View Full Version : Same Sex Marriage
San Onofre Guy
11-8-11, 2:19pm
For those who think same sex marriage is an affront to marriage let me point out Kim Kardasian!
Yes, I believe in marriage equality
ha ha! Good one!
I think everyone should have the right to get married.
I agree, two adults of consenting age should be able to be married. Why would I care otherwise? It is their life, not mine.
a topic I seldom talk about, guess it never comes up, but of course two adults should be able to do as they wish with their lives.
treehugger
11-23-11, 1:26pm
Well, the hetero world is filled with examples of marriages that don't work. I don't think we can lay this one all on the Kardashians. But, I definitely agree that this is a rediculous, outdated argument (gay marriages will undermine the institution of marriage).
Kara
I definitely agree that this is a rediculous, outdated argument (gay marriages will undermine the institution of marriage).
I don't understand how somebody else's personal arrangements can possible "undermine" or "be an affront to" my own marriage to my lovely and talented wife. I think people who advance those arguments aren't thinking through their arguments.
Personally, I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage one way or the other, except in helping enforce contracted agreements between individuals who are "married". Marriage should be between the parties involved.
It saddens me that this is even an issue.
It isn't an issue to our young adult children. They yawn when it's debated... so, the laws will change now, or they will change later. Now would be good!
flowerseverywhere
11-23-11, 2:56pm
Same sex marriage is legal in my state. I know some people who had their lifelong partners legalized through marriage and it seems to have made no difference to anyone- Except to the people who now are able to enjoy the benefits of spousal health insurance, rights to make decisions if someone is ill, and the estate laws if someone passes away. It also must be wonderful to love someone and be able to publicly announce your union.
it's really just about the civil rights and responsibilities. and yes, i think everyone should have them.
the arguments about "where does it end" (slippery slope arguments) such as extending it to pedophilia or beastiality are completely ridiculous -- that is obvious. and the arguments about religion in the regards, well, that can be managed by individual religions. If a church or religious community doesn't want to preform marriages, then they have every right not to. Those people who want to get married, can marry in another church.
Redfox, isn't that the truth.
someone pointed out that gays should get married so that they suddenly have RESPONSIBLITY to each other. we need more responsiblity it seems in our world and so it seems a good argument.
i do not understand why anyone would want to get married. it doesn't make sense to me. and, adding the feds in to your life too? that makes no sense!
but all those rights and benefits are tied to it. i think marriage is such a, well, it is just WEIRD!
someone pointed out that gays should get married so that they suddenly have RESPONSIBLITY to each other. we need more responsiblity it seems in our world and so it seems a good argument.
i do not understand why anyone would want to get married. it doesn't make sense to me. and, adding the feds in to your life too? that makes no sense!
but all those rights and benefits are tied to it. i think marriage is such a, well, it is just WEIRD!
Most gay partners already assume responsibility for each other. It's the larger world who doesn't honor that... Check out the film For My Wife. The story will undo you.
For me, getting married solidified a stepfamily, reassured our young teens that I, their stepparent, was dedicated to them, and the recognition we received when 100 of our friends & community declared us married was very powerful. The cultural values that are placed on marriage seep into daily life. And the feds aren't so much involved as is the state. Legal marriage is a 3 party contract between the two bethrothed & the state.
It's a combination of the cultural acceptance combined with ease of legal status while conducting the affairs of daily life that are the driving reasons behind legal marriage.
i am very happy for you, redfox.
i still think it is so merky. i mean, we are all so different and to have us all fit in a box called marriage stamped by the state, just seems odd
If all marriage is to you is "a box stamped by the state" then you definitely should avoid it at all costs. The world doesn't need any more marriages like that, for sure.
It is so much more to my brilliant, handsome husband and I -- and not just the ability to care for each other properly if medical situations arise, the ability to save money together, and invest in things we love (like our home) in a more sensible, safe way........there are a ton of reasons on paper.
Example: We're going through a situation with some friends who have been together for two decades, but never saw the need to marry legally. He developed a rare form of dementia and has now been confined in a locked facility she is forbidden to visit, thanks to his children who are trying to get his entire estate for themselves.....including the home they have lived in together for many years. Sure, more exacting legal documentation might have helped avoid this, but the simple act of a marriage license would have protected her from this suffering. Imagine not being able to see your lover, your best friend -- at all? For no reason?
But aside from the paper it is also the container for our bond, our deep lifelong commitment to protecting and elevating each other. I couldn't give a hoot if the state approves or not. My marriage is a source of tremendous joy.
Wow, puglogic. You said it beautifully. I am very sad for your friend... She is indeed going through what every gay couple fears, and experiences. It's simply wrong.
redfox, puglogic,
I completely agree. I bring this up to my family members who are against legal marriage. They feel that a 'civil union' is enough, even though I point out that it has very different legal designations. I also point out that if the civil union were the same legal definition, then I would support that -- otherwise, you're just arguing about the use of a word, and who gives a **** about the use of a word?
What concerns me -- in addition to situations such as these medical ones -- are legal ones. The spousal protection in a court of law is HUGE. You can confess things to a spouse, but the court cannot compel the spouse to say what you confessed, what you feel or think. They can ask for facts "ON tuesday night, was your spouse in your presence from 10 pm to 12 am?" BUt they cannot ask "Did your spouse say to you that s/he wanted the other person harmed? dead?" That's illegal. The court will inform the spouse not to volunteer and answer, and explain spousal privilege. A spouse can CHOOSE to let it go, but they cannot be subpoenaed!
This is not the case for unmarried couples.
I'm not saying that we're all involved in criminality, but even if small, minor cases the spousal privilege has it's protections. It's important when there is a character assassination part of the argument, and it's extremely valuable as an IDEA regarding the sanctity of that emotional space.
I think that everyone deserves this protection, if they want it.
I'd like to see the state adopt civil unions and drop marriage as legal entity entirely.
fidgiegirl
11-24-11, 10:48pm
creaker, I agree. I know it's wild to some. But I say let churches worry about marriages, and as far as the government is concerned, everyone can access the same civil arrangement. In some Latin American countries this is the case. At least in Mexico, you can marry in a church and that is not sufficient for the state like it is here. You do a civil procedure as well.
iris lily
11-25-11, 1:11am
redfox, puglogic,
I completely agree. I bring this up to my family members who are against legal marriage. They feel that a 'civil union' is enough, even though I point out that it has very different legal designations....
I agree that as things currently stand, "marriage" is the only way to gain all of the legal protections and advantages (and disadvantages) built into thousands of laws at the local, state, and federal level. Here in my city the local gay rights organizations wants that and nothing else because anything else is lesser, and I understand (and agree) with that. Each time this issue is brought up on this board, dozens of times now over the years, everyone comes together on the "civil union" option as though that is a realistic option.
I voted for gay marriage in my state, which did not pass. I suppose it will eventually.
But that said:
I think that the slippery slope argument for--for instance, polygamy relationships-- is realistic. Why not that next? Poly is already forming social pressure networks.
I think that unintended consequences are part and parcel of this and I'm not convinced that religious institutions will not be affected. I think it is naive to believe that there is no effect on current societal institutions, it's all benign. I would like proponents of gay marriage to just be honest and admit that there may be, and probably are, consequences that they've not thought about and that they don't care about. I personally believe that proponents of gay marriage simply don't care about any negative effect.
ps We went to a Thanksgiving dinner tonight and it was all hetero couples. It was just damned weird. I think this is the first party we've been to in age sin my neighborhood that is like this and I don't like it.:0!
I'm not sure what social risk polygamy brings, per se. I think it has some benefits (socially), but haven't thought about it legally. It is, of course, between consensual adults, which makes it different from the arguments of "where does it end!?" when they mention pedophilia and beastiality (which involves non-consensual parties).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY
I'm not sure what social risk polygamy brings...
It's simply a group of consenting people agreeing to a contract. The polygamy-slippery-slope-to-animal-marriage argument is fuzzy thinking, at best.
As long as people are not acting to harm others, why should we discriminate against their ability to contract equally, and receive the same treatment under the law?
