Same-Gender Marriage

[Gem]

Mariner,

1) Please address the issue above that I brought up regarding gay marriage. It is a non-religious argument as to why gay marriages might be a bad idea for a country like ours.

I agree with you, religious reasons have no place in a discussion as to whether or not the US should legalize gay marriages or not, because we are not a nation that bases law on religious beliefs. However, there are many interesting NON-religious problems that we should consider before changing an institution that has existed in one form for over 2000 years.

2) You have missed the point that many here are trying to get you to understand.

Gay people have the exact same right that straight people have. To marry a member of the opposite sex. The Government does not legislate love...therefore...all the government has done has stated that one person can only marry a person of the opposite sex. If straight people could marry other straight people...THEN gay people would be being denied a right...but as it stands now...they have the exact same rights as straight people regarding marriage...they just choose not to avail themselves of it.

 

[Mariner]

In regards to the argument that gay marriage may be associated with some downsides:

1. I need to do some research myself and take a look at the data you're talking about.
2. Assuming it's true, one could still argue that providing equality has had downsides in other cases also, but that we accept them as a cost of basic equality. For example, women voting or working outside the home may have definite downsides for women as mothers, and almost certainly resulted in increased rates of divorces and affairs as women became more economically and psychologically independent.
3. The "fabric of society" argument that you raise doesn't seem true so far in America. Here in Massachusetts, there has been essentially no impact from gay marriage at all--we all woke up May 17th and nothing felt different because a few people got married to partners they'd been living with for decades. My daughter simply accepted it when I told her that I went to Heather and Jackie's marriage. Visit the park, and you'll find a bunch of stay-at-home dads playing with their kids: everyone's smiling and all looks fine.
4. The "fabric of society" argument also requires you to explain why Massachusetts, with gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the country, and one of the lowest rates of out-of-wedlock births. In both areas, the so-called conservative heartland states that voted for Bush show far poorer "moral values" in their own behavior (divorces in Texas: 4.2 per 1000 per year vs. 2.4 in Mass., for example). So maybe people worrying about the fabric of our society should start more locally?
5. There's an opposite "fabric of society" argument that one could make: by not permitting gays to marry we discourage them from making long-term commitments, which increases promiscuity and homophobia, which often leads to violence, e.g. Matthew Shepard, and to despair & suicide among gay youth. There's a fascinating book by Abraham Verghese, a physician who treats the first AIDS patients in Tennessee in the 80s. At the end of the book he has an epiphany where he realizes that most of his AIDS patients caught the disease while in major urban centers far from Tennessee. Why were they so far from home? Because their sexual orientation was not acceptable at home. In other words, the epidemic might never have happened if there were already civil union or gay marriage in the 80s.

The argument that gays have the same right to marry the opposite sex illustrates the difficulty in many people's minds of expanding the concept of marriage to include gay unions. I do appreciate that this is a stretch--marriage is an Anglo-Saxon word (if I recall) far older than Christianity, so it's a tradition older than the church. It may take a generation for people to get over this definitional expansion. The fact that you and many other conservatives here support civil union means that we've already taken the major step of accepting gays' rights to enjoy the societal benefits of committed relationships, so that hard part's done. Most young people have no trouble with expanding the word's meaning, so the future seems written on the wall.

Mariner

 

[jimnyc]

The fact that you and many other conservatives here support civil union means that we've already taken the major step of accepting gays' rights to enjoy the societal benefits of committed relationships, so that hard part's done. Most young people have no trouble with expanding the word's meaning, so the future seems written on the wall.

Mariner

I only support it because I think that's the best route to protect marriage. I don't believe they should have civil unions either but I'll go that route if that's what it takes to protect marriage as being between man and woman. You can thank the out of control liberal judges for that stance.

They don't need additional rights, they need medical assistance.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently you missed the election results? Americans are becoming more and more in favor of valued traditions that have proven their worthiness. The principles in the 10 commandments have survived centuries of those who have said that it will eventually become dated and replaced by a more "progressive" code of values.

