Same sex marriage
#1
Is it a good idea? A bad one? Is it an unalienable right? Will it end the world, or will it make us more equal?
Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

I don't have any humble opinions.
Reply
#2
I'm of two minds on same sex marriage, because there are two kinds of marriage. One is a religious sacrament, and the other is a government-recognized partnership of two people.

One way that the government could side-step all of his hub-bub is to no longer recognize "marriage". They could leave "marriage", as an institution, in the hands of the church, which is where sacraments belong anyway. What the government would then have is an institution called a "civil union". Anyone who's married now would automatically grandfathered into having civil union status, and anyone who wants to enter into a civil union moving forward would be allowed to do so, regardless of their gender.

"Marriage" would then become a religious institution, and individual churches could make up their minds about whether or not a couple could get married.

Problem solved for both sides of the argument, with no hard feelings.

Since no one seems to want to talk about my solution, the next best thing is to legalize same sex marriage. Homosexuals shouldn't be denied the same rights as straight people, and there are multiple benefits from the government available to people of married status. Denying those benefits to people based on their sexual orientation is a form of discrimination, which is wrong.

Also, who was it who said that gay people ought to be allowed to get married because they have the same right to be miserable as the rest of us? Smile
Reply
#3
That's a sensible solution, Randy Ray, but it still won't be good enough for many. I'm also not convinced it'll keep certain advocates from going after the churches that don't allow gay marriage. They might not be able to sue the churches, but I can very well envision picketing happening. They did it with the Mormon church after the Prop 8 nonsense.

Still, we have separation of church and state in this country for a reason. Church policies cannot be allowed to influence government policies, or vice versa. The government has no standing to deny marriage to gays. It's discrimination and a violation of their civil rights. I'm in full support of it.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#4
My position on this one is a little convoluted. If it were on a ballot in my state, I would vote for it. However, I reject the civil rights argument, and I absolutely reject the concept that it is a question for the federal courts. This is a federalism/10th Amendment issue for me.

Randy makes good points in his preferred solution, and frankly, the only amendment I would offer is to leave the solution at the State level. (I am assuming Randy is referring to the Federal government when he says "the government", but if I'm mistaken, I apologize).

One argument made in favor of nationally recognized status is the fact that married couples are treated differently by the tax code. True. However, the tax code treats all sorts of crap differently. The solution, to my mind, is to fix the frigging tax code. One of the cases before the SC this month revolved around the plaintiff having to pay estate tax, when a heterosexual spouse wouldn't have. Easy enough. The estate tax is an abomination, and should be abolished.
Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

I don't have any humble opinions.
Reply
#5
Marriage is not a religious institution. The church did not invent it. We have linguistic evidence showing that marriage predates any historical western culture. It is a union of two people, probably for the sake of creating a family that is recognized by their community. Marriage in its most primitive form may have been a way for people to recognize common ancestry; but it certainly helped ensure that at least some people would work together and defend each other.

In today's social system families are brought together in many different ways. They are not simply the product of a man and woman marrying and bearing children. I think that we should afford the same social and legal protections to any two people who want to share their burdens in life regardless of whether they are same sex or opposite sex. But probably the whole concept of "marriage" is a poor funnel for dealing with the challenges facing modern families.
Reply
#6
The agenda is busted.

http://ozziesaffa.blogspot.com.au/2013/0...rpose.html
"...in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever..."
Reply
#7
In what way do you mean busted? Your link was interesting, but if you think that solves it, umm, no. Make an argument, please.
Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

I don't have any humble opinions.
Reply
#8
It's patently obvious. The whole "same sex marriage" agenda is merely to destroy traditional marriage. She admits it herself. If the issue is about equal rights - financially and otherwise - then go for that. But why try to get in the door of a traditional system, if not to demolish the whole premise? They have civil unions and equal financial rights to go for. There is no reason to try for traditional marriage except to unleash the gay agenda's vitriol. "Busted" and the accompanying link were pretty self-explanatory, really.
"...in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever..."
Reply
#9
"...in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever..."
Reply
#10
Ingvanye, civil unions do NOT give equal rights. If they did, you would have a case, but - for example, our immigration system is based on marriage. (I personally would like to see it shift to the Canadian system which bases it on intent to cohabit, which makes more sense for me). Our tax system is based on marriage. Child custody? Marriage. The right to visit your partner in hospital? Marriage.

We have based all of these rights on marriage. Civil unions are only as equal as people allow them to be. On top of that, there are religious organizations that *do* recognize same sex marriage.

Also, when you make marriage entirely about procreation you insult and demean those who are unable to produce children and deny the validity of their marriages.

Besides, in truth, the original purpose of formal marriage was to ensure the sexual loyalty of a woman to a man so that man could have some certainty as to which children were his genetic offspring for purposes of inheritance. Societies with few or no personal possessions tend not to bother with it.
Reply
#11
Jennifer,

Maybe you need to re-read both my last posts. I clearly say that if the issue is about getting equal rights and financial equality, then go for it. As to being unfair to couples who are unable to have children, my own parents couldn't have children and had to adopt. An option which is available to all decent people. Show me the historical reference which says marriage was instituted to ensure a woman's faithfulness to a man.
My dearest friend is gay and she is in a civil union with her wife/husband person. She says it isn't about getting equal rights and financial security, she admits it is to dissolve the heterosexual claim on marriage. She even says it is a revenge tactic for gays having to be hidden in society for so long. If it were about equal rights and financial security, that's what the fight would be termed.
"...in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever..."
Reply
#12
You are missing MY point, that at the moment we have rights specifically linked to marriage. Important rights. There are no less than 60,000 (probably a low ball) same sex couples who have been unable to get immigration rights...would YOU want to have to choose between staying with the person you love and living in your country?

Just because a handful of people might feel the same way as your friend does NOT mean that every marriage activist feels that way. There are bitter people everywhere and judging by that is like thinking all black people see racism under every tree.
Reply
#13
I clearly say that if the issue is about getting equal rights and financial equality, then go for it. Can't be any clearer than that. You don't need a marriage, you need equal rights. Think about it.
"...in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever..."
Reply
#14
*I* don't need anything. But equal rights = all relationships being treated the same at the secular level. In our current system, that means marriage.

Either we make it so marriage grants NOTHING outside of church or we extend it to all couples. Period. There is no other route to equal rights.

Civil unions are like black schools in the south: Different and UNequal.
Reply
#15
So you don't agree with fighting to make sure civil unions are able to have the same rights as a married couple? You insist on actually having the marriage, even if making the rights equal solves the problem? Sounds like you have a bone to pick with marriage itself. You don't need an actual marriage if a civil union can be granted the same rights. When you start splitting hairs like that, it looks as if you have the same goal as Ms Gessen.

"So, just how important is Gay marriage to Gays once they get what they want? California allowed Gay marriage in 2008. How many Gays rushed to get married? Less than 20% of the Gay 3%. In the Netherlands, only 12% of the Gay 3% rushed to take the plunge. Ms Gessen lets the cat out of the bag. According to her, changing the definition of marriage is all about destroying the concept eventually." If gays really wanted gay marriage for genuine reasons, all the civil unions would have rushed to get married. But they didn't. :-)
"...in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever..."
Reply
#16
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30365/...gay-people
"...in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever..."
Reply
#17
If I had a bone to pick with marriage, I would not have been married *to a member of the opposite sex* for 15 years.
Reply
#18
Then one wonders why you are insisting on "marriage" instead of equal rights, when statistics clearly show that the majority of gays in civil unions do not take up the marriage option when it is passed into law? Why not just fight for equal rights? On the other hand, this is becoming a circular debate and you seem to be focusing on the name of marriage, rather than wanting to ensure that gays have access to the same financial security etc as married people. I've stated my opinion and you don't seem to be listening, so have a nice day.
"...in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever..."
Reply
#19
I think you both have valid points. My sister-in-law is "married" to her same sex partner. They live in a state that does not recognize that, but they are in easy driving distance to one that does. They didn't bother. For them, the mutual commitment meant far more than state sanction. All of the various "rights" of married couples have been taken care of except for federal benefits. Note that the cause of action in the recent case striking down DOMA was about social security bennies. My SIL is in her 40s, so those are irrelevant' since the money isn't there anyway.
Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

I don't have any humble opinions.
Reply
#20
Look, I'm a native Texan, working in the energy biz. I am culturally just a bit right of Atilla the Hun. I'm very skeptical that same sex marriage is a good idea. But, on balance, I'd probably vote for it. Not that it matters. We are de facto ruled by the whims of one Anthony Kennedy. He's the swing vote on the SC.
Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

I don't have any humble opinions.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Forum Jump: