MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

[BVS]

Well, now we are looking at regulating the lifetime of a marriage. I bet there are instances during the course of any marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, life mate relationship where things are not 100% consentual according to your example.

Yes compromise will always happen.

But the difference between a marriage of two individuals and polygamy is that the basic structure of polygamy doesn't allow for 100% consent.

 

[nbcrusader]

Yes compromise will always happen.

But the difference between a marriage of two individuals and polygamy is that the basic structure of polygamy doesn't allow for 100% consent.

It is inheritable inequitable; however, to me, it is not a matter of consent.

 

[pax]

We have a recent polygamy thread; call it up if you want to talk about it.

This thread is about the gay marriage debate.

Don't MAKE me do another split.

 

[martha]

But the women consent to that form of relationship.

Those who are children of 16 cannot legally consent, and they are almost always forced, even in our country.


Now, back to the subject.

Are we linking polygamy and homosexual marriage again?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think the statement you are referring to is one god awful blanket statement to make about the topic. In my opinion, it borders on a personal attack on people who are opposed to "gay" marriage.

For anyone who missed it, Dread's talking about my comment:

I suspect that many of those who oppose gay marriage do so out of nothing more than homophobia.

Why do I say this? Because frankly most of the arguments against gay marriage are based on the logic that it's wrong to be gay therefore it's wrong for gay people to marry. That is homophobia. Homophobia is believing that it's wrong to be gay, it's believing that there is something wrong with a person because of their sexuality, it's believing that it is acceptable to discriminate against a person because of who they fall in love with.

Some people have said that they disagree with gay marriage because their religion leads them to believe that it's wrong to be gay. Do I disagree with them? Of course. Do I respect their right to believe that? Yes I do. I do not, however, respect their right to make their RELIGIOUS opinion into law.

What other arguments are there for forbidding gay marriage? The argument that two women or two men can't have a child together? I don't consider that a valid argument. For it to be valid the people making it would also have to oppose the marriage of any two people unable to have children together. They'd have to oppose the marriage of anyone who is unable to have children due to infertility, they'd have to oppose the marriage of anyone who made the decision that they do not wish to have children, they'd have to oppose the marriage of anyone who is too old to have children. The argument reduces marriage to nothing more than a means to produce and raise children and I'm sure everyone here has the sense to realise that a marriage based solely on that principle would be a miserable excuse for a marriage.

What are the other arguments? That gay marriage is harmful to society? How exactly? Produce your evidence, produce your statistics, produce some form of logical coherent argument, please. And since nobody has so far, forgive me for thinking the argument baseless and irrelevant.

Dread, it makes me laugh to see you call my comment a personal attack. A personal attack on who? Any sentence beginning with "I suspect" and referring not to all but many people is a pretty feeble personal attack if it even counts as such. You know what the real personal attacks in this argument are? The numerous occassions I've been called a "f**king dyke" or "dirty lesbian" because I dared to argue that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of who they fall in love with. The friend of mine who was punched in the face because she dared to stand up in a meeting and ask the people there why they believed she shouldn't be allowed to marry her girlfriend. Another friend who was attacked both verbally and physically as he was putting up posters advertising a lecture on the subject. Those are the personal attacks, not someone suggesting that homophobia is a motivation for some of those who oppose gay marriage.

I'd go as far as suggesting that it's actually a fact that some people who oppose gay marriage do so because of their homophobia. There are many people who argue that gay marriage is wrong because it is intrinsically wrong to be gay. Their argument is homophobic. And that's all I was suggesting, that some people oppose gay marriage because they're homophobic. How that is a blanket statement, let alone a personal attack is beyond me.

 

[Dreadsox]

We have a recent polygamy thread; call it up if you want to talk about it.

This thread is about the gay marriage debate.

Don't MAKE me do another split.

Does that mean I cannot use the 1879 ruling against Polygamy to counter someone elses argument that this is about the Separation of Church and State?

 

[Dreadsox]

Fizz,

I disagree....But hey, that is your choice. Laugh at me all you want. You make a statment, a broad one about people being homophobic if they are not for gay marriage. then we can poke fun at people for not responding.

Your statement was in the midst of a discussion on a message board. Exactly what is anyone opposed to your point of view supposed to think? Are they suddenly supposed to assume you are referring to the awful experiences you listed above? or maybe it is being directed at them.

If I as a thinking person am for gay marriage, would it surprise you to know that I believe it may be possible to support it on religious grounds? If I do support it on religious grounds and try to make it a law isn't that me imposing my "religious beliefs" on society.

My point, this IS NOT imposing religious beliefs. There may be religious people supporting it. There may be others NOT supporting it. It does not make them homophobes or whatever label you want to throw at them.

There are many labels that I would throw at people who actesd the way you have witnessed. The people I know opposed to Gay marriage do not act this way. It saddens me that this apparently is your perception of people who are opposed to it.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I personally suspect that while some of it is based on homophobia, in actuality a lot of could be more based on a personal view that it is wrong, yet that is then taken to mean it is a belief which the holder shares for ALL. Which is not always the case. Someone can very well make their own opinion why they feel it is wrong, and it doesn't extend to greater society.

I agree to some extent. If an individual person believes for whatever reason it is wrong to be gay, that's their business. While I disagree with them and if they raised the subject, would probably try to explain why I believe they're wrong, I don't have the right to say they can't hold that opinion. If that individual also believes it's wrong for gay people to marry, again it's their personal opinion and nobody has the right to tell them they can't believe that.

If they held that *personal* opinion that would be one thing. However I think it's different when a person translates an personal opinion into something which ought to be applicable for everyone in society and so should be enshrined in law. The government can't decide to discriminate against a group of people based on nothing more than the subjective opinion of some people.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

If I as a thinking person am for gay marriage, would it surprise you to know that I believe it may be possible to support it on religious grounds? If I do support it on religious grounds and try to make it a law isn't that me imposing my "religious beliefs" on society.

If your *only* argument in favour of gay marriage was a religious argument then yes I would say it is imposing religious beliefs on others. However I think there are many arguments not based in religion for why gay marriage should be permitted, and very few not based in religion for why it ought to be banned.

I believe gay marriage ought to be allowed because to forbid gay people to marry while allowing straight people to marry is discriminating against gay people. I believe there is no valid reason for this: a person's sexuality is not a reason for them to be discriminated against anymore than a person's gender or skin colour is.

When people argue that gay marriage should not be allowed because their religion opposes it, they are using their religious beliefs to argue for discriminating against people because of their sexuality. While I respect people's right to hold their individual religious opinions, I do not believe that you can justify making a law which applies to everyone in society on the basis of the religious beliefs of certain members of that society.

 

[nbcrusader]

I agree to some extent. If an individual person believes for whatever reason it is wrong to be gay, that's their business. While I disagree with them and if they raised the subject, would probably try to explain why I believe they're wrong, I don't have the right to say they can't hold that opinion. If that individual also believes it's wrong for gay people to marry, again it's their personal opinion and nobody has the right to tell them they can't believe that.

If they held that *personal* opinion that would be one thing. However I think it's different when a person translates an personal opinion into something which ought to be applicable for everyone in society and so should be enshrined in law. The government can't decide to discriminate against a group of people based on nothing more than the subjective opinion of some people.

It now sounds like a battle between your personal beliefs and another's personal beliefs.

 

[BVS]

It now sounds like a battle between your personal beliefs and another's personal beliefs.

Her opinion does not deny rights to any individual where those that oppose, do. If you are going to deny an individual any right it should have a logical and legal reason. Don't you think?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Ditto everything FizzingWhizzbees has been saying (sorry to hear that about your friends, by the way. . I have some friends who've been through similar things, so I can relate to this).

Angela

 

[Liesje]

OK since polygamy is being discussed here, and homosexuality discussed in the polygamy thread, I guess this goes here?... I'm still confused about this:

There's no way it could be consenting 100% of the time. Most polygamy marriages is one man and many wives. The wives usually have their own bedrooms and he sleeps with one wife at a time. Let's say three of his wives wanted him on the same night, two of them are going to have to be denied. In that case it's always the man's choice and there is no true consent.

How exactly does this make polygamy non-consensual? I read the other posts but maybe I'm having a stupid day or I'm blind or something. I don't see how having more than one wife to choose from has anything to do with consent, as long as the wife chosen on a particular night consents and as long as all of the wives have consented to that form of relationship.

 

[Angela Harlem]

lol LivLuv, I think all polygamy is meant to go in there now, but we always sidetrack. I wanted to say something about polygamy not actually being supported by the church of LDS to Dread, but it belongs in the other one too.

 

[Liesje]

lol LivLuv, I think all polygamy is meant to go in there now, but we always sidetrack. I wanted to say something about polygamy not actually being supported by the church of LDS to Dread, but it belongs in the other one too.

Yeah, I typed a reply here and then thought it was a bad idea, so I opened a new window with the right thread, but the last page of posts was on homosexuality

 

[BVS]

OK since polygamy is being discussed here, and homosexuality discussed in the polygamy thread, I guess this goes here?... I'm still confused about this:



How exactly does this make polygamy non-consensual? I read the other posts but maybe I'm having a stupid day or I'm blind or something. I don't see how having more than one wife to choose from has anything to do with consent, as long as the wife chosen on a particular night consents and as long as all of the wives have consented to that form of relationship.

See my response in the polygamy thread.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Some questions about legal issues that people have mentioned as reasons that marriages should be allowed:

1. Hospital visitation/medical decisions
-Doesn't the final choice of visitors rest with the patient? (Assuming the doctor hasn't restricted all visitors)
-For health care decisions, can't partners grant health care proxy and/or power of attorney? I didn't think you needed to be married to set this up.

2. Leaving estates/property upon death
-Can't partners currently be joint owners of property such as homes and cars, and ownership automatically transfers if one dies? And with wills, you can leave your things to whoever you want, you don't have to be married to them, right?

3. Children
-Even if it is not legal in a particular state for both partners to adopt a child, can't you state in your will who you want your child to go to if you die?

 

[martha]

1. Hospital visitation/medical decisions
-Doesn't the final choice of visitors rest with the patient? (Assuming the doctor hasn't restricted all visitors)

You're assuming the patient is conscious. There have been cases where the parents of homosexual people have denied visitation rights to the long-term partners of their adult children. There is nothing to be legally done about it, since those partners have been unable to marry.

-For health care decisions, can't partners grant health care proxy and/or power of attorney? I didn't think you needed to be married to set this up.

Why should they have to go through all this expensive rigamarole that you don't have to do because you're able to marry your partner?

2. Leaving estates/property upon death
-Can't partners currently be joint owners of property such as homes and cars, and ownership automatically transfers if one dies? And with wills, you can leave your things to whoever you want, you don't have to be married to them, right?

As far as I know, yes.

3. Children
-Even if it is not legal in a particular state for both partners to adopt a child, can't you state in your will who you want your child to go to if you die?

Courts take children away from gay partners all the time, frequently when the grandparents of the children take the gay parent to court. And I believe, but I'm not sure, there are some states which still don't allow homosexual people to legally adopt. I think that our pal Jeb has blocked this in Florida.


So, you see, bls, gay people are consistently denied rights because they don't have access to the legal protection marriage affords. And before someone brings up "civil unions," please remember that "separate, but equal" was struck down in 1954.

 

[Dreadsox]

to Dread, but it belongs in the other one too.

Then I will not be responding in this thread anymore. If someone in here can say it is wrong for the governement to act against one's religious beliefs, and it is not OK to respond with an example IE the supreme court...with the Mormon Church, then you are effectively dictating how we as people who have paid to be here can respond. My argument had nothing to do with the right or wrongness of polygamy, but with the Supreme Court ruling against a religious practice.

As a supporter of the right for the gay community to marry, I am deeply upset at the flippant attitude that has been in this thread towards those opposed to Gay marriage. I am more upset that it has now been legislated how we are allowed to respond or not.


FYM is a sinking ship....enjoy the one way "discussion"

Peace

 

[BAW]

Some questions about legal issues that people have mentioned as reasons that marriages should be allowed:

1. Hospital visitation/medical decisions
-Doesn't the final choice of visitors rest with the patient? (Assuming the doctor hasn't restricted all visitors)
-For health care decisions, can't partners grant health care proxy and/or power of attorney? I didn't think you needed to be married to set this up.

2. Leaving estates/property upon death
-Can't partners currently be joint owners of property such as homes and cars, and ownership automatically transfers if one dies? And with wills, you can leave your things to whoever you want, you don't have to be married to them, right?

3. Children
-Even if it is not legal in a particular state for both partners to adopt a child, can't you state in your will who you want your child to go to if you die?

Here is a list of benefits/rights afforded to married couples in California that do not extend to same sex partners. The exceptions would be in the counties where domestic partnerships are recognized.

left at the alter

 

[Angela Harlem]

It was merely that the line of debate of polygamy has been painstakingly split and I am tryint to respect the notion that this topic stick to gay marriage. My only point in that whole thing was to basically say the Mormon example is moot because that church does not support polygamy. It has nothing to do with dictating who's opinions we allow and who's we don't Dread.
It is not about silencing the majority who support gay marriage. Be angry Dread, but not of misunderstanding.

