Gay marriage: Why not?

[InfiniteNow]

Okay... take a deep breath everyone.

 

AHhhhh..... :hihi:

 

 

This is why I love the forums. :hihi:

 

 

TheBigDog: I'd like to commend you for holding your ground to a very, what is clearly, unpopular position. However, I refer you again to the opening question. Good reasons... They still seem lacking, and that's after 9 pages of back and forth.

 

Infamous: Do those statistics about the majority being against it hold up, or is Hypography not a very representative sample? Never mind, I know the answer to that already... :hihi:

 

 

I knew the answer before I asked the question, and I'm not even a lawyer. There are no good reasons, are there? Please, prove me wrong. I dare ye! :hihi:

[EWright]

At the time that all the US marriage laws were written the dictionary defined the word marriage as being between a man and a woman. Many still do, although there is a steady trend toward updating the definition to being between two people. The dictionary definition of the word in "marriage" at the time the laws were written is the absolute implication of the meaning of the law. Because the definition is being changed does not change the implication of the law that was written and passed.

 

I have made no argument against civil unions or any other type of contract that would give the same rights as a marriage. I am quite baffled by the way that people have reacted to my posts.

 

Bill

 

At the time the US marriage laws were written, black people could be considered 'property' as well. Times do changes as closed minds open.

 

In regards to the Church vs. legal definition of marriage, I would think it would make much more sense to allow gay marriages under the law as opposed to the church, but the church must make its own decisions. I just find it quite odd that churches choose to marry gays when the biggest argument against homesexuality is posed by the Bible. Essentially, I feel the Bible (assuming one believes in its teachings) is the ONLY valid argument for not allowing marriage between gays.

 

I also believe some churches have been 'taken over' by a gay majority, thus allowing this to happen. The homosexual community is quite good at coming together and finding ways to work together towards their causes. The church (Episcapalians?) that appointed the first gay Bishop(?) a couple years back *seems* to be an example of this. Many of the interviews I saw with voting members of that church *appeared* to exhibit strong homosexual manerisms or characteristics (granted, from a stereotypical view). My guess is that they came together under that church's umbrella and worked to put themselves in a position to make this type of change. By and large, they are an intelligent group, and working together in this way it is only a matter of time until gay marriages become legal.

 

There also seems to be a real upswing in the number of gays on television and in the public eye, and perhaps even a certain degree of 'trendiness' in being gay these days. My guess is this will sway a higher number of teens who haven't gotten in touch with their sexuality yet to become gay than in the past. Personally I believe some gays are born gay, while others are gay due to influence, others due to perversion (a minority of gays, not all!!!), others due to experimentation at a young age, etc.

 

With support groups for gays in high school and the like, and a way for 'unpopular' teens to suddenly become accepted by such a group, I see many 'lost' teens finding a sense of 'family' and support, loving, caring, etc. with other gays and becoming influenced into the culture in this way... and yes, it is becoming more and more of a culture, with its own identity, values, history, agendas, manerisms (greatly exagerated over decades ago), and manner of speach (shall we call it "Gaybonics"?).

 

Times they are a changing. While most of society is stuck contemplating such things as gay marriages, the gay community is making strides toward making their presense stronger and their equality in all aspects of American society all the more likely.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I like the definition given by C1ay about letting the Churches define who they allow to marry. But I would protect the Churches right to refuse marriage on any basis they see fit.

Hmmm....

 

Sorry - didn't see that.

 

So you did.

 

Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that Churches will have to "marry" gay people if they don't want to.

 

But I do think it's important to ensure that states honor other states contracts - and I think it creates some serious issues to have "zones" where you're married, and where you're "just a coupla queers livin' together."

 

Otherwise, they wouldn't have gay people in Texas.

 

(Submit to registration!)

 

TFS

[EWright]

Sorry - didn't see that.

 

So you did.

 

Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that Churches will have to "marry" gay people if they don't want to.

 

But I do think it's important to ensure that states honor other states contracts - and I think it creates some serious issues to have "zones" where you're married, and where you're "just a coupla queers livin' together."

 

Otherwise, they wouldn't have gay people in Texas.

 

(Submit to registration!)

 

TFS

 

So at what point do we draw the line with allowing states to have different laws? Personally, there are some states where I can gamble and earn a decent living and others where I am prohibitted from doing so. This is my means of survival, and yet I do not have the right to earn my living in this way anywhere I choose. So why should similar restrictions not be allowed for gays based on the laws of a particular state?

[TheFaithfulStone]

It's entirely different. Marriage is a legal contract. You being a professional gambler isn't. It'd be like if you lost $1 million dollars in Oklahoma, and then crossed into Texas. You'd still owe the guy a $1 million dollars because the contract is good.

 

Otherwise people could just skip the state to evade creditors.

 

(Cool job, btw.)

 

TFS

[EWright]

It's entirely different. Marriage is a legal contract. You being a professional gambler isn't. It'd be like if you lost $1 million dollars in Oklahoma, and then crossed into Texas. You'd still owe the guy a $1 million dollars because the contract is good.

 

Otherwise people could just skip the state to evade creditors.

 

(Cool job, btw.)

 

TFS

 

I was just using that as an example, but the main point was at what point do states then give up the right to decide its own laws. Would a Federal law not be required then, requiring all states to recognized gay marriages from other states? That's not gonna happen under this administration. I also get no benefits under my current occupation... maybe if I marry some hot gay guy? I mean I can be celibate and still hetro, right? :shrug:

 

(ty, btw)

[InfiniteNow]

I was just using that as an example, but the main point was at what point do states then give up the right to decide its own laws. Would a Federal law not be required then, requiring all states to recognized gay marriages from other states? That's not gonna happen under this administration

 

I linked to a democracy thread a few pages again. Please direct/discuss/approach these questions there. Cheers. :shrug:

[C1ay]

I just find it quite odd that churches choose to marry gays when the biggest argument against homesexuality is posed by the Bible.

That's kind of why I advocate allowing churches to decide for themselves. Gay churches will end up allowing it and homophobic churches will turn them away. Each will be free to practice it's own beliefs though, regardless of the beliefs of the public majority.

[Erasmus00]

I was just using that as an example, but the main point was at what point do states then give up the right to decide its own laws. Would a Federal law not be required then, requiring all states to recognized gay marriages from other states?

 

There already is a full faith and credit clausein the constitution. There is no reason for a federal law, the issue is written right into the constitution. This is what keeps you from having to hold a driver's license for every state you drive through, or to get married again if you move from state to state. This is very different then certain work being legal/illegal in different states.

-Will

[HydrogenBond]

I believe that some homosexuals have an innate tendancy. Whether it is genetic has yet to be proven conclusively. Genetics is still a cart blanche answer that says a lots without having to prove anything. Irregardless, such as these would be gay irregardless of social or political climate. There is also a second group of "homos" that is more based on psychological factors, which is given free reign only when the social and political climate is correct. These are more like the sunshine gays.

 

Part of the motivation for gay marriage, is for social acceptance, not just at a cultural level but also at a religious level. These are two different animals. Culture can get as bizzare as it wants, but religion is much more conservation with respect to behavior. Marriage is part of that conservative tradition of religion. When culture added its two cents to the religious concept of marriage divorce began to skyrocket with all the negative consequences for children. Religion does not want another two cents of near sighted cutural stupidity added to the marriage blend.

 

The gays should be happy with cultural acceptance, since culture is liberal enough to support the fringe of normality, and be content with gay-tramonial ceremonies. Instead they are trying to manipulate culture to change thousands of years of conservative religious tradition. The result is a backlash beginning to occur where even civil unions may be taken away. Their best stragey is take the cultural compromise of civil unions before it is taken off the table.

[Edella]

Wow,you even got a shot in at the geneticists.It was fun reading"irregardless" twice...Nevermind,I should probably let someone else take this.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Religion does not want another two cents of near sighted cutural stupidity added to the marriage blend.

 

Sir, your metaphors! They doth mix!

 

I'm going to have to over this with you, since I'm having trouble extracting the meaning from between the asides. Are you saying that gay people who want to be married should be happy with a legally recognized civil union that they can celebrate however they please, and that no church should be forced to let them participate in it's matrimonial ceremonies? That gay marriages can be legal without being sanctified - and that the two concepts are separate and should be addressed separately?

 

If so. Then yes. That's about right.

 

TFS

[Nootropic]

 

Part of the motivation for gay marriage, is for social acceptance, not just at a cultural level but also at a religious level. These are two different animals. Culture can get as bizzare as it wants, but religion is much more conservation with respect to behavior. Marriage is part of that conservative tradition of religion. When culture added its two cents to the religious concept of marriage divorce began to skyrocket with all the negative consequences for children. Religion does not want another two cents of near sighted cutural stupidity added to the marriage blend.

 

 

Social acceptance is a key in any large cultural group. Here are the homosexuals who, as a group, are not generally accepted in this country and as individuals have the probability of being even less accepted by their peers. Why should we telll them they cannot have these things because of what they are? Regardless of whether the cause lives in the environment or genetics, we cannot deny them.

 

As for religion being conservative, that is hardly the case. Religion should not be associated directly with what is conservative. The values that religion claim to have are what is conservative. Religion is hardly in itself a conservative entity. Did religion change when black and white people could marry? Do we still sacrifice goats? Religion has change drastically throughout history and in accordance with cultural needs and beliefs.

 

Now how exactly gay marriage is a "near-sighted cultural stupidity", I'm not sure. But what stupidity is, is that we willingly go to war and KILL people. This is EXPLICITLY outlawed in the Ten Commandments and NOWHERE does it make mention of "incase your country needs to be defended to protect all rights", yet the same people who believe gays shoudl not have rights believe we should kill other people for our rights. Backwards morals, anyone?

[pgrmdave]

At its root "gay" is a choice. It is a behavior that can be engaged in or avoided...In this case we are talking about people who have made a choice. They have chosen a person of the same gender as opposed to picking a person of the opposite gender.

 

I think that depends on how you define "gay". If "gay" is merely about the act of homosexual sex, then yes, it is a choice. However, if it is about sexual preference, then it is not. Here's a simple test - try to be gay. Just for a little while, try to be more attracted to members of the same sex more than members of the opposite sex. If you cannot succeed, then you can logically come to the conclusion that your heterosexuality is not a choice. It is reasonable to assume from that information that homosexuality is not a choice. Yes, homosexuals can choose not to engage in homosexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose not to engage in heterosexual behavior. But I do not think that makes the sexuality a choies, just the sex.

 

People who are against same sex marriage are taking a stand that was not so blurry just a few years ago. It is not that they are radicals trying to insert their opinions into other people's behavior, it is that they do not want the standards of society to be changed by what they deem to be radical behavior. The basis for that moral stand is not the issue. The issue is that there is a line drawn; one group wants it changed and another group wants it to stay. The group that wants the change has the burden of the argument.

 

Yes, one group wants things to stay the same, and one group wants change. However, it is a circular argument to claim that because the marriage laws are such, homosexual marriage is illegal, so we shouldn't change the laws.

 

This whole thing should stay at the state level so people can find a nich of happiness and continue to peacefully coexist.

 

The reason it shouldn't stay at the state level is because all states must recognize any other state's documents - including marriage certificates. As soon as any state allows gay marriage, any homosexual couple in the nation can be married there and then move back to their home state.

[InfiniteNow]

I would ask what is the purpose to expanding the law to include same sex couples?

To ensure equal opportunity to all citizens of a country, a country founded with these principles of equality at it's base... it's heart.

 

What is the benefit of same sex marriage

To ensure equal opportunity to all citizens of a country, a country founded with these principles of equality at it's base... it's heart.

 

If it is for legal benefits do people need to be gay to have a same sex marriage?

Do people need to be hetero to have an opposite sex marriage? Legal benefits may be a peripheral benefit, but it's To ensure equal opportunity to all citizens of a country, a country founded with these principles of equality at it's base... it's heart.

[TheFaithfulStone]

There is another equitable solution.

 

Remove all legal benefits to being married, and make it a purely religious ceremony.

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

So, can he leave well enough alone? Probably not... *sigh*

 

I have spent some time reflecting upon this issue over the past couple of days. And I wanted to take the time to share my thoughts with those who have taken the time to share theirs.

 

There is no right to be married in the United States. While many enjoy the benfits of marriage, it is not a right, and it is not available to all citizens. While some may have easier access to it than others, there is still equal access to it for all. All who seek to be married have the same criteria to meet. And that criteria does not violate any part of the Constitution.

 

Currently there are essentially four legal fronts around the same issue.

 

• Some are seeking to change the legal definition of marriage to include same sex couples
  
• Some are seeking to create an alternative to marriage, the civil union, to allow same sex couples to enjoy the same legal beneits as married couples
  
• Some are seeking to prevent the change to the definition of marriage laws
  
• Some are seeking to prevent any legal recognition of same sex couples
  

 

And so the debate happens. Here is some more information to help with what we are talking about...

 

In 1996 the congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act which was signed into law by President Clinton. This acts specifies a marriage as being between a man and a woman, and absolves states, territories and indian tribes from needing to honor same sex marriages accredited by other states, territories and indian tribes - essentially working around the Full Faith and Credit Clause for the specific instance of same sex marriages. While I do not belive the legality of this has been tested at the Supreme Court, it has been honored by several lower courts during the subsequent years.

 

Since 1996 there have been three states where same sex marriage or domestic partnerships have become legal. Vermont legalized domestic partnerships in 2000, but they are yet to be recognized in many other states. In Massechusetts, the state supreme court ruled in 2003 that the state's marriage law was against the state's constitution. And they mandated that the legislature change the law to comply with their ruling which was done in May of 2004. In 2005 Conneticut legalized civil unions. Several other states have passed or are passing Domestic Partnership laws.

 

In that same time every state that has brought the issue of same sex marriage to popular vote has seen it rejected.

 

I have been trying to collect some information on the various domestic partnership laws, but it is slow going and I am leary of some of the sources as they tend to appear biased one way or the other. But it is very clear that not all Domestic Partnerships are created equal. Some allow siblings or other blood relatives to register as domestic partners. Some allow both same sex and opposite sex couples to enter into the unions. Some restrict same sex and opposite sex by different ages - such as 18 for same sex, but 62 for opposite sex. Some have provisions for inheritance, child custody, shared entitlements, etc. While other specifically restrict one or more of these items. Some states specifically recognize the Domestic Partnership laws as transferable from other states, while others either don't or are vague about it.

 

This is a very polarizing issue, and the demographic of Hypography as represented by this thread's participants does not reflect the current majority opinion of the people of the United States - as reflected by every popular vote that has been taken. Does this mean that the United States is backward? No. Does it mean that every person who votes against such a bill is a prejudiced homophobic hate-monger? No. It means that our society is still based around the biological imperitive to reproduce. And the laws and tradition of marriage still reflect a time when only those of opposite sex sought to be married. The word marriage had a meaning and continues to have a meaning. It is a meaning that those who do not fit the strict definition of that word covet and wish to share in. I do not have a problem with domestic partnership laws, or civil unions. I want those laws to give people the opportunity to feel some joy and comfort in their lives that they do not have today. And if they mirror the rights of marriage I am not bothered by that either.

 

But this is how I have voted and will continue to vote. A marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what it has meant, and that is what it should continue to mean. To say that I am married carries with it information. It means that I as huband am a man married to a woman as wife. And that we as husband and wife are mother and father to our children. Just as a gay person can have pride in themselves and their life, and choose to publicly be recognized as gay without fear of abuse - I too am allowed to have pride. When I say I am married it tells people who I am. It is inherently traditional and heterosexual. I do not have a partner, I have a wife. My wife has a husband. I am not homophobic, but I feel there should be distinction in the semantics of my relationship as being inherently different than a same sex relationship. I am trying to preserve the definition of a word that describes the highest acheivments of my life: My marriage; my fatherhood; my commitment to both.

 

Is it fair? I don't care.

 

Bill