On gay marriage...

So after seeing a few posts today I got a little indignant about the current political trend about gay marriage and started posting with my gut instead of my head. I should know better, my gut puts out petrid fumes.. my head is a much more appropriate tool for constructive discourse.

Anyway, preamble aside, I was pondering the subject and I came to realize how incredibly rediculous the subject is from a political point of view. Here we are arguing about whether or not people of the same gender should have the right to get married to each other. Why is this even an issue? Let me break it down a bit...

Marriages in the US have two components, religious and legal. From a religious point of view, yes, there are people of Abrahamic religions that will not allow their followers get married to those of the same gender. That's fine, really. It's their religious belief and more power to them. However, how and why should that apply to people that are not of those faiths.. or for that matter, why should it apply to people who are not getting married in a church?

Another aspect I have seen discussed is that allowing gay marriage would damage irrevocably the institute of marriage. I still haven't come fully to grips about this. If gay couples cannot get married, they are still going to live together; they just won't be able to get a joint bank account (in some states), get tax breaks, visit each other in the hospital, etc. So are we saying that the institute of marriage is so fragile that it can be destroyed by something as simple as allowing gay couples to visit each other in the hospital?

When you think about it, the modern understanding of marriage is fairly new. As late as the early 20th century, arranged marriages were still commonplace. The concept still exists to this day. Yet, while the idea of forcing someone to marry someone they do not wish to marry may be offensive to our western sensibilities; the idea of allowing anyone to marry any human they want (with necessary accomodations for age) is apparently also offensive to our sensabilities.

And you certainly cannot bring the idea of childbirth and raising families into the equation as you do not have to be married to have a kid and, in fact, many people have perfectly functional families without an official "marriage".

Finally, you get the argument that the wishes of the majority should trump the wishes of the minority. I do not understand how the majority is harmed. If the minority request would harm or disrupt the lives of the majority, then perhaps that would mean something, but in this case, the request does not interfere with the lives or rights of the majority. What right does the majority have in deciding on something that does not directly affect them?

These are essentially my thoughts on the subject. It is a red herring political issue that is tromped out every election to divide and confuse so that the American people can be reduced to a mob of reactive trolls that will follow the leader instead of thinking with their heads and hearts.

Well it's a political issue because alot of people care about it and are vocal about it thereby forcing politicians to address it.

Also alot of the majority do think it affects them and their children which is why they are so vocal about not letting it happen.

Well said! I was really afraid this was going to be another of those anti-gay marriage threads. You've made great points, and brought the simplicity of the whole thing to light.

I've never understood why it was such a big deal. I mean...if you want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, shouldn't you outlaw divorce? Really? States have laws that determine how far removed cousins must be to get married.

And, let me tell you something...just because these guys fold and get married to a woman doesn't mean for an instant they're not trolling websites for clandestine encounters. Governments aren't doing anything but fooling themselves and using the topic to pull down votes from sheeple.

Alot of people base their opposition to it based on religious views and you can agree or disagree but that would answer the question in your post.

I disagree with the religious aspect.

I think people use religion as the base of their argument because they feel it adds the ultimate validity to their argument. I do not however believe for 1 second that most of these who oppose gay marriage really care for the religious aspect of it. They spout off at the mouth about Jesus this, God that, but they are solely against gay marriage because they are disgusted by homosexuality.

Originally posted by kro32
Alot of people base their opposition to it based on religious views and you can agree or disagree but that would answer the question in your post.

I know you did not meant this or your previous post as beng inflammatory and I did not take it that way, but I would respond with this: Do not mistake my rhetorical questions for naivety. I am well aware that many people believe this affects them, even though they are happily married and/or straight, etc. I am also aware that many politicians engage in this discourse because some of their consitutants raise the issue.

My point is that it is not a subject with any real merit, as explained in my opening post.

Originally posted by BioStatistic
.if you want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, shouldn't you outlaw divorce? Really? States have laws that determine how far removed cousins must be to get married.

And, let me tell you something...just because these guys fold and get married to a woman doesn't mean for an instant they're not trolling websites for clandestine encounters. Governments aren't doing anything but fooling themselves and using the topic to pull down votes from sheeple.

if our government and its people were non-bias as to sexual preference, they indeed would be more concerned with
- protecting sanctity of marriage by outlawing divorce (both hetero and homo divorce)
- protecting age and relational limits
- stopping the spread of aids in homosexuals which is still around 1 in 3 gay americans has HIV/AIDS

sorry i threw in the last one, but i do believe if gay marriage was okay since centuries ago, less guys would be spreading it around with the excuse they cant settle down with the sex of their preferene anyways.

