Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by Telmah

I personally believe the state should stop legislating marriage in general--and in fact remove itself from the entire institution (ie No tax credits for marriage). Leave marriage as a strictly religious union. Follow a seperation of church and state ideal more than they do. All the difficulties with gay marriage tend to disappear then.

I think this is the best route too. It used to be like this.

But given that we do have marriage laws, especially those that have financial implications, then we should have them be applied equally.

If conservatives want to reserve the word "marriage" to be between a man and woman, fine. Then simply use "union" for homosexual couples. But apply the same law.

Originally Posted by Mystique

You're from Cali, yet sadly check out the stunt your state pulled.
That doesn't spell 'liberal' to me, rather the tolerence level in public is lower than let's say the states on the bible belt.

Oh no, trust me. I think anyone would still much rather be gay in California than be gay in the bible belt.

The outcome of the vote came as a result of a massive misinformation campaign from the right that shifted the issue from being simply about equal rights (I mean how much simpler can the idea of issuing marriage certificates to a gay couple get?) to promoting gay values. They came out with false ads claiming that the proposition would require teachers to teach about homosexuality, etc.

[LusterFlare]

Originally Posted by npcomplete

I think this is the best route too. It used to be like this.

But given that we do have marriage laws, especially those that have financial implications, then we should have them be applied equally.

If conservatives want to reserve the word "marriage" to be between a man and woman, fine. Then simply use "union" for homosexual couples. But apply the same law.

If I recall correctly, this was what my high school French teacher advocated (he's gay). This sounds like the best way to resolve things.

Originally Posted by npcomplete

The outcome of the vote came as a result of a massive misinformation campaign from the right that shifted the issue from being simply about equal rights (I mean how much simpler can the idea of issuing marriage certificates to a gay couple get?) to promoting gay values. They came out with false ads claiming that the proposition would require teachers to teach about homosexuality, etc.

Oh wow, I remember feeling disgusted when I saw that ad on TV. It's frustrating that people actually buy that crap.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by LusterFlare

*thumbs up*

Actually, there are areas that are significantly more liberal, the Bay Area being one of the more liberal in the US, and areas that significantly more conservative, oh let's say Orange County. Maybe because California is so big that the divides are more lucid geographically. Just google a Prop 8 map and you'll see.

And yeah, I can't believe Prop 8 passed. Oh how I wish I were 18 when it all went down .

here's how it went down last year in california...
check out the correlation between prez vote and the initiative vote.




and just this week Prop 8 got totally watered down

All you gotta do is just go to Iowa (where gay marriage was legalized this summer), get married and then come back home (CA), then your marriage is recognized in your home state. Prop 8 starting next week is nothing more than outlawing the wedding on California soil.

[iLney]

The vote asks a simple question, and I gave the obvious answer: yes.

To make thing more simple, take away all the privileges granted to "correct" marriages. This will shut up most of the current whining... and hopefully, others will adapt.

PS: I happens to believe that if we don't promote righteousness, there would be no evil.

[Gin]

I don't understand why anyone would think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as every other human being on the planet. Being gay isn't a choice, its the way some people are born. It doesn't really appeal to me but that doesn't mean that I think that gays should be treated as sub-humans.
It's like saying that if somebody doesn't like the same kind of food that you do, they shouldn't have rights.


And a question for those who live in countries were sodomy is banned:
Does that apply for heterosexuals as well? And how exactly does the government enforce such a ban?

[HayashiTakara]

At the same time, why not just have a private ceremony and not care about getting legalize documents? I mean back in the old days, people who were forbidden to be together would just marry in secret and live together.

At the end of the day its all about the money, its why they're fighting so hard for that piece of paper.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Gin

I don't understand why anyone would think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as every other human being on the planet. Being gay isn't a choice, its the way some people are born. It doesn't really appeal to me but that doesn't mean that I think that gays should be treated as sub-humans.

Well, even if it isn't a choice, that still doesn't justify not allowing same sex couples to marry. Religion is a choice, and the government still acknowledges that a couple was married in X Church/Etc or under X religion. If the choice of religion can be validated by the government, why not the choice of sexual prefference (between consenting adults)?

Originally Posted by Gin

It's like saying that if somebody doesn't like the same kind of food that you do, they shouldn't have rights.

LOL, what a bad analogy , especially if you truly believe that being homosexual is not a choice.

Originally Posted by Gin

And a question for those who live in countries were sodomy is banned:
Does that apply for heterosexuals as well? And how exactly does the government enforce such a ban?