And even if there was a "social risk" in *general*, general concerns aren't sufficient grounds IMHO to restrict *specific individuals* who are harming no-body by their actions. Nor are arguments of the form "if we give the blacks the vote, soon women will want to vote too, and then, what, children and the horses voting? No, we must stop this nonsense now..."
I think that the slippery slope argument for--for instance, polygamy relationships-- is realistic. Why not that next? Poly is already forming social pressure networks.
I think that unintended consequences are part and parcel of this and I'm not convinced that religious institutions will not be affected. I think it is naive to believe that there is no effect on current societal institutions, it's all benign. I would like proponents of gay marriage to just be honest and admit that there may be, and probably are, consequences that they've not thought about and that they don't care about. I personally believe that proponents of gay marriage simply don't care about any negative effect.
ps We went to a Thanksgiving dinner tonight and it was all hetero couples. It was just damned weird. I think this is the first party we've been to in age sin my neighborhood that is like this and I don't like it.:0!
Everything has unintended consequences. Let's evaluate polygymy on it's own merits, for example, if/as it comes up. Ending discriminatin is never a bad thing, and effects on current societal institutions are unknowable. Not doing something based upon fears of future possibilities is plain nuts. If we ran our lives like that, who would get out of bed in the morning?
Suggesting that proponents of equal marriage rights are some how dishonest because we don't "admit that there may be, and probably are, consequences we've not thought of..."etc. really sounds like a smokescreen to me. Of course there are consequences we've not thought of! That's called life.
that was really my point. i've never seen anything that demonstrates a social risk from polygamy as pedophilia does.
iris lily
11-25-11, 6:38am
If I am an employer and I am suddenly required to provide health benefits to 8 spouses of my one employee, I believe I would stop providing health benefits to any spouses. There are losers in that scenario.
I can't even imagine how expensive and complex would be divorce settlements and property division among 9 people. I guess that more clients for divorce attorneys would be a good thing in some circles.
Child custody? 9 parents? How would that even work? What a dizzying round of visitation and living arrangements that would be. I already think that the scenarios where children live Mon,Tues,Wed, and Thurs AM at mom's and Thurs pm, Fri,Sat, and alternate Sundays at Dad's are crazy and not in the best interest of the child.
this is what is not good about marriage! all of a sudden we are examining different relationships. is that one good? is that one acceptable? is this ok or not ok?
dudes, whether or not it is okay or not is none of your beeswax. and it is none of the feds or the states or anyones to say whether one person and what they do privately, sexually, domestically, WHATEVER, is okay or not.
if you need recognition, then do so within your own community, whether that be church, social, domestic, whatever.
iris lily
11-25-11, 9:38am
...
dudes, whether or not it is okay or not is none of your beeswax. ...
Except that the state gives rights and responsibilities with the union called "marriage" or whatever term you wish to use. There are thousands of laws that reference this relationship, and each has effect and ramifications.
that was really my point. i've never seen anything that demonstrates a social risk from polygamy as pedophilia does.
I think the slippery slope thing is a silly argument. The sex part of it is already completely legal. Polygamy is just another social contract.
health care wouldn't be an issue here. everyone is covered. you can buy insurance if you want to jump to the front of the line, but lines are short (and insurance is cheap). solves a lot of social problems, honestly. ;)
loosechickens
11-25-11, 4:02pm
and of course, we tend to ignore that historically, through much of the world, and even today in many places, polygamy is practiced and considered the normal, mainstream way to be married. Heck, even many those folks in the Bible practiced polygamy...........
as long as both (or all) the parties to the contractual arrangement are of age and freely consenting to it, who am I to care?
Not one thing any gay person has done regarding marriage, nor any straight person, either, has had the slightest effect on my own marriage. And, since I get many legal benefits from that marriage, I'd like to see others all have those rights as well.
And when the arguments against it all seem to center on either "we've never done it that way", or "the Bible says........", neither of those arguments mean much to me.
And even if there was a "social risk" in *general*, general concerns aren't sufficient grounds IMHO to restrict *specific individuals* who are harming no-body by their actions. Nor are arguments of the form "if we give the blacks the vote, soon women will want to vote too, and then, what, children and the horses voting? No, we must stop this nonsense now..."
These arguments against same-sex marriage have always smacked of those old civil rights arguments to me. Let these blacks use my beach? What's next? Will they want to marry my daughter? Think of the suffering they'll put the children through! Horrors!
Indeed it's fuzzy thinking, fearful thinking at best ("awfulizing"), and at worst yet another shrill way of legitimizing a personal prejudice, imho. If this weren't the case, then people who oppose same-sex marriage would be working side by side with those who approve of it, working together to find a solution that protects employers/government from extreme scenarios, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But they're not. It's just so transparent.
As has been said on this forum before, a healthy marriage cannot be damaged by widening the law to allow others to enjoy the same legal protections I do as a married person. If it could be damaged, I'd have to take a long look at my marriage.
iris lily
11-25-11, 11:34pm
[QUOTE=loosechickens;53511]and of course, we tend to ignore that historically, through much of the world, and even today in many places, polygamy is practiced and considered the normal, mainstream way to be married. Heck, even many those folks in the Bible practiced polygamy....[/quote\
If you are using other cultures are your argument why not the habit of using young girls as wives as wives? But I don't really care about that.
The cultures that support polygamy tend not to have giant Western type gubmnet benefits bestowed upon someone by virtue of marriage. I am not interested in my tax bill going up because all of a sudden John Doe can name 15 people to received his Society Security benefits. Same for pensions. Or all 15 can receive the other 15's benefits. Or--:confused::confused::confused::help:? Sounds like we'd need a whole 'nother bureaucracy to divvy out those benefits.
this is what is not good about marriage! all of a sudden we are examining different relationships. is that one good? is that one acceptable? is this ok or not ok?
dudes, whether or not it is okay or not is none of your beeswax. and it is none of the feds or the states or anyones to say whether one person and what they do privately, sexually, domestically, WHATEVER, is okay or not.
if you need recognition, then do so within your own community, whether that be church, social, domestic, whatever.
yeah, i am so for same sex anything. hehehehehe. it is the system we have set up, so everyone should be able to have access to it. but, i don't like how we go about saying who is valid or not valid and what kind of relationship is valid or not valid in order to receive the benefits and recognition. i just don't think we should all be debating what is probably an abundance of many different ways of sexualizing or bonding or pairing or whatever. oh well.
nice little film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY&sns=fb).
Except that the state gives rights and responsibilities with the union called "marriage" or whatever term you wish to use. There are thousands of laws that reference this relationship, and each has effect and ramifications.
And this is one reason why the Fed does need to make laws allowing for gay marriages even if we say we don't want Fed involvement in State law making. There are numerous Fed laws (constitutional laws) that allow hetero-marriages (but not state civil unions or gay marriages) to be legally recognized in all states - irregardless where you were married. When I married I was a Calif resident stationed in Maine while (ex) DH was a NY resident stationed in Louisiana - and we married in Nevada. Fed law allowed us to be considered legally married in ALL states - and in any state we lived in afterwards - and allows us the full legal benefits and obligations of marriage across the board. This is not the case with same-sex marriages or civil unions. States that have not legalized same-sex marriages (most) will not legally recognize the marriages from states that have. So the Fed Govmint neds to make a law (or reverse the one that says they will make no laws concerning marriage - i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act: DOMA) that allows for same-sex marriage as well as the states to make it truelly equal.
This as of Nov. 14th:
"Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee overwhelming approved a bill that would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman. The 10-8 vote in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif., left), marks the first time a committee in either the Senate or the House has voted to repeal the 17-year-old law, and represents a major step toward federal approval of homosexual marriage."
"DOMA was wrong when it passed in 1996 and it is wrong now. There are 131,000 legally married, same-sex couples in this country who are denied more than 1,100 federal rights and protections because of this discriminatory law," said lead Respect for Marriage Act co-sponsor Dianne Feinstein of California. "I don't know how long the battle for full equality will take, but we are on the cusp of change, and today's historic vote in the committee is an important step forward."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.