some home truths about gay marriage.

The main reason people are against same sex couples getting married is because it takes people eyes off the real crimes against marriage which is the high divorce rates in parts of the western world.
Instead of banning same sex marriages governments should fund marriage counselling to help out the odd couple and mayabe lower the divorce rates.
By denying same sexs couples the right to marry people ignore the real problems at hand and do harm to society.

I am not saying people should stay in an unhappy marriage nor am I saying that couples shouldnt get a divorce if needed and before you ask I dont think god exsits.

I hardly think that's the real reason why they are banning same sex marriage! They are banning same sex marriage out of ignorance and hatred. As to the high divorce rate....it is made entirely too easy to "get" married, and people do not stick by each other any more, people are not loyal to each other much these days and they aren't faithful to each other as much these days............

Xpert11,

Interesting idea, but what leads you to believe that people are against homosexual marriages for this reason?

LadyV,

You bring up some good points, and while this may sound a bit sexist, there is something interesting you and other can look into. The divorce rate has been climbing steadily since the 1950's, and ironically, this is correlated to a grass root women's rights efforts. That is, women began to seek ever more rights in comparison to men especially after they had been working in the factories in the 1940's.

Afterwards, women in general have been able to take care of themselves without added support relatively well. Not being entirely dependent can be a good thing (ala feminists), or it could be a bad thing -- the ability to just stand up and walk away from a family. And while I am sure many men "deserve" to have their wife walk away from them, it is a luxury the female did not always to have.

In other words, I want to suggest that perhaps human nature did not change (people were always about this loyal, etc.), but rather the human environment changed. For better or worse, the female has many more options. Of course, as a man, I think it is interesting to quote Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew:"

Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor:
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.
A woman moved is like a fountain troubled,
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;
And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty
Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it.
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks and true obedience;
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am ashamed that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace;
Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you froward and unable worms!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband's foot:
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready; may it do him ease.

--Radardog

I will agree to that only to a point. I do not believe that people are as loyal and faithful to each other as they once were....too much thrown at them now a days and many bother to think about the consequences of their actions, and many more don't seem to even care. The you have the drug problem...heavy drinking, and drugs can not mix in a marriage...it will eventually crumble.

Or, situational morality. The same people who are against gay marriage fail to acknowledge that those seeking to marry are espousing a traditional coservatism.
They also put biology into a character context; that it's a lack of "will" to be fixed, that it's a Coke vs. Pepsi decision.

I never could understand this issue. It always seemed hypocritical to me that it would be more important to stop some people from getting married rather than preserving the sanctity of existing marriages. Why isn't help though marriage counceling and the mortal sin of divorce emphisized more often?

There's something perverse about that, don't you think?

Interesting idea, but what leads you to believe that people are against homosexual marriages for this reason?

Wet & cold days leave plenty of time to ponder issues such as same sex marriage. I thought about what church leaders and some politicans were saying and it didnt add up for example if same sexs couples getting married damaged the institution of marriage then what dose divorce do?
Surely the end of a marriage is worse then a couple getting married no matter if they are the same sex.
With all do respect church leaders seem to be like politicans they are useing the same sex couple issue to keep peoples focus away from the real crimes against marriage.

Originally posted by jupiter869
I never could understand this issue. It always seemed hypocritical to me that it would be more important to stop some people from getting married rather than preserving the sanctity of existing marriages. Why isn't help though marriage counceling and the mortal sin of divorce emphisized more often?

Perhaps church leaders are unable or unwilling to deal with the real crime against marriage divorce.

Any society has the right to set "cultural norms" for itself, including saying NO this behaivior/activity isnt for us.
Why is a society defining itself thru democratic means wrong for not adopting ANY new values into its culture on a institutional basis?

A culture not adopting gay marriage is NOT the same thing as condemming being gay OR persecuting them.
It is the defense of another special interest minority group, comprised of one man and one woman, stemming from various religious ideologies...called marriage.
The success/failure rate is a false argument...weather a marriage works or not, and the efforts to keep people married has no bearing to the issue of if gay marriage should be adopted.

Are non married or divorced people less of a citizen because they are not married? Arent they being discriminated against because they arent married either? Marriage is a choice not a right.
If you say its a right, how can it be enforced? will you force people to marry to make sure everyone has a spouse (is equal)? What if you dont want a spouse? Are you less equal than others because you dont want marriage?

What about democracy in action here?
recently 13 more states voters passed laws defending marriage (not banning gay marriage)...are the rights of the majority in a democratic society to be circumvented by a special interest minority group? If so, which special interest minority group is to impose themselves on the cultural majority, and whom decides which group gets to next?
I suppose those that say its ok for a minority to rule the majority in a democracy are pkk with a mayor and his pocket judges in san fran tried to steal away the rest of the votes of the state and institute gay marriage on their own eh? (PS the marriages were overturned because they didnt have the authority to do this over the other citizens votes.)

It is the defense of another special interest minority group, comprised of one man and one woman, stemming from various religious ideologies...called marriage.
The success/failure rate is a false argument...weather a marriage works or not, and the efforts to keep people married has no bearing to the issue of if gay marriage should be adopted.
It is a vaild argument people are prepared to overlook certain issues because it dosnt suit them to face up to the facts.

Are non married or divorced people less of a citizen because they are not married? Nope I never said single people were second class citizens.
Your reading something thats not there I was refering to current marriages.


Giving same sexs couples the right to marry would give a minority the rights the rights the majority have. The minority would not prevent the majority from getting married. Preventing same sex marriage divides society unnecessarily.

Xpert11 comments on me saying the success or failure of marriage has no bering on supporting the gay marriage issue,

It is a vaild argument people are prepared to overlook certain issues because it dosnt suit them to face up to the facts.

The only fact here is...IF we determined that marriage success rate WAS a valid point for deciding this issue, then it would certantly NOT be favorable to say in essence.."lets allow MORE people to do something that so often fails." Why would you want to support gay marriage by saying that? Thats arguing "the system is broken, yet we still want to use it."

Xpert11 misses the point in this exchange with me,
me,

Are non married or divorced people less of a citizen because they are not married?

Xpert11 responds,

Nope I never said single people were second class citizens. Your reading something thats not there I was refering to current marriages.

Indeed you didnt say this,
BUT,
One of the biggest arguments ive seen FOR gay marriage is.."Gays are being treated like second class citizens because they cant access the same entitlements as married people can."
By logical extension of this idea of equal treatment, that means that ANY citizen that is not married is being treated in a second class fasion. Adopting gay marriage will STILL mean that those that are not married, for whatever reason, are not then able to get the same entitlments as marrieds, and would thus be "less a citizen" than those in a marriage.

That is why this "less a citizen" idea is hyped crap. It will ALWAYS leave someone out of collecting marriage entitlments. It can NEVER be all inclusive, which is why i dont see why marriage cant be supported as a special interest minority group in and of itself. Including everyone destroyes the definition of marriage. If everyone could access marriage entitlments, then why would we even need to call it marriage or have this institution? This is NOT an anti-gay issue as youve been brainwashed into believing, its a defense of a special interest minority group called marriage.

Xpert11 says,

Giving same sexs couples the right to marry would give a minority the rights the rights the majority have.

NO, it only gives them entitlments (not rights) that another special intrest group has....weather that group constitutes 1% or 75% of the society is irrelavent as not all citizens are, desire to, or ever will be married.

The minority would not prevent the majority from getting married. Preventing same sex marriage divides society unnecessarily.

Yes it would prevent marriage as what marriage means would be soo diluted it would no longer be marriage. This situation is only aggravated because it would result from a small minority imposing itself onto the generally accepted cultural identity. If this is ram-rodded onto society as it has been tried so far (california case ring a bell) then it would be devicive and subversive as well. Backlash often results from use of tactics like these, even IF the cause seems just.

Immagine yourself in the position of being told, by outsiders that dont expouse your values, that you will be forced to changed one of your principal beliefs, in order to now include things that go against your beliefs, and that this forced change was done thru illegitimate means.
Wouldnt you be a little pizzed off too?

Why do you think there is GROWING resistance to gay marriage, its because of exactly this feeling that the pro gays are pushing onto the rest of us that really dont care if your gay, just dont barge in and atempt to steal something from us. The homophobic name calling and branding anyone that isnt pro-gay as a biggot only widens the gap between these groups, not tries to bridge it. You think that the cultural majority is going to sit idle while this kind of abuse is getting slung? Get real.

And dont get me started on discrimination being legal and existing in MANY forms here legally. Ive got at least a page describing lots of reccognized federal and private forms of "discrimination" that exist and in fact are ingrained into aAmerican culture. Some people do have entitlements that others do not at many levels...get over it...marriage is just another example.

Thats arguing "the system is broken, yet we still want to use it.

Mayabe I didnt make my point clear it the people who use the system who are at fault not the system itself.


NO, it only gives them entitlments (not rights) that another special intrest group has....weather that group constitutes 1% or 75% of the society is irrelavent as not all citizens are, desire to, or ever will be married.

So some people wont get married that fact is hardly an argument against same sex marriage.

Yes it would prevent marriage as what marriage means would be soo diluted it would no longer be marriage. This situation is only aggravated because it would result from a small minority imposing itself onto the generally accepted cultural identity. If this is ram-rodded onto society as it has been tried so far (california case ring a bell) then it would be devicive and subversive as well. Backlash often results from use of tactics like these, even IF the cause seems just.

You forget that marriage has alreadly been diluted by the high dirvoice rates the damage has already been done. Giving same sex couples would in affect give more people the chance to make the most of marriage.

Immagine yourself in the position of being told, by outsiders that dont expouse your values, that you will be forced to changed one of your principal beliefs, in order to now include things that go against your beliefs, and that this forced change was done thru illegitimate means.
Wouldnt you be a little pizzed off too?
Forgive me I dont read the bible just what principal beliefs would gay marriage go against?

So its okay for one group of people to damage the "system" of marriage while denying another group of people the chance to marry?
The value of marriage is lessoned by the high divorice rates and unless something is done about this marriage will becoming meaning less with in my life time (im 20 yrs old) even if same sex couples are denyed the right to marry.

XPERT11,
So if the system (marriage) isnt at fault, then why does it need to be altered, and what difference does the success rate for marriage have any bering on weather the system needs altering?

The fact that some dont get married is a GREAT point to use against gay marriage....it is a good example of why marriage is a CHOICE not a RIGHT!
The pro gays are always saying its a civil right for them to be able to marry. How can this be? How can the government garuntee you a spouse (let alone a successful marriage). If it IS a civil right, then again...all those that arent married for whatever reason would be having their civil rights violated as they wouldnt be "as equal" as those in a marriage.
How can rights enforcement be done? I thought we were a long way from shotgun marriages.
Bottom line, this is special interest minority group, defined as being for one man and one woman, that may CHOOSE to adhere to both the qualifications for, and the responsibillities of taking this action.

I can hear you now, before you even get to type it...."but gays dont have the option of making that choice."
Of course not, they dont meet the requirments for a marriage...meaning mariage for a man/woman.....
Why dont we let men into womens only programs, or a white head the NAACP, or a know anti gay person become the head of a local gay organizartion? The answer is both the 1rst amendment right to assembly and common sense. People can choose to meet the requirments for marriage and get into one, or they can choose to not participate....a civil right is inherant in your being, and cant be chosen or not, at your will.

Marriage has not been diluted because of any stats for the success or failure of these unions. Why? Because the success rate doesnt change the definition of marriage....Marriage stays the same weather or not the people involved fail or not.
As to the issue of VALUE of marriage. Again, while people may think less of being married, this does not change what it means to be married, or what marriage is defined as. The value of gold changes daily, does that mean that it becomes "less gold"?
When you speak of damage done to marriage, again you seem to want to equate a succes rate as the determiner of if the institute of mariage has been dammaged. It hasnt. just because some fail do not mean that all do, nor does this statistic alter the definition of what marriage is or harms it in any way. People getting divorced harm each other, not what marriage means. Changing the definition of mariage to include gay marriage DOES alter and forever harm what marriage means. (the current cultural accepted meaning)

As far as being asked to violate a principal or core belief goes....lets leave the bible out of it...its not nessisary.
Any society has the RIGHT to self determine what values it wishes to expouse as a culture. This means that the culture can FOR ANY REASON decide that adopting any ideology (or not adopting it in this case) into the culture on an institutional basis (meaning in laws, cultural recognitions like holidays, entitlements etc) is right for them as a whole.
YES this means that some people will always be "on the outside" of some cultural values. Some societies have legalized pot, others havnt...this is how cultures distinguish (read discriminate) themselves from each other. It is natural and normal for groups to do so. How else wuld we tell the difference from France and the USA if we didnt have cultural identities that not only show others what we're about, but also is something that we pass down "to our posterity" meaning future generations of whatever culture your talking about.

xpert11 asks,

So its okay for one group of people to damage the "system" of marriage while denying another group of people the chance to marry?

well in short YES. This is because it is their special intrest groups "system" to "damage". (see damage above...again damage assumed) Why is it ok for others not part of this S.I.M.G. to tell another S.I.M.G. how to deal with their system or that they have to fix/alter/or include them in any of it? Doesnt this seem a little pushy, and like sticking your nose into their groups business to demand they accept your selfish wish?

Who are you or anyone to tell this group that they are wrong, bigoted, or pass judgment on them? Under the 1rst amendment, they have the right to gather as they please, without interfearance from others that do not expouse that groups core values. Isnt that a bitch? You cant force yourself (ideologically speaking) onto them, and they can say no thanks, not for our group.

Originally posted by CazMedia
How can the government garuntee you a spouse (let alone a successful marriage). If it IS a civil right, then again...all those that arent married for whatever reason would be having their civil rights violated as they wouldnt be "as equal" as those in a marriage.

Gays are not asking to be GUARANTEED a spouse they are merely asking for a CHANCE to find one you are comparing apples and oranges on this one.

Why don't we let men into womens only programs, or a white head the NAACP, or a know anti gay person become the head of a local gay organization? The answer is both the 1rst amendment right to assembly and common sense.

You are kinda right on this one but the MAIN reason is that they are a private organization, a government organization is not allowed to discriminate against blacks, whites, men, women, etc.

Any society has the RIGHT to self determine what values it wishes to expouse as a culture. This means that the culture can FOR ANY REASON decide that adopting any ideology (or not adopting it in this case) into the culture on an institutional basis (meaning in laws, cultural recognitions like holidays, entitlements etc) is right for them as a whole.

So by this I assume you are saying that we have a CHOICE to change any law we see fit? Or do we not have a right to challenge any law once its on the books?

Who are you or anyone to tell this group that they are wrong, bigoted, or pass judgment on them? Under the 1rst amendment, they have the right to gather as they please, without interference from others that do not expose that groups core values. Isnt that a bitch? You cant force yourself (ideologically speaking) onto them, and they can say no thanks, not for our group.

I agree any group has a right to be heard.

Wouldn't that include the Gays? Aren't you passing judgment on them? Or is it OK as long as its a minority? I guess if they passed a law tomorrow saying all middle easterners in the US should be herded into prison camps it would be OK because after all its just society right to discriminate, you know like they did with the Japanese. The majority is not always right thats why we have a Republic and not a democracy.

But the my main point is you or anyone else is allowed to challenge any law in America. Ain't it a bitch?

Take Abortion for example, some want it outlawed, but now it is legal.

I dont agree with them but would be outraged if they were told that they COULD NOT protest and try to change the law. I even support your right to protest the Gays. That is every Americans right. Whither you agree with them or not.



[edit on 14-12-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by CazMedia

Are non married or divorced people less of a citizen because they are not married? Arent they being discriminated against because they arent married either? Marriage is a choice not a right.

They absolutely are being discrimated against.
Marriage is an illiberal instution in a supposed liberal society.
For example, in Canada, and the US, there are tax benefits for those who are married. Also, in Canada, for those who have children (generally assumed within marriage), they recieve tax benefits; that is to say up to $300 per month for having children.

Society promotes marriage. The question is whether marriage is essential in order to multiply the population further and whether the government will continue to offer inscentives to marriage and child bearing.

As to the issue of VALUE of marriage. Again, while people may think less of being married, this does not change what it means to be married, or what marriage is defined as. The value of gold changes daily, does that mean that it becomes "less gold"?
Your comparing apples with oranges you cant put a price on marriage. Marriage is a bond between two people and when people put an end to that bond then the marriage becomes meaningless.

How can the government guarantee you a spouse (let alone a successful marriage). If it IS a civil right, then again...all those that arent married for whatever reason would be having their civil rights violated as they wouldnt be "as equal" as those in a marriage.
Since did the government gurantee anyone a spouse?
And who is to say that marriage is between a man and a women?

Originally posted by xpert11
As to the issue of VALUE of marriage. Again, while people may think less of being married, this does not change what it means to be married, or what marriage is defined as. The value of gold changes daily, does that mean that it becomes "less gold"?
Your comparing apples with oranges you cant put a price on marriage. Marriage is a bond between two people and when people put an end to that bond then the marriage becomes meaningless.

Perhaps you need to consider that marriage is not necessary for people to have a bond and be committed to eachother.
The bond itself may not become irrelevent, but using marriage to signify the bond may.

Perhaps you need to consider that marriage is not necessary for people to have a bond and be committed to eachother.
Then if marriage isnt a bond between two people what is it?
The bond itself may not become irrelevent, but using marriage to signify the bond may.
surely if the bond is irrelevent then the marriage is as well ?

xpert11 says,

Since did the government gurantee anyone a spouse?

EXACTLY THE POINT!
civil rights ARE garuntees by the government!
IF gay marriage is classified as a civil right, then how can it be enforced by authorities? What would constitute a violation of those rights?
This would again lead to a group of second class citizens as those that arent married, for whatever reason, would NOT be habing this "civil right" upheld for them.
Lets add to this that as it stands NOW, i as a str8 guy have no "rights" to a spouse or to be married, i may choose to never marry, i may not find anyone to be willing to marry me...if i ask my girlfriend to marry and she says no, didnt she just deny me my civil rights to a marriage?
Do you see now the rammifications of calling marriage a right for ANYONE?

xpert11, obviously not paying attention to the last election asks,

who is to say that marriage is between a man and a women?

Hmm how about the majority of citizens that in 13 states that just passed laws defining marriage in this manner. This is in addition to a handfull of other states that also already had this as law (like california, which is why the attempts in san fran by the mayor and his pocket judge that tried to STEAL away the democratic marority of californians that voted and passed a law defining marriage were such a big deal. they in essence tried to hijack the democracy in that state...are you for hijacking and circumvention of democracy, other citizens rights, and the legal process?)

While many people really dont care if someone is gay, or who they love, we do care about cultural heritage, and protection of institutions from disolution or destruction (traditional marriage) Some only care for economic reasons, and indeed some have religious reasons too....most of these people would NOT advocate removal of rights, persecutuion, or acts of hostility against gays, or anyone....some of us will stand up and express our 1rst amendment rights to assembly, and uphold the rules laid out in the constitution for how this governmnt is supposed to operate..(legal process/elections/legislative process) as well as try and stop the in my OPINION, the whitewashing of our culture and history. lets make everyone bland and just like everyone else...booring...variety is the spice of life, and variety only comes thru DIFFERENCES not similarities.

Lets add to this that as it stands NOW, i as a str8 guy have no "rights" to a spouse or to be married, i may choose to never marry, i may not find anyone to be willing to marry me...if i ask my girlfriend to marry and she says no, didnt she just deny me my civil rights to a marriage?
Do you see now the rammifications of calling marriage a right for ANYONE?

You have the issue all twisted. Giving same sex couples the right to marry gives them the chance to get married if they want to.


who is to say that marriage is between a man and a women?
Hmm how about the majority of citizens that in 13 states that just passed laws defining marriage in this manner.

Forgive me but isnt there 49 states in the USA 13 states is hardly a landslide.

legal process/elections/legislative process) as well as try and stop the in my OPINION, the whitewashing of our culture and history. lets make everyone bland and just like everyone else...booring...variety is the spice of life, and variety only comes thru DIFFERENCES not similarities.

Whitewashing of american culture and history I dont think so thats like saying giving women the vote whitewashed american culture and history.