Let's talk about GAY MARRIAGE!

[cleomiele]

Something that really blows my mind is when people say "allow gay marriage" as if a basic civil right like marriage would would NEED to be allowed.

 

I agree completely. Sometimes I find myself baffled by the very fact that gay marriage ISN'T allowed...it's hard to believe this is the 21st century with problems like these. It's honestly just hard to believe that some people are okay with denying those rights to a certain group of people just because they are attracted to a different gender/sex than the "norm" of society is used to.

[star_kisu]

Personally I don't even think this should be up for debate, but that is just my opinion. Marriage is a civil right for all humans including gay/straight/transgender anything under the sun. One day the people not allowing this will look back on themselves and think "Man we looked ignorant" Just like the people who wanted to ban interracial marriage look back..At least I hope.

[psychology]

i strongly agree with gay marriage. whatever someone does in the privacy of their own home and with their own life should not be the concern of anyone else under any circumstances.

[Zombiiesque]

Yup, that's just it! I'd like to know how anyone opposed to it can concretely say that it has personally affected their lives in a negative fashion. I'm sorry, but if you're embarrassed because a family member is gay and gets married/wants to get married, that doesn't count in my opinion. That doesn't actually affect you, personally.

[Nataluna]

today was disappointed to read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-19645307

 

there have been many community debates and surveys of Australian opinion into legalising gay marriage and most Australians support it, its a shame that our politicians i think; did not accurately represent the community yesterday.

 

i had an interesting discussion about this with someone a month or so back who pointed out that marriage is actually not under religion, but is actually a contract under the government/state. which is why marriages in churches actually need to be legalised by signing the paperwork in a civil setting, although the marriage itself you are married in the eyes of the church, you are not married in terms of the law, although the law does recognise different states of union and acknowledges a range of "partnerships" and rights thereof.

[Rebecca~]

today was disappointed to read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-19645307

 

there have been many community debates and surveys of Australian opinion into legalising gay marriage and most Australians support it, its a shame that our politicians i think; did not accurately represent the community yesterday.

 

i had an interesting discussion about this with someone a month or so back who pointed out that marriage is actually not under religion, but is actually a contract under the government/state. which is why marriages in churches actually need to be legalised by signing the paperwork in a civil setting, although the marriage itself you are married in the eyes of the church, you are not married in terms of the law, although the law does recognise different states of union and acknowledges a range of "partnerships" and rights thereof.

Ugh, that is so disappointing to read! At least that Labour MP idiot that compared it to bestiality resigned. Urgh, I have a few choice words to share with him! >.>

[Tyler.]

This is a huge debate, and I'm sure you'd all just love to hear my opinion so here it is. This shouldn't be an issue, it should be legal, end of story. Why? Tell me why not. Religious reasons, in my opinion, are all unsupported, and there's bigger problems facing the world.

[Finn the Human]

I am not a supporter of gay marriage. But I don't hate someone who is.

[frescort]

This is a bit off topic but whenever I see this thread I think about the Halloween episode of Community where the dean has the chainsaw.

[Naamah D.]

I have a lot to say about this topic so please bear with me...

 

I think it's really ridiculous that the debate over "should gay marriage be allowed" even exist.

 

Every time I even hear slurs against gay people it hits very close to home with me. I am not gay myself, but my boyfriend is bisexual. We actually had a talk about prejudice in school today and he basically told the entire class that he's sick of that crap.

 

The phrase "that's so gay" and that word that I won't even bother to type really upset me.

 

Even in cartoons it really bothers me and trust me, I love cartoons.

[The_Warblers]

I'm gay. I used to be bullied as a kid. But then I decided - "no more of this". Since I stood up & fought for myself, bullies stopped hitting on me. Some of them actually regretted & became my protectors

 

 

This post has been edited by a member of staff (Spritzie) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Please do not use curse words in your posts. These have been removed.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

[Jadey]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that politics and religion can have any say in the love between two people. If people want to show there love to one another through a union and have the same rights as everyone else then they are more then welcome to and this is where humanity disgusts me that they can still be so prejudiced about gay marriage and the like in today's 21st century.

 

My brother is gay and he has been in a committed relationship with his boyfriend 8 times longer then any relationship I've ever had. It frustrates me that I could I just run off with the very first boy I'm come across in the street, but my brother who has been with his partner for so many years cannot get married. The world needs to stop having these outdated views and get fully into the 21st century and acknowledge that everyone has rights!

[Nedera]

Gay marriage should not be banned plan and simple. Gay people are humans are they not? All humans should have the right to be married. Therefore it should be no issue at all plain and simple.

[Russ]

All humans do have the right to be married.. it's just a matter of whether governments recognize that right and it is sickening to me that they are not.

 

The recent rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 (or lack of ruling, in the latter case) were huuuge victories, though. It's a combination of gross and entertaining to watch the bigots who didn't get their way try everything they can to get Prop 8 reinstated.. they really need to learn when to give up.

[MaskedBeastDesGardius]

I'm an atheist , and we guys support gay marriage.

 

In love , gender doesn't matter. If boy if girl who cares ?

 

I'm bisexual too btw :D

[rcticsun]

My philosophy is "Don't like it? That's cool, just don't participate in it then." If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender. It's that simple. If it doesn't affect you, it shouldn't concern you. As a pansexual, it's pretty scary to me to know that whether or not I'm allowed to get married will be determined by something that won't really matter to me - my partner's sex and/or gender.

[1_little_sweet_girl]

I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman

[MaskedBeastDesGardius]

I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman

 

OH , No way ! Read the title next time because you're out of the topic , miss

[coltom]

No, she's not off topic. Her statement is concise. Negation of a premise is still on-topic to a premise. Although, since there was no support of her position, it would be more of the presentation of the antithesis.

 

However, this so called debate has been of the depth of puddle, one should return to first principles and define what is meant by marriage. While most believe they understand the concept, I find the debate on this subject woefully inadequate as few can define what is meant by marriage. Marriage is a surprisingly obtuse concept. Aspects of marriage are ancient, far exceeding ju-christian tradition. Most cultures, have the concept of a male/female bonding with the fidelity of the female almost always being required, and to a far lesser degree the fidelity of the male. My own culture/religion/history is one of the few exceptions in that women have a certain ability to take a junior and/or temporary husband. For that matter, bad husbands had were expect to leave this world in one way or another, but I digress.

 

So we have the religious/cultural aspect, but dang if the Romans and Victorian England have to change marriage into a binding legal contract. That aspect, and certain rights and responsibility placed by civil society. Best I can tell, marriage primarily takes a two income household and requires you to pay more taxes. The ability to pay additional taxes hardly seems like a pressing social issue to me. There is the minor concern of an unwed gay couple not having rights of untaxed inheritance, but given that federal estate taxes only kick in at a very high level that hardly seems like a pressing issue to any other than the 1 percent. I really don't care if the 1 percent have to pay more tax.

 

Sure, there are heart wrenching stories of not being able to see one's beloved upon their deathbed, well, it is only "policy" that caused these injustices to happen, surely it would seem better for rational visitation policies to alleviate the injustice.

 

Honestly, my observation is that this issue has done little more than to allow more and more "faux christians" to gain power by using the issue as a straw man to scare the socially conservative. If you are religious, than you know that your marriage in your faith is all that matters, all the rest is a pale shadow created by an imperfect government.

 

However, one is always open to consider that some mystical aspect has been missed in this concept of marriage, in particular a concise reason why it is of any overwhelming concern. I would also muse about what is the expectation is in your viewpoint, will marriage be limited to only binary relationships? While it is rarely done, we do upon occasion have marriages with two women and a junior husband. These are a little tricky when it comes to inheritance, but a simple S-corp filing normally covers things. Divorce could get tricky, but Ihave no experience in that. This is just one aspect of euro-american behavior that baffles me, so I'd love to see a concrete reason for giving bloody meat to the conservatives.

 

Course, we also think that a wife has the perfect right to take the life of a poor husband, and you try to do that in Canada and see how far religious freedom goes.

[siniri]

Best I can tell, marriage primarily takes a two income household and requires you to pay more taxes. The ability to pay additional taxes hardly seems like a pressing social issue to me. There is the minor concern of an unwed gay couple not having rights of untaxed inheritance, but given that federal estate taxes only kick in at a very high level that hardly seems like a pressing issue to any other than the 1 percent. I really don't care if the 1 percent have to pay more tax.

 

Sure, there are heart wrenching stories of not being able to see one's beloved upon their deathbed, well, it is only "policy" that caused these injustices to happen, surely it would seem better for rational visitation policies to alleviate the injustice.

