174 replies to this topic

[Adam]

LETS SEE HOW talking in CAPS WORKS for ME. IT ALL comes DOWN TO A PENIS DOESN'T GO IN A BUTTHOLE. (Just having some lols in this previous sentence.) Civil union = Recieving the same benefits as a married couple? yesno?

- Are we talking about the Christianity point of view about marriage, and how that's wrong?
Well I was born and raised in a lutheran household but I don't follow everything by the book. There's certain SHIT that just aint right.

- What benefits are we talking about in marriage?? Just the act of being married, or having a ceremony?
I believe the benefits he's talking about are financial benefits and such, not the 'privilege' of being married.

- What is your definition of marriage?
"Marriage is a union between one man and one woman..."

Edited by Adam, 23 February 2010 - 08:49 AM.

[chobitz]

IMO this isn't about marriage but CIVIL RIGHTS. The rights of gay people to marry if they want just like straight people have. Civil rights is what makes the USA a great country.

The fight for legalization of gay marriage is no different then the black civil rights movement of the 60's and the disability rights movement of the 70's-80's. Gay people should have ALL the rights granted to straight people. They should be able to marry and have children.

I am old enough to remember the tail end of segregation of public schools. For those outside of the US, up to the 70's black kids went to all black schools and white kids went to all white schools. They called it "separate but equal" which was a farce. The 'black schools' were far from equal as the 'white schools'. They may have been both 'schools' but in reality were two different things. Disabled kids were also segregated till the 80's and I know first hand the "separate but equal" is bullshit.

I see civil unions as the same situation. Its just another 'separate but equal' bull shit compromise to appease close minded bigots and homophobes.

But what if the civil unions have 100% same legal rights as marriages (IE finance issues, health issues, child raising issues)? If they ARE to be equal then damnit just call it MARRIAGE.

We already have have laws in place to protect the rights of gay people against hate crimes and discrimination so the courts already have the groundwork down to call this what it is..a civil rights issue.

Marriage has always been a business arrangement, religion heck even love brought into it is quite new. And since its a business contract you cannot discriminate against someone's sexual orientation in a business contract. Pure and simple ..

Its a CIVIL RIGHTS issue..CIVIL RIGHTS are never "up for vote" in the USA. No one voted on The Americans with Disabilities Act, no one voted on making slavery illegal, no one voted on desegregation of schools, no one voted on allowing women to vote. Prop 8 and any "state laws" defining marriage is IMO and by past history of the US is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Edited by chobitz, 23 February 2010 - 09:10 AM.

[Joanna]

- What benefits are we talking about in marriage?? Just the act of being married, or having a ceremony?
I believe the benefits he's talking about are financial benefits and such, not the 'privilege' of being married.

This has nothing to do with financial benefits. This is about human rights.

[Map]

IMO this isn't about marriage but CIVIL RIGHTS. The rights of gay people to marry if they want just like straight people have. Civil rights is what makes the USA a great country.

The fight for legalization of gay marriage is no different then the black civil rights movement of the 60's and the disability rights movement of the 70's-80's. Gay people should have ALL the rights granted to straight people. They should be able to marry and have children.

But what if the civil unions have 100% same legal rights as marriages (IE finance issues, health issues, child raising issues)? If they ARE to be equal then damnit just call it MARRIAGE.

Marriage has always been a business arrangement, religion heck even love brought into it is quite new.

I'm not going to pretend I know everything about what you're talking about, so I apologize in advance... but a few more questions:

I'm wondering why do you think people think Gay people aren't "allowed to marry" or "have children"? I'm not talking about "because people hate gays", but what are other reasons?

Also is Marriage really, always a business arrangement? I'm confused by this statement.

[jcrdude]

This beautiful straight couple just got married in a courthouse.




It's always an option for the non-religious couples, why can't it be an option for homosexual couples that can't find a minister that supports them?

EDIT: Also, it's a legal contract... so quite frankly it should be done in a courthouse anyway.

Edited by jcrboy, 23 February 2010 - 09:18 AM.

[Joanna]

This beautiful straight couple just got married in a courthouse.




It's always an option for the non-religious couples, why can't it be an option for homosexual couples that can't find a minister that supports them?

EDIT: Also, it's a legal contract... so quite frankly it should be done in a courthouse anyway.

Even though I've been ranting that it is for all people, I do want to make it clear that I do not want to take away religious ceremonies.
I have been to many, and I will probably have one myself. I think they're beautiful.
But I just think it should be okay for everyone to get married... legally. That is what the problem is. Legally in the US, not everyone has the right to get married, in a court house or in a church if they want. (Not saying that gay marriage should be performed as a religious ceremony if they pastor disagrees... because of christian values)

I do not want religious people to change their values, I just want them to keep religion where it belongs- away from law makers.

[Map]

But I just think it should be okay for everyone to get married... legally. That is what the problem is. Legally in the US, not everyone has the right to get married, in a court house or in a church if they want. (Not saying that gay marriage should be performed as a religious ceremony if they pastor disagrees... because of christian values)

I do not want religious people to change their values, I just want them to keep religion where it belongs- away from law makers.

I'm assuming this is the "religious" marriage...

But the point I'm getting is that, if gay marriage is legalized, isn't that forcing pastors who perform these ceremonies being forced to do something they disagree with?

Because if marriage is a "religious" thing, or what not, i'm confused on what the definition of marriage and what kind of marriage ceremonies we're discussing.

So if Gay marriage ceremonies aren't performed as a religious ceremony, what should a gay marriage look like?

Basically i'm trying to figure out what is the concept of these marriages. It seems that this word is being tossed up but have multiple meanings to it, because it "depends on this, and that"... so I guess to simplify my response:

- What does it mean to have a Gay Marriage? Because if we're discussing the "traditions" of the "Christian Marriage", and religion shouldn't be involved in marriage, then what is act of marriage?

I dunno is that confusing? I'm sort of more confused in typing this out... but going to toss it out there and see if it makes sense

[Sweeney]

IT ALL comes DOWN TO A PENIS DOESN'T GO IN A BUTTHOLE.

From what I hear, a penis actually goes in a butthole quite nicely.

What you mean, of course, is that a penis shouldn't go in a butthole. Which is a wonderful example of the naturalistic fallacy.

[Adam]

Thanks Sweeney, you're correct. I meant shouldn't.

[chobitz]

I'm not going to pretend I know everything about what you're talking about, so I apologize in advance... but a few more questions:

I'm wondering why do you think people think Gay people aren't "allowed to marry" or "have children"? I'm not talking about "because people hate gays", but what are other reasons?

Also is Marriage really, always a business arrangement? I'm confused by this statement.

Some people think children need a man and a woman's influence. Some people see homosexuality not as someone being born gay but choosing to be gay.

A long time ago marriage was used for politics and money. Girl babies were seen as useless back then. They can't own land so they couldn't be heirs, they were considered weak so they couldn't work. So when a poor farmer had only 4 sheep and wanted 10 he would promise (trade) his daughter to a man who had the 6 sheep he wanted. They had a legal (back then oral) contract that became known as "marriages". The day they married the father would get the 6 sheep he wanted and got rid of the 'useless' daughter.

They called the trades dowries. The Dowry may consist of anything land or peace from war if it were royalty or livestock or food stuff if it was a farmer. Hardly ever were the children consulted and hardly ever was love involved. Heck it rarely involved a ceremony and not till much later religion..

It was a business contract.

Yes in a way modern marriage is a business arrangement. The contract implies that if something happens to me my husband is my next of kin for medical emergencies if one of us dies we are each other beneficiaries. Debt is shared, so is profits. Marriage is like insurance (life, car etc) is to protect each other.

I love my husband and he loves me. We could have lived together and be happy but we wanted the legalization of marriage and its protection. Thats all gay people want.

[jcrdude]

I'm assuming this is the "religious" marriage...

But the point I'm getting is that, if gay marriage is legalized, isn't that forcing pastors who perform these ceremonies being forced to do something they disagree with?

Because if marriage is a "religious" thing, or what not, i'm confused on what the definition of marriage and what kind of marriage ceremonies we're discussing.

So if Gay marriage ceremonies aren't performed as a religious ceremony, what should a gay marriage look like?

Basically i'm trying to figure out what is the concept of these marriages. It seems that this word is being tossed up but have multiple meanings to it, because it "depends on this, and that"... so I guess to simplify my response:

- What does it mean to have a Gay Marriage? Because if we're discussing the "traditions" of the "Christian Marriage", and religion shouldn't be involved in marriage, then what is act of marriage?

I dunno is that confusing? I'm sort of more confused in typing this out... but going to toss it out there and see if it makes sense

See my above post about non-religious marriages.

If I'm Catholic and ask a Rabbi to perform my ceremony, he always has the option to say no.

If I'm gay and I ask a pastor to perform my ceremony he always has the option to say no.

If I can't find a religion that will support what I believe in (whether it be that Jesus dies on a cross or that I can love another man), I always have the option to try to get legally married in a courthouse.

If I happen to believe that I can love another man... then that's not an option in most States.

[Map]

If I happen to believe that I can love another man... then that's not an option in most States.

?? As in it's illegal to love? Sorry, this isn't meant to be sarcastic, I'm not following.

If I can't find a religion that will support what I believe in (whether it be that Jesus dies on a cross or that I can love another man), I always have the option to try to get legally married in a courthouse.

Does that mean that's the idea of gay marriage?

Sorry JC I am lost. I'll try reading it again. xD

Edit: Okay so this is what I received. There is always the option to say no, but when it comes to homosexuality it's a firm no. Is this correct?

Also, does anyone have any articles or news postings about these controversies that you've read? I am not very well versed in politics nor really in this debate, but I would like to see more of the both sides about gay marriage, and what they are talking and focusing about.

For me right now, what i've read from this thread is that i'm getting the impression the reason why gay marriage isn't legalized is because it's different than a heterosexual marriage. Is this correct? o.o

I apologize, I am not grasping the debate here.

Edited by Annabeth, 23 February 2010 - 09:57 AM.

[chobitz]

I'm assuming this is the "religious" marriage...

But the point I'm getting is that, if gay marriage is legalized, isn't that forcing pastors who perform these ceremonies being forced to do something they disagree with?

Because if marriage is a "religious" thing, or what not, i'm confused on what the definition of marriage and what kind of marriage ceremonies we're discussing.

So if Gay marriage ceremonies aren't performed as a religious ceremony, what should a gay marriage look like?

Basically i'm trying to figure out what is the concept of these marriages. It seems that this word is being tossed up but have multiple meanings to it, because it "depends on this, and that"... so I guess to simplify my response:

- What does it mean to have a Gay Marriage? Because if we're discussing the "traditions" of the "Christian Marriage", and religion shouldn't be involved in marriage, then what is act of marriage?

I dunno is that confusing? I'm sort of more confused in typing this out... but going to toss it out there and see if it makes sense

In the USA religious ceremonies for marriage are just that ceremonies. The couple is legally married when the couple, witnesses and officiate (either a judge, religious leader or even captain of a ship) sign the marriage license. Everything else is just fluff..

No one can make a church preform a gay marriage. Lets look at the catholic church for a perfect example. Divorce is legal in the US. Its against catholic law for a divorced person to be remarried in the church. The US government doesn't force the catholic church to marry the divorced person. It would be the same with a gay couple.

I got married in Las Vegas by a Justice of the Peace. I had the dress and all the frills. Its no more legal or illegal then if someone got married in a church.

?? As in it's illegal to love? Sorry, this isn't meant to be sarcastic, I'm not following.



Does that mean that's the idea of gay marriage?

Sorry JC I am lost. I'll try reading it again. xD

Yep JC is right..gay marriage could happen by a judge, a sea captain or a religious leader who isn't against it.

