Gay marriage...

[ocelot_ark]

I'm as straight as they come, don't get me wrong, but out of curiosity - what's the general reason behind such opposition to gay marriage? Is it solely a morality issue or are there other concerns I'm not aware of? This Prop 8 thing has me curious. Thanks for the comments...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

I'm as straight as they come, don't get me wrong, but out of curiosity - what's the general reason behind such opposition to gay marriage? Is it solely a morality issue or are there other concerns I'm not aware of? This Prop 8 thing has me curious. Thanks for the comments...

this country hasn't voted morality in years.

It comes down to $$$$$ and cost.

[Kirobaito]

"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right ... [N]ow you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
- Our "proud" U.S. Senator John Cornyn

It's generally a "moral" issue, yes. From what I understand, people consider marriage to be a holy institution (even though marriage is in cultures other than Judeo-Christian ones), and so to deviate from the Biblical norm is not appropriate. I say, fine, if that's what the people want (and that is, apparently, what the people want). I think that by far the best solution, then, is getting rid of all marriage licenses, and giving out solely civil union licenses that would be equal in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the eyes of the law, which is the most important thing to me. If you wish to get married, then you can have that done in your own church in your respective religious tradition, but having it done there does not effect your legal status or standing in the eyes of the law.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

It's generally a "moral" issue, yes. From what I understand, people consider marriage to be a holy institution (even though marriage is in cultures other than Judeo-Christian ones), and so to deviate from the Biblical norm is not appropriate. I say, fine, if that's what the people want (and that is, apparently, what the people want). I think that by far the best solution, then, is getting rid of all marriage licenses, and giving out solely civil union licenses that would be equal in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the eyes of the law, which is the most important thing to me. If you wish to get married, then you can have that done in your own church in your respective religious tradition, but having it done there does not effect your legal status or standing in the eyes of the law.

Agree. The problem is that government got involved into mariages in the first place.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right ... [N]ow you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
- Our "proud" U.S. Senator John Cornyn

It's generally a "moral" issue, yes. From what I understand, people consider marriage to be a holy institution (even though marriage is in cultures other than Judeo-Christian ones), and so to deviate from the Biblical norm is not appropriate. I say, fine, if that's what the people want (and that is, apparently, what the people want). I think that by far the best solution, then, is getting rid of all marriage licenses, and giving out solely civil union licenses that would be equal in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the eyes of the law, which is the most important thing to me. If you wish to get married, then you can have that done in your own church in your respective religious tradition, but having it done there does not effect your legal status or standing in the eyes of the law.

You may be surprised, but I actually agree with this stance.

Marriage is simply a term and somehow it is legal term that conflicts with religious beliefs.

I am as straight as the come and happily married to a great woman...we are getting ready to celebrate 18 years!!! together.

I have raised my kids up with the biblical understanding that homosexuality is a choice that people make and not something that is condoned...neither is a marriage. But again, that is a faith based issue, not a legal issue.

If the LAW states that two men can have a civil union together, who am I to argue...I don't have to like it, but as far as the LAW is concerned, I have very little objection. The only arguement I have is if schools preach tolerance of such a sin without also teaching for tolerance of faith based beliefs.

It's all a slipper sloap when we start going or governing religious activities and beliefs.

However I would ask, at what point do we draw the boundary? What is going to be the solid line that shall NEVER be crossed in this country?

We've gone from a strong heterosexual society with strong faith based morals, to a society that condones Homosexuality...in other similar societies we have seen this slide down to Pedafelia and Beastiality...is it going to become legal for adults to marry children, or people to marry animals?

Sure that seems outrageous today...but newsflash so did homosexuality not so long ago. Newsflash, Beastiality and adult/child sexual relationship is taking place in other nations...so much so that in some nations we are seeing children taken out of homes that have a mother and father. The perversion that is taking place is harsh and to ignore it is to condone it.

What is the standard that we will set as an American Society? Where is our responsibility to future generations? What do you tolerate, faith based morals or free open expression of sexuality morals?

There is no easy answer, but it is something that requires more thought than a simple sound bite regarding Adam and Steve.

So again, the Marriage issue is perhaps a moral issue, but it is one that has deeper consequences. As this is being pushed, perhaps some time of propositions that clearly defines what is condoned and sets boundaries so that there is NO Margin to allow this sloap to get any worse in the future, would be acceptable.

[alby]

banned.
california
arizona
florida

[ocelot_ark]

This is what kills me about government. It makes absolutely no logical sense for gay marriage to be prohibited. I don't agree with it, but there's no basis for denial. It first piqued my curiosity during the Palin/Biden debate when they both said they were against gay marriage. Then they went on to say they were okay with allowing gay partners to get health benefits as a civil union or whatnot. What's the stinkin' difference?

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

However I would ask, at what point do we draw the boundary? What is going to be the solid line that shall NEVER be crossed in this country?

We've gone from a strong heterosexual society with strong faith based morals, to a society that condones Homosexuality...in other similar societies we have seen this slide down to Pedafelia and Beastiality...is it going to become legal for adults to marry children, or people to marry animals?

Sure that seems outrageous today...but newsflash so did homosexuality not so long ago. Newsflash, Beastiality and adult/child sexual relationship is taking place in other nations...so much so that in some nations we are seeing children taken out of homes that have a mother and father. The perversion that is taking place is harsh and to ignore it is to condone it.

What is the standard that we will set as an American Society? Where is our responsibility to future generations? What do you tolerate, faith based morals or free open expression of sexuality morals?

There is no easy answer, but it is something that requires more thought than a simple sound bite regarding Adam and Steve.

So again, the Marriage issue is perhaps a moral issue, but it is one that has deeper consequences. As this is being pushed, perhaps some time of propositions that clearly defines what is condoned and sets boundaries so that there is NO Margin to allow this sloap to get any worse in the future, would be acceptable.

Homosexuality has been around forever. It's not a fad or anything.

A man and a non-human animal can't get married (or civilly unionized, or whatever) because the non-human animal doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what's going on. This is the same reason why an adult and a child should not have the ability to get married. The child doesn't not have the brain development to comprehend it. Two consenting same-sex adults do, therefore, I see no reason why they should not have the full rights (with regards to taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.) that opposite-sex couples get.

The general next step of questioning involves polygamy and polyandry. I admit that I don't really have an answer for that.

And, of course, there will be differences with regards to the cause of homosexuality. I know plenty of gay people. Knowing them and talking with them, I do not believe in the idea that someone makes a choice about being gay. I've had the discussion with a gay friend of mine, and she basically says that, with the social stigmas that gays face, why would anybody choose to be gay? I can't disagree with her. And knowing the relationship that she has with her girlfriend, I could not tell them that the love that they share means less than the love that I would perhaps feel for someone else.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Homosexuality has been around forever. It's not a fad or anything.

A man and a non-human animal can't get married (or civilly unionized, or whatever) because the non-human animal doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what's going on. This is the same reason why an adult and a child should not have the ability to get married. The child doesn't not have the brain development to comprehend it. Two consenting same-sex adults do, therefore, I see no reason why they should not have the full rights (with regards to taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.) that opposite-sex couples get.

The general next step of questioning involves polygamy and polyandry. I admit that I don't really have an answer for that.

And, of course, there will be differences with regards to the cause of homosexuality. I know plenty of gay people. Knowing them and talking with them, I do not believe in the idea that someone makes a choice about being gay. I've had the discussion with a gay friend of mine, and she basically says that, with the social stigmas that gays face, why would anybody choose to be gay? I can't disagree with her. And knowing the relationship that she has with her girlfriend, I could not tell them that the love that they share means less than the love that I would perhaps feel for someone else.

