Inwood: Since no one has talked about this lately I thought I'd put it up. What do you think of all that's going on?
Duo187: I think theres no reason for them to limit gay marriage, marriage is a way to express yourself, therefore should be covered under the first amendment. Any limitation is unconsititutional and wrong, they are just making a big deal out of this to isolate those that are gay in hopes of making them surpress there homosexuality
To me this is a civil rights issue.
In the past century or two, the institution of marriage has changed substantially. Once it was totally an ecclesiastical matter; now licenses are issued and marriages performed without clergy. Marriage is no longer until death do us part, but it lasts until the passion dies or the anger reaches the boiling point. Divorce and remarriage is now more common than marriage. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the continuing heterosexual attack on marriage. Yet, Congress passed The Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as a heterosexual union.
I think that a more humane and logical approach would be The Defense of Family Act. This would acknowledge that committed, same-sex couples are entitled to the recognition and rights of committed heterosexual couples.
Among the rights extended by The Defense of Family Act would be to make medical decisions for the partner or their children, to adopt children, to be eligible for all employee benefits extended to heterosexual families, to receive the same tax benefits as other couples, etc.
jay
In the past century or two, the institution of marriage has changed substantially. Once it was totally an ecclesiastical matter; now licenses are issued and marriages performed without clergy. Marriage is no longer until death do us part, but it lasts until the passion dies or the anger reaches the boiling point. Divorce and remarriage is now more common than marriage. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the continuing heterosexual attack on marriage. Yet, Congress passed The Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as a heterosexual union.
I think that a more humane and logical approach would be The Defense of Family Act. This would acknowledge that committed, same-sex couples are entitled to the recognition and rights of committed heterosexual couples.
Among the rights extended by The Defense of Family Act would be to make medical decisions for the partner or their children, to adopt children, to be eligible for all employee benefits extended to heterosexual families, to receive the same tax benefits as other couples, etc.
jay
mindseye: Well, y'all know where I stand.
The black civil rights movement required defiant acts to ignite the fence-sitters: Rosa Parks, or the Woolworth sit-ins, for two famous examples.
Although I'm not optimistic that the marriages performed in San Francisco (and in Sandoval County NM) will stand legal scrutiny, I'm thrilled by the amount of 'ignition' they've generated. (Of course, I'd be more thrilled if I were currently a candidate for marriage, but I'll take that over to Personals.
)
The black civil rights movement required defiant acts to ignite the fence-sitters: Rosa Parks, or the Woolworth sit-ins, for two famous examples.
Although I'm not optimistic that the marriages performed in San Francisco (and in Sandoval County NM) will stand legal scrutiny, I'm thrilled by the amount of 'ignition' they've generated. (Of course, I'd be more thrilled if I were currently a candidate for marriage, but I'll take that over to Personals.
)Javierdude22: Hm...I actually dont know where I stand on this.
Spontaneous thoughts on this topic:
I dont think same sex people should get married in the way it has been done way before Christ. Why? As far as I know (but what do I know), marriage as we know it is a ritual related to religion, and in Western society, to Christianity and Judaism. That ritual simply states two people getting married should be a man an woman, and there you have it.
Of course, this topic is not about marrying in a church (which I totally oppose for same sex people) but marriage as a civil union.
Hm...I have difficulty naming it marriage, to me that indeed IS confined to a man and woman. I would rather call it what it is, a civil union. I do think people who feel committed should have the same civil rights related to stuff as tax benefits, etc.
I guess I do oppose adoption by gay people. Why? Cause I think both parents are necessary. I know we have thousands of one-mom or one-dad families which work out fine, but creating a process where one type of parent by definition is denied to the child, seems unjust. One-dad or one-mom families usually got there by circumstances, not because of a conscious decision.
I basically dont think it is the healthiest environment for a child to grow up in, mentally/culturally speaking.
Generally speaking on marriage:
I am confused on the subject. I respect this ritual or whatever you wanna call it a lot, and think it should not be taken lighthearded. I guess this is a general bone I have to pick with society, there is total lack of morals (although morals is what you make of it) and an individualism that sickens me.
Everything seems to be about short term pleasures, and about me myself and I, in total disregard of what kind of consequences you action might have on your next of kin, friends, or others. And this is all too well reflected in marriage.
Everybody hops into this like its a ride in a fair, once you get bored you step into another. And TV and movie people only exacerbate this (thanks Liz...).
I peronally also think that 50% or more of the marriages closed in SF between gay people was between people who want to be in the spotlight, and probably break up in a year (although statistics already predict a 60% chance of divorce). I would like to tune down this admirable thought that it is all about Civil Rights, no it is also about that 3 seconds on tv.
However, to conclude this, I also think people in a hopeless marriage should divorce. I know where religion stands on this, but I cant help to disagree, or at leats in should have a paragraph in the ten commandments with exceptions. My folks e.g. should not be married, nor should they have ever gotten married, nor was there ever a moment where one would think, good thing they got married. Heh...good thing they did though, otherwise Id still be swimming in the gene pool. But my mom refuses to divorce, partly because she doesnt know any better than my dad, but the major part is because Christianity forbids it.
That the twist...
By looking around though, I got the depressing feeling that 80% of the people who are together for about 20 years have lost all feelings for eachother, feel irritated, and wished they were single. Maybe 20% still has a genuine love for eachother, and enjoy eachothers company. So then the question arises: what point is there in marriage anyway?
Eh...I gotta go..good topic though...
Jav
Spontaneous thoughts on this topic:
I dont think same sex people should get married in the way it has been done way before Christ. Why? As far as I know (but what do I know), marriage as we know it is a ritual related to religion, and in Western society, to Christianity and Judaism. That ritual simply states two people getting married should be a man an woman, and there you have it.
Of course, this topic is not about marrying in a church (which I totally oppose for same sex people) but marriage as a civil union.
Hm...I have difficulty naming it marriage, to me that indeed IS confined to a man and woman. I would rather call it what it is, a civil union. I do think people who feel committed should have the same civil rights related to stuff as tax benefits, etc.
I guess I do oppose adoption by gay people. Why? Cause I think both parents are necessary. I know we have thousands of one-mom or one-dad families which work out fine, but creating a process where one type of parent by definition is denied to the child, seems unjust. One-dad or one-mom families usually got there by circumstances, not because of a conscious decision.
I basically dont think it is the healthiest environment for a child to grow up in, mentally/culturally speaking.
Generally speaking on marriage:
I am confused on the subject. I respect this ritual or whatever you wanna call it a lot, and think it should not be taken lighthearded. I guess this is a general bone I have to pick with society, there is total lack of morals (although morals is what you make of it) and an individualism that sickens me.
Everything seems to be about short term pleasures, and about me myself and I, in total disregard of what kind of consequences you action might have on your next of kin, friends, or others. And this is all too well reflected in marriage.
Everybody hops into this like its a ride in a fair, once you get bored you step into another. And TV and movie people only exacerbate this (thanks Liz...).
I peronally also think that 50% or more of the marriages closed in SF between gay people was between people who want to be in the spotlight, and probably break up in a year (although statistics already predict a 60% chance of divorce). I would like to tune down this admirable thought that it is all about Civil Rights, no it is also about that 3 seconds on tv.
However, to conclude this, I also think people in a hopeless marriage should divorce. I know where religion stands on this, but I cant help to disagree, or at leats in should have a paragraph in the ten commandments with exceptions
. My folks e.g. should not be married, nor should they have ever gotten married, nor was there ever a moment where one would think, good thing they got married. Heh...good thing they did though, otherwise Id still be swimming in the gene pool. But my mom refuses to divorce, partly because she doesnt know any better than my dad, but the major part is because Christianity forbids it. That the twist...
By looking around though, I got the depressing feeling that 80% of the people who are together for about 20 years have lost all feelings for eachother, feel irritated, and wished they were single. Maybe 20% still has a genuine love for eachother, and enjoy eachothers company. So then the question arises: what point is there in marriage anyway?
Eh...I gotta go..good topic though...
Jav
MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Posts
- 41,320
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 42,118
- Points
- 718
- Location
- New Jersey, USA
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Coming from a heterosexual point of view, I think it's wrong to ban it. If two people love each other, then gender shouldn't matter one way or the other.
I recently caught view of the most retarded bumper sticker you'd ever want to see since this whole started it, and you could tell right off the bat that they were ignorant redneck morons. It read, MAN+WOMAN=MARRIAGE.
I recently caught view of the most retarded bumper sticker you'd ever want to see since this whole started it, and you could tell right off the bat that they were ignorant redneck morons. It read, MAN+WOMAN=MARRIAGE.
Javierdude22: Hm...judging from the size of my post, I think I took the topic a bit too serious.
Inwood: No, you didn't take it too serious. I don't agree with some of what you wrote but that's not the point of the post. I was wondering how different people here felt about this. I'll probably put my thoughts on in a bit.
tomarctus: [quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=0#9 date=02/23/04 at 16:02:23]Hm...judging from the size of my post, I think I took the topic a bit too serious.
[/quote]
No, Javierdude, being serious is your nature. You are always a deeply thoughtful man.
Your opinions are strongly formed by your religion and your culture and I have to respect you for that. I do, however, passionately disagree with almost everything you said. Sadly, there seems to be no place for a hedonistic, openly gay man such as me to exist in your ideal society.
Personally, for myself, I am not interested in a typical conservative, heterosexual style marriage. But, for those gay men and women who want such an arrangement, I strongly believe it should be equally available to both hetero- and homosexual couples. I'm stunned and saddened by the level of opposition to it.
[/quote]
No, Javierdude, being serious is your nature. You are always a deeply thoughtful man.
Your opinions are strongly formed by your religion and your culture and I have to respect you for that. I do, however, passionately disagree with almost everything you said. Sadly, there seems to be no place for a hedonistic, openly gay man such as me to exist in your ideal society.
Personally, for myself, I am not interested in a typical conservative, heterosexual style marriage. But, for those gay men and women who want such an arrangement, I strongly believe it should be equally available to both hetero- and homosexual couples. I'm stunned and saddened by the level of opposition to it.
It doesn't bother me in the least. I understand that a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea, but I fail to see how it harms heterosexual marriages in any way. The idea that marriage is somehow "sacred" is a load of crap. A person can think of their marriage bond as sacred, but as an institution marriage is pretty much in shambles. And heterosexuals deserve all the blame. Maybe we should let only homosexuals marry for a while and see if they can teach people a lesson.
Despite all that, I wonder if it's just a matter of too much too soon for some people. The idea of civil unions and domestic partners (and rights being accorded to them) is still fairly new. A lot of straight people believe gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but the idea of gay marriage kind of creeps them out just the same. If there's a major backlash now, it might set gay marriage back a while. Obviously there's no way to know, but I wonder whether the next generation will consider this a milestone or a retreat.
Despite all that, I wonder if it's just a matter of too much too soon for some people. The idea of civil unions and domestic partners (and rights being accorded to them) is still fairly new. A lot of straight people believe gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but the idea of gay marriage kind of creeps them out just the same. If there's a major backlash now, it might set gay marriage back a while. Obviously there's no way to know, but I wonder whether the next generation will consider this a milestone or a retreat.
wvalady1968: I thought it was more than a religious or sentimental rite for many. Isn't it more the legal aspect that makes it important? Who can speak for your loved one when they're incapacitated... who can make the legal decisions... etc.
Allie
BTW, I believe it should be a constitutional right for any two adults, regardless of gender.
Allie
BTW, I believe it should be a constitutional right for any two adults, regardless of gender.
Inwood: While the history of marriage and how it all came about makes for interesting reading, and isn't exactly how we think of it, but I'm not going there.
I'm neither for nor against it. What I believe is if gays and lesbians start saying they're married and their friends refer to it as a marriage and their families say they're married then pretty soon no matter what is in the constitition eveyone is going to say they're married. They just won't get the legal protections marriage offers.
What happens then? Are all those against it going to start demanding gay people who call themselves married be put in jail? Who knows but I wouldn't put it past them since they want us in camps anyway.
I think that the government should probably just issue everyone who wants to hook up civil union certificates during which no ceremony is performed other then the very basics (such as swearing to who you are, blood tests, and one witness for each partner). That way it's not made into more then it is at that moment-- a government recognized contract between two people. And once you have that you can do whatever you want to do after that in terms of religious or other types of ceremonies to sanctify it.
But that's just my solution to this thing. Lord knows we have more important things to be spending time.
I'm neither for nor against it. What I believe is if gays and lesbians start saying they're married and their friends refer to it as a marriage and their families say they're married then pretty soon no matter what is in the constitition eveyone is going to say they're married. They just won't get the legal protections marriage offers.
What happens then? Are all those against it going to start demanding gay people who call themselves married be put in jail? Who knows but I wouldn't put it past them since they want us in camps anyway.
I think that the government should probably just issue everyone who wants to hook up civil union certificates during which no ceremony is performed other then the very basics (such as swearing to who you are, blood tests, and one witness for each partner). That way it's not made into more then it is at that moment-- a government recognized contract between two people. And once you have that you can do whatever you want to do after that in terms of religious or other types of ceremonies to sanctify it.
But that's just my solution to this thing. Lord knows we have more important things to be spending time.
gigantikok: Why does it matter whether or not two gay men are married? I mean, I am not gay so I may never understand, but if two people love each other enough shouldn't that be ok? If two people are mentally, spiritually, and pyshically bonded shouldn't that be enough? Who needs the conventional hetero marriage, when you can far transcend that and come up with something unique to yourselves? Just a question...
I dont want to get flamed for asking this, but I think it needs to be asked. Do gay men REALLY care about being married in the conventional sense of the word "marriage"? Or are they just complaining to fight the system and gain more rights... just to gain rights? Just to prove something? What's really going on here?
If two people love each other enough, I guess I just don't understand why it matters so much to be recognized as a civil union. In fact, I would think gay men would shun a ritual that is part of a religion that has shunned them for so long.
I dont want to get flamed for asking this, but I think it needs to be asked. Do gay men REALLY care about being married in the conventional sense of the word "marriage"? Or are they just complaining to fight the system and gain more rights... just to gain rights? Just to prove something? What's really going on here?
If two people love each other enough, I guess I just don't understand why it matters so much to be recognized as a civil union. In fact, I would think gay men would shun a ritual that is part of a religion that has shunned them for so long.
MischievousOne: Great topic- here's my 2¢
The reason I think gays and lesbians should have the right to marry is rather simple-There's no reason that we shouldn't. I guess I can agree that the term "marriage" has some significant religious denotations and would even stand for separate-but-equal civil unions. My biggest issue with this is that unless you just redifine the term marriage, lawmakers will get their hands on it and it will no longer be equal. Marriage will mean what it always has, and civil unions will mean, well... who knows what?
There are over a 1,000 benefits afforded to married couples that are not currently afforded sam-sex committed couples. Simple things like hospital visitation rights or tax breaks for married couples, the right to adopt children (studies have shown there are no adverse affects on children raised in same-sex family homes, Javier) as a couple are pretty basic rights, I'd say.
Also, my last argument... there is no longer a sanctity of marriage. Couples get married and divorced (or annulled) faster than you can say "Britney Spears." They can do it at a drive through or in a shopping mall, or even jumping out of an airplane. It's not that it's so special, it's that it's so commonplace. It's a basic right afforded to 90% of the citizens of the US, so why not include the last 10% of us in this oh-so-holy act?
The reason I think gays and lesbians should have the right to marry is rather simple-There's no reason that we shouldn't. I guess I can agree that the term "marriage" has some significant religious denotations and would even stand for separate-but-equal civil unions. My biggest issue with this is that unless you just redifine the term marriage, lawmakers will get their hands on it and it will no longer be equal. Marriage will mean what it always has, and civil unions will mean, well... who knows what?
There are over a 1,000 benefits afforded to married couples that are not currently afforded sam-sex committed couples. Simple things like hospital visitation rights or tax breaks for married couples, the right to adopt children (studies have shown there are no adverse affects on children raised in same-sex family homes, Javier) as a couple are pretty basic rights, I'd say.
Also, my last argument... there is no longer a sanctity of marriage. Couples get married and divorced (or annulled) faster than you can say "Britney Spears." They can do it at a drive through or in a shopping mall, or even jumping out of an airplane. It's not that it's so special, it's that it's so commonplace. It's a basic right afforded to 90% of the citizens of the US, so why not include the last 10% of us in this oh-so-holy act?
Javierdude22: I know about those studies, but psychological studies at the very least are debatable and very much depend on the way they were performed, the questions asked, and....a control group is pretty hard to find. So in my personal opinion, I still think it is better to be raised by a mom and a dad.
Of course the sanctity of marrige is long gone, thats the jit, but the fact that its long gone doesnt mean society should therefore let go of all moral ties in this bond. The fact that the Britneys, Liz Taylors and who else find it funny enough to go through it in a sleazy hotel in Vegas rehearse it 8 times as if it were a movie, in my opinion doesnt mean we should just follow down this road. Friggin change it I would say. But thats me.
