Respect for Marriage Act announced

[TurboKinny]

The Respect for Marriage Act was announced this morning. If passed, it would overturn DOMA:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced on Tuesday the Respect for Marriage Act, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, a law Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed in 1996 that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

At a Capitol Hill press conference, Nadler called the Respect for Marriage Act “the first step to overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and sending that ugly law into the history books where it belongs.”

“Our bill ensures that all married couples, including lawfully married same-sex couples, will have the same access to federal responsibilities and benefits, including critical programs like Social Security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families,” Nadler said.

The repeal legislation would only facilitate federal recognition of same-sex marriages — not civil unions or domestic partnerships. Additionally, the bill contains a “certainty provision” allowing married same-sex couples to receive the federal benefits of marriage even if they move to a state that doesn’t recognize their union.

More here. (http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27207)

[National Kato]

Thanks, TK! I get a bit pessimistic when these bills are announced, because I believe the opponents of same-sex marriage have too much influence in politics, but I like to see the fight continue.

[Goronmon]

“For the federal government to deny any legal married couple the hundreds of benefits and responsibilities that help protect their families is discrimination — pure and simple”Agreed. Hopefully this goes through.

[TurboKinny]

Agreed. Hopefully this goes through.The only way to make that happen is to write to your congresspeople and let them know you support it. Contrary to popular belief, they really do listen to what their constituents have to say :)

[civil]

Speaking of which, if you need help finding addresses look here (https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml) or here (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt).

Get on it people.

[BigJonno]

That's awesome. To be clear though, does the government not recognise any civil unions or domestic partnerships, or is it just that it doesn't and still won't recognise same sex ones?

[TurboKinny]

That's awesome. To be clear though, does the government not recognise any civil unions or domestic partnerships, or is it just that it doesn't and still won't recognise same sex ones?DOMA made it so that each state can recognize whatever they want regardless of what the other states recognize (for instance a same-sex couple marrying in Iowa would not be considered married in Kansas, because of DOMA).

The federal government currently recognizes only heterosexual marriage- so things like Social Security are not available to same-sex couples. This would change that.

[BigJonno]

I get that bit. Here in the UK, when you're filling forms in for state benefits and the like, there's an option that reads something like "Living together as if married." Basically, if you're a couple that lives together as a married couple would, you have pretty much the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple.

Does this sort of thing exist in the US for heterosexual couples? I know it's relatively recent here.

[TurboKinny]

I get that bit. Here in the UK, when you're filling forms in for state benefits and the like, there's an option that reads something like "Living together as if married." Basically, if you're a couple that lives together as a married couple would, you have pretty much the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple.

Does this sort of thing exist in the US for heterosexual couples? I know it's relatively recent here.In some states there is the possibility of "common law" marriage. For example, when you live together as a couple in Texas for 7 years and file joint tax returns, you are considered married. Not all states allow it, though.

That's where this bill will come into problems- states rights are such a big deal here, right-wingers are going to complain about the federal government usurping them.

[txshurricane]

That's where this bill will come into problems- states rights are such a big deal here, right-wingers are going to complain about the federal government usurping them.
Pretty much.

[TurboKinny]

Pretty much.But, perhaps, if we are able to show our congresspeople that basic human rights should be considered before the "states v federal rights" debate, we can get things done :)

[aVaKus]

It's horrible to say, but despite all the progress this past year with the marriage equality movement, I am not at all optimistic in DOMA or even DADT being overturned anytime in the near future. There is still just too much opposition from the right and they have shown that they have no problem stooping to very low levels to achieve their goals.

Gerard Caron walked into the Auburn Post Office and was met by a woman with a pair of clipboards. "This petition is against gay marriage and this other petition is to support gay marriage," she said, according to Caron. The Poland man said he asked her why there would be a petition to support something that already happened, referring to the petition "in support of" gay marriage. "She just kinda gave me a little grin and didn't say anything," he said. Then he looked at the two petitions and discovered they were identical, both were supporting the repeal of the same-sex marriage law, Caron said. Caron said he spoke to a friend who had a similar experience at the Lewiston Post Office. Julie Flynn, deputy secretary of state, said her office has received calls from people concerned about the petitioning process, but not a surprising number.

This happened in Maine, where it is perfectly legal to use deceptive practices such as this to get people to sign your petition.

Thanks to these deceptions, we are now preparing to see another battle like we saw last year in California with Proposition 8. Opponents of marriage equality have managed to get enough signatures to get Proposition 1 placed on the ballot. If it passes then we will see same-sex couples in another state have their rights taken away from them.

Prop 8 set a scary precedent and now organizations such as NOM (National Organization for (straight) Marriage, who had a very heavy hand in getting Prop 8 passed) are going after all the other states that have marriage equality. Luckily in some states, such as Iowa, it's a little more difficult to amend the constitution.

Amendments need to be approved by simple majorities in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies, then must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080120/NEWS10/801200342)

I have heard many times that people have no problem with gay couples getting all the same rights as married couples, "just don't call it marriage." In Washington back in May, they did just that by passing the "Everything But Marriage Act." (Personally I find this name highly offensive as it just boils down to more separate but equal bullshit, but at least it's something) What EBMA did was give gay couples all the same (state, not federal) rights as married couples, they just weren't allowed to call it marriage.

Well apparently this was too much too because now Referendum 71 has made it to the ballot and if passed will overturn EBMA.


Sorry for the uber long post but these issues directly affect me so obviously I feel very strongly about them.

[ShivaX]

But, perhaps, if we are able to show our congresspeople that basic human rights should be considered before the "states v federal rights" debate, we can get things done :)

I thought that debate ended when they lost the war.

[TurboKinny]

I thought that debate ended when they lost the war...Then you must not have been listening to any of the right vs left rhetoric from the last 150 years ;)

[ShivaX]

..Then you must not have been listening to any of the right vs left rhetoric from the last 150 years ;)

Actually most of that rhetoric only emerged somewhat recently.

Theres the Tennessee Valley Authority and that about it.

The rest of it is just an excuse for getting what they want.

[Lithium Flower]

I have a question and I'm sorry in advance if it comes across as obvious. What I don't understand is what, if any is the difference in law, with regard to rights and benefits that accrue, between 'marriage' and a 'civil partnership'?

If a civil partnership allows two people irrespective of gender to have the same rights, responsibilities, duties, tax breaks and basically ALL and EVERY possible advantage that would have accrued to them if they were 'married', then why is that an insufficient measure?

Basically, I don't really understand why you need to redefine the term 'marriage' in law instead of simply creating a new legal arrangement - 'the civil partnership' - which would provide same-sex couples all the advantages 'married' couples receive. Wouldn't that be a neater solution, avoiding all the constitutional, social, religious hassle etc.

Is there some disadvantage to same-sex couples in a civil partnership compared to heterosexual couples in a 'marriage'?

Ideally, I believe 'marriage' should be abolished altogether. There should be one 'Civil Partnership Agreement Form' that any two people who consider themselves 'married' jointly file which would accord them a special 'joint' legal status with all the rights traditionally associated with marriage.

Then everybody can have a ceremony (or skip it altogether) according to their faith and belief, file the relevant documents with the state and live happily ever after.

[Goronmon]

Wouldn't that be a neater solution, avoiding all the constitutional, social, religious hassle etc.It's definitely not neater. Then you have two laws that mean the same thing, other than the sexual orientation of those involved. Still doesn't avoid much, because a large portion of people are against gay rights in general, regardless of the term used. Plus, it is a bit insulting to the GLBT population to say that they aren't to use the same term as straight people.

Edit: Not to mention there is no logical reason to have two separate laws and really, the right thing to do is to give everyone the same exact rights.

[TurboKinny]

Exactly what Goronomon said- by creating "civil partnerships" only for same-sex couples is creating a "separate but equal" situation.

On the other hand, I would absolutely be behind creating civil partnerships as the legal term for EVERYBODY, and marriage being a religious distinction. That's how they do it in most European countries (with France specifically coming to mind).

[TurboKinny]

Another quote from a different news source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/15/MN6M19NHTS.DTL):

The repeal would not impose same-sex marriage on any state. But it would allow couples living in states that do not recognize their marriages access to federal benefits. Nadler said repeal would simply return jurisdiction over marriage law to the states where it has traditionally resided.

[LongStepMantis]

Sometimes I'm amazed at humans. We have supercomputers working at a microscopic level, the internet, charted the human genome, and have traveled to space, among countless other accomplishments.

Unfortunately, we still run into problems with people marrying someone whose isn't the opposite gender, even though it has no impact in any way on those opposed to it. We also kill each other over which invisible man in the sky we pray to. Damn weirdos, the whole bunch of us.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

My mind is blown every time this issue comes up because I cannot wrap my head around any argument that people against this make.

How does it effect you? What are you so afraid of?

[txshurricane]

Sometimes I'm amazed at humans. We have supercomputers working at a microscopic level, the internet, charted the human genome, and have traveled to space, among countless other accomplishments.

Unfortunately, we still run into problems with people marrying someone whose isn't the opposite gender, even though it has no impact in any way on those opposed to it. We also kill each other over which invisible man in the sky we pray to. Damn weirdos, the whole bunch of us.
Fight bigotry with bigotry, that's the way! (Is there a rolleyes smilie?)

[txshurricane]

But, perhaps, if we are able to show our congresspeople that basic human rights should be considered before the "states v federal rights" debate, we can get things done :)

I don't see how we're discussing basic human rights. Marriage is an institution pushed into legislation by churches of the Christian faith, and as unfair as it seems, the United States is a Christian-founded nation. Marriage is a privilege which you have to apply for, not a basic right.

If Americans want to abandon Christian roots, then we should abandon marriage as well, not adopt it to a group of people who were never entitled to the privilege to begin with (according to the faith that established it).

I don't take issue with homosexuals wanting to have a union with each other. I do, however, take issue with respect for marriage being thrown out of the window for a political agenda and tax relief.

[Goronmon]

If Americans want to abandon Christian roots, then we should abandon marriage as well, not adopt it to a group of people who were never entitled to the privilege to begin with (according to the faith that established it).I don't see how this matters one bit. We shouldn't base legislation on whether it goes against religious views of prior generations.

I don't take issue with homosexuals wanting to have a union with each other. I do, however, take issue with respect for marriage being thrown out of the window for a political agenda and tax relief.How would marriage be disrespected?

[TurboKinny]

and as unfair as it seems, the United States is a Christian-founded nation.Who, praytell, are your Christian founders?

[ShivaX]

I don't see how we're discussing basic human rights. Marriage is an institution pushed into legislation by churches of the Christian faith, and as unfair as it seems, the United States is a Christian-founded nation. Marriage is a privilege which you have to apply for, not a basic right.

If Americans want to abandon Christian roots, then we should abandon marriage as well, not adopt it to a group of people who were never entitled to the privilege to begin with (according to the faith that established it).

I don't take issue with homosexuals wanting to have a union with each other. I do, however, take issue with respect for marriage being thrown out of the window for a political agenda and tax relief.

Maybe you should brush up on your Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The country was founded by Christians. Christians who specifically made a point that that didn't mean shit. Using your logic you just made the case for gay marriage perfectly. If you are correct then denying gay's marriage based on religion is a direct violation of the Constitution.

[BigJonno]

On the other hand, I would absolutely be behind creating civil partnerships as the legal term for EVERYBODY, and marriage being a religious distinction. That's how they do it in most European countries (with France specifically coming to mind).

I think it's a great idea. UK civil marriage is pretty much distinct from the religious side of things, removing the word marriage from the equation and leaving it to the individual churches to deal with who they will and won't marry makes a lot of sense. That's how I did it; I had a civil service and then had the marriage blessed at the reception.

I still can't quite get over how much influence conservative Christian values have in a country that is supposed to have a separation of church and state, whereas over here no-one gives a crap, despite supposedly being a Christian country.

[txshurricane]

I don't see how this matters one bit. We shouldn't base legislation on whether it goes against religious views of prior generations.
Why not?
What you may think is a common and harmless joke might have been illegal a mere 80 years ago. What was once a normal word to slave owners is now taboo for anyone to utter...except who it was originally a slur against. Sure, morals change...should the law, too?

How would marriage be disrespected?
As a participant in the institution of marriage, my belief is that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. I consider myself very fortunate to have had someone to marry, and I believe that I have a huge responsibility to protect and provide for my wife (and child).

Same-sex marriage isn't the only way to disrespect (in my opinion) a marriage. Cheating on your spouse is another way; so is ruining your spouse's credit. Guess what? Both are legal grounds for ending the marriage. If we're going to accept same-sex marriage in the legal system, then we may as well accept other disrespectful (again, in my opinion as a married man) activities as norm. Why not? Cheaters are people, too.

[Goronmon]

Same-sex marriage isn't the only way to disrespect (in my opinion) a marriage. Cheating on your spouse is another way; so is ruining your spouse's credit.It saddens me that there are people like you that feel this way.

[txshurricane]

I think it's a great idea. UK civil marriage is pretty much distinct from the religious side of things, removing the word marriage from the equation and leaving it to the individual churches to deal with who they will and won't marry makes a lot of sense. That's how I did it; I had a civil service and then had the marriage blessed at the reception.
^ All for this in the U.S.

[Zero]

You think that if homosexuals are allowed to marry that that will give permission for men to cheat on their wives?

[ShivaX]

^ All for this in the U.S.

Which only proves what I've always said about the subject. Removing marriage from the law is the middle ground everyone can agree on. If legally marriage was changed to "civil union" for everyone and we left marriage up to the churches everyone would have no issue with it.

Well I'm sure SOME people would have issue with it, but whatever some people will have issue with anything just for the sake of doing it.

[TurboKinny]

Same-sex marriage isn't the only way to disrespect (in my opinion) a marriage. Cheating on your spouse is another way; so is ruining your spouse's credit. Guess what? Both are legal grounds for ending the marriage. If we're going to accept same-sex marriage in the legal system, then we may as well accept other disrespectful (again, in my opinion as a married man) activities as norm. Why not? Cheaters are people, too.I can't think of anything more disrespectful to the institution of marriage than divorce (and this is coming from someone who is divorce, btw). So, by this logic, you're supporting the move to ban divorce in California (http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php), correct?

[txshurricane]

I can't think of anything more disrespectful to the institution of marriage than divorce (and this is coming from someone who is divorce, btw). So, by this logic, you're supporting the move to ban divorce in California (http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php), correct?
My opinions defy all logic. :D

[civil]

I am all for removing marriage from government wording, from health and insurance policy wording, from everything outside of a religious context. Give everyone a civil union. If they choose to make it religious and call it a marriage, a blessing, a partnership - fuck even a bondage contract - then that's the individual couple's choice. But in order to have all the rights and privileges accorded what we currently call a married couple a civil union takes place in a government office. Then you're done. Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman...it doesn't matter because it shouldn't matter to the government.

My goal is to find Mag a husband while he stays with us this weekend. Fucker is asleep on my futon while he could be chasing husband ass.


EDIT: As someone who has been married, divorced and is a Christian I believe the only way to disrespect a marriage is to disrespect your spouse. All else that follows after you lose that respect is secondary to that initial act of not loving your partner as they deserve.

[TurboKinny]

My opinions defy all logic. :DEh, it's not about logic, it's about consistency. If you can honestly say you would be behind banning divorce, while I still wouldn't agree with your opinions, I would have more respect for them in their consistency.

[txshurricane]

Eh, it's not about logic, it's about consistency. If you can honestly say you would be behind banning divorce, while I still wouldn't agree with your opinions, I would have more respect for them in their consistency.
I honestly don't know how to answer your divorce question. I grew up in a split household and I'm happily married. It's the height of selfishness, but: it doesn't currently apply to me and hopefully never will, so I haven't given it much thought.

Off the cuff, I'd say that divorce can be a respectful act in the right circumstances. It's much more respectful than annulment. Both are subject to a judge's review in case-by-case scenarios, right? Since I'm not a judge and I'm not a divorcee, I just can't give you my indefinite opinion... :o

[Ink Asylum]

But two gays marrying can't respect marriage, no matter how loving or devoted they are. Two gays, no matter how great their union is are more disrespectful than divorce, apparently.

[Goronmon]

But two gays marrying can't respect marriage, no matter how loving or devoted they are. Two gays, no matter how great their union is are more disrespectful than divorce, apparently.Well, it's easier to say you're are against gay marriage for religious reasons rather than admitting personal prejudice against them.

[National Kato]

...the United States is a Christian-founded nation.

Which Christian founders, exactly?

If Americans want to abandon Christian roots, then we should abandon marriage as well, not adopt it to a group of people who were never entitled to the privilege to begin with (according to the faith that established it).So we should remove the privilege of marriage from all non-Christians? Or are you just conveniently forgetting marriage's long and diverse history, in many forms both voluntary and involuntary, across many cultures and religions (including Judaism, Islam, Baha'i, Hinduism, Sikhism, and many others)?

I do, however, take issue with respect for marriage being thrown out of the window for a political agenda...If you respect marriage so much, why is it your knowledge of its history is so lacking? When you come to understand that marriage is not merely a Christian tradition, or privilege for practicing Christians, you'll better understand why people feel the need to fight for the right to have theirs recognized by their country and community. That's not a political agenda. It's people fighting for equal rights under federal law.

...and tax relief.Again, you need to educate yourself. Taxation has been an aspect of marriage for a long time. Or maybe you'd prefer to give up your own tax advantages from your marriage? I mean, it seems convenient to be upset about others wanting the same kind of relief you already enjoy.

I know it's Wikipedia, but you might want to start by reading here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) to see how well-documented it all is.

[LongStepMantis]

Fight bigotry with bigotry, that's the way! (Is there a rolleyes smilie?)

I have no clue what you're talking about...but yea, rock on.
Did you intend to reply to a different post?

I didn't say one thing that isn't true. So tell me, how often do those dirty homosexuals cause you inconvenience? Do they ransack your house every night, spreading glitter and sodomizing your pets? No, because the only effect it has on you is in your own mind, and your opinion of what should and shouldn't be allowed marriage-wise is your opinion, not a fact. Have fun.

[txshurricane]

@Kato - I don't revel in my tax benefits from marriage, if that's what you're getting at. I don't file jointly every year.

As to my education, though: you are correct, and thank you for the link. I'll read up.

Am I wrong? I don't know. I don't believe so. Different strokes for different folks (tah dah!)...

Ok, enough of me flamebaiting the philosophers. Thanks for letting me participate...kinda.

[National Kato]

@Kato - I don't revel in my tax benefits from marriage, if that's what you're getting at. I don't file jointly every year.


Fair enough. I'd assumed you were filing jointly and thus taking advantage of some tax relief. However, I will revise my point to say that there are many heterosexual, Christian couples who do file jointly and it seems unfair to blame them for taking advantage of these benefits (after all, it is our duty to try and pay as little tax as possible) - and unfair to restrict those benefits based on sexual orientation.

Also, thanks for taking what I wrote and linked into consideration without immediately throwing up defenses. Kudos, good sir. You'd never know we were in the P&R forum. ;)

[alienmastermind]

Well, I'd say that marriage is a religious term. It has a specific religious meaning, like bar mitzvah, or briss. The law is intended to recognize such religious unions as they were in the past, joint responsibility for taxes, upkeep of property and any kin they were likely to toss out there.

The law should be changed, in my opinion, to state that any lifetime union between two consenting adults shall be viewed as a legal partnership with all of the rights and responsibilities that such partnerships entail. Foregoing the religious terminology and ceremony completely, as our Constitution is pretty specific about having laws that show a state preference for one religion over another.

The anti-gay marriage crowd isn't all hatred.I is however, religious, and doesn't want a term that means 'heterosexual lifemate' to be changed to mean 'unisexual lifemate'.

Again, I feel I'll be maligned for not wanting to let the LGBTcommunity adopt the term marriage, but I honestly don't care what people tend to call their marriages, unions, what-have-yous, just playing Devil's Advocate for folks who have a problem with it.

[TurboKinny]

Well, I'd say that marriage is a religious term. It has a specific religious meaning, like bar mitzvah, or briss. The law is intended to recognize such religious unions as they were in the past, joint responsibility for taxes, upkeep of property and any kin they were likely to toss out there.

The law should be changed, in my opinion, to state that any lifetime union between two consenting adults shall be viewed as a legal partnership with all of the rights and responsibilities that such partnerships entail. Foregoing the religious terminology and ceremony completely, as our Constitution is pretty specific about having laws that show a state preference for one religion over another.

The anti-gay marriage crowd isn't all hatred.I is however, religious, and doesn't want a term that means 'heterosexual lifemate' to be changed to mean 'unisexual lifemate'.

Again, I feel I'll be maligned for not wanting to let the LGBTcommunity adopt the term marriage, but I honestly don't care what people tend to call their marriages, unions, what-have-yous, just playing Devil's Advocate for folks who have a problem with it.So do you not have a problem with religions who allow polygamy, since that what their "religious term" means to them? If you don't, why is that okay, but homosexual marriage isn't? If you do, why does it matter to you what another church allows?

and to specifically address this part
The law is intended to recognize such religious unions as they were in the past
Why are we going back to what (certain) religious groups meant by "marriage" in the past? What other marriage institutions from the past should we re-adopt? Dowries? Taking of a bride by force? Only marrying within one's race? It is a weak argument, at best. Terms change, religions change, society changes. We should embrace the change in a constructive manner.

[TurboKinny]

I keep hearing again and again that marriage is a religious institution. It's not. Marriage has been around for thousands of years, sometimes as part of a religious ritual, yes, but as we go back further it becomes something done outside of religion more often than within. In fact, the Christian tradition of marriage in a church was one of the lasting effects of colonization; one of the first thing colonizers would do when entering a new society would often be to tell the native peoples that their civil marriages did not count, they were therefore living in sin, and they needed to be saved by these white European missionaries.

Every time I hear this argument about marriage being a religious institution, all I can think of are the far-reaching effects of colonization, and how much it has become ingrained in us to believe that our way is the only way to do things. As a white person who studies marginalized cultures, I am perhaps more sensitive than some to the ways we centralize white Christianity in this country, but it is not the only, nor necessarily the "correct," way. Until we accept that, we will continue to demonize the Other in our society, at the detriment not only to them for the prejudice they face, but to us for how much we miss out on learning about others (little "o" this time) that we share our world with.

[Ultima Thulian]

Who, praytell, are your Christian founders?

There's quite a solid mix of both Christian and Deist/Enlightenment peoples among the rather ambiguous group under the name "the Founding Fathers." Don't be silly. The following few paragraphs aren't directed towards you directly...just a fair warning.

Also, the amazing mix of over optimism (this bill ain't got a prayer) and the gang-rape of the one dood, the ONLY ONE guy that had a differing opinion in this entire thread. Great stuff.

And if it matters, my opinion on the issue is, "Meh." I'd like to see gays get it, sure, but it doesn't really affect me, so I don't care too much. They will get it in time. But not now. Maybe about...hrm...I'd say 20 years. That's my guess. And I'd love to see us adopt a "marriage system" like the U.K.'s. But fat chance on that too.

AND NO, writing your senators doesn't do jack shit. Why would it? With a 95% incumbency rate, powerful business and special interest groups twirling politicians by their fingers, and a populace that still widely identifies itself as Judeo-Christian, well...you can write your letters till your hand falls off and it won't do a damn thing. You can take that shit to the bank. Want senators to listen to you? Sign a big check to aid their campaign funds. Works for the big money groups.

[alienmastermind]

So do you not have a problem with religions who allow polygamy, since that what their "religious term" means to them? If you don't, why is that okay, but homosexual marriage isn't? If you do, why does it matter to you what another church allows?

Like I said, playing devil's advocate immediately makes you the devil. I'm just saying that on the anti-marriage for gays side are some people who believe that you'd be modifying the terms by which they live, and hold sacred.

Polygamy? I don't give a damn what people do. Polyamory within a marriage, polygamy, it's all personal choices, and if no one's getting hurt, then I simply don't have a reason to condemn it.


and to specifically address this part

Why are we going back to what (certain) religious groups meant by "marriage" in the past? What other marriage institutions from the past should we re-adopt? Dowries? Taking of a bride by force? Only marrying within one's race? It is a weak argument, at best. Terms change, religions change, society changes. We should embrace the change in a constructive manner.

Sure. We should. But not everyone does. There are fundamentalists of every stripe. There are Mormons who still adhere to polygamy no matter what society accepts. There are folks who believe in the sanctity, the holiness of marriage in a religious way, who don't define what others do as marriage, and don't want people lumping their marriage with the civil unions.

Dowries still exist, and so do arranged marriages. Open your eyes, and you'll see that these things still exist in other countries. And the practice that the father of the bride pays for the wedding? That's a dowry of sorts.

I'm also stating that I'm not against gays getting hitched. Just that their insistance in calling it marriage will create opposition from the fundies until the end of time.

Since there can be no compromise, it's 'marriage' or nothing, there may never be a true gay marriage bill.

[TurboKinny]

Also, the amazing mix of over optimism (this bill ain't got a prayer) and the gang-rape of the one dood, the ONLY ONE guy that had a differing opinion in this entire thread. Great stuff. I'm not sure what you're referring to. We had a great discussion going between people with differing viewpoints. I would say one of the best I've ever seen in the P&R forum, in fact.

[TurboKinny]

Since there can be no compromise, it's 'marriage' or nothing, there may never be a true gay marriage bill.I don't think it's "marriage or nothing"- just that many of us take issue with a "separate but equal" civil union for same-sex couples. Make them all civil unions, and it's fine with me.

[Widgetcraft]

I don't think it's "marriage or nothing"- just that many of us take issue with a "separate but equal" civil union for same-sex couples. Make them all civil unions, and it's fine with me.

It isn't about the term marriage for the wingnut rednecks who oppose gay marriage, and everyone knows it. They will oppose anything that helps the gay community, because as far as they are concerned, being gay should be/is a crime. Most of them don't even understand that, as far as religion goes, you can get married to whoever the fuck you want; that is the decision of the religious group sanctioning the marriage.

The only way we'll reach some resolution on this issue is through decades of wearing away at their culture's attitude towards homosexuality, to the point that not enough of them hate gay people to swing these votes in their favor.

[Generation ABXY]

Don't forget about the minorities who scuttled the whole thing in California, Heretic. Personally, I think we should take away these people's ability to marry whomever they want, just so they can realize what it is they're really voting for. ;)

[Hotcod]

Like it or not most 1st world societies are based on the traditional family unit, 2 parents and children. Supporting this structure is something that is embedded deeply in how we do things and has worked well enough so far. Which is not to say the 2 parents can't be of the same sex and nor should it. The term civil partnership needs to be adopted for all dealing with the legality of supporting that structure because it does a few things.

Firstly it puts every couple on a level playing field, the danger of having 2 laws is that you can make changes to one with out effecting the other. It would, i'd hope, be much harder to split the laws back up after joining them than make changes to one or the other.

Secondly it allows for people to call what ever there family grouping is a marriage but if you want to say you are married to more than one women you can still only have a civil partnership with one of them. In essence it makes the term married one of purely religious significances rather than a social one. While i'm sure most people will still say they are getting married (as i'm sure i'd still ask a girl to marry me rather than "join me in a civil partnership) and such the legality is a whole other matter than what is in essence a slang terms used to talk about it.

Thirdly I'm not going to say that it will reduce the hate of the idea in some given groups but it does have the ability to remove one of there talking points and forces them towards admitting it's simply a dislike for gays that is fuelling the fire. If you separate the term and idea of religious marriage from the legal benefits of a 2 person partnership then they "sanctity of marriage" argument is void. Of course there will then be the arguments that it's the 'family unit' that is being violated but there are logical and statistical arguments that can show that a family with 2 parents no matter what there sex is often better for children than a single parent.

So over all it's not a magical fix but it is a move in the right direction

[MagGnome]

I don't see how we're discussing basic human rights. Marriage is an institution pushed into legislation by churches of the Christian faith, and as unfair as it seems, the United States is a Christian-founded nation. Marriage is a privilege which you have to apply for, not a basic right.

I see this bullshit spouted all the time, but I never see any mention of exactly who these "Christian founders" are. Many of the founding fathers were not in fact Christians at all, so that goes right out the window.

If you are referring to the Puritans, then we better ban dancing, non-religious music, and everything else that could be considered "fun".

The hypocrisy of the Christian right astounds me.

Same-sex marriage isn't the only way to disrespect (in my opinion) a marriage. Cheating on your spouse is another way; so is ruining your spouse's credit. Guess what? Both are legal grounds for ending the marriage. If we're going to accept same-sex marriage in the legal system, then we may as well accept other disrespectful (again, in my opinion as a married man) activities as norm. Why not? Cheaters are people, too.

I love this argument, simply because it defies all common sense! Why not mention that we might as well let men marry dogs and children as well? If you're going to provide ridiculous examples, you might as well hit them out of the ballpark.


Which only proves what I've always said about the subject. Removing marriage from the law is the middle ground everyone can agree on. If legally marriage was changed to "civil union" for everyone and we left marriage up to the churches everyone would have no issue with it.

Well I'm sure SOME people would have issue with it, but whatever some people will have issue with anything just for the sake of doing it.

It doesn't matter what you call it, many people will oppose any equal rights for gays. The right may say that they take offense at the word "marriage" being used, but really they are just offended that gays are allowed to exist at all. If it were up them we'd all be back in the closet and thrown in jail or even killed if discovered, as it was all too recently in the US.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Washington State passed a law to give gay people the same rights as married couples without the use of the term "marriage", yet there is still an effort on the right to repeal it.

[BigJonno]

Obviously there are still thousands of irrational, raving homophobes out there, but I still feel that there are a lot of people who are behind gay couples having equal rights but are touchy about the specifics of marriage. It'd be nice if it were all a non-issue, but we've got a long way to go to get there.

Incidentally, I didn't see this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm?lsf) mentioned anywhere on CoG. It's pretty much the only thing Gordon Brown has done that I respect him for.

[Ultima Thulian]

I'm tired of people pretending there aren't any Christian founders. Yes, many were deists and enlightment thinkers, but many too also subscribed to a judeo-christian faith. Please people, don't be purposely dense to make an argument that is pointless to begin with anyway.

[TurboKinny]

I'm tired of people pretending there aren't any Christian founders. Yes, many were deists and enlightment thinkers, but many too also subscribed to a judeo-christian faith. Please people, don't be purposely dense to make an argument that is pointless to begin with anyway.The term "many" is what I have a problem with- which, exactly? Every "founding father" I can think of was a deist, and at least 3 of them spoke out specifically against the christian church.

[txshurricane]

I see this bullshit spouted all the time, but I never see any mention of exactly who these "Christian founders" are. Many of the founding fathers were not in fact Christians at all, so that goes right out the window.

If you are referring to the Puritans, then we better ban dancing, non-religious music, and everything else that could be considered "fun".

The hypocrisy of the Christian right astounds me.

I love this argument, simply because it defies all common sense! Why not mention that we might as well let men marry dogs and children as well? If you're going to provide ridiculous examples, you might as well hit them out of the ballpark.

It doesn't matter what you call it, many people will oppose any equal rights for gays. The right may say that they take offense at the word "marriage" being used, but really they are just offended that gays are allowed to exist at all. If it were up them we'd all be back in the closet and thrown in jail or even killed if discovered, as it was all too recently in the US.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Washington State passed a law to give gay people the same rights as married couples without the use of the term "marriage", yet there is still an effort on the right to repeal it.
I don't plan on jumping back into this conversation, but I'm still lurking...your comments are well noted.

I do have to say, though...that for all of the arguments about hate and phobias on the "right"...there sure is a lot of vehemence in your post. Maybe I'm taking it the wrong way...the internet is a funny thing. But I sure would hate to hear about someone at COG developing a high blood pressure problem over this. The powerful urge to buck traditional beliefs shouldn't make you so angry that you're willing to insult your fellow gamer.

Would it be out of line to say: chill out? :cool:

[TurboKinny]

I don't plan on jumping back into this conversation, but I'm still lurking...your comments are well noted.

I do have to say, though...that for all of the arguments about hate and phobias on the "right"...there sure is a lot of vehemence in your post. Maybe I'm taking it the wrong way...the internet is a funny thing. But I sure would hate to hear about someone at COG developing a high blood pressure problem over this. The powerful urge to buck traditional beliefs shouldn't make you so angry that you're willing to insult your fellow gamer.

Would it be out of line to say: chill out? :cool:I'm not Mags, so I'll speak for me- It isn't CoGers that get my blood pressure high over this, but were I not careful, I could easily spit out words much more heated than Mags' post. When you feel personally attacked by bigotry and discrimination on a daily basis, being told to "chill out" doesn't help matters in the least. I'm not saying you did so in an attempt to be rude, just that (as much as I hate to say this) you can't understand what he and I go through- and please don't think I'm saying Mags and I go through the same thing, because as someone who could easily hide their sexuality if I so choose, I can "pass" if I want to, though I have made a conscious decision not to. I hope that by being open about my sexuality I can, if nothing else, show at least a few people that "gay" does not look like any one particular thing.

I don't think he was trying to personally insult anyone, just get his opinion across in a very emotionally-charged way.

[Goronmon]

I do have to say, though...that for all of the arguments about hate and phobias on the "right"...there sure is a lot of vehemence in your post.The guy all for denying other people equality under the law doesn't think those people should get that worked up over this? That's just precious.

[Ink Asylum]

It's always people who already have rights and equality telling those fighting for theirs that they need to "calm down" and "chill out," isn't it? That's really easy to do when you've already got yours and don't want to share.

[Hotcod]

Would it be out of line to say: chill out? :cool:

You know, even with you saying something so amazingly stupid i could not wish on you what some members of my family have had to go through purely because of there sexual preferences. No matter that it would make you understand what an awful idiotic and hurtful response you just made. I couldn't do it. Not even some one I now dislike as intensely as you.

[Ultima Thulian]

I'm not quite sure as to the validity of this source, as I'm pressed for time, but here.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

I don't agree with the assessment that TJ was Episcopalian. But TJ is so religiously ambiguous it's hard to tell. Otherwise, many of our founding fathers do subscribe to some sort of Christian viewpoint, and pretty much every single fucking president we had claimed to be Christian in some capacity.

Also, TX: PROTIP: You have a differing opinion. No matter how you word it or how nice you try to word it will work. You're better off just doing as you were...which was letting this festering pile die.

edit: the link does mention though that TJ's views were...varied, to say the least, so I retract my previous statement.

[BigJonno]

Honestly, there are people on both sides of the argument who could do with a quick slap upside the head (in general, I mean, not here.) Personally, I think it's a cut and dried issue, but I appreciate that not everyone sees it that way. Disagreeing with someone's beliefs doesn't give you the right to insult and attack them. It seems that it's considered fine to be homosexual and have deeply-held, negative beliefs about Christians, but it's not okay to be Christian and have deeply-held, negative beliefs about homosexuals.

For every gay-hating, Bible-thumper there are going to be dozens who are somewhat on the fence on the issue, "I have no personal problem with homosexuals, but the Bible says it's wrong/says that marriage is a heterosexual thing." Jumping on the "You're all bigoted twats!" train is not going to win people over.

[Goronmon]

It seems that it's considered fine to be homosexual and have deeply-held, negative beliefs about Christians, but it's not okay to be Christian and have deeply-held, negative beliefs about homosexuals.Well, one group sort of has a good reason. The other doesn't.

"I have no personal problem with homosexuals, but the Bible says it's wrong/says that marriage is a heterosexual thing."Does the distinction matter if someone still votes against gay marriage?

[txshurricane]

The guy all for denying other people equality under the law doesn't think those people should get that worked up over this? That's just precious.
"The guy"? It must be nice to be able to be so smug, here in the majority.

It's always people who already have rights and equality telling those fighting for theirs that they need to "calm down" and "chill out," isn't it? That's really easy to do when you've already got yours and don't want to share.
Remember that I'm a white male in America with a conservative nature. If you think I have rights and equality, why don't you check out current college grant and scholarship eligibility requirements? How about auto insurance rates? Are there any employers scared not to hire me for fear of racial or gender profiling? Yeah...equality my eye.

Apparently you think that just because I'm not in total support same-sex marriage that I don't want anything to change.
Same-sex alliances have made do for centuries. They'll continue to thrive. I don't believe that granting federal recognition of same-sex marriages will be the awesome "revelation" that the gay community really wants the rest of the country to have. I wish that the real agenda of acceptance would be at stake, and not the penny-ante political issues that ultimately end up a part of the big picture anyway.

You know, even with you saying something so amazingly stupid i could not wish on you what some members of my family have had to go through purely because of there sexual preferences. No matter that it would make you understand what an awful idiotic and hurtful response you just made. I couldn't do it. Not even some one I now dislike as intensely as you.
I didn't suggest that anyone's opinion was invalid by saying "chill out"...I thought this was a discussion, and I thought that the tension warranted an icebreaker.
Seems to me that some people -- like yourself -- will turn anything into an object of contempt for the sake of self pity.
Your dislike of me is a shame, really...it's probably one of the most unimportant things I've ever read. I hope it doesn't continue to bother you.


And here I get sucked back in. :(

[TurboKinny]

Hey guys, let's try to keep this as a discussion and not a series of insults thrown back and forth, okay? We don't have to agree with each other, but we can at least listen to what the other person has to say, think about it, and come back with something constructive. I know that this is a hot issue, but I have faith that we can all be civil about it. (and no, I don't mean start posting cosplay ;) )

[Goronmon]

"The guy"? It must be nice to be able to be so smug, here in the majority.My smugness has no relation to how many people agree with me on CoG.

Remember that I'm a white male in America with a conservative nature. If you think I have rights and equality, why don't you check out current college grant and scholarship eligibility requirements? How about auto insurance rates? Are there any employers scared not to hire me for fear of racial or gender profiling? Yeah...equality my eye.Not even close to the same situation, though I agree that type of race issue can be frustrating to see.

[BigJonno]

Does the distinction matter if someone still votes against gay marriage?

I believe there is a distinction between the nutjobs who believe gays should burn in Hell and people who could be brought round. You don't win support by insulting people.

[Goronmon]

I believe there is a distinction between the nutjobs who believe gays should burn in Hell and people who could be brought round. You don't win support by insulting people.Agreed, but to be a bit stubborn, that wasn't really my point.

[Ink Asylum]

Remember that I'm a white male in America with a conservative nature. If you think I have rights and equality, why don't you check out current college grant and scholarship eligibility requirements? How about auto insurance rates? Are there any employers scared not to hire me for fear of racial or gender profiling? Yeah...equality my eye.

For you to even begin to compare the "plight" of being a white male in America to the continued discrimination against, when not downright persecution of, minorities is insulting, and I say that as a fellow white male. No white, heterosexual male in America would ever consider trading that status in to be a female, minority, or homosexual because they believe those groups have it better off. The scale is still heavily weighted in favor of you and I.

Apparently you think that just because I'm not in total support same-sex marriage that I don't want anything to change.
Same-sex alliances have made do for centuries.

When they weren't being discriminated against and killed, I suppose.

They'll continue to thrive. I don't believe that granting federal recognition of same-sex marriages will be the awesome "revelation" that the gay community really wants the rest of the country to have.

Perhaps most gays who want to get married aren't doing it for some kind of "revelation" but just because they really want to get married and get the same recognition and rights that straight couples have.

I wish that the real agenda of acceptance would be at stake, and not the penny-ante political issues that ultimately end up a part of the big picture anyway.

It's hard to be accepted when you're treated as so different that your loving relationships would sully marriage should that term be applied to them.

[txshurricane]

For you to even begin to compare the "plight" of being a white male in America to the continued discrimination against, when not downright persecution of, minorities is insulting, and I say that as a fellow white male. No white, heterosexual male in America would ever consider trading that status in to be a female, minority, or homosexual because they believe those groups have it better off. The scale is still heavily weighted in favor of you and I.
Agreed, but the fault nor responsibility lies with me; yet I'm (we're) tasked with both.

When they weren't being discriminated against and killed, I suppose.
I'd argue that far more straight people are killed than gay people, and for less important reasons. Hate crimes are pretty despicable, but so is abortion, in my opinion.
((EDIT: Okay, that was weird, and not really relevant. I didn't mean to imply that unborn children are inherently straight or that it's a more important issue. Take a different example: petty crimes, drunk drivers, whatever you fancy.))

It's hard to be accepted when you're treated as so different that your loving relationships would sully marriage should that term be applied to them.
Funny, I have the same feelings about Christianity, conservatism, and tradition in courts of law. Interesting that my views are illogical but relationships that defy both Creationist and Evolutionist views on procreation -- not to mention generally accepted studies of mammalian anatomy -- make perfect sense, eh?

[Ink Asylum]

Agreed, but the fault nor responsibility lies with me; yet I'm (we're) tasked with both.

What are you tasked, with, exactly? Not discriminating against gays or not opposing gays being given equal access to marriage?

I'd argue that far more straight people are killed than gay people, and for less important reasons. Hate crimes are pretty despicable, but so is abortion, in my opinion.

What kind of argument is that? More straight people are killed than gay people? Are they killed for being straight? Because if that's not the case than it's really pointless to make that comparison.

Funny, I have the same feelings about Christianity, conservatism, and tradition in courts of law. Interesting that my views are illogical but relationships that defy both Creationist and Evolutionist views on procreation -- not to mention generally accepted studies of mammalian anatomy -- make perfect sense, eh?

The problem is that you seem to define courts granting rights to other people as somehow infringing on your views and beliefs. That's really why opposition to gay marriage is so abhorrent. No one's trying to change your life. Two gays wanting to get married doesn't affect you. Giving them that right doesn't hurt you. You, however, want to deny people access to marriage based on your personal beliefs. That DOES affect gay people. That DOES hurt them. The two positions are not equal.

[txshurricane]

The problem is that you seem to define courts granting rights to other people as somehow infringing on your views and beliefs. That's really why opposition to gay marriage is so abhorrent. No one's trying to change your life. Two gays wanting to get married doesn't affect you. Giving them that right doesn't hurt you. You, however, want to deny people access to marriage based on your personal beliefs. That DOES affect gay people. That DOES hurt them. The two positions are not equal.
You're right. It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't make sense for me to have an opinion about it. It also doesn't make sense to have a legal drinking age, but I support it. Same with prostitution. Same with illegal immigration. I have a belief that I feel serves the good of American society -- no matter how irrelevant you may think it is -- and I have a strong desire to preserve the traditional family unit, of which I am a participant after a specific legal and spiritual process.
I have no problems with same-sex couples getting the same legal treatment as man-woman couples; it's the agenda that I oppose, and my own agenda that I support. (Same as everyone else.)

I'm all for a compromise, and I think most people are. However, it seems to me that a compromise wouldn't be good enough from agenda at hand. Which is why EVERY system in place to promote equality is abused. Name one government "equality" measure that hasn't tilted back and created more problems than solved because the "disadvantaged" and "discriminated against" have abused it.

[National Kato]

Interesting that my views are illogical but relationships that defy both Creationist and Evolutionist views on procreation -- not to mention generally accepted studies of mammalian anatomy -- make perfect sense, eh?

I sure hope you're not masturbating. ;)

[txshurricane]

I sure hope you're not masturbating. ;)
From time to time. Right now I'm too busy typing absurdities in to get a good handle on things! :p

[TurboKinny]

Interesting that my views are illogical but relationships that defy both Creationist and Evolutionist views on procreation -- not to mention generally accepted studies of mammalian anatomy -- make perfect sense, eh?Actually, scientifically accepted studies of every species also show some form of homosexuality. It's not just humans. It's not a "choice". It's not a "lifestyle".

[Goronmon]

Interesting that my views are illogical but relationships that defy both Creationist and Evolutionist views on procreation -- not to mention generally accepted studies of mammalian anatomy -- make perfect sense, eh?Evolution is a theory to describe how plants and animals change over time. Not a political construct upon which to build legislation. I'm pretty sure you knew that, so I'm not sure what relevance you think it has.

[Goronmon]

You're right. It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't make sense for me to have an opinion about it. It also doesn't make sense to have a legal drinking age, but I support it. Same with prostitution. Same with illegal immigration.All three of those things have a logical argument for legislation. Prevention gay marriage does not.

Which is why EVERY system in place to promote equality is abused. Name one government "equality" measure that hasn't tilted back and created more problems than solved because the "disadvantaged" and "discriminated against" have abused it.So, you feel that women's suffrage has been abused?

[Ink Asylum]

You're right. It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't make sense for me to have an opinion about it. It also doesn't make sense to have a legal drinking age, but I support it. Same with prostitution. Same with illegal immigration. I have a belief that I feel serves the good of American society -- no matter how irrelevant you may think it is -- and I have a strong desire to preserve the traditional family unit, of which I am a participant after a specific legal and spiritual process.

Please tell me how gay people getting married negatively affects the "traditional family unit."

I have no problems with same-sex couples getting the same legal treatment as man-woman couples; it's the agenda that I oppose, and my own agenda that I support. (Same as everyone else.)

I don't know how you can say that and oppose same-sex marriage. That IS having a problem with gays getting the same legal treatment.

I'm all for a compromise, and I think most people are. However, it seems to me that a compromise wouldn't be good enough from agenda at hand. Which is why EVERY system in place to promote equality is abused. Name one government "equality" measure that hasn't tilted back and created more problems than solved because the "disadvantaged" and "discriminated against" have abused it.

What sort of compromise? Gay's getting to have "civil unions" while everyone else gets "marriages"? When has "separate but equal" institutions like that ever turned out ok? One always gets treated better than the other, which is why we abolished the practice.

Has giving women or blacks the right to vote tilted back and created more problems than it's solved?

Has the elimination of miscegenation laws (banning inter-racial marriages) created more problems than it's solved?

Did the abolition of segregation and the Civil Rights Act create more problems than it's solved?

You clearly have a problem with affirmative action, but that is NOT what's under discussion. There aren't a limited number of marriages to go around. Letting gays get married doesn't mean straights won't be able to.

[txshurricane]

Ink, are you gay? How does the current marriage law situation affect you?

Everyone keeps asking me why I care since I'm not gay. Why do you?

[MagGnome]

I just wanted to pop in and say that Ink, goronmon, TurboKinny, and others have done a great job of laying out my point of view on this issue.

I'd elaborate further and type out some thoughtful responses, but I've come down with some sort of bug and need to go lie down. :(

[Goronmon]

Ink, are you gay? How does the current marriage law situation affect you?

Everyone keeps asking me why I care since I'm not gay. Why do you?It's generally referred to as empathy.

[Ink Asylum]

Ink, are you gay? How does the current marriage law situation affect you?

Everyone keeps asking me why I care since I'm not gay. Why do you?

What Goronmon said. I believe in fighting for equality even when it doesn't concern discrimination against me, specifically.

But I do have a gay brother, who has lived in a loving, monogamous relationship for over ten years with the man he loves. They have a home, a history, and two dogs. He's had a longer and more stable relationship than most people his age yet he's not allowed to get married.

Even if I didn't have a gay brother, though, I'd still care about equality for gays. Just like I care about equality for minorities even though I'm white.

[txshurricane]

Fair enough.

[Hotcod]

caring about the rights and life of others with empathy and compassion? god knows why any one would want to do that! well other than the unarguable moral imperative it represents. It is the base of everything that makes us worth while and unique which lets our lives be in any way significant. It's our ability to be selfless that is our greatest strength and it is going to be the only reason we make it through the new 200 years.

You seem to have no idea how lucky you are, how privileged your life is and the responsibility that comes with that. If you are in a privileged position from which you can help others who are in lesser ones you have a moral responsibility to do so.

So as some one who enjoys all the rights your society has to offer there is no question about the fact you should, in some form, actively support the affording of those rights to every one else.

[txshurricane]

You seem to have no idea how lucky you are, how privileged your life is and the responsibility that comes with that. If you are in a privileged position from which you can help others who are in lesser ones you have a moral responsibility to do so.
I am not lucky. I am blessed. I do not deserve the awesome life that I have, including involvement with the folks here at COG. I believe that the way that I've lived my life -- whether my beliefs are popular or not -- has please God, and He is the one that supplies what I need. Why should I live or believe any other way?

So as some one who enjoys all the rights your society has to offer there is no question about the fact you should, in some form, actively support the affording of those rights to every one else.
Uh, yeah...no. First of all: marriage is no more a right than crossing the border without the proper visa. It's a privilege that is enjoyed by those applicable. If the criteria change, then so be it. Until then...I don't owe society a thing.

If you believe what you preach, then I'd like to see some evidence of your humanitarian deeds...outside of blasting one o' dem durn closed-minded Christians online, that is.

[Chaos Machine]

Seems to be only two logical solutions, either strip all references to marriage and replace it with Civil Unions in our laws, or allow gays to get married. Neither isnt a choice. I vote for the second option just because I dont want to have to call marriage "civil unions" due to the fact that its twice as many syllables...

"hey dude, I didnt know you got civil unioned!" doesnt exactly roll off the tongue.

The whole marriage is a privilege argument doesn't hold water with me, any time you deny someone something available to someone else based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is the very essence of discrimination, I thought protecting people from that was one of the cornerstones of our constitution.

oh and bathrooms dont count as gender discrimination imo.


I dont see what the big deal is anyway, Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of life, there are even homosexual animals, i find it kind of silly that a culture like the romans, who watched prisoners slaughter each other in the collesiums(sp?) during their heyday were more tolerant to homosexuality than we are.

[Ultima Thulian]

Well, if we really wanna get technical...he's right when he says marriage isn't a right, or at least a right guaranteed to all. The question is should that change.

Of course, I'll take it one step further and say that rights are make-believe. They're made up. There isn't such a thing as "rights". Period. They're just made up gimme-cards doled out by the authority.

Rights change all the time...we make them up after all. At one time, women didn't have the right to vote (good times*). Now they do. Rights aren't some concrete thing that is always there. We make them. Just like we make laws or other such things. They're just merely simple devices to keep a populace under control and to dictate how society rolls out. Thankfully, this is a democracy, and if enough people think gays should have the "right" to marry (and they get to enjoy the 50% divorce rate too, and all that fun shit), they will. Sadly, we ain't there yet. It's coming, only a matter of time. But as of now, this bill has a snowball's chance in Hell.

And the "homosexual" animals arguement is fairly weak, because most animals engage in homosexuality because it displays dominance, not because they're "in love" or some insipid Mickey-Mouse bullshit.

*that was a joke...don't flame me.

[Narradisall]

Hold on a sec there.

Women can vote?!?!

What's next, some sort of beast comprised of various land dwelling and sea living monsters?

[TurboKinny]

And the "homosexual" animals arguement is fairly weak, because most animals engage in homosexuality because it displays dominance, not because they're "in love" or some insipid Mickey-Mouse bullshit.

And heterosexual animals engage in sex because they're in love? :confused:

[Hotcod]

If you believe what you preach, then I'd like to see some evidence of your humanitarian deeds...outside of blasting one o' dem durn closed-minded Christians online, that is.

You have the ability to get legal protections and advantages that are not available to every one in your society based purely on sexual preference. Given that it's illegal for any privet citizen to do something along the same lines... well you can argue the semantic of it all you like but the out come is the same.

Right, lets see, for most of a year i was out of paid work/school i worked unpaid off my own back 9-5 5 days a week at a barnardos (children's charity) regional head office doing everything from office grunt work to funrasing to working in some of the charity shops when they where short staffed. I still help out there when I can. At school (and after) i volunteered in afterschool clubs that let us go work and help down at a local school for the disabled and lead to us going to Lourdes (oddly enough where i realised organised religion is frankly stupid) 3 times for a week over ester where we were attached to groups of disabled kids and volunteers. When I was promoting gigs I often put on charity events to support stuff from barnardos to breast cancer.

In other words I just try to help when and where i can and i do the odd bits for different places all the time. There's always more i could be doing but that's true of everything and it's important to either find a balance or fully commit to it, something I've often through about doing. I mean i wish i could has the personal strength to be like a family friend of ours who sold everything she owned to go help refuges in africa and then risked her life time and time again working for war crimes courts in some of the most dangerous places there. And i envy strength that she had to be able to do that and it's partly from talks with her that I hold some of the views i do. She's a truly remarkable person. Thing is i'm still not sure where my life is going work wise, i'm bumming around rubbish jobs now that i'm out of uni and i may very well end up working full time in some form of charity work if i can find a way to do it.

But oh ya, proof, can only really offer this of me in Lourdes but i hope it makes my point.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/hotcod/Untitled-1-1.jpg

Back row, second from the left, bit of a crappy photo but i'm sure with the pictures of me in the colonizer thread if you don't believe me.

[Ink Asylum]

Well, if we really wanna get technical...he's right when he says marriage isn't a right, or at least a right guaranteed to all. The question is should that change.

Marriage may not be a right like we talk about the freedom of religion being a right, but people do have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender, especially by the government. Granting marriage rights to two people who are male-female while denying them to two people who are male-male or female-female is discriminatory on the basis of gender.

[Ultima Thulian]

And heterosexual animals engage in sex because they're in love? :confused:

I'm talking lower animals in general.

[Ultima Thulian]

As I said Ink, rights change. We used to (and in many ways still do) DO parcel out and discriminate rights based on a person's gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. We've done it from the beginning and will likely continue to do so. We've simply gotten better at selling an illusion, that's all.

Now morally speaking (which I hate...morality is way too subjective), should gays, mayhap all humans, have equal rights, worldwide? Maybe. It sure would be dandy. It'd go great with my unicorn and gummy-drop farm.

[Panthera]

Ugh. This is a topic I feel really strongly about, and I'd love to type out a full argument, but I'm still fatigued from slogging through this shit on another forum.

To summarize my position:

1) Marriage is not inherently religious. Marriage is cultural.
2) Some religions strongly value marriage. This does not change 1).
3) No religion is imposed upon by freedom of marriage. Any couple is free to marry with any flavour of religion they like, including the christian faiths that do support gay marriage, or with no religion at all. They, in turn, are free to refuse to marry same sex couples.
4) Your freedom of religion ends where mine begins. Your version of sanctity of marriage means nothing to me.

Basically, the 'marriage is religious' argument is one massive red herring and I'm glad I live in Canada.

[BigJonno]

Granting marriage rights to two people who are male-female while denying them to two people who are male-male or female-female is discriminatory on the basis of gender.

Nope, not at all. Can men get married? Yes. Can women get married? Yes. Are men allowed to marry men? No. Are women allowed to marry women? No. It's not discrimination based on gender, it's discrimination based on sexual orientation.

There has been a lot of gender discrimination involved with gay rights issues, like differing ages of consent for male/male couples and female/female couples.

[MagGnome]

And heterosexual animals engage in sex because they're in love? :confused:

We have a winner! :D

Ugh. This is a topic I feel really strongly about, and I'd love to type out a full argument, but I'm still fatigued from slogging through this shit on another forum.

To summarize my position:

1) Marriage is not inherently religious. Marriage is cultural.
2) Some religions strongly value marriage. This does not change 1).
3) No religion is imposed upon by freedom of marriage. Any couple is free to marry with any flavour of religion they like, including the christian faiths that do support gay marriage, or with no religion at all. They, in turn, are free to refuse to marry same sex couples.
4) Your freedom of religion ends where mine begins. Your version of sanctity of marriage means nothing to me.

Basically, the 'marriage is religious' argument is one massive red herring and I'm glad I live in Canada.

I agree 100%. I'm tired of people using their religious beliefs to discriminate against myself and others. The United States isn't a theocracy, at least not yet! Someone's religious views should have no bearing on the rights and "privileges" that I can and should be able to enjoy.

Perhaps I can seek political asylum in Canada. Are you looking for a roommate Panthera? :p

[Ink Asylum]

Nope, not at all. Can men get married? Yes. Can women get married? Yes. Are men allowed to marry men? No. Are women allowed to marry women? No. It's not discrimination based on gender, it's discrimination based on sexual orientation.

There has been a lot of gender discrimination involved with gay rights issues, like differing ages of consent for male/male couples and female/female couples.

No, it's still discrimination based on gender. The government is giving rights to pairs of people only if they match a certain gender make-up. A gay man can get married, but they have to marry a woman. The gender of the second party is what is in question, not either person's personal sexuality.

If the government only allowed tax deductions for a second child if that child is a different gender than your first, that would be gender discrimination similar to what happens concerning marriage.

[BigJonno]

It's only gender discrimination if men and women have different rights. In this case, men and women have exactly the same rights; they can marry someone of the opposite gender, but not the same gender. It's like saying that laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were discriminating based on gender, instead of race.

You could argue that women are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry women, while men can and men are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry other men, while women have that right. Personally, I think it's a bit of silly idea that clouds a simple issue. (For the record, I put the whole animal arguement in the same category.)

It does raise an interesting question of the rights of an individual vs the rights of a couple. Technically, homosexual individuals have the exact same rights as heterosexual individuals; there is no legal barrier to a gay man marrying a woman, although there are obvious reasons why he's not going to excercise that right. However when the individuals become couples, discrimination occurs.

The sooner we get over all this discrinatory BS and just classify everyone as "people," the better.

[Ink Asylum]

It's only gender discrimination if men and women have different rights. In this case, men and women have exactly the same rights; they can marry someone of the opposite gender, but not the same gender. It's like saying that laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were discriminating based on gender, instead of race.

I don't see how you can't call limiting someone's choices based on their gender "gender discrimination." If I were legally barred by the government from adopting a child if the child is the same gender as I am that's discrimination based on gender. Marriage rights should be viewed as the same way.

You could argue that women are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry women, while men can and men are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry other men, while women have that right. Personally, I think it's a bit of silly idea that clouds a simple issue. (For the record, I put the whole animal arguement in the same category.)

It's not clouding the issue. It's a logical explanation of why such limits are similar to other gender-based discrimination which everyone rejects. It's also a counter to the argument that you often hear against gay marriage: "Gays have the right to marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender!"

[BigJonno]

I don't see how you can't call limiting someone's choices based on their gender "gender discrimination."

That's true, but their aren't any limits being placed on someone because of their gender. The restrictions are based on sexual orientation. Men and women have exactly the same rights (or lack of.) Saying that discrimination against homosexuals is gender discrimination is like saying that women not being allowed to vote was a sexual orientation issue because gay women were affected by it.

[Ink Asylum]

That's true, but their aren't any limits being placed on someone because of their gender. The restrictions are based on sexual orientation. Men and women have exactly the same rights (or lack of.) Saying that discrimination against homosexuals is gender discrimination is like saying that women not being allowed to vote was a sexual orientation issue because gay women were affected by it.

No, the limits are placed because of gender, not orientation. "You cannot marry a man because you're a MAN; only WOMEN can marry men." They're not saying "You cannot marry a man because you're a GAY man; only STRAIGHT men can marry men." That would be discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Suffrage was fighting against gender discrimination using the same logic. "You cannot vote because you are a WOMAN; only MEN can vote."

Miscegenation was discrimination based on race. "You cannot marry a white woman because you are a BLACK man." (Granted, they also can't marry a white man, but that's a separate discrimination)

If, for some weird reason, a straight man wanted to marry a straight man they also wouldn't be able to, and no sexual orientation discrimination is involved. We don't require that people who get married actually be sexually or emotionally attracted to the person they marry, only that they be of opposite genders. Hence, gender discrimination.

[BigJonno]

But it's not about men marrying men or women marrying women in general. It's about gay people not being able to marry who they want. It's not an issue affecting men as a whole or women as a whole; it's affecting homosexuals as a whole.

The issue isn't "You cannot marry a man because you're a MAN; only WOMEN can marry men," combined with a seperate issue of "You cannot marry a woman because you're a WOMAN; only MEN can marry women."

The issue is "You cannot marry who you want because you are GAY; only STRAIGHT people can marry who they want."

Some homosexuals weren't allowed to vote when all women weren't, but it was a gender issue because the group that was being affected as a whole was women. Straight men and women aren't affected by the gay marriage issue, but all homosexuals are, so it's a sexual orientation issue.

That said, I'd be interested in hearing what the people on the forum that this actually affects think. Do you think of it as "It's wrong that men can't marry men and women can't marry women," or do you see it as "It's wrong that homosexuals can't marry who they want?"

[Ink Asylum]

But it's not about men marrying men or women marrying women in general. It's about gay people not being able to marry who they want. It's not an issue affecting men as a whole or women as a whole; it's affecting homosexuals as a whole.

That's what it is as a moral issue, but as a legal issue, it is gender discrimination. Since it's the law that we have to change it is important to also approach this in a legal manner. Courts don't care what people want, they care what's legal. You influence the public with moral arguments, but you influence courts with legal ones. You can influence legislation with both.

It is an issue that applies to men or women as a whole even if it doesn't affect them as a whole. Marijuana is illegal for me, even though I have no desire to smoke marijuana. It is illegal for me to have sex with a minor, even though I have no desire to. those laws apply to me, but they do not affect me.

[TurboKinny]

Does it matter what kind of discrimination it is??? You're talking at two ends of the same issue. Discrimination is discrimination is wrong. Let's change it, not argue about how to classify it.

[Ink Asylum]

But how you try to change it determines the type of arguments you need to make, and how you approach the issue.

