Gay Marriage

[ilovemyguitar]

Gay marriage has been brought up in the "God" discussion, and I think it's gotten to the point where it should have its own topic. So I'm starting one. Discuss.

[Darkgeohound]

I think it should be legal. Why shouln't homosexuals be aloud to marry whom they want to just like eveyone else? It is their life, let them do with it what they see fit.

[GhaleonOne]

Just a note, like the God thread, if anything goes overboard, I'll lock it. I personally feel this topic has the fuel to turn into a flamewar much more than the last, so let's keep it civil everyone.

[ilovemyguitar]

I think gay marriage should be made legal (and not simply because it would mean I could get married). Most of the arguments I hear that oppose gay marriage involve religion, God's will, etc., and while I respect those beliefs, I believe that church and state are and should be separate. And as for marriage being a religious institution, well, atheists can get married. So yeah, that's my argument for gay marriage.

[NallOne]

I am for it, but I'm not going into reasons why. I'm gay, so obviously I want to marry the person I love one day. No matter how hard I try to keep an open mind, I can't respond to this without being completely biased, so I'll leave it at my vote and not get involved in any larger discussion on the issue.

[Jenner]

Posts made in the God Thread could be moved over to this one. *lazy*

I support Gay Marriage because Homosexuals are human beings, same as anyone else, with human feelings and inalienable human rights that cannot be taken away from them. Same-Sex couples have the same legal right to marraige and all its benefits as Heterosexual couples. There is no legitimate legal reason to ban homosexual marriage, nothing criminal about homosexuality, and unfair to deny a same-sex couple the benefits of a legally recognized pairing on the basis of religious bias/preference.

I support Homosexual marriage for all these reasons.
But also because it's the right and tolerant thing to do.

[MiaOne]

Love knows no boundries, race, gender, nor sexuality. Who are we to twist it's definition and make the ultimate expression of love (in society's standards) forbidden to some based on simple prejudice? And prejudice it is...no matter how many people have sworn that "god" has deemed it "unnatural and wrong." Other prejudices that we scorn and find appauling now once held just as much ground as this thought that we can control what people do. Their marriage isn't hurting a single soul and their own soul is between their personal faith and interaction with that they believe in and themselves not you, a chruch, or goverment.

That is my opinion. Flame me needlessly and I will not reply. Have an intellectual and polite counter to this? I will discuss.

And if anyone is confused. I am in full and absolute support of gay marriages.

[Silver Phoenix]

Haha, I wonder how many Lunar loving homos are out there. I believe marriage is based on love, and commitment, not a penis and a vagina. They make it an issue, because they need to have something to fight against when it comes to homosexuals wanting equal rights. Two gays getting married is not a threat to the state of marriage where a man and a woman is concerned, it's a threat to idealism in a bigoted world where words in a book can give anyone a reason to attack anything that people view as unholy, or unnatural.

I always saw Lunar as a good example of true life, where the Goddess Althena gives up her power to allow human beings to make the choices in their life, be it good or bad. Simply put, free will. We have that same ability, and within our free will lies the choices of faith, lifestyle, and the paths we take in life. There are people that don't want us to be happy, simply because they view us as abominations to the standard way of life.

They need to realize that life takes all forms, and forever shall, because that is truly the way of nature. I'm gay, and if some hot sexy man with a good heart that truly loves me wants to put a ring on my finger, I want to be able to say yes, and regardless of what any contract says I will be married to him. I say if anyone is lucky enough to find someone that truly loves them in this world, marriage should be the easiest of complications.

[Ramza]

There are people that don't want us to be happy, simply because they view us as abominations to the standard way of life.

It is true that those people do exist. They ought to scare everyone. Though this may be a stereotype in itself, it seems that people like this have a lot of "issues" of their own that they'd be better off working out than hiding...really weird issues that sometimes are harming others. (a completely fictional example is found in the film Donnie Darko, where a man who claims to have everything figured out based on the idea of "fear" and "love, a man who seems to be the perfect white suburban conservative bachelor, turns out to be in charge of a kiddy porn ring).

But I hope you realize that there are plenty of people who are opposed to the idea of marriage between two members of the same gender, not because they want homosexuals to be unhappy, but because it is a redefinition of marriage that blurs and confuses lines in all sorts of ways. Many people don't think this is the case, perhaps because many people already have a lowered view of marriage. Perhaps it is true that, because people (of all walks of life) have already changed their view of marriage so entirely, that marriage does actually have a redefinition that is unspoken. What I am getting at here is what Aristotle would call the unwritten law, or "custom." Aristotle believed that custom was just as important as written law, because when a new law was in need of creating because some new situation arose, custom would then be in need of writing.

So, if it turns out that the world already believes "marriage" as a word refers to two people, regardless of gender, gettin' together for life etc etc, then there's little I can do to change that. For now, I'd rather see the debate continue.

If, for some reason, you still believe that I (and all those like me) actually ARE the angry narrow-minded folk that really DON'T want homosexuals to be happy, I'd ask you to read Thomas Sowell's "Vision of the Anointed." It's a book about activists, lobbyists, and other folk who begin to believe it's okay to demonize anyone that's against them because they cannot believe that anyone could be against them for any legitimate reason. Obviously, then, the title is sarcastic in nature. Sowell proposes that the solution to these people with "anointed vision" is to have what he calls a "tragic vision", one of compromise. That is, people disagree about stuff, and oftentimes it is for legitimate reasons. We will have to find a way to work it out, even in politics, and we will need to compromise, even in politics. I am willing to stretch my own beliefs (which were, and at some times are, shallow or narrow-minded) if the person on the other side is too. If the other side is unable to do anything but go to rally protests and be pissed at the world, there's nothing we can do about that.

That's a huge aside on HOW the debate is being handled, by the way.

That said, I voted for civil unions. The more I think about it, the more I think "perhaps the government shouldn't recognize ANY form of marriage, and leave it up to the church, and give benefits only through civil unions...?" It's an interesting alternative, eh?

Ramza

[Coley Lou]

Hrm as a great comic once said "Let homosexuals get married. They should be allowed to be as misserable as the rest of us."

[Sonic#]

That said, I voted for civil unions. The more I think about it, the more I think "perhaps the government shouldn't recognize ANY form of marriage, and leave it up to the church, and give benefits only through civil unions...?" It's an interesting alternative, eh?

Ah, but this would also be rewriting the definition of marriage, wouldn't it? Marriage has been integrated into the government for a long time now, and is done at the level of state governments, if I remember right. Such a change would be mind-blowing for me. I don't know why. A comfort of familiarity, I guess.

It just occured to me that the definition of marriage on an individual basis will vary widely. And, as you say, this word meaning must be reconciled between most of us in order to take an appropriate action.

And then your talk about the lobbyists... that's just it. It's very difficult to agree, when one person's definition is seen by the other as wrong. Not simply aberrant, or deviating, but as an evil alternative. I'm guilty of this too. I think that a definition of marriage between a man and a woman to be disrespectful to what a marriage means for me, not a procreating bond, but one of love and commitment, regardless of the ability to have natural children.

Now I really forget who mentioned this (was it in the God thread?), but he/she said basically that if marriage was for having children, then why do we not limit the infertile, impotent, and those that simply do not wish to have kids? They're allowed anyhow. So the definition I just gave is flawed? It seems more complicated than that, and the thoughts race, why would we limit people for something they can't help? And if we shouldn't, then why do we limit homosexuals? Their orientation is something that I believe they can't help.

Tragic vision... compromise. The thing with this issue, and some others, is that people do not want to compromise on something they see as a moral issue. I don't. The three-fifths compromise in the Constitution... I wouldn't have wanted to do that, acknowledging a depraved institution, but it was necessary in order to accomplish many other positives. Plus, they predicted that slavery would eventually not be economically viable. A prediction that proved false, but it was eventually righted after the Civil War, and the progression toward righting that completely continues, though now it's more of a social struggle than anything else. We've taken leaps and bounds there.

Why can't we do the same here? I would offer this on the assumption that eventually my side would right itself, and the other side would probably do the same. But yet... why can't we leave the legal definition of marriage alone, for now, not banning anything and not explicitly allowing it either?

I'm not familiar to the legal definition, which is precisely why I ask. It would be good to understand the written law at least before we talk about it further.

[Aaron]

I completely oppose civil or gay marriages...call me a backwater but I don't believe it's right.

[Audric]

No gay marrige tyvm

[drumlord]

I love how the argument with these tends to get into definitions and redefining things. For one, that's a matter of linguistics. You're (collective, general you, not a particular person here) arguing over semantics rather than the actual issues at hand. Before I go on, a simple linguistics 101 is probably in order. First off, marriage is currently defined as a union between a man and a woman. Most places won't define it any further, because definitions are supposed to be as minimalist as possible. But to get the linguistics 101 out of the way, the purpose of a dictionary and definitions is not to tell people how things are defined, but rather to catalog the general use of words.

So to relate that to this topic, if English speaking people generally use marriage to refer to only man-woman relationships, then that is precisely what it means. But if people generally consider homosexual relationships as candidates for marriage, then the actual definition is different than the existing ones. Most people don't understand that, but dictionaries do not dictate the use of a language; that's a common misconception spread by English teachers. There's a reason words like "funner" get added to the dictionary. If enough people regularly use it as a word, then it is one.

But that's enough on linguistics. Note I wasn't arguing whether or not marriage should mean one thing or another. I'm just trying to show that that argument is moot. You're technically arguing about nothing, particularly since legal documents will commonly refine definitions to be absolutely clear, so even accepted written definitions are changed anyway.

Beyond the linguistics crap though, I would argue the REAL issue to be discussed is whether or not a gay couple should be able to share the same legal rights and priveleges as a straight couple under a legally binding contract. A marriage license is just a contract signed between two parties, witnessed, and filed in a town hall. Regardless of your personal definition or whether you believe that a marriage is directly tied to love of God, you should not ignore that legally, it is a very simple contract. Upon the filing of said contract, there are certain tax write-offs and other priveleges you get.

So what it comes down to is whether or not you believe gay couples should be allowed to sign such a contract or not. Do you wish to segregate a group of people or not?

There is the side issue of civil unions. That's basically just the solution for people who really can't get past the word "marriage" being on the document. The crux of the issue is still whether or not gay couples are allowed to enter into a legally binding union contract together, but using the words "civil union" puts to rest those that would rather not use the word marriage. Considering the accepted use of the word marriage to be a man and a woman, this seems to be the best solution to this issue for all parties involved.

Personally, I could care less about gay people getting married. I can respect those who want to hold onto the current meaning of marriage. But I find it hard to respect those who want to restrict the rights of their citizens. It is un-American to segregate people based on their beliefs.

[GhaleonOne]

I'm with Rich in that a lot of it all seems to be in a matter of how things are worded. Though I was curious who voted against gay marriage, considering neither me nor Ramza did. Either way, this isn't a black and white issue. It never has been. People have tried to make it out to be, but it's just not. But then, very few issues are black and white issues anymore. I just wish some people could see that and debate their side of an argument like this, understanding that not everyone is going to agree, and that debate is actually healthy on issues like this. as it shows many sides of the equation.

I guess what I'm saying is, regardless of some moments of tension, things have been posted fairly respectful (at least compared to other forums I've seen) on this topic, the God topic, and the pornography issue. For the most part, things have remained calm, so I wanted to thank everyone posting for not getting into any flamewars.

[Alunissage]

I don't approve of homosexuality on religious grounds. (This does not mean I abuse or refuse to associate with people who are homosexual any more than I refuse to people who have sex outside of marriage, which I also disapprove of.) That said, it's hard for me to get worked up one way or another on the subject of gay marriage. Since society in general has recognized the lifestyle, it seems rather silly to make a fuss about this last form of recognition. It's not like denying marriage to homosexuals will make them give up their lifestyle. The idea of marriage has already been weakened by allowing divorce on frivolous grounds (and by marrying for citizenship, Las Vegas one-hour ceremonies, etc), so I'm not sure I see that this would weaken it further. So, while I don't like the lifestyle, I don't think that there's much point in forbidding people who practice it to marry.

[Ramza]

Most people don't understand that, but dictionaries do not dictate the use of a language; that's a common misconception spread by English teachers. There's a reason words like "funner" get added to the dictionary. If enough people regularly use it as a word, then it is one.

But that's enough on linguistics. Note I wasn't arguing whether or not marriage should mean one thing or another. I'm just trying to show that that argument is moot. You're technically arguing about nothing, particularly since legal documents will commonly refine definitions to be absolutely clear, so even accepted written definitions are changed anyway.

As an anthropology major, I myself am pretty familiar with the world of linguistics, and I am glad you pointed this out. If a word comes into regular use, or a regularly used word is granted a new meaning, then it is ACTUALLY a different word, whether or not the dictionary says so. It is the dictionary that will need updating later, not the people's understanding.

However, I don't think the argument is moot, and I'm fairly certain the argument isn't about "nothing."

To make my point, I'm going to have to make a wildly fictional example, because I cannot for the life of me think of one that is similar to marriage and also in any way realistic. So just bear with me.

---
The Catholic Church, which practices a set of "seven sacraments" as part of its systematic sacramental theology (as a means of receiving grace), is up against the wall. A new fad has begun among churchgoers, both Protestant and Catholic, that is literally changing the meaning of the word "sacrament."

The fad is to declare every single action that cannot be deemed "sinful" as sacramental. So, instead of the Eucharist (the eating of bread and drinking of wine that symbolizes / actually is the body of Christ) as one sacrament, eating pizza and drinking coke is now believed to be a way in which God transmits not just common but special/divine/salvific grace upon mankind. The definition of sacrament has expanded among Protestants and lay Catholics, simply because they have made it so.

What, exactly, should the Pope do about this conundrum? (You may pick more than one answer, or make up your own answer, but here are a few examples):

1) attempt to realign the Holy Catholic Church into seeing that traditionally, the "Sacraments" refer to seven specific things, and that to expand the definition in their word usage is *wrong* of them.

2) Allow them to use the word "sacrament" in reference to these everyday activities, and now choose a NEW word to mean what the word "sacrament" USED to mean, before people decided it would be a good idea to expand the definition.

3) Submit to the will of the masses and change the church's theology to go with what everyone else is saying: pizza and coke will remove your sins, because as we all know, coke can take rust off of a car!

4) Start a Holy War against the dissident lay Catholics, killing all those who would consider the eating of pizza and coke an act of receiving divine grace.
---

So you see what I mean: marriage, "holy matrimony", and the like, have for ALL of recorded history referred to the joining of man and woman. If people of our day and time want to use the word to refer to something else, I cannot STOP them, but I certainly think it is a bad idea. Furthermore, if I am to desire to enter into marriage as it has traditionally been understood, what new word or additional clause do I add to my title as "married" since the definition has now been expanded in a way that I disagree upon?

The meaning of a word, in other words, is not pointless. Certain words, those that have always referred to a specific idea (for marriage, it has generally been understood by all people of all times as the joining of a man and a woman into living together, "doing life" together, havin' sex, and usually, makin' babies) seem to be better off unaltered. So, if homosexuals are asking for the definition to be expanded, YES, it DOES cause confusion, and it DOES lead to all sorts of problems for all sorts of people.

Of course, this is ALL an argument from a religious and cultural perspective. I know every last one of you is just itching to throw in "well politics is SEPARATE from all that." Well, we're supposed to be anyway. Practically every other country in the world merges politics with a "state religion" (usually implied these days: and yes, atheism can be counted as a religion, see France). IMO, church and state are left separate even if the state agrees with the church about the impossibility of gay "marriage"...thus allowing the state to use a word NOT already "taken" (if you will) by religious institutions, that is, Civil Union.

Honestly, I have no idea how much it will affect me personally or this nation as a whole if gay marriage becomes widely recognized as legitimate. My initial suspicions are that it would continue us down the path of advanced pluralism (against which I am generally opposed), but perhaps it would have minimal impact after all. It's obviously a positive in the eyes of those who want it, but that would be about it for the plus side.

Not that I'm trying to do some math, like a utilitarian would. Just considering what it would mean for the future.

Ramza

EDIT - In reply to Alunissage's remarks:

This is generally my sentiment as well, except that I would rather hold out hope that marriage (as it was once understood) could be restored, and that divorce on frivolous grounds would also stop. That may never happen, but I will do what I can to try to persuade people that it is overall a better decision for society if we keep the traditional definition of marriage.

Side question: if we should allow gay marriage, should we not ALSO allow polygamy? If not, why not? Why shouldn't the state recognize one guy and two women who want to live together and be happy together? Your thoughts...

[Coley Lou]

About the Civil Unions, there's one problem there.

As for Nebraska a few years ago they were trying to pass a law allowing civil unions, by legal deffinition of what a "traditional" civil union is, not in regards to homosexual "marriage". Anyway civil unions, in the eyes of the Nebraskan legislature, would allow business partners to abuse tax breaks allowed to married couples.

So let's say Sarah and myself want to join in a civil union, we're both married to men, but we want to join into a civil union because of our business prospects, thus bringing us double the tax breaks we would receive on behalf of our company along with our personal finances.

Now let's say we're not married, but still not homosexual, we'd still be getting this tax break that really isn't what the government intended it to be used for in the first place.

Now Nebraska is hella conservative. And I won't venture far to say that banning civil unions on those grounds was an easy out of saying "We don't want homos 'marrying' in our state."

Anyway there's a legal look at what a civil union originally was intended to be.

As for polygomy. I have no problem with it. It doesn't bug me. I've always wanted my own harem. In fact I work with a couple Sudanese gentleman who have more then one wife. And it is their tradition that the two eldest sons from each women will grow to be the closests of friends and protect eachother in the future from onsault.

At anyrate, I did find it very funny the whole story. And proceded to tease Anthony often about it whenever his wife called. As he was discussing with us one night that he wanted a second wife, and Moubir already had two wives. So whenever Anthony's wife would call I would always say "Anthony one of your wives is on line one." over the intercom And they told me the stories of how they were married and stuff. Moubir had to pay 50 cows for each of his wives, and Anthony had to pay 40 for his. Tipkwan on the other hand told me that he couldn't remember how he got married, and that it was on accident and he was hoping he wouldn't have to pay anything even if that was like 20 years ago

Btw, all of these men are Christian. I guess misionary work only can intrude into social tradition so far. And while they most certainly understand only one of their marriages are recognized here, it doesn't mean they can't still get more wives.

As long as it's consentual, I see nothing wrong with polygamy.

[Jenner]

We did allow polygamy, for awhile. Men can still have mistresses. I assume that more then one person could enter into a contract with another, legally, even if it's a marriage contract.

but it wouldn't make sense.

with two people, the tax benefits and exemptions stack and become profitable. But, with three or more people involved it gets a little confusing. Especially when it comes down to claiming offspring and ownings for tax deductions. Not to mention that three or more people make too much income together and will start taking losses. It's bad business.

Overall very hectic and legally confusing.

But hey if someone wants the hassle of that much financial obligation, I'll support it. ABC can film it and make it a reality show.

[Ramza]

Btw, all of these men are Christian. I guess misionary work only can intrude into social tradition so far. And while they most certainly understand only one of their marriages are recognized here, it doesn't mean they can't still get more wives.

Good to know you already have such a negative outlook on the nature of missionary work. I myself hope to be a long-term missionary.

AND I'll have you know that I'm writing my senior thesis on polygamy in other cultures: how missionaries have handled it, and how missionaries should handle it.

Now, mind you that this is barring all politics (because my thoughts about what America ought to do with polygamy is different than what I think the Church should do about polygamy).

Though I'm not done the paper in the least, I believe my conclusion is coming together in my mind rather quickly. And that conclusion is that it is not up to missionaries to convince the "new" Christians they work with that polygamy is wrong. In fact, the Bible never roundly condemns the practice at all (nor does it ever condemn slavery). This can be chalked up to "cultural blahblah blah of the time", but most moderate-to-liberal Christian theologians agree that this was God's way of step-by-step getting us to the point where we see that slavery, while not a sin (like murder is obviously a sin), certainly isn't ideal. Same would go with polygamy. It's generally just a bad idea, but you and your culture need to figure that out for yourselves.

Thus, missionaries would be out of line in asking a man to recognize only one (his first or his favorite) wife as his official, and then divorcing or abstaining from "relations" with all the others. Missionaries would also be out of line in demanding that the church of the area teach future generations that monogamy is the only reasonable form of marriage: that is for the local pastor to discern.

The interesting thing about my conclusion is that I'm not saying much of anything new: I'm drawing this from the work of missionaries in the last half-century: both Catholic and Protestant.

Seems to me you're misinformed about missionaries. Of course, since you're not one, don't plan to be one, and probably aren't that close with any, I shouldn't expect you to know. But now you know.

Ramza

EDIT - Jenner, keeping the purely legal/political/governmental perspective in mind, you're absolutely right about polygamy being a different ball of wax than homosexual marriage. The economic aspect is wildly different. All I was saying is that, if we're going to expand the definitions and reduce the limits on marriage, we may as well put polygamy back into play. Of course, I think it's a bad idea for our society, but hey, I'm not in control am I?

DOUBLE EDIT - Wow Coley, sorry for skipping the majority of your post! Thanks for the info on Civil Union, I will admit that it's something I don't quite understand. Perhaps laws could be set up so that there is a particular type of "civil union" for homosexual partners (and even heterosexual partners that would prefer to not be considered "married", y'know like common law marriage)? That, in my mind, keeps the separation of church and state even more distinct.