Three thoughts on the gay marriage controversy

[Fozzledick]

1) In spite of the recent right-wing propaganda about marriage being created by religions and/or governments, they DON'T actually marry people, they only bless or record marriages. PEOPLE MARRY EACH OTHER and always have, since long before there were organized religions or bureaucratic governments.

2) The "traditional, Biblical" definition of marriage that the fundamentalists are raving about was not between one man and one woman, but one man and a harem of as many wives as he could support, and he was still free to have sex with concubines, harlots (considered dishonorable but legal), slaves and unmarried handmaidens without it being considered adulterous.

3) The only people who would actually be affected by state recognition of gay marriages are those who want them. The only people who oppose it are those who aren't affected!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. i want to have multiple wives too

i want the same right awarded to men in the bible: many wives!!

my gf may however kill me :(

[ma4t]

54. Sorry, multiple wives are prohibited by the Constitution....

right there where is prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment".

[humble truth]

2. The simplest solution...

... for those who oppose same sex marriages is to not marry someone of the same sex. That's it, case closed. Why is that not good enough and they feel the need to tell other people who they can marry? Beats me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. did you ever watch the daily show episode

where jon said that he is afraid they are going to make gay marriage mandatory? else why would anyone care?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. did you ever watch the daily show episode

where jon said that he is afraid they are going to make gay marriage mandatory? else why would anyone care?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Welcome to DU!!

Glad to have you onboard!!! :yourock: :pals:

[humble truth]

15. That's funny

I'm going to have to use that next time I run into a conservative so concerned about who strangers marry.

[noiretextatique]

21. works for abortion too

don't like it...don't have one. really, really simple.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I don't see how gay marriage diminishes straight marriage.

The only thing that I have a remote problem with is gay adoption, in which case I believe that straight couples, if everything else is comparable, should be given preference over gay couples. If that makes a distinction between marriage and civil unions necessary, fine. If push came to shove, I'd fully support both gay marriage and adoption, but I don't feel like it's right to put a child in a situation that could definitely be detrimental to their development without it being necessary (in other words, it's better than not having the kid adopted at all). Adoption is about finding the best home possible for the child and not meeting the desires of someone to be a parent. But that's my humble opinion and I could be wrong.

[LeahMira]

8. You would be surprised...

The only thing that I have a remote problem with is gay adoption, in which case I believe that straight couples, if everything else is comparable, should be given preference over gay couples.

You would be surprised to know how many couples adopted when they did not have a child of their own and how often part of the reason they did not have a child of their own was because one partner happened to be homosexual.

Which brings up the fact that people who are homosexual already do get legally married. Think about it.

Conservatives really can't object if people who are homosexual get married unless they start demanding proof that all marriages are bettween active heterosexuals, which will probably be the next step.

What this whole thing is about is not about people who are homosexual getting married. It's about gay sex.

Now think about why President Clinton's affair got the conservatives so upset.

[kayell]

17. Why do you think it "could definately be detrimental to their development"

My daughter would like to know.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. "Could" is the operative word.

There is no evidence either way (and yes, I looked at all the studies presented in the Florida case. None of them, for either side, are viable and could hardly be considered scientific.) Absent any concrete evidence, it's not fair to risk the well being of a child when a safer alternative is available.

Also absent any concrete evidence, I don't believe that it's the most ideal situation for a child. A child shouldn't be questioning sexuality before he/she even learns how to read, but that's what's likely to happen in these situations. If a comparable straight family is willing to adopt, I feel they should have preference. I know you're going to ignore the word "comparable" and tell me that there are just as many good gay parents as there are straight ones, so I'll get that out of the way now and agree with you. There are, and gay parents are far better than no parents at all. Further, since adoption is about meeting the needs of the CHILD, and not the parent, I don't feel this is an unreasonable precaution to take.

In summation, I support gay adoption, but I feel straight parents should be given preference in the process.

[kayell]

45. I believe you just advocated affirmative action for heterosexual parents

How amusing. We know just how urgent it is to right the wrongs done to heterosexual adoptive parents over the last few centuries. :eyes:

You have come up with NO justification for prefering straight adoptive parents over gay parents, no proof that being raised by heterosexuals is healthier for children. You just have some kind of a feeling that tells you that's the way it should be. There are words for those kinds of feelings you know.

On "safer" alternatives by the way, are you aware that most child abusers are *gasp* heterosexual!?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. You haven't proven anything either

If you have something to say, say it or be silent. Don't play that game "there are words for those kinds of feelings you know".

Most child abusers are heterosexual?? Really? Did you come up with that stat all by yourself, or did you consider that heterosexuals are the vast, nearly exclusive majority of parents as a whole? How in the world would it be surprising that most child abusers are heterosexual?? What BS! What stat will you pull out next? That most people with diabetes have a health problem? Please!

Finally, just because YOU don't think that justifies having a preference, that doesn't mean a damn thing. Your opinion is only your opinion. My opinion is only that - my opinion. I don't have the arrogance to suggest that what I say is law. In my opinion, however, I don't feel it's worth risking the development of the child on a very large unknown variable when a viable known variable is there. Until legit scientific evidence is provided one way or another, I will hold to my opinion. Since your opinion is just as baseless as mine is, I suggest you keep your pithy comments to yourself. Either respectfully agree or respectfully disagree. Explain why I'm wrong instead of making slanderous implications.

[Ms. Toad]

66. Double standard...

What makes you think a child of same gender parents will "be questioning sexuality before he/she even learns now to read" any more than a child of mixed gender parents?

This is an extension of the tired double standard that when a man introduces a woman as his wife it is has nothing to do with sexual activity, but when a man introduces another man as his husband, he is accused of announcing to the world what they do in bed, and told he ought to keep that private.

Inappropriate images of sexuality surround most children, regardless of the gender of their parents, at far too young an age in the United States. As a single example, quite a few children were watching the super bowl half time show when Justin Timberlake simulated a sexual assault on Janet Jackson, apparently a perfectly acceptable display of sexuality since there has been virtually nor formal condemnation of his role, while Jackson has been ostracized for exposure of a breast.

The child of same gender parents will perceive that his or her parents love each other and the child. The parents can demonstrate, as can any couple with a healthy relationship regardless of gender, how their whole relationship involves love, mutual respect, support, tenderness, and yes sexuality. This will serve as a healthy counter to many of the inappriate displays of sexuality children who cannot yet read are exposed to every day.

Would you also suggest that a preference be given to able bodied parents? younger parents? wealthier parents? Each of these might be seen as giving the child an advantage, all else being equal. None, to my mind, are appropriate reasons for awarding a preference to one over another.

[foreigncorrespondent]

31. I would like for you to back...

...your claims about children being raised in gay homes is detrimental to their development, with links to reputable sources.

How dare you slam gay parents like that!

[JasonDeter]

7. That is so not true.

Notice the Bible says 'wife' and not wives. God established the norm in the beginning. Its man who changed the norm and wish God and man to sanction it. Kind of like my favorite saying in re: to those who blame God for everything, "The rock blaming the Glass for breaking."

Genesis 2:24
For this reason * a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Ge 2:25
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Ge 3:8
They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Ge 3:17
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life .

Ge 3:20
Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living .

Ge 3:21
The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Ge 4:1
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain , and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."

Ge 4:17
Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city , and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.

Ge 4:25
Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named * him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."

[drdigi420]

9. you'll have to do better than that

using a myth to prove your point doesnt work except on others that believe the same myths as you

there is absolutely zero effect on one couples marriage by another couples marriage, unless they are already intertwined via family or association

this is a secular society, not based on religion, so religious arguments have zero weight on the issue

just the facts maam, thank you

[JasonDeter]

20. HELLO! I'm not the one who brought it up.

Just because YOU don't believe it doesn't mean its not true. My beliefs have just as much validity as those who don't believe in the Bible.