[TurboKinny]

But how you try to change it determines the type of arguments you need to make, and how you approach the issue.Well before you worry about that, how about writing your congresspeople in support of the Respect for Marriage Act? Have you done that yet? (see how I bring it around full-circle? ;) )

[MagGnome]

The distinction seems pointless to me as well, but I guess that it does matter from a legal standpoint, especially since sexual orientation is sadly not a protected class in many (most?) jurisdictions.

[Ultima Thulian]

Because it applies:

4F1Lq1uFcAE

[Ultima Thulian]

Does it matter what kind of discrimination it is??? You're talking at two ends of the same issue. Discrimination is discrimination is wrong. Let's change it, not argue about how to classify it.

I think saying "discrimination is discrimination is wrong" is not necessarily so, but in any case, I wish to clarify that I'm for gays getting married. I personally think they're crazy for wanting such a "right", but by all means, let them have it. Also, I'm not trying to sound too condescending here, but...whatevs. Just throwing that all out there now.

And to just hammer Ink's point home, the semantics of the argument are VASTLY important, especially IF you want the bill to pass or not (it ain't BTW). If you want things done in life, especially things involving government, you gotta be able to come up with something better than pushing a moral agenda. It helps, but there's gotta be something more than that. If all you got is something along the lines of "Hey, gays should get married cause it's super right and totally gravy" then you're likely doomed to failure. Sad to say, but most people are out for themselves, and will rarely take up causes that offer no benefit to themselves.

Fortunately, some people get that. And some gay communities are wisely pushing their plea for the "right" to get married based on legal and historical factors as opposed to moral ones. Morality is subjective and typically ruled by the majority. If gays wanna win this one sometime soon, they need to play it smart and use that legal spin effectively. On the moral agenda, the Christian-conservative groups are beating the shit outta the gay rights groups in pure numbers and volume, so fighting fire with fire will prove stupid for the gay agenda. Hugs and rainbows amounts to jackshit in the real world.

[Doctor Setebos]

I hate getting involved in P&R discussions, mainly because my brain is constructed in such a way as to make logical debate utterly impossible, but I felt the need to share this here.

There was a poll of Iowans conducted by a research firm for the Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090921/NEWS10/909210321/1001/NEWS). Iowa is traditionally a conservative-leaning state, so it comes as no surprise to me that so many people are against the recent court decision allowing gay marriage. It's also no surprise that such a relatively small number actually support the decision.

http://setebos.fathomthat.org/images/random/dmreg_gay_poll1.jpeg

What IS surprising to me is this part of the poll. 92% of Iowans feel that allowing gay marriage has caused no real change in their lives.

http://setebos.fathomthat.org/images/random/dmreg_gay_poll2.jpeg

For the record, I'm really proud to live in a state that allows gay marriage to exist.

Okay, carry on. :D

[Ink Asylum]

You mean civilization hasn't ended in Iowa? Children aren't being indoctrinated under the "Homosexual Agenda"? Heterosexual marriages aren't falling apart? Stunning.

[Panthera]

The same kinda thing happened here in Canada. Gay marriage is a controversy right up until it's actually legal. Then the matter drops right off the radar and nobody cares anymore.

[Ink Asylum]

Which is why it's fought so vociferously. The most diehard fundamentalist opponents of gay marriage know that the more states it becomes legal in the more ridiculous their fear tactics seem. There are roughly a half dozen states now where gay marriage is legal, and as every year passes without any ill effects the public realizes there's really nothing to fear.

It really is inevitable at this point, at least in America. There's no way that gay people are going to be forced back into the closet. Support for gay marriage will only increase as more and more people realize that they have friends and relatives who are gay. Whether it happens in a generation or in a few years is what's at stake, not whether or not it happens at all.

[Smoof]

It seems that it's considered fine to be homosexual and have deeply-held, negative beliefs about Christians, but it's not okay to be Christian and have deeply-held, negative beliefs about homosexuals.

The difference here is this:
Let's say I'm a non-denominational Christian, I sometimes go to church, sometimes not (For the record: I am not this person), I'm fairly liberal, I believe gays ought to have rights, because like it or not, they are also human beings.

Now let's say I'm a gay hating, conservative Christian.

Here is the difference between the two:
On one end of the spectrum, you have a person who is (generally) fairly reasonable. A person that recognizes there are others different from he and those people are exactly that, people. Being that these people are human beings, they believe they (gays) ought to be accorded with the same rights as anyone else. Gay behavior is another thing that occurs in nature and thus, we see evidence to believe that gays merely humans with different preferences and chemicals in their brain. In the same way that a person who likes Metal might have different chemicals in their brain from the person who likes, say, Pop music.

Now the other end: The gay hating Christian believes being gay is sinful. They might recognize that there are other people with differing views and that those people are, in fact, human beings. However, they believe the sinful behavior ought to be stopped. Why? Not for any reasonable reason. They don't think gay behavior ought to be stopped because, perhaps, it leads to an increase in the spread of Swine Flu that can easily be passed to anyone, gay or straight. They believe this behavior ought to be stopped because there's an invisible man in the sky who compiled a book some two-thousand years ago and said that it's a big no-no. Do they base their ideas on evidence? No, not at all, in fact. They take their positions from a book which is no longer socially relevant and hasn't been for at least a few hundred years (or ever) and was written by various scribes thousands of years ago. This is not a reasonable position to take. Humans, to be considered fully human, ought to possess some capacity for reason and to be reasonable, we ought not believe things based on feelings alone with no evidence to support such.

As for me be a "bigot" or intolerant of Christians, yes, I am. But, you don't fight intolerance with tolerance; you cannot fight intolerance by saying, "Ok, I see your point. I disagree with you, but you may still have it whatever way you like." In such a case, that would accomplish nothing. Am I only against Christianity? Nope.

[wyeast]

I can't believe I'm wandering into here...



My goal is to find Mag a husband while he stays with us this weekend. Fucker is asleep on my futon while he could be chasing husband ass.

This. This wins the fucking thread. All else is just a wall of text. ;)

Ink, are you gay? How does the current marriage law situation affect you?

Everyone keeps asking me why I care since I'm not gay. Why do you?
I care not because of my own sexual orientation. (Love women, thank you :D) It's about the differentiation between marriage the religious act, and marriage the civil act. Because the notion of marriage has become so intertwined between church and state (and yes, I acknowledge that we had largely Christian founders. Founders so prude they had to flee England. Hence our current boob-fearing society. :D) that the implications affect how people view marriage, and by extension, affects how society views us.

I will take an example of a heterosexual couple. Both divorcee's, who because of the religious implication of marriage, chose not to marry each other, as they didn't feel like it was a necessity to make it a part of their lives. For years they lived together happily, no problems.

One day the man was found to have a tumor in his brain. Stroke occurred during the recovery, followed by others. In the blink of an eye, their lives began to crumble out of control. Because of their religious (or rather, resistance to) views on marriage, and because of how society views unwed couples, hetero or otherwise, she found herself in this horrid grey limbo area where she wasn't really his "wife", and therefore had to struggle to hold onto the legal rights and powers over the treatment of her life partner, or to his estate now that he's passed away.

That, and I'm reminded that it wasn't really before some of our lifetimes that I wouldn't have been legally allowed to marry a pretty white girl. :mad: :o

[Ink Asylum]

This. This wins the fucking thread. All else is just a wall of text. ;)

That was hilarious. It reminds me of an episode of How I Met Your Mother where Barney, the charming womanizer, acts as a wingman for his charming gay brother to help him pick up men.

[civil]

I will say that I can think of no more difficult a job on this earth than to be a wingman for Mag. He was smitten with one fellow in particular and I had to coach the boy on how to leave a note for him on the receipt which was the most I could get him to do.

Jacob, if you read this: Never, and I mean NEVER, write your exclamation point as an upside down triangle. Though it was precious in it's "Aw he's so naive" way. You will get no action with such punctuation my friend.

[alienmastermind]

I see this bullshit spouted all the time, but I never see any mention of exactly who these "Christian founders" are. Many of the founding fathers were not in fact Christians at all, so that goes right out the window.

Right, but I would dare to point out those who bring up the 'Christian Nation' thing, fail to bring up the 'Separation of Church and State thing' in the same discussions. Or, the fact that these religious-type founders made sure we didn't show preference to one religion or another.




It doesn't matter what you call it, many people will oppose any equal rights for gays. The right may say that they take offense at the word "marriage" being used, but really they are just offended that gays are allowed to exist at all. If it were up them we'd all be back in the closet and thrown in jail or even killed if discovered, as it was all too recently in the US.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Washington State passed a law to give gay people the same rights as married couples without the use of the term "marriage", yet there is still an effort on the right to repeal it.

Of course, and here's where my advocacy of the term marriage ends. The fact that people are opposed to coupling of gays and equal rights makes me feel as though our country still has a wide swath of haters waiting to hate on something, and it's just now very unfashionable to hate based on race. Heck, they can find just about anyone who's homophobic in just about every culture in the world.

I am married, and hope you, Mag, find a gent to your liking and get yourself hitched. I've been involved with calling folks about my own state's marriage laws, and have been very frustrated that equal rights are being denied anyone.

It's just the sex these people seem to be hung up on, for some reason.

[wyeast]

Jacob, if you read this: Never, and I mean NEVER, write your exclamation point as an upside down triangle. Though it was precious in it's "Aw he's so naive" way. You will get no action with such punctuation my friend.

I beg to differ, good sir. If carefully applied as part of a cute cartoon you're doodling on someone's lecture notes, it can indeed deliver you to some happy nuzzle time. :o :D

[BigJonno]

The difference here is this:
Let's say I'm a non-denominational Christian, I sometimes go to church, sometimes not (For the record: I am not this person), I'm fairly liberal, I believe gays ought to have rights, because like it or not, they are also human beings.

Now let's say I'm a gay hating, conservative Christian.

Here is the difference between the two:
On one end of the spectrum, you have a person who is (generally) fairly reasonable. A person that recognizes there are others different from he and those people are exactly that, people. Being that these people are human beings, they believe they (gays) ought to be accorded with the same rights as anyone else. Gay behavior is another thing that occurs in nature and thus, we see evidence to believe that gays merely humans with different preferences and chemicals in their brain. In the same way that a person who likes Metal might have different chemicals in their brain from the person who likes, say, Pop music.

Now the other end: The gay hating Christian believes being gay is sinful. They might recognize that there are other people with differing views and that those people are, in fact, human beings. However, they believe the sinful behavior ought to be stopped. Why? Not for any reasonable reason. They don't think gay behavior ought to be stopped because, perhaps, it leads to an increase in the spread of Swine Flu that can easily be passed to anyone, gay or straight. They believe this behavior ought to be stopped because there's an invisible man in the sky who compiled a book some two-thousand years ago and said that it's a big no-no. Do they base their ideas on evidence? No, not at all, in fact. They take their positions from a book which is no longer socially relevant and hasn't been for at least a few hundred years (or ever) and was written by various scribes thousands of years ago. This is not a reasonable position to take. Humans, to be considered fully human, ought to possess some capacity for reason and to be reasonable, we ought not believe things based on feelings alone with no evidence to support such.

As for me be a "bigot" or intolerant of Christians, yes, I am. But, you don't fight intolerance with tolerance; you cannot fight intolerance by saying, "Ok, I see your point. I disagree with you, but you may still have it whatever way you like." In such a case, that would accomplish nothing. Am I only against Christianity? Nope.

Now reverse the situation. At one end of the spectrum you have a regular gay guy who has something of a distrust for Christianity, but realises that the vast majority of Christians are good people. At the other you have a raving nutjob who feels the need to flaunt his sexuality at every turn and posesses a vehement hatred of all Christians. (For the record, by "flaunting sexuality" I mean "outrageous transvestitism that pushes the boundaries of what would be acceptable for women to wear in public and constant inappropriate physical contact with every man in sight." Yes, I have known people like this.)

Extreme negative views of Christianity are, by and large, tolerated in Western society, the same way that discriminating against white people is often ignored. People are entitled to have their opinions and, in my opinion, to voice them, but offensive behaviour/discrimination towards any group, no matter how large or small, shouldn't be acceptable.

[MagGnome]

I will say that I can think of no more difficult a job on this earth than to be a wingman for Mag. He was smitten with one fellow in particular and I had to coach the boy on how to leave a note for him on the receipt which was the most I could get him to do.

Jacob, if you read this: Never, and I mean NEVER, write your exclamation point as an upside down triangle. Though it was precious in it's "Aw he's so naive" way. You will get no action with such punctuation my friend.

He was quite the handsome fellow, and had I been a little more brazen I would have actually given him my number. :o

That said, I find my personalized exclamation marks to be adorable, and you to be lacking in taste, my good sir! I actually have two dates this weekend, one of which is to commence in an hour. :D


I am married, and hope you, Mag, find a gent to your liking and get yourself hitched. I've been involved with calling folks about my own state's marriage laws, and have been very frustrated that equal rights are being denied anyone.

I appreciate it! Hopefully your efforts are met with success.


I beg to differ, good sir. If carefully applied as part of a cute cartoon you're doodling on someone's lecture notes, it can indeed deliver you to some happy nuzzle time. :o :D

I'm glad to see that you have my back, good sir!

[Vigil80]

I mainly wish the issue didn't have to come before the federal government. Marriage, sexuality, love (if you like), these aren't issues that should come before congress. That water is murky enough between just two people. An entire government is supposed to get it right? Forget about it.

Really, any sentence with words like "regulation" and "federal" brings my eyebrows down before we even get to the issue at hand.

[MagGnome]

I mainly wish the issue didn't have to come before the federal government. Marriage, sexuality, love (if you like), these aren't issues that should come before congress. That water is murky enough between just two people. An entire government is supposed to get it right? Forget about it.

Really, any sentence with words like "regulation" and "federal" brings my eyebrows down before we even get to the issue at hand.

Who should the issue come before then? The people? The states? The judicial system?

I don't think that the majority should be allowed to vote on rights for a minority. Especially not in an America where votes are so easily swayed by money and ideological nonsense.

[Ultima Thulian]

I don't think that the majority should be allowed to vote on rights for a minority.

Yea...uh...then you're in wrong place Cap'n.

[Ink Asylum]

Wrong place how? If a predominantly white state voted to take away rights from black people it would be ruled unconstitutional. Just because sexual orientation isn't yet a protected minority nationwide doesn't mean it won't be soon. America definitely works to prevent the majority from taking rights away from specific minorities.

[Ultima Thulian]

Wrong place how? If a predominantly white state voted to take away rights from black people it would be ruled unconstitutional. Just because sexual orientation isn't yet a protected minority nationwide doesn't mean it won't be soon. America definitely works to prevent the majority from taking rights away from specific minorities.

This country has a history of the majority (i.e. white people) taking the rights, or denying the rights, of the minority (i.e. anyone who isn't white and/or is gay).

And I already said it's only a matter of time that gays will be allowed to get married across the country (again, my prediction is within 20 years). But it only takes time.

But really man, don't be dense. Rights don't exist, they're privileges. Temporary ones at that. Again, check the Carlin vid I posted, or just ask some folk. Ask Japanese citizens how their rights were treated during the 40's. How about the times in our history where habeus corpus was suspended? My friend, it's one big joke. All it ever was, all it's ever gonna be.

edit: Or hey, ask some Native Americans about their rights. Assuming you can find one...we killed most of them. Women's right to vote? That's still new hat. Happened in the early 1900's. It took us nearly 200 fucking years to give women the "right" to vote. Those black people you mentioned? Check the census of 1800. They make up nearly a fifth of the population. Ask them about their rights. Oh that's right, they didn't really have many, did they? And it remained that way for a long fucking time. Blacks didn't really get true equal footing until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, and even that is debateable. The majority takes/restricts/denies the rights of the minority on a regular basis in this country. Shit...it's a democracy for Chrissakes...the majority typically gets what they want (or think they want).

I'm not trying to go on some sort of "America sucks!" rant...far from it. But let's get real here folks, Jesus.

[txshurricane]

Now reverse the situation. At one end of the spectrum you have a regular gay guy who has something of a distrust for Christianity, but realises that the vast majority of Christians are good people. At the other you have a raving nutjob who feels the need to flaunt his sexuality at every turn and posesses a vehement hatred of all Christians. (For the record, by "flaunting sexuality" I mean "outrageous transvestitism that pushes the boundaries of what would be acceptable for women to wear in public and constant inappropriate physical contact with every man in sight." Yes, I have known people like this.)

Extreme negative views of Christianity are, by and large, tolerated in Western society, the same way that discriminating against white people is often ignored. People are entitled to have their opinions and, in my opinion, to voice them, but offensive behaviour/discrimination towards any group, no matter how large or small, shouldn't be acceptable.
You are my hero for saying this. Tolerance is a door that swings both ways.

Yea...uh...then you're wrong place Cap'n.
Wrong place how? If a predominantly white state voted to take away rights from black people it would be ruled unconstitutional. Just because sexual orientation isn't yet a protected minority nationwide doesn't mean it won't be soon. America definitely works to prevent the majority from taking rights away from specific minorities.
What rights are you talking about, though, Ink? Marriage is not defined as a "right" for anyone. The issue here is whether or not is should be a right as defined in a Constitutional amendment. Until then, majority rules.

Also: I don't consider LBGT individuals to be "minorities". That's just dumb. Outnumbered, yes...but so are redheads. If the gay community wants true equality, then being called a "minority" is a step backward.

[Smoof]

Now reverse the situation. At one end of the spectrum you have a regular gay guy who has something of a distrust for Christianity, but realises that the vast majority of Christians are good people. At the other you have a raving nutjob who feels the need to flaunt his sexuality at every turn and posesses a vehement hatred of all Christians. (For the record, by "flaunting sexuality" I mean "outrageous transvestitism that pushes the boundaries of what would be acceptable for women to wear in public and constant inappropriate physical contact with every man in sight." Yes, I have known people like this.)

Extreme negative views of Christianity are, by and large, tolerated in Western society, the same way that discriminating against white people is often ignored. People are entitled to have their opinions and, in my opinion, to voice them, but offensive behaviour/discrimination towards any group, no matter how large or small, shouldn't be acceptable.

You haven't countered anything I said. In fact, you seem to have setup a rather large strawman...

People are entitled to their opinions, but just because a person is allowed to have their opinion, it doesn't give that opinion any validity or truthfulness. People may be entitled to think gays ought not to have the same rights because they're "sinners", but that doesn't mean they don't sound like idiots and have a failure of reason.

[BigJonno]

You haven't countered anything I said. In fact, you seem to have setup a rather large strawman...

People are entitled to their opinions, but just because a person is allowed to have their opinion, it doesn't give that opinion any validity or truthfulness. People may be entitled to think gays ought not to have the same rights because they're "sinners", but that doesn't mean they don't sound like idiots and have a failure of reason.

I get the feeling we may be discussing different things. To boil it down, I'm just saying that a nutjob homosexual making detrimental and irrational comments about Christians is just as bad as a nutjob Christian making detrimental and irrational comments about homosexuals and should be treated as such.

All groups of people, whether they are grouped by race, gender, religion, sexual preference, hair colour or shoe size, should have the same protection against discrimination. The size of the group, their political dominance or past history shouldn't matter.

[Ultima Thulian]

All groups of people, whether they are grouped by race, gender, religion, sexual preference, hair colour or shoe size, should have the same protection against discrimination. The size of the group, their political dominance or past history shouldn't matter.

Why?

tooshortblahblah

[Generation ABXY]

Who should the issue come before then? The people? The states? The judicial system?

That's why I like the idea of saying we no longer recognize marriage, it's just civil unions for everyone.

If you rein it in so much that it becomes a moot point, you won't have to worry about who gets to decide what marriage is defined as - the term has no inherent spiritual or legal connotations. Then, everyone can define it for themselves. Churches that want to can marry gays; those that don't, don't have to; or, if you feel that need the blessing of your backyard tree, that's fine to. Just don't expect the government, business or whatever else to necessarily recognize you unless you actually have a civil union.

[Vigil80]

Who should the issue come before then? The people? The states? The judicial system?

I suppose that, ideally, if two people decide that they are in love, they could be joined. Simple.

But then I realize that love doesn't actually have much to do with the issue, does it? What we're really discussing are legal rights (Carlin words of "wisdom" aside) such as inheritance and tax status. Which is why the government has to be involved on some level.

The more that is in the hands of the federal government, the more uncomfortable I get. I suppose I would rather it were in the hands of the states, if government has to be involved.

I'm growing fond of ABXY's take on the matter.

Edit:
Just an interesting fact. CNN is in my town right now at the hospital. My town is tiny, very insignificant, except it is apparently the site of a surrogate mother giving birth to a gay couple's baby. Watch and see if they run the story.