 

[melon]

You know, there are no rational, non-religious reasons to ban gay marriage. But this also isn't a religious war anymore.

This is a political issue; one that is more about bickering between Republicans and Democrats. And that's where it becomes irrational. To support gay marriage is to be a Democrat; to be opposed to it is to be a Republican and you have too many people who tow the party line.

The same happened with civil rights, and I think the irony isn't lost that the Democratic Party has only had two presidents since the civil rights era. Too many people didn't like it then and fled to the Republican Party that, at least in their mind, represented good old WASP-dominated society. And, even if conservatives no longer advocate segregation (thankfully), now they have their new cause to scare people into voting for them.

The irony is that, ultimately, I think the GOP will come around in a couple decades and support gay marriage. Rather than being the forefront of civil rights, the party always lags behind, and, parasitically, takes advantage of all the work that the Democrats put forward.

In fact, I almost think that if the Republican Party valued tolerance and kicked the Christian Coalition to the curb, they'd probably attract more voters, as I think that there are more people who will vote against the party for being bigoted than those who will vote for them, because of it.

But the line has been drawn. A good Republican now introduces "Defense of Marriage" amendments, with long, impassioned, irrational speeches about how gays are to blame for everything that straight society is deficient in (a convenient scapegoat, similar to blaming blacks for crime), and then having no proof. And good Republicans, along with cowardly Democrats fearing that the bigot vote won't come to their aid in November, follow along.

I can, at least, sympathize with racial minorities, as a result, because their rights have been politicized in the same manner for decades, and, while things are finally improving for them, I'm not going to wait up until I'm an old man for the GOP to apologize.

Melon

 

[martha]

Here is a list of benefits/rights afforded to married couples in California that do not extend to same sex partners. The exceptions would be in the counties where domestic partnerships are recognized.

left at the alter

Thanks, Char. I think this says it all. It's about denying equal protection. And, as I said "domestic partnerships" is indeed separate, but equal.

 

[Dreadsox]

,

 

[nbcrusader]

To support gay marriage is to be a Democrat; to be opposed to it is to be a Republican and you have too many people who tow the party line.

From a distance this appears to be true; however, over the decades in places where Democrats have held power, nothing has been done.

 

[bonosloveslave]

if the Republican Party valued tolerance and kicked the Christian Coalition to the curb

Yep, that sure sounds like 'tolerance' to me

 

[pax]

Not all Democrats support gay marriage, though, or even support civil unions. And my dad, for example, is an old-fashioned Republican who believes the government should stay out of people's families and bedrooms and doesn't get worked up about gay marriage. It's unfair to pigeonhole people of particular political stripes into predetermined stances on issues, even if Democrats *tend* to be okay with gay marriage and Republicans *tend* to be against it.

 

[Liesje]

As a supporter of the right for the gay community to marry, I am deeply upset at the flippant attitude that has been in this thread towards those opposed to Gay marriage. I am more upset that it has now been legislated how we are allowed to respond or not.
B]

I agree. So far, people have implied that my religious beliefs are bullshit and they make me discriminating and homophobic...I think those are some pretty harsh conclusions made by people who've never met me.

 

[BVS]

I think this discussion is going nowhere. People are getting pissed off for no reason, others just keep saying the same thing over and over and won't listen to the other side, and others are throwing around labels and acusations. And I'm speaking about both sides. This is why this issue will never get resolved anytime soon.

So I'm out.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

So far, people have implied that my religious beliefs are bullshit and they make me discriminating and homophobic...I think those are some pretty harsh conclusions made by people who've never met me.

If your religious beliefs lead you to the conclusion that it's wrong to be gay then that's your business. Obviously I disagree, but it's your right to hold that opinion. I do happen to think that believing it is wrong to be gay is homophobic and that denying gay people the right to marry is discrimination, but if those are your opinions (not saying that they are your opinions as I don't know what your religious beliefs are, but making a comment in general about the subject) then that's your own business.

I'd never call someone's religious beliefs "b-----t" no matter how much I disagree. However I do think religious beliefs are a poor justification for a law. Not everyone subscribes to the same religion so you can't expect everyone to obey a law which is based on the beliefs of one religion. Religious beliefs, no matter which religion they are based on, can't be a justification for a law in a secular state.