# Same-sex marriage ban wins OK



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

Texas became the 18th state to write a ban on same-sex marriage into its constitution as Proposition 2 was overwhelmingly approved by voters Tuesday (Nov 8th).

The controversial proposition was supported by Gov. Rick Perry and many churches throughout the state.

Houston Chronicle Story

Thoughts? What are the implications of this to other states? 

7sm


----------



## Kane (Nov 15, 2005)

Here in California it is still illegal, I think 60% of the population is against same-sex marriage while 40% is for it (in California). I'm personally against same-sex marriage and I think majority of the US still is. I am okay though a union between homosexuals just as long as it isn't called marriage (and not equated in the same way). That's is my opinion.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 15, 2005)

Personally I think the US should absolve marriage all together, at least in a civil sense.  Marriage is a religious thing or at least my understanding is that in many cultures it started out as one and if you want to get married, you should, in your church.  If you want the societial benefits that comes along with getting hitched at town hall, i.e. tax benefits, insurance benefits, the sutff that comes along with having kids....etc...., then I think any two adults, male to female, female to female or male to male should get a civil union.
Last I checked Canada allows gay marriage and the country hasn't imploded, so IMHO I think US citizens are overwhelmingly being stupid, spiteful, and closed-minded by not allowing gays the same rights.  Last I checked, most gays that want to get married, want to do so to a) get the benefits a male and female marrying get and b) have a public way to declare their love for their partner and the celebrations that go along with that.  I personally see nothing wrong with that...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2005)

Y'know, if you let the public vote on what's "right" we'd still have slavery, women might still not be able to vote, and you can bet your *** that non-whites would not have to worry about going to school with whites.

It will take lawmakers with balls to force true equality in the US.  Thank goddess other nations such as Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa do understand the discriminatory nature of such close minded bans.  Maybe someday, the US will truly be a nation of equal rights.

Civil-marriages entail a wide range of entitlements, including social security, health insurance, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (e.g. by drawing up contracts), many cannot; thus same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.


I look at it this way. If you don't want to marry someone the same gender as you, don't. You aren't forced to. But let those who do want to make the commitment do so, and enjoy the same protection opposite gender commitments do.

Laws concerning cross-race and cross-religion unions have been struck down, sometimes forcibly. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 15, 2005)

One conservative explained to me that he was against same sex civil unions because he feared that it would encourage homosexuality.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 15, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> It will take lawmakers with balls to force true equality in the US. Thank goddess other nations such as Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa do understand the discriminatory nature of such close minded bans. Maybe someday, the US will truly be a nation of equal rights.


 
And New Zealand...dont forget about us.

I will never understand why people feel they have the right to tell others what they can and cant do just because they are different??

I do beleive this issue is a generational thing...in 50 years time, it will be such a non issue!


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 15, 2005)

First of all, I think the best way to "protect marriage" is by marrying as well as possible - even if you have to postpone the committment until both partners are mature - and by not getting divorced. Some of the strongest opponents of gay marriage are right wing talk show hosts with multiple divorces and religious leaders with admitted adulturous affairs.

If you are against gay marriage - don't marry a person of the same sex. True, I would not mind it being called something slightly different, but to exclude a whole class of people from the legal benefits and protections of union strikes me as greatly unfair.

There are so many more important issues out there that this is drawing attention from, IMO.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 15, 2005)

True, some of the biggest enemies of same-sex marriages are right-wingers.  But some of the biggest opponents are left-wingers, too, so don't blame the whole thing on conservatives.  The only reason it's an issue now is Karlo Rove's brilliant campaign strategy.  He picked an issue that would unite the religious right as well as pull from the religious Democrats.  I'm kind of sorry to say, but it worked.  Also, I know of one fairly conservative talk show host in Cincinnati (Mike McConnell, I think) who is only opposed to it because it might lead to other things.  Here's why: if you say that homosexuality is different, but deserves the same privileges as heterosexuality, then it would follow that bestiality, pedophilia, bisexuality, etc would be OK, thus setting a legal precedent for anyone being able to marry anything.  Plus, if a person is sexually attracted to both males and females, then it would only be fair that that person be able to marry both, since s/he's bisexual instead of homo- or heterosexual.  Not a bad argument; at least it's logical and not religious or emotional.

The reason I underlined privilegs is that marriage is one...it's not a "fundamental right" like the drama queen in the article called it.  There are probably churches where you could get a homosexual marriage; it just wouldn't count by law.  Personally, I don't understand all the anti-gay sentiment, though.  To me, it's like country music.  It's not something I like...at all...but I don't dislike others for liking it or even care at all really.  I have a few gay friends, but I don't usually think of them as my gay friends, just as my friends because I couldn't possibly care less whether they like men, women, redheads, blondes, brunettes, fat girls, skinny girls, fat men, skinny men, blacks, whites, whatever...I just don't care.

Like a lot of things, I believe in states' rights as well.  Maybe there could be a provision stating that a state didn't have to recognize a gay marriage from another state while maintaining a permanent residence there or something to that effect.  For example, Texas says no, but maybe it's legal in Oklahoma.  If two homosexuals want to marry each other, then maybe they'd stay in OK.  I don't know, that might set an ugly precedent too, maybe with driver's licenses and other trans-state issues, but it's just a thought.

Another thing that the gay community is criticized for is its lack of monogamy.  I think that allowing them to marry would help, because there is really no tangible commitment right now.  If there were marriages, then there would be a certificate and a contract of sorts and I believe that that would help solidify relationships.  Could be wrong, I mean there are still married people who cheat, but at least the commitment would be acknowledged more.

Oh, and one other thing.  I've been known to pick on liberals and others sometimes for using illogical, emotional arguments instead of logic and facts, so I'll stay consistent on this one as well.  This is a mostly emotional argument.  "Marriage has always been that way;" "The Bible says...;" "Ewwww!  Gays!" and other such nonsense.  It seems that the religious are using religion to push their ideas, and they're doing it with striclty emotional arguments.  That is annoying.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 16, 2005)

Xequat said:
			
		

> True, some of the biggest enemies of same-sex marriages are right-wingers. But some of the biggest opponents are left-wingers, too, so don't blame the whole thing on conservatives. The only reason it's an issue now is Karlo Rove's brilliant campaign strategy. He picked an issue that would unite the religious right as well as pull from the religious Democrats.


