Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[WanderingKnight]

butthurt female judge overruled a gay marriage down here in Buenos Aires

At least there was a legitimate marriage no fuckwit judge overruled yet in one of the provinces down south a couple of months ago, first in South America IIRC.

We're still supposed to be a gay friendly city so vOv (still, even for that, it's amazing the things you sometimes have to hear on the street about this sort of stuff).

[HolicKun]

everything i could possibly say has undoubtedly already been touched on in this thread, but i felt like i should put my 2 cents in anyway.

the concept of marriage needing to be between a man and a woman is obviously rather prejudiced and antiquated; and as the world (however i am only speaking about America here, as it is all i am really qualified to) becomes more liberal, as we have irrefutable been witnessing recently; why is this one major social taboo still... taboo? obviously, marriage laws have been around for a loooong time, and as such, it is time for them to be reviewed. in all honesty, what is the shelf-life of bad legislation?
i understand that it is a multifaceted issue, and there are several factors that need to be taken into account in the whole situation; such as gay-couple adoption laws and so forth (and i'm not quite sure where i stand on that, but that's for a different day and a different thread).
the bottom line is this:
you cannot help who you fall in love with, and as such, marriage restrictions should be lifted. i am a heterosexual, but a gay/lesbian couple getting married doesn't affect me negatively. i really don't care... marry a tree if you want; it has no impact on anyone else. to disallow an eternal union between two consenting parties is simply ridiculous.

that's all i really have to say at the moment... i've been awake for 40-ish hours and am beginning to ramble.

[KholdStare]

I view this as a "prevalence of religion in society" problem situation. Just like how it would be unusual for someone in a bikini to walk down the streets of Saudi Arabia, a good chunk of the (American) population is Christianity, and some of them (more than half in most states) thinks that the rest of society (non-Christians) should also follow the Bible.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by KholdStare

I view this as a "prevalence of religion in society" problem situation. Just like how it would be unusual for someone in a bikini to walk down the streets of Saudi Arabia, a good chunk of the (American) population is Christianity, and some of them (more than half in most states) thinks that the rest of society (non-Christians) should also follow the Bible.

This is a large reason why I left the Christian religion I was raised with. I love my parents, and most of the people in my church were nice people, but... they seem intent on changing the world's rules so that everyone follows them. It's especially jarring when Jesus himself said to lead by example; the lesson being that you can't force people to join your religion, and trying to do so only pushes them away. Instead, just focus on being a good person by yourself, and people will come to you.

And when I realized the inconsistency between the bible saying "homosexuality is wrong!" and then actually listened to people's hopes and fears, I realized that it couldn't be wrong. No one is harmed when two people decide to love each other, and there should be no one else dictating the lifestyle two people will follow, except for those two themselves.

Not gay myself, but I feel it's wrong to try and tell people who they can and cannot love. I literally couldn't be a Christian and reconcile this fact, as I'd be hypocritical; the only conclusion I could reach, was to become agnostic, until I could receive proof of any god(s) or supernatural beings.

For other parts, Christianity and other religions do some good, like helping the poor, getting people back on their feet, giving hope to those who have none, and if they'd just stick with that and be a passive presence, they'd probably do better.

Anyway, my thoughts on marriage, was to get the government out of it. Government should just be to allow people to register for civil unions, to indicate they are now family. Being family gives people certain rights and privileges in the eyes of the law (tax, inheritance, right not to testify or divulge information about a partner, etc.), so that should be the government's only concern. Whether male, female, two people, or 10 want to hook up together, it shouldn't be illegal as long as there is consent.

Leave marriages and wedding ceremonies as a purely civilian thing. People can get married in a church, or by Elvis in a building shaped like a giant sideburn, heh.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

For other parts, Christianity and other religions do some good, like helping the poor, getting people back on their feet, giving hope to those who have none, and if they'd just stick with that and be a passive presence, they'd probably do better.

This good they do is usually coupled with the unspoken disclaimer: "We'll feed you, clothe you, house you and help you get back on your feet, but only if you allow us to shove our ideology down your throat."

I'm thankful the shelter I'm staying in is secular.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

This is a large reason why I left the Christian religion I was raised with. I love my parents, and most of the people in my church were nice people, but... they seem intent on changing the world's rules so that everyone follows them. It's especially jarring when Jesus himself said to lead by example; the lesson being that you can't force people to join your religion, and trying to do so only pushes them away. Instead, just focus on being a good person by yourself, and people will come to you.

And when I realized the inconsistency between the bible saying "homosexuality is wrong!" and then actually listened to people's hopes and fears, I realized that it couldn't be wrong. No one is harmed when two people decide to love each other, and there should be no one else dictating the lifestyle two people will follow, except for those two themselves.

Not gay myself, but I feel it's wrong to try and tell people who they can and cannot love. I literally couldn't be a Christian and reconcile this fact, as I'd be hypocritical; the only conclusion I could reach, was to become agnostic, until I could receive proof of any god(s) or supernatural beings.

For other parts, Christianity and other religions do some good, like helping the poor, getting people back on their feet, giving hope to those who have none, and if they'd just stick with that and be a passive presence, they'd probably do better.

Anyway, my thoughts on marriage, was to get the government out of it. Government should just be to allow people to register for civil unions, to indicate they are now family. Being family gives people certain rights and privileges in the eyes of the law (tax, inheritance, right not to testify or divulge information about a partner, etc.), so that should be the government's only concern. Whether male, female, two people, or 10 want to hook up together, it shouldn't be illegal as long as there is consent.

Leave marriages and wedding ceremonies as a purely civilian thing. People can get married in a church, or by Elvis in a building shaped like a giant sideburn, heh.

what sect did you belong to? I guess some xtian sects are a lot more 'outgoing' than others. I think the Catholic sect is least likely to nag you to join 'em compared to let's say... mormons and jehovas

[Sylphic]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

This is a large reason why I left the Christian religion I was raised with. I love my parents, and most of the people in my church were nice people, but... they seem intent on changing the world's rules so that everyone follows them. It's especially jarring when Jesus himself said to lead by example; the lesson being that you can't force people to join your religion, and trying to do so only pushes them away. Instead, just focus on being a good person by yourself, and people will come to you.

And when I realized the inconsistency between the bible saying "homosexuality is wrong!" and then actually listened to people's hopes and fears, I realized that it couldn't be wrong. No one is harmed when two people decide to love each other, and there should be no one else dictating the lifestyle two people will follow, except for those two themselves.

Not gay myself, but I feel it's wrong to try and tell people who they can and cannot love. I literally couldn't be a Christian and reconcile this fact, as I'd be hypocritical; the only conclusion I could reach, was to become agnostic, until I could receive proof of any god(s) or supernatural beings.

For other parts, Christianity and other religions do some good, like helping the poor, getting people back on their feet, giving hope to those who have none, and if they'd just stick with that and be a passive presence, they'd probably do better.

Anyway, my thoughts on marriage, was to get the government out of it. Government should just be to allow people to register for civil unions, to indicate they are now family. Being family gives people certain rights and privileges in the eyes of the law (tax, inheritance, right not to testify or divulge information about a partner, etc.), so that should be the government's only concern. Whether male, female, two people, or 10 want to hook up together, it shouldn't be illegal as long as there is consent.

Leave marriages and wedding ceremonies as a purely civilian thing. People can get married in a church, or by Elvis in a building shaped like a giant sideburn, heh.

Not to derail the thread, but reading your post makes me realize that you've almost completely misunderstood the Christian ideology. I'm not exactly Christian myself, but you're wrong on a number of points. Just one, Jesus says lead by example, true, but more importantly he passed on the great commission which commands all Christians to actively spread the gospel. There's also great emphasis on the free choice clause, where the people who have received the news are free to reject or accept the news, though those who reject the news must deal with the consequences on their own.

Marriage is a religious thing and will always be a religious thing. Homosexuals decry Christians and other religious groups as being terrible people by spreading their agenda of discrimination, but aren't the homosexuals doing the same thing by trying to force their agenda of acceptance on those who don't want to accept it? Hurrah for double standards.

That being said, I don't disprove of civil unions where two people regardless of gender can be recognized as together in the law. But, the last thing we need is to have same-sex marriages be done in a church, a mosque, or a synagogue.

[MeoTwister5]

Well it's not so much that homosexuals are demanding that religions accept their unions as it is for the state to recognize them. Marriage as a religious sacrament is different from a civil union, which is purely a legal issue and not the religious one. Most homosexuals fighting for their right to union is asking this of the governments and not of religious organizations. Marriages are more faith and sacrament based as opposed to civil unions which are a more practical and as I said legal. Marriage isn't legally binding, and you need a legally binding contract to be officially be recognized by the state, which makes the need for a religious "marriage" superfluous to the more immediate needs of a civil union.

Though I would have to agree that same-sex couples shouldn't be imposing their demands to be recognized as a marriage sacrament, but neither should religious groups be absolute in it. Roman Catholicism made those mistakes in the distant and recent past and many Islamic sects are surely doing it now. Change within the religion should be done from within.