Do you really think people are fighting to pay more taxes? There are a large number of social benefits provided to married people: 1) spouse/family health insurance 2) the ability to take off work to care for an ill family member without risking losing your job 3) immigration status for one's spouse (providing the ability for your spouse to live and work in the same country as you) 4) recognition of one's spouse as a legal guardian of one's children with equal standing 5) the right to have your spouse make decisions for you when you are incapacitated/dead regarding healthcare, finances, property, even funeral arrangements 6) social services (e.g., welfare, social security, student aid, etc.) recognizing the true size and nature of one's family when determining benefits (this could work both ways, depending on income of each spouse, etc., in that the family might qualify for more or fewer services)... not to mention broader social injustices, such as employers being legally allowed to fire one for one's relationship status in many states.

 

Oh, and the inheritance tax thing. Which, sure, sounds like it only applies to the 1%, except when you look at the fact that in some areas of the U.S., real estate prices are exorbitant, and a middle class family could spend most of both workers' working lives scrimping just to buy a modest home to share. And small businesses with expensive inventory may not generate more than a middle-middle class income each year despite the business having an appraised value that forces them to pay the estate tax when not married. (By the way, the estate tax exemptions are different for spouses vs. unrelated persons, which is kind of the point...)

 

Right now, because one part of DOMA was overturned but the rest stands, my friend who was legally married in Washington but resides in Virginia, where his marriage is not recognized, will only get the tax penalties (assuming the IRS changes the rules to allow couples whose marriage is not legally recognized where they reside to file jointly, and assuming they'll get more penalties than benefits). His husband (currently a student and nearly-full-time employee -- whose job is designed to work the maximum possible without them having to provide benefits) is not eligible for his health insurance because their marriage is not recognized by the state, and he's a state employee. If the state recognized the marriage, they would qualify for the affordable "self + spouse" health insurance plan.

 

To me, it seems like it should be easy to delineate between "matrimony" (the religious version of marriage, which differs across religions, and is conducted by each according to its own rules, which include the recognition -- or not -- of others' ceremonies/traditions within their own tradition) and "marriage" (the recognition by the state of the advantages of family units, and the benefits afforded to help strengthen these units, some of which were outlined above). For example, the Catholic Church will recognize some marriages performed by other churches/civil authorities as sacramental marriages, but not others, because of the vows used, or the ineligibility of either spouse to enter into such a sacrament. If one of the spouses is divorced and their first marriage was considered valid by the Church, then they are considered to still be married to their first spouse, and so not eligible to marry the second spouse until either the first spouse dies or the first marriage is annulled (reviewed and determined to have never been valid in the first place). Even though according to the state, the first marriage is no longer valid, the Church has its own rules independent of the state (and even independent of other churches), and it can refuse to perform the second marriage or recognize it. However, since the state did recognize the divorce, it views the second marriage as valid, for all the legal, "public domain" benefits. The same delineation between matrimony and marriage shouldn't be too hard to grasp even if the two spouses happen to be the same sex.

[coltom]

Ok Siniri, well presented

 

I'll go point by point, to a degree.

 

Do you really think people are fighting to pay more taxes?

I believe I started this decision with an acknowledgement that I do not see any advantages to marriage that merit the creation of this red meat issue that allows the conservatives to win local election, control state legs, and generally rewrite laws allowing the complete degradation of civil society. Although, I might not have made that point forceful enough.

 

There are a large number of social benefits provided to married people:

1) spouse/family health insurance I'd have considered that a major reason prior to Health Care Reform, back in the days when insurance companies found ways to eliminate single coverage for people with the potential of very high utilization with HIV. Now, with the ability for all to get insurance, this drops down to a minor economic issue where some might have to pay a little more for affordable coverage. However, it hardly seems a majorly pressing issue

2) the ability to take off work to care for an ill family member without risking losing your job

Ah, FMLA does not cover common law or other such partnerships. Surely it would be simpler to amend FMLA

3) immigration status for one's spouse (providing the ability for your spouse to live and work in the same country as you)

Point, but how often does this really happen. Is there some huge influx of non-traditional international relationships? How many gay Canadians are finding nice guys from Minnesota?

4) recognition of one's spouse as a legal guardian of one's children with equal standing

I'm the wrong person to be swayed by that argument, as societal value is that only women have say in such questions for her children. Still, I can see the inconvenience of one caretaker not being able to go to the PT conferences, one caretaker/parent not able to post bail. However, speaking as someone that was not legally married to the mother of their child, it normally worked out that my beloved just signed a form at the daycare/school that I was authorized to take out of school. There was also a form authorizing a family friend to pick up the child. Yes, a definite disadvantage in case of medical emergency.

