I am probably going to get raked over the coals for this one

Reply #1 November 4, 2004 7:49 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

My definition of marriage : Marriage is a special union between 2 individuals and their God. No other mortal should be allowed to define whether this union is worthy of the term Marriage or not.

Carrying on with that defintion I don't think the government should be regulating or recognizing certain unions as marriage or not and definetly should not be giving people rights or favorable laws depending on wether they are married or not in the government's eyes.

Reply #2 November 4, 2004 7:50 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

First question, are YOU married Alison?

Reply #3 November 4, 2004 7:55 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

First question, are YOU married Alison?

She has indicated that she is getting married.

*backs slowly away from the thread*

Reply #4 November 4, 2004 8:04 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

thanks history! Draginol...reread....

Reply #5 November 4, 2004 8:16 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Some gay couples I know have been together longer than a lot of straight couples.....

I'm not sure about the chances of a guy couple staying together for life.

If someone could find the stats on this it would be great. I have only know four guy couples that have gotten married (in Mexico) or have made civil unions. They all never lasted more then four years. I don't know of any famous couples other then Elton John who has stayed together.

Maybe I'm wrong, but in my opinion guys marriages/unions are far from a stable relationships and fall well below the 50% mark.

I think it is just the life style that they particapate in.

That's My Two Cents

Reply #6 November 4, 2004 8:23 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

no one chooses to participate in a lifestyle...it's how they were born

Reply #7 November 4, 2004 8:30 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Here is my take on the other side of this debate. Why re-define marriage? Marriage (in it's current incarnation here in the US) is between a man and a woman. Currently, gay couples have, or can have, all the rights of a married couple except the right to leave the partner with the others social security income in the event of one passing away (major problem). If something called a Civil Union gives them this right, is that OK? I have yet to hear (or understand) why some activists are so insistent on it being called marriage.

Then there is the argument that once marriage is re-defined to include two individuals (i.e. same sex couples) what is there to stop litigation from making it 3 people, or an adult and a minor same sex couple? (possible legal precedent opens the door). Keep in mind I am playing devil's advocate here. Ever heard of NAMBLA? They are currently using (last I saw at their web site) the same arguments gay activists used to become more mainstream. I have heard that the gay community is not supportive (understated?) of NAMBLA's views (I do not presume to speak for the gay community, but have heard some pretty outspoken activists against this group).

Reply #8 November 4, 2004 8:35 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree 100%. I think any marriage should be allowed by consent of the individuals involved. I have an ultra-liberal blog if you want to hear any more of my opinions (hahaha, like that will happen).

Reply #9 November 4, 2004 8:35 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree 100%. I think any marriage should be allowed by consent of the individuals involved. I have an ultra-liberal blog if you want to hear any more of my opinions (hahaha, like that will happen).

Reply #10 November 4, 2004 10:23 PM from PolMach Forums Top

What are all the right-wingers afraid of? We recently legalized same-sex marriage in most provinces in Canada, including my home province, and everthing is okay. In fact, I haven't even noticed any difference. To have same-sex marriage doesn't mean that all straight people have to divorce and marry people of the same sex. THERE IS NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF!!!

Reply #11 November 4, 2004 10:41 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Polygamy. Incestuous marriage. Other forms of marriage that are persecuted and receive no support by the same people who want to fight for people's right to love. That's why I don't care that gay marriage gets screwed over.

Reply #12 November 4, 2004 10:45 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I even lean to the lef ton this one but hey the vast majority do not. So guess what? We get to abide, leave, or campaign for change. If you choose to campaign just don't pretend surprise after this. It would be disingenuous.

Reply #13 November 4, 2004 10:55 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Then there is the argument that once marriage is re-defined to include two individuals (i.e. same sex couples) what is there to stop litigation from making it 3 people, or an adult and a minor same sex couple? (possible legal precedent opens the door). Keep in mind I am playing devil's advocate here. Ever heard of NAMBLA? They are currently using (last I saw at their web site) the same arguments gay activists used to become more mainstream. I have heard that the gay community is not supportive (understated?) of NAMBLA's views (I do not presume to speak for the gay community, but have heard some pretty outspoken activists against this group).

This "slippery slope" argument always comes up when people argue against gay marriage and gay rights. It's a convenient way for conservatives to avoid saying that they are disgusted by gay people. "It's not gay people we mind so much, but if we let them have equal rights, then all these other groups everyone knows to be evil will eventually get those rights too."

