Same Sex Marriage - For or Against it?

[brandonisi]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

I think you should already have the right to marry your partner of choice, similar to how govt is not supposed to regulate churches or religion.

What people cannot agree on is the language and benefits through the state that specifies gender, etc.
So I believe in keeping the state laws neutral and keeping the marriage/spiritual/beliefs part among the people, churches, etc. to decide privately.

I believe in getting anything deemed religious or belief based, out of the state jurisdiction and laws that are public, so there are NO beliefs or religious conflicts in state hands, courts, laws etc.

All that should remain private, just like whether a church has male priests or female teachers, that's not the state's business.
People should not take their unresolved personal or religious issues and impose that through the state to force a resolution.

They need to separate and quit abusing govt, either way, to either wrongly impose or ban whichever groups' beliefs are conflicting with theirs. Quit being "babies running to mommy or daddy," and solve your own problems or separate. The govt is supposed to represent what is common for all people, and leave the rest private, not take one side's views and impose that on the other.

(if people can AGREE on a policy, sure, that can be established through the govt and laws. if not, take out whatever part causes and conflicts, and only make laws using the neutral/universal parts)

 

[brandonisi]

I agree that churches should not be forced to marry a gay couple if it goes against their faith. My only problem is with people who are against it BECAUSE of their faith, and believe all bans that have been repealed should be reinstated for religious reasons or because of "natural law".

 

[R.D.]

I'm against it. I want for the union btwn you and your partner to have all the rights and protection of tradional marriage but see no reason to blur longstanding definitions and understandings that has been with society for centuries over.

Marriage is already defined, husband(man) and wife(woman).

 

[emilynghiem]

I agree that churches should not be forced to marry a gay couple if it goes against their faith. My only problem is with people who are against it BECAUSE of their faith, and believe all bans that have been repealed should be reinstated for religious reasons or because of "natural law".

I agree bans go too far where govt is "imposing on churches and private citizens."
As for imposing same-sex marriage WITHIN govt institutions or laws,
no "ban" is needed to remove the non-neutral language causing religious conflict.
As with the First Amendment, Govt should "neither establish nor prohibit" but remain neutral.

It should still be allowed for churches and individual to be free to
exercise their beliefs without govt dictating. Just make sure govt laws "neither impose nor ban" the beliefs of one group over the other; and if they can't agree, then pull all of it out of the govt and just keep it to the individual churches.

 

[brandonisi]

I'm against it. I want for the union btwn you and your partner to have all the rights and protection of tradional marriage but see no reason to blur longstanding definitions and understandings that has been with society for centuries over.

Marriage is already defined, husband(man) and wife(woman).

But see, this argument confuses me. What is being blurred? Me entering into a civil marriage doesn't change the definition of anyone else's marriage. And does this really all come down to the "word"? I mean, that just seems so odd to make such a fuss over a word. If I tell you the sky is purple, you can still continue believing it's actually blue.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm against it. I want for the union btwn you and your partner to have all the rights and protection of tradional marriage but see no reason to blur longstanding definitions and understandings that has been with society for centuries over.

Marriage is already defined, husband(man) and wife(woman).

Hi [MENTION=27986]R.D.[/MENTION] for people who believe as you do, which I believe should be respected equally as a valid belief that cannot be overrun by govt,
what level do you believe people have the right to establish this?

Can you establish it by state, but if another state agrees to have gay marriage is that okay?

Or should it be required to have a "unanimous agreement" for the whole nation
before allowing people to change the laws here or there?

For states, is majority rule enough, or would you require consensus on policy?

Could states leave it open, so that counties or districts/cities might recognize such marriages and it varies per region by vote of the population?

How do you decide where to draw the line, since obviously some people believe otherwise.
How do you suggest to manage the diverse beliefs so these are equally protected.
By state? By national consensus? By local representation and vote? What level?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm against it. I want for the union btwn you and your partner to have all the rights and protection of tradional marriage but see no reason to blur longstanding definitions and understandings that has been with society for centuries over.

Marriage is already defined, husband(man) and wife(woman).

But see, this argument confuses me. What is being blurred? Me entering into a civil marriage doesn't change the definition of anyone else's marriage. And does this really all come down to the "word"? I mean, that just seems so odd to make such a fuss over a word. If I tell you the sky is purple, you can still continue believing it's actually blue.

Believe me, it can mean night and day to use the terms
civil union
civil contract
civil marriage

especially with people whose beliefs and psychology "do not separate church and state"
this can make all the difference in the world.

I believe with more careful attention to mediation and editing of how these laws are written, and the SPIRIT or environment/agreement in which they are written by collaborative instead of adversarial approach, can make the difference in whether people interpret them as imposing or not.

Some issues are that sensitive, and this is one of them.

We would save time, hassle and liberties at stake by investing that effort up front.
otherwise, each time a bill or ban is passed that threatens one side's views or the other,
it deepens the mistrust and division, and makes it that much harder to bring sides together to work out how to word these laws to bypass whatever is causing the conflicts.

 

[R.D.]

Emilyanne I'm not sure there is an answer for your question. States rights vs federal govt....it's a states issue

Again my belief is marriage is husband and wife. Period. To blur the lines instead of being proud to have a partner, better half, mate or any other term that might define a same sex relationship partners exclusive of the ones already assigned based on gender baffles me.

I

 

[emilynghiem]

Emilyanne I'm not sure there is an answer for your question. States rights vs federal govt....it's a states issue

Again my belief is marriage is husband and wife. Period. To blur the lines instead of being proud to have a partner, better half, mate or any other term that might define a same sex relationship partners exclusive of the ones already assigned based on gender baffles me.

I

OK so I see an additional complication here.
1. first there is the issue itself, of distinguishing the equal religious freedom in marriage as private personal practice from the public level of law or institutions that go through govt

Why can't those be separated. why can't we keep the traditional religious part intact through the churches, and just make the part through the govt to be neutral in language where it neither imposes nor bans anything causing conflicts in beliefs

2. second this brings up when people aren't getting their religious freedom protected equally

once the state passes or enforces a law that prohibits or discriminates equal religious freedom, people go running to the federal level to invoke Constitutional laws in the Bill of Rights

is there any way to localize this process on the state level and resolve it there first,
instead of dragging federal govt into it?

why can't people AGREE to recognize equal religious freedom among the people on the state level WITHOUT having to invoke federal authority to enforce this?

Can't we resolve things directly, invoking the same principles as in the federal/Constitutional laws, but work together as people to write state laws
that respect these equal rights and freedoms.

So we could resolve it locally, first, and then agree what laws to pass or keep on the state levels.

So R.D. would it be okay if people in one state form an agreement one way, and other states form their own agreement. Some of them with the state remaining neutral and others with the people of the state actively agreeing to incorporate same sex marriage within the govt laws as well. Would this cause a problem? Do all states need to have a uniform policy? So if all states do not agree, then the default is to have the laws in all states remain neutral and keep all beliefs related to marriage in private and out of govt?

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I have said for years, that there would already be civil unions all over the country if the gay and lesbian community would eliminate the word "marriage"

To me it is a holy word, it might not be that way to others, but to me it is. It is a union by a man and a woman witnessed by God. That is just my opinion on the word 'marriage'

I have no problem with a civil union of a homosexual couple, I have no problem with a man having 72 wives if he wants to(man must be crazy). And I say that as a Christian. It's not up to me to judge anyone, it's hard enough keeping my own matters strait and trying to walk the path set before me.

Believe me though, not passing judgement is a Christians hardest rule to follow. I do it everyday, and ask for forgiveness and the strength not to do it again the next day, and as always, I do.

 

[auditor0007]

I have said for years, that there would already be civil unions all over the country if the gay and lesbian community would eliminate the word "marriage"

To me it is a holy word, it might not be that way to others, but to me it is. It is a union by a man and a woman witnessed by God. That is just my opinion on the word 'marriage'

I have no problem with a civil union of a homosexual couple, I have no problem with a man having 72 wives if he wants to(man must be crazy). And I say that as a Christian. It's not up to me to judge anyone, it's hard enough keeping my own matters strait and trying to walk the path set before me.

Believe me though, not passing judgement is a Christians hardest rule to follow. I do it everyday, and ask for forgiveness and the strength not to do it again the next day, and as always, I do.

If marriage is solely "holy", then state governments should no longer give out marriage licenses since that would be supporting something "religious".

 

[auditor0007]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

Stated simply, consenting adults should have the right to civil marriage regardless of sexual orientation. In no way should any church or religious organization be required to marry gay couples if that is against their doctrine.

 

[westwall]

I'm for same sex marriage. It harms no one.

 

[Nutz]

I see no positive value in legitimizing poor behavior and life choices, therefore I am against gay marriage and civil unions.

 

[S.J.]

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

Welcome aboard.

I'm for it. If simply because marriage insofar as the government is concerned is a legal contract, and any two legal aged adults who could enter into other legal contracts with one another should also be able to enter into a marital one. Plus, as a religious rite, the government can't impose one religion's for/against onto the rite since not all religions agree about whether it'd be okay or not.

 

[Asclepias]

For it.

There is not a valid reason to disallow same sex marriages between 2 consenting adults. If everyone does not have the right to get married then that is against the constitution.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

brandonisi - welcome to the board.

It doesn't really concern me one way or the other. Its not my business who marries who but since I love my country and our constitution, I'm in favor of marriage equality.

Marriage is, first and foremost, a legal term. So many confuse that but one can get married in a courthouse and its a legally binding contract. If one gets married in a church, its not legally binding until its filed at the courthouse. Religion means nothing when applied to the question of legality.

The definition of "traditional" marriage has been changed so many times throughout history but really, the bottom line is equality and freedom and that's something all Americans should be in favor of.

 

[AquaAthena]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

Best of luck to you. I'm neither for, nor against, same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States.