This has nothing to do with financial benefits. This is about human rights.

But lets be honest its both.

I have a friend who lost his partner of 15 years. His partner's parents refused him access to the his love's deathbed. Since he ins't legally next of kin he couldn't force the issue and was banned from the hospital room.

When his partner died he was kicked out of their house they owned for 20 yrs.

So in one month he lost his love of his life, he became homeless and even lost their business.

If they were legally married he would have been still heartbroken but would have had more rights.

Oh and to add to your edit Annabeth (please don't think I am picking on you ok?) Gay marriage would be the same as straight marriage no differences.

Edited by chobitz, 23 February 2010 - 10:02 AM.

[Joanna]

I'm assuming this is the "religious" marriage...

But the point I'm getting is that, if gay marriage is legalized, isn't that forcing pastors who perform these ceremonies being forced to do something they disagree with?

Because if marriage is a "religious" thing, or what not, i'm confused on what the definition of marriage and what kind of marriage ceremonies we're discussing.

So if Gay marriage ceremonies aren't performed as a religious ceremony, what should a gay marriage look like?

Basically i'm trying to figure out what is the concept of these marriages. It seems that this word is being tossed up but have multiple meanings to it, because it "depends on this, and that"... so I guess to simplify my response:

- What does it mean to have a Gay Marriage? Because if we're discussing the "traditions" of the "Christian Marriage", and religion shouldn't be involved in marriage, then what is act of marriage?

I dunno is that confusing? I'm sort of more confused in typing this out... but going to toss it out there and see if it makes sense

Marriage is a union between 2 people that is legally binding. It has nothing to do with religion. It has never been a solely religion institution.

Pastors, Rabbis, and other religious officials do not have to perform straight marriages that they do not recognize them, so why would they have to perform gay ones? They wouldn't.

Gay marriage can look like a court house marriage, or a ceremony style if both parties, i.e the religious official and the couple, are okay with it. The entire point of this is that gay marriage should be legal. No matter what form. Because religion does not have a place in government.

We aren't discussing Christian traditions, we are discussing why it is NOT legal for gays to be married in any way.

[Map]

It was a business contract.

Yes in a way modern marriage is a business arrangement. The contract implies that if something happens to me my husband is my next of kin for medical emergencies if one of us dies we are each other beneficiaries. Debt is shared, so is profits. Marriage is like insurance (life, car etc) is to protect each other.

I love my husband and he loves me. We could have lived together and be happy but we wanted the legalization of marriage and its protection. Thats all gay people want.

So gay married people don't have these benefits, they don't share debt or have any medical emergency/ benefits what so ever?

I guess i'm sounding ignorant...but I'm being honest. I don't follow politics / debates like these that much, so enlighten me .

Some people think children need a man and a woman's influence. Some people see homosexuality not as someone being born gay but choosing to be gay.

Do you agree with this that children need a man and a woman's influence in their life? I'm wondering what you think about that

[Joanna]

But lets be honest its both.

I have a friend who lost his partner of 15 years. His partner's parents refused him access to the his love's deathbed. Since he ins't legally next of kin he couldn't force the issue and was banned from the hospital room.

When his partner died he was kicked out of their house they owned for 20 yrs.

So in one month he lost his love of his life, he became homeless and even lost their business.

If they were legally married he would have been still heartbroken but would have had more rights.

Well thats what I meant, they need their rights! He can't have his rights without being married.

[jcrdude]

So gay married people don't have these benefits, they don't share debt or have any medical emergency/ benefits what so ever?

I guess i'm sounding ignorant...but I'm being honest. I don't follow politics / debates like these that much, so enlighten me .

A MARRIED homosexual couple could have avoided the above situation. But because it keeps getting voted down for semantic or religious reasons, a homosexual partner cannot become the legal "next of kin" in most states because they cannot become legally married/domestic partnered/whatever will appoint your life-partner as your legal life-partner

[Map]

We aren't discussing Christian traditions, we are discussing why it is NOT legal for gays to be married in any way.