[foreigncorrespondent]

30. Jason...

...and just because YOU believe it, doesn't mean it has to be true.

On edit: And Jason, since you're so anxious to use Old Testament quotes to support your views this evening, then perhaps you can offer us all your perspective on the story of Lot, Rachel, and Leah?

[Fozzledick]

10. Hogwash!

"David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife. 1 Samuel 25:39

"David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives." 1 Samuel 25:43

"But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife," 1 Samuel 25:44

"Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;" 2 Samuel 3:3

"And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David's wife. These were born to David in Hebron." 2 Samuel 3:4-5

"And David took him more concubines and wives" 2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Chronicles 14:3

"And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:7-8

"And David comforted Bathsheba his wife..." 2 Samuel 12:24

"And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the house." 2 Samuel 15:16. (See also 2 Samuel 16:21-23.)

[JasonDeter]

11. So. When God or Christ talked to men,

they talked to them about their wife. All you have proven is man is disobedient and in need of a savior if you hold what David did was wrong. So to sum up, God only recognized ONE of David's wives, Bathsheba, through whom the Christ would come.

[Darranar]

65. Uh, okay...

so you selected SOME quotes from the Bible to back up your point, and assume that any ones that contradict the point you're making were simply a result of disobedience?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. not only are these partial quotes

but what makes you think that wife/wives got translated correctly?

they couldnt tell the different btw virgin and young?

[JasonDeter]

23. The Bible and the Bible language the most studied on the planet

I think they knew the difference between wife and wives. NEXT!

[Rockholm]

13. Woah, Something Is Not Adding Up Here.....

Let's see. Adam, Eve (got it) They had Cain and Abel. WHERE THE HECK DID CAIN"S WIFE COME FROM? If Adam and Eve were the first two people on Earth, where did this wife come from? Did God just whip her up? Did Adam & Eve have a daughter that then hooked up (married) Cain? Just asking. A little help here. To go from Genesis 4:1 to Genesis 4:17 taht would be like years? Obviously, she was his cousin. I did not know that the Garden of Eden was in West Virginia. (only kidding, mountaineers!)(please insert other redneck locale). But seriously, where did his wife come from???????

[booisblu]

14. Now I'm curious

if Adam and Eve were the only two humans, and Cain was their son..where did Cain's wife come from?

[JasonDeter]

24. In the Jewish tradition only the sons are mentioned.

Thats why in the genealogical order only the sons are mentioned. So most biblical scholars would agree that Adam and Eve had a daughter or daughters first. And your right, it was redneck heaven in the beginning.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JasonDeter]

27. We'll isn't that special?

[myopic4141]

41. Monogamy

According to documents found in Elephantine around 5th Century BCE, monogamous relationships were established via Aramaic Business Law through prenuptial contracts (yes, they had prenuptial agreements then) before they were ever entered into scriptures. Also established was equal rights concerning the bride's mohar (bride price) in case of divorce and inheritance rights in case of death. These consensual contracts were absolutely binding under ancient law.

[Xanth]

16. Recognition...

is what this all boils down to. Why can't the gays who want to marry just go after the civil union? They will be recognized. Since the Christians, including me want marriage between a man and a women. Why can't gays be "tolerant" of the way Christians believe marriage should be? I don't understand how calling a gay union a marriage is going to make a difference in rights. As long as states who want to recognize gay unions apply.

I have a sister who is gay and I disagree with that lifestyle. I do still think she should get the same benefits as a heterosexual. I don't think what she does in the bedroom should hinder her rights.

[ms_splash]

18. Because...Christianity is NOT the government!

I am not christian, I was not married in a christian church, but I got married.

Marriage IS a civil union (it can and often is a religious union as well).

Why should you, or Christianity, or ANY religion define marriage?

[Xanth]

28. I agree...

Marriage is a civil union. A religious union first. I didn't define marriage, but agree with its definition. I grew up and knew that marriage was between a man and a woman. This is what I believe in. I am not wrong to believe that, just like your not wrong for believing what you believe.

This is how it is right now. If there is a culture move the way you want then let it move. The majority of people will decide what is right. The majority will define marriage.

The government has no place directing our religious thought, but they do have the right to stand up for the majority.

[oldcoot]

34. Not everyone is married in a church

Some people are married by a justice of the peace. Do you think that these people are really married or do you consider their marriages civil unions?

I also would like to know your opinion of churches that marry gay and lesbian couples. Do you think that the government should recognize these marriages or ignore them?

[Xanth]

38. Yes...

I agree all marriages are civil unions once the paper work is all done. Marriage between a man and woman are my belief. This is a core belief for Christians.

I believe that gay people love just like I do. I believe if two are married in a church they are spiritually married. This really is the most powerful marriage of all.

If the government decides to accept this, it will be up to the majority to finalize it.

[Rockholm]

19. Because Separate Is NOT Equal....

THis is not a religious issue. It is a CIVIL issue. When the state offers over 1,000 benefits and protections to one group and not another, that is not equal. You last sentence is a contradiction. You think she "should have the same rights as a heterosexual." EXACTLY. Equal Marriage = Equal Rights.

[Xanth]

29. It's both

It's a religious issue because the majority of people in America and the world believe marriage is celebrated in their faith. Men and women have been getting married for centuries. Majority rules.

It's civil too, so that it can be recognized by the governments. I don't know if I can believe there are 1,000 benefits to one group and not another. That's a very impressive number. Can you show me how to verify that??

I don't think I contradicted. Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman in Christian belief. If the majority decided to make civil unions legal for gays with the same benefits of married couples, then equal rights it is.

Why do the majority of people have to change what they have believed for centuries to appease the few? Is the recognition of being married as important to you as the rights you seek?

[cheezus]

33. You have to be Christian be married now?

what next, jews and muslims (et al) inthis country will have to have civil unions?

[Xanth]

39. No.

They are married according to there religious beliefs, just like my Christian beliefs. A man and a woman. It's as simple as that.

Jews and Muslims are married in America all the time. It is just that the majority of people in America are Christian.

If we were in Saudi Arabia there would be the same battle, but the Muslim majority would fight it.

[cheezus]

43. okay

so if their religion permits homosexual marriage it's okay then?

[Xanth]

57. Yes...

in their country. Not ours. It doesn't permit homosexual marriage though.

[mondo joe]

52. Because of the Equal Protection Clause

"Why do the majority of people have to change what they have believed for centuries to appease the few? Is the recognition of being married as important to you as the rights you seek? "

No one has to change their beliefs.

But all citizens have to be equal before the law.

[Xanth]

58. I agree...

no one has to change their belief, but how do I teach what I believe to be true, if it contradicts itself. Marriage is between a man and a woman, well not anymore. It's now a couple who love each other.

it's a tough debate for sure.

all citizens have to be equal before the law.

[mondo joe]

62. Teach your beliefs and teach what that means

"no one has to change their belief, but how do I teach what I believe to be true, if it contradicts itself. Marriage is between a man and a woman, well not anymore. It's now a couple who love each other. "

If you disapprove of gay marriages teach your kids that there is law and there is religion, and here's one area where they diverge.

[Xanth]

64. Point taken.

[noiretextatique]

22. why should anyone tolerate second-class citzenship

to appease the beliefs of someone else? and how can you say in one breath that what your sister does in the bedroom should not hinder her rights...and then claim that she should not be married to appease your christian values?
you are not alone...my sister agrees with you :eyes:

[Xanth]

35. A second class state of mind.

I didn't make the rules I just follow them. The majority have had this belief for a very long time. Should the majority appease the few because they are upset that the majority has such strong beliefs? I am sure you have values you would protect at any cost. I would like to protect my value of marriage. Do I think calling a gay union, marriage, will effect me, no.

I don't have kids yet. If I did, how can I teach them my core beliefs about marriage if they contradict reality? Core beliefs and driven values don't change.

What I do in my bedroom shouldn't effect you either. My sister is a human being with love. History shows us that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. The majority have this core belief. I am not saying my sister shouldn't marry. Just call it a civil union. Come on, don't strip our religious beliefs from everything.

And about being second class. Can you explain that?

Thanks for the dialogue.

[mondo joe]

44. Should We All Live By Your Beliefs, Or by Our Own?

"Should the majority appease the few because they are upset that the majority has such strong beliefs?"

The majority should abide by the constitution, including the equal protection clause. That's what it's there for - to protect minorities.

Do you think the majority opposed to it should have accomodated the minority who wanted interracial marriage?

"I don't have kids yet. If I did, how can I teach them my core beliefs about marriage if they contradict reality? Core beliefs and driven values don't change. "

So the rest of the world should follow only your beliefs so it will make it easier for you to teach them to your kids?

Come on.

Should segregation have remained in place so Southerners could more easily teach their kids their views on race?

[Xanth]

59. Your Beliefs

We all have core beliefs that we use to guide our lives.

"The majority should abide by the constitution, including the equal protection clause. That's what it's there for - to protect minorities."

I agree we should all be treated equally.

"Do you think the majority opposed to it should have accomodated the minority who wanted interracial marriage?"

Yes and they did.

"So the rest of the world should follow only your beliefs so it will make it easier for you to teach them to your kids?"

Of course not. I do want to be able to teach my kids that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what I believe.

"Should segregation have remained in place so Southerners could more easily teach their kids their views on race?"

No and that is a good point. My view of marriage is a religious issue.

[noiretextatique]

46. the majority once had strong beliefs about white supremacy

they held those beliefs for a very long time. they held white supremacy as a value that they sought to protect at any cost.
of course, it's ridiculous to suggest that people of color should have continued to be SECOND-CLASS citizens to appease to strong beliefs of the majority...wouldn't you agree?
if our nation is to live up to its lofty words, e.g., liberty and justice for all, then the strongly held beliefs of the majority shouldn't be a factor in determining who gets which rights.
wouldn't you agree? there is no "sacred" prejuidice...prejudice is just prejudice. and unless this is a theocracy, there is no legal reason to deny gay people the same civil rights that you and my sister have.
peace.

[Xanth]

60. True

"it's ridiculous to suggest that people of color should have continued to be SECOND-CLASS citizens to appease to strong beliefs of the majority...wouldn't you agree?"

Yes I do agree. That was an extreme civil rights issue and human rights issue.

"if our nation is to live up to its lofty words, e.g., liberty and justice for all, then the strongly held beliefs of the majority shouldn't be a factor in determining who gets which rights.
wouldn't you agree?"

I also agree with this. I feel like I am repeating myself. I have no problem with the issue of rights. We are all human and deserve equal rights. And in Gods eyes we are all equal. No one is better than the other and no sin is worse than the other.

We are one nation under God, Indivisible...

"there is no legal reason to deny gay people the same civil rights that you and my sister have.'

You are exactly right.

[Fozzledick]

50. Should the majority respect the rights of the minority???

OF COURSE THEY SHOULD!! That's the only real difference between a democracy and a lynch mob! Otherwise a hostile majority could simply vote on which unpopular minority to EXTERMINATE!

And no, I don't think that's an exaggeration:

That's pretty much what happened in Germany in the 1930's.

There have been times when I think the white majority in some southern states might have voted to expel or lynch all Blacks within their state if the Federal constitution didn't overrule them.

And let's not forget that one of the primary motivations for the Republicans' exploitation of this issue is stealth pandering to the theonomic dominionists who truly DO want to see all homosexuals stoned to death.

Again, I must emphasize that simple majority rule without protection for the rights of UNPOPULAR minorities and individuals is just a lynch mob, not democracy!

[Xanth]

61. I say it's a little extreme...

but I agree with you. And it is sad that some are so extreme in their ideological beliefs, that they leave no room for acceptance. That is way to one sided for me.

"Again, I must emphasize that simple majority rule without protection for the rights of UNPOPULAR minorities and individuals is just a lynch mob, not democracy!"

You deserve the same rights I have. Nothing more, nothing less.

[mondo joe]

26. I'm tolerant: don't have a same sex marriage if you don't believe in them

"is what this all boils down to. Why can't the gays who want to marry just go after the civil union? They will be recognized."

Which Civil Union is that?

Is there a federal civil union? Not that I know of.

And we already know that Bush and the right wing oppose civil unions.

And if Rosa Parks wanted to get home why didn't she just stand in the back of the bus?

"Since the Christians, including me want marriage between a man and a women. Why can't gays be "tolerant" of the way Christians believe marriage should be?"

I'm perfectly tolerant - don't marry another person of the same sex if you don't want to. Tolerance doesn't mean sacrificing my RIGHTS for your comfort.

"I don't understand how calling a gay union a marriage is going to make a difference in rights. As long as states who want to recognize gay unions apply."

One big whopping reason is that most marriage benefits are FEDERAL not STATE LEVEL.

[Xanth]

37. "I'm tolerant...

Are you? Don't get married unless you can marry the opposite sex? It works both ways. Marriage has always been between a man and woman. That is what I believe.

Is there a federal civil union?

No, but there should be If that is what will make all the rights equal.

And if Rosa Parks wanted to get home why didn't she just stand in the back of the bus?

If your point here is equal rights, then fight for your rights. If a civil union will give you these rights is that enough??


Tolerance doesn't mean sacrificing my RIGHTS for your comfort.

It's not comfort, it's my belief. You should have the same rights.

One big whopping reason is that most marriage benefits are FEDERAL not STATE LEVEL.


I agree.

[mondo joe]

40. I'm glad to extend the precise same tolerance to you that I ask for myself

"Are you? Don't get married unless you can marry the opposite sex? It works both ways. Marriage has always been between a man and woman. That is what I believe."

As I said, I'm tolerant - marry the willing adult of your choice.

I only ask that you extend to me the same courtesy.

"If your point here is equal rights, then fight for your rights. If a civil union will give you these rights is that enough??"

Was Separate but Equal ever fair enough? Would you suggest to interracial couples who wanted to marry before it was legal that they instead have a "civil union"?

Here's my suggestion: You downgrade to a civil union, and the government ONLY dispenses civil unions, and I'll do the same.

Then if you can find a church to marry you, go ahead and have your religious rite. And gay couples can do the same.

It's ridiculous to think the federal government should regulate any unions, much less create a whole second class of them for gays, and the expense and bureacracy to create new legislation and laws.

"It's not comfort, it's my belief. You should have the same rights."

Respectfully, you are free to your beliefs and free to live according to them. Why you think you are entitled to limit MY freedom to live according to MY beliefs - which includes some notions about marriage - is the mystery to me.

[Xanth]

63. I have a civil union...

according to the state license. I also have a marriage to my wife in our church. A union bound by our beliefs in our religion.

"It's ridiculous to think the federal government should regulate any unions, much less create a whole second class of them for gays, and the expense and bureacracy to create new legislation and laws."


I don't think so either, but the government can't work without our tax dollars. So big brother has his hand in the jar. And if and when this movement takes hold, there is going to be new legislation and laws. The expenses will be massive. From the biggest corporations to the smallest shops. Think about it.

"Respectfully, you are free to your beliefs and free to live according to them. Why you think you are entitled to limit MY freedom to live according to MY beliefs - which includes some notions about marriage - is the mystery to me."

Thank you. I do not want your rights or freedom limited. I have core beliefs and so do you. And I can't say your belief is wrong and vice versa. There is a reason we believe what we believe. That is what makes this whole issue so explosive.

Some people think I am a homophobe or intolerant. I think some gays are intolerant. That is not the case. For me it's a religious issue.

I have a younger sister who is gay. She is twenty one. The reality of all this hasn't set in yet with her. It's going to be a tough road for her.

