I don’t understand how anyone–including Bush–can advocate a ban on gay marriage. And Kerry’s no different. “Let’s have civil unions instead.” Because separate but equal is a time honored tradition in bias, and apparently gays are the new Negros.
How can anyone claim they are compassionate and deny people in love?
How cany anyone claim they advocate less government interference in the lives of Americans and yet support the concept of laws banning what two consenting adults may do that hurts nothing and no one?
And for me, most dámņìņg of all…how can anyone remotely pretend that there is a separation of church and state in this country when the government is endeavoring to tell religious institutions what they can and cannot do? It is not remotely analogous to a state removing the responsibility for a gravely ill child from Christian Scientist parents because they’re hoping prayer might save their child when the doctors know medicine or an operation surely will. This is the Federal government telling every religion in the country, “We don’t care what you believe: This offends our sensibilities, and we will stop you.”
You’ve heard of the War on drugs? The war on terrorism? Congratulations and welcome to the War on Love.
PAD
• 
Cameron, that definition also doesn’t specifically and clearly say that the man is joined to the woman (or visa versa). Besides, who makes decisions based on the dictionary?
Monkeys
I think it’s sad that two people who are in love, who love each other as much as my wife and I love each other (but never as well 😉 can be denied marriage by their sexual preference. I’m so embarrassed about almost every government official’s conservative take on this, as if they’re secretly wishing that by banning gay marriage it’ll stop people from being gay. As a Republican, I’m not surprised by this stance, but I’m so against it. It’s just not right.
Besides, if a church decides that only a man & woman can marry (heck, in Utah a Mormon man can marry more than one woman), that’s up to the church. I’m fine with that – but why can’t same sex couples get married in a court of law?
I just don’t get it. :/
If I offended any polygamists, I truly, deeply apologize.
Actually, while it isn’t as clear as I’d like, note that I didn’t go into any detail on polygamy. It’s just part of that list of “deviancies” that people have bandied about. While it is so often used (as Karen noted) to treat women as merchandise, it does not inherently do so (since one woman could have several husbands, in theory).
I just didn’t want to get into it. I actually have very little opinion one way or another.
Eric
This issue infuriates me. We are talking about discriminating against people that are in love. We are talking about denying them equal access under the laws. As has been noted in posts, when homosexuals in long-term relationships are denied hospital access, etc., then we have discrimination. I say when heterosexuals (of which I am one) treat marriage with “respect” then you can have a moral high ground. And I have seen some posts that make this into a financial issue. It’s a moral issue, a religious issue, a “fabric of society and/or the family” issue, it’s about the kids. No it’s not. It is all just excuses. Your insurance costs are not going to go up. How could they? (Unless you are raising the dreaded spectre of AIDS. How 1980 of you.) I have seen more than one study that says the insurance cost is negligible. I say let homosexuals marry. See if they can do a better job than the heteros are doing right now, and furthermore…make them suffer like the rest of us. (I’m kidding, I’m happily married.) Think about it. If we are so worried about these “short-term” and “promiscuous” gays, then let them join into a marriage, and then they will be subject to the same laws when they want to get divorced–custody, property, and the whole nine yards. Personally, I feel that reality shows make more of a mockery of the institution of marriage, than all the gay unions put together. In fact, I go back to what I said at the top: we are talking about people in love. And getting to experience that ultimate act of being in love–committing for life to another human being. Shame on anyone who opposes it. Your reasons are hollow, and only reveal your own prejudices and short-sightedness. Sorry to name-call, but I am sick of it.
As soon as I see the gay community come out in support of Tom Green and other polygamists, then I will support them. Until then, the gay community and activists at large are hippocryts. They want marriage to fit “their” definition.
Personally, when all is said and done, I want government out of marriage completely. I want the only government support program to be civil unions, and let marriage be a function of churches. The courts can sort out the divorce issues.
Jerry
It is not a civil-rights issue to deny gays equal rights. Society often confers special benefits in order to achieve a social goal, as with tax incentives for investment or exemptions for nonprofits, which do social good. Does this give other taxpayers grounds to claim discrimination? Of course not.
Considering the problems of overcrowding, pollution, and overpopulation that we already have, it’s strange to conclude that people should actually be encouraged to produce children! Are you actually arguing that we have so few that we’re in a crisis? I argue that the opposite is true: we have far too many people in the world right now. To achieve the “social goal” of reducing overpopulation, we should immediately end all tax incentives when a couple has children.
I think you’re right about promotion of social goals not necessarily being discriminatory: equal opportunity tax breaks should be given to childless same-sex couples, childless heterosexual couples, and individuals of any religion (or nonreligion) who promise never to have children.
Or maybe we should realize that there is a social good involved in recognizing all couples that love each other. There is certainly social harm in discouraging love and commitment. When people talk about prohibiting gay marriage, it’s obvious that the “social goal” they’re promoting is one of legalized bigotry. They pretend the “social goal” is really about raising children. The second the Constitution is amended to exclude childless couples of all sorts, I will concede your point that it’s an honest attempt to promote childrearing.
“How about getting beaten up or killed? Can we discuss the situation now?”
Only if we include every other social group that gets beat up, killed, or more, on a regular basis. And there are many. I was one of them, growing up with speach defects. There is a difference in things which happen which are illegal (like assault and murder) and are not in any way condoned, and the treatment of blacks in the firt 60 years of the last century. Talk to an older black person some time who lived through it, and see how they feel about their experiences being compared to the currect gay rights issue. There is no comparison.
Its like the current crop of people today who think they are “hippies” and activists, and think they are making the same type of committment and sacrifices people did in the 60s and 70s, when all they do is protest 2 weekends a year….
First, polygamy is only “treating women as property” by the strictest definition of the term. What about expanding it to include polyandry?
Second, as for the “Christian perspective”:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
— The Gospel According to Matthew, chapter 22, verses 36-40 (NIV)
(Of course, a lot of people who call themselves “Christians” might be astonished by Matthew 6: 5-8…)
Here’s the way I look at it: I’m a 40-year-old straight man who is alone. I am acutely aware of what’s missing from my life, and have spent most of my adult life searching unsuccessfully for the woman who can fill that giant, gaping void.
I have a couple of gay friends and acquaintances, including a committed couple who have been together for something like ten years.
I want all of my friends, regardless of sexual preference, to be happy in their lives. Consequently, the only position I can take on this issue is one favoring gay marriages. To do otherwise would be, in effect, telling those friends and acquaintances that I would deny them the very happiness that I’ve spent half my life looking for–for no other reason than the fact that they love someone who’s not a member of the opposite sex. It would be telling them that who they are is ample justification for denying them that happiness. I think that’d make me a pretty šhìŧŧÿ excuse for a friend.
Paul
First of all, my intention is not to argue with anything that has been said. I find that both sides have interesting and valid opinions. My intention is only to add my personal opinion to the discussion.
I am a gay man who believes very strongly in a religion that teaches that homosexual behavior is not in accordance with God’s will. So, despite the fact that I am attracted to men, I have chosen to marry a woman whom I love very much and with whom I have a very satisfying relationship. She understands that I’m not quite as sexually attracted to her as I am to men, and that’s something that we deal with together. We have a baby daughter that we love very much.
If not for my religious beliefs, I would probably be in a relationship with a man and I would probably want to have the option of marrying him. So I understand that people who don’t share my beliefs have no reason to do or think otherwise than they do. I certainly don’t expect them to.
This causes a bit of a moral dilemma with me. I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state, as well as people’s freedom to think and act according to their beliefs. I also detest bigotry and inequality. My instinct, then, is to say that gay marriage should be perfectly legal.
However, my problem is this: law is basically a representation of what the people of a land consider to be right and wrong. People of course have different opinions of what is right and wrong, so this is where democracy comes in. Stealing and murder are made illegal because the general consensus of the people is that these things are wrong. I feel that my moral obligation, then, is to stand up for what I believe to be right–in this case, marriage between a man and a woman. If the general American consensus is that gay marriage is right, then so be it. But if the majority of the population, for whatever reason, believes that gay marriage is wrong, then the laws should reflect that.
Is this just another case of the majority repressing the minority? I don’t know. It’s a complicated issue, at least for me.
At any rate, I’m a registered democrat and I voted in the primaries today for Kucinich because I agree with him on _most_ issues. It will be interesting to see what he or Kerry or Bush or whoever does about the gay marriage thing.
As a side note, I feel like I should clarify that neither Utah state law nor the Mormon church condone polygamy (as one poster has implied).
Fascinating comments, Ben — that’s definitely a perspective I don’t think has been aired here yet. Thanks for them.
The one thing I’d take issue with, though, is your claim that
law is basically a representation of what the people of a land consider to be right and wrong.
I’m not really sure I agree with that. Is speeding “wrong” in a moral sense, for instance?
I think laws are typically a civilization’s way of making sure it can run smoothly and remain stable. On good days, that coincides with right and wrong — but other times, I don’t think it does. Think about how many times the phrase “X shouldn’t try to legislate morality” comes up.
On the other hand, on the moral side, I also disagree with your “if a majority of the population believes gay marriage is wrong, the laws should reflect that.” As others have already mentioned, if it’s simply a matter of letting the majority have control, then I could order the summary execution of all blue-eyed males named Fred if I could get 50.01% of the country to go along with it. I don’t think “it’s what the majority wants” is necessarily what’s good for the country or for its citizens.
TWL
I’d love to hear from the married people who believe allowing gay marriage will reuin the institution of marriage. “Well, two guys down the street got married, so kids, we’re splitting up. We can’t function as parents anymore, and the sexual attraction is now gone. They ruined it for us.”
Also, doesn’t the “children need a male parent and a female parent” argument remind anyone of Dan Quayle lashing out at Murphy Brown glorifying single parenthood? I hope all the single parents let their voices and experiences be heard.
The best parents are good people — regardless of their gender, partner, or even number.
It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM but by god himself because George Bush is a Republican and he is following the polls in the country, (which he has rarely done to the extent of Clinton who polled people on where he should go on vacation and what he should wear) and his beliefs, it is a problem, it is the harshest thing in the world to do to these people, and he has no business doing this. And most of all, as was posted above, it’s “a right wing conspiracy”.
The hypocrisy is astounding.<<
Don’t be so sure. I’m a Clinton fan, but I was extremely disappointed in him for signing that lame “act.”
And I DID speak up — had a letter about it published in my local paper, too.
I disagree with John Kerry’s view on this issue too, as PAD stated he did too (this is liberal PAD, yet he is disagreeing with Kerry? There’s goes your theory!).
That brush you’re trying to use to paint all those who disagree with you isn’t big enough.
— Nat
But I have always been raised to believe that an actual marriage (despite the divorce rate in this country) is a sacred and holy union before the eyes of God.
I think the point is, Lee, that gays who wish to marry were raised to believe the exact same thing.
If two of the same sex want to date and actually fall in love, fine. There are plently of couples, regardless of the actual combination, that are just living together. But if those same two same sex people want an actual marriage, I’m sorry folks, but I just cannot support that idea.
Okay, but you apparently do support the idea of people in love just living together. This is called “living in sin.” It is considered by many to be inappropriate behavior that flies in the face of what God wants insofar as men and women are concerned. Nor is divorce acceptable, but I’m not sure you’re ready to argue that divorce be made illegal. So the fact is that you are not bound by what is accepted in God’s eyes, but instead what’s accepted in *your* eyes. Saying that you feel obliged to support only man/woman marriage because that’s the belief in which you were inculcated–when you’re perfectly willing to set aside or ignore other aspects of what God expects for marriage–seems somewhat convenient. As if God is simply an excuse because you don’t want to say that you, personally, think a guy marrying another guy is kinda icky.
But if it makes you feel any better, I have to say, I love this quote I stumbled over on the AOL newsfeed:
”There is no more important issue for our nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, a family advocacy group.
I mean, you have to love that. Crime. Drug use. Unemployment. War. Lack of medical coverage. The slow crumbling of Social Security. Starvation. Poverty. None of these hold a candle to making sure that two people of the same sex can’t marry.
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we’re all nuts.
PAD
Thanks for your response, Tim. You make some good points.
No, I don’t believe that speeding is a moral issue, but the laws regarding speeding are based on some kind of value system which favors driving cautiously in order to not kill oneself or others over the alternative. I’m not sure that I could make this same kind of connection with every law, so there probably is a flaw in my generalization of what laws are. Perhaps I meant to say “what I think laws should be.”
Is it possible that the majority will agree on something which is ultimately not for the good of the country? Certainly. By acknowledging that the majority may very well decide that gay marriage is right when I personally believe it is wrong, I recognize that the popular vote will not always agree with _my_ perception of right or wrong. However, I don’t trust myself or any other individual to decide what is right and wrong for an entire nation. This is why I believe in democracy, trusting that the majority of people are intelligent, moral individuals who vote conscientiously for what they believe is right. If 50.1% of the population decides to eradicate all blue-eye blond-haired individuals named Ben, then that is the price I have to pay for living in a democracy. I certainly prefer that to putting my fate in the hands of a single person or even an elite group of individuals. (This argument falls apart, of course, when I realize that we don’t really live in a democracy, but rather a republic. Oh well.)
Up here in Ontario (Canada) we’ve allowed gay marriages for almost a year now.
My wife and I were pleased to attend the wedding of a friend of mine, and didn’t feel that it weakened OUR vows. In fact, it made us feel better that in uncertain times, people are still willing to publically declare their love for one another and form a bond.
By taking a negative side, your President is continuing his War of Terrorism on the minds of American people. First, you must watch out for the madmen abroad who have weapons of mass destruction; then you may feel safe with Saddam in custody, but oh no, let’s go to orange alert because your neighbour could be making a pipe bomb; now you must be careful that the deviants will ruin the moral fibre of your country.
Well, they never did find those WOMD, terrorist alerts are part of a reelection ploy to make you feel that only one man will keep you safe and concerns about moral fibre are just a smokescreen to make Bush look like he is involved in National concerns; hiding the fact that he has driven your deficit, health care and education into the ground.
I should also point out that since same-sex marriages have been allowed in Ontario, that our moral fibre seems intact. (An irrelevent side note: our economy, health care and education services continue to improve)
For every one of you who is sickened by this new shell game presented by Bush, I hope that you go out, find ten friends and Vote this dark period of history away… even if it ends up being Kerry.
My two cents…
MRG
As a gay female myself I think it’s being a hypocrit but, I can understand both sides of the coin.
It’s a no win situation but it still doesnt make it legal what they are doing in San Fran.
Cause come income tax time I bet my bottom dollar they won’t get any of the tax breaks.
Kerry is a flip flopper anyway.
As soon as I see the gay community come out in support of Tom Green and other polygamists, then I will support them. Until then, the gay community and activists at large are hippocryts. They want marriage to fit “their” definition.
I don’t consider a multiple marriage a crime. But you will agree that there is already equality for heterosexuals and homosexuals as far as multiple marriages go – it’s not legal for anyone. I don’t necessarily think it’s hippocritical to try for exactly the same rights as other people when there is inequality.
Personally, I think marriage between consenting adults (as many as you want, as long as they all consent…) shouldn’t be a crime.
Usually polygamy isn’t prosecuted. People have better things to spend their time on than poking their noses into the business of what other consenting adults do.
In Tom Green’s case, he impregnated a 13 year old girl (who became his “wife”.)
Not a case of consenting adults.
Personally, when all is said and done, I want government out of marriage completely. I want the only government support program to be civil unions, and let marriage be a function of churches. The courts can sort out the divorce issues.
Well, that’s what legalizing same-sex marriages would do… let religious marriage be a function of the churches, which is the only proper place for it. A government-recognized marriage is a civil union, and it should be available to all citizens. The only government support system is already civil unions- you don’t have to be any particular religion to be recognized as married by the government. Same-sex couples are just arguing for their right to participate in what is supposed to be a government, not religious, contract. Arguments against including homosexuals are almost always religious. Individual religions can discriminate or not as they choose, but the government is specifically forbidden in the Constitution.
But you’re right. The government should only be in the business of offering civil unions, whether to heterosexual or same-sex couples, and shouldn’t choose sides between the religions that allow same-sex marriages and the ones that don’t.
For those individuals who continually bring up the “majority of people don’t like it” argument against same-sex marriages.
One doesn’t need to hark back that far to some of the other invidious discrimination that was part of our country, because “the majority” approved of it.
Inter-racial marriage. Before Loving vs Virginia struck down anti-miscgenation laws, polls that were taken showed that 90% of the country was against it. Should we have let “the majority” keep those laws on the books, and start jailing those couples?
Women being given the right to vote. “The majority” didn’t want that to happen – should they go back to having no voice at the ballot box?
Blacks not having rights – only being considered 3/5ths of a person. “The majority” thought that keeping them as slaves was just fine and dandy and they even used their “holy book” to back that one up – shall we get out the shackles and chains again?
As for the “activist judge” garbage.
One will note that there have been multiple court cases (Hawaii, Massachusetts, and others) that have shown time and time and time again that there are NO valid secular reasons for denying the equality of gays and lesbians.
The “children” argument goes out the window immediately, unless marriage law is going to REQUIRE a couple to (a) procreate, (b) even have the parts to procreate since a man who has lost his member can still get married to a woman without a uterus with no legal difficulty, or (c), even require them to have conjugal relations – and to immediately dissolve the marriage if they don’t.
Since they let prisoners on death row get married, I can’t see that happening any time in the future.
As for “it will be a drain on resources” – as if there is only a finite amount of individuals who are allowed to get hitched. Right, pull the other one.
No, the only arguments come down to “I think it’s icky”, or “My chosen personal religion doesn’t like it”.
As for the “tradition” argument, see above the examples I gave for those wonderful “traditions” that were thankfully abolished.
The anti-equality crowd needs to realize that this country is NOT a theocracy, and that equality is not predicated on what they think their “holy book” likes or dislikes.
Toby: Propagating the human race…don’t we already have an overpopulation problem? Aren’t we rapidly depleting natural resources, let alone running out of spaces to house people?
Luigi Novi: According to John Stossel’s book Gimme a Break, and his 20/20 special, Lies, Myths and Downright Stupidity, you could fit the current world population in Texas, and still have the population density of New York City. As for resources, Stossel has long argued that countries with lack of resources are due to overregulation, corrupt politicians and dictators, and lack of ingenuity. One example Stossel has used is Hong Kong, which has no natural resources, but which has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Tim Lynch: I find it 100% bugf*ck impossible to believe that those items somehow present less of a threat to marriage than letting my colleague and his partner of 20 years formalize their relationship with a wedding.
Luigi Novi: (blushes at Tim’s language.) 🙂
As others have already mentioned, if it’s simply a matter of letting the majority have control, then I could order the summary execution of all blue-eyed males named Fred if I could get 50.01% of the country to go along with it. I don’t think “it’s what the majority wants” is necessarily what’s good for the country or for its citizens.
In WWII, the vast majority of Americans WANTED Japanese Americans put in concentration camps…and it wasn’t even close. The argument may sound silly, but, dammit, it was something that actually happened…and can happen again if we don’t stop to think about it.
Sorry, but such radical moves by the likes of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the San Francisco mayor imposing gay marriage without the consent of the people is something I cannot condone.
Thank you, Peter David, for eloquently saying what I’ve been feeling for a long time.
If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don’t have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you. Don’t like it, don’t use it, but don’t expect everything to change because it works out for you.
So it was wrong to abolish slavery? It was wrong to let women vote? Those things were fine from the beginning of time but it took someone altering something that existed before they did to do so.
Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans.
Wrong. Sex and birth is based on Sperm + Egg = New humans. Marriage doesn’t even enter the equation. There is nothing that prevents humans from having sex and children without the benefit of marriage.
“Let people that are non religious or don’t fall into the churches view get joined by a governmental official.”
How … romantic. Sounds like a couple of CEOs in a lawyer’s office to formalize a corporate merger.
“one group is being excluded from enjoying the rights and privledges of the whole”
One problem here is that no one seems to agree on just why those specific “rights and privileges” exist. ie why marriage exists and what is its purpose. Some see it as providing a supposedly stable environment whithin which a ‘traditional’ nuclear family may flourish. Others see it more as a financial arrangement. The difference is crucial to the argument.
“The irony here is that Rebecca was scamming Woody. She eventually convinced him to accept a title instead of a raise.”
There was a lot of that in the real world. It started around the late 60s or early 70s, if I recall correctly. Places didn’t want to give people raises and thus gave them high-sounding titles instead. This is why ‘janitors’ became ‘custodial engineers’ (to the immense disgust of REAL engineers) for example.
“Except that, biologically speaking, a sperm and egg can create new life and be raised happy and healthy regardless of marriage.”
Biologically, maybe, but realistically? Not really. Else, how do you explain the fact that a disporportionate number of people in prisons come from households with broken marriages or single parents?
“I’m fine with incompatible people getting divorced.”
Wouldn’t it be better for incompatible people not to get married in the first place?
“Until then, the gay community and activists at large are hippocryts. They want marriage to fit “their” definition.”
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “They want marriage to INCLUDE ‘their’ definition.” They aren’t saying the other definitions should be scrapped, just expanded.
One might be justified in suggesting the use of the word “gay” be scrapped, however. Historically accurate it may be from a linguistic viewpoint, but one wonders how realistically accurate it can be given the sadness, fear and, yes, outright hatred which seems to unfortunately surround the whole phenomenon?
Still, an ex Canadian Prime Minister (and our last real statesman) the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau said it best when he gave us these words: “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”
Actually, polygamy = multiple partner marriage.
As monogamy is two-person marriage. Marriage of one person to one person.
Bigamy is one person married to two people. Etc.
Polygyny is one man and multiple women, polyandry is one woman and multiple men.
Apologies to those who didn’t need or want a linguistics lesson, but…
The Starwolf wrote:
Wouldn’t it be better for incompatible people not to get married in the first place?
Absolutely! And if they don’t, should they be stuck with their choice? We don’t test people for ‘lifelong compatibility’ before letting them get married… any man and woman off the street can get married if they so choose in the eyes of the law.
How do we *prevent* pairs of male and female people who are incompatible from getting married?
\\
Posted by Jerry
This is why the age of consent is 18 in the US, and is 16 in the UK. \\
Actually, the age of consent varies from state to state. In some states, it is as low as 14 iirc.
Of course, “age is just a number” – people mature at different rates, etc etc.
\\
Posted by Lee Houston, Junior
But I have always been raised to believe that an actual marriage (despite the divorce rate in this country) is a sacred and holy union before the eyes of God. \\
And yet, marriage existed before your religion, and not all of the rest of us in this big, wide world are getting married under the eyes of anybody’s god.
\\ Posted by Mike Pawuk
I think it’s sad that two people
Besides, if a church decides that only a man & woman can marry (heck, in Utah a Mormon man can marry more than one woman), \\
You know, iirc, the Mormon church banned polygamy more than 100 years ago.
People really need to stop using that argument, because it just isn’t true.
contrapositive said:
But you’re right. The government should only be in the business of offering civil unions, whether to heterosexual or same-sex couples, and shouldn’t choose sides between the religions that allow same-sex marriages and the ones that don’t.
This makes a lot of sense. Why don’t we just change the legal term from “marriage” to “civil union” and put “marriage” back in the religious sphere, without any kind of legal rights or privileges associcated with it? I’m perfectly happy having a legal “civil union” with my wife and being married by our church. I also have no objection to gay couples having the same legal rights and privileges I do. I’m not however, comfortable with the civil government defining what “marriage” is when this is a term that has religious meaning for me. Let the government be in control of civil liberties, granting them to all regardless of religious faith or sexual orientation, and let individual churches determine what “marriage” is and who can participate in it. This seems to be the only way to separate church and state in this matter.
\\ Posted by Ben
So, despite the fact that I am attracted to men, I have chosen to marry a woman whom I love very much and with whom I have a very satisfying relationship. \\
Ben, you might not want to hear this, but you are a horror story waiting to happen.
I hope it doens’t come to that, but I have seen first hand what this kind of relationship can do to a family, to generations of a family, and it isn’t pretty.
Marrying a woman just because you think it’s the right thing to do, when everything else about you says it’s wrong, is not the way to go about living, imo.
Ben
– you don’t have a problem with calling your marriage a civil union in legal terms, and a marriage in religious terms…
… but I have a problem calling my relationship not a marriage simply because I’m not religious. My wife and I were married in a church, but by a civil officiant. She’s Christian (generic, but former Christian Scientist), I’m not. I’m apathetic. An “apathiest” if you will.
We’re married. I won’t give that definition up to only religious folks.
I appreciate that you believe marriage to have religious connotations. That’s fine with me. Marriage has social and cultural connotations for me, and I’m not willing to give that up.
You know, iirc, the Mormon church banned polygamy more than 100 years ago.
People really need to stop using that argument, because it just isn’t true.
Thank you. I’m glad someone out there is able to distinguish between the 21st century and the 19th.
God; if they ever come out against men & sheep…..I’m screwed….
Marriage has social and cultural connotations for me, and I’m not willing to give that up.
So don’t you have the authority to call your civil union a “marriage” by virture of your personal definition, just as much as my church can call my civil union a “marriage” by virtue of my personal definition? I don’t understand why the government needs to dictate what is and isn’t “marriage.” I’d rather they just not be involved.
Why don’t we just change the legal term from “marriage” to “civil union” and put “marriage” back in the religious sphere
You know, terms change over time, but as has been said repeatedly on this thread, marriage existed before religion made it “their own”.
Maybe we should call religious marriages civil unions instead.
Well, part of your argument was “let the Church decide what’s a marriage and what isn’t.”
I’m responding to that part.
…
Of course, I can call my relationship marriage, or pair-bonding, or flippity-floppity-floop (er, wait, that’s my house… /south park) if I want.
But no one will know what the hëll I’m talking about if I say I got flippity-floppity-floopped last week.
…. at the very least, a whole heck of a lot of rewriting will have to take place to subsitute “civil union” for “marriage” in laws, insurance documents, etc etc etc.
That’s a lot of work. I wouldn’t want to have to do it.
As far as I’m concerned, let gays get married.
We have a perfectly reasonable word, “marriage”, for pair-bonding. I don’t see a need to change it.
Unlike Maggie Gallagher or Rebecca Hagelin over at townhall.com, I don’t think gays or lesbians getting married will destroy our society.
Posted by Craig J. Ries:
Marrying a woman just because you think it’s the right thing to do, when everything else about you says it’s wrong, is not the way to go about living, imo.
Craig, I appreciate your concern, and I understand where you’re coming from, but I obviously disagree. My wife and I got married knowing (as much as anyone can) what we were getting into. I married her because I love her and I want to spend eternity with her. Every part of me, except for my sexual drive which is directed toward men, told me that this was the right thing to do, that it was what I wanted to do. When different parts of you want different things, you have to make a choice. I’ve simply chosen not to allow my libido to make this decision for me.
You’re, of course, welcome to your opinion. Only time will tell if thirty years from now I am as happy married to my wife as I am now.
James posted:
Well, part of your argument was “let the Church decide what’s a marriage and what isn’t.”
I’m responding to that part.
Fair enough. I was being unclear and perhaps somewhat religiously ethnocentric. Sorry.
That’s a lot of work. I wouldn’t want to have to do it.
A good point. I wouldn’t want to either. I still hold to my ideal, though.
As far as everyone’s argument that marriage existed before relgion, that entirely depends on your view of history. If you believe, as I do, that religion existed before the world was created and that marriage was a practice instituted by God, then no, marriage does not predate religion. Does this opinion hold up in a court of law or even a logical argument? No, but it has no less validity than the belief that marriage predates religion. We are, after all, talking not only about history but quite ancient prehistory.
Craig, I appreciate your concern, and I understand where you’re coming from, but I obviously disagree.
Noted.
Everybody has a line with these issues, and having experienced this myself, this is kind of where I find myself drawing it, in terms of relationships, children, and being what you are compared to (in some cases) trying to be what you’re not.
Like I said, Ben, I hope it works out for you. I’d hate to hear of others going through what one side of my family has gone through.
A situation where some of us have our eyes opened and others don’t.
“How do we *prevent* pairs of male and female people who are incompatible from getting married?”
Getting a driver’s license requires study and testing. Why should a marriage license be any different. Might help winnow out some cases which are disasters waiting to happen. Heck, I know of two cases where, had they gone to a full ceremony with the bit about “if anyone knows any reason why this couple should not be united…”, there probably would have subsequently been two fewer messy divorces as their friends would have stood up and listed some rather persuasive arguments against.
Haven’t read all of this thread, but I’ll put in my two cents.
Personally, I think a law should be passed that says all 40 years olds are teenagers.
Sounds silly, yes? So is “gay” marriage. By definition, marriage is one husband, one wife, bound in matrimony. That’s what it is.
Civil Union, fine (but not for just gay people, but for anyone dedicated to a single household).
I do believe that real push behind this is legitimization. If you want to pick your nose and eat it, knock yourself out. But don’t petition to make snot a food group because it’snot. I’ll tolerate gays, I won’t descriminate against them. I have several friends who are gay (and others who pick their nose and eat it). I prefer they not “practice” in front of me (and it won’t kill me if they do, but it would make me uncomfortable in either case).
As soon as I see the gay community come out in support of Tom Green and other polygamists, then I will support them. Until then, the gay community and activists at large are hippocryts. They want marriage to fit “their” definition.
First, I didn’t know Tom Green was a polygamist. Second, on what basis do you automatically assume the gay community (which, by the way, doesn’t speak with one voice anymore than the heterosexual community does) *doesn’t* support polygamy? And third, since wanting equal rights under marriage of two people isn’t remotely the same as polygamy, I’m not seeing the hypocrisy.
Otherwise, I totally get what you’re saying.
PAD
If 50.1% of the population decides to eradicate all blue-eye blond-haired individuals named Ben, then that is the price I have to pay for living in a democracy. I certainly prefer that to putting my fate in the hands of a single person or even an elite group of individuals.
And yet, 50.1% of the population wanted Al Gore for president, but an elite group of individuals decided otherwise.
This country’s a hoot, isn’t it.
PAD
Sorry, but such radical moves by the likes of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the San Francisco mayor imposing gay marriage without the consent of the people is something I cannot condone.
People are being married against their will? Oh my GOD! Someone should do something!
PAD
Some random thoughts on the subject:
Yes, Clinton signed the “Defense of Marriage Act.” So what? Not everyone who is against this law worships at the altar of Billary. He was wrong then and Bush is wrong now.
The definition of an “activist judge” is any judge that issues a ruling that you don’t agree with. It isn’t illegal for a judge to issue an interpretation on how to apply a statute or whether it violates the state or federal constitution. That’s their job.
I still don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bëšŧìálìŧÿ. I have one wife and I love her dearly, but one is plenty. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to suddenly inspire me to look for a second wife, despite that fact that polygamy is endorsed by the same Bible people quote to condem homosexuality.
As for bëšŧìálìŧÿ, if you can show me a sheep capable of signing a marriage certificate, I’ll worry about legalizing it.
The idea that homosexual marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage is ludicrous. Can anyone show me data or a poll proving that straight couples would be less likely to get married or more likely get divorced because of gay marriages?
The idea of marrying for love is a new idea in our society. Only a few hundred years ago, virtually all marriages were arranged, often with the bride and grown not even meeting until the day of their wedding. This is still the practice in some parts of the world today. Today everyone, with the exception of idiots who go on reality TV shows, expects to marry for love. The concept of marriage in our society has changed over the years and will continue to do so, whether you like it or not.
PAD posted: First, I didn’t know Tom Green was a polygamist.
Just for clarification, PAD, they aren’t referring to the comedian/actor Tom Green, but another man of the same name who was convicted of polygamy (among other charges) in Utah after being prominently featured on many news magazines and talk shows.
Robin and I got married at City Hall. The “G word” was never mentioned. For a lot of us, as we’ve seen in this thread, God has nothing to do with marriage; marriage is a legal joining and a public declaration of love. We consider love (and marriage) to be “sacred” in a spiritual sense rather than a religious one. And I think that’s at the key of what seems to be confusing or upsetting a lot of people.
“It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM…”
Thoroughly untrue, Balder, and quite easily disproven by the public record, as the Internet was up in force during Clinton’s presidency. There was a TON of protest over the DOMA and “don’t ask don’t tell.” Please don’t rewrite history.
“I’m stating that the selfish emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society.”
I think we can all agree objectively that children need loving parents. Beyond that, everything else you claim is subjective.
“…the San Francisco mayor imposing gay marriage without the consent of the people…”
You can’t be serious. If there’s any place where people would consent to gay marriage, it’s San Francisco. 🙂
“God; if they ever come out against men & sheep…..I’m screwed….”
LOL – brilliant, Dave, thank you!
PAD wrote:
**And yet, 50.1% of the population wanted Al Gore for president, but an elite group of individuals decided otherwise.
This country’s a hoot, isn’t it.**
I agree one hundred percent. That’s why the electoral college is an outdated and ridiculous concept.
First, PAD and KRAD, thank you for addressing most of what I would have said.
As for why no one is pushing for an amendment granting the right to marry to same-sex couples, that shouldn’t be necessary. It should fall under the already ratified and held up in court right to equal protection under the law. Protection from what, you ask? From not being able to be with your loved one or make decisions on their behalf in time of crisis. From not being considered a “real” couple because you haven’t made the legal commitment. OK, the tax thing isn’t a huge help for most couples, but the legal rights and protections are important.
If your religion doesn’t accept same-sex marriages, then don’t have them marry in your church. There are already quite a few faiths that won’t acknowledge a marriage unless it takes place on their terms according to their mandates and traditions. That’s the right of a religion. But there are also churches that very much want to be able to marry their homosexual couples who are so inclined. But all this is irrelevant, because the right to marry is a legal issue, and should be provided as a matter of legal equality.
People are people. Laws should treat them as such, and allow them the same liberties, rights, and responsibilities.
(Of course, a lot of people who call themselves “Christians” might be astonished by Matthew 6: 5-8…)
Why would what Jesus says about prayer be shocking???