 
True, and true. It was a strategy and the Democrats played right into his hands.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

The time has come. Legalize it.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

Rules that squelch freedom and target certain groups of people... Thats not American or constitutional. Whether its been done or not in the past is a moot point, it shouldn't be done.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 16, 2005)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Also, I know of one fairly conservative talk show host in Cincinnati (Mike McConnell, I think) who is only opposed to it because it might lead to other things. Here's why: if you say that homosexuality is different, but deserves the same privileges as heterosexuality, then it would follow that bestiality, pedophilia, bisexuality, etc would be OK, thus setting a legal precedent for anyone being able to marry anything. Plus, if a person is sexually attracted to both males and females, then it would only be fair that that person be able to marry both, since s/he's bisexual instead of homo- or heterosexual. Not a bad argument; at least it's logical and not religious or emotional.


 
You know this is the arguement from many conservatives that I have seen that I hate.  Why is it that if you make a union between two consenting ADULTS that suddenly every bizarre thing out there involving pets and kids would suddenly be allowed.  There is no direct or even fuzzily indirect line between those topics cause it seems like the main point of two consenting adults is suddenly lost.  Legalizing gay marriage or civil unions WILL NOT lead to a run on pedophilia and beastality making them all legal and such.....
Plus, right now if someone wants to marry 5 other people they can...in their church.  But for the purposes of inheritence and adoption and all the other legal benefits of a union it involves just TWO people.  When 3 women and 1 man can provide the genetic material to make 1 baby then we'll talk about poligamy....until then.....gay marriage isn't going to lead to a great run on the Mormon's overtaking city hall.


----------



## Kane (Nov 16, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Personally I think the US should absolve marriage all together, at least in a civil sense. Marriage is a religious thing or at least my understanding is that in many cultures it started out as one and if you want to get married, you should, in your church. If you want the societial benefits that comes along with getting hitched at town hall, i.e. tax benefits, insurance benefits, the sutff that comes along with having kids....etc...., then I think any two adults, male to female, female to female or male to male should get a civil union.



I would assume many people for same-sex marriage is because they think it is a religious thing. Your not wrong in your opinion, but it makes you wonder what religion is really doing to morality and what everything used to be. Which is why religion might end up destroying what morality in the end, although it tried hard to instill it. When people read verses like "Thou shalt not do this" they assume it is has to do with being religious and dismiss it completly.

I'm not saying homosexuality is evil, as there are many people who were by nature gay. It doesn't mean we have to change the defination of marriage altogether. Marriage has been between a man and a woman, and just because homosexuality may not be bad it doesn't change the facts. I think many people including myself would view marriage as a sacred union between a man a woman. Not sacred just because God said it was, sacred because it has been a human tradition that dates backs even to homo erectus! It has been an important part of literature even since literature began we need to keep in mind that a union between a man and a woman is different between a union between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or any other type of union you can think of . To me marriage has little to do with kids, it has mainly to do with the union between man and woman.

However I do see why homosexuals do want some sort of union, and they can have it if they like. A union with full rights as a straight couple in my opinion would be a great aspect to add to humanity, and and the homosexual union will be more beautiful if it is a a league of its own in my honest opinion.

And just so all of you know, this is coming from a currently non-religious man. Anyways, if we were to come up with a union for homosexuality with full rights as the other type of union (equal but different), what do you think we should call it? Garriage? Homunion? ect? What do you think if we were to solve this issue with a middle of the road approach?


----------



## Icewater (Nov 16, 2005)

Talking as a conservative here, I could care less what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom.  However, I have a real problem giving gays SPECIAL rights to marriage.  Homosexuals are a well funded SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP just like the NRA, PETA, and any other group that CHOOSES to act in a particular way.

The goverment should grant equal rights based on race, color, etc... things that a person has no control over.  A person can be born black, but they sure as hell aren't born gay.  I know the arguement that some people are genetically pre-disposed to be gay, but I don't buy it.  I'm german-irish but that doesn't mean I deserve special rights because I am genetically pre-disposed to drink a lot.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 16, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> You know this is the arguement from many conservatives that I have seen that I hate. Why is it that if you make a union between two consenting ADULTS that suddenly every bizarre thing out there involving pets and kids would suddenly be allowed....  When 3 women and 1 man can provide the genetic material to make 1 baby then we'll talk about poligamy....until then.....gay marriage isn't going to lead to a great run on the Mormon's overtaking city hall.


 
Yeah, I don't completely agree with the argument, but I can see that side of it.  The thing about your polygamy agrument is that there is not enough genetic material to create a baby in a homosexual marriage either, so that doesn't really apply, unless you believe that marriage only exists for procreation.  But, if that's whast you believe, then you'd be against homosexual marriage, so I'm confused by your point.  Were you on a bit of a rant maybe and I read into it too much?

I definitely see your point about the two consenting adults, though.  Laws are pretty much made up of words, so I'm sure that there's some way to word it such that any two adults can marry and only two.  Myabe call it a union between one adult and another adult.  But that's not the wording that worries some people.  

Personally, I wish the whole thing would go away.  I think that until science can prove (and it never will) whether homosexuality comes from choices or genetics, it should not be singled out.  If it's genetic, then it's the same as being black, white, tall, short, whatever, so it would be discriminatory to say that gays couldn't do something that straights can do.  If it's proven to be a choice (impossible, since for some it's probably a choice and others it's genetic...just a personal opinion, could be wrong), then they become a special interest group and different rules apply.


----------



## Kane (Nov 16, 2005)

Icewater said:
			
		

> Talking as a conservative here, I could care less what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom. However, I have a real problem giving gays SPECIAL rights to marriage. Homosexuals are a well funded SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP just like the NRA, PETA, and any other group that CHOOSES to act in a particular way.
> 
> The goverment should grant equal rights based on race, color, etc... things that a person has no control over. A person can be born black, but they sure as hell aren't born gay. I know the arguement that some people are genetically pre-disposed to be gay, but I don't buy it. I'm german-irish but that doesn't mean I deserve special rights because I am genetically pre-disposed to drink a lot.



About homosexuality and Nature vs Nurture, I think some people are born gay while others choose to be gay. I know from experiance with gays, as I have gays that are against homosexuality themselves for religious reasons! That may seem odd, because if that is the case why doesn't just be straight? Same thing applies in India. In India being gays is a crime and yet India has a very large unic, transgender, and homosexual population (although a tiny minority it still exists). Whether it is a birth defect, genetics or not I am certain some people are born homosexual. If this wasn't true there wouldn't be such things as self-hating homosexuals . Because if a homosexual dies bit like homosexuality, he would not be gay (like a friend of mine).


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 16, 2005)

Icewater said:
			
		

> Talking as a conservative here, I could care less what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom.  However, I have a real problem giving gays SPECIAL rights to marriage.  Homosexuals are a well funded SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP just like the NRA, PETA, and any other group that CHOOSES to act in a particular way.
> 
> The goverment should grant equal rights based on race, color, etc... things that a person has no control over.  A person can be born black, but they sure as hell aren't born gay.  I know the arguement that some people are genetically pre-disposed to be gay, but I don't buy it.  I'm german-irish but that doesn't mean I deserve special rights because I am genetically pre-disposed to drink a lot.


I may be misunderstanding the situation, but I don't think anyone in the gay/lesbian community is asking for "special" rights above and beyond what is already granted to a heterosexual couple.  They simply want to live and let live like everyone else.  I really don't understand why the concept is so difficult for the majority to grasp.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 16, 2005)

I cannot see one reason why same sex marriages should be illegal just for being same sex marriages.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> I cannot see one reason why same sex marriages should be illegal just for being same sex marriages.


 
Already been discussed ad infinitum

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27126


----------



## Icewater (Nov 16, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I may be misunderstanding the situation, but I don't think anyone in the gay/lesbian community is asking for "special" rights above and beyond what is already granted to a heterosexual couple. They simply want to live and let live like everyone else. I really don't understand why the concept is so difficult for the majority to grasp.


 
I think you are misunderstanding it then.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  The most common legal definition being:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage."

If you create an amendment to that saying that gays can also marry, then you are giving them SPECIAL rights that are contradictory to the present law.  It would be the same as saying that a person has the right to marry their dog.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Icewater said:
			
		

> If you create an amendment to that saying that gays can also marry, then you are giving them SPECIAL rights that are contradictory to the present law. It would be the same as saying that a person has the right to marry their dog.


 
they are just seeking a rewording of the law, from my understanding.

as opposed to beastiality, a more reasonable arguement would be child marriages and polygamy, as referenced in the thread I just provided. It starts on the first page, around post #10

MrH


----------



## Gin-Gin (Nov 16, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Y'know, if you let the public vote on what's "right" we'd still have slavery, women might still not be able to vote, and you can bet your *** that non-whites would not have to worry about going to school with whites.
> 
> It will take lawmakers with balls to force true equality in the US. Thank goddess other nations such as Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa do understand the discriminatory nature of such close minded bans. Maybe someday, the US will truly be a nation of equal rights. Civil-marriages entail a wide range of entitlements, including social security, health insurance, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (e.g. by drawing up contracts), many cannot; thus same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.
> 
> I look at it this way. If you don't want to marry someone the same gender as you, don't. You aren't forced to. But let those who do want to make the commitment do so, and enjoy the same protection opposite gender commitments do. Laws concerning cross-race and cross-religion unions have been struck down, sometimes forcibly. It's only a matter of time.


I couldn't have said it better myself.  :asian:


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 16, 2005)

Icewater said:
			
		

> I think you are misunderstanding it then.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  The most common legal definition being:
> 
> "A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage."
> 
> If you create an amendment to that saying that gays can also marry, then you are giving them SPECIAL rights that are contradictory to the present law.  It would be the same as saying that a person has the right to marry their dog.


That's a gross exaggeration in my opinion.  So the law says one thing.  Fine.
Why couldn't it say something like:

"A contract made in the due form of law, by which two consenting adults reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives.  By the term of a concenting adult are meant, not only are they of the legal age of consent in the state in which they have residency, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage."

I mean for pete's sake, they're still talking about "Freemen and freewomen" in regards to slavery!!!  Yikes!  

So I'm guessing you got that definition from the 'lectric law library (since the typos even match), who's impressive quote on their front page reads "If you're one of those annoying, impatient types who thinks you're smart enough to skip my vitally important, erudite, intelligent elucidations without destroying everything you hold dear, you can get right to business with Some of Our Hottest topics:".  Looks like credible and impartial source to me.  

From Encylopedia Britannica: Online:
"Though the church regards marriage as a sacred, indissoluble union, modern western European and U.S. marriage law treat it as a civil transaction. Marriage law allows only monogamous unions; partners must be above a certain age and not within prohibited degrees of blood relationship; and they must be free to marry and give consent to the marriage."

That sounds a little more reasonable.  So what's the problem?  Only 2 people, check.  Age restriction, check.  Inbreeding restriction, check.  Lawfully allowed to marry, check.  Consent, check.  So why can't someone put this into legalese and pass it?


----------



## DngrRuss (Nov 16, 2005)

There is a difference between religous marriage and legal marriage.  The religous right is well versed at blurring the line between the two.  

I could not get married in a legally binding sense without a license from the government.  All the issues regarding social security, insurance, decision-making, inheritence, etc. are dependant on that legal government document.  It is simply not right, or American, to deny any right or legal status to any citizen of this country.  

Just because the majority may not like the idea of two men kissing- and let's face it, that's what it is- does not give them the power to deny them any rights whatsoever.  This is not an issue that should be decided by vote.  As stated previously, issues like slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, etc. would probably have a much different outcome if left to public opinion.  I don't want a bunch of zealotous, homophobic, religous-oriented people making decisions for me.

As for the fear that this will lead to legalizing bestiality, pedophelia, and the like- even to the status of marriage- we all know this is a red herring and just swcare tactics.  However, when it comes to poligamy, I do not have a problem with 3 or more people entering into a legal agreement with each other.  It is ok for businesses to do so, why not individuals?  It doesn't affect me or my marriage one bit.  But I am also a believer in termination dates on marriage certificates- like any contract. 

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

Icewater said:
			
		

> Talking as a conservative here, I could care less what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom. However, I have a real problem giving gays SPECIAL rights to marriage. Homosexuals are a well funded SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP just like the NRA, PETA, and any other group that CHOOSES to act in a particular way.


 
Yeah. I'm pretty tired of Focus on the Family too. Silly special interest groups.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yeah. I'm pretty tired of Focus on the Family too. Silly special interest groups.


 
What in the heck is special interest? is there an unspecial interest? everybody has some kind of interest. Just because they have an interest they get the label "special" interest? Is anything non-government special interest? Is anything you don't particularly like special interest? Is anything against your mood of the moment special interest?

I hate that phrase:rockets: 

Sorry for the rant, I've got nothing against your dislike of FonF Marginal, just hate the phrase LOL. I don't hate their group, but thats irrelevant .

