Gay marriage

[SFG75]

How will granting homosexuals the right to marriage negatively influence society and your marriage?

My opinion?
*It doesn't have any effect on my marraige, why would it?
*Equal protection and equal rights means exactly that-equal!.
*Banning gay marriage will discriminate against churches that will marry homosexuals. The bill would be overturned on a freedom of religion appeal.
*If you disagree about gay marriage, allow them to have equal rights and take solace in your belief that they will pay dearly in the after-life.

What do you think?

 

[ValkyrieRaven88]

Being bisexual myself, I'm totally in support of gay marriage. There is no good, logical reason that it should be illegal, and the only reasons anyone can give for it to remain illegal are religious ones. America is not a theocracy. Just as legalizing interracial marriages doesn't mean people have to support them, legalizing gay marriages doesn't change a thing for people who don't support homosexuality.

A lot of people take the silly stance that they should have something similar to marriage that isn't actually called marriage--civil unions--so the conservatives can feel at ease. That is very insulting to people like me. Seperate but equal never works, and people in civil unions won't be given the same rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples.

It also annoys me that common law married couples have more rights than gay couples who have lived together the same amount of time or longer. Common law couples are just unwilling for whatever reason to go through with the ceremony. Why should a heterosexual common law couple get more tax cuts than a gay couple who have lived together for eighteen years and want badly to be legally married?

Pedophilia is also illegal in the US, but a minor can be married with the consent of her parents to an adult, and then the sexual relations are legal. That just does not make sense. The government will sanction an illegal relationship with a marriage, but not a loving relationship between two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender.

To people who say this defies freedom of religion, no bill can say that all churches have to allow gay people to attend their services or marry at their altars. If a church decides it is against gay marriage, no ceremonies have to take place there involving homosexual couples. Churches like mine will probably decide to allow such marriages, but believe me, no one can force them to do it. And if a person at my church decides that they don't want to go to a church where gay couples can marry, they can leave. Just like if they had any other problems with the religious beliefs of the congregation.

This doesn't so much affect me personally. To be quite honest, I never plan to get married. I think I would dislike it intensely, although I respect couples that choose to do so and I admire them. But if you're going to deny such rights to one group of people, you can deny them to anyone and everyone.

 

[mehastings]

I'm all for gay marriage, and have written quite a few letters praising lawmakers in my state for their support of it. I'm happy that our new govornor is not a rabid lunatic like our old one, and I hope that as a result gay and lesbian couples will have less to worry about. As far as a national ammendment goes, I'll fight tooth and nail and keep writing my letters. To me it is no different than banning interracial marriages!

 

[tartan_skirt]

I think this is similar to the votes for women debate in the early 1900s. Clearly it is unfair and an outdated idea of inequality that more conservative minded people are clinging to in an effort to stop it, but I believe gay marriage will continute to make progress until it is part of the norm. Sure, it may take a while, but it'll be worth it.

I'm in support for gay marriage too, because who is it hurting? If two consenting adults love each other then shouldn't they be allowed to express that fully? Adoption and other rights should be opened up too. It is argued that it may not be good for the children in a situation like this, but if it is not allowed then no progress is going to be made, and no changes in the attitudes of outsiders are going to be made either.

 

[ylris611203]

Once union of marriage breaks down then society will start to crumble.
Anything that threatens this is not a good idea.

A gay couple living together, ok call it what you like, but don't call it marriage.

 

[mehastings]

Once union of marriage breaks down then society will start to crumble.
Anything that threatens this is not a good idea.

A gay couple living together, ok call it what you like, but don't call it marriage.

How will the " union of marriage" break down as a result of allowing gay couples to marry? I think there are far larger threats to "marriage" than gay couples. If we want to protect the sanctity of marriage, perhaps we should take a closer look at the people in this country already getting married. In 2000 the US recorded roughly 957,200 divorces. That's pretty damn close to a million divorces. I'd be willing to venture a guess that not a single one of those couples was a gay couple.

 

[ylris611203]

How will the " union of marriage" break down as a result of allowing gay couples to marry?

