Gay marriage.

[avalonlovelove]

Is there anyone who is for or against gay marriage?Of course I am a big supporter of gay marriage among other gay issues that we who are gay deal with in our everyday life.I do not understand that if someone is love gay,straight,black,white whatever that it shouldn't matter what someone's sex is or sexual orientation.I do not think it is fair that our country makes it so hard for people who are gay to be married.I've noticed that most people who marry the same sex have to have permission to marry and that is ridiculous.I think that it was great when Rosie O' Donnel married the love of her life.Then there was a gay couple I saw this year recently on Bridezillas who got married.But let's face it it isn't the same for everyone who is gay and I am sure there are some people who will agree about that.:tongue: :tongue: :frown1: :bsflag:

 

[Industrialsize]

I live In massachusetts.......I am married now for 3 years...

 

[Oilslickcowboy]

Please read this post carefully as I will likely be taking an unpopular position, but I will do my best to explain myself clearly. I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union. With out getting into that whole Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve stupidity I am in favor of Gay civil unions. The whole issue I think stems from the wording, gay marriage scares the Bible belt for reasons that we are all aware of, many view the issue as an attack on “Christian Values.” However if two people are willing to commit to each other why shouldn’t they be allowed to be joined legally, with all the benefits and handicaps that are associated with “marriage.” I honestly think that the gay community could benefit from a change in nomenclature; it may prove to be more productive in establishing legal rights and keeping religion out of the debate. Now feel free to misread, twist words and attack.

 

[DaveyR]

I am totally in favour of it, however we have talked about the possibility and decided that it is not something that we want to do. We stay together because we want to and for no other reason. That has served us well for 20 years. Many traditional style marriages don't last 20 years so we see what we have as being superior to that anyway (in our eyes).

We can see no advantage for us. Financialy it would make no difference to us and we have taken great care in making wills using a good solicitor. Our pensions default to each other. We both worked for progressive employers with great pension schemes.

I would fight for anyone's right to be able to get married and wish anyone the best luck in the world should they decide to do so.

 

[fortiesfun]

Please read this post carefully as I will likely be taking an unpopular position, but I will do my best to explain myself clearly. I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union.

I actually favor gay people having equal rights within religious traditions also, so I favor gay marriage, but I do recognize that the reality of the politics that fuels your position is very different from the hostility of the fundamentalist community to the basic human rights of homosexuals.

 

[Osiris]

I am in favor of it. As I have stated before in another post, I may be Catholic, but I have friends and an older brother who is gay and honestly? I know how unhappy my brother was until he was able to truly be himself. Life is too short for anyone to deny how they feel or who they are. I have three friends that are in same sex family units and have adopted children. They even go the route of making sure the kids are exposed to the traditional family unit so they know that there is different out there.

How can sharing love and committment and family be wrong? granted I know my view is not popular, but I stand behind it just as Oilslickcowboy stands behind his. I also have to give him props for being open minded enough to at least accept the new family dynamic.

 

[matticus201]

Please read this post carefully as I will likely be taking an unpopular position, but I will do my best to explain myself clearly. I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union. With out getting into that whole Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve stupidity I am in favor of Gay civil unions. The whole issue I think stems from the wording, gay marriage scares the Bible belt for reasons that we are all aware of, many view the issue as an attack on “Christian Values.” However if two people are willing to commit to each other why shouldn’t they be allowed to be joined legally, with all the benefits and handicaps that are associated with “marriage.” I honestly think that the gay community could benefit from a change in nomenclature; it may prove to be more productive in establishing legal rights and keeping religion out of the debate. Now feel free to misread, twist words and attack.

I think you bring up an excellent point. Marriage is itself a religious institution to be sure. The problem is that in this country, we have equated marriage not only with religion, but with basic civil rights, such as the right to inherit, the right to file taxes jointly, the right to visit a sick spouse without fear of refusal. Because in the United States we operate according to the doctrine of separation of church and state, I believe that the word "marriage" is misleading. Many people choose not to get married in churches, but instead "marry" at a justice of the peace only. Does this mean they are not married because they have removed religion from the equation? No, it does not. We already practice "civil unions" in this country. When straight people get married in a church, they have to register with the justice of the peace and obtain a marriage liscence from this office. I personally don't care what religion accepts my union. But, the government to which I pay taxes should NOT deny me the right to register my union with a JP and obtain the same rights and privilages that straight unions recieve.

It has nothing to do with the religious side of marriage, and everything to do with the secular side, the civic side. The two sides are not mutually exclusive. They don't, and shouldn't, touch one another at all. Unfortunatley, conservative powers in this country are trying to make it seem that they should. This is unconstitutional. It's bigotry at it's finest and most pronounced.

 

[Oilslickcowboy]

Matt, beautifully stated. It truly is unfortunate that this country cannot collectivly understand that the desire is to have equal rights and be recognized by the system, not to force religions to accept the marriages.

 

[fortiesfun]

Matt, beautifully stated. It truly is unfortunate that this country cannot collectivly understand that the desire is to have equal rights and be recognized by the system, not to force religions to accept the marriages.

But we don't force them to do so, we do the opposite, which is refuse to recognize marriages that some denominations do accept. (How do we always manage to twist the logic backward, and assume that recognizing gay marriage would force religions to change what they do? I know of no proposal that wouldn't let them be as narrow-minded and bigoted - or conversely as liberal and open - as they want to be.)

 

[DC_DEEP]

Please read this post carefully as I will likely be taking an unpopular position, but I will do my best to explain myself clearly. I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union. With out getting into that whole Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve stupidity I am in favor of Gay civil unions. The whole issue I think stems from the wording, gay marriage scares the Bible belt for reasons that we are all aware of, many view the issue as an attack on “Christian Values.” However if two people are willing to commit to each other why shouldn’t they be allowed to be joined legally, with all the benefits and handicaps that are associated with “marriage.” I honestly think that the gay community could benefit from a change in nomenclature; it may prove to be more productive in establishing legal rights and keeping religion out of the debate. Now feel free to misread, twist words and attack.

I read your post carefully, and this is not an attack. I do feel that I have to point out that, even with your disclaimers, your choice of words seems to put a tone in your post that you may not have even intended.

Now, without twisting your words and attacking, let me propose this: I'm absolutely fine with the concept of reserving the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, and "union" for homosexual couples - but ONLY if the government completely pulls out of the marriage business. No joint income tax filing, no "spouse as dependent" status, no spousal privilege in trials, nothing. No government recognition of marriage at all. If marriage is to be retained only as a religious designation, that's fine. The government should not support that creation of a "privilege class", and in fact, has no legal basis for doing so.

Even in those states where same-gender marriage is "legal", the government does all it can to favor heterosexuals in marriage and property matters. In the states where "civil unions" have been instituted, those unions are second-class entities compared to marriage. In California, where "civil union registry" has been instituted, courts have routinely disregarded the law, without reprisal.

Until same-gender couples actually get the FULL BENEFITS and full rights and responsibilities as opposite-gender couples, I do have a problem with it. Separate and inequal just is not acceptable to me. Federal and state laws provide over 1,400 legal and financial rights to persons who fit the legal definition of "married." Those rights and protections, by definition, simply do not extend to "civil partners."

 

[Industrialsize]

Please read this post carefully as I will likely be taking an unpopular position, but I will do my best to explain myself clearly. I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union. With out getting into that whole Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve stupidity I am in favor of Gay civil unions. The whole issue I think stems from the wording, gay marriage scares the Bible belt for reasons that we are all aware of, many view the issue as an attack on “Christian Values.” However if two people are willing to commit to each other why shouldn’t they be allowed to be joined legally, with all the benefits and handicaps that are associated with “marriage.” I honestly think that the gay community could benefit from a change in nomenclature; it may prove to be more productive in establishing legal rights and keeping religion out of the debate. Now feel free to misread, twist words and attack.

If marriage is a "religious union", why are peolpe allowed to get married in a toal secular union by a justice of the peace?.....The main reason Gay people pushed hard for Marriage and NOT Civil Unions is that the FEDERAL GOVERMENT already knows what a marriage is and confers many rights and priveledges on married people, however, the Federal Governement has NO idea what a CIVIL UNION is. Following your argument, of marriage as a religious institution, The only place one should be married is in a church.....not a Vegas wedding chapel

 

[bentrim]

DON'T HAVE ANY VIEWS ON THIS JUST THAT ONE MARRIAGE IS A C**K IN THIS OKLAHOMAN'S MOUTH!!!!!!!!
bentrim1948@yahoo.com

 

[RedBear]

Please read this post carefully as I will likely be taking an unpopular position, but I will do my best to explain myself clearly. I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union. With out getting into that whole Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve stupidity I am in favor of Gay civil unions. The whole issue I think stems from the wording, gay marriage scares the Bible belt for reasons that we are all aware of, many view the issue as an attack on “Christian Values.” However if two people are willing to commit to each other why shouldn’t they be allowed to be joined legally, with all the benefits and handicaps that are associated with “marriage.” I honestly think that the gay community could benefit from a change in nomenclature; it may prove to be more productive in establishing legal rights and keeping religion out of the debate. Now feel free to misread, twist words and attack.

IMHO, all government should grant "civil union licenses" to all (gay or straight) and churches should "marry" people. If, as you say, marriage is religious union, the government should have no right to sanction them.

 

[matticus201]

But we don't force them to do so, we do the opposite, which is refuse to recognize marriages that some denominations do accept. (How do we always manage to twist the logic backward, and assume that recognizing gay marriage would force religions to change what they do? I know of no proposal that wouldn't let them be as narrow-minded and bigoted - or conversely as liberal and open - as they want to be.)

But I think this is entirely the point. Straight couples, in a sense, hold BOTH a civil union AND a marriage, because they are joined in the church as well as the state. I'm saying that if the church doesn't want to recognize same sex couples, that's fine, because there are no pursuant rights in the church union. I think it would be great if all churches would recognize the union between two people of the same sex, but they don't have to, they are not state supported institutions. All of the rights are attached to the secular, the civil union. This is the union that should be compeltely non-discriminatory, because it is sactioned by a government of the PEOPLE, not of specific persons. It's all semantics, that's true, but I think the point is clear.

It's the conservative powers that be, in their bigoted mindset, that are trying to merge the two different types of unions, but they are in fact completely different. I could care less what it's called. As long as it amounts to the same rights and protections, it doesn't matter what it's called. That's why I've always thought that the whole gay marriage thing is ridiculous, because it shouldn't be an arguement at all. The last time I checked Civil Rights were hard-won in the 60s, or at least that's what I've always hoped. We don't live in a religious dicatatorship, and as soon as the religious right, oh, I'm sorry, the "neo-conservatives," leave power, maybe we can get more enlightened individuals to see this.

Maybe I'm just an idealist though.

 

[Oilslickcowboy]

DC interesting that you bring up this point. In my original post I almost included the line "marriage is a religious institution that the government got into to make money" but decided to reword it and left out this position. I am all for equal rights for gay couples but merely suggest that a change in terminology not functionality may make opposers feel less combative. The final line of my post was made half jokingly based on the uneducated replies one sees on the net so often. Up to this point in the thread I think that the conversation has been respectful and enlighted.
Now where are the "check this thread here" people.

.......
Now, without twisting your words and attacking, let me propose this: I'm absolutely fine with the concept of reserving the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, and "union" for homosexual couples - but ONLY if the government completely pulls out of the marriage business. No joint income tax filing, no "spouse as dependent" status, no spousal privilege in trials, nothing. No government recognition of marriage at all. If marriage is to be retained only as a religious designation, that's fine. The government should not support that creation of a "privilege class", and in fact, has no legal basis for doing so.
..........
​

 

[DC_DEEP]

With out getting into that whole Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve stupidity...

I know you don't subscribe to that stupid argument, but since you brought it up...

To all my open-minded brothers and sisters out there: next time you hear some narrow-minded bigot bring up this "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument, try this on them...

"The last time I looked at Genesis, it would appear that God created Adam. Eve was just an afterthought." Sorry, ladies, I know that sounds a little misogynistic, but it usually requires the fundies to re-think their plan of attack.

 

[witch]

for them.........

 

[DC_DEEP]

for them.........

I'm being a little dense, please explain...

 

[witch]

I'm being a little dense, please explain...

oops..sorry, I'm for the right of gays to marry

 

[fortiesfun]

DON'T HAVE ANY VIEWS ON THIS JUST THAT ONE MARRIAGE IS A C**K IN THIS OKLAHOMAN'S MOUTH!!!!!!!!
bentrim1948@yahoo.com

I think the funniest thing about this post is that here on a big dick site he won't write COCK. Like that's what we would find upsetting in this post.

But I think this is entirely the point. Straight couples, in a sense, hold BOTH a civil union AND a marriage, because they are joined in the church as well as the state. I'm saying that if the church doesn't want to recognize same sex couples, that's fine, because there are no pursuant rights in the church union. I think it would be great if all churches would recognize the union between two people of the same sex, but they don't have to, they are not state supported institutions.

I didn't mean to be combative. I was concuring in a sense, but just wondering how this argument gets so frequently reversed. Making gay marriage legal has implications for state marriages, but churches could continue to marry people or not, as they currently chose. Still, the Bible belt boogey man is that somehow recognizing gay marriage would force churches to perform them - untrue and irrelevant.