»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
This whole gay-marriage fiasco
| The Alley |
|
This whole gay-marriage fiasco |
|
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
All right, here goes. Let's let fly with this keg of worms I'm getting ready to open. It's probably not a secret that I am an adamant, very staunch supporter of gay rights. I feel very strongly that the GLBT population is one of the last entire populations faced with massive social and legal prejudice and injustice. I also feel very strongly that as long as people are not hurting other people, by and large, they should be allowed to do what they want. To deny equal rights to somebody because of the gender of the consenting adult they share their bed with is abhorrent. Plain and simple. I understand that there is a very strong sentiment that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also understand that in Christianity (the faith of 80-some% of our nation) homosexuality is a very serious sin. I'm fine with both of those things. But it's not like the Catholic (or baptist, or whatever) church is being forced to marry these couple. There are certain faiths (even some offshoots of Christianity) that will marry same-sex couples. Isn't it an infringement upon their religious freedom to deny them that? And isn't it also a slap in the face the the separation of church and state to attempt to use the constitution, a document normally used to preserve rights and freedoms, to take away a freedom... a right of two consenting adults based on a tradition of Judeo-Christian morality? I mean, what good reason is there to ban gay marriage besides "The Bible says it's wrong" or, more simply "It makes me uncomfortable." The moral decay of society? Please, I can think of things more morally decaying... how 'bout let's put some money into our schools and get some better safe-sex education programs for kids? And how 'bout let's not let soda companies buy the right's to the kids' school (as well as their teeth!) I can name off endless problems more pressing than gay marriage- which I can't even conceive as a "problem." Let's leave individual freedoms (and state autonomy, for that matter) intact. I strongly suggest taking 5-minutes out of your reading schedule to visit congress.org and voice your opinion to your senators and representative... even if I disagree with you... I mean this is a democracy. Make noise. Be heard. Rant over. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 hush - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring this up, hush. (I'm in agreement with you too, btw.) Since you do seem so knowledgeable regarding these issues, something I have been curious about (but admittedly lazy on the research) is what happens to the legalities of the conventional male/female marriage when one of the partners undergoes a sex change? Is there some sort of "grandfather" (er, heh? grandmother???) clause that maintains(ed) the legal provisions and various tax breaks accorded them previously? Or does the spouse maintain their legal sexual designation? Forgive my ignorance--it's late or early (depending on if you've slept--I haven't. sigh.) |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I think it's ridiculous to propose a Constitutional Amendment outlawing same sex marriages. What a waste of time and energy. This is a personal decision and shouldn't be dictated! What if the president was gay? Would he/she ban heterosexual unions? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
edited "If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead." [This message has been edited by Opeth (03-03-2004 10:59 AM).] |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Make no mistake this isn't just about the bible or anyone’s comfort level... this is about money. The insurance companies, for example, think they want to have to cover a same sex partner? If same sex partners were allowed to marry, they would then have all the rights that any other married couples have and that makes people nervous. Medical coverage, dental, spousal privileges in a court of law. I don't need to name them all...we know. This country has a very bad habit of letting the politicians and media influence our thinking. And it's industry that influences theirs... (As I finished typing this, colors started playing, lol...who says the higher power doesn't have a sense of humor?) |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
edited [This message has been edited by Opeth (03-03-2004 11:01 AM).] |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I am personally not in favor of the gay "marriage" thing... legally binding civil unions wherein both partners are afforded the legal protections of insurance, tax breaks, etc. is something I am fully able to and willing to support at the top of my lungs with all of my power, however, my Christian-judeo beliefs will not allow me to support what I have been taught is designed to provide for procreation. And before THAT argument gets started, no, it is not manditory for one to get married to have children. I got married because I was going to have a child. It is just my strong belief that marriage is for opposite sex unions. AS for the constitutional amendment?? I am a Republican, and I support the president on most of his policies... but WHAT IN THE HELL IS HE THINKING ABOUT???????????????????? If he wants to propose a Constitutional Amendment, how about an amendment requiring models to walk around topless... That would be much more effective, much more fun to enforce, and he would haev just about as much of a chance of getting it passed. Just my thoughts Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Serenity... I'm lol but that is a really good point. Sharon... a gay president? As far as I know, no president of ours has ever been unmarried... so this issue just screws all the potential gay candidates right there. Susan... on a political level, I'd say that's a good point, but what about the general public? Come on, be honest. Most of us attach some sort of unflattering term to insurance companies... it's not that the average joe doesn't want to fork out more money for insurance. It just makes them uncomfortable. That's how my father is. I actually had to tell him we just weren't going to have this conversation when he let "They get to live together... isn't that enough?" out of his mouth. Ringo- do you mean that you, personally think it's wrong for gay couples to wed or that it's wrong for them to have the right to do so? And what is Bush thinking? He's thinking "hey, let's get the democrats all in a tizz over a very divisive issue and grab some swing voters!" |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
This isn't the simple issue that both sides often make it out to be. Those who want to argue that marriage and procreation are inextricably linked are going to inevitably find themselves on tenuous ground. Barren lovers are forbidden to marry? Sixty-year-old widowers must spend the rest of their life alone? Any limitations they want to place on marriage have to be placed across the board and I think will inevitably lead to horrible discriminations. Family may be the result of marriage, but it is not the reason for marriage, as anyone who has ever been alone already knows. However, those who want to remove all limitations on marriage will find themselves on equally tenuous ground. Consenting adult covers a whole lot of ground beyond just same-sex couples. What if the two consenting adults are already married? If everyone involved consents, should polygamy be sanctioned by the state? What if the two consenting adults happen to be brother and sister? Father and daughter? It's very difficult to argue that any two people who love each other should enjoy the same rights as any other two people in love without crossing lines very, very few would be willing to cross. I've heard estimates that there are about 2,000 legal benefits that accrue to married couples that are denied to unmarried couples. The questions I think we should be asking is why those benefits exist. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Probably the topic of discussion should be This whole 'marriage' fiasco...  regards sudhir |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Hush- my thoughts are that gay couples should be allowed to live as life-partners, and be afforded all of the legal rights and responsibilities of hetero-sexual married couples (last I heard, that is what was meant by "civil union"), including tax, insurance and medical rights (allowing or dis-allowing medical treatment in case of disability) and any other rights and responsibilities that come along with it. I would just not- were I in the position to do so- allow them the marriage certificate, and the entire "traditional" routine. Putting it as simply as I can, there are several states that allow "common law" marriages. It might be a matter of semantics, however THAT is the arrangement that I would support. Should same-sex marriages be brought into law, then I will support them 100%. It is just my thoughts that the law should not be made. blaze- If one partner were to get a sex change from a guy into a girl (or vice versa) why would any gay man want to be married to him...uh... her... uh... well, you know what I mean. I have a copuple of gay friends that I hit with this scenario just about an hour ago (in response to your post) and they made some kind of off-color remark about it being too close to actualy "breeder sex". hush- one more thing that I missed... James Buchannon was a bachelor throughout his term as President. He was engaged when he was in his 20's sometime, however she died, and he stayed unmarried. Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ringo? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/marr07.shtml This was more along the lines of what I was thinking. And by the way? I know one couple personally who was married. He decided that he was a woman trapped in a man's body. She thought she could deal with that too. She was very supportive of him as he explored this newfound facet of his personality. They did eventually divorce, however, but it had nothing to do with his discovery of his "inner woman." It turned out he was prettier than her--yep--she wanted to be the |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
btw, Jim... I did say that GLBT are one of the last massively discriminated against groups in today's society. I also think that MRDD, as well as the obese, are in that category (however with the growing population that is obese, I see that trend whittling down almost as a matter of necessity, at least among the general public. The media is another story...) I also think the more obvious/looked down upon forms of prejudice, like sexism, racism, classism, and ageism are still very much a force in today's society... but I think that the awareness of these issues has made them less socially acceptable to be expressed openly. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
I don't really care who lives/sleeps with whom as long as I am not involved. You can call a unicycle a bicycle if it makes people happy; it just doesn't make it one. I think the issue (as a political/media tempest) is silly, but then I have always thought the romantic nonsense of marriage to be silly also. Any formalized relationship which uses the death of any one or of all partners as one of the primary indicators of success is a little twisted. Personally, I would love to have gay couples share in the burden of the marriage penalties in taxes. |
||
|
Titia Geertman Member Ascendant
since 2001-05-07
Posts 5182Netherlands |
They can always move to my country, we just don't have those problems overhere. Same sex marriages are legal in het whole country. LOL no serious, I'm with you all the way Hush. I see marriage as a confirmed bond between two people who love each other, Hetero people have a choice in getting married or not, then why not homo people. I've a hetero daughter and a homo daughter, they both found partners to their liking and I really see no difference between those two. My Mom, who's almost 93 said: 'Never thought I would get a granddaughter in law', but she's as welcome as any grandson in law would have been'. And I'm sure she would be the first to kiss the bride and the bride, if they ever should decide to get married. But...as many hetero couples these days (my other daughter included) they don't see the point in getting married right now. It always amazes me how intolerant most people are (and that includes many subjects). Marriage is just an institution to make clear that two people are bonded, it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever, that's just what mankind has turned it in to. Only about some 50 years back it was a sin to live together without getting married and look around now.... So, if two people wish to bond their relationship, why should it matter if they are the same sex or not. I can't see it any other way. Titia Like scattered leaves...my words will flow |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
don't mind me--just couldn't get the page to load...  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
