Where do you Stand on Gay Marriage?

I worked in child protection.

Gay adoption is child abuse and exploitation.

Society needs to correct the conditions that lead to so many kids coming into the system and stop using a lack of foster agents and adoptive agents as an excuse to place the most vulnerable among us into these living arrangements.

Child protective service, while having an admirable mission and doing some good in some circumstances does more to damage lives than to improve them.

Let me firstly state:
Do i think homosexuality is natural? No.
Do i think it is wrong? No.

Prior to writing this post i was 100% for gay marriage... this thread made me think about the reasoning behind that decision, and i actually changed it.

Reading through the majority of this thread, i want to say that the conclusion on this topic should not come down to sex preference. I guess that is hard to justify when that is what we are talking about, so i hope the way i changed my opinion can be adequately shown here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
For a stance on gay marriage i have had to look at why people in general want to be married. I pretty much landed on it being a public declaration of the couples love, the ability to have children (children that are not "bastards"... but that is a complete other kettle of discussion fish) with a few welfare benefits thrown in. These may be wrong. I don't care... they are not the make or break part of my argument.

From here i thought how do the couples feel... well they love each other very much and want others to celebrate in this love.

STOP!

Let's now continue from a "natural" perspective. If everyone in the world was in a monogamous/polygamous gay relationship then natural human civilization would die out. Now if heterosexual relationships are the relationships that continue humanity as they are going to be the ones that create life to look after everyone in their old age, be it McDonalds workers to Healthcare Workers in old peoples homes. Humanity will exist and will continue to thrive because of heterosexual relationships.

That is fine... homosexual relationships, they are adults they can make up their own minds. Why should we deny them that?

But then what of the heterosexual relationships? The ones who are natural? What has happened to their relationship? Their marriage... something they have had forever?

Now i am thoroughly confused.

Then it clicked... homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the only "couples" in this world. What about people who have sexual and loving relationships with animals? and with siblings? Should they be allowed the same privilege of an acknowledged marriage?

Arguably these relationships are at a higher level than homosexuals and heterosexuals. A bestiality relationship almost has one half of the relationship in a role of complete unconditional love, whereas incestuous relationships have not only the love of a couple, but the love of siblings.

People even have loving and sexual relationships with cars... should they get married?

The only difference between all these "couples" is that heterosexuals, the only relationship that can get married is also the only to produce natural offspring. Should this be the determining factor in the debate?

I revoked my belief in homosexual marriage simply because if i did agree with homosexual marriage, i would have to allow bestiality and incestuous relationships the same benefit of marriage, because there is NO difference. I unfortunately cannot, hence i now cannot condone a homosexual marriage. It is something special that once the floodgates open to ALL these other "forms" of relationships it will trivialise marriage to a point even further than it already is.

Maybe there is an alternative, something different for these "alternative" relationships. For the moment, leave marriage to the heterosexuals? The title is theirs.

As for this... "something different", well that is not the point of this thread lol...

I hope you all follow my thought process... i know i only just did hehe...

Oh and to once again clarify... i changed my mind on homosexual marriage, i still have no problem with homosexual relationships.

Originally posted by SilentShadow
Let's now continue from a "natural" perspective. If everyone in the world was in a monogamous/polygamous gay relationship then natural human civilization would die out.

You think the supposition of every relationship in the world being the same (gay) is a natural perspective? It's natural for relationships to be different at least to some degree. My relationship is very different than other married couples in some ways, but the same in others.

You're right, if every relationship was gay, people would stop producing, but no one is suggesting that every relationship be gay.

If every relationship were between 50+ aged people, civilization would also die out. That doesn't mean that older people falling in love and getting married is somehow unnatural or wrong and should be disallowed.

If every relationship were between infertile people, civilization would also die out. That doesn't mean that infertile people falling in love and getting married is somehow unnatural or wrong and should be disallowed.

No one is suggesting we ban heterosexual couples and marriages. They can still exist. Civilization is safe.

But then what of the heterosexual relationships? The ones who are natural? What has happened to their relationship? Their marriage... something they have had forever?

Yes... What does happen to them? NOTHING!

Then it clicked... homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the only "couples" in this world. What about people who have sexual and loving relationships with animals?

Can an animal or a car enter into a legal contract? No. Marriage is a legal contract.

Since ONE of the reasons for getting married (NOT the only reason, but ONE) is to procreate, sibling marriages could be potentially dangerous to any offspring. But if 2 siblings wanted to marry each other, and not have kids, I don't actually have a problem with that.

The only difference between all these "couples" is that heterosexuals, the only relationship that can get married is also the only to produce natural offspring. Should this be the determining factor in the debate?

I cannot produce natural offspring. Should I be disallowed marriage?

I revoked my belief in homosexual marriage simply because if i did agree with homosexual marriage, i would have to allow bestiality and incestuous relationships the same benefit of marriage, because there is NO difference.

If YOU see no difference, that's interesting. But it doesn't mean that there is no difference.

Maybe there is an alternative, something different for these "alternative" relationships.

I would be fine with having another word used for my marriage as long as I had all the same benefits (which civil unions do not). Because although I am heterosexual, my marriage is NOT religious and we won't be breeding. But... until this new system of alternative marriage is figured out, I think anyone who wishes to enter into a marriage with another consenting adult should be allowed to do so.

Originally posted by MSHARPE2012


"Why not let them get married. Why should straight people be the only ones who suffer"

haha yea that is a great quote..

i personally do not care if a man wants to marry a man, or if a female wants to marry a female.. why not, its their choice

im not going to look down upon them either.. hell, they found someone they love and they're getting married.. good for them!

i dont have any gay friends.. but this doesn't mean i wouldn't befriend a gay man or a lesbian. rarely does ones sexual orientation have to do with what kind of person they are

people get so heated over gay marriage and i have trouble understanding why..

Interesting thread....
I happen to be gay and I live in Massachusetts, so I am in the center of all this. However, there is really not much controversy about the issue up here. Depending on the poll 70-80% of the general population supports the idea and policy of civil marriage for gay people (up from 40% before civil gay marriage 3 years ago). Why? Because nothing happened....We STILL have the LOWEST divorce rate in the US of A. Straight people are still marrying and having kids. Straight men are not leaving their wives to marry a golf buddy. The crime rate is unchanged. God has not rained down brimstone; in fact we have had very nice weather for the past 3 years. It is really a non-issue. They don't even have protests against gay marriage anymore since no one shows up except Fred Phelps types from Kansas or god knows where. So, we are fortunate to have some hard experience and information to go on when considering this question. The good news is that 8000+ gay couples are legally married and their KIDS (adopted or otherwise, since gays do have kids) have health insurance and a parent if the other dies. That is the real issue here.

Now where do I stand on this issue? If 2 people of either gender want to marry, then due to the 1100 or so special rights that you get from the US government for being married, they should be able to do so. But the really fair thing to do, is make it a purely religious ceremony with no government rights. Decouple marriage from government entirely. Kids should be the responsibility of whomever the parents are with or without marriage and health insurance should be available for all citizens. One should be able to designate one's pension, social security, etc to whomever one chooses regardless of marital status. If one wanted to still marry for the ceremony, then fine go for it. However, since the odds of these changes ever occurring is zero in the US, then yes gay people should be able to marry anywhere in the US. To do otherwise is un-American as contracts(including marriage) made in one state must be recognised in all other states in the union; DOMA is unconstituional and will be ruled as such. Even by this supreme court.

Regarding civil unions being equal, due to the DOMA law, they are in fact not equal to marriage on the federal level which is where most rights originate. They are void when you leave the state you got it in. Big bummer if you have a car accident over the state line and your spouse is in intensive care and you can't visit or make decisions or you want to pick up your child by gay civil union from boarding school and are told "no" or want the social security benefits or the joint real estate rollover or any of the 1100 other rights married people get from the feds. If there were a federal civil union, I would say then it is just a word and gays don't need it, but it carrys real rights and privileges in this nation.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by chissler]

I am all for it. there's nothing wrong with it to me at all. they are humans too and should have the same rights like everyone else. who cares what someone else does in the privacy of their own home???

I had no idea that the rights afforded by civil union were so restrictive....

I completely agree that the civil union should be recognized in every state.. That it is subject to individual states makes no sense at all..

That needs to be changed...

Semper

Semper... the thing about gay marrige is not the act of marriage itself... that can be replaced by a civil union, it is all about rights.

A few years ago a good friend of mine died on his 36th birthday, had a staff infection that settled into the valves around his heart and killed him. His lover woke up to find him dead. Even though they had been a couple for years, burying him was hell for his partner. My friend's parents are rabid funnymentalists and disowned their son when he announced he was gay and they refused to have anything to do with burying him as well so his lover had to go to court to seek permission from a judge to bury him... he finally got it but it took 2 weeks. If they'd had the same privileges as you have with your wife, laying my friend to rest would not have been an issue.

There are a whole slue of rights and privileges that come along with marriage (or a civil union) that have nothing to do with child rearing but come up with any couple in a long standing relationship.... making medical decisions as well as disposal of property... the list goes on and the thing is that these rights go along with straight common law marriages but not gay ones.

I know a gay couple that have been together for 60 years, since their 20's... two of the sweetest people you would want to meet... they have a lot of property and business concerns between them and they told me one time it cost them thousands of dollars to knit together for each other the same rights and privileges straight couples get just signing a paper and saying I do.

It is issues like this is why I am for gays right to marry (or civil union)... long term stable relationships should have the same rights and privileges... when you take away the children issue (and I have known plenty of gay couples who have raised decent well adjusted children so that is just a white elephant), other than gender nothing different between a straight or a gay relationship.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Gay adoption is child abuse and exploitation.

Is this a sincere statement?

The adoption of a boy or girl into a gay family is the equivalent to child abuse &/or exploitation? On what level? Can two men, or two women, not love a child just as much as a man & woman?

Personally, I am tired of these social norms infringing the rights of good men and women who want to live their life just as everyone else. If two men want to get married, or two women, have at it people.

A marriage should be a bond between two human beings, both of an age of legal consent. As grotesque as it is, I emphasize "human beings" because a certain wording could possibly open the door for some sick people out there.

The argument against gay marriage is completely baseless in my opinion.

Social norms that we've become comfortable with, that we do not want to see changed. The world is changing. We need to keep up.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by chissler
A marriage should be a bond between two human beings, both of an age of legal consent. As grotesque as it is, I emphasize "human beings" because a certain wording could possibly open the door for some sick people out there.

Too late:

What about people who have sexual and loving relationships with animals? and with siblings? Should they be allowed the same privilege of an acknowledged marriage?
...
People even have loving and sexual relationships with cars... should they get married?

Originally posted by chissler
The argument against gay marriage is completely baseless in my opinion.

Social norms that we've become comfortable with, that we do not want to see changed. The world is changing. We need to keep up.

I believe this is the crux of the matter. It's something people just aren't comfortable with and so they imagine all sorts of nasty repercussions that would and might and could happen should we allow the nasty gays to form a legal union like the rest of us.

It's fear. It's like the fear of letting black people or women vote or letting blacks and whites marry. These fears are TOTALLY unfounded. And they get in the way of true equality under the LAW.

If we had let the fear of women voting rule, it would have denied them equal treatment under the law. That's what we're doing here with gay people. And no matter how scary it is to some, the focus should be on equal treatment. No matter what the result is, we are obligated to treat people equally under the law.

I stand at the back of the church

no seriously I think that a legal union is a good think to call it.
marriage is about a man and a women making a biological family
since thats not possible in the current scheme of things
then lets call it a civil union
its equal in all respects to the laws and tax advantages to marriage but accurately describes with proper semantics the union of two people of the same sex

Originally posted by junglelord
marriage is about a man and a women making a biological family

Will someone answer this???? Please???

I can't have a biological family. Why is my union called a marriage?

its equal in all respects to the laws and tax advantages to marriage but accurately describes with proper semantics the union of two people of the same sex

But a civil union is NOT equal in all respects. For one thing it costs $2000 at least to get one even close to equal to a marriage.

This is just another indication that it is a joke when we say how far we've come as a society. We are just as consumed with bigotry and prejudice as we have been ten, twenty, thirty, forty, whatever years ago. We've offered equal rights to women, blacks, schools are no longer segregated by religion or color, but yet we still point the finger at so many people. We have not made any progress, we've just turned to the side and pointed at someone else.

Rather than women, we point at Muslims. Rather than blacks, we point at homosexuals.

Sometimes I just want to put my arms in the air and scream. Having to deal with all of this absolute nonsense. It took us a long time to understand that someone was not superior to another based on gender. Then it took a little longer to understand that an individual was not superior based on the color of their skin. So now why, after all these years of hardships, have we continued to feel that we are superior to someone based on sexual orientation?

There are plenty of men and women out there who are absolutely miserable in their marriages. Why can't two men, or two women, have that same misery? Why not? Because of some terminology that was written way back when? Or because it makes us uncomfortable.

To all those that don't like this, deal with it. There is more at stake here than your comfort level.

Every day there are men, women, and children who have their rights infringed upon because someone isn't "comfortable" with "that".

It's embarrassing.

Originally posted by chissler
There are plenty of men and women out there who are absolutely miserable in their marriages. Why can't two men, or two women, have that same misery? Why not? Because of some terminology that was written way back when? Or because it makes us uncomfortable.

Chissler, the limitations on marriage have nothing to do with bigotry, prejudice, happiness or feeling comfortable.

It has everything to do with why society should accept the burden of sanctioning marriage between two classes of people whose union holds no possibility of benefit for society.

I have come to the conclusion that the concept of marriage has been completely lost in the last 50 years and that it is time to abandon it completely and let the chips fall where they may.

Marriage was rendered useless many years ago when the government took on the responsibility of funding children born out of wedlock.

It is simply time to abandon marriage and let people set up living arrangements as they please, without the expectation that any social benefit will accrue thereunto.

When so many people exhibit such ignorance regarding one of the most basic institutions, then it's time to pull the plug from it, especially when one considers how many people are made so miserable by it. Marriage is worse than salvery, it would seem.

ABOLISH MARRIAGE!


[edit on 2007/6/6 by GradyPhilpott]

Personally I am against the formal union legally of two individuals. Realistically and honestly the idea of marriage has become a hollow image of it's former self.

People marry on a whim and divorce in such quick order I feel that the entire idea needs to be abandoned from the society as a whole.

Monogamy is a great thing don't get me wrong, but the entire idea of the legal union of two individuals without the consequences of what happens when that contract fails and becomes null and void is preposterous.

Quite honestly I feel that the scope of marriage as a legal union should be scraped, if you have a partner that you feel you can live with the rest of your life, do so, be happy in your monogamy, feel blessed that you have found that one person that you can live with for the rest of your life and celebrate it.

Just don't do it with a legally binding contract that in the end can be broken with no penalties to either party.

But having said all of that, if society insists on this idiotic, archaic form of legal binding of two individuals together, then it just holds fair that it should not be stifled by sexual preference.

It is just as well that two people of the same sex can find in each other happiness and (sometimes) misery that make their lives complete they should be able to join into marriage together.

I personally think that if we are to continue on this dilapidated form of recognized unions, then there needs to be provisions to ensure that this union is strong enough to last through the life of the individuals.

Divorce is way too easy in this country. There is no accountability to anyone that choses to separate from their spouse. This Idea of a no fault divorce is preposterous and ridiculous. Obviously there was a reason for two people to chose to separate so what is it? is it good enough to warrant the dissolution of the marriage contract?

So in short, yes homosexuals should be able to get married just the same as heterosexual people can. But there should be more strict standards as far as whom can get married to whom.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Marriage was rendered useless many years ago when the government took on the responsibility of funding children born out of wedlock.

No, the idea of marriage was rendered useless when the idea of "divorce" became the norm with little regard for for the children except to use them as bargaining chips by the parents.

Originally posted by whaaa
No, the idea of marriage was rendered useless when the idea of "divorce" became the norm with little regard for for the children except to use them as bargaining chips by the parents.

Good point, but both are contributory, in my view.

Originally posted by whaaa No, the idea of marriage was rendered useless when the idea of "divorce" became the norm with little regard for for the children except to use them as bargaining chips by the parents.

Nonsense. I am a divorced, now remarried father of two and my children were never treated in such a manner. Opinions are fine, but sweeping generalisations are nothing but hot air. Indeed, I take offense at the notion.

Originally posted by whaaa
No, the idea of marriage was rendered useless when the idea of "divorce" became the norm with little regard for for the children except to use them as bargaining chips by the parents.

That depends on your expectations of the union. What I mean is, why should marriage be anything about serving society?

Marriage is not useless to me.

You guys seem to be looking at marriage as some sort of sacred institution that somehow serves the greater good. I don't get this. Marriage serves ME for what I want from it. Every marriage is different. People use marriage for their own needs and desires. Just like any legal arrangement.

Some marry for love, some for money, some for fame, some for companionship, some for family, some for convenience, some for friendship, some for taxes, some for procreation, some for the time being...

It feels like you're taking YOUR definition of marriage (or what you think it should be) and applying it to everyone. And since it doesn't fit, you say marriage is useless. Well, it's NOT useless! Not to me and millions of others who have a marriage that works for them for whatever reason and in whatever fashion!

You seem have a preconceived idea of the institution of marriage as lasting forever and having 2.3 children and living in the suburbs happily ever after (without divorce) and that just doesn't apply to everyone! That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with marriage. It's fine. In my opinion, it's glorious!

I don't want to abolish marriage. If you don't like it, don't participate in it! But keeping others from having something they want simply because YOU deem it "useless" to you is a terrible thing to do, IMO.