I will do my best to not let this become a long drawn out debate regarding the causes of one being gay. With the folks I have dealt with, there is an overwhelming link to childhood issues (Dysfunctional home, abuse, etc...) they choose to escape for relationship and find themselve caught up in a new world. The lure is in belonging to something. The downside, is that many have tried to retreat and make a choice out of that lifestyle, only to find and even more overpowering abuse/control from within that community.

This is essentially a form of Sexual Addiction...but we could be chasing down a topic that could truly derail this board. Suffice it to say, that my experience in this arena enables me to formulate this very widely shared belief.

But back to the main point...legal or not...the facts are that other societies who have argued as you have, to allow Homosexual unions, have also slipped and allowed unions between Adults and Children...between People and Animals. Again, these are inconceivable to us in the USA today. So while they are inconceivable would it not be wise to draw that boundary and truly define what the LAW is in the USA? If we don't we run the risk of changing this view in future years.

I say it's choice, you say it's not...no big deal...the fact is that Homosexuality has been around since the early days of humans. It will remain until the final days of this earth. So this is not worth a debate...but what boundaries should we place are worthy of discussion.

Hey, I am willing to find middle ground...I am straight and support straight marriage, but I also believe the Government is not needed for marriage...perhaps some type of legal civil union, sort of like a business partnership is the right way to go. Heck, I actually like the aspect of the Unmarriage as is modeled by Gene Simmons, Lord knows we can all name a few marriages who could take a lesson from Mr. Simmons as it relates to commitment to his loving partner.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Arne

Agree. The problem is that government got involved into mariages in the first place.

Amen.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

But back to the main point...legal or not...the facts are that other societies who have argued as you have, to allow Homosexual unions, have also slipped and allowed unions between Adults and Children...between People and Animals. Again, these are inconceivable to us in the USA today. So while they are inconceivable would it not be wise to draw that boundary and truly define what the LAW is in the USA? If we don't we run the risk of changing this view in future years.

I'm sorry, what? I could move to Canada or Norway and marry a cow? That's absolutely absurd. Legalizing gay marriage does not lead to legalizing adult-child marriage or adult-animal marriage. That's absolute crap. What are these 'facts' of which you speak, because I sure as hell would love to hear them.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

I'm sorry, what? I could move to Canada or Norway and marry a cow? That's absolutely absurd. Legalizing gay marriage does not lead to legalizing adult-child marriage or adult-animal marriage. That's absolute crap. What are these 'facts' of which you speak, because I sure as hell would love to hear them.

When I have some time I'll dig back into the sites/stories regarding these other nations. I don't want to mis-quote or mis-represent these countries.

These were European block nations...I can't recall which ones.

for now, this is a slippery sloap...but again, if we define the civil union and put a clear boundary on the issue as where it is today in America with Homosexuals getting the opportunity to enter into a Legal Civil Union, similar to a business partnership, then I have no 'Legal' issue with it. Provided those who choose to participate accept and tolerate my right to teach my kids and other future generations on the wrongs of this 'Alternate Lifestyle'

And again, draw a clear and distinct boundary that does not give these other forms of perverse sexual choices the option to ever become a legal union in the USA.

Are you willing to draw that same line?

[rmacomic]

I think gays should be able to marry, I think they should be able to adopt and raise a family, hell I think they should be able to divorce and file for alimony.





I don't think they should be able to have sex, that's just gross.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

I don't think they should be able to have sex, that's just gross.

unless it's two attractive nubile women, in which case they should take pictures.

[Mavdog]

it comes down to equal treatment.

if there are rights and benefits for two adults who decide to enter into a marriage, those rights and priviledges should be be available to both heterosexual and homosexual adult couples.

the easiect solution is to get the state out of bestowing these rights and priviledges, but that won't happen.

the measure was defeated in ca by the churches. the mormon church spent millions, as did fundamentalist.

[dalmations202]

Justifying sin is just that.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

With that said, government should have nothing to do with marriage.
The only thing that they really have is the ability to determine how much $$$ you pay or don't pay based upon what you claim to be true.

Unfortunately when it is said and done -- this isn't a government issue at all. It is a money issue.

For what it is worth, I can be married by my wife and I signing a bible in front of witnesses, and claiming to be married. It just starts to get complicated when the $$$'s get divided at divorce, or if someone else claims the $$$ because you are married to them, or upon death, and the $$$$ is divided.

Governmental control happens because of $$$$.
Business doesn 't want it because it will cost them more in $$$$ (health care, etc)

$$$$ is the answer to the issue.

I wish it was because it is called an abomination, but that isn't the reason that government claims control of this issue.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Justifying sin is just that.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

With that said, government should have nothing to do with marriage.
The only thing that they really have is the ability to determine how much $$$ you pay or don't pay based upon what you claim to be true.

Unfortunately when it is said and done -- this isn't a government issue at all. It is a money issue.

For what it is worth, I can be married by my wife and I signing a bible in front of witnesses, and claiming to be married. It just starts to get complicated when the $$$'s get divided at divorce, or if someone else claims the $$$ because you are married to them, or upon death, and the $$$$ is divided.

Governmental control happens because of $$$$.
Business doesn 't want it because it will cost them more in $$$$ (health care, etc)

$$$$ is the answer to the issue.

I wish it was because it is called an abomination, but that isn't the reason that government claims control of this issue.

I really doubt if it's much of a dollars and cents issue. I don't expect there were many businesses lobbying against it.

First I believe that what 10% is estimated to be gay. Then you have to assume that 50% maybe want to get married?? Just guessing. So it probably tops out at 5% of the workforce?? I'm not sure of the number of companies but a very large one here in texas allows civil unions.

[Usually Lurkin]

it's part of a larger culture war also.

If gay marriage is legal, someone will sue a church for refusing to marry a gay couple. Depending on who the judge is, it could get ugly.

If gay marriage is legal, it will be taught in school as an equal option. Your tax dollars will go towards teaching that, whether you agree with it or not, and whether you think that's the role of schools or not. And if you don't want your kids to learn that, then you have to pay extra to send them to a different school.

*and people do have a choice, kirobaito. There is social stigma and social pressure against a lot of things, but people still choose them. Surely you can think of one example for which that is true.

[Murphy3]

I've never bought into the whole 10% gay thing... That sounds like a totally made up statistic. I know it's been used several times, but I don't buy it at all.

[dude1394]

I've also read that it's more like 2% somewhere else I think....but the point was that it is small.

[Murphy3]

Yeah..I've always thought that gays were primarily those that hadn't found success dating people of the opposite sex.... or have had some serious trauma involving those from the opposite sex at a young age. I know it's the case with a cousin of mine. She was knocked around by a couple of her ex boyfriends, so she went gay. I've always told her that if she didn't date people such as the guys she dated, she wouldn't have had that problem.. but, oh well. She's been gay for a couple of years. I'm sure she'll bounce back to being straight before long.

Notice that I said 'primarily' and not 'exclusively' or something like that. And no, I don't know 100% what I'm talking about... I'm just basing it on the gays that I've met in my lifetime... which is very, very few... 5 maybe?

[Mavdog]

"culture war"? just what culture is being defended? the right of a heterosexual couple to engage in anything they want, just so it's not with the same sex? the right of a spouse to abuse the other, just as long as they are of a different sex?

odd to think that anyone would want to wage "war" on adults whose only transgression is they want to have a loving relationship with each other.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

it's part of a larger culture war also.

If gay marriage is legal, someone will sue a church for refusing to marry a gay couple. Depending on who the judge is, it could get ugly.

If gay marriage is legal, it will be taught in school as an equal option. Your tax dollars will go towards teaching that, whether you agree with it or not, and whether you think that's the role of schools or not. And if you don't want your kids to learn that, then you have to pay extra to send them to a different school.

