But it will in the long term. It’ll provide the same sort of societal support network that we currently employ to support and maintain heterosexual couples, or failing that, to cleanly break them back into singles.
Whether the fanatics like it or not, homosexuality is mainstreaming. It’s becoming a part of everyday American life. Perhaps not out in Palookaville, Kansas, quite yet, but certainly in Kansas City. To say nothing of Boston, Dallas, LA or New York. And as homosexuals are more fully integrated into the “normal” sphere of American life, it is best for us all to provide emerging mainstream gay relationships with the same sort of support structure that we provide heterosexual relationships, lest instable gay relationships bring instability into the mainstream.
Gay marriage is good for everyone. Not only does it fulfill the basic need in this country for equality under the law, it will help cement and stabilize the gay community as it slowly, in the majoritarian section at least, fades into being just another part of mainstream society.
If you’re going to have a gay couple living next door to you, you want their relationship to have recourse to all the support mechanisms society offers your marriage, for the stability of their relationship is now part and parcel a component of the stability of your community.
The government cares not for “sacred,” nor should it.
But in any case, who are you to define sacred? Why can’t the marriage of two men be sacred? It is to me? Why must terminology be dictated by your worldview?
Yes (in the long term), because my relationship is just as holy, just as worthy, just as valid, just as deserving, as that of any two heterosexuals, and I will not have it compartmentalized into a second-class, back-of-the-bus institution.
My relationship is more than all of that: it is sacred. Just as sacred as any relationship you’ll ever be in, just as sacred as any relationship any two straights have ever been in in the history of the world.
Yes, what’s inherently wrong with it is that it codifies inequality. If the two are functionally and legally identical, then calling them by separate names only reinforces that only a certain class of people get to have the word marriage, in this case meaning hetero. It’s still naked discrimination on its face, and there’s no reason to do it except to pander to bigots, which is not a legitimate basis for the creation of civil law.
Lilairen already explained what was inherently wrong about it. I don’t think you’ll appreciate it, though, SHAKES, because you’ve already said that you feel that homosexual relationships are not as valid as heterosexual ones. That’s the crux of the whole argument for some of us.
Granting civil unions the same rights as married couples would be a fine first step. And plenty of people, both gay and straight, would be glad to leave it at that. They think that marriage is a sham anyway and legal rights are the only thing that’s important. Good for them, but I’m not one of them. I think that would only result in “separate but equal” status for gays. It would mean the state and society are re-inforcing opinions like yours – that my relationship with another man is inherently less valid or “real” than a man’s relationship with a woman.
What I don’t understand is why that distinction is important to keep. Why the idea of a man and a woman getting married is more “sacred” than any two adults wanting get married for the right reasons. Personally, I think it’s downright offensive; it cheapens heterosexual marriages. What can a man and a woman do after they’re married that two men or two women can’t? Have vaginal intercourse? Procreate? Is that the only thing that’s valuable about marriage? Is that’s what’s so “sacred” about marriage? Fucking and making babies?
Well, as I said above, legal rights are what we must have, but marriage is what we need to have. Some of us, anyway.
And I’ve no doubt I’ll be labeled a hypocrite for saying this, but: I can’t talk one way or the other about polygamy and polyamory because the concept is so completely foreign to me. That’s not a judgement on my part; that’s just saying that I can’t come down on one side or the other because I don’t understand it and would be unqualified to even form an opinion. What I can say, though, is that polygamy has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of gay marriage I’m talking about.
I can only speak for myself. And ever since I was young, I imagined myself finding the right person, falling in love, getting married, and raising a family. I can’t imagine my life going any other way. And I don’t see how that’s so shocking, or how it can any way corrupt the moral fiber of the nation or tear society down. It sounds to me like the same thing a lot of people want. The only difference is that the “right person” for me isn’t the same as the “right person” for the large majority of men.
I know the topic comes up from time to time but I don’t understand the “change the name” crowd. As if changing the name from marriage to civil union is suddenly going to make it all better. Marriage isn’t just a religious thing it has meaning in a secular sense so there isn’t any real reason to change what we call it.
“Hey Marc, are you and your wife going out for the 4th of July?”
“No, Ted. My Civil Partner and I are going out for the 4th of July.”
I have a fantastic solution. Let’s just recognize that same sex couples should be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
Well, I’m sure I’m not alone when I say I think ALOT of people see marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. So it’s not just how I define it.
It can. But why does it have to be called marriage? When marriage is already being used by mostly hetero couples. Calling it marriage just kind of craps all over the marriage my parents had or my grandparents had ect…
Well, actually, yeah. I’m mean you talk like that it’s not really such a big deal, but it is. I don’t want to get you riled up again Sol, but this kind of all ties back into why I say (think) gay marriages aren’t as equal as hetero ones are…
Disclaimer: even though I think this doesn’t mean I think gay people are inferior. In the end we’re all just human…
A lot of people think Betsy Ross designed and sewed the first American flag.
Your position is just one more point that a lot of people are just flat out pretty damn dumb.
Unfortunately for the bigots, “a lot of people” don’t get to override the principle of equality in this country.
A lot of people thought that only marriage between people of the same race was sacred.
A lot of people thought that God wanted White Men to “civilize” other cultures.
A lot of people thought that blacks weren’t quite human beings.
A lot of people liked Star Trek 5.
Doesn’t make any of 'em right.
Because that’s what we call the lifelong union of two people into one legal entity in this nation. Because that’s why my religion calls it. Because that’s what my parents had. Because that’s what my best friend has. And I will not be denied what others can have jsut because of your shallowness and bigotry.
There you go, spitting all over my relationship again, calling it less than a straight relationship. Revealing your true colors.
How does my marrying the person I love in any way impact the status of your grandparents’ marriage? Are they any less married? Are they any less in love? Is their certificate any less valid? Their sacrament any less sacred? Their children any less legitimate? Their taxes in any way changed? Their rights in any way receded? No.
You’re no different than the people who said that letting blacks and whites marry each other would demean the marriages of white couples.
Nah, I put that there because people like spectrum seem to think I’d be perfectly keen to the idea of hogtieing a gay man then proceed to beat the crap out of him untill he suubmitted to being hetero or died.
Let me tell ya’. That isn’t me.
I can already see the animous this thread is taking. So I’m just going to go ahead and preclude myself from the rest of this thread or any other thread that has to deal with gay issues as a matter of fact.
Christians didn’t invent “marriage”, neither the word nor the concept, and can’t claim any special right to define the term. The words marriage and marry go back to Latin. Julius Caesar got married. The pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic tribes practiced the institution of marriag. Marriage is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi. Marriage is an apparently universal human institution, although it is not universally “the union of one man with one woman”–polygyny has been fairly common; polyandry less so. Our own specific form of marriage, not only monogamous but conceived of as a voluntary, loving, romantic bond between two consenting adults, is fairly new even in Western societies, and has been far from universal–in fact, it has probably been more common to view marriage not just as a union of two people to be initiated and decided on only by them, but as a larger union of two families or clans or dynasties.
In other words, we have already altered the definition of marriage to suit our modern beliefs in egalitarianism and individual rights and dignity. If someone wants to argue against further re-defining marriage to include two consenting adults of the same sex who want to form a permanent, loving relationship, they need to come up with a better argument than asserting some supposed Christian veto over the institution.
Oh, yuck, someone else who thinks he has a legitimate interest in my genitalia. Please, sir, refrain from reducing the meaning of my marriage to a voyeuristic, nonconsensual sex fantasy.
I don’t think changing ‘marriage’ to ‘civil union’ will solve anything - I don’t want my marriage redefined and I’m sure there are same-sex couples who want to be married.
The solution is for intolerant people to pull the sticks out of their collective asses (or die of old age with the sticks still in place and be replaced by individuals without sticks up their asses). The adverse impact of same-sex marriages upon my heterosexual one is precisely zero; if same-sex couples want to get married, let them. It really is as simple as that.
Now it may be the case that certain religious bodies may refrain from solemnising a marriage on this, that or whatever grounds and I don’t think there’s anything much can or should be done about that (at least by direct force), but that in itself is an impediment to the religious status of the marriage, not the legal one.
Hey! Look who’s dodging out of the thread rather than try to explain how gay marriages “crap all over” his gradnparents’ blissful, but apparently very, very fragile, union!
Yeah, that’s me. I’m not married, but If I got married, it would feel much less meaningful if I were forced to make a political statement at the same time as engaging in a heterosexual union. That political statement being “I have something you gays dont, nya nya.” At least that’s what opponents of gay marriage would think I would be saying.
Again, this proposed idea is not to change the name. Marriages would still exist, just as a private, non-government concept. It’s the American libertarian ideal.
In addition, if two people would like to have a contractual relationship, including rights of survivorship etc., they can enter into these legal terms if they choose. The government could even bundle several of them together and simplify things by referring to it as a “civil union.” This proposal doesn’t change the name of anything, it just separates the social and legal aspects of unions.
So far, the only opposition to the idea that I’ve seen is from people who misunderstand this basic concept.
Yeah, and your habit of putting mayo on your ham sandwich (and still calling it a sandwich), just kind of craps all over the ham sandwich I ate last week. Such a whiny bullshit argument.
Actually, there is a lot of opposition from people who just don’t understand the benefits of doing so.
From what you list, it sounds like the only benefit is the possibility of more paperwork to fill out, lawyers to hire, and a lot of changes to existing laws. Unless I’m a lawyer in the business of drawing up contracts between two parties, I don’t see any benefit. Therefore, exactly what benefit do we gain by eliminating marriage as a legal concept?
Yes. You don’t get to claim marriage as something that’s yours and yours alone to permit to who you like. If you could give a valid reason why you should have that privilege, we can talk. But as no one has yet offered one, I suspect you won’t either.
That’s very nice. I see it as a sacred union between two adults who love each other very much. (Possibly more than two, but the legal issues of dividing property and so forth are daunting.) Any reason your view is more valid than mine? Nope. So why is your view sufficient to deny others rights you have? Normally an opinion that some people have isn’t enough to take away others’ rights.
Why? Again, if you can come up with a reason for believing this, please share.
Except that, as you said, we’re not capable of genuine, real love. Reminds me of that old joke:
One guy says, “You know, I’m not sexist, but I do think women should basically take care of their families, and that should come before their careers.”
Next guy says, “You know, I’m not racist, but I do think immigrants are taking jobs away from real Americans.”
Third guy says, “You know, I’m not a podiatrist, but I do cut corns off of people’s feet for a living.”
You can claim you’re not a bigot until the sun burns out, SHAKES, but you’ve manifestly declared yourself to be one with the opinions you trumpet.
So you don’t want to beat gay people to death. What do you want, a cookie? Not wanting to beat gay people up isn’t exactly a strong stand for human rights.
As far as I understand it, the way things work here in the UK at present is that (ignoring common-law marriage), legal marriages (which could just as easily be called ‘unions’) need to be registered at the registry office, which is a branch of government. - A couple can be ‘married’ at the registry office (and this is quite common).
Religious organisations (and sometimes other agents such as ship’s captains etc) are also allowed to effect marriages and act as agents of the registry office - however, the registry office does not concern itself with the religious connotations (such as the permanent union of souls etc), just the fact that the couple have entered into a marriage contract.
Why not just extend the breadth of the legal registry to include same-sex couples? - If they find a religious organisation (or the captain of a ship, for that matter) that is a)willing to unite them and b)authorised as an agent of the registry office, then they can have a church (or whatever) wedding, if they want, or they can just trot down to the registry office and be married there.
That some religious organisations will stubbornly refuse to perform the ceremony is pretty irrelevant, as some religious organisations will also refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for heterosexual couples, for a wide range of ideological and practical reasons.
Government should concern itself solely with the contract and there’s really no reason to have a separate name for it depending on the gender mix of the participants. The religious bodies can call it what they like - ‘Marriage’ or ‘TheHumpyJumpyThing’ - it really doesn’t matter.