Same-gender marriage questions

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by DC_DEEP, Oct 4, 2007.

  1. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    This is primarily aimed at USA citizens, but all are welcome to participate.

    I've brought this up before, but it's been a long time, and the active membership at LPSG has changed considerably since then. I hope that it can open the door for some good, logical debate, without becoming a flame war.

    First, I have wondered if the debate would be less hot-button if the terminology were changed from "same-sex marriage" to "same-gender marriage." It seems to me that having the word "sex" associated with it tends to push buttons before the debate gets off the ground.

    Second, I'm curious what reasoning any "anti" folks may have. Honest, logical reasoning. "Because I say so" is not reasoning, it's trolling. Perhaps we can understand each other better if we have a calm, logical discourse on the subject. I'll look for flaws of logic in the "anti" arguments, and invite anyone to find flaws of logic in the "pro" posts.
     
  2. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    I think any two humans who wish to legally unite their lives should be able to do so.

    I don't see why both being of the same gender should affect this. For that matter I'm still bemused that people of different faiths are prohibited to marry unless one converts.
     
  3. Wrey

    Wrey New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ethnocentrism is a hard habit to break. Really hard!

    I, of course, am also in favor of same sex marriage. I know people want to hold on to the idea that this concept is a religious one, but honestly, in the U.S. it has been a long time since it has been so. It would be good for the economy. It would make it easier for gay couples to make homesteads which would again improve the economy. It would make sense for everyone.

    We're allowed to have countless channels on television concerning how to make your home worth as much as possible, but we're not allowed to live in one as a legal couple? Please.

    *wrey goes to look for his flame retardant suit knowing he's going to need it*
     
  4. Wrey

    Wrey New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    6
    You're the coolest! :wink:
     
  5. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,294
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,166
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    I've been married to my husband for 3 years......previously we lived in sin for 24 years, until the State of Massachusetts decided to sanction our union
     
  6. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets
    Doesn't bother me in the least and I don't see why it should bother anybody else. Saying that same-gender marriage is a slippery slope toward people marrying chairs or fig trees is such a ridiculously absurd non-argument, and that's about the best I've heard anyone come up with as for why gay marriage should be outlawed.
     
  7. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    First, I agree that the word gender is much more appropriate word. It not only doesn't push buttons, but is a more specific definition which I always prefer when possible.

    I have no problem using the term marriage to designate a union between a male and female and the term civil union to designate a union between two people of the same gender as long as the responsibilities and liabilities are exactly the same only a different word.

    OR:

    Redefine all unions as civil unions and not use the word marriage at all from a legal standpoint. Reason listed below.

    Reasons:

    1. First and more important that all the rest, it has a chance of being sold here in the United States. At this point in time the word marriage and gay and lesbian will not mix politically. This is not value judgement on my part, but a political realization.

    2. Just like we use Mr. for male and Ms. for female, it does help distinguish for readers just who is being joined in a union. Billie Snodgress and Johnnie Smith are joining their hands in a union. Is this two women, two men or one man and one woman. We don't know for sure unless we have a picture. So this can be given as a rationale.

    3. From a religious standpoint the word marriage is used in the Bible to refer to a covenant between God, man and woman. these could be given as another reason for using the term civil union for same gender unions as it isn't religiously offensive term to the religious right.

    The term marriage could be used to refer to the ceremony that is done by a religious person. It doesn't have to have any legal bearing whatsoever. I'm in favor of all unions be just a point of getting the license at the courthouse for same gender unions and opposite gender unions and the couple is then married.

    The couple is then free to go and celebrate this union however they wish. They could have a religious ceremony that would in the eyes of the church have them married. They could have a party of some kind. Or they could do nothing. The moment they walked out of the courthouse with license in hand they would be joined in a civil union.


    In a few words:

    Civil Union

    Both same gender and opposite genders unions and this would have legal status.

    Marriage

    A religious term that has no legal status. Is something that the church or other religious authority can bestow. Most churches would in course require a civil union first. If the church didn't, the church marriage would have no legal standing.


    Problem

    This would take 50 states and the federal government to agree to. Fat chance in hell of happening. But to me this is the logical solution.
     
  8. snoozan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,568
    Likes Received:
    4
    Freddie, that's a great idea. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it makes complete logical and practical sense.
     
  9. Male Bonding etc

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest USA
    I like your logic, Freddie.
     
  10. cocktaste

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Likes Received:
    13
    Marriage is good for society and is really good for gay people, period. Anti-gay marriage is against the Constitution of the United States. Gay people are born gay. It's natural. It happens in nature. Gay people are going to continue to be born in everyone's family and more and more people will continue to come out of the closet even in the highest positions in the country. There is no argument against it. I'm all for churches being allowed to continue whatever they believe in. You don't go into a Baptist church and expect them to perform a Jewish ceremony. Same with this. This is merely the legal definition of marriage. No one owns the word. Marriage was always a financial arrangement and it is imperative for gays and lesbians to have it, not just civil unions. Asking people if they are for or against, and I'm speaking about straight people, is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with them. So when you ask someone what they think, half of the public is going to say no, because the concept becomes, "Would you like to be married to a gay person." They're giving the person asked a choice. There is no choice. It has nothing to do with them, and takes nothing away from them. You cannot trample another person's civil rights just for your own. If we did that, or continue to do that, we are not going to have a functioning society. Civil rights are not up for grabs. You can be against interracial marriage, but it has nothing to do with you either. It doesn't somehow lessen your marriage. Your marriage does not trump others. Marriage should not be left up to the states. Your country should protect your civil and human right to live how you see fit. This is why this country was founded in this first place, on this principal. We are not a theocracy no matter how much people wish it to be.
     
  11. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    Cocktaste,

    You make some excellent points. However, right or wrong, as of right now all marriage laws are according to the US Consitution left to the states. Each state has a different set of laws concerning marriage. It will take an amendment to the US Consitution to change that. Right now the amendmetn being pushed is the marriage only for opposite genders and same gender marriages would be banned.

    I see your point about the word marriage. However, my proposal would jsut substitue the words civil union to where the word marriage is right now and make same gender unions legal as well.

    My reasoning is that the word marriage has become such a loaded word in our society that perhaps another term would be better understood.

    And why should couples have to have someone to marry them for it to be legal. It seems to me that the granting of the mariage license is enough as far as legal requirements go.
     
  12. cocktaste

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Likes Received:
    13
    We do not lump one group of people into one class and another into another class. That's against the law and the constitution.

    The issue will go to the Supreme Court and will be deemed unconstitutional. Gay marriage will happen. End of story.

    Marriage is not owned by religious institutions, nor is the government EVER to be enforcing laws based around a religious creed. It is legal. It is the LEGAL definition of marriage. Civil unions will never fly and gay people will never accept that status.

    The Mr. and Mrs. concept is ridiculous. You are now getting into semantics and nonsense that has nothing to do with the law. People can write their names however they wish.

    They will start out with Civil Unions. People will then get used to the idea and won't give a shit about gays getting "married." It changes nothing. Half the country is for gay marriage and half is against.

    Look at gays in the military. Now it's 80% for and 20% against. 10 years ago, it was nearly the opposite. It's really ashame it goes this way since we should automatically secure every human beings human rights.

    Thankfully we got Don't Ask, Don't Tell, before Republicans were ready to write out gay people in the Constitution. It was an effort to roadblock them, and got gays in the military at least some leg up on the issue. The hilarious thing is that there are people who have no idea how many gays and lesbians make up the military. It is HUGE!
     
  13. cocktaste

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Likes Received:
    13
    I agree. I could care less what churches choose to do. No gay person wants to go into a church that preaches bigotry against them. There are many churches who openly support gay marriage.
     
  14. IntoxicatingToxin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    10,133
    Likes Received:
    152
    I'm all about marriage - period! I don't care who wants to get married. People marry their houses and their dogs... why can't we allow homosexuals to marry?
     
  15. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Once again, though, the "different faiths" prohibition is church policy - not government policy. But thanks for your support!

    Exactly, NIC. That's the silly argument that former senator Rick Santorum used in his homophobic diatribes. As for marrying chairs or fig trees, I say that once a chair or fig tree has reached majority age, and can sign a marriage license, it should be allowed to marry whomever it wants.
     
  16. B_Think_Kink

    B_Think_Kink New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Female
    My dad goes on this rant how it is unnatural and they can't have kids so they should not marry. Typical religious excuse. I'll get back to this later.
     
  17. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Freddie, I agree with your position in principle. The problem I see is that there are so many laws directly tied in with the word "marriage", that unless all those laws are re-written or repealed althogether, that parity will not happen.

    I don't recall right offhand, but I seem to remember researching the subject at one time, and finding over 1400 laws which confer benefits and protections on a spouse, but not on a "partner."

    The 14th Amendment requires that all citizens be afforded equal protection under the law, but apparently, many lawmakers feel that the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals.

    Also, more than half of the states have passed (illegal) "Defense of Marriage" legislation, which effectively dismantles the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
     
  18. Mr. Snakey

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    24,702
    Likes Received:
    25
    its legal in my state. I think its a Civil Union. This is really more important in terms of the two having the same legal rights as any married couple. I think its wonderfull:smile:
     
  19. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    But the point is, a civil union does nothing at all in terms of federal status, whereas a marriage does. If a state grants marriage status to a heterosexual couple, they automatically get federal rights and protections. Not the same for civil unions.
     
  20. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Thanks, TK, I was hoping someone would bring this one up. (I understand that this is not your POV, but I'll answer it anyway!)

    Unnatural? Lots of things are unnatural, including clothing. Should clothing be illegal?

    And should male/female couples who are unable or unwilling to have children be forbidden to marry?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted