Yes, allow them to marry. Same-sex couple should have ALL the same rights as heterosexual ones.
Allow civil unions with all the same rights as a marriage Same-sex couples should have all the same rightsas people in a traditional marriage, but a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Allow civil unions with all the same rights as traditional marriage except for adoptions Same-sex couples should have the same rights, but marriage is between a man anda woman, and a child should have a mommy and a daddy.
Allow same-sex couples to legalize some things, such as health insurance, the right to visit each other in the hospital, etc. Same sex unions should not have any legalized status, but if they are together this should merit some consideration.
Don't allow any legalization of same-sex unions
Does love have anything to do with marriage? or is it only the belief of the one god theory that insists marriage is for 2 people of the opposite sex?
Does the one god allow for the divorce of married couples of the opposite sex because in the United States divorce of these blessed marriages runs rampant at about 50 per cent minimum.
Maybe we should just ban marriage since it is not, apparently, taken seriously by the majority of the people.
Joe
I think one of the reasons this topic can be so controversial is that we do tend to mix up a wide variety of highly charged issues into one lump. Love, commitment, legal issues, religious issues in one big heap. The only way I could sanely work through my own feelings on this range of subjects was to consider them somewhat separately, and then put the puzzle back together to see if it fits. (which it seems to for me with the exception of the adoption issue, which I am still conflicted about.)
The topic of "Love" in marriage (religiously or legal union either way) is interesting. I think as a society we have evoled into a "I want what I want right now" kind of mentality (I am speaking in very broad terms here - not assessing any particular individuals on the range scale)
I am sure that many people just like me here have parents who have stayed married for 40+ years, Grandparents who stayed married 50,60 or more + years, and Great Grandparents who stayed married even longer. This is just my own observation, but growing up and considering this family scenario has demonstrated a very important point. None of these people had "staying power" that long because the "heat" of their early meetings lasted for that long. They were true to their commitments. Their love for each other evolved over time into something very deep - a kind of love we see far less frequently today. I'm sure surviving difficult times like the Great Depression (which I don't qualify for) made a difference - for many during those times family was all they had.
My first post on this thread didn't begin to speculate on the "love" component - only my thoughts on the legal aspects.
I am personally glad to have the legal benefits of marriage. An example I have in mind is this. If my husband and I did not have a will or trust (we do now, but we did not for our first couple years), and I died unexpectedly in a car accident, my assets would most likely go to my husband, which is what I would want. If we had decided to just live together and that happened, it would be much more cloudy.
That's the kind of legal protection I believe should be available to same sex couples who want to make that committment.
Let's just say marriage for everyone was banned. So people who choose to live together and potentially have children (natural or adopted) had no legal protection. Let's take a scenario where one partner works for the bacon, and the other partner keeps up the house and raises the kids. Now let's say the bacon partner dies unexpectedly (or even expectedly of an illness or something). What legal protections exist for the stay at home family caretaker and the children? Would the assets of the bacon person go to their mother / brother / etc.?
I'm not saying the marriage / union thing is perfect, and I would say that for me, it won't be perfect until same sex couples are allowed to legally form unions across the board (with both benefits and responsibilities in tact). But...I think a system where there was no thing called marriage or legal union would be far less perfect than this one.
Just my 2 cents..
DG
Here are some of my humble though divine opinions on the matter:
Weddings involve elaborate decorations, sculpted desserts, frilly dresses and occasionally, Elvis impersonators. The fact that such campy affairs are twisted into a heterosexual institution is a perversion...
If I had intended for persons of opposing genders to cohabit, I'd make damn sure everyone could use the toilet sitting down...
Same-sex couples can have children, they just haven't been trying hard enough. Although David Letterman's newly minted fatherhood comes close...
Nicely put, Doggiegirl - I guess love is a many splendored thing and marriage is an exonomics necessity. Personally, I think the gays are entitled to the economic necessity. Why not and if the word marriage betweenf opposite sexes with its probable divorce is frightening for some people, then Civl Unions should be valid for gays and let them figure out divorce and condone it as the opposite sexes do.
Joe
I'd say legalize it.But befor the gay community gets overjoyed at the prospect,remember that means that Gays and Lesbians will also face divorce.That might not be as appealing to some.
Joe, I do agree with you that divorce is way over done these days, diminishing the whole meaning of marriage in some ways. Divorce can be very ugly business, and John, you are right as well - I guess figuring out how to deal with that is part of the package.
Sad but true...
DG
I'm finding this debate somewhat ironic. Until recently, marriage was about alliances and advantageous partnerships. Love was not neccessarily involved. Think arrange marriages...even today, they exist in some countries and/or within religions.
More later... I got a phone call.
Well, I think buggery is beautiful so long as I'm not on the down side of it. AIDS is doing a pretty good job of thinning the crowd out, so we heterosexuals have no fear of becoming a minority. There's plenty of government money available for free health care, without qualification. So, why not? Time will demonstrate what works. And if you can't wait for the ending, read up on the Roman Empire and you'll see where this trail ultimately leads. History always repeats itself - until we get the lesson.
