gay marriage

[B_jacknapier]

I think that heterosexual men who want to define marriage as between a man and a woman feel that way because of an innate and natural disgust at homosexual activity between men.

I know, I know, but otherwise why would homophobia be so widespread? Why would only 7 legislatures in the world, including Cali and Mass., allow gay marriage? It surely can't be entirely 'nurture'- there must be some 'nature' in there as well.

I'm sorry if this offends. It's a sad idea but I think it's true.

Also, to imply that it is only white, christian males who are against gay marriage is extremely inaccurate. As I stated- only 7 legislatures in the world allow it. at least 4 of them are, in conventional terms, dominated by white christian male policies. Obviously, of course, the desire to keep marriage (and anything) "as-is" is a conservative ideal.

 

[Industrialsize]

From what I understand this used to be an issue.....people were not allowed to marry outside of their race. And it is hard for me to put myself in that situation because of my upbringing and because I am a female. I was raised in the bible belt and I was very over protected.....and there were a lot of predudiced people there. My family (grandfather) included. I am not sure how I ended up not having a predjudice bone in my body. Anyways, all I had to do was walk down the street or talk to a person of a different race in the presence of my grandfather and I wouldn't ever hear the end of it.

Add to that that I am a freaking rule follower. Always have been. And my daughter is too.

Anyways, I understand your point mcjp......

I just wanted to express my gut feeling. I am not really into politics.....but this is my gut feeling on the gay marriage issue.

I think the white conservative Christian males who define marriage as an institution or union of a male and female.....are doing so because they think they are somehow protecting the benefits of stay at home moms and young children. There will probably come a day when even stay at home moms won't qualify for spouses benefits. After the kids are a certain age she will have to get out and get a job and get her own benefits. Anyways this is just some of the talk that I have heard from conservative Christian friends.

So this is kind of how the opposition to federally legalizing gay marriage is kind of kept on fire. And it is preached at the churches. Talked about at the social picnics.

It is kind of hard to change religious peoples way of thinking.

That is why I was thinking changing the name would be a good compromise and gays might get what they want a lot faster federally with the domestic partnerships.

Anyways that is my 2 cents and gut instincts.

The problem is that the Federal Government knows and recognizes what a "marriage" is and confer MANY benefits to people who are married. According to the federal government there is no such thing as a civil union.

 

[B_jacknapier]

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands

South Africa
Spain
California
Massachusetts

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[earllogjam]

My desire has nothing at all to do with the social/societal aspects of marriage, and everything to do with the legal/financial aspects...

Most of the benefits conveyed to straight childless married couples have to do with survivorship and inheritance. And although it is automatic in straight marriage many many gay couples have similar protections through forming living trusts.

As a side note I read somewhere that divorce rates for gay marriages are the same with those of straight couples. I guess equality works at both ends too.

Gays couples when separating seem to just work things out between themselves and have escaped the negative aspects of marriage and the accompanying legal responsibilities all these years, alimony, communal division of property, child support...etc. I wonder if some gay men will regret they even asked for gay marriage. A coup and boom for divorce lawyers, most definitely.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

Most of the benefits conveyed to straight childless married couples have to do with survivorship and inheritance. And although it is automatic in straight marriage many many gay couples have similar protections through forming living trusts.

As a side note I read somewhere that divorce rates for gay marriages are the same with those of straight couples. I guess equality works at both ends too.

Gays couples when separating seem to just work things out between themselves and have escaped the negative aspects of marriage and the accompanying legal responsibilities all these years, alimony, communal division of property, child support...etc. I wonder if some gay men will regret they even asked for gay marriage. A coup and boom for divorce lawyers, most definitely.

Very good point Earllogjam, totally agree

Me and my partner love each immensley and been together a long time now, Gay marriage is not for us, not against it, don't disagree with it, just really happy with how we are, all properties, wills, NOK sorted out legally, funerals and families etc,:smile:

 

[HyperHulk]

I think the white conservative Christian males who define marriage as an institution or union of a male and female.....are doing so because they think they are somehow protecting the benefits of stay at home moms and young children. There will probably come a day when even stay at home moms won't qualify for spouses benefits. After the kids are a certain age she will have to get out and get a job and get her own benefits. Anyways this is just some of the talk that I have heard from conservative Christian friends.

I have no idea what special benefits that you are referring to that all stay at home moms are entitled to that would possibly be affected by gay marriage. However, one of the great things the CA decision mentioned was that gay marriages have no impact on heterosexual marriages at all. And they don't. Gay marriages don't affect benefits, children or any aspect of heterosexual life.

The opposition to gay marriage, at its heart, isn't about the damage it does it straight marriage, its about the damage it does to hating gays. Some people need targets. They need "Us" versus "Them". They need a group that they demonize and rally people against. Whether that group is Blacks, Asians, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals or women--the list goes on. The hatred is built on lies, misinformation, distortions, stereotypes and exaggerations. The hatred is generally used to maintain the power (or illusion of power and superiority) of one group over the other. Right now, it's about demonizing gays--they'll hurt your marriage, your kids and our society with their wicked, um, anal sex. As long as gays remain unequal in some respects, these hate-mongers can continue to say--see, they must be bad because we don't recognize them in society--they aren't as a good as us.

That's why this discrimination must end. Because being gay isn't being less, it's being the same, but different.

If history has shown us anything, it's that one day, rationality will win out. Although, history also shows us that the focus will then shift to another group. That is why I fervently believe that if you are ever a part of a group that has been discriminated against or held back or had the law used to disempower you--then you should fight to make sure that this never occurs to anyone else.

 

[Hippie Hollow Girl]

The problem is that the Federal Government knows and recognizes what a "marriage" is and confer MANY benefits to people who are married. According to the federal government there is no such thing as a civil union.

To my simple mind this is what we need to get changed. If we could get the federal government to recognize civil unions and confer the same benefits .......I think everyone would be happy. How do we go about doing that?

 

[B_jacknapier]

To my simple mind this is what we need to get changed. If we could get the federal government to recognize civil unions and confer the same benefits .......I think everyone would be happy. How do we go about doing that?

Gay guys- would you be satisfied with that? I'm very curious.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

To my simple mind this is what we need to get changed. If we could get the federal government to recognize civil unions and confer the same benefits .......I think everyone would be happy. How do we go about doing that?

Kadtaxgrl, you ain't got no simple mind, there is a lot of good sense in what you have posted:smile:

 

[D_Harry_Crax]

It's not so much that I'm for gay marriage specifically as that I'm for equal rights in general. There's no excuse for homosexuals to be treated unequally, and we determined "separate but equal" as unconstitutional decades ago.

I agree with you and I understand the point you were making about Brown v. Board of Education, but the situation with gays, straights, and marriage, is more like "not separate and unequal" that "separate but equal." In other words, gay people and straight people live in the same towns, the same apartment buildings, the same houses, go to the same jobs and schools, etc., but straight people can marry while almost all gay people in the U.S. cannot.

 

[HyperHulk]

It doesn't make sense to me to have 2 separate systems: straights get married and gays get civil unions. There is one system, it works and everything is built around it: marriage. Just open the door a bit and let others participate if they so desire.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
But it is kind of a catch 22 because the federal government needs some kind of criteria to use to assign or dole out benefits.

Personally I don't see what is wrong with having domestic partnerships. If it has the same legal benefits what is in a name?

I understand that you are on my side in this, but you've been given biased information. And these two paragraphs point out what's in a name.

<...>
I think the white conservative Christian males who define marriage as an institution or union of a male and female.....are doing so because they think they are somehow protecting the benefits of stay at home moms and young children.
<...>
So this is kind of how the opposition to federally legalizing gay marriage is kind of kept on fire. And it is preached at the churches. Talked about at the social picnics.

It is kind of hard to change religious peoples way of thinking.

That is why I was thinking changing the name would be a good compromise and gays might get what they want a lot faster federally with the domestic partnerships.

Anyways that is my 2 cents and gut instincts.

Good points, and ones I hear all the time: "Gays should not marry because they cannot procreate."

I've known lots of childless-by-choice married couples though. So that throws the procreation issue out the window, unless these same people are willing to deny marriage to childless couples. But how would that be enforced? Require an up-front pregnancy as a good-faith pledge? When you think about these issues rationally, most of the religious-conservative side falls flat.

Most of the benefits conveyed to straight childless married couples have to do with survivorship and inheritance. And although it is automatic in straight marriage many many gay couples have similar protections through forming living trusts.

That's a little too narrow, earl. Most of the benefits to childless couples could better be described as "general legal and financial benefits." There are over 4000 federal laws that deal specifically with marriage; how many of those do you think involve children?

As a side note I read somewhere that divorce rates for gay marriages are the same with those of straight couples. I guess equality works at both ends too.

Gays couples when separating seem to just work things out between themselves and have escaped the negative aspects of marriage and the accompanying legal responsibilities all these years, alimony, communal division of property, child support...etc. I wonder if some gay men will regret they even asked for gay marriage. A coup and boom for divorce lawyers, most definitely.

Equality does work at both ends. If some gay men do regret that they ever asked for marriage rights, all I have to say about that is understand what you ask for, and don't be so naive as to think that benefits don't come with responsibilities.

To my simple mind this is what we need to get changed. If we could get the federal government to recognize civil unions and confer the same benefits .......I think everyone would be happy. How do we go about doing that?

Gay guys- would you be satisfied with that? I'm very curious.

You know, the only way I can answer that is:

If DOMA is repealed, and replaced with a law that simply states "for all purposes, in any law, 'marriage' and 'domestic partnership' shall be considered to be synonymous." I would be OK with that, I suppose. Anything less, anything with corollaries, addenda, or exceptions, would not be OK.

 

[PBGem]

Most opponents of gay marriage site reasons tied to religion, calling marriage a holy union. Most people of faith would concur that holy matrimony is a sacrament, granted by God through ordained priests/ministers/rabbis/shaman/whatever. So if marriage is a holy union, why should a secular body, like a state government, be in the business of administering it? Governmentl bodies should be granting Civil Unions to every couple, regardless of thr gender of the people involved. Take the religion out of the equation (since it shouldn't be in civil affairs in the first place) and the Civil Union is what is left. If a marriage is what you want, you should go to a church.

 

[B_retracted]

It doesn't make sense to me to have 2 separate systems: straights get married and gays get civil unions. There is one system, it works and everything is built around it: marriage. Just open the door a bit and let others participate if they so desire.

Of course gay people should be able to marry and not accept this stupid "civil union" consolation prize. Otherwise it's clearly making ten percent of the population into second class citizens. And it's not like many straight husbands don't fuck their wives up the ass or the straight wives don't fuck their husbands up the ass with strap-ons. So what's the big deal?

 

[mjcp]

No changes on the Federal level are likely until we elect Obama, I mean any democrat to the presidency next year... The republicans are too closely tied to the religious right and their contribution money to be motivated to care about it.

 

[Hippie Hollow Girl]

Well if it was up to me I would open the door and let whoever wants to get married get married. But unfortunately it isn't up to me. We have to work with what system that we have.

And with the people in this country that feel the way that they do about keeping "marriage" holy and between a man and a woman only.....like the Bible and other religious books seem to imply......Good Luck!

Someone made the statement that they think Christians hate gay men because they don't like to think about anal sex. You know, I don't know if I believe that is 100% true. Or that isn't what I have seen. I don't think they hate any particular person. They just hate what they see as "sin" and they don't want to associate with it.

There are a lot of Christian people that are gay and they have the same beliefs about keeping marriage holy and sacred and between a man and a woman also. So this is where I am coming from. I have no doubt in my mind that we could get the support we need for the civil unions being recognized by the Federal Government....... I just don't have the hope and confidence that we would ever be able to overcome all the religious people that want to keep marriage holy between 1 man and 1 woman. Or the people period that don't want to see gay marriage. (For whatever narrow minded reason) But you know maybe I am just thinking negatively. I tend to do that.

What can I do to help? Ya'll have made me start thinking about this.....and it isn't fair.

 

[HyperHulk]

There are a lot of Christian people that are gay and they have the same beliefs about keeping marriage holy and sacred and between a man and a woman also. So this is where I am coming from. I have no doubt in my mind that we could get the support we need for the civil unions being recognized by the Federal Government....... I just don't have the hope and confidence that we would ever be able to overcome all the religious people that want to keep marriage holy between 1 man and 1 woman.

This keeping it holy thing doesn't make sense to me. There is nothing unholy about people of the same sex wanting to legally commit themselves to each other. My bigger issue though is the hypocrisy of these, keeping it holy people. Gays only make up 10% of the population, the other 90% that aren't children can get married. Of those who get married, more than 50% of those marriages end in divorce. How "holy" is divorce? The number of divorces far outweighs the number gay people, let alone the number of gay people who would get married. If the institution of marriage was so bloody sacred, precious and holy--than divorces should never exist. What do divorced people say: my marriage was sacred and holy but then we broke our sacred and holy commitment to each other, now that former marriage is un-sacred and unholy?

This is how you know that people don't give a damn about marriage, the institution or how sacred and holy it is--this is only about trying to keep gays as social pariahs. If people were legitimately concerned about marriage, they would focus all of their campaigns and energy to fixing marriage in general so that the divorce rate wasn't over 50%.

All gay marriage opponents are really about is not wanting to recognize gays and lesbians as equal members of society--it's not about marriage at all--it's just marriage is the last big thing that can be used to say "you're not as good as us and you're not entitled to have what we have."

 

[B_jacknapier]

No changes on the Federal level are likely until we elect Obama, I mean any democrat to the presidency next year... The republicans are too closely tied to the religious right and their contribution money to be motivated to care about it.

yeah man when obama is president he'll legalize weed too

 

[D_Carroll Condomripper]

I'm with the CA Supreme Court.

Civil Rights >> The Religious Right

 

[NCbear]

Only having read some of the last few comments before this post, I would just like to say that I'd support civil unions for all and marriages in religious contexts for those whose religions support their marriage. Let's keep government out of our churches (and vice versa).

And all the current benefits accruing to people who're "married" should then be available for those who've signed up for "civil unions"--regardless of gender or orientation.

I'd also support polyamorous civil unions of consenting adults. Why not?

NCbear (who admires Robert Heinlein's solution -- in The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, his main characters merely announced their marriage in the local news)