5) the right to have your spouse make decisions for you when you are incapacitated/dead regarding healthcare, finances, property, even funeral arrangements

Been there, done that with a non-Euroamerican society, you set up a living will, its done. You want hard, you try to do a traditional funeral where the flesh is returned to the world that sustained us in life, where the body is not buried like a greedy dog hording a bone, now that's hard. I'm going to skip some now, got to go get my wife's daughter a passport. Real pain, cause we both have to be there.

6) social services (e.g., welfare, social security, student aid, etc.) recognizing the true size and nature of one's family when determining benefits (this could work both ways, depending on income of each spouse, etc., in that the family might qualify for more or fewer services)...

You made my point, since there are advantages and disadvantages, there is no clear need.

not to mention broader social injustices, such as employers being legally allowed to fire one for one's relationship status in many states

Then include sexual orient as a protected class. If being gay is grounds for fire, than being gay married isn't going to change a thing.

 

Again, while I appreciate many of your arguements, and you made some excellent points, this whole gay marriage issue has created a straw dog that has allowed really nasty right wingers to gain control of so much, good politicians to lose to scum, it hardly seems worth the trouble

[siniri]

The healthcare reform act has still not taken effect in most places, and legal and legislative measures are still being taken to prevent its full implementation. In many states, the state-offered plans are more expensive and worse quality than employer-provided plans.

 

I assumed people would understand the implications of not having equal custody. In the event of one spouse dying, there have been cases in which the judge awarded custody to the deceased's family, granting no visitation rights to the spouse who had been co-raising the child for years (but was not biologically related, and could not legally adopt due to state laws). Or in the case of a separation, the biological parent severing all ties to the detriment of both the children and the spouse, and the spouse not having any recourse.

 

Even when living wills are in place, they have been overridden or ignored, often by judges' orders, in some localities. This is actually part of the reason why Vermont went from "civil unions" (which were supposed to grant all the rights and privileges of marriages to same-sex spouses) to recognizing same-sex marriages. My sister's friends in Vermont had issues with visitation access, even when they provided copies of their civil union certificate and living will. Sure, eventually the one was allowed to see her spouse -- after 12 excruciating hours in which she did not receive a single update on her condition. That may not seem like much, but time moves much more slowly when you're waiting for that kind of news. Sure, there could be some people who still ignore the law (as they did in the case of civil unions), but Vermont provided a historical case-study, and they found that people were much more compliant once they "upgraded" to marriages from civil unions.

 

Regarding your point that "few" people are trying to get green cards for their spouses -- there are approximately 36,000 people in that situation, according to one news article. But it doesn't really matter how many are affected; when Loving vs. Virginia was decided, there weren't "that many" biracial couples living in states that prohibited their marriage, either. Injustice isn't okay just because few people are affected by it.

 

Regarding your point that we could just change myriad other laws to include gay couples rather than allowing gay marriage: 1) There are allegedly over 1,000 different federal statutes that would need to be changed to extend all the federal benefits to same-sex couples, and that doesn't even touch on the state statutes that would need to be changed (and which would be very difficult in many states), and which more deeply affect people's lives in many cases, whereas you could change them all in one fell swoop by recognizing same-sex marriage (because a marriage is a marriage, after all, so any benefit applying to married couples would be extended automatically as soon as a marriage was recognized). 2) "Separate but equal" is troubling because it just never ends up being equal (read more about why Vermont and other states switched to marriage from civil unions to find out exactly why it's not equal, no matter how hard you try to make it so, in this case), and it tends to foster discrimination (if you call it something different, it will be treated as something different).

 

Finally, I don't think that many "nasty right wingers" win election solely (or even a little) based on their views on same-sex marriage (people who vote for Tea Party candidates usually cite economic and/or tax issues as the most important ones facing the country). In locations where same-sex marriage is unpopular, few politicians support it. Public support for same-sex marriage is changing rapidly; right now, a majority of Americans of voting age support it. Besides, same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily require legislative action. In much of the country, I predict it will come through court action, if at all (see DODT, DOMA, Prop 8, etc.).

