Same Sex Marriage?

As a comedian once said, heterosexuals shouldn't be the only ones allowed to get divorced. :)
 
It's very, very easy to wrap agendas in the flag of being a "civil right." Problem is, whether or not they really are, the moment said argument is put in in front of voters (as this has been) it immediately goes into the realm of the political. If you don't believe that, perhaps everyone here needs to recall the rancor that erupted around CA proposition 8.


We're not puting this in front of voters here. We're discussing this as grown-ups.

And yeah, I live in California. :thumbsup2
 
We're not puting this in front of voters here. We're discussing this as grown-ups.

And yeah, I live in California. :thumbsup2

Nor are we pitting political parties against each other on this issue, which is the crux of why political discussions were banned--had to do mainly with political party affiliations.
 
As a comedian once said, heterosexuals shouldn't be the only ones allowed to get divorced. :)

:thumbsup2

Who marries who is pretty much none of my business unless of course, my husband is some how involved.:rotfl:

Did anyone see the movie "what happen in Vegas", when Aston Kutchner and Cameron Diaz are in front of the Judge (a very funny cameo by Dennis miller) trying to get a quickie divorce and the Judge says
"gay people are destroying marriage, you people are".... too funny
 


The gays and lesbians I know don't have an "agenda" -- they are just trying to live their lives and not be discriminated against. They are great parents, wonderful friends and neighbors, hard workers.

I've never understood they whole "destruction of marriage" line of thought either. If Bob and Bill would like to be married, it really doesn't affect Jodifla and her DH.
 
Against.

Society has to be able to draw the line somewhere and I believe it should be drawn to exclude gay marriage. I believe this because from a legal perspective if you permit gay marriage I don't see how you prevent any type of marriage. Why not three in a marriage, or four?

If it is a "right" of any two adults who "love" each other to get married, why doesn't that "right" extend to any THREE adults who "love" each other.

Also I am not comfortable with the topic gay marriage being taught in schools.


nice post. took some guts to be the only one to post against in 5 pages of posts. i like your arguments, but i respectfully disagree.
 
You know, I'm not really sure where I stand on the civil vs. marriage thing. I get that marriage is just a word, and that most people can get the same thing out of it in a civil union, but it still seems wrong to me to keep excluding people.

It is kinda like saying that a blonde person can be married but a redhead can only have a civil union. I think that is where my hang-up lies.

But, my dear friend who cannot get health insurance coverage at his husband's work would give his hair to be able to have a civil union and doesn't really care what anyone calls it. (And frankly, he's a better housekeeper than I am so why is he penalized?)
 


I've never understood they whole "destruction of marriage" line of thought either. If Bob and Bill would like to be married, it really doesn't affect Jodifla and her DH.

That's because you and I don't believe it's wrong.

For those that believe that it undermines marriages or destroys the sanctity of marriage and makes it some sort of joke of marriage, most likely have the belief that a homosexual is less than a "true" or "real" person. So if you have two people who are exhibiting aberrant behavior marry, they believe that it makes a mockery of the "real" love between heterosexuals. It's akin to saying "well, then, who is to stop you from marrying your cat." At least this is how it was explained to me. Since they believe that the homosexual behavior is not right in God's eyes or behaves against the word of God, to have them marry would take away from the seriousness of a married union.
 
I support gay marriage because I think two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want! I'm at a loss as to why straight people think they should be allowed to control what gay people do!

This! And like the op, I'm Christian. I really don't understand why it is anyone's business, whether they are religious or not, if two people who are in love get married.
 
All I can say is that the institution of marriage remains fully whole and intact, and thriving for that matter, here in Massachusetts.

Here in Germany too (same sex marriage was legalized here in 2001).

Add Canada to the list.

I also support religions if they choose to not perform ceremonies which they feel go against their religion. At the same time I don't think that any particular religion should have the rights to the term marriage...it's older than all of them. My wedding and marriage has been Goddless and my marriage is more than a civil union thank you very much.
 
Society has to be able to draw the line somewhere and I believe it should be drawn to exclude gay marriage. I believe this because from a legal perspective if you permit gay marriage I don't see how you prevent any type of marriage. Why not three in a marriage, or four?

If it is a "right" of any two adults who "love" each other to get married, why doesn't that "right" extend to any THREE adults who "love" each other.

Marriage, from a legal perspective, is a contract. There are some specific things that apply solely to the marriage contract, and they can be interpreted differently depending on what state you're in. For instance, in most places, the child born of a married woman is automatically considered to be the child of the husband. Unless he can prove otherwise, he's on the hook for that kid until it's 18. This doesn't change if the child is raised in a family of two women, or adopted into a family of two men. The 'spouse' is on the hook. But what happens in a family of multiple wives? Are the other wives on the hook for each other's kids? What if one wants to divorce, do the other wives get custody rights? Do the parents of the other wives get "grandparents rights"? Although rarer in human culture, what happens in a family of multiple males? Do the dad's just decide who gets to be the presumptive "father" of the kid (notably, in Nepal where this is still practiced to a small extent, the mother says who the father is and everyone just agrees that she is right)? Is it all left to genetic testing? Or is everyone just on the hook as if they all adopted it? How is that sharing parcelled out?

Now let's talk about inheritance. Generally, when you die, your assets go to your spouse or, in their absence to your children in equal portions. Now of course, anyone can make a will and give everything to their beloved parakeet if they so desire, but what we're talking about is probate and how things are split up intestate. In a polygamous/polyandros marriage do the spouses share equally? Is the spouse that's been married longer accorded more assets? What about the children from each, how do they share? More laws would need to be written.

Then you get into some really weird stuff. A lot of states still criminalize adultery. Now if one man has two wives, but the wives aren't married to each other (perhaps because there's no gay marriage), does that mean the man is criminally adulterous when making love to either of them? Is it okay if all three are involved in the act?

These are hard questions to answer, but more important, the way they would be answered is by having each and every one result in a brand new law. Each and every state would attempt to do their laws differently, and there would be challenges to all the laws at the state and federal level. In other words, it would be a pain in the butt.

Our current legal system is made to deal with two partner unions. It has enough trouble dealing when those two partners separate and/or find new partners. Conversely, our legal system (save in those states that have specifically enacted anti-gay-marriage laws) doesn't segregate people by sex. Ultimately, not much need be changed by instituting laws making gay marriage/civil unions legal.

As a rights thing, it's more difficult to argue against multplicity in marriage (as the devout Mormon in my law school class could tell you). I personally don't have a huge problem with it (as long as there's no abuse going on). I wouldn't mind having another husband!
 
I support same-sex marriage.

Alternatively, I support a religious organization's right to not perform a same-sex marriage if it goes against the beliefs of that religion.

That said, I do not think the federal, state, or local governments should discriminate against marriages performed by the state (which all are ultimately). Once you take religious belief out of the equation, it is discriminatory not to allow it.

Agree!!! :thumbsup2
 
Marriage has survived in one form or another for millenia...

Has it really existed for thousandS of years?

Even if it did, we could think about how it got its start (property ownership and inheritance, at least in Europe, from what I've read), and wonder if it even has a place anywhere at all...


It's very, very easy to wrap agendas in the flag of being a "civil right." Problem is, whether or not they really are, the moment said argument is put in in front of voters (as this has been) it immediately goes into the realm of the political. If you don't believe that, perhaps everyone here needs to recall the rancor that erupted around CA proposition 8.

But all of those problems weren't political (though some religions align with some political parties to a certain extent), they were religious.


Because there are some people who think that marriage is still religious and that's fine. But what about the people who get married for 24 hours and then have it annulled? Isn't that much more detrimental to marriage in general than a gay couple getting married.

I don't even see how that affects marriage. We had friends that seemed to be madly in love, got married quickly b/c one person's visa was expiring and they were in love anyway, but then about a year later (once the person's citizenship came through) they broke up...and they remained close friends. Can't help but think that maybe they weren't quite as in love as we thought.

But that situation doesn't mess up MY marriage at all. Can't see how it would.

Against.

Society has to be able to draw the line somewhere and I believe it should be drawn to exclude gay marriage. I believe this because from a legal perspective if you permit gay marriage I don't see how you prevent any type of marriage. Why not three in a marriage, or four?

If it is a "right" of any two adults who "love" each other to get married, why doesn't that "right" extend to any THREE adults who "love" each other.

Also I am not comfortable with the topic gay marriage being taught in schools.

OK, but...if you really think about it...beyond the confusing tax stuff...how would that truly impact YOUR life, if the slippery slope were true? I don't understand the attraction between that large family on TV right now, but what on earth do I care if 4 women want to be married to one guy? If anything, it leaves more single men for the rest of the single women!

As long as minors are protected and bio-cousins (or siblings etc) can't marry, if someone thinks that they will be happy with 5 husbands, and they can find 5 guys to agree with it, I can't see how it would impact my world.

Should ANY marriage be "taught" in schools? How is marriage taught in schools anyway?









I never thought about any of this until the CA thing (I don't live in CA). I had already realized that being married didn't keep me with DH any more than just saying i'd stay with him. We had a small handfasting (though I managed to forget the cords) at the National Zoo in front of the plaque bought in honor of my mom on the "big cat island", and from that point forward we felt just as married as we did almost 2 years later (a year after the planned wedding, we had to do some counseling so things were delayed) when we had a ceremony and reception and did the legal stuff. It's not that certificate on the wall that keeps us here!

