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

[Dreadsox]

Now you should all feel free to flame me.

I just want to know why you never responded to my offer of a room in Massachusetts....

 

[deep]

If the President were the one talking one way and acting another, I would agree with you. But he is not the one behaving like a hypocrite.

Do you believe Al Gore should have been held accountable for Bill Clinton's philandering behavior?

 

[Dreadsox]

Deep, have I somehow lead you to believe that I am inconsistent?

 

[agentmissa]

Most people who are opposed to gay marriage are opposed to it for some type of religious reason most of the time I think. While it is their right to feel this way, you can't legislate based on a religious belief. Allowing them to marry isn't hurting anyone, yes it may offend some, but just cause you find something offensive doesn't mean it should be against the law. I find Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire offensive. Do I think it should be illegal? No. You shouldn't try to legislate morality.
For clarity's sake, gay marriage doesn't offend me and I don't have any religious belief against it.

I completely agree!

 

[tackleberry]

I don't think GWB should be held accountable for his brother's actions BUT GWB's opinion on Gay Marriage has much more power than anyone else's opinion on the matter. His opposition to it based on Religion is not fair to the country and the constitution. That's a clear violation on seperation of Church and State. And as a whole I feel that GWB is trying to implement Christian views into the country's policies which is hypocritical to his comments and speeches on how America is so free, freedom this, freedom that on religion. Specifically, his comment on how the war against Terrorism is a "religious crusade" That's ridiculous! Let's not turn this into a friggin Middle Ages Holy War. I feel that is not the direction this country should be going in. It's back peddling when it should be turning the wheels towards a much more "equal" future.

 

[oliveu2cm]

It's their choice, I don't look down on them for it, I don't feel pity for them, I just think it's sad that people deny themselves something which is so fundamental to so many people's lives.

Sorry I haven't checked this thread since I posted. I agree with Fizzing's response. It makes me sad that someone denies themself an intimate and personal relationship, which I know what joy it can bring.

This, which Fizzing said, especially I think it's sad that society or religion or any other factor can make a person believe that they can never fall in love because there's something wrong with that love.

yup.



Dreadsox, btw, nice posts.

 

[deep]

Deep, have I somehow lead you to believe that I am inconsistent?

no more than any of the rest of us.


i am the one admits i have bias'

i believe we all do.



Back to my question.


The Bush team campaigned on "guilt by association? against Gore in 2000.


I do not believe W should be smeared about Neil's whoring around.


The bigger issue in that story is ?influence buying' by the Chinese into the Bush Admin.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Does every thread here have to turn into some sort of "argument" about GWB?

I didn't know he was a member of the MA SJC

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Does every thread here have to turn into some sort of "argument" about GWB?

I didn't know he was a member of the MA SJC

IMO we spend far too much time in FYM going through the same arguments again and again and again about Bush. It'd be nice if we spent some more time talking about other countries politics, or even US politics other than whether Bush is good or bad.

And also...
Dread, sorry for not replying. I'm replying now though. See?

And...
Welcome to agentmissa and tackleberry, who I haven't seen post here much before. It's always nice to see new faces in FYM. Hope you'll have fun posting here.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Sorry I haven't checked this thread since I posted. I agree with Fizzing's response. It makes me sad that someone denies themself an intimate and personal relationship, which I know what joy it can bring.

This, which Fizzing said, especially I think it's sad that society or religion or any other factor can make a person believe that they can never fall in love because there's something wrong with that love.

Agree wholeheartedly. People deserve to be happy.

Angela

 

[deep]

\

Student Is Punished for Saying 'Gay,' ACLU Says
From Times Wire Reports

December 2, 2003

A 7-year-old boy was scolded and forced to write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again" after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union said. Second-grader Marcus McLaurin was waiting for recess Nov. 11 at Ernest Gaullet Elementary School in Lafayette when a classmate asked about Marcus' mother and father, the ACLU said in a complaint.

Marcus responded he had two mothers because his mother was gay. A teacher told Marcus "gay" was a "bad word" and sent him to the principal's office. The ACLU is demanding that the school apologize to the boy and his mother, Sharon Huff.

Does anybody believe we don't need laws respecting people for who they are?

 

[deep]

here is a simple solution

COMMENTARY





To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard University.

December 3, 2003

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage ? as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union ? from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.

Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.

Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.

Although this proposal may sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally ? except for labels ? from the situation that exists in many states today. Throughout the United States, couples have the option of being married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and simply signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and being married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.

All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.

Though some traditionalists would be certain to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples should be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.

So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Does anybody believe we don't need laws respecting people for who they are?

Exactly. And the article you quoted is a perfect example of why we need these laws. It's about that child's right to receive social security benefits if one of his mothers dies, for example. It's about a gay partner being allowed at the bedside of his dying partner of 20 years (or even 20 days) in the event that the family is homophobic and does not honor the relationship. It is about BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS, not about religion, not about God.

Gays are not going back into the closet, this issue is going to keep progressing forward, and anyone who thinks it is immoral will be the ones that have to change their minds and get with the program or just live with their own uncomfortability with it. Gays are powerful today and there is no turning back, imo.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/index.html

 

[pax]

But I really did like that Dershowitz article that deep posted a while back.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I like what Coretta Scott King said in comparing the gay rights movement to that of the black civil rights movement:

I say ?common struggle? because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.

My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, ?We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny?an inescapable network of mutuality.? I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.? Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.?s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Coretta's speech. Very nicely said.

And yay to Massachusetts! .

Angela

 

[bonosloveslave]

This ruling concerns me because I think it opening a door for polygamy, polyamory(group marriage) etc - oh wait, why are those wrong again? It's just people loving each other that want to be together and recognized...

C'mon, we haven't had a really good flame yet

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

This ruling concerns me because I think it opening a door for polygamy, polyamory(group marriage) etc - oh wait, why are those wrong again? It's just people loving each other that want to be together and recognized...

C'mon, we haven't had a really good flame yet

Why would you want to start a flame war? I like that we've all been pretty civil to one another in this thread so far.

Anyway. Allowing gay people to marry doesn't set a precedent that would allow polygamy. Recognising gay marriage is recognising a marriage between two people who are not married to anyone else. How does that set a precedent for someone to argue they ought to be able to marry as many people as they wish? It's rather like the ridiculous arguments that gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry their pets!

And yes, gay marriage is largely about people who love each other wanting to be able to have that recognised. However, it's about several other things also. For instance, in many countries and states, a gay person's partner has no "next of kin" status -- if their partner was admitted to hospital they would have no right to make decisions about medical care on their behalf and if their partner's family wanted to refuse to allow them to see their partner, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. No matter how long they have been in a relationship, no matter if they live together, no matter what, they still have no legal rights in this situation. Does that sound fair? And that's just one example, there are many more.

Refusing to allow gay people to marry is saying that they're inferior to straight people. It's saying that there is something about their relationship which is not worthy of being defined as marriage. And in my opinion, if you're going to deny people those rights then you need a far stronger reason than the vague idea that someone might one day claim that polygamy ought to be legalised.

 

[joyfulgirl]

This ruling concerns me because I think it opening a door for polygamy, polyamory(group marriage) etc - oh wait, why are those wrong again? It's just people loving each other that want to be together and recognized...

Yeah, why is that wrong again? Something like 80% of the world's cultures find polygamy acceptable. But I am guessing this is not the real reason you are concerned with this ruling.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Why would you want to start a flame war? I like that we've all been pretty civil to one another in this thread so far.

Everyone has agreed up to this point. Well, I guess except Dread. But he didn't really commit either...

 

[nbcrusader]

Recognising gay marriage is recognising a marriage between two people who are not married to anyone else.

To BLS's point, it appears you are willing to place arbitrary limitations on marriage. Why some limitations and not other? I'd be interested in the principles, not one-off arguments.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Everyone has agreed up to this point. Well, I guess except Dread. But he didn't really commit either...

Well, last time I checked we could disagree without it degenerating into a flame war. At least I hope we can. So feel free to jump in and have a flame-free discussion.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

To BLS's point, it appears you are willing to place arbitrary limitations on marriage. Why some limitations and not other? I'd be interested in the principles, not one-off arguments.

I don't think to define marriage as between two human beings is any more arbitrary than defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Placing an age limit on when people may be married is an arbitrary limitation, would you argue against that? In some cultures and at certain times in history, there has been an arbitrary limitation that marriage must be between an woman and a man who have never married before. In other societies, it must be a man and woman who have never married or who have been married by their husband or wife has died. Aren't all of those arbitrary limitations on marriage?

So the "principles" would be, I believe marriage to be between two individuals, regardless of gender or sexuality, who are in love and want to make a committment to spend the rest of their lives together.

 

[nbcrusader]

You gave me your beliefs, not principles. I guess the question becomes: "What is marriage?" and "What are the principles behind any limitation or qualification we place on marriage?"



If there are no principles, only beliefs, the question then becomes "What is the source of your beliefs?"

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I explained that I believe the "principles" of marriage to be two people who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together making a committment to each other. That committment would of course have different meanings to different people, just as marriage between heterosexual couples does.

I don't think that is any more arbitrary than other limitations which have been placed on marriage, for instance age restrictions, requiring that both of the people to be married are of the same religion, requiring that neither of them have married before, etc.

It seems that some people who are opposed to gay marriage wish to portray marriage as having been exactly the same, never having different restrictions or limitations on it, ever since marriage was first conceived of. They then make the argument that "well, marriage can't be between people of the same gender because it's always been between a man and woman." However, that argument fails to recognise that there have always been requirements or restrictions which go beyond the idea of marriage being merely any man and any woman.

 

[Liesje]

Like someone said, though one's religious beliefs may incline them to see homosexual marriage as wrong, religion has no place in politics. Whether I like it or not, homosexual CIVIL marriage should be legal everywhere. A religious union is a different story...

 

[melon]

This ruling concerns me because I think it opening a door for polygamy, polyamory(group marriage) etc - oh wait, why are those wrong again? It's just people loving each other that want to be together and recognized...

You sit there on your pulpit, while being married to someone I presume you love. After all, I'm guessing you didn't get married to be a living baby machine, like some people argue that marriage is. So I'm giving you a challenge: tell me this with a straight face, after imagining what your life would be like if you were not allowed to marry the person you're married to now.

If it so concerns you, pass a constitutional amendment banning polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia, and inanimate objects. In other words, define marriage between two adults, regardless of gender, and I'm sure, barring Christian fundamentalists who'd have a hissy fit over someone beating them at their own game, most people would go for it. No, what this absolutely irrational concern obscures is a deep-seated hatred for homosexuals on the basis of perceived Biblical precepts.

But Christianity refuses to tell the truth about that on the public surface, because the fact of the matter is that we have freedom of religion in this nation. It's too bad, though, that religions lie through their teeth constantly, thinking that the end justify the means.

Melon

 

[melon]

If there are no principles, only beliefs, the question then becomes "What is the source of your beliefs?"

Love one another.

In other words, if you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one. For those who want to have them, leave them alone. After all, gay people don't protest in front of Christian churches every time someone gets married. Gay people don't picket Christian funerals. Gay people don't propose constitutional amendments that would discriminate against Christians.

Melon

 

[melon]

To BLS's point, it appears you are willing to place arbitrary limitations on marriage. Why some limitations and not other? I'd be interested in the principles, not one-off arguments.

Why are your beliefs more important than anyone else's? Because your group screams the loudest? There are many Christian and non-Christian religions that would marry same-sex couples in an instant.

In regards to polygamy, as long as it is uniformily banned between people of all sexualities, then so be it. Let it be banned. As it stands, though, the only way I'll accept a ban on gay marriage is if there is a ban on heterosexual marriage. Let's have some uniformity in a supposedly secular and pluralistic nation.

Or is the United States like Iran--a wannabe theocracy that hides under the veil of democracy? Because, last I heard, Iran isn't exactly a happy nation.

Melon