiotic" is suely less than helpful to this end.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

no didnt say being gay was imoral, if you read it i said the marriage was. but thats my opinion, and im not saying your opinions bad so dont worry about it.

But I'd still like to hear a reason or some sort of quasi-reason why same-sex marriage is immoral...rather than what seems to be an arbitrary decision...it might give me a perspective I've been missing...(considering we agree homosexuality isn't immoral, which most opponents of same-sex marriage don't think).

I understand not wanting marriage for yourself, but why should it not be available for others who want it, even if they don't need it for legal rights or the piece of paper? (say they want it because they believe then the government and society is in some way "supporting" the unions).

 

[-live-]

i did say each to there won and by that i didnt mean others cant do it.

i dont really knwo i just dont think gay marriage is right. thats my opinion, if you want to do it for money reason then good for the person doing it, and if you belive a piece of paper proves your love then thats fine aswell.

I just dont like the whole idea of it, i mean for me its always been pointless for non religious people, so thats probably why i dont agree with it.

but i wouldnt stop anyone else doing it.

p,s, thanks pringle!!

 

[RenaissanceMan]

i did say each to there won and by that i didnt mean others cant do it.

I just dont like the whole idea of it, i mean for me its always been pointless for non religious people, so thats probably why i dont agree with it.

but i wouldnt stop anyone else doing it.

Ok, I'll "let you off the hook" since I've finally managed to go from understanding your opinion as "same-sex marriage is immoral for all" to "same-sex marriage is not for me", lol...

But this same-sex marriage business isn't JUST for non-religious people (there are several churches/denominations which do marry same-sex couples after all).

 

[-live-]

good! it is defently wrong to have it in churches, no doubt about that in my mind, seeing as int he bible it is against homosexuality! now im not sayin god hates gays as he doesnt im just saying why do it in a church when they knwo fully well that its not right.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Hummmm.

Some have come close here. Some have been emotional here, and some have been either misinformed, or are uninformed.

What I propose is simple.

Let the Churches and other religious institutions keep their "sacred unions and marriages." The Government has NO say in who they are allowed to marry, or who they are allowed to sanctify a marriage/union for.

For those of us who don't subscribe to Judea/Christian/Islamic ideas of what "marriage" is or should be, allow me a "civil union."

I don't tell you who to appoint pastor/pope/rabbi/iman, and you don't tell me who to vote for, or who I can and cannot marry!

Deal?

I didn't think so, but it was worth a try.



The Government issues me a license that provides me with the 1,200 or so benefits that Heterosexuals get when they "marry," and the Church can either choose to recognize/sanctify my marriage to my boyfriend or not.

That license becomes a legal binding agreement between me and my partner.

If, as a gay man, I'm not allowed the same equality, then I say let the Churches start dealing with 50% percent of the divorces that come as a result of their "marriages."


</IMG>

 

[RenaissanceMan]

good! it is defently wrong to have it in churches, no doubt about that in my mind, seeing as int he bible it is against homosexuality!

That's not entirely clear according to some either... and then again, not all religious institutions have to follow the Bible or the Bible in its entirety. (And even if you do follow the Bible and interpret it to be saying homosexuality is immoral, there's the old argument of "well, we don't follow a lot of absurd things the Bible seems to say, like keeping slaves and not shaving your beard"...which the Bible is actually more clear about than on the topic of homosexuality).

Ok, this is way off topic...AND it has been talked to death in the Religion forum.

 

[bigbott]

This is quite a heated debate...

Interesting views.

I think that anyone that wants to get married whether it be a religious or civil marriage, should be free to do so.

I understand why some religious people might object to gays marrying in churches. Someone here said that in the bible states marriage is between two people. Yes it does in one of the books, but in another I am told it does state that it is a union between a man and a woman. That's the problem with the bible it contradicts itself, or you can pick and choose bits that fit your point. Although not religious myself, I would not deny gay christians the right to marry in a church.

However, the connection between gay marriage and polygamy a big jump. Personally, I do not find polygamy very appealing. That said, that does not give me the right too make judgment or moralise against those who do practise it. Legally here in the UK it would require numerous changes in the laws, pensions and property rights. So in that sense I can see obstacles against it; namely it would be too expensive.

Also in many western societies we have been socialised to thrown upon polygamy. Personally I say live and let live.

Its interesting what is going on in the US. I am pleased for Americans about the recent ruling. That said, It makes me happy that I live here in the UK!

 

[Treborf]

why do I have the feeling that you are closed to whatever answers you receive, you think you have a "gotcha" question that no can answer and thus you have trumped everyone with the brilliant insight of your question.

Probably because you tried to extrapolate my motives without having enough information.

But just so there's no confusion, I'm a gay man for gay marriage who has no stake in polygamous marriage. I'm not interested in "trumping" anybody. I'm interested in the answers to the question which is why I asked it in the first place.

 

[iman]

You've often argued, in your defense for the two party partisan political system we have, for the right of society because you support the will (that is, the tyranny) of the majority. Now you are arguing against it... a house divided...

It does not matter if someone is a Utilitarian or a Deontologist, the reality is that societies, this society, establish laws that reflect the society's morals and ethics.

I have never argued for the "tyranny of the majority", I have argued that it is pointless and unrealistic to vote for some third party fantasy. I have never argued for the suppression of minority rights, quite the contrary. Gays are a natural minority and should have the same rights and privileges as the majority st8's.

 

[NickCole]

Marriage is about property and legal responsibility.

It always has been and it still is today. Spend a day in any divorce court, family court or small claims court, and you'll see the reality of it.

If two people want to live their lives together because they're in love they don't need to be married, but marriage provides protection and privilege to people willing to make a commitment to one another. I think our society should be a lot more concerned about the divorce rate and a lot less concerned about consenting adults willing to marry and commit to being responsible for one another.

I see nothing wrong with polygamy. The issue I have with the stories I've read about it have to do with the way people treat one another, not with mulitiple partners per se. I see no reason they shouldn't be able to marry.

 

[-live-]

I dont see why christianity is brought up because when people mention it they lie, like this person who decided to say 'most' when thats not right. Saying that christians are racist as well as against gays. I know more none christians who are against gay marriage, and i dont know of one chirstian personally (and i know quite a few), who is against it.

If most of these so called Christians had their way, there would still be "Whites Only" drinking fountains, as well as gay ones, now.

I dont know what christians your talking about, but none that i know.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

I suppose I'd be shot here if I said that I didn't think gays should be married, but I'd never make that mistake. Being gay and not supporting gay marriage is like a black man walking up to a hoodie dancing around a burning cross and asking to join the party. Marriage is a religion thing. Religion is a done deal - it's not something that is changeable. Either you believe what's written or you don't. I don't get why civil unions are a bad thing and that these gay activists don't realize it? I know I'll be ripped to shreds for saying that but seriously - if you don't believe in religion, then marriage doesn't exist. There's a reason it they say "Holy matrimony...". So I can see why politicians all believe the same thing. I mean if it happens, I'll obviously have no problem with it, but it's not an important issue to me and I don't see why it should be, especially if you're not religious..

 

[cAndId]

Marriage isnt a religious institution... It has evolved into the human ceremony recognizing the unification of 2 people who love each other enough to make that commitment to each other. You dont have to be Christian in order to get a marriage license, you can be Atheist, you can be Buddhist, you can be Shinto, you can be Agnostic etc... The point is that we as a people are being discriminated against - political entities are joining together to ban us from gaining equality amongst our peers. The religious right believes we are not their equals and believes we do not deserve to have the rights they have.

Whether you agree with the idea of marrying someone or not, the point is that we deserve equal rights to that of our straight peers.

 

[cAndId]

I dont know what christians your talking about, but none that i know.

Mormons, Jehovahs witnesses, Catholics, SDA, and a lot of other protestant Christian groups are officially against gay marriage and the advancement of gay rights.

Fewer Christian churches accept our people than reject us.

As for racism, it was acceptable decades ago - the Civil rights movement had to fight to get to where we are now... and the gay rights movement is fighting to get us the same results. Fighting to get us equality in the eyes of our fellow citizens, fighting to get us acceptance in the public eye - in schools, in government offices, in the workplace etc... we dont fully have that yet.

The civil rights movement faced stiff opposition from the religious right back then, and we face opposition from the religious right now.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

Marriage isnt a religious institution... It has evolved into the human ceremony recognizing the unification of 2 people who love each other enough to make that commitment to each other. You dont have to be Christian in order to get a marriage license, you can be Atheist, you can be Buddhist, you can be Shinto, you can be Agnostic etc... The point is that we as a people are being discriminated against - political entities are joining together to ban us from gaining equality amongst our peers. The religious right believes we are not their equals and believes we do not deserve to have the rights they have.

Whether you agree with the idea of marrying someone or not, the point is that we deserve equal rights to that of our straight peers.

And without religion, marriage STILL wouldn't exist, regardless of what it has "evolved" to. So, you said it yourself. It's a UNION. So why the hell aren't people happy with a Civil Union? Marriage isn't exactly a right...

 

[iman]

If we followed Leviticus we would legalize polygamy and stone to death homosexuals. Why are we concerned with what ancient Jewish middle eastern tribes found acceptable thousands of years ago?
Not only do we live in another time and country, we are smarter, more knowledgeable, and have a better moral/ethical sense than the folks that wrote various sections of the Bible.
We can make our own decisions for our own society. So; Why do st8s have the right to marry and gays do not?