MrH


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

Lemme ask everyone who is AGAINST Same Sex Marriage:

*HOW Does it hurt YOU at all if two men or two women get married, and they are not you?*

I'd love to see a valid answer to that.  Bet 10 bucks I dont get one.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Lemme ask everyone who is AGAINST Same Sex Marriage:
> 
> *HOW Does it hurt YOU at all if two men or two women get married, and they are not you?*
> 
> I'd love to see a valid answer to that. Bet 10 bucks I dont get one.


 
If the ladies are hot, that's two less hotties in the pool. 

(Hey, it's just as valid a point as any I've seen offered so far....)


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 16, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> If the ladies are hot, that's two less hotties in the pool.
> 
> (Hey, it's just as valid a point as any I've seen offered so far....)


Yeah, but they're interested in each other, so the only thing hurt would be your pride, which I'm sure you could find some strapping lad to help ya with. 

*ducks and runs away*

KIDDIN!!

*keeps running*


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Lemme ask everyone who is AGAINST Same Sex Marriage:
> 
> *HOW Does it hurt YOU at all if two men or two women get married, and they are not you?*
> 
> I'd love to see a valid answer to that. Bet 10 bucks I dont get one.


 
Lets look at that question then.

How does it hurt YOU at all if one man murders another? How does it hurt YOU if one man steals from another? How does it hurt YOU if a man rapes a woman? how does it hurt YOU if some guy starts smoking crack.

Not trying to answer this question, simply pointing out that just because something does not -directly- affect you, that does not make it ok.

Lets ask more direct questions more closely related. how does it hurt you if polygamy is allowed? how about childred marriages/relationships?

I don't answer the question because I -personally- am not going to be harmed (at least that I can forsee). That does not make the action right or wrong though. We can try discussing how it might harm others if you want, but I'm not interested in how it directly affects me. keep your $10 ;-)

MrH


----------



## Icewater (Nov 16, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> So I'm guessing you got that definition from the 'lectric law library (since the typos even match), who's impressive quote on their front page reads "If you're one of those annoying, impatient types who thinks you're smart enough to skip my vitally important, erudite, intelligent elucidations without destroying everything you hold dear, you can get right to business with Some of Our Hottest topics:". Looks like credible and impartial source to me.


 
I checked a few others that came up on the google, but they all made the separation of man and woman so it fit my purpose.




			
				OUMoose said:
			
		

> From Encylopedia Britannica: Online:
> "Though the church regards marriage as a sacred, indissoluble union, modern western European and U.S. marriage law treat it as a civil transaction. Marriage law allows only monogamous unions; partners must be above a certain age and not within prohibited degrees of blood relationship; and they must be free to marry and give consent to the marriage."
> 
> That sounds a little more reasonable. So what's the problem? Only 2 people, check. Age restriction, check. Inbreeding restriction, check. Lawfully allowed to marry, check. Consent, check. So why can't someone put this into legalese and pass it?


 
When did the church start making laws?

On a practical side it comes down to whether or not we should allow gays to have the same tax breaks and other benefits that a man/woman marriage entitles. The answer has to be no. If we let the gays do it, then why not college roomates, or brothers/sisters that are non-sexual but live together to help make ends meet?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

here is an interesting question... every knows of common law marriages, right? I lived w/ a guy for 3 years. was my roomate. how would something like that be considered? are common law marriages all that common these days? I honestly don't know. do they get any legal considerations? Is there any confusion w/ someone being a roomate. How would same sex marriages change things?

Honest question, I don't know the answers... just asking.

MrH


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 16, 2005)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Yeah, I don't completely agree with the argument, but I can see that side of it. The thing about your polygamy agrument is that there is not enough genetic material to create a baby in a homosexual marriage either, so that doesn't really apply, unless you believe that marriage only exists for procreation. But, if that's whast you believe, then you'd be against homosexual marriage, so I'm confused by your point. Were you on a bit of a rant maybe and I read into it too much?


 
It was really early in the morning and I wasn't feeling well and got slighty Rantish there Xequat.  What I was ineffectively trying to get accross was that marriage in a civil sense has to do with money and kids when you get group it in it's highest forms and that is takes two people to make a kid so I think that legally, it should be two people to raise a kid or two people max who have main control of the kid, deciding schools/medical care/etc whether it is man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, just man or just woman doesn't matter, just that even in many religious cultures that allow polygamy (and this is purely my understanding of it) the ultimate athourity over a particular kid falls to one mom and dad even if a group of men or women help raise the kid.  I am not being very eloquent here and am not sure if I am getting the main thrust of my arguement accross....

My main point is  I hate that arguement that comes along with the rally against gay marriage, i.e. that if you allow two men/women to marry then suddenly anything will be allowed.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Yeah, but they're interested in each other, so the only thing hurt would be your pride


 
Nothin' a dose of Vitamin Church wouldn't cure if only the suitable social pressures were put back in place.


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 16, 2005)

Icewater said:
			
		

> When did the church start making laws?
> 
> On a practical side it comes down to whether or not we should allow gays to have the same tax breaks and other benefits that a man/woman marriage entitles. The answer has to be no. If we let the gays do it, then why not college roomates, or brothers/sisters that are non-sexual but live together to help make ends meet?


The church started making laws around the same time people started using the bible as a basis for "morality".  

What benefits would a pair of college roomates get from entering into a civil union?  They generally don't own the house they live in, there's no health insurance, no benefits.  So why spend the time/effort in setting that up?  I know lots of people who have helped their siblings out, and I highly doubt they would want this either.  

And I'm still waiting for the response about how gay marriages promote beastialty...


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> here is an interesting question... every knows of common law marriages, right? I lived w/ a guy for 3 years. was my roomate. how would something like that be considered? are common law marriages all that common these days? I honestly don't know. do they get any legal considerations? Is there any confusion w/ someone being a roomate. How would same sex marriages change things?
> 
> Honest question, I don't know the answers... just asking.
> 
> MrH


I can't speak for others, but in Ohio, Common-Law marriage was abolished.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 16, 2005)

Icewater said:
			
		

> When did the church start making laws?
> 
> On a practical side it comes down to whether or not we should allow gays to have the same tax breaks and other benefits that a man/woman marriage entitles. The answer has to be no. If we let the gays do it, then why not college roomates, or brothers/sisters that are non-sexual but live together to help make ends meet?


 
Who says you can't.  I know of two different straight/gay combined men and women who have married, go about their own personal relationships, but have a civil marriage to get the benefits that goes with it.  I have another friend who married her h.s. boyfriend to be able to get fincial aid for college cause then they wouldn't count her parents income when determing aid.  She never lived with him or anything, still lived at home, but got the benefits that went with it.  
I am not saying you should give the tax benefits to whomever wants it, but just because you don't want to give it to a brother/sister or two college roomates does not mean you should deny it to others.  Besides I highly doubt those two college roommates have gone to city hall to get a "marriage" document.....



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> here is an interesting question... every knows of common law marriages, right? I lived w/ a guy for 3 years. was my roomate. how would something like that be considered? are common law marriages all that common these days? I honestly don't know. do they get any legal considerations? Is there any confusion w/ someone being a roomate. How would same sex marriages change things?
> 
> Honest question, I don't know the answers... just asking.
> 
> MrH


 
It actually depends on the state.  I know one state passed a law (I think Virginia or W. V. last year) that basically killed any chance of gay marriage/civil unions and in the process denied people who were in common law marriages the same benefits they were getting.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> And I'm still waiting for the response about how gay marriages promote beastialty...


 
Just going by the rhetoric of a wacky pal of mine, "if you let one pervert through, all the perverts get through". 

So... No actual reason exists.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Nov 16, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The time has come. Legalize it.


I agree. Make people happy, be done with it. I could care less what 2 people do.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Already been discussed ad infinitum
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27126


 
I read the thread, my statement stands.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> here is an interesting question... every knows of common law marriages, right? I lived w/ a guy for 3 years. was my roomate. how would something like that be considered? are common law marriages all that common these days? I honestly don't know. do they get any legal considerations? Is there any confusion w/ someone being a roomate. How would same sex marriages change things?
> 
> Honest question, I don't know the answers... just asking.
> 
> MrH


 
well only about 15 states even recognise common law marriage and i think about 5 of those states stoped recognising them from particular dates. But it doesn't just happen by living with a person, you have to actual live as a couple, call each other husband or wife, check the married box on forms and file joint tax returns etc.  Something to remember about common law marriages is when you are in one you are then subject to divorce.  Same sex common law marriages are not recognised at the moment.

Same sex marriages would change things because all states recognise marriage.  If you are married by common law in a state that allows this and then move to another state, that new state technically has to recognise that marriage.  So technically if one state allows a same sex marriage, then when they move to other states those states will have to recognise that marriage.

Common law marriages are pretty uncommon by all accounts and only started in my native land because some people lived in places in which there was no one to marry them officially.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets look at that question then.
> 
> How does it hurt YOU at all if one man murders another? How does it hurt YOU if one man steals from another? How does it hurt YOU if a man rapes a woman? how does it hurt YOU if some guy starts smoking crack.
> 
> MrH


 
All of that Depends, an example is theft, look at the % of markup on retail goods that is designed to cover anticipated theft, same with insurance rates, we all pay that. Besides, the difference between those examples and the gay marriage example is that Two men/women marrying has no effect on anyone but themselves...  The others are "crimes" with unwilling victims... so if *you* are the victim it can effect you directly.

Crack? It doesnt hurt me if someone smokes crack, which is why I dont support the war on drugs.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> I read the thread, my statement stands.


 
Did not say it would answer your statements, just that its been discussed quite a bit. Pretty much to the point of agreeing to disagree  and thats ok...

MrH


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> All of that Depends, an example is theft, look at the % of markup on retail goods that is designed to cover anticipated theft, same with insurance rates, we all pay that. Besides, the difference between those examples and the gay marriage example is that Two men/women marrying has no effect on anyone but themselves... The others are "crimes" with unwilling victims... so if you are the victim it can effect you directly.
> 
> Crack? It doesnt hurt me if someone smokes crack, which is why I dont support the war on drugs.


 
Why don't you support the war on drugs when it will effect you financially when goods are stolen to feed habbits.  Are you happy paying for the anticipated theft mark up that hurts you finacially?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Depends who is murdered. If that man is my brother, my father my friend or my son, or me, it could hurt me deeply. Rape, same thing. Theft can hurt ME financially, even if I am not the one being stolen from, (look at the % of markup on retail goods that is designed to cover anticipated theft, same with insurance rates) The difference between those examples and the gay marriage example is that Two men/women marrying has no effect on anyone but themselves... The others are "crimes" with unwilling victims.
> 
> Crack? It doesnt hurt me if someone smokes crack, which is why I dont support the war on drugs.


 
point taken regarding "crimes" with victims. This is why I added polygamy and child marriages. Care to respond to those? Are you endorsing such activities? When enough people start doing them, would you endorse it then?

MrH


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Why don't you support the war on drugs when it will effect you financially when goods are stolen to feed habbits. Are you happy paying for the anticipated theft mark up that hurts you finacially?


 
Irrelevant, THEFT is THEFT if it is done to support buying drugs or not.  The Crime would be the THEFT.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> point taken regarding "crimes" with victims. This is why I added polygamy and child marriages. Care to respond to those? Are you endorsing such activities? When enough people start doing them, would you endorse it then?
> 
> MrH


 
Well, let me ask... if those people agree to those types of marriages, are they wrong?  If 2,3, or 6 men or women CHOOSE to share a common spouse, should YOU be able to tell them they cannot?

As far as "child marriages" go, the age for this varies from state to state, country to country, so it is difficult to define.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Irrelevant, THEFT is THEFT if it is done to support buying drugs or not. The Crime would be the THEFT.


Yes the crime would be theft, but the point is the majority of shoplifting is done to support habbits.  If you are against theft why are you not supporting an inititive that would hopefully stop this theft that effects you financially?  Its actually very relevent.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> but the point is the majority of shoplifting is done to support habbits.


 
Really?

Care to cite reliable sources for this?  I worked retail for YEARS in both Management AND Loss Prevention... and from experience Id disagree with that statement.

But lets suppose for a moment you are correct... if drugs were not illegal, they *might* be affordable, and therefore require less theft to obtain, no?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2005)

Y'all are tangenting, and badly.

Same gender marriages have NOTHING to do with crime, bestiality, child abuse or drugs.  Well, no more and no less than opposite gender marriages do.

If you are worried about child molestation, lets abolish the Catholic Church (Seems there have been more Priests accused of molestation than gay men)

If you are worried about theft, lets abolish the police (seems I've seen a few articles about them abusing things)

Etc.

The argument that "Well you can pick" is nice.
Interestingly enough, until recently if I decided to pick a non-white woman as a partner, both of us would get some serious grief. In fact, in some parts of the US, we still would. Laws were on the books, in some places until the late 1970's against such unions.  Now, I can pick whichever hue I like.

There were laws on the books denying the union of 2 people from differing religions. Goddess help the Jew who wanted to marry a Gentile.

