same sex marriages

[tattoomytoe]

since this is a hot topic, i thought i would see what the important people have to say about it.

 

i am all for it. especially the benefits awarded to being married. alot of conservatives hav esaid that it changes the traditional definition of marriage, that it is only between a man and a woman.

Well HELLO! what constitutes normal these days anyways. as we americans become more tolerant and open minded about things, i think old ideas ansd assumptions should be thrown out...but easier said than done.

doesn't this violate civil rights? Why not just revert back to slavery, and condem all who are not wealthy white christian males?

[wiseOLDman]

Wow tatoo, you cast a pretty wide net there- gay rights, racism, and christianity. I happen to be a relatively wealthy, white christian male who has never owned a slave and has no problem with gay marriage. Gays and Lesbians should have all of the rights, priviledges and drawbacks, with respect to marriage, that are afforded to heterosexual couples. Period.

[tattoomytoe]

i am not trying to stereotype wealthy white males, or christians, or LBGT's... i wanted to make the point that we have, for the most part, moved past that older way of thinking, in the US, and have "changed with the times".

 

history has shown that these changes do not always come easily or peacefully, but it seems to me that americans do need to realize that people are different, everyone has different ideas and/or beliefs, and that we should be tolerant citizens and strive for justice for everyone. thats what i wanted to convey.

[lostforwords]

[moimeme]

So far, so good. Now, hang on a tick and see what other opinions you'll get. For a preview, do a search on 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' and read some of the recent threads on the subjects.

 

You'll find that not everyone has "for the most part, moved past that older way of thinking, in the US", unfortunately

[cindy0039]

Originally posted by moimeme

So far, so good. Now, hang on a tick and see what other opinions you'll get. For a preview, do a search on 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' and read some of the recent threads on the subjects.

 

You'll find that not everyone has "for the most part, moved past that older way of thinking, in the US", unfortunately

You'll probably have to wait until at least 1:00 a.m. to hear the good stuff...tee hee...giggle (moimeme)

 

My opinion = live and let live. Whatever makes you happy. We should all have the same rights.

[HokeyReligions]

Like it or not, religious beliefs and practices have a lot to do with it, and so does politics. For someone whose God has told them that homosexuality is a sin, it will never be okay to have same-sex marriages. It is an affront to God and their beliefs. Even if it is not their personal business - it does have an impact (financial, social, ethical, moral, etc.) on all parts of society.

 

Homosexuals and their supporters have spoken out and fought back against prejudice and demand tolerance, if not acceptance, from everyone. However, if a Christian or anyone who has firm beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or deviant, speaks up in protest of gay rights, they are labeled a bigot and ridiculed, sometimes they lose their jobs, sometimes they are the victims of violence. Their views are not accepted or tolerated. They have every right speak their mind, and protest - and yet they are punished when they do. Instead of creating harmony and actually progressing our society away from civil unrest, it is just swinging around so that those who were victims are now the aggressors, and those who were aggressors are now victims. People fear retribution from individuals, and also from society in the form of lost jobs, etc.

 

If the government wants to legalize gay marriage - then the spouses need to be bound to the same laws and taxes that other married couples are bound to. If they are a higher-risk for STD's then their insurance premiums should be higher -- just as they are for smokers vs. non-smokers. I think that stats still show that gay men are at a far higher risk for AIDS then others? Maybe that has changes recently--I don't know. But if a valid marriage license is societal proof that two people are committed to each other, thereby a lower risk for STDs, then their premiums should be lowered. But that would hold true for single straight people too. There are some insurance carriers and companies that are beginning to structure their premiums on these issues.

 

It doesn't matter what the government does - if a religion does not sanctify a marriage no piece of government paper is going to change that.

[quankanne]

how does my disagreeing with the "need" for legalizing same-sex marriages violate someone's civil liberties? Aren't mine being violated because I'm being forced to accept something I don't believe in?

 

I feel violated every time I read a statement like the one posted above, "Why not just revert back to slavery, and condem all who are not wealthy white christian males?" (squawk) I'm not white, I'm not male and I've never owned slaves, but still I am insulted when I'm told that I'm "wrong" for believing that marriage is a union that shouldn't be dealt with lightly or that I don't think a same-sex relationship should be put on equal footing as a marriage between a man and a woman.

 

Why? because there are too many things working against this kind of relationship to begin with. From my observations, it doesn't matter how loving or devoted that gay/lesbian couple is, overall, there's more to it than wanting to be accepted socially.

 

If people are writing in about their problems with their relationships being accepted because their partner is the wrong age, the wrong color, the wrong ethnic background or the wrong age, how is it going to be any easier for a gay person to validify their relationship? If anything, there's even more of a battle in store trying to defend that relationship. And legalizing a gay union isn't going to make it any easier for homosexual couples.

 

In addition to that, consider the "serial bride" factor: If a straight man or woman can't get marriage to work for them the first couple of times around, how is it any easier for a person in a same-sex union? You can't mean to tell me that you can choose your same-sex spouse from a very small pool of people and try to make that relationship survive in the climate that doesn't support homosexuality. With the exception of a family friend who was one of the "lucky ones," I've yet to hear of or see a long-lasting homosexual relationship. Mostly, I hear tales from gay friends of the never-ending dating scene and the endless quest to try to find "the one" for them ... and these are men in their 40s. How much easier is it going to be for them to find that life-mate as they get older? And then have it successfully last as a committed, monogamous relationship like marriage is supposed to be?

 

Yeah, it'd great to say that legal recognition of committed gay relationship would solve the problems of the homosexual community and make that lifestyle more acceptable to people, but realistically, it's like trying to build a palace on quicksand. It can be a lovely structure, but unless the ground is stable, it's not going to be a structure that'll be around long.

 

quank, the opinionated

[UCFKevin]

I have absolutely no problem with same sex marriages.

 

I honestly believe that people who do not agree with this assessment are living in the dark ages and need to upgrade their beliefs. I hate to think people are walking around who think like this, who think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as straight people. It's disgusting.

[moimeme]

whose God has told them that homosexuality is a sin

 

Nobody's GOD ever said any such thing. Rather, people claiming to speak for God have said this. And people claiming to speak of the Bible have bastardized that same holy book to put forward their policies of hate while ignoring their own hypocricy.

 

I will again insist that anybody who says he or she lives by 'every word of the Bible' turn to Leviticus - the same chapter in which homosexuality is 'condemned' - and live by EVERY WORD IN THAT CHAPTER. Which means, while they condemn homosexuals they must also stone their disobedient children to death and stone adulterers to death. You either walk your talk or you are a hypocrite. Period.

[wiseOLDman]

quankanne, Unfortunately there are those who will say that you are "wrong" simply because you voice an opposing view. There is nothing wrong with that. It is your opinion and we are all entitled to an opinion. I sense that it's not that you're necessarily opposed to gay marriages, but you question whether or not they can actually succeed. There is a big difference there. Your points are valid with respect to the societal difficulties that would be faced by gay couples, but the same could be said for interracial, May-December and inter-faith marriages.

 

ANY marriage is a never-ending project. They take commitment, dialog and give-and-take on a daily basis. I cannot sit here and say that I'm any better at handling the project than a gay couple would be.

 

Fundamentally, I hold the belief that gay/lesbian couples should have the same fundamental rights that I have as a heterosexual and I can't predict the success or failure of their marriage any more than I could for a hetero couple.

[Callisto]

If I were to ask most people what they did in the bedroom they would say it's none of my business. If I were to ask most people why they married the person they did, even though I told them that person was wrong to marry, they would say it's none of my business.

 

And they would be right.

 

It is none of my business. I am in a 3 year relationship with a man (I am a woman), but if I wanted to be a relationship with a woman, it would be none of YOUR business. I don't think it's right for the goverment or my neighbors to tell me that they feel violated because Dick decided to marry Harry instead of Jane. They certaintly do NOT have the right to tell me that they have decided Dick will NOT be allowed to marry Harry.

 

People who think that they have to have a say in who another can love, have a "I am God" complex.

[quankanne]

the question of rights being granted isn't the issue I have, but that the idea of people thinking that certain changes mean across-the-board improvement. There still is going to be large number of people in this country who will refuse to accept same-sex marriage, not because they "live in the Dark Ages," but because it goes against their personal moral code. And that code cannot be discounted any more than can be that of the person who stands up for gay rights ...

 

it's not a 100-percent, 'let's all get on the same bandwagon' kind of thing. Nothing is.

[UCFKevin]

So much harm comes out of religion, it's almost funny.

[Callisto]

I agree with you that allowing same-sex marriages will not be the cure for homo-phobes around the world. But that's not the reason to allow it.

 

We have to let them get married, because who are we to tell them they can't?

 

So are u saying that since heterosexuals can't get it right, homosexuals shouldn't even get the chance?

[Faerie Princess]

Doesn't mean that everyone else in your society has to share your opinion. Because a religious belief is just that - YOUR belief. Our society is open enough that there are different belief structures all co-habitating in the same country.

 

To base our legislation on one sect's beliefs is not fair to the other sects operating here.

 

Marriage when defined as an institution based in a religious context becomes hidebound to 1 man, 1 woman, procreation and till death do us part. Marriage isn't really that anyway. Divorces still happen, people chose not to have children, marriage isn't really all that it's being lauded as.

 

What I'd want if I were a lesbian would be the legal benefits of tax filing, mutual property, health care, accessibility in medical institutions, and then on top of it, the social respect that my union is just as valid as the one a heterosexual couple has.

 

Heck, how many people post on this forum about cheating, no love, divorce and so on? The true merit of a relationship, sanctioned by the state or no, is how devoted and dedicated the people within it behave and live.

[tattoomytoe]

i was not saying that any of this would change the fate of any relationship, be it homo- or hetero- sexual, but i do believe everyone should be awarded the same equal rights and equal laws.

and i think if you haven't seen dogma, it's a great movie about religion, beliefs and ideas.

[quankanne]

aha!

 

To base our legislation on one sect's beliefs is not fair to the other sects operating here

 

so how is granting same-sex marriages fair to those "sects" that DON'T believe in them? Wouldn't we be trodding on the civil rights of the naysayers? Or do they even count, simply because they differ from what the yea-sayers want?

 

The true merit of a relationship, sanctioned by the state or no, is how devoted and dedicated the people within it behave and live

 

therefore, why should it matter if a state recognizes or doesn't recognize same-sex marriages? There's consideration for "common-law marriages" between couples who chose to live together without the benefit of that piece of paper, and those relationships are no less valid than those who go before God, JP and everyone else to pledge their troth.

[tattoomytoe]

all i was saying is that the same rights should be given to married couples, whether they be homosexual or heterosexaul couples.

Not that this would have anything to do with personalities and how well you get along with your spouse.

non-legal citizens get married to afford themselves rights, and i know that it is not always for love, hell me and my bf were going to just because he needed health insurance. so why would we be able to do that just for those reasons and not a legitmately in love homosexual couple?

[tattoomytoe]

also commonlaw marriages do not transfer between states so if a couple were to mone they may not get the same treatment because they are not considered married in that state

[midori]

Originally posted by quankanne

aha!

 

To base our legislation on one sect's beliefs is not fair to the other sects operating here

 

so how is granting same-sex marriages fair to those "sects" that DON'T believe in them? Wouldn't we be trodding on the civil rights of the naysayers? Or do they even count, simply because they differ from what the yea-sayers want?

 

quankanne, how does Joe & Jim's marriage affect your civil rights, or any others who are opposed to same-sex marriages? If you don't want to get married to a woman, you certainly don't have to.

 

It's when one sect's beliefs are thrust upon all -- prohibiting all from doing this or requiring that we all do that -- that one can argue that civil rights are being violated. The Catholic Church discourages (perhaps even bans, dunno, I'm not Catholic) eating meat on Fridays. There were lots of Catholics where I grew up, and lots of Friday night fishfry as a result. A cultural norm for the area. Fine. But no one came into our home and said, "60% of the people in this community do not consume meat on Friday, so you must not either." That would be an obvious, and ridiculous, imposition. I'm sure Catholics have their reasons for thinking that no meat on Fridays is a good thing to do. But no one would stand for a minute if they tried to impose it on all

 

Do you see the distinction? Gay marriage has nothing to do with heterosexuals' civils rights, or with religious people's civil rights or even with homophobes' civil rights. No one will ever force a conservative sect to perform gay marriages. Again, just to use Catholic practice as an example: divorce is not possible in the Catholic Church. Yet is is common practice in the secular world, and is allowed in many religious communities. Secular laws pertaining to divorce do not violate Catholics' civil rights. No one can force the Catholic Church to recognize divorce. No one is trying to (well, maybe there's a movement within the Catholic Church, but that's another matter entirely).

 

Just because your personal opinion, be it original or religiously derived, is against same-sex marriage, doesn't mean the legalization of same-sex marriage violates your civil rights. But using your religious beliefs (or anyone else's) to justify effecting legislation that would apply to others who don't hold the same religious beliefs would violate their civil rights. If you are against same-sex marriages because you feel they are prohibited by God, you should by all means participate in a religious organization that refuses to perform same-sex marriages. It shouldn't matter one bit to you if the church down the road does perform them.

 

Cos if that were the case folks, I'd be able to accuse every driver of an S.U.V. of violating my civil rights. And I'd have a better case: they hog the roads, are more lethal to other drivers in accidents, they pollute more, and they are not fuel efficient. Those ARE things that affect me. Plus they irritate the heck out of me.

 

I'll expect passionate defenses from proud drivers of S.U.V.'s to ensue.

[quankanne]

hell, midori, SUV drivers often DO violate civil rights of other drivers by inflicting their bad driving manners on unsuspecting citizens in their path!

 

seriously, though, if we're going to argue civil rights and say that the denial of them hurts a body of people, can't it be argued that being inclusive can equally hurt that same body of people because it lessens the integrity of the rights of the people who are in opposition to something like same-sex marriage?

 

For now, the accepted norm is one man plus one woman equals a legally valid union. Now, if that couple views their marriage as something deeper than them legally getting hitched, how does a same-sex union -- even if it has the same level of commitment, passion and love -- not threaten the integrity of that first union? Because something I believe in is being put on par with something I don't believe in -- and I'm being told to accept it -- how is that not trouncing on my civil rights?

[midori]

Take the Quakers and the Amish: neither of these sects condones the use of violence. Ever. It is forbidden to them in every instance. They are allowed to be exempt from military service because of their beliefs, but they are not allowed to refuse to pay taxes -- taxes which go to support an enormous military apparatus. That could be construed as a violation of their civil rights: they are being forced to support something that their religious faiths specifically prohibit. Do you think they should be allowed to not pay taxes, since this country pursues policies that require it to maintain and use a military force?

 

The Amish do not send their children to local schools. They have their own schools. In New York State, at least, they are required to school their children through the eighth grade (I don't know about the curricular standard). The state does interfere a bit with how the Amish educate their children. Are their civil rights being violated? The Amish pay property taxes which fund the local schools, schools which they don't use, and which probably teach about many things that they think are wrong. Are their civil rights being violated?

[midori]

Originally posted by quankanne

seriously, though, if we're going to argue civil rights and say that the denial of them hurts a body of people, can't it be argued that being inclusive can equally hurt that same body of people because it lessens the integrity of the rights of the people who are in opposition to something like same-sex marriage?

 

trying to follow you quankanne, but afraid I'm not. Could you clarify this thought a bit?

 

For now, the accepted norm is one man plus one woman equals a legally valid union. Now, if that couple views their marriage as something deeper than them legally getting hitched, how does a same-sex union -- even if it has the same level of commitment, passion and love -- not threaten the integrity of that first union? Because something I believe in is being put on par with something I don't believe in -- and I'm being told to like it -- how is that not trouncing on my civil rights?

 

Following that logic, one could say that 50 years ago it was the accepted norm in most Southern states that black children did not attend the same schools as white children, etc. etc. Many (not all, nor even most necessarily) white Southerners were quite sure that was because their children were superior or in some inherent way "different" than black children, etc. etc. The civil rights movement forced desegregation upon them, and I'm sure that many people who held such views were affronted. Probably some of them pulled their precious white sons and daughters out of public schools. Was the country wrong to pursue a policy that affronted the sensibilities of racist white people? And in a nod to all you non-racist, open-minded Southerners out there (the vast majority I'm sure!), desegregation of schools affected other areas, notably and notoriously Boston. Lots of noses bent out of shape. Lots of toes stepped on. Does anyone today think it wasn't the right thing to do?

[midori]

Originally posted by quankanne

Because something I believe in is being put on par with something I don't believe in -- and I'm being told to accept it -- how is that not trouncing on my civil rights?

 

Not to get snippy with you quankanne, but no one is telling you that you have to accept it. It's just none of your business -- it has nothing to do with you. If you see a gay couple in a store sporting wedding bands you do not have to believe that their marriage has the same validity as yours or other heterosexual couples. You can mutter to yourself, roll your eyes, and wonder what the world is coming to. You can believe whatever you want to.

 

If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage and how others actions will affect your status as a married person, frankly I think you should be more concerned with the ever-growing number of divorcees. Their failed marriages do more to "debase" the institution of marriage than same-sex unions will. Do you think people shouldn't be able to divorce? Or to remarry after they divorce? The Catholic Church doesn't think so. A promise is a promise, they say. What's the point of making vows that can be undone?