I appreciate you and others sharing with me. I am learning much more than I expected.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikeytherat]

47. Newsflash -- ALL Marriages in the USA are Civil Unions

It matters not one whit if your priest/minister/rabbi claims you are married, if you didn't get your (civil) Marriage License, the State does not recognize your union. Also, if you DO get your marriage license and your priest/minister/rabbi performs your marriage ceremony, he or she is acting, in that instance, as a Justice of the Peace (a representative agent of the State). If you only have a relgious marriage ceremony without the state-required paperwork, prepare for lots 'o fun when you and your spouse try to: get a mortgage, set up inheritences, transfer property, visit each other in the hospital, put one another on an insurance plan, etc. These are "rights" granted to you for the very small filing fee of your marriage license. My wife and I got several thousand dollars of legal rights for that $35; had we been "partners" and tried to establish power of attorney, joint filing rights, etc., it would have cost us much, much more in legal fees.

The Church and the State have gotten into bed on this matter and made a mess, and it was going to become an issue eventutally (I guess "eventually" has become "now"). We need to separate the secular and religous aspects of marriage, as they never should have been put together in the first place. The whole issue here is NOT about religion; gays and lesbians simply want the CIVIL RIGHTS granted by these unions, just like me and the wife have. If Church X or Y does not want to perform a RELIGIOUS ceremony to those already joined by the State, nobody can force them.

Separation of Church and State -- that's the whole issue in a nutshell.

mikey_the_rat

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reservoir dogs]

48. Why not civil unions?

Why not civil unions? It will fix the problem that they don't enjoy the same rights. Why push the marraige thing in an election year?

[kayell]

49. *Sigh* Seperate but Equal is not equal

There are no federal civil unions, yet many of the benefits of marriage are federal benefits. Very few states currently have civil unions or anything like them. The chance of having such approved in each state, with rights actually equal to marriage, is vanishingly small. Marriage is an actual institution that exists now.

And once again: SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL

(yes, I am yelling)

[NicoleM]

53. Awesome avatar.

:thumbsup:

[mondo joe]

51. Why not just sit in the back of the bus?

Three reasons :

1. Because Separate But Not Equal isn't equal

2. There ARE NO CIVIL UNIONS AVAILABLE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

3. If there were it would require a whole new set of laws and beuracracracy rather than the simple and effective marriage.

[Fozzledick]

56. Why I changed my mind on civil unions

A few months ago when this first started to become a major national issue I thought that civil unions were a reasonable compromise for the short term that would allow for functionally equal rights now without raising the emotionally explosive issue of "redefining marriage" ("A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet") which could be better resolved AFTER society became accustomed to openly gay couples being treated the same as "married" heterosexuals.
It also seemed to be working fairly well in Vermont.

I also had my own reservations about the meaning of "marriage". Although I consider the claim that marriage has always been between one man and one woman to be obvious nonsense - various forms of polygamy have been common throughout history, and in patriarchal societies marriage has been less a union of two lovers than the transfer of a female slave from father to husband - I do believe that marriage has traditionally been considered to be a union of two BLOODLINES that produces children that are heirs to both. Indeed, failure of a wife to produce children has been considered grounds to annul a marriage even when divorce was forbidden.

I have more recently however been persuaded by two of the arguments that equal marriage proponents have been making:

1) "Separate but equal" rights are never really equal and officially denying identical status to individuals based on their membership in a group is simply discrimination.

2) "I've been watching the events unfold in San Francisco and what I have seen is that the joy and love that these people are sharing with each other is amazing and it is right." - Lama Surya Das

This strikes me as just a good thing on it's face, and also as a striking contrast to the hatred and malice coming from the gay-bashers whom I believe are the hard-core of the opposition. To those who argue against it on the grounds of "Christian belief" I ask you:
which of these two groups is more truly in accord with Jesus's teachings, and is the church's policy really based on the gospels ( I dare you to show me a quote from Jesus himself) or just an assimilation of society's prejudice?