Homosexual Marriage?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Vertana
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:28 am UTC

Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Vertana » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:54 pm UTC

This isn't another is it right or wrong thread. I'm throwing that out there right now, preemptive strike style. More importantly than that, I want to know why you think that it is wrong or right. This concern is fueled by the fact that I just briefly caught a segment of the Daily Show where one of their reporters (using this term losely, I realize) asked a Republican about homosexual marriage and the Republican (didn't catch his name, but he was an average Joe Republican) said that he did not believe in homosexual marriages and they should not happen. Immediately (and I mean immediately) after he made that comment... he went on to say why should someone have special privileges because of their sexual preference. The irony of his statement blew my mind. The fact that you believe it is right or wrong is all but irrelevant (please don't turn this into a flame war-style thread); instead I want to know your reasoning behind your beliefs. For instance, I think it is absolutely wrong to deny marriage to someone based solely on sexual preference while heterosexual couples have absolutely no trouble getting married. In my eyes, it's all about equality. In other words denying homosexual marriages is exactly the same as denying interracial marriages. But honestly, I just want to take a look at the other side (for the simple fact, that I want to know what the guy was thinking when he said the above comment). Please expand on your reasoning. For instance instead of answering with it's against my religion please tell me the religion and what specific belief it interferes with. If you're uncomfortable with making your answer available to public just PM it to me. I'm just curious is all, nothing more, nothing less.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Gunfingers » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:19 pm UTC

My favorite (and by favorite i mean it made me laugh the most) argument against gay marriage was that homosexuals had in fact not been denied any rights by banning gay marriage, as they still had the same opportunity to marry a member of the opposite sex that non-homos had.

For my personal beliefs, i don't view it as right or wrong at all. It's just a thing for consenting adults to do that doesn't hurt anyone but them. Doesn't even hurt them much, it just leaves their butts a little sore! *giggle*

But seriously, it doesn't hurt anyone and therefore it shouldn't be illegal. Libertarianism is Serious Business.

Webzter
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Webzter » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:00 pm UTC

It'd break the dictionary!

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage


They'd have to simplify it down to "The state of being united to a person consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" and we can't go around randomly changing the meaning of words like that, I mean, bummer dude, that'd be wicked lame.

I see marriage as two events. For some, it's a religious ceremony. However, for everyone, it's a contractual agreement between two consenting people. If we can't separate the two mentally, then I'd prefer that government stop recognizing marriage at all. Call them all civil unions and be done.

As a counter-argument then, which I hope won't be a straw man, where would one logically draw the line? If two people can get married, then why not three or four?

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Gunfingers » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Well...why not? The slippery slope argument is a common one and i laugh because i'm completely okay with going all the way down that slope. Bigamy, polygamy, and marrying animals are all perfectly okay with me so long as every person consents.

Buttons
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 3:27 pm UTC
Location: Somerville

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Buttons » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:19 pm UTC

Gunfingers wrote:Bigamy, polygamy, and marrying animals are all perfectly okay with me so long as every person consents.

Animals can't give consent, though.

We're going to draw the line where society thinks we need to draw the line. In this case, forbidding gay marriage hurts a lot of families. If our society gets to the point where polygamist families are common and there's some compelling reason to allow hypermarriages (sorry, I'm a graph theorist), then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

User avatar
the_stabbage
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:05 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby the_stabbage » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:41 pm UTC

I think the government shouldn't involve itself in marriage at all. As in, the religious ceremony part. If church A wants to let gays marry but chuch B won't marry them, let them do as they want. What is now "marriage" under the law should be renamed "civil union", and then people with civil unions can go get married if they want, and people who are married can get civil unions if they want. There should be an age restrictions for civil unions, maybe like 18, and another one for marriage ceremonies, maybe 16 or so to please everyone. As long as marriage ceremonies do not become legally binding. In all cases, heterosexual, homosexual, and perhaps especially polyamorous civil unions, there should be a check to make sure they aren't doing it to evade taxes. We want to avoid whole companies being in civil union to save a few thousand bucks.

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:53 pm UTC

I think the problem is that we take a word, marriage, that has deep religious implications to many, many people, and try to use it in civil life in a different way.

The solution is civil. Marriage is a religious thing defined by the religions, the government procedure is called civil unions for everyone, and is open to any two eligible* people.

