Gay Marriage Question

[OtterJoq]

If getting married is your goal in life, your epitome of freedom, and the only thing that will make you happy, then thats pretty bad.

It's one goal, not the only one.

And if you don't think you're entitled to the same marriage rights as the straight guy next door, then that's REALLY bad.

 

[cAndId]

So if a church wants to marry 2 men or 2 women, they cant because the government is letting the churches define marriage as a union of 2 people of the opposite sex? So what about the other churches that are not ignorant and discriminatory to our people?



Then by that logic, this is a case of the majority of christian churches imposing thier will on the minority of religious groups who support equal marriage - they are forcing thier discriminatory beliefs on all the citizens of your country.

I take it some of you are for 'letting' the religious right define unions between 2 people? I do not believe that the religious right has absolute authority of this institution... and the majority of my fellow Canadians agree.

No one has the right to tell me that I cannot enter into a marriage contract with the man I love... religious leaders in this country do not have the authority to dictate the definition of marriage.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

It's one goal, not the only one.

And if you don't think you're entitled to the same marriage rights as the straight guy next door, then that's REALLY bad.

I don't see it that way. I've always known marriage as a man and a woman. I'm not against it, I'm just not for it either. I've always known it that way. Like I've said before, I don't want to sound mean or against anything, but I'm not gonna fight for it because gay marriage isn't important. As long as I have the person I love, then that's good enough for me. I don't need a document to secure it. If you do, then so be it, but I don't want to be disliked because I don't fight for it.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's one goal, not the only one.

And if you don't think you're entitled to the same marriage rights as the straight guy next door, then that's REALLY bad.

I don't believe I do, or any of us do.
We have the same rights, but "marriage" is not a right -- it is, historically, a religious matter, that was co-opted by the state (go back and read posts 77 & 78). While the culture was essentially homogenenous, that worked fine: the cultural definition of marriage was the Judeo-Christian one, and having it written into law didn't bother anything.
But for better or worse, we have moved beyond a Judeo-Christian culture, but it is still that religious definition of marriage that is written into law. At this point, since the religion no longer dominates the culture, that has become a matter of violation of the Constitution. For the many who do not agree with the J-C definition, the situation is de facto religious persecution.
So is the solution to change the definition of marriage, and ram that down everyone's throats? That would be foolish, akin to bombing mosques because some Muslims hate us and want to impose their views on us: the only result would be to guarantee the "war" a permanent life, feeding on itself generation after generation, as every new batch of Sunday School children gets taught that only they have "real" marriage, that anything else is blasphemous... and everyone else would have to fight back.
Why give the ReligioPublicans fuel for the fire? Marriage has traditionally been seen as a religious matter, and most Americans still see it that way. So let them have it -- but let's fight to get the religious persecution out of the law, and replace it with "civil union" (or "interpersonal bond", or whatever). A church marriage would then be, under the law, just one form of recognized civil union -- and whatever anyone else wished to do would be civil union as well.
From the perspective of the ReligioPublicans, and a lot of other Americans, the demand for "gay marriage" comes as not only an insulting intrusion into deeply-held convictions, but as a conspiracy to commit grand larceny: they see gays as trying to steal (and bend, fold, and mutilate) something precious. The reaction is predictable, and the effort, even if successful, will guarantee that the bitter fighting will go on for generations. Both tactically and strategically, this approach to having rights recognized is unsound.
We have the deeply-held conviction that we should be treated the same before the law as any other citizens -- but that does not require "gay marriage". It is also a conviction the ReligioPublicans hold, when they calm down and think. So rather than try to insult and anger them, we should be the statesmen, pointing to that common ground, and offering a solution that will let them have "marriage" all to themselves, by levelling the field with government recognition of all interpersonal unions.

 

[iman]

Some of you are arguing for the status quo, not changing something just for the sake of not changing. Obviously humans would never have made much progress if that had been accepted down through history, women would not vote(changed the definition of suffrage), we would still have slavery(changed the definition of citizenship), etc.

You need a better argument.

 

[cAndId]

Some of you are arguing for the status quo, not changing something just for the sake of not changing. Obviously humans would never have made much progress if that had been accepted down through history, women would not vote(changed the definition of suffrage), we would still have slavery(changed the definition of citizenship), etc.

You need a better argument.

Quoted for truth.

 

[ticktickboy69]

is it just me or are catholic priests and bishops just jelous because they themselves can not marry!!!

 

[Homoaffectional]

Marriage should be seperate from the government.

Whatever this argument rates on its own merits, it does annoy me somewhat how so many choose to bring it up now, just as gay people are petitioning the government for recognition under the existing marriage statutes.

Marriage will not be separate from the government any time soon. Even the Libertarians recognize that. Let's move on past this old, tired argument, shall we, and simply proceed to making access to marriage fair, just, and equal as long as this is in a common sense way.

 

[Kulindahr]

Whatever this argument rates on its own merits, it does annoy me somewhat how so many choose to bring it up now, just as gay people are petitioning the government for recognition under the existing marriage statutes.

Marriage will not be separate from the government any time soon. Even the Libertarians recognize that. Let's move on past this old, tired argument, shall we, and simply proceed to making access to marriage fair, just, and equal as long as this is in a common sense way.

This is precisely the time to bring it up!
The situation as it is is religious persecution. A faction, however large it may be, holds, as a special interest, a monopoly on marriage under FedGov law.
The aim of the gay community as it stands is proposing to become part of the persecutors, a partner in the special-interest monopoly. That is both despicable and foolish; as I showed above, it is both bad tactics and bad strategy.
I will vote against any effort to add gay marriage to the existing statutes because of this, and for the reasons I already set forth. THose pushing it have not, I think, thought through the consequences. There are counties in this country where law enforcement would turn a blind eye to arson and murder against gays if "good Christian people" were forced to swallow what they would see as blasphemy against "holy matrimony". The backlash against the small attempts made in the last year should wake up anyone to reality: trying to grab a piece of "marriage" is just going to bring trouble, and is likely to backfire the more pressure is brought, to the point where we will see states passing laws not just forbidding gay marriage, but forbidding inheritance rights, or any other legal benefit of marriage, to non-monogamous-heterosexual couples (in fact I believe one is voting on such an issue this week).

If we fight as a sepcial interest, we'll get treated like one. If we stand up and fight for freedom, standing on the clear words of the Constitution, we may just get somewhere.

 

[cAndId]

So your position is to allow them to treat us as second class citizens to avoid getting lynched by mobs of gay-hating religious groups? That is the cowards way out - we should not cede anything, we should fight for full equality. Would the stonewall riots have occurred if the gay people though 'we shouldnt because then the religious right would get upset'? What would have happened if martin luther king Jr. did not make his 'I have a dream' speech out of fear of a backlash from the political Right?

We shouldnt be worried about what the Right thinks of us, we should be worried about us and the gay persons after us who do not have equal rights on this planet.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

So the fact that you can't legally marry makes you second class? Wow. I'm not allowed to smoke pot, but it's my right. I wanna be equal to those in foreign countries who can legally smoke pot in a coffee shop. I'm a second class citizen now.

 

[luminum]

It amkes us second class citizens because the plethora of rights that come with legal marriage are denied to us without just cause. We can't visit spouses in the hospital, we can't adopt children together, we wouldn't even be allowed to both adopt one child even if it belonged to one of us through genetic heritage, we wouldn't be covered by health insurance from a spouse's job.

The list goes on. That's what's being denied us. Not the ability to say 'I do.' That'd be trivial. Just like not being allowed to smoke pot. It's baout not being recognized as equivalent relationships that deserve those rights and legal standings that other relationships receive.

 

[Homoaffectional]

This is precisely the time to bring it up!

I disagree. You know you wouldn't have been able to have a chance to oppose it when the original statues involving marriage were first introduced. Now that you might have a bit more sympathy (but nowhere near enough to actually get lawmakers to make the change), you are making a cynical, opportunistic attempt to hijack the debate of fair and equal marriage rights w/ideas about your own agenda.

It won't happen. If not never, certainly not any time in the next two centuries. And you guys won't be around then. Give up and move on, I say.

So the fact that you can't legally marry makes you second class?

In a word -- yes. Just curious... are you gay?

 

[cAndId]

So the fact that you can't legally marry makes you second class? Wow. I'm not allowed to smoke pot, but it's my right. I wanna be equal to those in foreign countries who can legally smoke pot in a coffee shop. I'm a second class citizen now.

The only thing that would make that analogy make sense, would be if straight people could smoke pot while gay people couldnt. Straight people can get married, gay people are not allowed, thats where the inequity is.

 

[CuriousMonkey]

It's that simple.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

Just curious... are you gay?

Yep. Which is why I stated before, if it's legalized, fine. If not, fine. It doesn't affect me either way because I don't see a need to be married. Sure, maybe benefits but where I work, it recognizes same sex partnerships and my partner, should I ever have one, are under my benefits as well. A lot of places are like that now. That's why I don't see the need to fight for it when I don't need it, but I'm not technically against it either. I guess if someone wants to get married, they should be, but like I said, I've always associated marriage with a man and a woman and I just don't see a need to change it. Just doesn't seem right, but I don't really have much of an arguement one why, simply because it's just how I feel. I also don't want to witness the backlash or hate crimes that could happen if it was ever legalized. I just - it's not needed. I think that's what I fear most, in reality. Not that I'm against it, I just fear the bad things that could happen. Sure, there'd be laws against the crimes and such, but that won't mean it'll stop. I just don't vote for or against it. If that makes me bad or hated by the gay community, then I guess I'll have to accept that. I just don't think or bother with the things others care about - such as the Cracker Barrel thing. It's just not important to me.
Someone said to me before when we were in conversation about this topic, that I must not love who I am or myself at all to not want to be equal with all others. I just don't see me and my partner not being able to get married as a form of inequality. I mean, IT IS, but my life is fine the way it is. I don't think people vew me as less of a person because of how I was born or raised or whatever, and so like I said, I guess thats why I just don't see why people get so enraged over this because I don't know any of you in real life. I don't know how good or bad your life is and I don't know how much getting married would mean to you. Some people have things that mean more to them than someone else. But I definitely don't want to be disliked for not being for or against it by the gay community, you know what I mean?
I also fear that IF a backlash occured, it would be assumed that the crimes against gays that could be committed, would include me, who wasn't even worried about whether gay marriage was legalized or not - it's just I tend to fear more about the reaction of others than anything, because I think everything is fine the way it is.
I hope all of this made sense. If not, point out what doesn't and I'll try to clarify to the best of my ability.

The only thing that would make that analogy make sense, would be if straight people could smoke pot while gay people couldnt. Straight people can get married, gay people are not allowed, thats where the inequity is.

Okay yeah, good point. I'm not good with analogies lol.
This is a stupid question, and I should probably know this, but is gay marriage legal in Las Vegas? It just seems like of all places, it'd be legal there.

 

[Homoaffectional]

It doesn't affect me either way because I don't see a need to be married.

The great thing about gay marriage, is despite all the propaganda, is that each individual denomination/religion will have the choice on whether or not to marry gays in their churches/mosques/synagogues. By the same token, you won't be forced to marry another man, either. Isn't that wonderful?

If you don't support it, that's fine. Just like w/the Crist thing, maybe you could find better uses of your time than opposing the efforts of other gay people to win equality so they can do what they want? Others do feel the 'desire' to be married, just as blacks felt the need to not have to eat at separate lunch counters or drink from separate water fountains. I'm sure there were plenty of blacks around back then who *didn't* feel the need and were comfortable the way they were. And the blacks who were fighting for it probably said... listen, if you don't want to help that's fine. Could you please maybe just stay out of the way and find something else to do w/your life if you're so totally not seeing the point of the cause?

That's what I'm saying. And forgive me, but in the spirit of full disclosure, I didn't read the entirety of your last posting. If you're neutral on the issue of gay marriage, that's fine. But I won't spend my time reading everything typed by someone who actually opposes gay marriage. I can find better things to do, thanks. I actually knew someone living in MA who didn't care for marriage for himself; didn't see the need for it; but when the court decision came down, he took a bus up to Beacon Hill and protested w/the rest of those who wanted to marry their partners or find someone one day to marry and then walk down that aisle. Him? Nah, but at least he didn't try to talk other people out of fighting for it. Now there's someone I definitely respected.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not convinced you actually read my post, from this response, but....

So your position is to allow them to treat us as second class citizens to avoid getting lynched by mobs of gay-hating religious groups? That is the cowards way out - we should not cede anything, we should fight for full equality. Would the stonewall riots have occurred if the gay people though 'we shouldnt because then the religious right would get upset'? What would have happened if martin luther king Jr. did not make his 'I have a dream' speech out of fear of a backlash from the political Right?

No, my position is that we should go for equality, and not just try to become part of the current ruling power, or offend people who are convinced that marriage is "holy matrimony". I won't go through the good sense again, but to me what the proponents of "gay marriage" are after isn't equality but uniformity. The fight is no different than trying to require everyone to use just one restroom -- no male, no female, just all in one.
I'm not afraid of anything; read my argument again. I was warning of the consequences of assaulting people's dearly cherished understandings of things -- an understanding, BTW, that is historically correct.
Your invoking Martin Luther King doesn't fit the situation. It would be parallel if King had called for doing away with all references to race other than white, so we'd all be referred to as white, regardless of color.

We shouldnt be worried about what the Right thinks of us, we should be worried about us and the gay persons after us who do not have equal rights on this planet.

We should be worried about ALL persons and their rights -- or we are just being another selfish special interest. And fighting for gay marriage ignores everyone but gays, leaving others with the same second-class status as they have now. Fighting for gay marriage says, "Religious persecution is okay, as long as you don't persecute us."

We should be fighting the religious persecution, not just trying to co-opt this aspect of it for our own benefit.

 

[Kulindahr]

Is that what he's doing? (I'm assuming he's a he). I'm new here but I'm already tending to skip past his long-winded posts--they throw my ADD into overdrive. ::chuckle::

You'll find that the people who write long posts tend to be the ones who think, not just toss off quickie responses.

I despise quickie responses, because the lack of thought behind them is the exact same thing that drives the ReligioPublicans.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you don't support it, that's fine. Just like w/the Crist thing, maybe you could find better uses of your time than opposing the efforts of other gay people to win equality so they can do what they want? ..... Could you please maybe just stay out of the way and find something else to do w/your life if you're so totally not seeing the point of the cause?

That's a sort of "Have you stopped beating your dog?" question.
I support equal rights -- therefore I oppose gay marriage; or more precisely, I oppose gay marriage laws, pro or con. Any law about marriage is contrary to the Constitution, because to so many marriage is a religious matter.
Taken in the larger context of equal rights and the Constitution, the fight for gay marriage laws is not a fight for equality; it is a fight to be established as part of the established special-interest power structure. If it is won, it will be a blow against equal rights and an affirmation of the religious persecution that got us to this point -- and cooperation with the religious persecution that will still be there in the law.
So, no -- I won't stay out of the way, because I don't believe in writing the wants of special interests into law; I believe in freedom.

That's what I'm saying. And forgive me, but in the spirit of full disclosure, I didn't read the entirety of your last posting. If you're neutral on the issue of gay marriage, that's fine. But I won't spend my time reading everything typed by someone who actually opposes gay marriage. I can find better things to do, thanks. I actually knew someone living in MA who didn't care for marriage for himself; didn't see the need for it; but when the court decision came down, he took a bus up to Beacon Hill and protested w/the rest of those who wanted to marry their partners or find someone one day to marry and then walk down that aisle. Him? Nah, but at least he didn't try to talk other people out of fighting for it. Now there's someone I definitely respected.

I don't see anything to respect in someone supporting the fight of one special interest to horn in on the territory carved out by another.
Here in Oregon, when a couple of counties started giving out marriage licenses to gay couples, many gays cheered. But what were they cheering? Simply this: rebellion against the law, misuse of elected office, misappropriation of public resources, all for the sake of catering to a special interest.
But then for most people, special interests are bad... unless it's theirs.