[coltom]

Siniri, again I am unimpressed. There are cases of hospitals not following living wills, there are cases of hospitals not following a patient's or spouses directives, hospitals don't listen very well. As far as step or adoptive parent rights, than you should remember I am from a culture where we understand that only women have rights when it comes to children. Yes, we're often at odds with the dominate euroamerican society, but to the degree we can we do things the old and right way.

 

I weigh this against the elections that have been swayed on the local and state levels, plus more than a few in federal offices. THEY were very good at getting a state DOMA on the ballot when ever they needed to win a state election, and more than a few states when devilish red by using that trick. All the while, the children suffered, the students suffered, and the environment suffered, because people voted against gay marriage. You may want to turn a blind eye to the damage that has been done, but I may not.

[siniri]

I'm equally unimpressed. I never said I was turning a blind eye to anything; I said that according to exit polls, same-sex marriage was just not the deciding issue for most voters. Blaming people who are seeking legal recourse to be treated fairly according to the supreme law of their country for the actions of others is... very strange. It'd be like arguing that the Civil Rights movement caused the war in Vietnam, or Nixon's election and subsequently the Watergate scandal, for example.

 

Same-sex marriage was not really ever a threat in most states where DOMA laws passed, and those states were for the most part already "red." The move to the far right on many issues regarding government regulation and taxation, by a certain subsection of one political party, and its growing support, has been based mostly on economic and philosophical issues. It is these positions that have hurt the environment, healthcare access, and wealth distribution in the U.S., and these were their rallying cries -- not opposition to same-sex marriage. In many states where the Tea Party gained the strongest foothold, their DOMA amendments were passed nearly a decade before this contingency even gained traction. I provided sources to put a number on things when you asked; I now ask you more specifically to do the same. If the movement towards same-sex marriage has actually swayed an election, please provide a reference for that claim. Just a single example will do.

 

Your cultural imperialism is no more attractive than when "Euro-Americans" do it. If only women having a say about children works for you, fine. There are other "ancient" cultures in which "third" genders were recognized, in which men took on more traditionally female roles and vice versa. And in other "ancient" cultures, men help(ed) take care of the children. The "age" of one's culture (however you even judge that) or how big or small it is doesn't make it any more right than any other culture. There are plenty of things that "ancient" people did/do that most people today find morally reprehensible, such as slavery or genital mutilation.

 

At any rate, you mentioned that same-sex marriage is a straw-man for social conservatives, but I posit that you are using election records and references to a culture where same-sex marriage isn't even an issue as straw-men yourself. They're not particularly germane to my main point, which was that there are numerous benefits afforded to married couples that same-sex married couples are not entitled to throughout much of the U.S., and these have substantial financial, social, and emotional impacts on them and their children. The easiest way to confer these benefits (which originate through over 1000 different statutes at the federal, state, and local levels) on same-sex couples is to recognize same-sex marriage.

[coltom]

Siniri, when you started to bring up the issue of female gen mutilation, I just decided you've drifted off the tracks. While I was privy to more of the aspects of the women's secrets because of my role, I can not say that I know all of them. However, I can speak with a certain confidence that none of the old blood women that I know have ever or would they ever decide to mutilate the gifts of She Whom Created all. Nor am I pleased by your assumption about my role in the care of my beloved one (aka wife)'s daughter. I have done all that my wife requests of me, from diapers to teaching daughter how to fight with war clubs and the long sticks. Accepting that my wife is a woman,and that women have the fire of Creation within them, and therefore I defer to her judgement in issues of debate is a very far cry from not being involved. If this leaves me ill prepared to comment upon on certain minor aspects of your argument. This is not cultural whatever, it is just my acceptance of my own limitation that I should not comment of what I have no experience.

 

ALEC, Rove and other voices of the darkside of politics have used DOM as a useful political tool, rallying the masses and increasing conservative turnout for the last 30 years, many elections have been swayed, state legislators gerrymander to the point that democratic and freethinking representation has been diluted out of existence. To say that this did not happen, you would have to assume that all of their efforts proposing DOMA and the ilk were the works of fools. I don't see that, the conservatives may be evil, they may be attempting to destroy society as we know it, but they are not stupid. If they thought it didn't work, they wouldn't have used the techniques. It may be that this is not the issue it was, in general, that it was 30 years ago, but around here is still is.

This has been the world I have lived in, this has been my air and my water. Yet you tell me that water is not wet, and fire is not hot. On that note, let this end.