Of course the sanctity of marrige is long gone, thats the jit, but the fact that its long gone doesnt mean society should therefore let go of all moral ties in this bond. The fact that the Britneys, Liz Taylors and who else find it funny enough to go through it in a sleazy hotel in Vegas rehearse it 8 times as if it were a movie, in my opinion doesnt mean we should just follow down this road. Friggin change it I would say. But thats me.
[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=0#17 date=02/25/04 at 06:20:22]I still think it is better to be raised by a mom and a dad. [/quote]
Years ago when I was pledging a frat, I had to perform three hours of community service a week. I ended up working with disadvantaged kids on Saturday afternoons. Most came form single parent homes and had never had very much association with adult males.
Before starting we had to take training, one of the things that was said was that you should not be surprised if these 8 and 9-year-olds developed an emotional attachment with you. It is the nature of childhood that a child has to love in order to develop psychologically. I had almost forgotten this until last week when friends were discussing the question. One [education major] said that she favored gay marriage because it would make easier the adoption and the rearing of children by a gay couple. Her belief was that every child should have a right to be loved and nurtured; apparently, gays are more willing to adopt a child over four and save them from the hell hole that is the foster care system in the U.S.
I do think that for the next generation or two that children from gay homes will face exclusion and taunts during the journey to adulthood. These unpleasantries will be out weighed by being in a stable and emotionally-supportive home rather than the horror that can be foster care, American-style.
jay
Years ago when I was pledging a frat, I had to perform three hours of community service a week. I ended up working with disadvantaged kids on Saturday afternoons. Most came form single parent homes and had never had very much association with adult males.
Before starting we had to take training, one of the things that was said was that you should not be surprised if these 8 and 9-year-olds developed an emotional attachment with you. It is the nature of childhood that a child has to love in order to develop psychologically. I had almost forgotten this until last week when friends were discussing the question. One [education major] said that she favored gay marriage because it would make easier the adoption and the rearing of children by a gay couple. Her belief was that every child should have a right to be loved and nurtured; apparently, gays are more willing to adopt a child over four and save them from the hell hole that is the foster care system in the U.S.
I do think that for the next generation or two that children from gay homes will face exclusion and taunts during the journey to adulthood. These unpleasantries will be out weighed by being in a stable and emotionally-supportive home rather than the horror that can be foster care, American-style.
jay
mindseye: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=0#15 date=02/25/04 at 00:40:31]Why does it matter whether or not two gay men are married? I mean, I am not gay so I may never understand, but if two people love each other enough shouldn't that be ok? If two people are mentally, spiritually, and pyshically bonded shouldn't that be enough? Who needs the conventional hetero marriage, when you can far transcend that and come up with something unique to yourselves? Just a question...[/quote]
Here's an incomplete[sup]1[/sup] list of some of the rights that are conferred to married couples in the US (stolen from www.nolo.com). Mental, spiritual, and psychic bonding don't confer these rights. Powers of attorney and other legal contracts confer only some of them. "Transcending" marriage for something unique definitely doesn't confer these.
Hospital visitation, privileged marital communications -- even a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like you couldn't conscientiously deny some of these rights to a committed, bonded couple.
Tax Benefits
Estate Planning Benefits
Government Benefits
Employment Benefits
Medical Benefits
Death Benefits
Family Benefits
Housing Benefits
Consumer Benefits
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
[sup]1[/sup]The General Accounting Office has identified 1,049 distinct benefits that are afforded to couples united in civil marriage and denied to same-sex couples. Here is a link to the complete list., but it's a 480k PDF document!
Here's an incomplete[sup]1[/sup] list of some of the rights that are conferred to married couples in the US (stolen from www.nolo.com). Mental, spiritual, and psychic bonding don't confer these rights. Powers of attorney and other legal contracts confer only some of them. "Transcending" marriage for something unique definitely doesn't confer these.
Hospital visitation, privileged marital communications -- even a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like you couldn't conscientiously deny some of these rights to a committed, bonded couple.
Tax Benefits
- Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
- Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
- Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
- Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
- Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
- Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
Government Benefits
- Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
- Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
- Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
- Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
- Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
- Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
- Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
- Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
- Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
- Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
- Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
- Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
- Applying for joint foster care rights.
- Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
- Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
- Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
- Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
- Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
- Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
- Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
- Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
- Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
- Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
- Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
- Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
- Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
- Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
[sup]1[/sup]The General Accounting Office has identified 1,049 distinct benefits that are afforded to couples united in civil marriage and denied to same-sex couples. Here is a link to the complete list., but it's a 480k PDF document!