Yes, sodomy of any kind is illegal in these countries (America had sodomy laws until just recently, in fact many Countries only recently (within the past 30-50 years) decriminalized sodomy), but there are added charges that can be brought against homosexuals. As to how these laws are enforced...well it's more or less the same way as any other law - if you get caught, then you get charged.

[Gin]

Originally Posted by james0246

Well, even if it isn't a choice, that still doesn't justify not allowing same sex couples to marry.

That's kind of what i was saying.

Originally Posted by james0246

Religion is a choice, and the government still acknowledges that a couple was married in X Church/Etc or under X religion. If the choice of religion can be validated by the government, why not the choice of sexual prefference (between consenting adults)?

Religion doesn't always have to be a part of marriage, you can get married in a courtroom I believe.

Originally Posted by james0246

LOL, what a bad analogy , especially if you truly believe that being homosexual is not a choice.

People really don't have much control over what their favorite food is. Say someone's favorite food is sausage ( ) they can stop eating sausage and only eat... tacos, but their favorite food isn't really going to change, they will still like sausage.

Originally Posted by james0246

Yes, sodomy of any kind is illegal in these countries (America had sodomy laws until just recently,

I'm so embarrassed by Texas

[Kafriel]

While the term "marriage" is endlessly debatable

I only see it as a sacred mystery of our church...and since same-sex marriage was not in effect back then, I would rather keep things that way. For the sake of semantics, the OP has a point and the obvious answer is yes, because they want to do something the state doesn't let them do. Still, that doesn't mean it's right...I'll agree with HT in that religious people to the point of wanting to be married (because there are many levels of religious awareness), cannot be homosexual. I got nothing against them but wanting a religious marriage is a mockery and highly offensive towards everyone of said religion.

I don't understand why anyone would think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as every other human being on the planet.

I wouldn't really say that getting married is a right though...

[james0246]

^Marriage has exsisted without religion (potentially even before religion...if there is such a thing ) for quite awhile, so just defining marriage as a religious institute is false...hell, within the context of history, same-sex marriage has been around for 1000s of years (back to Roman times, etc).

Consequently, it matters not what any religion may say on the matter, only what the government wishes to acknowledge as marriage.

(Additionally, religion, if it needs to be, can be changed. There are several versions of Christiantiy that support homosexuality (and if it ever turns out to be genetic, then even the Catholic church would have to support homosexuals and offer them the sacrement of marriage), and all it takes is a schism to create a new branch that would sanctify same sex marriage.)

Originally Posted by Gin

People really don't have much control over what their favorite food is. Say someone's favorite food is sausage ( ) they can stop eating sausage and only eat... tacos, but their favorite food isn't really going to change, they will still like sausage.

Well...at least you did not mention wieners...

That being said, a person's taste buds constantly change throughout their life, so no, comparing a "favourite food" to the choice (or lack of choice) of being a homosexual are not analogous...

Originally Posted by Gin

I'm so embarrassed by Texas

Trust me, Texas has many other equally embarrassing laws (then again, most states and countries do ).

[Gin]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

I wouldn't really say that getting married is a right though...

That's the thing, marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony, and most religions reject homosexuality, which is within their rights. But in today's world, marriage is to show that you love someone enough to want to spend the rest of your life with them, (that was probably true of marriages back then as well) but it doesn't have to be a religious ceremony. So if atheists can be married, then why can't gays?

Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force churches too have gay weddings, it would just give gay people equal rights as human beings.

[Kafriel]

That's the thing, marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony

There's also civil marriage...but moving on,

^Marriage has exsisted without religion (potentially even before religion...if there is such a thing ) for quite awhile, so just defining marriage as a religious institute is false...

religious marriage is one of the five sacred mysteries in christianism, where specifically a man and a woman are bonded in the presence of God. So, having any other kind of marriage is fine by me, as long as they don't take it there.

hell, within the context of history, same-sex marriage has been around for 1000s of years

I have serious doubts about that, but let's leave it for another thread...

[yezhanquan]

Voted "yes", simply because anyone should have the right to sign this legal document.

[Ending]

Leave marriage as a strictly religious union

Word. In Finland, there's civil marriage and church marriage. Civil marriage is basically the same thing, but anyone can get it. They just have to hold the celebrations in a place of their own instead of church.

Personally, I oppose gay marriages and hate it when they parade at the street, waving their rainbow flags.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Mystique

First off, I've issues with the thread title.
(Pardon my random feminist rant)
If being 'gay' wasn't so heavily associated with male homosexuality only, then I'd not laugh at the irony of 'equal rights' aspect of this thread.
So we're only looking into male/male unions, not female/female, right? *amused*

Now I might be narrowminded, stubborn and shallow

but whenever I here the term "Gay community/marriage/whatever"
it's about throwing the homosexuals and lesbians on one big heap

hell even when we use the expression "Homo-huwelijk" here (huwelijk lit. transl. 'marriage')
there isn't even a presumption that they are males by definition

Taking that in account, isn't it ironic when there is a reference to "gays" you immediatly see a male stereotype image?

[Throne Invader]

I'm alright with homosexuals who want to live together but I have to draw the line when it comes to homosexuals who want to be married especially in a Christian church.

[Irkalla]

I don't really see the appeal in marriages in any kinda form, but yes, everybody should have the right to marry their beloved ones, no matter what their sex may be. However, I don't see how one would even want to marry in a, let's say Christian Church, if their belief regards them as "sinful"? It's kinda meaningless to change such a seclusive group, even more to actually bother with it. But fear not, they will change it themselves..when people start leaving their Church and stop giving donations..

There are other problems like adoption and the possible disapproval of particular individuals that would oppose that with their meaningless arguments. Two women or two men can bring up a child just fine. Think of single parents, are they discriminated too? No, they are not. Two parents of the same sex can fuck up a child just as much as a hetero pairing would, no more or less.

[HayashiTakara]

Originally Posted by Zaseka

I don't really see the appeal in marriages in any kinda form, but yes, everybody should have the right to marry their beloved ones, no matter what their sex may be. However, I don't see how one would even want to marry in a, let's say Christian Church, if their belief regards them as "sinful"? It's kinda meaningless to change such a seclusive group, even more to actually bother with it. But fear not, they will change it themselves..when people start leaving their Church and stop giving donations..

There are other problems like adoption and the possible disapproval of particular individuals that would oppose that with their meaningless arguments. Two women or two men can bring up a child just fine. Think of single parents, are they discriminated too? No, they are not. Two parents of the same sex can fuck up a child just as much as a hetero pairing would, no more or less.

Personally, considering how intolerable and mean kids are... having gay parents would subject that child to massive amounts of abuse both physically and mentally. Unless the kid hides it well. Or is in a school where the majority of the children are more tolerable, but what are the odds?

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by HayashiTakara

Personally, considering how intolerable and mean kids are... having gay parents would subject that child to massive amounts of abuse both physically and mentally. Unless the kid hides it well. Or is in a school where the majority of the children are more tolerable, but what are the odds?

Kids, especially in their early years are exactly what parents made them to be. If the parents are intolerable to such pairings, it will naturally rub on the kids too. They don't just naturally do that. If kids are bullies, one might ask what kinda environment and parental guidance they themselves have. It's no different than kids bullying other for their social status or appearance, every such problem must be faced with school social workers or worse.

[Telmah]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

It is totally unrealistic to advocate government getting out of the business of marriage. Marriage just doesn't entail tax breaks. It encompasses the all important issues of child custody and medical decisions for unconscious partners. You can hope all you want that the Libertarian Party will one day gain power and stop issuing marriage licenses, but until then are gay couples supposed to be content not being married in society's eyes?

You really think it is unrealistic?

I don't see why child custody couldn't be linked to the biological parents, with the child's desire added in like it already is. After all, they handle that for divorced couples, which are by definition not married.

Perhaps a document like a will could be created for unconscious medical decisions. I remember reading something about a pregnant women's baby hurting her health and then having a pro-life group challenge the husband's decision to get an abortion to potentially save her life. That’s nonsense--it could be the default for a civil union’s significant other even. We are already seeing companies as mentioned here a few times, given medical and other benefits to any partner. What’s the stretch in making the rest of the business/governmental world conform to this?
It really wouldn’t rock the boat too much to make these changes. Most things would be minor cosmetic changes, but they solve the problem in a way that makes most people happy.

What it boils down to me again is, marriage is a religious institution. At least in the United States, church and state are separated. Thus, the government has no business even getting involved in marriage. Why not move government towards a more ideal state? That’s why the process of Amendments were added in the first place--they knew the Constitution wasn’t a perfect document--thus it evolves with the needs of the time.

There’s nothing Libertarian about it in my motivations--it is a “win” situation for everyone involved. Everyone can join their own church and get married according to its rules. The legal language follows the separate of church and state better, which is a Constitutional ideal.

As for the part about society eye's, my argument makes everyone united the same way in the government's eyes--equality. All the laws and decrees of Congresses and Kings can't change society's perspective--only time and education perhaps will assist in that task.