Thankfully, we have moved beyond that level of stupidity.

I see nothing different between 2 men wanting to marry, than I do a black and a white, or a Jew and a Christian wanting to marry.


Then again, maybe we should return marriage back to it's roots.
- Your parents made the arrangements, not you.
- You married to solidify family unions, and political alliances. Not for Love.
- Women get no say in the matter. In fact, Lets make women property again.
- While we're at it, lets return to stoning those who commit adultery, and have sex outside of marriage.

Church Law and Civil Law are 2 different things. The Church has been making laws for 2,000 years.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Then again, maybe we should return marriage back to it's roots.
> 
> - Women get no say in the matter.


 
That works for me.  But only if I can pick her.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 16, 2005)

This is what we have in New Zealand:

*Civil Unions*

The Civil Union Bill proposes a new type of relationship model for New Zealand. It will grant registered civil union couples recognition and relationship rights which are equal to those granted through marriage. For the first time ever, it will enable same-sex couples access to full legal equality. Thousands of different-sex and same-sex couples are waiting for an alternative to marriage that will provide them with protections and security under the law. 
Two countries, the Netherlands and Belgium, have legislated for same-sex marriages, and other jurisdictions are moving towards this, or are being required to do so by their Courts. The New Zealand government has decided not to take this approach.
Many other governments have decided to introduce civil unions or civil partnerships. The New Zealand government has introduced two bills - the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill (sometimes known as the Omnibus Bill).
The Civil Union Bill establishes a new form of legal relationship that will enable same-sex and different sex couples to solemnise and register their relationship. Although the Bill is a government Bill in the name of the Associate Minister of Justice Hon David Benson-Pope, it will be a conscience vote in Parliament. The intention is that civil unions will be a new legal entity, designed for the needs of couples in the 21st century.
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill amends hundreds of individual Acts and regulations to recognise civil unions and de facto relationships, so that neutral laws on relationships apply (unless there are grounds for justified discrimination under the BOR Act). This bill is also a Government Bill, and will also be a conscience vote.
*What will change?*


A greater level of consistency in the way New Zealand laws treat people in different forms of relationship will be achieved;
A new legal relationship, civil union, will be established that recognises the diversity of relationships and enables loving and committed couples to formalise their relationship without getting married;
The sense of social injustice experienced by same-sex couples, who are treated as "legal strangers" will be addressed;
The risk of legal challenge on the basis of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993 will be reduced; and
New Zealand will join other national and regional states that have legislated for the recognition of same-sex and de facto relationships.
*Marriage will not change*


Marriage will continue to be covered by a separate Act and recognised as a separate institution. That Act will not be amended.
The social, religious and traditional values associated with marriage will remain.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Care to cite reliable sources for this? I worked retail for YEARS in both Management AND Loss Prevention... and from experience Id disagree with that statement.
> 
> But lets suppose for a moment you are correct... if drugs were not illegal, they *might* be affordable, and therefore require less theft to obtain, no?


 
Yeah really, at least in the UK, i can supply with sources for that http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1904.pdf 
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041102/text/41102w14.htm
but its hard as once you arrest someone for shoplifting figures can't easily show that they are also supporting a habbit.  You will have to take my word for it more than anything that at least here the majority of shoplifting crime is done by addicts and users.  If its different there then excuse me, i don't mean to tell you different, i have never worked in american retail.  However it does shock me that you say it is different, i mean all i can think of is employee crime being higher but generally figures record that as a seperate figure from shoplifting.

So exactly why would you disagree with the statement?  What makes up the majority of retail crime in your opinion?  Or on what sources have you based your opinion?

Yeah drugs might be more affordable but drugs like alcohol play an even bigger role in crime on the whole so personally i would go the other way.  However i'm glad you answered my question as to why you weren't for the war on drugs, as there is a **** load of drug related crime that hopefully your way of thinking will eliminate.  Personally i despise all drugs and want rid of them all.


----------



## Kane (Nov 16, 2005)

I knew this thread was going to turn back onto the topic of religion. You know there are people in the world who are against same-sex *marriage* for reasons other than religion. I know the Bible is a very pushy book, that tells you to do something and says you will go to hell if you do not do it. Does that mean you have to assume everything that goes against the Bible as free-thinking? I guess humans are humans, and most likelly in the end the Bible will end up destroying morality. More people will get annoyed with anything it says an try to go against. To me, I take religion for what it is worth. I think the Bible teaches some good things and some bad things, but for one moment I would never dismiss anything just because its in religion.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the whole idea of two different genders coming together is the whole idea of marriage!  I don't know why some people can't figure this out! I understand what smoe of you who are for same-sex marriage are trying to say, but everything can't be your way. At the same time everything can't be the conservatives way which is why this needs to be decided on a centrist fashion! Make a new union, give the same rights as straight couples but call it something different and don't equate the two. Both unions will be considered equal but different. That way everyone will be happy, or at least one group will be as happy as the other and vice versa.

We can apply the same logic to any other situation. Abortion for example can be legal up to 4.5 months as it is the midway in most cases between conception and birth. That way the argument for killing fetus/babies and a woman's right to choose will be balanced.

But of course everyone here wants it there way or the high way, which is why there are so many troubles in the world! No one wants to solve things so that both interest groups are happy and because of this selfish desire (no matter how much you think it will do good) we have more and more conflicts!


----------



## Sarah (Nov 16, 2005)

Im thinking if you called it a Civil Union like we have here and take away the "marriage" argument, you will still have people that dont like the idea of gay people being together getting there knickers in a twist over it, they will just come up with some more strange reason why it shouldnt happen!


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Why don't you support the war on drugs when it will effect you financially when goods are stolen to feed habbits. Are you happy paying for the anticipated theft mark up that hurts you finacially?



Thanks to meth, this is a huge problem where we live in rural Indiana.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

Icewater said:
			
		

> A person can be born black, but they sure as hell aren't born gay.


 
Actually, based on the numerous conversations I have had with the numerous gay people who I know, I would say people _are _born gay.  Societal norms often force them to live in denial so it sometimes takes years before they can deal with the fact and get some kind of resolution to the issues that go along with this, but my friends tell me that for as long back as they can remember, from the time they were too young to even understand what sex is, they have been attracted to members of the same sex. 

I am no expert on homosexuality, but I do live and work in San Francisco, and I know and work with many homosexuals.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Actually, based on the numerous conversations I have had with the numerous gay people who I know, I would say people are born gay. Societal norms often force them to live in denial so it sometimes takes years before they can deal with the fact and get some kind of resolution to the issues that go along with this, but my friends tell me that for as long back as they can remember, from the time they were too young to even understand what sex is, they have been attracted to members of the same sex.