But then I thought about the people who actually WANT the certificate on the wall, and I got so sad for them. DH and I actually considered the wild act of getting a divorce and remarrying later once things changed. We didn't really want to be part of the system like that. The discussion is tabled for now, as we don't have the money to do all that, and we couldn't tell DS (to not worry him) but we don't like lying to him either.



On the other side, my brother in law is glad it wasn't legal for him to marry in WA, because his partner turned out to be a slimeball, and if they were married he would have been financially bound to him. Best that they were not connected financially during that time! But if he ever *wanted* to marry, I would be very sad for him that he can't in our state. :hug:
 
I'm not a supporter either way. I really don't care who gets married. Unfortunately, the two factions that are banned from discussion tend to take a subjective interest in same sex marriages. If it weren't for those people insisting on making the rules there simply would be an issue. So, banned faction #1 and banned faction # 2 should both just mind their own business so everyone can live happily ever after with whomever they choose.
 
I support gay marriage.

Same sex marriage can fail just like a marriage between a man and woman can fail. If a same sex couple cannot marry and live with each other for 40 years and one partner dies, does the surviving partner have rights to his/her pension, insurance, home??? What if the partners family didnt agree with the union?

In many states, plural marriages is not legal. But if that is the way you choose to live, why should I disagree. As long as you have the ability and are legal to make your own decision.

I know straight couples who are married and have a crappy relationship. They cheat on each other, put their children in the middle of their arugments, and have totally forgoten why they are together in the first place. How does this not degrade the sanctity of marriage?

I am equal to everyone and do not feel it is my decision to make.
 
I am strongly opposed to and will aggressively fight against... bigotry. So, of course I support gay marriage. In fact, I find gay marriages to be absolutely fabulous! A few years ago there was a really great documentary on HBO - Rosie's Family Cruise(or something like that). I watched it with my son. Rosie O'Donnell chartered a cruise ship for a gay cruise. It's a great documentary, and I would highly suggest it to anyone who may have concerns or be against gay marriage. Gay people are just like you and me. They want the same things in life - happiness, family, acceptance; etc. Affording gay people the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy will not harm the sanctity of marriage or cause the moral decay of our society - however, close mindedness and bigotry will. I think in fifty years our grand children will look back at this time the same way we look at the civil rights era - in disbelief that people could be so close minded and treat others so badly. There may be a loud and vocal minority that is fighting against equal rights, but they will fall. Equal rights does seem to win out most of the time in our country.
 
Society has to be able to draw the line somewhere and I believe it should be drawn to exclude gay marriage. I believe this because from a legal perspective if you permit gay marriage I don't see how you prevent any type of marriage. Why not three in a marriage, or four?

If it is a "right" of any two adults who "love" each other to get married, why doesn't that "right" extend to any THREE adults who "love" each other.

Yes, why not three or four in a marriage? Honestly, WHY NOT?! If these four people are in love and consenting adults and want to commit to marriage, I think they should be able to. Maybe it's time for a MAJOR reform on marriage altogether. :lovestruc
 
As a comedian once said, heterosexuals shouldn't be the only ones allowed to get divorced. :)

Chris Rock said something hysterical about it too. "People always say that we can't have gay marriage because marriage is a sacred institution, that happens in the church. It's sacred... no it's not! Marriage ain't sacred! Not in America! Not in the country that watches "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" or "The Bachelor" or "The Bachelorette" or "Who Wants to Marry a Midget?" Get the f outta here! Gay people have a right to be miserable as everybody else! Michael Jackson got married, how effin' sacred is that sh!t?" :lmao:
 
I also support same sex marriage. :thumbsup2

I think the "slippery slope" argument is a cop-out. It's either right or wrong or you're undecided, but IMO an issue needs to be decided on it's own merit, not what you might foresee somewhere down the road.

For those who are against same sex marriage based on what it may lead to, do you also think that interracial marriage should never have been made legal? The similarities between that issue and this one are often pointed out, so some could say that Loving v. Virginia started us down the slippery slope that will lead us to same sex marriage, polygamy, and people marrying their goldfish.

Nope. Each possible new expansion of the definition of marriage should be looked at on it's own. As ZephryHawk explained, there are many reasons polyamorous unions don't fit into the marriage mold as well as same-sex unions do, and those should be analyzed if and when the time comes that the legality of such unions is questioned. Not as part of the issue of same sex marriage.

As far as people marrying children or animals... one key word to remember is "consent". A child or a hamster does not have the legal abiilty to give consent to enter into a contract of any kind, including marriage, so no worries about slipping that far down the slope.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top