You mean, the receiving end?Originally posted by satsang
Well, I think buggery is beautiful so long as I'm not on the down side of it.
Are you, by any chance, saying that only homosexuals have AIDS? Boy, I didn't know that so many people in Africa were gay.AIDS is doing a pretty good job of thinning the crowd out, so we heterosexuals have no fear of becoming a minority.
Care to explain what this part about?There's plenty of government money available for free health care, without qualification. So, why not? Time will demonstrate what works.
Which trail? Are you trying to tell us that the Roman Empire collapsed because of gay people...?And if you can't wait for the ending, read up on the Roman Empire and you'll see where this trail ultimately leads. History always repeats itself - until we get the lesson.
Hi Satsang and welcome to Golden Skate. Your first post and already we know so much about you.
I think Windspirit has said pretty much what the majority of others would say, including me, but hey, you don't have to change your beliefs. Tell us more especially about Dance.
Joesitz
Originally posted by Joesitz
Hi Satsang and welcome to Golden Skate. Your first post and already we know so much about you.
Joesitz
Mathman
I think I can safely assume that you're not from the United States. Health care certainly isn't free here.There's plenty of government money available for free health care, without qualification. So, why not?
AIDS has killed drug users, too, as well as innocent babies. It doesn't discriminate nor does Cancer or any other disease. If these 'killers' don't discriminate, I don't see why we should either.
Wow. GSers are WAY off from the average American. In a recent Gallup poll, 59% were against any kind of gay union, 41% for. Most who were against it based their feelings on religious reasons. And the more people thought about it, the more they were against gay unions.
Five years ago, the results of the same poll were only 51% against gay unions, 49% for. So something has changed. I say it's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." People want the Fab Five to redecorate their apartments, but they get scared when they think about Carson marrying Jai.
Of course I'm being facetious. It's a serious issue. ITA, Mathman, this particular issue introduces the possibility of a constitutional right never forseen by the founding fathers. But that's been happening all along--with women and the vote; blacks considered as people, much less citizens; and about 12 billion issues having to do with the Internet alone and technology. For example, although a number of states have changed their laws recently, for a very long time it was fine to visually tape a person without them knowing it as long as you didn't audio tape them. So your boss could set up a hidden camera in the employees' bathrooms and have every right to video tape you, just as long as he didn't tape the sound of you flushing.
Technology can make for difficult legal things to unravel, of course, but societal changes, especially ones involvingsex
Interesting discussion about love. The way things are now, it's perfectly fine for a man and woman who don't love each other to marry, but absolutely against the law for two men or two women who love each other to marry. So depending on your genitalia, you either can or cannot marry the person you love and who loves you.
OT: Anybody know if there are laws re hermaphrodites? What about people who've had sex-change operations? Can't imagine the founding fathers envisioned that last one.
Rgirl
IMO the easiest and fairest solution to most of these issues would be to allow insurance coverage, tax breaks and all of that to households no matter what relationship or gender the household is made up of. For example adult children living back at home or elderly parents who have moved back in with their children. Families/households should be honored no matter what their make up. As for child custody, SS and other death benefits for survivors all could be determined by making it mandatory that everyone keep a current will/will type documents that clearly spell out one's wishes.
None of this would take away from the institution of marriage or the traditional family unit, but would recognize and legitimize all of the different kinds of families/households that exist in today's world. As for added benefits and perks of being a married couple, JMO but isn't the relationship itself it's own reward? Why should those who haven't found Mr., Ms., Mrs., or Miss Right not be entitled to the same financial advantages/benefits of those who have? What difference should it be to an insurance company insuring a family of four whether the "family" consists of mom, dad, a sixteen y/o, and a 12 y/o or a family of four consisting of mom, her adult son, her widowed sister (or substitute girll friend, boyfriend, cousin , or uncle) ,and the adult son's ten year old daughter?
Piel
My stance is for equal "rights" along with equal responsbilities. To me that means legal / financial benefits AND legal / financial responsibilities.
Piel, I have to ask what you mean by "equal households." There has to be some form of legal tie (husband/wife; partner/partner; mother / child; father child; etc.) for anything financial to matter here in the US, regardless of other preferances. You mention the benefits, but there are responsibilities as well. Tax consequences, etc. Child support, etc. Financial support for Gov programs, etc.
In the case of an extended family unit including aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, widowed sisters, etc. as relates to health insurance in the US system, I DON'T want to pay those premiums for all my relatives. Health care costs lots of money, and all of us pay for it. There is no Money Tree on the White House Lawn. Sorry. We have a very advanced (supposedly) medical care system in this country, but to keep the costs remotely reasonable, there has to be containment on some level. If you suggest an alternative system which would not raise the costs, but factually cover more extended family members, I'm all ears. But I doubt that's really possible in the US system, which is based on a "real" spread of "actual" costs.
DG
Getting back to the immediate parties.... allow the unions I say. Let's not "legislate" (by requiring) wills. Frankly, wills are not the end all be all anyway based on my personal experience. A trust was a far better option - more money to set it up, but more secure financially in the long run. This is a great option too for extended family if you feel they should be protected under the umbrella of your personal assets.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks