Where do you Stand on Gay Marriage?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
My good man...It's hard to carry on a discussion when basic concepts are so completely misunderstood.

Quite simply, I don't misunderstand you...I just think you're wrong.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm glad your happy, but your personal circumstances are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Grady, you shared the fact that you have never been married. Why is it ok for you to share your personal circumstances, yet when I share mine, I'm told they are irrelevant? I agree they are somewhat irrelevant, but these 2 pieces of data may shed light on WHY we disagree on this subject. That's all I'm saying.

However, in the meantime, I will share my views and fund those agencies that serve to protect the values that I deem important.

You go! Isn't that what we're both doing? Yes, it is. I hope you don't think I was trying to tell you NOT to share your opinion... I would never do that.

I'm still waiting for one single compelling reason for the state to recognize a marriage between two persons of the same sex.

And I've been trying to tell you that. The compelling reasons are EXACTLY the same as the ones the state has to recognize my marriage to my husband. Or ANY childless couple's reasons. Or any old couple. Or any couple.

I'm still waiting for one single compelling reason for the state to recognize a marriage between two persons of the opposite sex. Really. Why should the state recognize my marriage?

My personal circumstances have no bearing on my position on the matter.

Is that simple enough?

I'm sorry I can't clarify my position anymore.

You are missing the essence of my argument, even though I have stated it twice.

If two members of the same sex is the same to you as two members of the opposite sex with regard to marriage, then I'm okay with that.

The state a childless couple of the opposite sex is not equivalent to a couple of the same sex, regardless of child-bearing capacities.

There are good reasons for that, but I'll leave it to you to google my previous statements about that or to figure it out for yourself.

It really doesn't matter what I think or what you think.

Truth is truth and the truth will always emerge victorious.

All it takes is time.

You have more time than I have.

[edit on 2007/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
My personal circumstances have no bearing on my position on the matter.

Is that simple enough?

Well, it puts me in mind of the famous retort to the Pope upon his denunciation of the use of birth control...

"Hey, if you no play-a da game, den you no make-a da rules!"

Ciao, bella.

Canuck,

I'm not making the rules or even trying, so your comment is irrelevant and offensive.

I gave my position on the matter and did my best to explain it, despite the fact that an explanation was not required.

However, whereas my opinions may not matter, I will continue to share my knowledge and spend my money supporting my causes.

In the meantime, you could spend a little time studying up on socal matters, so that you could offer something a bit more substantive.

grady, how about this: if homosexuals are allowed to marry then we may see the ignorant bigotry leveled against homosexuals erased within a few generations.

stopping bigotry:good enough reason?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Canuck,

I'm not making the rules or even trying, so your comment is irrelevant and offensive.

I gave my position on the matter and did my best to explain it, despite the fact that an explanation was not required.

However, whereas my opinions may not matter, I will continue to share my knowledge and spend my money supporting my causes.

In the meantime, you could spend a little time studying up on socal matters, so that you could offer something a bit more substantive.

Well, I certainly apologise if you took offence to my comment. It was meant to lighten up an increasingly tense series of postings. What is getting lost in all of this is that some folks...you included Grady...are behaving as though we are discussing lab rats. It's all theory to you.

Wrong. We are talking about living, breathing people with real emotions and real feelings who just want the right to go about their lives like everybody else. As I said in another thread, I challenge these homophobes to go out and play "J'accuse", one-on-one with a gay acquaintence. They wither.

And just as an aside, after my studies, I concluded that, for the most part, Sociology is bunk. But I am so tired of gay bashing in all of its forms...whether disguised as commentary or debate, homophobia, xenophobia, or just plain bullying! Is that substantive enough?
Jeez, people...get a life!

If your comment was meant in jest, then I will take it as such.

However, sociology isn't bunk, if you take the time to study the subject.

My mother lives and breathes and I cannot marry her.

It's not all theory to me.

Society and civilization are real and they cannot be considered apart from those whom they comprise.

Social institutions are too important to change on whims and because of fashion.

When a society becomes so uninformed that it cannot recognize the importance of its institutions, the handwriting is on the wall.

The institution of marriage in America is in deep trouble simply because too many people don't understand what it is or why it exists and that includes a lot of married people, but there is a difference between a marriage and the institution of marriage.

These distinctions are not inconsequential. The future of civilization, as we know it, is contingent on how well we maintain the components of society, which in no small measure includes its institutions.



[edit on 2007/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott However, sociology isn't bunk, if you take the time to study the subject.

I studied Sociology as a mature student at the University of Toronto, and acheived A's...and still thought it was formulaic hokum. I shifted my studies to Anthropology where I am a lot more comfortable.

My mother lives and breathes and I cannot marry her.

Different love...and I love my brother, but I'm not gay.

Society and civilization are real and they cannot be considered apart from those whom they comprise.

But they are not static. Look at the changing social norms of the past couple of centuries...women now vote, we seem to be doing ok without slavery, children are sent to school instead of work...but these were all social changes that were considered to be very ill-conceived and would lead to all kinds of drastic ruination. I speak of course within a Western context.

Social institutions are too important to change on whims and because of fashion. When a society becomes so uninformed that it cannot recognize the importance of its institutions, the handwriting is on the wall.

The institution of marriage in America is in deep trouble simply because too many people don't understand what it is or why it exists and that includes a lot of married people, but there is a difference between a marriage and the institution of marriage.

I know homosexual couples that have stronger bonds than heterosexual ones. My son's pal has 2 moms. They are raising two sons...one intellectually gifted, the other handicapped. They are a couple...they do fine...but they had to flee Oklahoma to find peace.

These distinctions are not inconsequential. The future of civilization, as we know it, is contingent on how well we maintain the components of society, which in no small measure includes its institutions.

Things change, Grady, but that doesn't need to be a negative. A society that does not change stagnates and dies. Relax.



[edit on 2007/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]

[edit on 4-6-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]

You won't get any arguments regarding the dynamics of society and the necessity of change, but I believe that fundamentals remain constant even when forms change.

Still, there has not be presented any compelling reason for society to take on the burden of sanctioning homosexual marriage.

Marriage predates history and it is the fostering institution of the family, which is the foundation of society.

I know of no one who has two mothers.

We have abused terms like mother and family in our society to such an extent that no one even knows what they mean anymore.



[edit on 2007/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]

I think it is really all about semantics..

There are some absolutes when dealing with this issue....

First, the majority of Americans are religious, also the vast majority of religions do not advocate homosexual marriage.

AND

Marriage invokes a religious image in, again, the vast majority of Americans.

Now when discussing a state supported civil union, I think you will find the numbers swing significantly in the other direction.

It is the connotation of the word, marriage that gives many such difficulty...

Equally as perplexing is the two mothers comment..

Although the definition of mother can be construed to mean the civil union of two same sex partners and their "rearing" of an infant, to most people the word "Mother" invokes images of the giver of DNA. The supplier of the womb to facilitate birth if you will...

Why is it so necessary for homosexuals to force the issue of being "married?" The civil union grants them the same rights as any heterosexual married subjects...

Let us also not confuse the issue with discussion of anyones "RIGHT" to be married...
You have no more "RIGHT" to be married than you have a "RIGHT" to vote... Sorry but it just doesn't exist..

I just think that the public is rooted in their thoughts and ideas of what certain words mean and do not mean... And even though Atheists and Agnostics are fighting to change this, the majority of Americans are religious...

Just my 2 cents..

Semper

I think I understand where Grady is coming from; there has been a sharp decline in traditional values in this country. Ideas such as committment, keeping promises made basically accepting responsiblity seem to have gone by the way side. Marriage traditionally has been between a man and a woman.

That being said I personnally have no issue with gay marriage per se. If churches wish to honor that and pastor has no problem then a church wedding is fine with me. However, should the church not wish to bless the union then that too should also be respected. In any case a civil union between two consenting adults should be allowed.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Marriage predates history and it is the fostering institution of the family, which is the foundation of society.

Really? I think you need a history lesson. Really? Huh? What? What history book have you been reading? Only the bible tells you differently.

I know of no one who has two mothers.

Hmmm....wonder why he is biased/bigoted?

We have abused terms like mother and family in our society to such an extent that no one even knows what they mean anymore.

Really? Let me see.....mother....the woman who gave birth to me. "Family" ...the people whom I have grown up with. But, I guess Grady would have step fathers, stepmothers, stepbrothers, halfsisters etc. not included in "family".



[edit on 2007/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Now GH, you have touched on an issue there!!!

Why is it necessary for the "State" to be involved in a religious marriage?

Are we actually seeking to "force" a church to perform the ceremony or is it simply the state license that is at issue here?

Other than to prevent my fellow West Virginians from marrying their cousins, why is the state involved at all?

Many states have traditional "common law" statutes that provide "rights" to the individual in a committed relationship anyway. In this state, if you ever cohabitate, for any period of time, you become common law spouses for all intents and purposes..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
Why is it so necessary for homosexuals to force the issue of being "married?" The civil union grants them the same rights as any heterosexual married subjects...

Civil Unions do not always grant the same rights, so in some cases they are not being
afforded the same rights.

Apart from that Civil Unions are not recognized by many states as part of the Full faith
and credibility part of the Constitution, so even though someone whom has gotten a
Civil Union in Vermont, where the rights are the same, it does not guarantee that
other states will recognize that status.

Let us also not confuse the issue with discussion of anyones "RIGHT" to be married...
You have no more "RIGHT" to be married than you have a "RIGHT" to vote... Sorry but it just doesn't exist..

True there is no explicitly worded right to be married, but every citizen of the United States
over the age of 18 has the right to vote, of which can not/is not suppose to be infringed upon.

No church should ever be forced to perform a marriage that would violate the whole separation of church and state ideal to which we aspire. Indeed same sex unions are totally against the canons of several faiths one being mine Roman Catholic. I would be against the forcing of the Church to violate it's own canons to satisfy the state. Sorry that would then violate my rights to freedom of religion.

Semper and Grady are right in that the traditional marriage is between a man a woman and traditionally churches have performed marriages. However, in recent years it has become more and more common for judges to perform marriages. These marriages have the same validity as those performed by a priest or pastor.

Times are indeed changing and some traditions seem to falling by the way side. This trend can be troubling as some indeed many served a vital role in our lives by setting standards of behavior. The family unit is however, changing my own being an example. I'm a single mother but I am blessed by having two brothers who in varying degrees stepped up to the plate providing my daughter the male influence needed. I never would have chosen that life but what is is and we deal as best we can.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by gallopinghordes]

True there is no explicitly worded right to be married, but every citizen of the United States
over the age of 18 has the right to vote, of which can not/is not suppose to be infringed upon.

I would love to see the Constitutional Article or Amendment that states that...

I think you will find that

The 15th Amendment states that the right to vote can not be denied because of race
The 19th Amendment states that the right to vote can not be denied because of sex
and
The 26th Amendment states that as long as you are 18, the right to vote can not be denied because of age..

Sadly there is no specific article clearly defining anyones "right" to vote..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
I would love to see the Constitutional Article or Amendment that states that...

I think you will find that

The 15th Amendment states that the right to vote can not be denied because of race
The 19th Amendment states that the right to vote can not be denied because of sex
and
The 26th Amendment states that as long as you are 18, the right to vote can not be denied because of age..

Sadly there is no specific article clearly defining anyones "right" to vote..

Semper

Ok, I will give you that, the right to vote may not be explicitly layed out as its own,
but I think that the amendments added all together more or less make up a supra-amendment right.

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Semper and Grady are right in that the traditional marriage is between a man a woman and traditionally churches have performed marriages.

Actually, I'm talking about state sanctioned unions as marriages.

I don't really support civil unions in the sense that the term seems to be used, simply as a means of avoiding the use of the term marriage.

I think that there are ways for the state to allow people to form legal arrangements with other people that will take the option of marriage off the table for homosexuals.

The only reason homosexuals want to marry one another is to gain the benefits associated with marriage.

I don't think that all the protections of marriage should accrue to just any arrangement, but I do think that the law can protect the wishes of people to associate with whom they wish and distribute their possessions and assets as they wish without debasing the institution of marriage.

People may marry because they love each other, but marriage is not to protect romantic love. Marriage is meant to foster the family and the society chooses to benefit marriages because they tend to benefit society.

It is a pragmatic arrangement and has nothing at all to do with religion or hormones.


[edit on 2007/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

People may marry because they love each other, but marriage is not to protect romantic love. Marriage is meant to foster the family and the society chooses to benefit marriages because they tend to benefit society.

But gay marriage can benefit society!

There are many gay couples who adopt or become foster parents to children who would otherwise get shuffled around in the system. Unfortunately in most states only one parent in a gay relationship is allowed to adopt, so if that adoptive parent dies, the other parent becomes a "stranger" to the child legally. Imagine the damage that could do to a child to not only be grieving the death of one parent, but to be taken away from their other parent simply because they were not legally married.

Not only that, if the non-adoptive parent is the wage earner in the family, and dies, his/her partner and their child may not receive any death benefits.

Also if the non-adoptive parent is the wage earner and gets health insurance benefits, most companies will not allow their partner or child to receive those benefits.