*and people do have a choice, kirobaito. There is social stigma and social pressure against a lot of things, but people still choose them. Surely you can think of one example for which that is true.

Man, you must have gone to different schools than I went to. I don't recall ever having "Fundamentals of Marriage."

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"culture war"? just what culture is being defended? the right of a heterosexual couple to engage in anything they want, just so it's not with the same sex? the right of a spouse to abuse the other, just as long as they are of a different sex?

what in the world are you talking about?

odd to think that anyone would want to wage "war" on adults whose only transgression is they want to have a loving relationship with each other.

right, cause waging war against adults is what I'm talking about. I can't believe you've never heard the term culture war before.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

Man, you must have gone to different schools than I went to. I don't recall ever having "Fundamentals of Marriage."

California law says that schools have to teach about marriage.
Gay marriage was taught in massachusetts public schools following a court decision.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

what in the world are you talking about?

about the "culture war" that you spoke of against homosexuals.

on the one hand those who wage the battle against gays want to "protect the sanctity of marriage", defending the institution as if it isn't rife with its own kinky and unhealthy baggage.

right, cause waging war against adults is what I'm talking about. I can't believe you've never heard the term culture war before.

oh, I've seen the war, and like I said it is amazing that anyone wishes to wage that war against adults whose only fault is they want to have a loving relationship with another other.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

about the "culture war" that you spoke of against homosexuals.

on the one hand those who wage the battle against gays want to "protect the sanctity of marriage", defending the institution as if it isn't rife with its own kinky and unhealthy baggage.



oh, I've seen the war, and like I said it is amazing that anyone wishes to wage that war against adults whose only fault is they want to have a loving relationship with another other.

I'm not talking about a war against people, and I'm not talking about war against homosexuals. This is not implied by the term "culture war" in any sense. You obviously don't want to have an honest discussion.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'm not talking about a war against people, and I'm not talking about war against homosexuals. This is not implied by the term "culture war" in any sense. You obviously don't want to have an honest discussion.

oh, then I guess this post of yours wan't about stopping homosexuals from being treated equally, or the right to enter into a legal relationship with each other....

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

it's part of a larger culture war also.

If gay marriage is legal, someone will sue a church for refusing to marry a gay couple. Depending on who the judge is, it could get ugly.

If gay marriage is legal, it will be taught in school as an equal option. Your tax dollars will go towards teaching that, whether you agree with it or not, and whether you think that's the role of schools or not. And if you don't want your kids to learn that, then you have to pay extra to send them to a different school.

that part about homosexuals and gay marriage? seems pretty clear.

[dude1394]

Okay...let's everyone get gay!! To the PILE!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

oh, then I guess this post of yours wan't about stopping homosexuals from being treated equally, or the right to enter into a legal relationship with each other....




that part about homosexuals and gay marriage? seems pretty clear.

when you are willling to have a grown up conversation, I'll be happy to discuss this with you.

[rmacomic]

What I don't understand is the whole "protecting the sanctity of marriage" thing, I mean you can get married in Vegas by Elvis in a drive-thru. With divorce rates at an all time high, people getting pre-nups just to make sure the trophy wife they married with no love won't take half of what they own, adultery is nothing more than a joke now, hell even my own sister has been married four times, maybe the right should worry about restoring the sanctity before "protecting" it from what 2% of the population!



edit: I love run-on sentences.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

What I don't understand is the whole "protecting the sanctity of marriage" thing, I mean you can get married in Vegas by Elvis in a drive-thru. With divorce rates at an all time high, people getting pre-nups just to make sure the trophy wife they married with no love won't take half of what they own, adultery is nothing more than a joke now, hell even my own sister has been married four times, maybe the right should worry about restoring the sanctity before "protecting" it from what 2% of the population!



edit: I love run-on sentences.

well, I don't think that there's a push to teach adultery, divorce, and prenupts as healthy lifestyles in school. Also, the whole, "marriage is treated like crap already, so why try to protect it" argument doesn't really resonate with me. On the other hand, you do find social conservatives railing against the sexualization in our culture, saying that it contributes to all the above.

[dude1394]

The sanctity of marriage is wrapped up in the bible telling you to do it. The bible surely doesn't tell folks that a man will cling to his golf partner.

And the reason that some folks don't like to see gays marry is that it's a deviant lifestyle and they don't want it promoted as "normal".

[rabbitproof]

None of the government's business.

But the majority rules. This is the gift and the curse.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

None of the government's business..

ah, if only anyone actually behaved that way.

[kg_veteran]

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum in the past on this board, and I have no real intention of getting back into a discussion of it now, but I will say this. While I am personally starting to become more inclined toward the libertarian view that Rhylan expressed (that government should just get out of the business of marriage altogether), I think we should realize that probably isn't a realistic expectation, any more than the government is going to suddenly go to a flat tax.

The reason that government got into the business of legalizing marriage was to promote it as a vital part of the way our society is constructed. If you understand that, then you begin to understand why there is such a fight over whether or not legal marriage should be expanded to include homosexual couples.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

When I have some time I'll dig back into the sites/stories regarding these other nations. I don't want to mis-quote or mis-represent these countries.

These were European block nations...I can't recall which ones.

for now, this is a slippery sloap...but again, if we define the civil union and put a clear boundary on the issue as where it is today in America with Homosexuals getting the opportunity to enter into a Legal Civil Union, similar to a business partnership, then I have no 'Legal' issue with it. Provided those who choose to participate accept and tolerate my right to teach my kids and other future generations on the wrongs of this 'Alternate Lifestyle'

And again, draw a clear and distinct boundary that does not give these other forms of perverse sexual choices the option to ever become a legal union in the USA.

Are you willing to draw that same line?

What, the line that it should be two consenting human adults of legal standing? I don't think anyone would argue that.

Also, zoophilia being legal (as it is in some nations, and in some states here in the US) is not the same as being legally able to marry an animal.

[minkbarn]

I live in Massachusetts. Gay marriage has been legal here for years. I has not changed anything for anyone else; everyone just lives their lives, same as before.

I've been married for more than 20 years. Gay people being married has no effect on my marriage or anyone else's.

I attended a gay wedding early on when the law was first passed. It was one of the best weddings I've ever been to just because there was that added emotion about exercising this new freedom.

It's just two people who want to be exclusively together for the rest of their lives, same as me and my wife.

[Flacolaco]

And that's great. I think they should be together and they should have tax breaks and health benefits and lots of gay sex and the whole enchilada. Just as long as they don't pretend it has anything to do with Christianity in any way, shape or form.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

I live in Massachusetts. Gay marriage has been legal here for years. I has not changed anything for anyone else; everyone just lives their lives, same as before.

I've been married for more than 20 years. Gay people being married has no effect on my marriage or anyone else's.

I attended a gay wedding early on when the law was first passed. It was one of the best weddings I've ever been to just because there was that added emotion about exercising this new freedom.

It's just two people who want to be exclusively together for the rest of their lives, same as me and my wife.

If they can live together and call themselves partners, then why do they need to be married? Why call it a marriage, why not just a party to let everyone know they are going to be exclusive and live together forever.

Unfortunately the answer is MONEY. They want to do it for money reasons.

There is no other reason for Government to be involved in calling anything a marriage or a legal partnership, or any other name.


Listen, I am as conservative as they come, and I think it is an abomination because that is what they Bible says -- but a marriage has nothing to do with the government. Legal marriage as seen by the government has to do with a business partnership between two people. It has to do with money.


If you married your spouse before witnesses and God, and within your heart -- then you are married. This does not involve government.

If you file legal paperwork, file taxes jointly, etc. Then you want the monetary benefits that the government says you are entitled to if you are "legally married".

Government should get out of the marriage game -- because what they do is about $$$$.