Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by steve45058, Mar 2, 2004.
I agree.. love is love and nothing should get between that. Its just the way people feel
I disagree with gay marriage.
In my opinion, it's primarily a morality issue.
Let me preface this by saying I don't have anything against the homosexual community. My wife has several gay friends who are incredibly nice people (a few of which were heavily involved in our wedding).
If there were, all of the sudden, a sweeping movement to legalize blood sibling marriage, there would be a similar kind of morality outcry... (Hold on a second before you blast me for directly comparing homosexuality to incest... It's just an example…)
The problem would be:
Pro: The marriage is between two consenting adults, incest has been going on since the beginning of documented civilization, love is love, etc.
Con: It’s wrong, it’s always been wrong, you can’t marry your first cousin either, it’s just as wrong now as it’s been since the beginning of documented civilization, etc.
The problem enters when politically ‘polarized’ judges legislate that this type of marriage is legal in his/her state (regardless of popular opinion). Other states are then forced to recognize the marriages as being legal, or they must pass DOMA (Defense of Marriage Acts) type laws that outlaw same-sex marriages and or refuse to recognize such marriages recognized in other states.
It’s a bigger problem than just whether it should or shouldn’t be allowed. A larger part of the problem are the actions of a few very partisan politically active figures (it doesn’t really matter the persuasion, liberal or conservative – It’s BS regardless…) that are rewriting all the rules without any checks or balances:
Judges and Mayors legalize it (pi$$ing off the people who oppose gay marriage), and retaliatory state legislation is passed to counter-act it (p1$$ing off the recently married and other gay marriage supporters, but satisfying the previously outraged morality-issue crowd).
The legal benefits in question could be covered by partnership agreements/civil unions (or whatever else you wish to call them) and these are not forbidden, to my knowledge, by existing DOMA laws.
I think Zel hit it on the head, but compromise is possible.
P.S. I'm not so sure it's a bigger issue now than it ever was. I think the politics have just gotten uglier and more thick-headed.
Nicely put, Art. I agree there is a morality issue at stake, but I wonder if it isn't really just semantics. We could call the union of same-sex couples "Yo-Yo" instead of marriage, and offer some legal benefits similar to spousal legal status. Would most of the problem then go away? Is it the word marriage that is the crux of the argument? Or is there some other aspect of this that gets everyone all torn up?
I can see the argument that a child having two same-sex parents faces an identity challenge of sorts. And someone cynical or righteous might worry that the child could be somehow inherently morally compromised. But similar problems are faced by children of mixed-race couples, which society now (finally) tolerates decently well.
The incest example isn't a bad one, but there is even more moral outcry against such a thing, so it tends to polarize the argument. From my point of view, incest doesn't cause any real problems other than the fact that reproduction is a bad idea, social stigma is immense, and children might be coerced unwillingly. Admittedly large problems, but the point is that if two adult people want to spend all their time together, who cares?
Legislating morality is silly and counter-productive (IMO, obviously).
(p.s. None of this is targeted at your argument specifically, I'm just pontificating.)
Edit: Well, your edit negated my need to post most of this, so just consider it a loud whooshing noise that has now passed. Cheers, I think we agree for the most part.
Very good points Zel,
In the morality vs. semantics scale, I’m going to rank at +5 on the morality side as my reason for opposing legalized gay marriage. BUT, semantics play a part in that opinion for me too. I think that may be the case with many other people as well, which is why I believe a compromise is possible.
You call it marriage, I call it Yo-Yo and the state of California calls it a Civil Union…
I don’t really think the semantics of the issue is just a problem with the crowd that opposes gay marriage. If a “Civil Union” offers all the same inherent legal protections, benefits and privileges as a “Marriage”, why would that not be a viable solution?
The incest example was just an illustration of how a morality could play a part in an issue. It wasn’t a particularly good example. I wanted something a little more “conventionally immoral” to show another contrast of morality opinions.
I agree. Whether it’s legislated from the bench, mayor’s office or from state a senate… It’s all fairly fruitless. My largest issue with this topic in general is it didn’t need to turn into a political chess match. Without the ‘activists’, so hard at work on both sides, this probably could have been resolved somehow already.
If I would have refreshed the page before responding, I would have seen your EDIT.
Sounds like two whooshing noises passing in the night! :laugh:
You're quite right. I hadn't thought of that. It would absolutely be a viable solution.
I'd be glad to whoosh with you any night. :laugh:
gay marriages equals bad
who cares.........if consenting adults want to marry then who are we to try ad stop them...banning the practice will just send it underground
In the Words of Rodney Dangerfield ....
'The best thing to be is Bisexual....
then you get a shot at everyone '
Not my cup of tea
but just don't push it in my face
like a Jehovas Witness
Homosexual or not the thing that matters is that you are happy, itsn't that the point?
I might sound too conservative, but I dont like homosexuals that much.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion sisin, the fact that I choose to judge each person as an individual based on their personality and character is my choice. If you choose to judge a group based on a label, it is, in my eyes, your loss.... I've known several very nice people who happened to be, among many other descriptors*, homosexual.
I'm probably guilty of the same offense if you change the label... we all have our moments of shortsightedness.
*like caring, talented, fun, intelligent, friendly, wise, witty, and genuine
nobodies perfect, we all have our pet hates...its how we deal with them that matters......
definetly agree with nyx on this one....
we can never please everyone but what gives us character is how we deal with things
You are absolutely right. We can't please everyone, it's how we deal with things that gives us character.
I sat on a commitee this weekend with a gentleman who was in on the writing of the the "position" on gay marriages... It was ther general opinion of the comittee that they didn't want to use the word "marriage," but because the religious right kept bringing that word into play they had little choice...
just found that interesting....
That's very interesting, what word would they like to use instead?
"they" hadn;t decided officially on a term but the suggestions mentioned earlier in this thread were among the runnings... "civil union," "legal union," etc.
hey did you hear that Elton John's getting 'civil unioned' to his boyfriend
trust Elton hey
Oh and Eminem's rumoured to be his best man!
psI made that last bit up.... see how all this rumour stuff gets started... dam internet
Separate names with a comma.