Marriage is a union between 2 people that is legally binding. It has nothing to do with religion. It has never been a solely religion institution.

Okay. So we're not discussing any Christian traditions nor religion. I thought I read something about it in this thread, maybe I misread.

I agree with you that Marriage is a union between two people that is a binding.

If you wouldn't mind, I've never been to a wedding that wasn't in a church or related to religion. I guess that's related to people I know are still my age, and are not getting married just quite yet.

Do you mind telling me who marries people who do not get married in a church, or related to a religious wedding? Is it just court-official related that marry these people?

Gay marriage can look like a court house marriage, or a ceremony style if both parties, i.e the religious official and the couple, are okay with it. The entire point of this is that gay marriage should be legal. No matter what form. Because religion does not have a place in government.

I thought some of the laws of this country were based on religious views, weren't they? I think I heard that somewhere, but I'm going to check when I get off of work.

If religion doesn't have a place in the government ... isn't it weird then that some of the politicians, and people leading this country are religious? o.o? I'm kind of confused by that, because unless I got my facts really messed up, I'm quite sure religion did play some role in the government, and I'm kind of confused on how you eliminate religion from government...? If that makes any sense

Edit: Some of the questions I asked were already addressed while I was writing this. Thank you for answering.

Edited by Annabeth, 23 February 2010 - 10:13 AM.

[chobitz]

So gay married people don't have these benefits, they don't share debt or have any medical emergency/ benefits what so ever?

I guess i'm sounding ignorant...but I'm being honest. I don't follow politics / debates like these that much, so enlighten me .




Do you agree with this that children need a man and a woman's influence in their life? I'm wondering what you think about that

No you aren't you are asking questions and thats great! Ignorance is NOT asking questions and just making up your mind.

Let me try to explain. ANYONE can gather their friends around. Say some vows and call each other their spouse. But they would not have the same legal rights as someone who got a marriage license signed. Gay couples in most states cannot sign a marriage license.

BTW just so you know what a legal gay marriage looks like I found one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvo1c-M49CU&feature=related

I think that as long as the child is exposed to all sides of life it doesn't matter. Love and devotion matter to me in raising children.

[Joanna]

Okay. So we're not discussing any Christian traditions nor religion. I thought I read something about it in this thread, maybe I misread.

I agree with you that Marriage is a union between two people that is a binding.

If you wouldn't mind, I've never been to a wedding that wasn't in a church or related to religion. I guess that's related to people I know are still my age, and are not getting married just quite yet.

Do you mind telling me who marries people who do not get married in a church, or related to a religious wedding? Is it just court-official related that marry these people?



I thought some of the laws of this country were based on religious views, weren't they? I think I heard that somewhere, but I'm going to check when I get off of work.

If religion doesn't have a place in the government ... isn't it weird then that some of the politicians, and people leading this country are religious? o.o? I'm kind of confused by that, because unless I got my facts really messed up, I'm quite sure religion did play some role in the government, and I'm kind of confused on how you eliminate religion from government...? If that makes any sense

Edit: Some of the questions I asked were already addressed while I was writing this. Thank you for answering.

It is not weird that religious officials are openly religious, because we have a freedom of religion here, but they are not allowed to make laws based on religion, and gay marriage is illegal. There is a separation of church and state, while court and state officials can be openly religious they CANNOT make laws based on their faith.

If a Buddhist man was elected president.. would he be allowed to make laws here based on Buddhism? No, and that is why we are furious, because these laws are "christian" they can get away with them. It goes against everything this country stands for.

Court officials marry people who do not get married by a religious official. They do not perform a religious ceremony they marry them under the state not under god... therefore this does not impede on anyone's religion. Even if the official is religious. They are a court official and therefore when they perform court related duties they are required to keep their religion separate.

Laws cannot be based on religion in this country, and that is what we are fighting against. There are laws like this that impede on human rights... and we think that a country with separation of church and states, and with "liberty and justice for all", should not infringe upon human rights.

[chobitz]

I thought some of the laws of this country were based on religious views, weren't they? I think I heard that somewhere, but I'm going to check when I get off of work.

If religion doesn't have a place in the government ... isn't it weird then that some of the politicians, and people leading this country are religious? o.o? I'm kind of confused by that, because unless I got my facts really messed up, I'm quite sure religion did play some role in the government, and I'm kind of confused on how you eliminate religion from government...? If that makes any sense

Edit: Some of the questions I asked were already addressed while I was writing this. Thank you for answering.

Actually the founding fathers were not Christian. And this country is a secular country. Our laws are based on Greek/roman philosophy not the 10 commandments or any other religious law.

Here is an actually quote by Thomas Jefferson on it:
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

And another:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

. I could find quotes from all of them but you get the picture..

[outsidedream86]

So gay married people don't have these benefits, they don't share debt or have any medical emergency/ benefits what so ever?

I guess i'm sounding ignorant...but I'm being honest. I don't follow politics / debates like these that much, so enlighten me .

Right now, gay people cannot be married. In the eyes of the law, two gay people living together are basically roommates.

1. If one is sick, the other can't make medical decisions for them (even power of attorney aren't always honored, especially against a blood relative), because they aren't married. A gay person has a difficult time being allowed to even visit their partner in the hospital, or even know what's going on if there's an emergency, because they aren't married. In marriage, the spouse makes medical decisions if the other person cannot and is allowed to know that person's medical information.

2. If one gay person has medical insurance, the other can't be covered by it, because they aren't married. A spouse can be covered by insurance for married couples.

3. If a gay person dies, the joint property with their partner will likely go to the deceased's blood relatives, because they aren't married. Even carefully written wills can be contested by the deceased's family.

4. Gay people cannot adopt children, because they aren't married (plus somehow gayness corrupts children), and are viewed as single. Single people have a very hard time adopting children.

5. Gay people cannot file joint taxes, like married couples, because they aren't married. They miss out on tax breaks.

[iargue]

Um... well, then you're not paying attention.
The US Constitution specifically lays out a set of unilateral basic rules of society that are, by definition, not up for debate.
The very definition of undemocratic.

Ergo, attempting to apply the democratic process to the topics covered in the Constitution is unconstitutional.

It explicitly gives us the right to rewrite the Constitution if the need ever arises. The Amendments overwrite the Constitution several times over, and if we wish to, it says that we may over throw the government and start again.

[Frizzle]

Where did people get civil and human rights as set in stone? They're not. They're socially constructed.

And nice joe, admit you have a small penor. Bumhole sex is supposed to be so tight it's near-impossible.

[iargue]

That is exactly why we will never have extreme gun control laws in the United States. The right to bear arms is an undebatable constitutional right.
Whether I agree with it or not is a completely different story.

An Amendment can always be changed by another amendment. Plus, the right to bear arms isnt even part of the Constitution.

And civil rights are one of them..

Like I said before, civil rights should never be up for vote because of a loud minority *cough* Christian right bible belt *cough*. The Jim Crowe Laws would not have been overthrown if allowed to be up for a vote.

Legalization of gay marriage IS a federal not stat by state civil right. Why? because there has been issues of gay married couples being told their passports were invalid to return into the US because the US on a whole doesn't recognize state by state gay marriage.

Marriage is recognized ONLY by states. I dont know what your talking about, but marriages are on a state by state basis, but the Good Faith and Credit Clause dictates that other states must uphold marriages made within a state.

And, I would like proof on this passport bullshit. Considering that passports dont deal with marriage, and getting into the us isnt about if your gay or not, all that matters is that your a citizen.

So an amendment to the constitution must be made, or an amendment that says people can't be discriminated against with marriage contracts. Because marriages are LEGAL contracts NOT religious based. Religion was brought into the marriage scenario later.

Since Marriages are legal contracts, the government holds the right to determine who gets the legal contract? Does it not? And since the government is controlled by the people... This deems that it should be up for vote.