 

[Mariner]

It's unclear to me what marriage needs to be "protected" from. Is it so weak an institution that expanding it slightly would destroy it? Why? How does my marriage suffer if my neighbor marries her girlfriend?

At the gay marriage I attended this summer, the most moving moment was when the crotchety conservative neighbor spoke, saying "My god when these two moved in here I thought, what is the neighborhood coming to? But now that I know them, I realize they're two of the finest people you could know, and I'm honored to be at their wedding."

The married gay couples I know are a social worker married to a mediator, a psychologist married to a poet, and two doctors. These are hardly people who are bringing down the country's moral values--they are more solid and hard-working than the majority of Americans. How do their marriages hurt you?

Mariner

 

[jimnyc]

It's unclear to me what marriage needs to be "protected" from. Is it so weak an institution that expanding it slightly would destroy it? Why? How does my marriage suffer if my neighbor marries her girlfriend?

At the gay marriage I attended this summer, the most moving moment was when the crotchety conservative neighbor spoke, saying "My god when these two moved in here I thought, what is the neighborhood coming to? But now that I know them, I realize they're two of the finest people you could know, and I'm honored to be at their wedding."

The married gay couples I know are a social worker married to a mediator, a psychologist married to a poet, and two doctors. These are hardly people who are bringing down the country's moral values--they are more solid and hard-working than the majority of Americans. How do their marriages hurt you?

Mariner

They hurt me the same way that those that eat one anothers feces do. It's vile, disgusting and abnormal. You don't appease those afflicted with this disorder, you get them the medical assistance they need. I don't care if they are 'good' people or not, they still have sick issues.

They say it should be fine because it doesn't hurt others. Eating one anothers feces technically doesn't hurt anyone either. Maybe we should open a few diners with feces as the main entree? That would be great for our society.

 

[Mariner]

your desire not to be offended over their desire to be happy with one another. Rather than taking it out on them, why not look at our own disgust and ask why it is so strong? I'm straight myself, and admit a twinge of "yuck" when I imagine gay sex, but I have no problem saying, "That's not for me, but it's not for me to say whether someone else might like it." Why care so much what other people do in their free time? How about the historic American right to privacy?

Mariner

 

[dilloduck]

your desire not to be offended over their desire to be happy with one another. Rather than taking it out on them, why not look at our own disgust and ask why it is so strong? I'm straight myself, and admit a twinge of "yuck" when I imagine gay sex, but I have no problem saying, "That's not for me, but it's not for me to say whether someone else might like it." Why care so much what other people do in their free time? How about the historic American right to privacy?

Mariner

How would it help gays if they were allowed to marry?

 

[NATO AIR]

instead of focusing on gays getting marrried, we need to be focusing on strengthening america's families, making the living wage a reality, improving our schools, telling americans to own up to their responsibilities and duties, and helping families and the businesses they work for afford health insurance.

you focus on gays while the family is weakened even further by a rotting culture, a shameful educational, health and wage system and a fundamental problem too many americans have in owning up to their responsibilities and decisions.

you want a better argument from me? read my thread that's been ignored probably because it exposes the hypocricy of this whole mess (at least from the POV of those coming from a religious standpoint).

i don't want gay marriage, but i also don't want this to even be a priority for americans or our government. we have far bigger, far more important fish to fry and situations to address.

 

[jimnyc]

your desire not to be offended over their desire to be happy with one another. Rather than taking it out on them, why not look at our own disgust and ask why it is so strong? I'm straight myself, and admit a twinge of "yuck" when I imagine gay sex, but I have no problem saying, "That's not for me, but it's not for me to say whether someone else might like it." Why care so much what other people do in their free time? How about the historic American right to privacy?

Mariner

The right to privacy? Let them keep their crap in the closet and they'll have all the privacy they want. They're trying to force the issue down everyone's throats and they therefore lose any privacy they expect.

My disgust is so strong because the behavior they are engaging in is sickening and bad for society. Again, they need medical assistance for their disease, not additional rights.

 

[Mariner]

how it would help gays if they were allowed to marry. Since I'm not gay myself I hesitate to be a spokesperson, but I would answer that it would do for them exactly what my marriage does for me: makes me happy, and earns me and my wife a long list of legal privileges. Oh, and raises my taxes--there's an issue where I'm with the Republicans.

I gotta get to work now. Posting on this board is addictive.

Mariner.

 

[OCA]

Hmmm...can't debate the issues so you ban those you diagree with. Feeling a bit insecure are we?

I have destroyed you on this topic like many others yet you refuse to acknowledge this unarguable fact. No I would ban you just because..............don't screw with me.

 

[Mariner]

that two little old grandmothers' getting married has the capacity to "sicken" you so badly.

In any case, it's a one-way street. As more gay people come out of the closet, and their friends and relatives support them, and the culture will shift towards treating them fairly. The very first line of the Declaration of Independence says we're created equal. So that includes you and the most sickening gay person you can imagine--and his/her rights should be no less than yours. On that basis, conservatives should be arguing for gay marriage, not against it. "Strict interpretation" and all that,

Mariner.

 

[Avatar4321]

how it would help gays if they were allowed to marry. Since I'm not gay myself I hesitate to be a spokesperson, but I would answer that it would do for them exactly what my marriage does for me: makes me happy, and earns me and my wife a long list of legal privileges. Oh, and raises my taxes--there's an issue where I'm with the Republicans.

I gotta get to work now. Posting on this board is addictive.

Mariner.

Posting on this board is addictive. I should be in bed.

You can grant gays "marriage" and everything else they ever wanted. It wont make them happy. Wickedness never was happiness.

We definately need to end the marriage penalty, but thats only one way to strengthen the family. You dont strengthen the family by destroying its foundation.

And no matter how advanced the science of our government gives, it can never give gays the right to create life together. That is the fundamental right of a married couple. the right to procreate.

All of this is moot anyway. The purpose the gay extremists have in redefining marriage isnt to make themselves happy. Its to make everyone else as miserable as they are. Its to break down marriage so end its place as the basic building block of society and eventually allow the left to announce that raising children in a family has failed and its time to let the government raise our children to be "proper" citizens.

Personally im tired of watching the left try to push their marxist propaganda on the American people.

 

[jimnyc]

that two little old grandmothers' getting married has the capacity to "sicken" you so badly.

Sounds like 2 little old senile people that need treatment to me. I don't care if it's 18 year olds or people on their death bed - it's still disgusting and it's still wrong.

In any case, it's a one-way street. As more gay people come out of the closet, and their friends and relatives support them, and the culture will shift towards treating them fairly.

Not in my lifetime, and the elections spoke loud and clear last week. Seems to me that more came out of the closet in the past year and a half and all it did was stir controversy and force people to start using votes to keep this sickness from spreading through society.

The very first line of the Declaration of Independence says we're created equal. So that includes you and the most sickening gay person you can imagine--and his/her rights should be no less than yours.

First off, his or her rights are already identical to mine. Secondly, they might have been created equal but somewhere along the line they acquired a sickening disease. Again, they need medical assistance, not additional rights.

On that basis, conservatives should be arguing for gay marriage, not against it. "Strict interpretation" and all that,

Mariner.

Nope, gay marriage just isn't going to fly. My "strict interpretation" is that these sick people want society to accept them as if they were just like everyone else. Problem is, THEY AREN'T!

I guess Italy is mostly sickened by the queers too!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=233165

 

[dilloduck]

I'm curious as to why gays want to create something new but demand that it be called by the same name that is used to define something else? Does not this in itself create opposition ? Why try to steal the word. Additionally why would a gay person try to belong to a religion that considers them to be sinners and will not recognize them as married?
When confronted with this problem, reformists created a myriad of different methods of worshipping, remained Christians and are practicing their new ways of worshipping in a society that now accepts them.

If gays will not accept civil unions, create a new term to describe the new form of relationship that are creating, and create a new method of worshipping God, could it be that they are ACTUALLY asking for something else that is not being openly expressed. Perhaps they need to tell people what it is they really want or suffer the impression that they are not victims of anything but their own laziness.

 

[NATO AIR]

I'm curious as to why gays want to create something new but demand that it be called by the same name that is used to define something else? Does not this in itself create opposition ? Why try to steal the word. Additionally why would a gay person try to belong to a religion that considers them to be sinners and will not recognize them as married?
When confronted with this problem, reformists created a myriad of different methods of worshipping, remained Christians and are practicing their new ways of worshipping in a society that now accepts them.

If gays will not accept civil unions, create a new term to describe the new form of relationship that are creating, and create a new method of worshipping God, could it be that they are ACTUALLY asking for something else that is not being openly expressed. Perhaps they need to tell people what it is they really want or suffer the impression that they are not victims of anything but their own laziness.

dillo, i think the great majority of gays would love to have just civil unions.

 

[dilloduck]

So ya think all this constant babbling about gay marriage is a continuation of the bash Bush crowd ? Guess we'll be hearing more about all the issues important to the libs then. Wish we could get on with the Bush agenda while the iron's hot here. We're wasting time trying to "reach across the aisle" here.
There are no hands reaching back.

 

[Mariner]

unfortunate that gay marriage has to be called gay marriage, "stealing the word" as Dillo puts it. But that is a consequence of marriage being a gov't sponsored right, as I tried to explain above.

As for "sickening disease," "wickedness," and "miserable," I hate to break it to you folk, who seem never to have met an actual gay couple: these are pretty good people, and the ones I know are darn happy. Who are we to question their happiness?

If you want to talk "social fabric," then why not address the fact that the red states have higher divorce rates and higher child poverty rates than Massachusetts, where our social fabric is supposedly rent by our acceptance of gay marriage? Or consider the thought that permitting gay marriage might actually enhance the social fabric by encouraging long-term relationships.

What it all seems to come down to is that you folk feel either an emotional disgust at the thought of gay people, a feeling so strong that you're ready to discriminate against them, or that you have religiously-based objections to their behavior and wish for a more religiously-guided America. If it's the former, I say get over it--your feelings aren't so important that they should run roughshod over others'--and if it's the latter, then you should ask why you pick and choose your biblical prohibitions. There are plenty of other prohibitions in the bible in addition to sodomy. The only answer you'll find is that it's historical, i.e. you're promoting earlier American culture. Well, American culture has never stayed in place, and it's going to keep evolving now.

Mariner.

 

[jimnyc]

As for "sickening disease," "wickedness," and "miserable," I hate to break it to you folk, who seem never to have met an actual gay couple: these are pretty good people, and the ones I know are darn happy. Who are we to question their happiness?

I know a few couples who share the crack pipe together and they seem pretty happy too. I'm not questioning their happiness, I'm stating that their actions are abnormal and disgusting.

If you want to talk "social fabric," then why not address the fact that the red states have higher divorce rates and higher child poverty rates than Massachusetts, where our social fabric is supposedly rent by our acceptance of gay marriage? Or consider the thought that permitting gay marriage might actually enhance the social fabric by encouraging long-term relationships.

The gay marriage crap just started recently, I highly doubt you can make a good analysis on how it's affected the social fabric just yet. And just because NORMAL marriages might have issues, that is not a need to allow this filth into the fray.

What it all seems to come down to is that you folk feel either an emotional disgust at the thought of gay people, a feeling so strong that you're ready to discriminate against them,

Where do you see discrimination? THEY ARE GIVEN 100% IDENTICAL RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUALS. I refuse to support giving them ADDITIONAL rights to support their fucked up, vile lifestyles.

or that you have religiously-based objections to their behavior and wish for a more religiously-guided America. If it's the former, I say get over it--your feelings aren't so important that they should run roughshod over others'--and if it's the latter, then you should ask why you pick and choose your biblical prohibitions. There are plenty of other prohibitions in the bible in addition to sodomy. The only answer you'll find is that it's historical, i.e. you're promoting earlier American culture. Well, American culture has never stayed in place, and it's going to keep evolving now.

Mariner.

11 states voted thus far and all eleven shot down the queers. I'm confident it will continue in this direction as America wants no part of supporting those who engage in animal like behavior.