[Mr. DJ]

Seen this discussion on another forum, sorry if I come off as a bit uninformed, cause I really don't follow these type of things, but why not allow Civil Unions to have the same kind of benefits as being Married? If one wants to be together in the eyes of God, sure, they can go have their ceremony in a church.

Also, isn't it supposed to be "hate the sin, not the sinner?"

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by DjTrizz

Also, isn't it supposed to be "hate the sin, not the sinner?"

I wouldn't exactly be calling condoning the marriage of two men in front of me to be hating the sin from a religious viewpoint. There exists the sin of homosexuality in religions like Catholicism and allowing two people of the same sex to marry would be welcoming the sinner and the sin altogether.

[synaesthetic]

We're not asking for religious marriages.

I repeat, we're not asking for religious marriages.

All we want is the same legal rights and privileges that a married couple gets. If they call that a civil union, who cares? The word is just a word. The problem is civil unions are not equal to an actual marriage thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act and a lot of douchebag fundies.

Originally Posted by DjTrizz

Seen this discussion on another forum, sorry if I come off as a bit uninformed, cause I really don't follow these type of things, but why not allow Civil Unions to have the same kind of benefits as being Married? If one wants to be together in the eyes of God, sure, they can go have their ceremony in a church.

Because politicians are too terrified of losing the evangelical and Christian fundamentalist voting block. That's why civil unions aren't legally equal to marriage.

There shouldn't be any hate at all, but the average fundie doesn't want gay people to get married, they don't want gay people to have civil unions, they don't want gay people to live happy lives.

Most of them want gay people dead.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

This good they do is usually coupled with the unspoken disclaimer: "We'll feed you, clothe you, house you and help you get back on your feet, but only if you allow us to shove our ideology down your throat."

I'm thankful the shelter I'm staying in is secular.

Yeah, and it can get annoying, can't it? Jesus said to make sure the gospel was available, not shove it down their throats. That's one of the big issues I have with religions nowadays, as they seem to be more interesting in converting you, then just being a good neighbor. Letting their lifestyle be an example.

Originally Posted by mg1942

what sect did you belong to? I guess some xtian sects are a lot more 'outgoing' than others. I think the Catholic sect is least likely to nag you to join 'em compared to let's say... mormons and jehovas

They all have varying degrees, and would be stereotyping to say all did. I went to a non-denominational church, and they were decent people. But I've seen a lot of Christian activist groups pushing their bad laws on everyone else, trying to take away freedom of choice.

Originally Posted by Sylphic

Not to derail the thread, but reading your post makes me realize that you've almost completely misunderstood the Christian ideology. I'm not exactly Christian myself, but you're wrong on a number of points. Just one, Jesus says lead by example, true, but more importantly he passed on the great commission which commands all Christians to actively spread the gospel. There's also great emphasis on the free choice clause, where the people who have received the news are free to reject or accept the news, though those who reject the news must deal with the consequences on their own.

You're right about that, but many Christians nowadays try to push that on people. They'll toss bibles and tracts at you, at every opportunity. They'll work to push laws to take away people's freedoms of choice. They'll actively hurt people in their path, like young women trying to see an abortion doctor; picketing outside and trying to block paths, is not love, and not what Jesus would do.

This is what the world sees. They see the Christian right pushing their ideology into schools and into government, invading their bedrooms and private lives. This is not what Jesus would do.

Marriage is a religious thing and will always be a religious thing. Homosexuals decry Christians and other religious groups as being terrible people by spreading their agenda of discrimination, but aren't the homosexuals doing the same thing by trying to force their agenda of acceptance on those who don't want to accept it? Hurrah for double standards.

Actually, if you go back in history, you'll find marriage was a civil thing. Religion just simply co-opted it, like they do with many other things; Christianity in particular, has been real good about scooping up local holidays and traditions (read up on the "Christmas tree" heh).

And I fail to see what is wrong with an agenda of acceptance. Jesus himself was a big accepter of people. Is it really so bad when someone comes along and says, "I know I'm different, but I just want to be accepted the same as everyone else." It really says something, when someone has to be "forced" to accept another. I pity those poor southern whites who were "forced to accept" blacks among their midst.

That being said, I don't disprove of civil unions where two people regardless of gender can be recognized as together in the law. But, the last thing we need is to have same-sex marriages be done in a church, a mosque, or a synagogue.

So don't have them. It should be up to each church/mosque/etc. to decide what they want to do. The government shouldn't force them to perform same-sex marriages, and that's not what gays are asking anyway. The government can perform marriages, too. There's not much to it, besides a fancy ceremony and a piece of paper. In fact, the biggest thing is just the vows to be together, and how the government registers you. The church part has very little physical meaning.

[WanderingKnight]

Marriage is a religious thing and will always be a religious thing.

Uh, no it's not, last I checked it provides legal rights that fall well off the scope of any religious organization.

PS: also just sayin' but marriage is not exclusive to Christians.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Uh, no it's not, last I checked it provides legal rights that fall well off the scope of any religious organization.

This is accurate, and that is the ultimate problem on this matter for me.

Government recognition of marriage is, itself, a form of discrimination.

There is no service, privilege, or protection that should be offered or recognized by the government purely because two people are married. The government has no business recognizing or regulating marriages.

But today there are such services, privileges, and protections. That means unmarried persons are second class citizens, whether they are in a relationship or not.

When some one argues for government to allow homosexual marriage or civil unions, they are not arguing that all persons be equal. They are arguing for government to expand the privileged class.

[cheyannew]

And the silliness and asshattery continues...

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/fult...discrimination

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

This is accurate, and that is the ultimate problem on this matter for me.

Government recognition of marriage is, itself, a form of discrimination.

There is no service, privilege, or protection that should be offered or recognized by the government purely because two people are married. The government has no business recognizing or regulating marriages.

Not entirely accurate; married couples can file one tax return instead of two. In the event of death of one, all possessions go to the partner, unless a will says otherwise. If one of the partners falls ill and an ambulance comes, only the other partner can ride in the ambulance to the hospital. If there are extremely heavy visitation limits imposed on a hospital stay, sometimes only a married partner can get in to briefly visit their loved one.

There are a variety of others that I can't recall at the moment, and these are what gays are fighting for: basically, recognition. I'd see it as pretty evil to deny humans basic rights and privileges that others have.

But as other people have said, marriage was a civil act holding many different meanings, before religion came into it. Early Christianity even basically treated it as a private affair. For those more curious, the wiki page gives more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[Throne Invader]

I stumbled upon a youtube video which was about the NOH8 campaign which goes against Proposition 8 which bans same sex marriage. Since it's 8, that's why there's probably an "8" in NOH8. I just figured it out now while typing I just heard about it like 15 minutes ago. I then went to the website to find even famous people supporting the campaign. I'm just wondering why they have to use children as forerunners to support the campaign.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Not entirely accurate; married couples can file one tax return instead of two. In the event of death of one, all possessions go to the partner, unless a will says otherwise. If one of the partners falls ill and an ambulance comes, only the other partner can ride in the ambulance to the hospital. If there are extremely heavy visitation limits imposed on a hospital stay, sometimes only a married partner can get in to briefly visit their loved one.

There are a variety of others that I can't recall at the moment, and these are what gays are fighting for: basically, recognition. I'd see it as pretty evil to deny humans basic rights and privileges that others have.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

My very point is that those things should not be legal privileges for the married in the first place.

The government shouldn't recognize any marriage. This is being painted as an issue of heterosexuals having rights and privileges that homosexuals do not. It isn't. It's an issue of MARRIED people having rights and privileges that unmarrieds do not. Currently, homosexual couples aren't permitted to enter that special class. Why should it be a special class at all?

There are other sorts of people that haven't been allowed to be married before. There are unmarried couples who could benefit from some of those privileges. There are single people who could benefit from being able to elect a trusted person to fulfill one of those roles. All of those problems--and all the arguing about who can and can't get married--go away if the government isn't arbitrating this.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

My very point is that those things should not be legal privileges for the married in the first place.

The government shouldn't recognize any marriage. This is being painted as an issue of heterosexuals having rights and privileges that homosexuals do not. It isn't. It's an issue of MARRIED people having rights and privileges that unmarrieds do not. Currently, homosexual couples aren't permitted to enter that special class. Why should it be a special class at all?

There are other sorts of people that haven't been allowed to be married before. There are unmarried couples who could benefit from some of those privileges. There are single people who could benefit from being able to elect a trusted person to fulfill one of those roles. All of those problems--and all the arguing about who can and can't get married--go away if the government isn't arbitrating this.

The problem is, there are definite rules already in place, for who is able to see someone in the hospital, or who is allowed to inherit things. Marriage is essentially two people becoming family, somewhat like adoption. If you take away every special privilege granted to a spouse via marriage, you need to add new laws to dictate how the following is currently handled:

* Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse's debts - notice this is somewhat of a con; you become liable for debts (depending on country). This is important, because if you two are living together in the same house, and your spouse dies, your estate can be ransacked to repay the debt; the house belongs to you both. How do you figure on handling claims?
* Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized. - Want to be told "Sorry, you're not related to your spouse, so you can't go see him/her" ?
* Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse's affairs when the spouse is incapacitated - very important; If your spouse is seriously injured, and there's a chance they may not recover, or ever be the same, do you want the ability to be able to say how they should be treated? Who makes the decision if the law says you can't? Who pays for keeping them on life support?
* Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent's child. - So your spouse dies... and thus your kids are taken from you to be given to another couple. This alright with you? What if they are kids from your spouse's first marriage (where your spouse's husband/wife had died)
* Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children. - Your spouse dies, and the house was in their name; thus you lose everything and it goes to the kids. Or, if they aren't old enough, goes to the state instead, and you get kicked out. Sound fair? This is what tends to happen to people living in a building, if the owner dies.
* Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses. - not a direct thing, but this helps bring families together, and help determine inheritance if multiple family members die. You and your family are in a car accident, and only you survive, but barely. Your spouse's family now gets everything, because it was in their name, and you get nothing. Happy with this?

These are just a few of the things you need to consider. If I love someone enough to marry them, I want to be able to say what should happen to my loved one's possessions and life, in the event they are unable to, just like I want them to do for me.

Like it or not, marriage has played a vital role in society in determining things like this, since ancient times. It's not going away, as it's too ingrained. In a sense, you are saying to remove a vital part from a machine, without working out how you plan to function without it.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

The problem is, there are definite rules already in place, for who is able to see someone in the hospital, or who is allowed to inherit things. Marriage is essentially two people becoming family, somewhat like adoption. If you take away every special privilege granted to a spouse via marriage, you need to add new laws to dictate how the following is currently handled:

* Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse's debts - notice this is somewhat of a con; you become liable for debts (depending on country). This is important, because if you two are living together in the same house, and your spouse dies, your estate can be ransacked to repay the debt; the house belongs to you both. How do you figure on handling claims?
* Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized. - Want to be told "Sorry, you're not related to your spouse, so you can't go see him/her" ?
* Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse's affairs when the spouse is incapacitated - very important; If your spouse is seriously injured, and there's a chance they may not recover, or ever be the same, do you want the ability to be able to say how they should be treated? Who makes the decision if the law says you can't? Who pays for keeping them on life support?
* Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent's child. - So your spouse dies... and thus your kids are taken from you to be given to another couple. This alright with you? What if they are kids from your spouse's first marriage (where your spouse's husband/wife had died)
* Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children. - Your spouse dies, and the house was in their name; thus you lose everything and it goes to the kids. Or, if they aren't old enough, goes to the state instead, and you get kicked out. Sound fair? This is what tends to happen to people living in a building, if the owner dies.
* Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses. - not a direct thing, but this helps bring families together, and help determine inheritance if multiple family members die. You and your family are in a car accident, and only you survive, but barely. Your spouse's family now gets everything, because it was in their name, and you get nothing. Happy with this?

These are just a few of the things you need to consider. If I love someone enough to marry them, I want to be able to say what should happen to my loved one's possessions and life, in the event they are unable to, just like I want them to do for me.

Like it or not, marriage has played a vital role in society in determining things like this, since ancient times. It's not going away, as it's too ingrained. In a sense, you are saying to remove a vital part from a machine, without working out how you plan to function without it.

I never said that there should be no plan on how to function without it. Of course there would have to be some minor legal considerations. It would be rather ridiculous not have alternative legal constructs for those. None of those you mentioned, though, should be automatic for married persons, nor should they be available for singles to establish with unmarried partners.

Not every married person wants their spouse to inherit things after their death or determine what should be done with their body and property.
There are plenty of single persons who would want to establish a non-family member to take emergency responsibilities for them, and perhaps some one else entirely for inheritance... or any number of other privileges only afforded to married persons.

These issues should each be handled individually. They shouldn't be automatic because of some government registration of their living arrangement. They should be easily changeable. They shouldn't only be available as part of a "package deal". They shouldn't only be available to two romantic partners that choose to sign on the dotted line (regardless of if it's called a "marriage" or "civil union").

You can argue that this is too ingrained to change, but the concept of marriage being a heterosexual institution is kind of ingrained, too. So are you fighting against discrimination, or are you just fighting to force others to recognize your personal cause and allow it to be part of the privileged class?