Gay Marriage

[mike79]

Since this is a topic that's in the news quite frequently these days I was wondering what everyone's opinions on the matter are.

I have no problem with it whatsoever. Who is to say what legally defines marriage? If people love each other from the same sex why are they not entitled to the same things as straight people?

It's time for anti-gay groups, the Vatican, and others, to move into the 21st century before time completely passes them by.

 

[show 42]

An interesting and timely thread, Mike. My dictionary defines marriage as "to take as one's husband or wife", but it also says "to join closely or unite". If you apply the second definition, same sex marriages fall into that category.

If couples of any sex are committed to each other, I can see why a legal bond would be beneficial in case of illness or the death of one partner. It would establish inheritance and legitamize a will.
42

 

[mike79]

I agree, Show. It is a means to make things easier financially, etc.

People who are against gay marriage are perfectly entitled to their opinions. But is it right to deny certain groups of people what other groups are legally allowed to do? From a certain viewpoint it is almost another form of segregation.

The Catholic basis against gay marriage stems from the bible supposedly condemning homosexuality. That is all that Catholicism can say to back up this thinking. It seems like a contradiction since the Bible says to love everyone equally.

I applaud the Canadian government's advances in this area. With Ontario and BC legalizing gay marriage, it will most likely be legal nationwide before too long. I hope the US will somehow follow this path.

 

[dlkksk8fan]

I think if two people love each other they should be able to get married.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

No problem. It's been going on since time immemorial. It's just that now its being legalized. So what? gambling is. divorce is, illegitimate children are. Straights have their share of sin. taxes are whether gay or straight. And the beat goes on.

Joe

 

[windspirit]

IMO gay couples should be able to get married and I don't have a problem with them using the word 'marriage' as well. Btw, there's an interesting discussion on the subject at FSU right now.

Joe wrote:
[...] illegitimate children

That reminded me... There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. I don't remember who said it, but I love that quote.

 

[heyang]

I certainly don't have a problem with gay marriages. If 2 people love each other and are consenting adults, they should be able to be married.

I'm kinda surprised Bush has stated that he's against it. Next year is an election year (so fast) and I certainly don't understand the polls. He's in a tight position - poor economy, Iraq quagmire, Liberia position, etc. Doesn't seem like the right time to alienate a group of people.

I know he stated that he would accept 'civil unions', but did not want to call it marriage. I think it's up to the church, synagogue or whatever authority to decide what to recognize as marriage from their standpoint. His position can only be from a legal standpoint - so, what's the diff between a legal marriage and a civil union? Sounds like rhetoric on Bush's part.

Anyway - I don't want to start a political bonfire. I'm just expressing my personal opinion of an article I read about Bush's standpoint.

 

[Lcp88]

I have no problem with them, and frankly, I'd like to know why this is such a big issue. Don't states have better things to worry about then wether or not two people of the same sex should be legally joined? I'm sure AIDS plays a factor, but even so, its not like AIDS can't be controlled by education and safe sex. IMHO, if two people what to get married, it really shoudn't be up to the law/church to decide if they can or not.
Laura

 

[kzarah]

I guess Kevin and I are pretty lucky. We've been together for just over twelve years. We are very close. For all practical purposes are married and treated as a married couple. Most of our friends are straight. Actually, I am not really, comfortable in gay enviroments. Anyway, except for television, I never give any thought to being dislilked or disapproved because we are gay. We don't feel we are treated any differently then anyone else. I wouldn't say that I have never been named called. Whenever they show theis gay pride festivalson TV, you see all of these transvestites, men dressed in leather thongs, nipple piercings. I have wondered if this is what people think we might do? it's same for shows like Will and Grace. We straight people think that we are all shallow people who have insatiable sex drives?
Daniel and Kevin and Little Lulu

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I don't think Bush really gives a damn about gays getting formerly married (think of the increase in the economy). However, he owes a lot to the christian fundamentalists who gave him their vote. He owes these religious people who have their own way of reading the bible. OK for straights to get married and divorced. They apparently sin but it's not important.

Joe

 

[tharrtell]

I agree with whoever said that if two people love one another and want to get married, they should be able to so. I simply don't understand why people care who gets married - and it doesn't affect anyone aside from the two being married. Every couple should have the right to do as they please.

 

[Lotta]

No problem also. Love's gotta show around.

 

[kzarah]

I am Roman Catholic. I am familiar with the Church's position on this issue. I do not agree with the Church on these issues. Now the Episcopal Church is considering a gay Bishop. They recognize and accept gay and transgender persons in their church. The Episcopalian Church and the Roman Catholic Church have some connection that I don't clearly understand. For example, the Bishop of our diocese is also ordained in the Episcopal Church. What I would like to understand is how one Christian domination can see homosexuality as a mortal sin and another has no problem with it. I know it’s not mentioned in the Ten Commandments and it’s not one of the seven deadly sins. I wonder how the Jews feel on this position?
Daniel and Little Lulu

 

[megsk8z]

I've got enough to worry about at my own house that I don't worry about what other people are doing at their houses. What people do with their private lives is their own business and they shouldn't have to answer to anyone but their partner and their conscience.
Unless I think my next door neighbor is involved with child abuse or animal abuse or neglect, I think I should mind my own business.

 

[Mathman]

Religion and politics

About religion

Kzarah, the objection of some religion people to homosexuality is based on scriptures such as Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" (presumably this commandment is addressed to the men in the audience, LOL.)

The same book also commands: Don't cut your hair or shave your beard (Leviticus 19:27); Don't get a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28 ); Don't eat rabbits (Leviticus 11:5-6) or oysters (Leviticus 11:12; grasshoppers are OK, though, Leviticus 11:22).

We are also supposed to kill goats in sacrifice (Leviticus, ch. 16), and every 50 years give back to the original owner all the land that we bought from him (Leviticus 25:10 ), and lots of other stuff.

Joe, about "illegitimate children":

Deuteronomy 23:2 says that they "shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the 10th generation."

The next verse (Deuteronomy 23:3) goes on: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their 10th generation "

This is because the Ammonites and the Moabites hired Balaam the son of Beor to cast a curse on the people of God (v. 4). It doesn't say exactly what the "illegitimate children" did wrong -- presumably something just as wicked.

Well, it's easy to make fun of ancient tribal religious practices in the light of modern times, modern customs and a more fully realized understanding of God.

About politics

President Bush is laying low on issues of concern to conservatives and the religious right. He has little to say in public about gay marriage, abortion, etc., even though his private views are well known. I think this is because he does not want to go too far right and cede the center to the Democrats.

He also does not want the economy to become an issue, for obvious reasons, LOL.

His re-election strategy will be, I am pretty sure, to wrap himself in the flag and offer himself as the heroic champion in the war on terrorism. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and the people there don't seem to be welcoming the American troops as liberators. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush can say that he showed his determination to use force of arms to punish any country (Afghanistan and Iraq so far) that is suspected of condoning terrorist activity or of harboring terrorists. I wouldn't be surprised if around this time next year our intelligence agencies discover that either Syria or Iran suddenly poses an intolerable threat to U.S. national security.

This strategy will almost certainly carry the day and gain Bush a second term, IMHO.

Mathman

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Mathman = I definitely see Bush as using the "Rally Round the Flag" as the main thrust for his reelection. His economic recovery so far has not been happening (unemployment still way up) and many of those other issues you mentioned he is indeed non committal. He's not a shoo in.

Joe

 

[Ptichka]

I am for gay marriage.

However... at the risk of being called a homophobe and a chauvinist-in-reverse... I just don't know about gay adoption. Definitely, if one gay partner has a child, I think the other partner should be recognized as having legal rights to that child. Also (this is where chauvinism comes in)... ashamed as I am to admit it... I have no problem with lesbian couples adopting, but do have a problem (on emotional level) with, say, the idea of two guys raising a daughter. I know, I know, there are plenty of single fathers who do wonderful jobs with their daughters...

Anyway, that's my semi-homophobic semi-chauvinist two cents. I guess if there were a referendum on gay marriage today I would vote "yes"; for a referendum on gay adoption, I would leave the answer blank.

BTW, just out of curiosity, do all people who have responded that they support gay marriage also support gay adoption?

 

[Mathman]

I do not see any reason to think that gay or straight, men or women, would be likely to have better or worse parenting skills than anyone else. I wasn't completely clear on what the "emotional" component of your reservations to gay adoptions is. If you mean that you fear that gay men might be more likely than someone else to be abusive or neglectful, again I don't see any correlation between these failings of character and sexual orientation.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for boys and girls growing up in a home that has both an adult male and an adult female roll model. Boys that grow up in homes without fathers, for instance, have a hard time learning what it is to be a man. Disproportionately, they end up as troubled teenagers or adult criminals. (Speaking of Chauvinism, sociologists and behavioral psychologists have not devoted nearly as much effort to studying the effects of girls growing up in a home where one parent is absent. They're only girls, after all, why waste our money studying their problems.)

Many adoptions, however, are of children that nobody else wants. If the choice is between living with two kind parents who are devoted to each other and to the child, or growing up as a ward of the state shuffled back and forth among various public institutions and foster care facilities, the sexual orientation of the prospective parents seems a minor issue.

Mathman

 

[Ptichka]

I wasn't completely clear on what the "emotional" component of your reservations to gay adoptions is. If

No, no, no. All I meant is that I am opposed to some gay adoptions emotionally rather than through clear reasoning.

 

[Tonichelle]

I don't think Bush really gives a damn about gays getting formerly married (think of the increase in the economy). However, he owes a lot to the christian fundamentalists who gave him their vote. He owes these religious people who have their own way of reading the bible. OK for straights to get married and divorced. They apparently sin but it's not important.

Joe

We prefer to be known as Southern Baptists


and I don't want to get in the Biblical part of this discussion so I'll butt out before I do get someone mad...

I am not a gay basher, nor is the Southern Baptist Convention or any other Religious organization...

And in most church settings Divorce is also a "sin" so don't pull that "straights are better" talk that the church supposedly adopted...

ok I'm going to stop...


however I'd like to point out that Bush is also a proclaiming Christian, so I don't think he "owes" the Church anything... he's capable of thinking on his own, no matter what Dan Rather says...

That reminded me... There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. I don't remember who said it, but I love that quote.

ITA!