Because generally a couple marry, have children and this is the best way to bring up the children. One man and one woman. Once society starts to de-value marriage we will have problems.

Divorce is a totally separate issue.

 

[beer good]

So het couples who are old, sterile or simply don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

 

[ylris611203]

So het couples who are old, sterile or simply don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

As long as one is a male and one is a female and they want to marry, I don't see why you would object.

 

[mehastings]

Because generally a couple marry, have children and this is the best way to bring up the children. One man and one woman. Once society starts to de-value marriage we will have problems.

Divorce is a totally separate issue.

So het couples who are old, sterile or simply don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

Excellent point, beer good. Besides that, I know a married (yes, legally...this is MA) lesbian couple who have adopted a child. He is bright, well adjusted and in a much better living situation than he was born into. His parents, although married to each other, are criminals. The biological mother is in prison (for theft) and the father has been in and out of prison for over a decade. This little boy is loved and well cared for. True, he won't have a father living in his house, but neither did I for a better part of my childhood. I don't think I'm screwed up because of it.

Chris, how will allowing gay folk to marry "de-value" marriage and how will we then "have problems"? The point that I was making about divorce was that marriage already has decreasing value in this country. Less than 2.5 million marriages are performed here annually, almost a million divorces are performed as well (last stats I have were for 2000, it could be higher by now). That means that the divorce rate is over a third of the marriage rate. I know straight couples whose entire relationship (dating, engagement, marriage, separation and finally divorce) have lasted less than five years. What makes these people more valuable in a marriage than a gay or lesbian couple that has been together for decades and may even have raised a few kids together?

 

[Litany]

Because generally a couple marry, have children and this is the best way to bring up the children. One man and one woman. Once society starts to de-value marriage we will have problems.

The fact that homosexual people have fought (and are still fighting) for the right to marry shows how highly they value marriage.

The best way to bring up children is in a loving home. If the parents are married and hate each other, that's not healthy. Marriage doesn't make a happy home. A vicar and a piece of paper is not a magic formula.

 

[JustinDT]

.

*Equal protection and equal rights means exactly that-equal!.

Yes, but there is a seperation of church and state. Church is not state, and thus cannot be forced to anything or make anything equal. But I agree that if they want to, they should be allowed to. Of course, making that decision will make them independent in nearly all cases and cause them to lose a structurally higher legitimacy.

My opinion on it is it's silly for gay gouple to want marriage in a Christian/etc sense at all. Religions are not countries. You don't have *any* right to anything that they themselves don't want to grant. But, homoesexual couples should be given a legal form of union that will grant the same benefits to said unions as are granted to married couples. Absolutely.

A lot of people take the silly stance that they should have something similar to marriage that isn't actually called marriage--civil unions--so the conservatives can feel at ease. That is very insulting to people like me. Seperate but equal never works, and people in civil unions won't be given the same rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples.

That makes no sense. Every major religion hates you and damns you to eternal suffering. If something is going to 'insult' you, that is what should be insulting. Not the fact that other people want you to benefit in every single way that married couples do. It has nothing to do with conservatives. I'm conservative and someone I'm really good friends with is gay, one of my best friends as a teen was raised by two lesbians, and I have other connections to gay people. But because I have conservative political views I'm some sort of biggoted monster that people run around trying to appease? You are at this point doing to conservatives what you ask not to be done to you.

Pedophilia is also illegal in the US, but a minor can be married with the consent of her parents to an adult, and then the sexual relations are legal. That just does not make sense.

Because it's not true. You have to be 16 for parents permission. An age that many other countries treat as adults anyways as far as buying cigarettes, having sex legally, what have you. And even then, it varies state to state and is not a federal law. It's not like you can marry off a 6 year old.

Good subject. Hopefully it gets more discussion then most things here seem to.

 

[Peronel]

Because generally a couple marry, have children and this is the best way to bring up the children. One man and one woman. Once society starts to de-value marriage we will have problems.

So het couples who are old, sterile or simply don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

As long as one is a male and one is a female and they want to marry, I don't see why you would object.

Congratulations, you just completely derailed your own argument.

 

[mehastings]

Every major religion hates you and damns you to eternal suffering...

Interesting point, but not accurate. The Unitarians will marry gay couples as will some Congregationalist (United Church of Christ) and Episcopal churches. Most JPs in the state will also jump on the chance to marry a couple.

As far as civil unions go, I take a stance similar to SFGs. I don't have a problem with referring to a union confirmed by a JP as a civil union, as long as EVERY JP ceremony results in a civil union (not just gay ones) and that the rights are equal in every way to those obtained in a marriage.

 

[ylris611203]

Congratulations, you just completely derailed your own argument.

..........so you think I am having an argument; I am giving a point of view.

Chris, how will allowing gay folk to marry "de-value" marriage and how will we then "have problems"? The point that I was making about divorce was that marriage already has decreasing value in this country. Less than 2.5 million marriages are performed here annually, almost a million divorces are performed as well (last stats I have were for 2000, it could be higher by now). That means that the divorce rate is over a third of the marriage rate. I know straight couples whose entire relationship (dating, engagement, marriage, separation and finally divorce) have lasted less than five years. What makes these people more valuable in a marriage than a gay or lesbian couple that has been together for decades and may even have raised a few kids together?

A marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to keep the ‘family’ concept alive. Once the definition of a family has gone then so will society as we know it. I can see the point that if no children are involved, then maybe to an individual couple marriage could be less important.

Because a ‘gay marriage’ does no include children then the use of the word marriage between a gay couple is de-valuing the word and the concept of marriage. And before anyone says that a gay couple can have children in a marriage, they can’t, have being the prevalent word.

A family is a Father, a Mother and child or children. Any else is cause and effect and should be viewed as outside the norm, but not less valued.

If divorce is growing then maybe society should look at why this is and not throw fuel on the fire by de-valuing it even more.

My point of view here is no about gay couples, gay couples adopting children or any other combination of events, it is about the use of the word Marriage and protecting it’s value and meaning.

 

[SevenWritez]

I've always found the idea of marriage to be something which bonded two people together through love and commitment, not through a penis and a vagina (sorry, but may I be blunt?)

I'm not going to try and hop across the board and pinpoint every reason for why we should/should not allow this in our society, since the posts above have already brought up valid points, but my quick two cents points to this: many people have grown up without fatherly figures (hey, two big artists: One was a rapper, one is a rockstar of writing, and they both seem pretty well off), and have made something out of themselves. How is not having one parent of the other sex going to cripple a childs growth?

The only real argument I see here against gay marriage is how it will affect "society." Will it? No, not really. Just like granting African Americans freedom and women the right to vote (and just more rights in general), allowing gay marriage is something that is going to be eyed with unsympathetic contempt for awhile, and will be condemend by the close-minded lot of America (which, sadly, seems to be the mindset of a lot more people than it used to be--my generation is the generation of narcissistics, present company included), before finally blending into society and becoming just another usual trademark of our daily lives.

Whatever, I'm not making any points, just restating in dubbed down fashion what's already been said.

Gay marriage = fine. The end.

 

[ValkyrieRaven88]

The family concept in the way you view it, chris, is not necessarily the only acceptable answer. There are many perfectly healthy families that are single-parent (whether due to divorce or death of a parent or lack of a marriage). There are many people living together and having sex who aren't married. If anything is going to break down the family concept as you see it, it is premarital sex. Not homosexuality.

Of course, the problem goes a bit like this:

Conservative: Homosexuals are evil! They should not be married because they are an abomination!
Liberal: OK, let's work through this logically. Why exactly are they an abomination?
Conservative: They are destructive! They have too much premarital sex!
Liberal: Then wouldn't the obvious answer be to let them get married?
Conservative: What? Married? Only a man and a woman should be married! It's the way it's been for thousands of years! It's only natural!
Liberal: Even though there is evidence that homosexuals have existed for thousands of years and there is evidence of same-sex attraction in virtually every lifeform?
Conservative: It doesn't matter. We are God's people, and a marriage is only good if the two people involved can procreate! A man and a man or a woman and a woman can't have children!
Liberal: Er...okay, so what you're saying is there is no point to marriage but having children. So if a person can't have kids for whatever reason, they can't be married. If a couple marries and the woman can't concieve, they couple must divorce immediately.
Conservative: Absolutely not what I said. The marriage would be valid because they had been married before!
Liberal: You're just not making any sense. Then wouldn't homosexual marriages be valid even if the couples couldn't reproduce?
Conservative: No way! Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

They'll go on and on if you let them...but what no one seems to understand is that homosexuals don't want to be married in "the way the church wants it" or whatever it was chris said earlier. You think we want to be married by a preacher who hates us in an establishment that hates us in front of an audience that hates us? No!

We want the government to say it's okay for us to be legally married (and therefore get the rights married het couples do...tax cuts, insurance benefits, the right to see our dying spouse...none of which we have and all of which married couples do have.). No church involved. After all, athiests can still get married. If certain churches choose to allow homosexuals to marry, hurrah for them. As for the rest, we really don't care.

Letting homosexuals marry won't damage society any more than homosexuals having premarital relations would. If anything, it should decrease the amount of premarital relations. It's not as if we're that great of a threat to society or we're going to turn people gay. It doesn't work like that.

 

[JustinDT]

Wow.

Of course, the problem goes a bit like this:

Conservative: Homosexuals are evil! They should not be married because they are an abomination!
Liberal: OK, let's work through this logically. Why exactly are they an abomination?
Conservative: They are destructive! They have too much premarital sex!
Liberal: Then wouldn't the obvious answer be to let them get married?
Conservative: What? Married? Only a man and a woman should be married! It's the way it's been for thousands of years! It's only natural!
Liberal: Even though there is evidence that homosexuals have existed for thousands of years and there is evidence of same-sex attraction in virtually every lifeform?
Conservative: It doesn't matter. We are God's people, and a marriage is only good if the two people involved can procreate! A man and a man or a woman and a woman can't have children!
Liberal: Er...okay, so what you're saying is there is no point to marriage but having children. So if a person can't have kids for whatever reason, they can't be married. If a couple marries and the woman can't concieve, they couple must divorce immediately.
Conservative: Absolutely not what I said. The marriage would be valid because they had been married before!
Liberal: You're just not making any sense. Then wouldn't homosexual marriages be valid even if the couples couldn't reproduce?
Conservative: No way! Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

What a joke.

 

[ylris611203]

The family concept in the way you view it, chris, is not necessarily the only acceptable answer.

Give me an alternative to the family.

I don't know the laws in La La Land but here gay couples do have the same rights as married couples. A civil partnership.

It is a man and woman who live together that don't have the same rights as a married couple.

 

[mehastings]

A civil partnership.

So, does this involve some type of legal ceremony? If not, I think you'll probably find that the couple is not afforded the same rights. Sure, they might be able to get health insurance together, but most places that is about it.

Prior to gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts, gay folk could apply for health insurance benefits for their partners through a "civil partnership". There was, however, no legal status. They couldn't file a joint tax return, couldn't be beneficiaries for a pension (which is why my husband and I got married after being together for seven years, my child has NOTHING to do with it), couldn't adopt children without a huge hassle and like Val mentioned couldn't make health care decisions for their partner in an emergency. Not the same to me!

To say that the best way to raise children is through a family with a mother and father isn't backed by any scientific evidence. It is simply an opinion, so without supporting facts, it isn't even a valid argument. I know a number of gay families with happy healthy children who have been taught to be accepting of others. I also know of a number of families where the fathers beat the mothers in front of their children and the mothers just take it. I assure you that their children are not happy or healthy and are much more likely to abuse or be abused by their future partners (this is backed by scientific proof). True, a gay couple can not conceive a child naturally, but neither can the thousands of straight couples that utilize sperm banks and egg donors to combat their problems with infertility. I see no difference.

Arguing that "de-valuing" marriage will lead to a breakdown in society isn't a valid argument either, it is also an opinion. Back it up with some facts. I think everyone here is trying to get you to do so, but you just repeat the same rhetoric without adding any factual information. I'd really like to hear more from the other side of the fence, but just hearing the same opinion repeated over and over isn't interesting.