Eligible is for things like age, mental competance, and non-related for example.

There is an argument that there is no need for civil unions at all, but I think it's a useful way of bestowing a slew of rights on someone of your choice.


Edit: That will teach me to read the whole thread before responding.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby juststrange » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:59 pm UTC

Agreeing with all the above.

Marriage is a tricky term, if you can find a church that will marry 2 folks of the same sex, thats the decision of that church and honestly none of anyone elses business outside of that church.

The largest dissonance I see is that since they cannot be legally united, that is, on paper as opposed to "in the eyes of g-d" or what have you. This leads to loss of tax benefit, death benefits, social aid, life insurance, car insurance, etc etc etc. Any form that allows you to fill in a spouse they are officially getting screwed on, and thats just wrong. These are out brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, children, etc. They deserve the same protection/aid in the eyes of the law as the rest of us.

Vertana
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:28 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Vertana » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:08 pm UTC

I could see why polyamorous relationships are not legally recognized. That could lead to all kinds of loopholes, tax rewrites, and new legislation. Same sex marriages would require changing the definition as said above and rewording current laws and policies to be gender neutral. There are plenty of legal staff members within the government with nothing to do... this could be accomplished. This would require very little funds (if only to republish laws on hard copies) and is seemingly in contrast with America's "equal" standing. But why is this a major political issue? Why is religon so closely tied to this issue?

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:14 pm UTC

Vertana wrote:I could see why polyamorous relationships are not legally recognized. That could lead to all kinds of loopholes, tax rewrites, and new legislation. Same sex marriages would require changing the definition as said above and rewording current laws and policies to be gender neutral. There are plenty of legal staff members within the government with nothing to do... this could be accomplished. This would require very little funds (if only to republish laws on hard copies) and is seemingly in contrast with America's "equal" standing. But why is this a major political issue? Why is religon so closely tied to this issue?


Because there is a large voting block of fundamentalist Christians in the US. It is no different from wondering why in fundamentalist Islamic countries, there are elements of sharia law.

I wish all Christians were like myself, where I understand just because I think abortion is murder doesn't give me the right to define the law that way. Sadly, evangelicals believe it is their duty to make sure everyone lives a holy life, not just themselves, and they right to do it through the legal system.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby natraj » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:21 pm UTC

Mountainhawk wrote:I wish all Christians were like myself, where I understand just because I think abortion is murder doesn't give me the right to define the law that way. Sadly, evangelicals believe it is their duty to make sure everyone lives a holy life, not just themselves, and they right to do it through the legal system.


I'm not sure the two things are analogous, though, the way you've phrased that. I mean, we do have the right to forbid murder by law. Gay marriage has nothing to do with inflicting bodily harm on another human being, though, no matter what misguided fundamentalist point of view people are coming from.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:29 pm UTC

natraj wrote:
Mountainhawk wrote:I wish all Christians were like myself, where I understand just because I think abortion is murder doesn't give me the right to define the law that way. Sadly, evangelicals believe it is their duty to make sure everyone lives a holy life, not just themselves, and they right to do it through the legal system.


I'm not sure the two things are analogous, though, the way you've phrased that. I mean, we do have the right to forbid murder by law. Gay marriage has nothing to do with inflicting bodily harm on another human being, though, no matter what misguided fundamentalist point of view people are coming from.



To be way too technical, murder is that which is forbidden, and nothing else. The definition of murder is that it has to be an illegal killing. Soldiers, for example, do not murder people during war.

I guess my point is, at least up to the point in a pregnancy where the fetus could survive on its own, it's very difficult to make anything other than the religious 'it has a soul at conception, so that is when life begins' type argument for why abortion should be outlawed.

It's impossible to make an argument on why gay marriage should be outlawed, without resort to 'it's morally corrupt/a sin', and we shouldn't be legislating based on that.

That was the only way I was trying to connect them ... the popular arguments for banning them are religious/morality based, not legal/individual rights based.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

User avatar
Varsil
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Varsil » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:05 pm UTC

I think we should abolish marriage entirely. For both men and women. Change all the existing marriages to "civil unions". Make it damn clear that all the government's business in a civil union is is to confirm that yes, these two (or three, or eighteen, or whatever) people have entered into a recognized contractual agreement with various effects that flow from that. It's the people telling the government what has happened, not the government in any way approving it.

Separate marriage entirely from this, so that you can go and get a church marriage if you want, and you don't necessarily get a civil union at the same time (unless you choose to). The government isn't in the business of performing or solemnizing religious ceremonies. They just collect the taxes and enforce the laws.

It always baffles me, though, that people who would freak the fuck out if the government attempted to excommunicate them from their church still think that the government is performing religious marriages. Now, I don't think clearing up the wording would remove their opposition (because it's homophobia veiled in religiosity), but it'd make them look rather more ridiculous for their opposition.

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:10 pm UTC

Varsil wrote:(because it's homophobia veiled in religiosity)


This always bothers me.

For many, many people, it's not homophobia at all. It is that they truly believe homosexual sex will result in a grave/mortal sin that, left unconfessed, will result in the soul's permanent separation from God/damnation in hell. The more evangelical sects believe that it is their responsibility to help these people redeem themselves, failing to do so would mean they themselves risk damnation.

Regardless of whether you accept their beliefs as true, unknown, false, or patently absurd, they have the right to freely express their religion. The problem only comes in when they try to limit others expressions by making it the law of the country.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

User avatar
Varsil
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Varsil » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:32 pm UTC

Frankly, I don't think that the "It's not homophobia" position can be supported on this one.

I will freely yield that Christianity considers homosexuality a sin. Great. Now, let's go through and look at some other sins:

-Judging others.
-Killing. (Full stop: Thou shalt not kill, not 'thou shalt not kill, unless you totally think that guy is hiding WMD in his villain-style mustache').
-Open displays of religiosity.
-Thinking impure thoughts.
Etc.

In actual fact, Christian doctrine holds that we are all sinners, just about every minute of every day, because we're fundamentally flawed, and that only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. This is part of why you don't do the whole judging thing--everyone is a sinner. So the Christian ethos here shouldn't be to try to control other people's behaviour here, but instead to try to get homosexuals to seek forgiveness for their failings. Also, for any Christians in the audience, let me tell you that the quickest way to scare someone away from Jesus is to chase after them with Jesus in your words, anger on your face, and vitriol in your tone. These people are latching on to the homosexuality provisions (which barely appear in the NT, and never from Jesus himself), and ignoring things that Jesus did say. Why? Well, that gets us back to the homophobia, unless you have some solid reason why these people should be striving to demand that people be heterosexual, while not expending equal effort to make sure that people are meek (for example).

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:41 pm UTC

Varsil wrote:Frankly, I don't think that the "It's not homophobia" position can be supported on this one.

I will freely yield that Christianity considers homosexuality a sin. Great. Now, let's go through and look at some other sins:

-Judging others.
-Killing. (Full stop: Thou shalt not kill, not 'thou shalt not kill, unless you totally think that guy is hiding WMD in his villain-style mustache').
-Open displays of religiosity.
-Thinking impure thoughts.
Etc.

In actual fact, Christian doctrine holds that we are all sinners, just about every minute of every day, because we're fundamentally flawed, and that only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. This is part of why you don't do the whole judging thing--everyone is a sinner. So the Christian ethos here shouldn't be to try to control other people's behaviour here, but instead to try to get homosexuals to seek forgiveness for their failings. Also, for any Christians in the audience, let me tell you that the quickest way to scare someone away from Jesus is to chase after them with Jesus in your words, anger on your face, and vitriol in your tone. These people are latching on to the homosexuality provisions (which barely appear in the NT, and never from Jesus himself), and ignoring things that Jesus did say. Why? Well, that gets us back to the homophobia, unless you have some solid reason why these people should be striving to demand that people be heterosexual, while not expending equal effort to make sure that people are meek (for example).



I don't know why you think they 'latch on' to homphobia. I'm pretty sure you will find that many fundamentalists would love to see divorce outlawed as well, or drinking. Gay marriage is the one in the news because there are enough non-fundamentalists that agree with them (and those, yes, are more likely to be homophobes) to make it more 50/50 than say, banning divorce, which is a settled issue because no-one but them sees it as something that should be illegal.

I'm not arguing there is no homophobia, nor that it isn't the cause over the fight for gay marriage, just that for many fundamentalists, they honestly believe they are helping the homosexuals by trying to force them to not act sinfully. Is that homophobia? I wouldn't call it that, but I can see how others might, I guess. To me, homophobia is the hatred of gays, and the fundamentalists don't hate gays. They hate the act of gay sex, and therefore what to save people from succumbing to the temptations.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Indon » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:43 pm UTC

Mountainhawk wrote:For many, many people, it's not homophobia at all. It is that they truly believe homosexual sex will result in a grave/mortal sin that, left unconfessed, will result in the soul's permanent separation from God/damnation in hell. The more evangelical sects believe that it is their responsibility to help these people redeem themselves, failing to do so would mean they themselves risk damnation.


A person who is religiously conditioned to think that women should stay in their place (which is the house, doing housework and raising the kids) is still sexist, even though it is due to religious conditioning.

By that argument, you describe someone who is homophobic as a result of religious conditioning.

Edit: If you like, I can describe some religous justification for sexism, as you have discussed some religious justification for homophobia.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:48 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
Mountainhawk wrote:For many, many people, it's not homophobia at all. It is that they truly believe homosexual sex will result in a grave/mortal sin that, left unconfessed, will result in the soul's permanent separation from God/damnation in hell. The more evangelical sects believe that it is their responsibility to help these people redeem themselves, failing to do so would mean they themselves risk damnation.


A person who is religiously conditioned to think that women should stay in their place (which is the house, doing housework and raising the kids) is still sexist, even though it is due to religious conditioning.

By that argument, you describe someone who is homophobic as a result of religious conditioning.

Edit: If you like, I can describe some religous justification for sexism, as you have discussed some religious justification for homophobia.



Sexism is bias due to gender/sex. This is much much different than homophobia - hatred/fear of gays. I have no argument that Christian fundamentalists are biased against gays. I do not think it logically flows that they HATE gays.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Indon » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:15 pm UTC

Mountainhawk wrote:Sexism is bias due to gender/sex. This is much much different than homophobia - hatred/fear of gays. I have no argument that Christian fundamentalists are biased against gays. I do not think it logically flows that they HATE gays.


I think that's more a terminology problem - nobody uses the term "preferencist", so Homophobia is just a big catchall term to include bias.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:16 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
Mountainhawk wrote:Sexism is bias due to gender/sex. This is much much different than homophobia - hatred/fear of gays. I have no argument that Christian fundamentalists are biased against gays. I do not think it logically flows that they HATE gays.


I think that's more a terminology problem - nobody uses the term "preferencist", so Homophobia is just a big catchall term to include bias.


Fair enough, I suppose.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

cyberblade
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:38 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby cyberblade » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

I think the problem is that a religious term is being used for civil procedures... That's great if everyone follows the same religious beliefs. But since we don't, let's stop it.

Let any two persons be MARRIED by their priest/pastor/witch doctor/alien overlord and let it have NOTHING to do with their taxes or civil status. Each church can allow/deny a petition for couples/groups/etc.

Let any two persons be PARTNERS for the government. Could be a man and a woman, two of each, could be best friends just wanting tax write off's. It shouldn't matter to the churches, as it has nothing to do with them.

The problem here is that that the early implications of marriage were religious AND civil. IE, you got married therefore you had your own house, and useful part in the community. The social being sort of an afterthought (the early ceremonies were religious in nature). What we need now is to leave the term "marriage" to the churches. There are many countries where it is like this-you can have whatever marriage you want in whatever church, but it's not a "legal" wedding until you go before a judge. The two should have nothing to do with each other.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Gunfingers » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:31 pm UTC

cyberblade wrote:could be best friends
This. Why should i have to be banging somebody for them to be allowed to visit me in the hospital? There's no reason the rights and privileges currently associated with marriage should be limited to marriage or even "civil unions".

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Vertana wrote:I could see why polyamorous relationships are not legally recognized. That could lead to all kinds of loopholes, tax rewrites, and new legislation.


I don't see why they are not legally recognized. If you marry in to a polyamourous setup, everyone in the group should have to consent to marrying you. Legally speaking, in many respects a married couple are one individual, in the same way that a corporation is treated as an individual. I see no problem in five or six people being legally treated as a single individual the same way married couples are. Whatever the actual personal dynamics in the group are, whether it's just that Sally likes a large stable of willing bodies for her pleasuredome, or there's a network of relationships within a group of 12 so complicated that a flowchart can't accurately represent it, so long as everyone within the group consents to everyone else being in the group via signing the appropriate paperwork, it doesn't affect me at all.

As far as taxing goes.. you just treat it like a married couple. I don't know offhand what the tax benefits and penalties for a married couple over two singles who are cohabitating are, but I'm sure that could be expanded out without any problems.

The only real issues I see involve family insurance plans. And those could simply be retitled as group insurance plans, similar to what a workplace has.

It all boils down to - the only time any person's sexuality should matter is if you're trying to fuck them. At any other time, what business is it of yours?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Vertana
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:28 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Vertana » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:It all boils down to - the only time any person's sexuality should matter is if you're trying to fuck them. At any other time, what business is it of yours?


To which I agree, but as far as legalities go, the points I was thinking of most were taxes and insurance. How would their income brackets be calculated? I find it unrealistic to think a group of 12 people are going to live with each other due to living room constraints (plus any children that may come as a result), so that rules out a per household resident calculation. As for the insurance, I was thinking the same thought process, just applied to an insurance policy such as a health plan. I also find it unreasonable to expect an employer to provide health/dental coverage for ten (or however many) spouses.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:37 am UTC

How is keeping a homosexual from having homosexual sex helping them? If they're a Christian, and I believe my religion condemns it, I should try to tell them about this. The Bible has a system in place for confronting believers with unrepentant sin, and legislation isn't part of it.
If they aren't a Christian, it doesn't matter whether or not they sin, because by Christian doctrine we're all sinners in need of grace, not good people that drive ourselves out of it. Making a non-Christian act a little bit more like a Christian isn't doing them any favors, from a Christian perspective.

I think homophobia is the primary bias in Christian opposition of gay marriage. It isn't mentioned nearly as much as just about any other sexual sin, or just about any sin at all. There are a few references to it in a few books. Adultery is condemned by the Ten Commandments, but I don't see anyone saying that cheating on your spouse should be a punishable offense because it ruins the sanctity of marriage. Most people who protest gay marriage might believe that divorce is bad, but I don't see anyone voting based on politicians who condone it by keeping it legal. Gay marriage is a huge issue because it's a case where religion coincides with personal prejudice, so even if they are technically justified and consistent by opposing it, their personal choice of protesting it far more than any other sin, and basically making it out to be the ultimate possible sin, is due more to personal prejudice than anything Biblical. Let's see, we have Sodom and Gommorah (where the occupants weren't homosexual, they were sexually rabid and eager to rape anyone regardless of age or sex), some verses in Leviticus (which more Christians don't follow as applicable law anyway), and a few statements in the New Testament in Paul's writing, and that's it.

I think that marriage is a religious practice and that the government should have nothing to do it. I also think that there are plenty of good things to come out of the government recognizing civil unions (default inheritance, divorce proceedings, etc.). I think that as long as the government chooses to keep "marriage" as a legal term, they should extend it to all couples (or triples, or whatever). Drop the title or drop the exclusion. I think the government should allow gay marriage because I don't think the purpose of the government is to make moral judgements.

I also think that dropping "of the opposite sex" from the definition of marriage still keeps the majority of its meaning without diluting its importance. I think that the most important part of marriage, religiously and philosophically, is its permanence and commitment, both of while have lost pretty much all meaning given the high divorce rate. If you want one thing that "ruins the sanctity of marriage," it's that. And it happens even in traditional, religiously accepted marriages.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Rinsaikeru » Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:59 am UTC

I think here, anyone who co-habits with another person for a certain number of years is common law spouse of the other. It doesn't matter about gender.

I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain I'm not.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Jessica » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:41 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:I think here, anyone who co-habits with another person for a certain number of years is common law spouse of the other. It doesn't matter about gender.

I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain I'm not.


I don't think so. I've lived with the same person for almost 5 years. He's been my roommate. We're not common law.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Kachi » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:47 pm UTC

I've never heard a decent argument for why it shouldn't be permitted. Of course most of them stem from religion, and separation of church and state seems unpatriotic all of a sudden. The best argument I've ever heard against gay marriage (best=! good) was that marriage provides federally subsidized financial benefits to married couples who in turn -may- produce offspring, which is in the nation's interest. Since no homosexual couples can have children (let's forget about the adoption discussion that spawned from this) and screening heterosexual couples for their ability and intent to have children isn't financially viable, there's no reason to allow gays to marry.

In general the government shouldn't be preventing anything unless they can prove that it causes a societal detriment. Unfortunately, laws are based on popularity, not, um, the theory of law.

On common law, in most places it doesn't matter how long you live with the person. It's not recognized as marriage unless you have an agreement that you're married and essentially tell other people.

User avatar
Kendo_Bunny
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:56 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Kendo_Bunny » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:27 pm UTC

My only stipulation to a bill allowing gay marriage would be an addendum that no religious institution could be sued for refusing to perform a ceremony. Otherwise, I really don't care what people want to do in their lives.

Every other place I've brought up this point, I've had people leaping on me, saying that there is no way that anyone would attempt to sue a church for not performing a marriage ceremony, and if so, there's no way they could win. To which argument, I would like to remind everyone of those few lawsuit-happy activists who make things miserable for everyone. They may not even want to get married, but they see it as their sacred duty to stir things up, and charging, say, an Assemblies of God church with discrimination would open a very ugly can of worms. It's like the lesbian who is currently suing eHarmony for rejecting her profile, even though they refunded her her money. She didn't attempt to join to find a partner, because eHarmony is a straight's-only site. She joined for the explicit purpose of calling discrimination and suing the company. I don't think that's fair, because there are tons of gay-only dating sites, and I don't think some instances of seperate-but-equal are that bad (I go to a women's college and used to go to a women's gym. I think men should be able to go to men's colleges or men's gyms).

Then again, the government really shouldn't be involved in marriages in the first place.

User avatar
schmiggen
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:15 am UTC
Location: location, location

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby schmiggen » Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:51 pm UTC

Mountainhawk wrote:For many, many people, it's not homophobia at all. It is that they truly believe homosexual sex will result in a grave/mortal sin that, left unconfessed, will result in the soul's permanent separation from God/damnation in hell.

Just curious, but what is it that makes these two particular sources of opposition to gay marriage have different levels of legitimacy?
Kabann wrote:Aw hell, as far as I'm concerned the world started in late 1967. Everything else is just semantics and busy-work.

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby TheStranger » Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:55 pm UTC

I think that we should remove marriage from the government. Replace it with "domestic partnership" contracts that offer similar benefits and obligations to marriage, while bundling in prenuptial clauses. These contracts would be open to any two adult individuals, regardless of their other qualities (such as sex).

Churches would be free to marry (or not marry) whoever they chose, and people would be free to enter into what arrangements they chose.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:15 am UTC

Kachi wrote:I've never heard a decent argument for why it shouldn't be permitted. Of course most of them stem from religion, and separation of church and state seems unpatriotic all of a sudden. The best argument I've ever heard against gay marriage (best=! good) was that marriage provides federally subsidized financial benefits to married couples who in turn -may- produce offspring, which is in the nation's interest. Since no homosexual couples can have children (let's forget about the adoption discussion that spawned from this) and screening heterosexual couples for their ability and intent to have children isn't financially viable, there's no reason to allow gays to marry.


Even that argument is terrible, because there's absolutely no guarantee that a straight marriage will produce ANY children. A man and woman can marry for WHATEVER REASON THEY WANT, even for 'lulz.'

Maybe if John and Jim get married, Jane will agree to be in some way inseminated by Jim so that she can bear a child for John and Jim to raise. Maybe John and Jim don't want to have that child because the law would currently be too convoluted and they wouldn't actually be recognized as a family.

There flat out is NOT a good argument against a partnership between any mix of gender.



Edit: Here's a post I wrote over a year ago on the subject.

Spoiler:
I truly hate that the gay marriage argument often boils down to petty semantics. Marriage vs civil unions, saying that gay people still "have the right to marry" but just not other gay people...it's all ridiculous. Call marriage whatever the hell you want, define it however the hell you want. I argue below that even should marriage be defined as between man and woman, such is a definition is entirely against the ideals of equality that this nation represents. It is undeniable that sexual preference is NOT A PREFERENCE. It is biological, and no law can make a gay woman be attracted to men, any more than it can make straight woman be attracted to other women.

Marriage is about love and/or money and/or familial units.
Love is private and between two individuals and shouldn't need any legal recognition to make it valid. And no such recognition is required. Anyone is legally allowed to love anyone else. Although we do still have states with sodomy laws broad enough to include oral sex between consenting heterosexual couples, I assume we're all in agreement here that such laws are unjust. If we agree on that, and on the fact that no one should be able to vote on a motion to ban such conduct between lovers, then straights and gays now have equal rights to love and its physical expression. Either way, whether or not a person is "married" to another has no impact on their legal ability to share and express love.
Money and finances are another reason that people marry. Now we're getting to an area in which the law truly does, and should, hold great sway. Laws determine how money in a single household is factored into taxes, and lot of other more complicated issues that I am not qualified debate. A gay couple living together cannot simplify their taxes, while a married straight couple, living together or separately can. Clearly, from a logical point of view, the finances of a live-in gay couple and a live-in straight couple will be extremely similar, given that all other variables such as income level and location are taken into account. Does it not make legal sense to treat both situations as the same? It does make sense, but it's not possible if gay marriage is not legal. (Whether or not such treatment is financially beneficial is moot. If it is not beneficial, then marriage for this reason would not occur, so there is no reason for us to pursue this path of discussion.
Lastly are the social and familial implications of marriage. Marriage is a wholly convenient way to make a bond between two people socially and legally "official." It lets people and the state know that "We are sharing each other's lives and I trust this person with certain responsibilities in the event that I cannot fulfull them." In the event of a tragedy such as a death or a hospitalization, certain actions can only be taken on behalf of the affected individual by that person's legally defined family. This means that heterosexual members of a marriage can make decisions for each other if necessary. Homosexual members of a pair-bond which is cannot be legally recognized do not have these rights. Why is this so? Given the similar interaction and emotion between the different types of couples, members of each type are uniquely qualified to represent loved ones. Yet the law does not recognize this in the case of a homosexual partnership.

The below is not a quote. It is italicized for emphasis.
The very nature of a bond of love means that the individuals in that bond pool their thoughts and resources regardless of whether it is legally recognized. This means that whether or not the law agrees, a gay man whose lover and partner is hospitalized is as qualified to make decisions for that partner as any wife is for her husband. The law gives this right to a husband or wife regardless of whether he or she actually knows his or her partner well enough to make such decisions.

THIS is the heart of the idiocy of not legally recognizing gay marriages. Heterosexuals can enter marriage for reasons pertaining to any, all, or none of the realms of effect described above. Yet people argue the law should not recognize a similar bond between homosexuals. Such a bond, such an implementation of the legal benefits described above, imposes no harm upon anyone outside of that bond. If it does, such harm is in no way different from that caused by the same bonding between a heterosexual couple.

The deliberate illegalization of or refusal to recognize such a bond between a homosexual couple thus demonstrably and unforgivably infringes upon their legal and civil rights.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:15 pm UTC

schmiggen wrote:
Mountainhawk wrote:For many, many people, it's not homophobia at all. It is that they truly believe homosexual sex will result in a grave/mortal sin that, left unconfessed, will result in the soul's permanent separation from God/damnation in hell.

Just curious, but what is it that makes these two particular sources of opposition to gay marriage have different levels of legitimacy?


Not different levels of legitimacy, really. Just different levels of tolerance. People's religious beliefs should be respected as best as they can, but they also should not be used as a basis for law.

I just think the best solution is to leave the term marriage to the religions, and use the term 'civil union' for ALL legal joinings of 2 people. That's not a violation of church and state, and in fact, may enhance the separation by the two not having church marriages binding on the state as they are now.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

User avatar
FourLetterWord
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:52 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby FourLetterWord » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:56 pm UTC

Mountainhawk wrote:For many, many people, it's not homophobia at all. It is that they truly believe homosexual sex will result in a grave/mortal sin that, left unconfessed, will result in the soul's permanent separation from God/damnation in hell. The more evangelical sects believe that it is their responsibility to help these people redeem themselves, failing to do so would mean they themselves risk damnation.


uhhh

"My superstition makes me think gay people are walking exmplars of grave and mortal sin" is actually a pretty great example of "I have an irrational aversion toward gay people".

For the record, I agree with your overall point, I just wanted to show that yes indeed religious bullshit is still homophobia.

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:01 pm UTC

FourLetterWord wrote:
Mountainhawk wrote:For many, many people, it's not homophobia at all. It is that they truly believe homosexual sex will result in a grave/mortal sin that, left unconfessed, will result in the soul's permanent separation from God/damnation in hell. The more evangelical sects believe that it is their responsibility to help these people redeem themselves, failing to do so would mean they themselves risk damnation.


uhhh

"My superstition makes me think gay people are walking exmplars of grave and mortal sin" is actually a pretty great example of "I have an irrational aversion toward gay people".

For the record, I agree with your overall point, I just wanted to show that yes indeed religious bullshit is still homophobia.


You may believe it is bullshit, but they have constitutional right to believe it, AND to practice those beliefs. Irrational as they may be to you, they can ban gay from marrying in their church all they want, and the government can't do a damn thing about it.

As I said, it just makes everything so much simpler (which is the part I think you agree with) if the legal and religious processes are separate with separate names.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:25 pm UTC

Mountainhawk wrote:You may believe it is bullshit, but they have constitutional right to believe it, AND to practice those beliefs. Irrational as they may be to you, they can ban gay from marrying in their church all they want, and the government can't do a damn thing about it.



Yes...none of which was argued against. The point was that it is homophobia.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
FourLetterWord
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:52 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby FourLetterWord » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:27 pm UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:
Mountainhawk wrote:You may believe it is bullshit, but they have constitutional right to believe it, AND to practice those beliefs. Irrational as they may be to you, they can ban gay from marrying in their church all they want, and the government can't do a damn thing about it.

Yes...none of which was argued against. The point was that it is homophobia.


yup, thats what i was getting at

Mountainhawk
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Mountainhawk » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:33 pm UTC

FourLetterWord wrote:
Nougatrocity wrote:
Mountainhawk wrote:You may believe it is bullshit, but they have constitutional right to believe it, AND to practice those beliefs. Irrational as they may be to you, they can ban gay from marrying in their church all they want, and the government can't do a damn thing about it.

Yes...none of which was argued against. The point was that it is homophobia.


yup, thats what i was getting at



Only if you are using a expanded definition of homophobia to include bias against them, not just raw fear/hatred. A phobia isn't a bias, it's an unexplainable fear or hatred of something, and as I argued above, that's not what is happening with evangelicals and gays. It only seems that way if you don't accept that the evangelicals have very strong beliefs that (a) homosexual sex leads to hell and (b) not helping people who are sinning can also lead you to hell.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." -- Elizabeth May, Canadian Green Party Leader

User avatar
FourLetterWord
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:52 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby FourLetterWord » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:43 pm UTC

Mountainhawk wrote:Only if you are using a expanded definition of homophobia to include bias against them, not just raw fear/hatred. A phobia isn't a bias, it's an unexplainable fear or hatred of something, and as I argued above, that's not what is happening with evangelicals and gays. It only seems that way if you don't accept that the evangelicals have very strong beliefs that (a) homosexual sex leads to hell and (b) not helping people who are sinning can also lead you to hell.


you're mistaken

A phobia (from Greek: φόβος, phobos, "fear"), is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or people. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to avoid the feared subject.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

note how it says "avoid" and " unreasonable" instead of "hate" and "unexplainable"

under that defintion, the silly shit that the religious do to gays is indeed homophobic

cyberblade
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:38 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby cyberblade » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:25 pm UTC

not sure how this ties in to the original discussion, still, since it's being discussed I'll throw in my two cents.

I believe (Biblically) that homosexual acts are a sin... (this would be those silly religious beliefs that you lot keep talking about). I've also been good friends with several homosexuals, some who were active and some who weren't. While there are some people with homophobia most persons who dislike homosexuals, or, usually, homosexuality are not homophobic. The silly thing some people do is think that one sinner is any worse than any other. Any true Christian knows better than to hate the sinner, or think they are in any way better than anyone else...

Anyways, back on topic.

There was an interesting point brought up earlier about the civil "marriage" producing tax benefits because of the projected benefits of having children grow up to be productive members of society...

Leaving marriage to the church, why not have civil partnership just allow all the usual rights (conjugal visits, hospital visits, all assets split in case of separation-go to the survivor in case of death, etc.) and NO tax benefits unless there are children? This could apply to heterosexual couples when they had children, and homosexuals upon adoption/other methods. With so many couples, gay and straight, getting tax benefits without actually contributing any more for being married it seems that could be a good idea.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests