Gay Marriage

I’ve been racking my brains recently, and cannot for the life of me understand why… why not?

I guess I’ll take the “why” position. If one accepts that the homosexual lifestyle is equally valid as heterosexuality, there’s no reason why gays shouldn’t be able to marry.

Now, the only people who are going to have an objection to this are religious types. (If you aren’t religious and instead invoke some idea of “natural law,” to me this still implies some sort of deity imposing an idea of order onto the world.) The one place in the world where religion has no place is in the state. The state is officially neutral in matters of religion. So it makes no sense for the state to discriminate against a small minority of the population for marrying according to their personal beliefs.

If one lives in a Muslim theocracy, one can’t get married according to one’s own personal convictions–you have to get married according to Islamic custom. It makes no sense for Christians in America, when they have benefitted from the fruits of the secular state so that they themselves can marry as they feel is right in the eyes of their god, to deny this same right to a small minority of the population.

We live in a country where minority rights matter. The only way this can take place is if the state is faith-neutral.

I think it was stupid of Bush to say that he will ban gay marriages if he wants to be president again. That’s gonna take a toll on him.

There’s a La-HOT of people who don’t want gay marriage. The Catholic Church is dead set against it, most people here in the south talk like it’s unnatural, and there’s just a malaise about it in general. Remember, most people you meet on the internet are to the left and/or urban; most people in the U.S. are rural and co-exist with at least one republican. I think it’s a stupid move, too, but only in so far as it paints a bad picture of anyone who votes Republican as gay bashers, when really, most aren’t. They just don’t care enough to vote otherwise and are just highly traditional.

I hope it takes a toll on him, but if you recall, in 2000 he outright stated he is dead set against gay marriage and would crush any proposal to make it legal. He still got half the votes (appx).

I’m hoping is other MAJOR fucking screw ups will stop the ignorant fucking bigot from getting back into office.

Raf, look at public opinion. In some places, people seem to be generally in favour, albeit by a few percent.

Damn, that’s kinda the feeling I was getting, but I had no numbers. Thanks TONS Meta! I never saw this site before.

Yeah, see, this is the problem with the election system. The government is pandering to the lowest common denominator of thought.

We need another Kennedy, someone with the balls to do something because it’s right, not because of public opinion. Like civil rights, or having sex with Marilyn Monroe.

why not? neither can i comprehend the state of human affairs. how is mankind or life heterosexual? how does hetrero VS homosexuality exist in the first place? is there really a pre given nature to all life?
i for one am bisexual…
why does marriage even take place in hte first place. i dont understand the need for false security based on a piece of paper.

i think the sticking point is that they want the word “marriage”. !!!IF!!! marriage is by definition the union between a man and a woman (which i think is the issue at heart, weather that is the case or not) then i think its foolish to allow two men or two woman to be married. i think it would be excellent to just drop the word marriage from our vocabulary totally and just make up a new word that encompases all the various combinations of sexes.

while i dont know this to be a fact i would imagine that alot of people if asked weather or not gays should be married they may all say no. but if you ask them weather or not gays should be alloud to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals i bet they would say sure why not. Its just the M-word thats got everyone up in a tussle.

‘Marriage’ or the bonding of the sexes was around way before the church. Gays today are being discriminated against on a social,economic, and legislative level. To deny gay marriages is also to deny tax breaks, visitation rights and a host of other rights. perhaps the people who would deny gay marriages are not seeing gay people as people who should have marriage AND these rights, but simply as people who are gay.

From a POLS student ←

Gay marriage is discrimination against sexual preference, since gay unions involve willing adults. And the argument that it opens the doors to all sorts of sexual deviancies is completely false. It is equal to the statement that “If we allow release of the wrongfully convicted, then we open the door for the release of the mass murderer.”

It also flys in the face of our seldom used Bill of Rights.

Sexual deviancies shouldn’t be illegal per se, only the ones like paedophilia that harm people. Polygamy is just as acceptable as monogamy.

what if the paedophilee (?) gave consent? is that still harm? or does age determine whether one can be left to make rational judgements?

That much is hard to say, for the definition of consent is hard.

Defining consent:
Consent is willingness givin in any persons median baseline level of reasoning, as long as it is equal or greater than a set standard.

But this is tough, and full of loopholes as well. Say a MR person has a baseline level of decision making that states, “So long as I get X, I wouldnt care if a stranger dies to give it to me.” Obviously, this statement denies the freedom of said person to mearly exist. (Besides this argument, I know a few very intelligent but unbalanced people who are perfectly able to do complex tasks, yet would not think anything of the direct harm casued by thier own selfish action)_

In short, an objective level of functional decision-making (with an emphasis on respecting peoples rights) must be set.

Without a way to accuratly measure a person’s respect for others rights and level of decision making, it is currently highly unlikly that we will be successful in making a working def on consent.

Must be done on a case by case basis.

And i would say that most children (especially younger ones) hardly qualify on several levels to grant consent.

It’s awakening when it finally hits you that our president is a belligerent god damn bigot, that is willing to legalize the creation of a second class citizen, just because of his own religious bias. But it’s a whole other feeling when you realize he embodies the majority.

lol I agree Nih.

I liked what America was supposed to stand for, not what it was executed as.

And I certainly dont like the things that dominate American politics.

Has anyone ever read the idea about “Assassination Politics?”
jya.com/ap.htm

Makes ya think. I know that the system he advocates there wouldnt work, but it is interesting.

If the Church opposes gay marriages, why do gay couples reach out to the Church in search of acceptance? Personally I’m not fond of the institution of marriage itself, but since it does exist and is a reality for most societies, then they should be legally labelling the bond between lovers, no matter what types, no matter how many. The only confusion that would spurt into debates is about the children.

Transgendered folks, or people with certain sexual preferences should not be discriminated against. It’s like saying that a dominatrix can’t have rights because of what she does in her spare time.

Laws must be updated with time and cannot be kept for the interests of the ‘bourgeoisie’, through force or tradition.

Gosh, I love Canada! :slight_smile:

Once, a long long time ago, sex occurs only within a marriage, and thus marriage was the reason and context for sex, and to fulfil the ostensible reason for sex, namely procreation.

But now people have sex in and out of marriage, and in all forms, not only between husband and wife, or man and woman: it happens between man and man, (and also men and men, and off course man and women), woman and woman, man and boys, man and girl, humans and non humans …

So then what is marriage for these times? And if marriage no longer defines the context for nor procreation the reason for sex , ie only between husband and wife for the purposes of child bearing, then what is adultery, and when do perversion begins, and what is unnatural sex?

From another perspective marriage is nothing more than a legal vehicle for two persons to share and be entitled to benefits and rights and claims due to people married, ie a legal and societal acknowledgement of two people being one and to be treated as such.

From another perspective marriage is no longer necessary, an archaic institution that is irrelevant to today’s times. And this is not so much that the legal acknowledgement is not necessary nor immaterial, but more fundamentally that the notion of unity or oneness of two people is no longer true or valid.

For just consider how many adulterous affairs goes on in so-called monogamous marriage? And if you take Jesus’ words, who said even if you lust for another in your eyes you have committed adultery, then it is conceivable that all married have committed adultery at one time or another.

So is the notion of someone your own, someone who is ‘bone of your bone and flesh of your flesh’ to whom you belong to, naturally, and for which there is a deep drive and desire to become one, to be united, bodily and spiritually, and eternally, something tenable or meaningful today?

Further there is no need for marriage to make babies. We have had test-tubes babies for a long time already and soon one day human cloning will become safe enough for practical applications. I can see no apprehensions nor moral grounds to object to cloning except that today cloning technique is more prone to creating freaks than babies. And cloning is no more artificial than what Abraham did with Hagar way back in biblical times, in that it is a human assisted process of creating a baby outside the “natural” context of sexual intercourse between husband and wife.

There is no fundamental need for gays to be married. The reason for gay marriage is pragmaticism, ie access to the legal provisions of marriage, which probably have been largely defined in the context and in support of a family, which however is an entirely different issue from mere marriage, and symbolic, namely the assertion of their right to exist.

A gay union is certainly not a family, in that the union is not for the purposes of procreation.

So marriage should be separated into the issues of becoming and being one, and the context for creating and raising a family. From this view then the issue in gay marriage is only whether the state or the law should disallow two, or conceivable, more than two, people, to share everything amongst themselves and to be treated, as one, as a single entity, and to have the rights, entitlement or benefits (or obligations), etc freely transferrable between the parts of the entity. And in the eyes of the law the parts of the entity are indistinguishable from the entity itself.

And I do not see any reasonable objection to such a right of individuals in a free country.

Maybe so, but societies have been sexually permissive than not (Polygamous societies are more common than monogamous [I’m not trying to convert anyone :sunglasses:]). Even when societies aren’t permissive, a furtive (and, in my opinion, hypocritical) sexual decadence tends to flourish.
And on another note, I really want someone to argue (or at least attempt to argue) against gay marriage. Or is too weak a position to argue?

I have never defined marriage as one man one woman.

I have alluded to two persons being ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ to each other.

But I will not at all be surprised if your observation that polygamy is more common is true. For can there not be more than one person who is your ‘bone of your bone and flesh of your flesh’?

And what has gender or even sex got to do with such a person? someone who is yours, belongs to you, “naturally”, and someone perhaps ordained even before the beginning of time.