Same-gender marriage questions

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
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.
 

YourAvgGuy

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Posts
494
Media
10
Likes
57
Points
273
Location
North Carolina
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The US system has always produced double-standards and have always imposed those among groups/populations whom it deems to be inferior. Until more regulatory protections are in place, the same typical behavior will continiously be sanctioned by congress. Allies with POWER, I think, will be on the only voice hopeful for debating this disparity - which is what it is in the grand scheme of things.

Personally, I am Christian, but I believe people fall in love and NOTHING or ANYONE can change those feelings. Those are personal feelings that need to be taken into consideration and then accepted by others. Hell, what business is it of anyone else anyway? I would be pissed if someone tried to dictate to me whom I should date or what types of relationships I should have had. Moreover, I would be hell-fired and bent if someone would have intruded on my "RIGHT" to marry my wife. That was my decision. I feel ALL should be granted that same freedom without governmental intrusion or condemnation by some of the churches, etc. We proclaim freedom in the highest regards, but truly, are we free?

(Don't get bent out of shape... I am not being anti-American, just asking people to see the paradigm here.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_DEEP

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Why can't you use the word spouse for a civil union? I always though gays used the term partner, because they we embarrassed to call them their husband or they wanted to use some discretion.
Please educate yourself before making posts like this. The government defines spouse as one of two people in a legal marriage.
Then why do I have ot pay more taxes than the next guy?

Or why did only males get drafted? Only males have to sign up for selective services etc.

It just doesn't fit. They can exercise the same rights I have to marry anyone of the opposite sex.
I don't have any of your W-2 forms, so I can't really say why or how much tax you pay.

I have long opposed the draft, I have long opposed the male-only restriction for selective service. Those do violate 14th Amendment.

And when you put "they can exercise the same rights I have to marry anyone of the opposite sex" I hate to put it this way, but that's ignorant. That's the "power of veto" I spoke of earlier. Why do you want to be able to put any qualifiers at all on which consenting adult I choose to marry? What gives any other person the right to mandate what gender of person I want to spend the rest of my life with? I don't desire to tell you whether to marry a tall person or a short person. Why in the world would you want to tell me whether to marry a male person or a female person?

And even at that, let's get back to the 14th Amendment. If you say, "I choose to marry this consenting adult," what laws are preventing you from having full say in who that consenting adult is? If I say, "I've been with my partner for 8 years now, I think it's time we get married," why should any laws or any persons say, "You may marry, but not the person you have chosen."???
 

B_Think_Kink

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
10,419
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Gender
Female
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?
Of course.. wearing underwear or condoms is unnatural.

I've tried to tell him other wise but 47 years of catholic preaching shoved down his throat and he just repeats everything. For this reason alone I refuse to stand under the heading of a catholic member. I've totally no regard for the religion until they accept homosexuals and marriage with open arms. I'm sure most religions have their flaws but I most defiantly am biased against catholic religion. I was born and raised one and decided at an early age that it was not for me. I attended catholic schools all the way to high school and graduated out of one. I hated it. I contradicted every religion teacher I've ever had. They wouldn't allow me to do a project on gay marriage.

As for couples who marry for companionship and who cannot have children that is great as well. People need other people in their lives to be completely healthy. If they want to do so through marriage, who am I to stop them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Snakey

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male


If a law like this passes, within 5 years there will be a internet stunt to marry 1,000 gay guys over the internet at one time. Marriage will be made a farce in a very short time.

Drive-thru wedding chapels in Las Vegas; or the marriage history of Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich; or conservative leaders forced into hetero marriages even while secretly seeking out gay affairs because that's what their constituents or congregations expect haven't already done this? Claiming that gay marriage will make marriage any more of a farce than it already has become is both a) patently absurd, and b) a glaring spotlight on the fact that you are selectively choosing what does or does not constitute an affront to marriage based on your own personal non-objective biases.

1000 gay men being married via internet would do absolutely nothing to affect how you or your wife or anybody else chooses to treat marriage if they still believe it to be a sacred and important institution. If gay marriage were 100% legal and equal in every state there would still be those who treat marriage with disrespect and those who feel it is an important and sacred thing, exactly as there is today. Nothing in your world would change, except some of your neighbors might be happier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rexcasual

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I don't see any problem with gay couples of either sex having/adopting kids. Despite what is said I don't believe kids need two different sex parents to thrive and grow up mentally healthy, for most of history in normal families there was a good possibility that a child wouldn't have both parents, the father might die in wars, the mother in childbirth, both of diseases, in Victorian times the average child in a middle class family didn't see much of their father except to be disciplined harshly, in a working class family the father would have to work from dusk to dawn simply to put food on the table. In the 50's lots of mothers would have the kids in bed by the time dad got home and they'd see him only at the weekend. A high percentage of families now are in situations where the father has to work long hours and comes home tired, or where both parents work and the child simply isn't exposed to both parents for any length of time during the average day. I think the idea that for a child to grow up normally he/she has to have lots of quality time with a father and lots of exposure to a male role model is nonsense. As long as a child is getting attention, guidance and love from someone it'll be ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_DEEP

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
52
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
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.
 

Wrey

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Posts
539
Media
0
Likes
20
Points
238
Sexuality
No Response
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*
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
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.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
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.
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Freddie, that's a great idea. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it makes complete logical and practical sense.
 

cocktaste

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
3,254
Media
0
Likes
5,370
Points
593
Location
Chadds Ford Township, PA, United States of America
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.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
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.
 

cocktaste

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
3,254
Media
0
Likes
5,370
Points
593
Location
Chadds Ford Township, PA, United States of America
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.

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!
 

cocktaste

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
3,254
Media
0
Likes
5,370
Points
593
Location
Chadds Ford Township, PA, United States of America
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.

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.