I would think if one had the 'choice' they would choose to be straight, it would make life a whole lot eaiser.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2005)

Seperate but Equal was struck down in the US in the 60's.

The religious argument is a crock.  I'm sorry, you can argue that the Christian Bible says something, but before anyone gets all pious, let me ask if you yourself truely follow what that book says. If you don't, then please don't pick and choose.  (Remember, dealing with women or stuff touched by a women who has her 'monthly friend' can render you unclean. LEVITICUS 15:19-33)

As to the supposed history of "Mariage" Heres some information:
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
The idea of love is a fairly recent addition. As I said, many marriages were pre-arranged, and often between total strangers, sometimes for economic, political or social reasons.

I still think the Canadians have it right.
Give the people the right, allow them the benifits, yet allow the various "churches" to decide for themselves if they wil do the ceremony. If the Catholics won't, maybe the Episcopalians will, etc.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

Sarah said:
			
		

> I would think if one had the 'choice' they would choose to be straight, it would make life a whole lot eaiser.


 
damn straight!! (no pun intended.  well, ok, pun intended!)

seriously, yeah.  why would someone choose to be ridiculed and hated by a huge group of society?  people are gay because that is how they are.  If you believe in God, then God made them gay.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 16, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I knew this thread was going to turn back onto the topic of religion. You know there are people in the world who are against same-sex *marriage* for reasons other than religion.


 
Perhaps consciously they _believe_ they are, but intentions and worldviews have a context and backdrop that far exceeds the limitations of any one human being's deliberate awareness. Even the language you were raised to speak has a substantial influence on the way you think about and see the world, whether you are consciously aware of this phenomenon or not.

And, make no mistake, these anti-gay prejudices have their origins in the religious context and traditional values of the culture we find ourselves in. Its a common trend in most patriarchal societies, actually (I would consider the democratic West to be a recovering patriarchy). This is especially prevalent in the United States, above many other Western democracies, in that much of the language and values of our nation rests on early Puritan settlers.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the whole idea of two different genders coming together is the whole idea of marriage!  I don't know why some people can't figure this out!


 
Perhaps because, unlike you, not all of us subscribe to the illusion that words and ideas have a predetermined meaning independent of the perception of human beings or the changes of time and history. The world is not pregiven, it is in many ways a construction based on a correspondence with objective reality. 

Likewise with sociocultural institutions like marriage. Their definitions and understandings evolve and adapt with the times. Once upon a time, "citizen" only meant able-bodied, land-owning white man, y'know...



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> At the same time everything can't be the conservatives way which is why this needs to be decided on a centrist fashion! Make a new union, give the same rights as straight couples but call it something different and don't equate the two. Both unions will be considered equal but different. That way everyone will be happy, or at least one group will be as happy as the other and vice versa.


 
On this I would agree.

My position is essentially that of Howard Dean's in that I support same-sex civil union, but don't believe we should be telling the churches of this country who they can and cannot marry. At the same time, I believe any church that is welling to conduct a same-sex ceremony should be more than legally able of doing so.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 16, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Texas became the 18th state to write a ban on same-sex marriage into its constitution as Proposition 2 was overwhelmingly approved by voters Tuesday (Nov 8th).


How embarassing for you. 

In the not too distant future, votes like this will be looked upon as Plessy v Ferguson is today.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Seperate but Equal was struck down in the US in the 60's.



Yes. At first I supported the civil union (only) option, but more and more it became clear to me that this was the right way to view it. It's a civil rights issue.

On another note, whether strictly inborn or not, sexual orientation is set at such a young age that it hardly matters. (A usual number is before 5 years old.) Who here has met someone who said at 29 "Guys, I've thought about it, and I've decided to give the gay thing a try!" Rather, they say at 29 "I've always known, but...".


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 16, 2005)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Another thing that the gay community is criticized for is its lack of monogamy. I think that allowing them to marry would help, because there is really no tangible commitment right now. If there were marriages, then there would be a certificate and a contract of sorts and I believe that that would help solidify relationships. Could be wrong, I mean there are still married people who cheat, but at least the commitment would be acknowledged more.


 
Man, that's an embarrasing paragraph. Spoken like someone who has never met a homosexual in a relationship. People who 'criticize' the gay community, apparently aren't aware that their teenaged children probably have 'Friends with Benefits'. 

I submit for your review. 

http://www.shalom6000.com


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Actually, based on the numerous conversations I have had with the numerous gay people who I know, I would say people _are _born gay. Societal norms often force them to live in denial so it sometimes takes years before they can deal with the fact and get some kind of resolution to the issues that go along with this, but my friends tell me that for as long back as they can remember, from the time they were too young to even understand what sex is, they have been attracted to members of the same sex.
> 
> I am no expert on homosexuality, but I do live and work in San Francisco, and I know and work with many homosexuals.


 
Well, part of the problem is how we _define_ homosexuality in the first place.

Is homosexuality the act of being _attracted_ to the same sex, or is it actual _expressions_ of this attraction?? If we define it only as outward expressions, this means that all celibate people (such as Catholic or Buddhist monks) in the world should be properly categorized as _asexual_. 

What about frequency?? A very high number of people have experienced what we would call a "homoerotic experience" (whether it be actual intercourse or just a dream) than who would actually consider themselves homosexuals. At what point do we cut off saying a person is simply having homosexual experiences into saying this person is actually a homosexual??

What about those that have been continuously raped by members of the same sex (such as is the case in prison), but do not consider themselves homosexuals?? What about those that willingly engage in homoerotic experiences in one setting (again, such as in prison) but freely abandon such practices when they leave this setting??

Again, many on the Religious Right constantly demonize and condemn homsexuality, but I doubt many of them could actually define what homosexuality _is_. Think about it.

Laterz.


----------



## Kane (Nov 16, 2005)

Heretic,



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Perhaps consciously they _believe_ they are, but intentions and worldviews have a context and backdrop that far exceeds the limitations of any one human being's deliberate awareness. Even the language you were raised to speak has a substantial influence on the way you think about and see the world, whether you are consciously aware of this phenomenon or not.
> 
> And, make no mistake, these anti-gay prejudices have their origins in the religious context and traditional values of the culture we find ourselves in. Its a common trend in most patriarchal societies, actually (I would consider the democratic West to be a recovering patriarchy). This is especially prevalent in the United   States, above many other Western democracies, in that much of the language and values of our nation rests on early Puritan settlers.



You are making the assumptions that being against homosexual marriage means you are anti-gay. Yes it is all about tradition to a certain extent, what is so wrong about that? What is wrong with tradition? Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman according to conservatives and many (most) people. I'm not looking at Biblical tradition only, I'm looking at humanity as a whole. Marriage on planet Earth dates back to when humans first started to engage in monogamous activities (homo erectus). At that time there was no religion or no big reasons, it was simply a union between a male human and a female human, never a male-male or female-female relationship. That is the tradition that later took more shape under religion, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage has existed before religion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

What is evil about patriarchy? Are you against anything that has to do with the past? First off in Western Democratic countries women can legally be elected into office, so there are no legals laws in support of a patriarchy (unless you want laws in order to enforce a matriarchy.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Perhaps because, unlike you, not all of us subscribe to the illusion that words and ideas have a predetermined meaning independent of the perception of human beings or the changes of time and history. The world is not pregiven, it is in many ways a construction based on a correspondence with objective reality.
> 
> Likewise with sociocultural institutions like marriage. Their definitions and understandings evolve and adapt with the times. Once upon a time, "citizen" only meant able-bodied, land-owning white man, y'know...



Illusion of what? Using your logic we might as well legalize marriage as a union between a table and a chair. Why not? Why don't we just change reality as we see it? Marriage exists in this world like anything else. It has nothing to do with how you look at it, marriage is a male(s)-female(s) relationship. Of course you can look at anything anyway you want, in fact you can call a a truck an TV, but it doesn't change the fact that a TV isn't a truck if you get what I am saying.

If definitions change over time now is not the time. In Canada it did, but the fact remains that majority of the US does not want to change the word of marriage to something else.

Now before you bring up interracial marriage disputes of the past. The arguments against interracial marriage did not make sense considering it never disputed the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether a black man marries a white woman it makes no difference, it is between a man and a woman. A man and man or woman and woman violates the fundamental concept of what marriage is.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> On this I would agree.
> 
> My position is essentially that of Howard Dean's in that I support same-sex civil union, but don't believe we should be telling the churches of this country who they can and cannot marry. At the same time, I believe any church that is welling to conduct a same-sex ceremony should be more than legally able of doing so.
> 
> Laterz.



Glad you agree on at least that. To sum all of it up in a nutshell I do believe conservatives do have a point (as I was explaining) as do liberals (as I have explained in other more conservative forums).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Yes it is all about tradition to a certain extent, what is so wrong about that? What is wrong with tradition? Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman according to conservatives and many (most) people. I'm not looking at Biblical tradition only, I'm looking at humanity as a whole. Marriage on planet Earth dates back to when humans first started to engage in monogamous activities (homo erectus). At that time there was no religion or no big reasons, it was simply a union between a male human and a female human, never a male-male or female-female relationship. That is the tradition that later took more shape under religion, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage has existed before religion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.



No, it has not "always" been "man-woman".

Here are 2 rather long rebuttles:
An Online Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans* History
Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History



> > Illusion of what? Using your logic we might as well legalize marriage as a union between a table and a chair. Why not? Why don't we just change reality as we see it? Marriage exists in this world like anything else. It has nothing to do with how you look at it, marriage is a male(s)-female(s) relationship. Of course you can look at anything anyway you want, in fact you can call a a truck an TV, but it doesn't change the fact that a TV isn't a truck if you get what I am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> seriously, yeah. why would someone choose to be ridiculed and hated by a huge group of society? people are gay because that is how they are.



I absolutly disagree with this, on the basis that you could apply this thinking to other subcultures and your description would fit... Yet  Im failry certain people arent born... "Goth" or with Giant green Punk Mohawks...

Yet they choose to be that way despite being ridiculed and hated by society, even if to a lesser extent than say a Homosexual.

Hey... Wait... I am also Christian, and if you look, I am ridiculed and hated by a huge group of society... just read many of the comments on this board alone about how dumb people who are christian are... Guess I was "born" that way too... and all my athiest, deist, and satanist periods in my life were just phases...

Nah, me personally, I have to believe People just make unpopular lifestyle choices.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Is homosexuality the act of being _attracted_ to the same sex



Yes.



> or is it actual _expressions_ of this attraction??



Homosexual acts.



> A very high number of people have experienced what we would call a "homoerotic experience"



Yeah, the numbers on this really surprise people...the percentage who have 'experimented' is rather high.




> What about those that have been continuously raped by members of the same sex (such as is the case in prison), but do not consider themselves homosexuals?? What about those that willingly engage in homoerotic experiences in one setting (again, such as in prison) but freely abandon such practices when they leave this setting??



The latter case is interesting. The former case is non-voluntary, so I don't see what it has to do with sexual orientation. If a lesbian is raped by a man, while it might  technically be a heterosexual act, I don't find that a very useful framework from which to view the act.




> Again, many on the Religious Right constantly demonize and condemn homsexuality, but I doubt many of them could actually define what homosexuality _is_.



I think they cover most of the cases. They condemn both the overt acts and the orientation itself, generally. I think they get the difference, but since "I tell you, he who has looked at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery" (a la Jimmy Carter) they don't much care.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Nah, me personally, I have to believe People just make unpopular lifestyle choices.



This has been pretty well studied...it's not a widely held view in the scientific community (regarding homosexuality).


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This has been pretty well studied...it's not a widely held view in the scientific community (regarding homosexuality).



Well, that specific comment was directed at MY post about not being born Punk or Christian...but making them as choices.

_I think_ (read: my personal beliefs) SOME gay people choose the lifestyle.  They do it to shock their parents, or as part of/resulting from a particular lifestyle... (For example, I have a reletive who is a stripper and she has stated that many of the strippers that she has worked with became lesbians after working in strip clubs and seeing the absolute worst in men... they decide they no longer want to have anything to do with them).  I also think that many "develop" gay lifestyles as a result of abuse/trauma in their childhoods.  I think its also plausable that a certain predisposition to certain sexuality could be genetic...  But, then again, is attraction genetic or learned... and is being Gay/Lesbian MORE than an "attraction" to sexual behavior with a same sex person?


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 17, 2005)

Personally, I think sexuality is more complex than male/female.  I think perhaps homosexuality is a third, altho less common, sexuality that occurs naturally.  Perhaps because sexuality manifests itself in two physical forms: male and female (I'm not going to get in to the whole hermaphrodite issue here), we tend to think there are only two forms of sexuality.  Maybe we need to rethink this...


----------

