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

[Dreadsox]

You're such a rebel.

No seriously that's cool. If I ever changed my view of marriage and got remarried, I'd ask you to do the ceremony...of course I'd have to move...so maybe not.

I can check.....HEHE>..I believe I am valid in all 50 states. I just have to make certain what legal papers I need.

 

[Angela Harlem]

To clarify for the last time, I dont think religious views are bullshit. Using them as a one size fits all for a national ruling on gay marriage is.
Big difference.

 

[Liesje]

I think my religious beliefs put me at an opposition to a lot of stuff these days, but the difference is that I would never try to impose my beliefs on someone else and try to convince them that they should change their mind.

Say, for example, my religion said eating candy was wrong. So I think eating candy is wrong, and I won't support it or do it, but since the person next to me is not of my religion, I don't really care if she eats candy or not. But then the person next to me not only chooses to eat candy, but then turns to me and tells me that I should eat candy b/c NOT eating candy solely based on religious beliefs is stupid and I am wrong, even though I never tried to convince her to not eat candy in the first place.

Basically, what I'm trying (and probably failing) to get across is that I believe what I believe and no one can change that. If your belief is different than mine, I will not try and change your mind because your belief is your decision whether I like it or not. But please don't try and change my mind or tell me I should not base my beliefs on religion. I make personal decisions based on religion, but I would never use my religious beliefs to try to change legislation, b/c I support seperation of church and state.

 

[thrillme]

Well I had a biology book that said an organism is only fit if it passes on its genes, a monogamous homosexual couple, (without modern medical procedures) won't do so. Homosexuality is unfit as a biological process, because it doesn't pass on genes.

You want to view this from a scientific, no emotion, no religious, no societal influence, there it is, homosexuality, in humans, doesn't result in reproduction of genes, therefore unfit. Being celebate is unfit. Not having children makes you an unfit organism.

Sure I'd say that's very cold, harsh, but that's what the biology book stated, an organism is only biologically fit, if it passes on its genes.

--------
Marriage is just fecked up in America anyway, if there were no entitlements to marriage, the right to see your loved ones, inheritances, its partly an economic issue isn't it?

Do gay couples need a license saying their relationship is valid? Many heterosexual couples don't. If the only thing a marriage meant, was that 2 people, could live together, and only be with each other, not have relations with any one else, I don't know if most people would do it, because if they already do that, why go through the ceremony?


A marriage in this country, (and others) allows hospital visitation rights, inheritances, children rights, etc.

 

[DrTeeth]

From a purely scientific point of view, there really is no such thing as an unfit organism.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Do gay couples need a license saying their relationship is valid? Many heterosexual couples don't. If the only thing a marriage meant, was that 2 people, could live together, and only be with each other, not have relations with any one else, I don't know if most people would do it, because if they already do that, why go through the ceremony?


A marriage in this country, (and others) allows hospital visitation rights, inheritances, children rights, etc.

I don't think the point isn't saying a relationship is "valid" or not. The point is to have the privilage and option of marriage available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. There are legal issues when two people are married, which bind their finances and inheritences, hospital visits like you mentioned and other things I don't know enough about. At this point, if a gay couple were facing a situation where they needed to rely on laws that protect married people, they would not have that protection. And that's wrong.

I hope Massachusetts is strong and honest enough to stand up for what is right and for equal for all. That's what this country has always stood for, at least theoretically, and I'd be proud to be a citizen of a state that took such a stand.

On the other hand, I'm disappointed in the leaders of (my) the Catholic Church and their resistance. Don't they realize they are pushing people away from God rather than doing what should be more important, and that is accepting?

 

[martha]

Still no answers from the other side. Maybe they've given up on this thread. Maybe they have no clear legal, non-theological base for wanting homosexual marriage to be illegal.

I was looking forward to their answers. I wanted to understand their position.

 

[DrTeeth]

Maybe they have no clear legal, non-theological base for wanting homosexual marriage to be illegal.

There isn't one, but that doesn't stop the leader of the free world from taking rights away from homosexual couples.

Report: Bush plans to endorse marriage amendment

Bush plans to make a public statement shortly endorsing a constitutional amendment proposed by Colorado Republican Marilyn Musgrave that would define marriage in the United States as the union of a man and a woman, the newspaper said.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Still no answers from the other side. Maybe they've given up on this thread. Maybe they have no clear legal, non-theological base for wanting homosexual marriage to be illegal.

I was looking forward to their answers. I wanted to understand their position.

I'll just post the link - I don't know that anyone will actually read it, but at least it doesn't mention God, if that encourages anyone. It articulates very well where I am coming from, leaving out the religious aspect of it:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/939pxiqa.asp

 

[Liesje]

Still no answers from the other side. Maybe they've given up on this thread. Maybe they have no clear legal, non-theological base for wanting homosexual marriage to be illegal.

I was looking forward to their answers. I wanted to understand their position.

B/c there isn't one. My answers are entirely based on theology and religion, and if that's something you're not interested in hearing, then I can't help. Everything I believe in is based on my religion, that's part of what religion is. If you can't or aren't willing to consider the religious perspective, then you won't find the answer you're looking for and you won't be able to understand that side of the arguement.

 

[DrTeeth]

I read the article BLS posted but I read it quickly so y'all correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions. The entire article seems to revolve around the notion that marriage is solely for making babies and for providing a stable home for the kids. The author seems to have the opinion that by allowing unisex marriages, this somehow damages this notion because gay people obviously can't have kids (actually they can but that's besides the point for now). Apparently she thinks that this damage to marriage as an institution (by her definition) will somehow result in the birth of more children out of wedlock and more kids growing up with only one parent.

I will read the article again when I have some more time, but I don't think all of this will provide for a legal base to outlaw same-sex marriages seeing how it is full of subjective definitions and assumptions.

Edited to post one of the most remarkable passages in this article:

THE PROBLEM with endorsing gay marriage is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but that it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults' desires.

 

[BVS]

Yeah I read the article and basically it says if you aren't going to procreate you're f##king up the sanctity of marriage. So all you older people who remarry after you lose your spouse, all of you who can't have children or choose not to you're screwing up our country and just please leave our marriage alone and leave it to us breeders.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Well I had a biology book that said an organism is only fit if it passes on its genes, a monogamous homosexual couple, (without modern medical procedures) won't do so. Homosexuality is unfit as a biological process, because it doesn't pass on genes.

Guess what? Your biology book is wrong. Throw it away and stop repeating its nonsense.

 

[pax]

Many of the things men and women have to do to sustain their own marriages, and a culture of marriage, are hard. Few people will do them consistently if the larger culture does not affirm the critical importance of marriage as a social institution. Why stick out a frustrating relationship, turn down a tempting new love, abstain from sex outside marriage, or even take pains not to conceive children out of wedlock if family structure does not matter? If marriage is not a shared norm, and if successful marriage is not socially valued, do not expect it to survive as the generally accepted context for raising children. If marriage is just a way of publicly celebrating private love, then there is no need to encourage couples to stick it out for the sake of the children. If family structure does not matter, why have marriage laws at all? Do adults, or do they not, have a basic obligation to control their desires so that children can have mothers and fathers?

This, as I see it, doesn't have much to do with gay marriage. Gay couples could adopt children or have children by artificial means--which many infertile straight couples already do--and face the same struggles as straight couples. Of course it's important for married couples to work through their hard times and not just divorce at the drop of a hat, particularly if they have children. But straight people don't have special powers in that arena.

 

[martha]

Everything I believe in is based on my religion, that's part of what religion is. If you can't or aren't willing to consider the religious perspective, then you won't find the answer you're looking for and you won't be able to understand that side of the arguement.

You are welcome to your religious beliefs. Stop intentionally getting mixed up. The problem here in the States is that people are using their religious beliefs to make laws that discriminate against groups of people.

 

[martha]

Yeah I read the article and basically it says if you aren't going to procreate you're f##king up the sanctity of marriage.

If it really says that, then their argument is doomed to fail. I got married fully capable of having children, yet with absolutely no intention of having children. So these people might call my marriage invalid.



That's going to work.

 

[anitram]

Sure I'd say that's very cold, harsh, but that's what the biology book stated, an organism is only biologically fit, if it passes on its genes.

Wrong.

Absolute fitness, in the biological sense, is a "measure of an organism's likelihood to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection."

As for Bush - shame on him.

 

[Liesje]

You are welcome to your religious beliefs. Stop intentionally getting mixed up. The problem here in the States is that people are using their religious beliefs to make laws that discriminate against groups of people.

I'm not intentionally trying to mix things up, it just sounded like people were asking for a non-religious reason why homosexuals should not get married and I don't believe there is one. The Church has no right to influence matters of the State.

 

[martha]

Ok. I understand what you're saying now.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Further towards the end of the article:

Same-sex marriage advocates are startlingly clear on this point. Marriage law, they repeatedly claim, has nothing to do with babies or procreation or getting mothers and fathers for children. In forcing the state legislature to create civil unions for gay couples, the high court of Vermont explicitly ruled that marriage in the state of Vermont has nothing to do with procreation. Evan Wolfson made the same point in "Marriage and Same Sex Unions": "sn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie?" He goes on to say that in law, "marriage is not just about procreation--indeedis not necessarily about procreation at all."

Wolfson is right that in the course of the sexual revolution the Supreme Court struck down many legal features designed to reinforce the connection of marriage to babies. The animus of elites (including legal elites) against the marriage idea is not brand new. It stretches back at least thirty years. That is part of the problem we face, part of the reason 40 percent of our children are growing up without their fathers.

It is also true, as gay-marriage advocates note, that we impose no fertility tests for marriage: Infertile and older couples marry, and not every fertile couple chooses procreation. But every marriage between a man and a woman is capable of giving any child they create or adopt a mother and a father. Every marriage between a man and a woman discourages either from creating fatherless children outside the marriage vow. In this sense, neither older married couples nor childless husbands and wives publicly challenge or dilute the core meaning of marriage. Even when a man marries an older woman and they do not adopt, his marriage helps protect children. How? His marriage means, if he keeps his vows, that he will not produce out-of-wedlock children.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'll just post the link - I don't know that anyone will actually read it, but at least it doesn't mention God, if that encourages anyone. It articulates very well where I am coming from, leaving out the religious aspect of it:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/939pxiqa.asp

Thank you for posting this!

 

[Liesje]

Have there been any studies done on the effect it might have on kids to have two dads or two moms? Anyone know of any info on this?

 

[ThatGuy]

Even when a man marries an older woman and they do not adopt, his marriage helps protect children. How? His marriage means, if he keeps his vows, that he will not produce out-of-wedlock children.

How is this an argument against gay marriage? Let's change one word.

Even when a man marries an older man and they do not adopt, his marriage helps protect children. How? His marriage means, if he keeps his vows, that he will not produce out-of-wedlock children.

How is this any different? You could even argue for the superiority of gay marriage on this point, because even if one partner doesn't keep their vows they will never accidentally produce a child, thus keeping all children safe. I mean, really.

But perhaps I'm one of those elites with animus towards the idea of marriage. Just don't tell my wife. Or my son.

 

[DrTeeth]

Have there been any studies done on the effect it might have on kids to have two dads or two moms? Anyone know of any info on this?

It might be to early to tell since adoption by same-sex couples is a new thing. But face it, do we really need research to know if a child is better off in the hands of two loving people than it is rotting away in some shelter in Rio de Janeiro?

Now I've re-read the part BLS posted, the author seems obsessed with linking babies to marriage. Obviously she's entitled to her opinion but as long as the law doesn't require married couples to have kids, forbid children outside of wedlock or put any other legal connection between marriage and children, this boats isn't going to sail legally. And that's a good thing, in my humble opinion.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well, I can speak from experience.....

My cousin is fine. His mom and my aunt raised him. He is married and is expectinghis first child. They were and are still together. No separations, divorces ect.

I can also say this......

My Heterosexual Parents have been married a total of TEN times. My biological father=3 times
My biological mother= 5 times
My adopted father = 2 times
My three sisters and I have not one common pair of parents. What effects do you think this has on a kid growing up?

As a teacher, I see kids come through my doors over the past 10 years that are devistated when parents divorce or when DAD does not live up to being a father. And I have said it in here time and time again....Fathers are NOT doing their jobs. They are abandoning their children. I bet Martha might have some insight in this as well. I would love to see these kids in a stable home with two LOVING parents.

Were there any studies before we ended segregation of our schools to determine the effects that this would have on the kids?

Maybe if we stop bringing up kids to hate because of our differences....we would not have to worry about studies because I can tell you this....I would rather see two GAY parents in a home that love a kid, rather than what I witness on a daily basis. I know there would be less outside things getting in the way of doing what I love to do....teach.

 

[martha]

But every marriage between a man and a woman is capable of giving any child they create or adopt a mother and a father. Every marriage between a man and a woman discourages either from creating fatherless children outside the marriage vow. In this sense, neither older married couples nor childless husbands and wives publicly challenge or dilute the core meaning of marriage. Even when a man marries an older woman and they do not adopt, his marriage helps protect children. How? His marriage means, if he keeps his vows, that he will not produce out-of-wedlock children.
But every marriage between a man and a woman is capable of giving any child they create or adopt a mother and a father. Every marriage between a man and a woman discourages either from creating fatherless children outside the marriage vow. In this sense, neither older married couples nor childless husbands and wives publicly challenge or dilute the core meaning of marriage. Even when a man marries an older woman and they do not adopt, his marriage helps protect children. How? His marriage means, if he keeps his vows, that he will not produce out-of-wedlock children.

This hasn't worked for millenia. People have had children "out-of-wedlock" while being married forever.



How do we account for these fathers that have children with several women, live with none of them, yet were married to each mother at the time of conception and birth?

 

[BVS]

How is this an argument against gay marriage? Let's change one word.



How is this any different? You could even argue for the superiority of gay marriage on this point, because even if one partner doesn't keep their vows they will never accidentally produce a child, thus keeping all children safe. I mean, really.

Absolutely. The authors argument is ridiculous and holds no water.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well, I can speak from experience.....

My cousin is fine. His mom and my aunt raised him. He is married and is expectinghis first child. They were and are still together. No separations, divorces ect.

I can also say this......

My Heterosexual Parents have been married a total of TEN times. My biological father=3 times
My biological mother= 5 times
My adopted father = 2 times
My three sisters and I have not one common pair of parents. What effects do you think this has on a kid growing up?

As a teacher, I see kids come through my doors over the past 10 years that are devistated when parents divorce or when DAD does not live up to being a father. And I have said it in here time and time again....Fathers are NOT doing their jobs. They are abandoning their children. I bet Martha might have some insight in this as well. I would love to see these kids in a stable home with two LOVING parents.

Were there any studies before we ended segregation of our schools to determine the effects that this would have on the kids?

Maybe if we stop bringing up kids to hate because of our differences....we would not have to worry about studies because I can tell you this....I would rather see two GAY parents in a home that love a kid, rather than what I witness on a daily basis. I know there would be less outside things getting in the way of doing what I love to do....teach.

Thank you. . Very well put (also, I applaud what you want to do at your church, even if you may get in trouble with them for it. Way to go).

Again I ask, what business is it of anyone else's whether or not a couple brings a child into this world? Why in the world do they care?

Originally posted by oliveu2cm
I hope Massachusetts is strong and honest enough to stand up for what is right and for equal for all. That's what this country has always stood for, at least theoretically, and I'd be proud to be a citizen of a state that took such a stand.

I hope they do, too. That'd be wonderful.

And, oh, yeah-Bush sucks. .

Originally posted by oliveu2cm
On the other hand, I'm disappointed in the leaders of (my) the Catholic Church and their resistance. Don't they realize they are pushing people away from God rather than doing what should be more important, and that is accepting?

No kidding! I mean, Christianity talks about Jesus Christ, who accepted everyone for who they were...why can't some of the followers do the same?

Angela

 

[Liesje]

My three sisters and I have not one common pair of parents. What effects do you think this has on a kid growing up?

I didn't mean to try to use it as an excuse for homosexuals not to marry, but I've heard people try, that's why I asked. I'm not interested in comparisons with flawed heterosexual marriages. I just want to know if there have been any studies done on the subject (kids raised by homosexuals).

 

[Liesje]

I mean, Christianity talks about Jesus Christ, who accepted everyone for who they were...why can't some of the followers do the same?

It differs church to church. The church I grew up in traditionally believes that homosexuality is a sin. More specifically, a sin due to original sin because it doesn't involve a choice by the person. Everyone is allowed and welcomed in church because it is not the right of humankind to judge one "sin" in comparison with another. Now I only speak for my church here, but we would be more than willing to welcome and accept homosexuals into the church family. My church would never marry homosexuals and does not encourage or support homoseuxality, but they don't encourage or support drinking, prostitution, etc, etc. I think the threat that homosexuality poses to the church is because unlike other behavior the chuch classifies as "sinful", homosexuality cannot and should not be changed. Gamblers and drinkers can get help, they can and should change, but you can't make a homosexual straight. I think the church really struggles with this obvious difference from other sins.