If this argument were actually serious, then why don't conservatives focus their energy on passing constitutional amendments banning polygamy and bestiality and man-boy love and every other evil waiting at the bottom of that slippery slope? Those amendments would pass in an instant, and then we could have the actual discussion about what it is that disturbs conservatives so much about ordinary, consenting, adult gay couples.

Reply #14 November 4, 2004 11:04 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I still don't see why are granting Extra Rights to married couples anyway...

Reply #15 November 4, 2004 11:32 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Before I post what I am about to post I want to let everyone know that I am a 23 year old straight female.... What is the big deal about marriage when 50% of it ends up in divorce anyways? Some gay couples I know have been together longer than a lot of straight couples..... Doesn't human companionship conquer all....I mean I'm getting married and I'm very happy to start this road ahead with my man...shouldn't everyone; gay, straight, bi...whatever deserve this too??

Alison, I am not understanding your argument if there is one. Marriage has always been defined. Gay people can live together as long as they want. There is a movement in this country to recongize the union as legal binding and they will receive same right as all marriage. The only difference: the word marriage will not be used. The boarder term civil union will be used instead.

You see, your statement sound as if people are stopping gay people coming together. Are they? Gay people can shag all night long.

Look, marriage is a term to describe something, and you cannot force people to chose word. If everyone call the sky blue, you cannot just tell them to call it red. Now, you, yourself, can call the sky red, and the apple blue if you like, but you can't force others to change their definition. At this point in time, people don't want to call gay union as marriage, but you can call it a marriage if you like.

It is the same reason why I cannot legally marry to six women at the same time, and I cannot marry my donkey. I can shag them all night long and that will be our business. I, however, cannot force others to recongize my defintion of marriage.

People who think marriage is just between two person is crazy. Marriage is more than that, it is also about being a "recongized" union recongnized by the coummunity.

Reply #16 November 4, 2004 11:54 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

"People who think marriage is just between two person is crazy. Marriage is more than that, it is also about being a "recongized" union recongnized by the coummunity"

And so this community is supposed to also give special rights to these people who are supposed to be in love? Personally I don't think the government should be recongizing any union as more special then another. I get it now. Your going to secure rights with marriage but your going to keep the gays from enjoying theirs.

Marriage in all the terms presented by government and the Church is a god damn hoax. No ceremony, priest, public official, or community can determine wether 2 people are truly in love. That is between them and their God. I would never let the government tell me wether me and my spouse are truly in love. They can not judge and if they do choose to Judge there should be no more benefits or burden to them as a couple then there was for them as singles. Maybe a name change that is all.

Reply #17 November 4, 2004 11:55 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

If this argument were actually serious, then why don't conservatives focus their energy on passing constitutional amendments banning polygamy and bestiality and man-boy love and every other evil waiting at the bottom of that slippery slope? Those amendments would pass in an instant, and then we could have the actual discussion about what it is that disturbs conservatives so much about ordinary, consenting, adult gay couples.

There is a possible misconception revealed in this comment. I must admit that I haven't read the language in any of these state constitution amendments, since there wasn't such an amendment offered in Arizona, but I don't believe any of them specifically "banned" anything, just affirmatively defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Call that splitting hairs, if you will, but I believe it is accurate. I happen to support the notion of recognizing the reality of gay relationships, many of which are indeed more longlasting than the average heterosexual relationship, and that is actually happening where the rubber meets the road in the form of corporate recognition of same-sex partner benefits, etc., in many areas of the country. I think the reason "marriage" is the hot-button is that it would be symbolic of society's acceptance and enable the existing legal framework to be applied. On a practical level, all the legal mechanics that flow sort of automatically from traditional marriage can be accomplished through other means (transfer of property on death, etc.), it just requires that same-sex couples do something overt to achieve what is the legal default in traditional marriage.

Also on a practical level, it should not surprise anyone that a society made up overwhelmingly of heterosexual married couples would be in favor of defining marriage as between a man and woman, particularly if there was no language in there specifically "banning" anything. On a personal level, I believe people should have the freedom to lead the lives they choose, free of prejudice, as long as no harm comes to others as a result. Whether society should confer on that choice the same legal benefits & obligations of traditional marriage is a more difficult issue to sort out.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #18 November 5, 2004 12:18 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

You know what I want to know? Why don't people say that gay marriages will SAVE the state that marriages are in? People should be able to do what they want in regards to marriage. Why can't you marry a minor? Well, you can with parent's consent. Why can't you marry your sister? For genetic purposes I assume. Why can't you marry your lesbian girlfriend? It's not like you're going to overpopulate, you have the partner's consent, and you're in love. What more does it mean? If two people are devoted enough to want to get married, who are you to tell them they can't, and if they then want to get a divorce, who are you to tell them they can't? People need to learn they have no control over the decisions of other people, and they have no right to make those decisions for someone else.

And so what if you get a divorce? There is no difference between a straight-couple divorce and a gay-couple divorce. Is there any difference between their relationship? Just because they're homosexual doesn't mean they don't go through the same feelings as a heterosexual. There is no difference, people!

Why are people so afraid of gay people? Where is the problem, and don't say it's because marriage is defined between a man and a woman, that's bs. No one would give a crap about putting out a law about defining marriage as a union between man and woman until men and men or women and women wanted to do it. People shouldn't give a crap what other people do, period. Come on, people, we're supposed to be "advanced", why do we have to think like we still live in the fucking dark ages???

~Sorry I went off on a rant
~a fellow Liberal

Reply #19 November 5, 2004 12:45 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

And so this community is supposed to also give special rights to these people who are supposed to be in love? Personally I don't think the government should be recongizing any union as more special then another. I get it now. Your going to secure rights with marriage but your going to keep the gays from enjoying theirs. Marriage in all the terms presented by government and the Church is a god damn hoax. No ceremony, priest, public official, or community can determine wether 2 people are truly in love. That is between them and their God. I would never let the government tell me wether me and my spouse are truly in love. They can not judge and if they do choose to Judge there should be no more benefits or burden to them as a couple then there was for them as singles. Maybe a name change that is all.

Look, that is exactly my point. It may be difficult to believe, I actually vote against putting an amendent for defining marraige. So I am not trying deny anyone anything, and I think you assume too much of me. The question is never just about "right", is it? If it is just about right, then civil union should have solved the legal right inequality, the battle is always what to call this union, civil union or marraige. It is all about the wording now.. By the way, marriage is not a right, it is a privalge. If you look it up, you will understand what I meant. It is the same as driving a car. It is technically not a right, it is a privalage. In fact, it is a privalage to a binding. At this point, maybe you should help me to understand if you are talking about marriage in civil term or marraige in domestic sense. I think you have been jumping back and forth between the two terms, so I am unsure which one you are really refering to. There is no debate about domestic marraige among gay people. I think everyone reconigze that. That is exactly why I said gay people can shag all night long if they want too. So, I assume you are talking about civil marraige. However, if you really talking about civil marriage, then I am baffered as to why you bring up the phase: I would never let the government tell me wether me and my spouse are truly in love. Government never tell anyone if they are in love, not to homosexual or to heterosexual. Government make legal binding for marraige. Recongnization of a legal vow/binding is not the same as recongnization of love.

Look, you are right that union is between the persons involved. That can be just two person, or two persons with their family, or whatever. But the recongnition of marriage is something else. To give you an example, I am not white. Do I think people should prejudge me? No. Should there be a law or institution to forbid racist (thinking) against minority? The answer is also no. Not only it is inpractical to enforse such a law, it is unwise to do so. To do that is to believe that the government has the power to tell people how to think. We do not twist law around to do what we want it to, we have to ask ourselves if law is suitable and appliable for the situation. Trust me, I do not like racism and I encountered many, but do I want government to force people how to think? No.

Same theory applies to gay marraige. Do I think gay marraige should be more recongized by people? Yes. Do I think government should change people's definition of marriage, no. If a person want to be racist, frankly it is his/her choice. I will be disappoint of such a choice, but it is a choice nonetheless. If a person do not recongize gay marraige, that is his/her choice too.

Reply #20 November 5, 2004 1:19 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

By the way, this is a very interesint issue, I like to point out. Nightline Tedd Kroppel said during the elections, he has asked many Americans about different issues such as War in Iraq, tax, eduction.... audiences are always very vocal about their opinions and their reasons, except for gay marraiage. He noticed that most people dislike the nation of recongization of gay marraige (I am not talking about civil union). Yet, people won't talk about it. The room he interviewed would have gone very quiet when he asked that question. This is just about the same as what I noticed. Most people oppose gay marraige, but you don't hear them very often. In fact, you wouldn't think there would be more than 10% of the people oppose gay marraige by their voice. They are the true "silent majority".

Reply #21 November 5, 2004 1:30 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Why re-define marriage? Marriage (in it's current incarnation here in the US) is between a man and a woman. Currently, gay couples have, or can have, all the rights of a married couple except the right to leave the partner with the others social security income in the event of one passing away (major problem). If something called a Civil Union gives them this right, is that OK? I have yet to hear (or understand) why some activists are so insistent on it being called marriage.

Isn't this what happens when you mix God and government? Since the main argument seems emotionally based in that marriage is considered so dawg-gone sacred (and recognizing gay marriage would lessen its sanctity), and not so much a matter of whether or not homosexuals deserve the same partnership benefits with respect to insurance and Social Security as heterosexuals, might it not be easier to simply choose a different word? We could say "civilly coupled."

The question of who should receive benefits seems more a legal issue than moral, spiritual, or religious....unless it was God who set up the laws surrounding Social Security and the like.

Marriage is not always entered into as a holy institute (atheists DO get married, for one thing). Two people need only go downtown and file the necessary papers to be recognized as legally married. No church (or other religious endorsement) is required.

Reply #22 November 5, 2004 1:51 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Marriage is not always entered into as a holy institute (atheists DO get married, for one thing). Two people need only go downtown and file the necessary papers to be recognized as legally married. No church (or other religious endorsement) is required.

Exactly correct. I think some people get confused. US government in practice do not recongize marriage in religion ceremony, let it be Catholic or Hindu. Marriage thru religion ceremony has no legal binding. On the other, people can enter civil marriage without the blessing of the churches or temples. So, it is factually incorrect to say the civil marriage is hijacked by churches.

Reply #23 November 5, 2004 2:13 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I cannot marry my donkey. I can shag them all night long and that will be our business.

Actually, having sex with any animal is illegal in most states (I think maybe all states) and it is illegal to own man/beast porn.. It is legal in Mexico though...

Arkansas | Amendment 3: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman; Arkansas would not recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships from another state; would recognize common-law marriages from other states; the Arkansas Legislature would determine rights of married couples.

Georgia | Amendment 1: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Georgia constitution to recognize that marriage is only the union of a man and a woman; no same-sex marriages from other states or jurisdictions would be recognized by the state; no divorces could be granted by a Georgia judge in the case of same-sex marriages.

Kentucky Amendment 1: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Kentucky Constitution "to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?"

Michigan Proposal 04-2: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Mississippi Amendment 1: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution to recognize marriage may be valid only when between a man and a woman; provides that a marriage from another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender is void in Mississippi.

Montana Initiative 96: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution effective immediately to define civil marriage as between a man and a woman; prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex; marriages performed in other states would be recognized in Montana only if between a man and woman.

North Dakota Measure 1: Same-Sex Marriage
State constitution would be amended to define marriage as being a legal union of a man and a woman; provides that no other domestic union can have the same legal effect.

Ohio Amendment 1: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Ohio Constitution to recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman; neither the state nor counties can give legal status to unmarried individuals whose relationships are intended to approximate the design or effect of marriage.

Oklahoma Question 711: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman; only married people are eligible for the benefits for married people; same-sex marriages from other states are not valid in Oklahoma; it would be a misdemeanor to issue a marriage license in Oklahoma; by adding Section 35 to Article 2.

Oregon Measure 36: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Oregon Constitution to say that the state's public policy is that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be legal. (Oregon statutes refer to out-of-state marriages as legal except where the marriage violates Oregon public policy).

Utah Amendment 3: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Utah Constitution to recognize that marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; no other domestic union would be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect; amendment would take effect on January 1, 2005.
Link

Reply #24 November 5, 2004 2:15 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

So, it is factually incorrect to say the civil marriage is hijacked by churches.

Please tell that to the religious right.

Reply #25 November 5, 2004 9:29 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Government make legal binding for marraige. Recongnization of a legal vow/binding is not the same as recongnization of love.

First off why are they using a term that has normally connotated love and religion for years? Second off if it isn't recognizing love then why should it be able to judge one more worthy then another and furthermore dictating what marriage is.

From BadNarick Campagna Website

When government permission is granted, the marriage constitutes a legal, binding contract, with terms that vary over time and with the location of residence. Since these terms are not written down, but are simply a matter of case law and creative legal tactics, a couple rarely finds out what they are until faced with a divorce. Men discover that their claim to custody can be prejudiced simply by their sex. Women find that that their worth as a homemaker varies from state to state. Prenuptial agreements are honored by some courts and heavily discounted by others. The couples find themselves bound, not by what they themselves have agreed upon, but by what government officials dictate.

Like every partnership, marriage should fit the individuals it unites, rather than be a "one-size-fits-all" proposition defined by those outside the relationship. Each marriage should be what the partners want it to be no more, no less. Ideally, the terms of marriage should be defined ahead of time with procedures to modify them as necessary.

Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should be able to enter into a marriage. Government's role in a business partnership is to simply enforce, not dictate, its terms. Government's role in marriage should be the same.