Actually you said you thought how ridiculous this is from a political point of view and I showed you why it's very reasonable from a political point of view.

If you want different answers you should ask different questions.

Originally posted by kro32
Actually you said you thought how ridiculous this is from a political point of view and I showed you why it's very reasonable from a political point of view.

If you want different answers you should ask different questions.

Actually, this is pretty much exactly my point. The expectation (well, the ideal, at least) is that the politicians would be leaders. They would lead us by representing us an confronting the challenges involved in establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. They should rise above pandering to issues that are not related to those subjects. Instead, they have embraced the subject as a wedge issue to, as I said above, turn the American populace into a reactionary mob of mindless followers.

When we have countless people without a job and losing their homes, wars actively going in foreign lands, budget and debt issues,e tc., how is gay marriage relevant beyond being used as a tool to cause a reaction and sway a few voters.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Dear rogerstigers,

I am a stone cold Christian and agree. It says to give unto Caeser that which is his and to obey the laws. Well, they can make any law they want including contracts and that is what government sanctioned marriage is, it is not about sex. I want competent, willing people to be able to make binding agreements and exchange promises.

reply to post by AQuestion


I respect that. That was my impression of the issue while I was growing up in a Christian household, as well. The church can do what it likes with regard to the concept of marrying people, but that is within the confines of the religion, not the boundaries of contracts and finance, etc.

its not about marriage its not about getting recognized by a religion or by their peers

its all about the tax and legal benefits.

thats all it is and thats why its a poltical issue

sure those one the right may be opposed to marriage and the left will defend gay marriage

but what it all boils down to is money

take away the legal and tax benefits and i can guarantee you this

it wont be an issue any longer.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Well said, roger... The fact is that the debate is over the ability for two adults to enter into a legal contract and have it recognized by the state. In the end, the US Constitution will force the majority to allow such contracts to be executed because the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights ensures that the Rights and Freedoms of the Individual trump the Will of the Majority, such as has been shown in this particular debate.

the topic itself is another distraction designed to keep the population divided.

the more groups there are are, the less of a chance that a unified citizenship will actually direct leadership to do their jobs.

it is so simple, it has been done since the flood water subsided.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Dear rogerstigers.

Funny thing is that we shouldn't worry so much about salvation, the answer is easy, we should worry about each other being allowed to exercise their free will.

I grow tired of religious bigotry, soft or hard.

2 points

1) If we decide to keep marriage as a state given privilege (which is a ridiculous thing to begin with), then let homosexuals enjoy the same benefits. It really doesn't make any difference (ask the Canadians).

The entire reason homosexuals are so in your face about it is because of the vitriolic and sometimes violent opposition they face.

2) If we decide to keep religion and state separate, then the issues boils down to simple contract rights. This would allow people to enjoy more than one wife or husband, have homosexuals join, etc.

This seems the more practical and freedom-minded of the two options. Don't like freedom? Tough, and as far as I'm concerned most of the opponents to it can shove it cause they have no case and honestly I don't think their opinions matter.

Peace
KJ

Originally posted by neo96
take away the legal and tax benefits and i can guarantee you this

it wont be an issue any longer.

An issue to whom?

Are you saying gays don't want to get married if they don't get tax benefits?

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
If we decide to keep marriage as a state given privilege (which is a ridiculous thing to begin with), then let homosexuals enjoy the same benefits.

Isn't DOMA federal? Isn't the Christian right pushing to make marriage between a man and woman a federal law?

Then they turn around in the same breath and say - - marriage is a state issue. Gay marriage has to be determine by each state.

Huh?

I agree the right to marry should be a federal law. The right of all citizens to marry.

At one time - - ages ago - - it made sense to have each state make marriage laws. Kind of like some areas have school holidays for Open Hunting Season - - or Snow Days - - etc.

Different areas/cultures had different needs. This is completely outdated now - - - and marriage rights should be equal federally.

Alot of people will say it's about money and that's how this country is run but it's really not. Society set's the rules and will change things when they want too. You may say that with all these other things that gay marriage shouldn't be an issue but it is if they people say it is.

The first thing they taught me in political science was that politicians love power, the second thing they taught is that they will do almost anything to keep it. They will even turn on their beloved corporations if they feel it will cost them their power and people vote them in not the corporations no matter how many people will claim otherwise with no proof by the way.

So if many people in a district are being vocal about gay marriage the politicians will put that issue higher up their priority list and visa versa also so it doesn't matter what else is going on in the world as far as how important an issue is.

reply to post by Annee


Hope you aren't voting Ron Paul then because this issue would be totally State decided. Some States will allow it but travel across the State line and your no longer married. This is one of the problems with his platform but that's a bit off topic.