alison watkins alison watkins

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

▼

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

riddle me this batman...

from JoeUser Forums
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??
politics
28,676 views 87 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
The Gay Marriage issue had its day at the polls in 11 states. The final tally? 11 losses. Even in liberal Oregon.

Basically, the people have spoken, and they are vehemently against this. Case Closed. There is no need whatsoever to push an unpopular mandate (that would benefit about 2% of the population) down the throats of the mass majority that clearly opposes it.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
And the Religous Right shouldn't be pushing it down the liberal states throat by trying to amend constitution or making laws banning all Gay Marriage everywhere.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am in MI and voted No of Prop 2 because of the part that said "similar unions".  I believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights as "married" couples when it comes to spousal benefits, rights with custody since so many gay couple share children these days, etc.  I don't agree with it being called "marriage" though.  I am not religious so it has nothing to do with what the bible tells me.  I just feel that marriage is between a man and a woman and any variation of a relationship is not the same.  When my children ask me to explain what marriage is, I will tell them that it is when a man and woman love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.


I don't believe that homosexuals are evil or bad in any way.  I think they are people who are born that way and I wouldn't begrudge them the opportunity to have a loving family of their own.  I believe that gay parents can be as loving if not more to their children.  I do however see them as different and not normal.  A homosexual relationship is not the same as a heterosexual relationship.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm just glad I voted NO in Washington state, and apparently majority agreed with me.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
And the Religous Right shouldn't be pushing it down the liberal states throat by trying to amend constitution or making laws banning all Gay Marriage everywhere.


This is the spin from the left. What is marriage currently? A man and a woman. Any law stating marriage as a man and a woman is only stating WHAT CURRENTLY IS! You can't BAN something that doesn't exist. To ban something implies to take away that which already is, and this is not the case.

It's a convenient way for conservatives to avoid saying that they are disgusted by gay people


This certainly isn't the case for me. I make no distinction among my friends, I'm not interested in their sex lives (gay, bi or hetero), It makes no difference to me. I also don't want them (any of them, of color, disabled, gay, speech impediment, purple mohawk, wiccan, et. al.) discriminated against.

The question still remains and again, I have never heard a reasoned explanation to: Why does it matter if it is called marriage or not? If something by another name resolves the inequity what's the problem?

There is a vocal minority (at least by my unscientific poll) among the gay community that are insisting it be called marriage. I don't get it. It apparently is NOT about the rights they are denied (social security) because even something other than marriage that solves it, is still not enough. So what is it? Geez, I wish someone could explain that to me.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
" This is the spin from the left. What is marriage currently? A man and a woman. Any law stating marriage as a man and a woman is only stating WHAT CURRENTLY IS! You can't BAN something that doesn't exist. To ban something implies to take away that which already is, and this is not the case. "

Marriage is not clearly defined. A marirage is decided and defined by the 2 people involved and their religous nature.

Legally yes I concede it is between a man and woman. But it should be exteneded to 2 indviduals. By making a constitutional amendment they are banning other states from changing this. It would be an opinion by the Right Wing being forced on the whole of the United States on a very personal matter nonetheless. Now if that isn't theocratical I don't know what is.

"Why does it matter if it is called marriage or not? If something by another name resolves the inequity what's the problem?"

I don't think there is a problem I just don't see the reason of copying and pasting the benefits and changing the name. Yes some gays make it unreasonable by insisting it be called marriage instead of civil union even though they could solve their problems by griping although I can see why they are, even if it hinders their agenda. Then again why don't we change your legal union's name into civil union. I mean we don' t want the government to have control over a purely religous term do we?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Statistically, most proponents of gay marriage are not actually married (according to the exit polls).

It's kind of like people who don't play golf trying to argue for a rule change in how golf is played.

I support civil union rights for gays. But gay marriage? No. Words mean things. And it's more of that "in your face, we don't respect your sensibilities, right wing red neck bigot losers!" that cost Kerry the election.

 

Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
Marriage is not clearly defined.


mar·riage n.

the state of being married; relation between husband and wife.

hus·band

a man joined to a woman by marriage; a male spouse.

wife

A woman joined to a man in marriage; a female spouse.

Looks pretty clear to me (it is defined) . I agree, I don't see why they don't just accept Civil Unions and end the debate. Pushing for the word marriage seems to place the whole thing in jeopardy (as far as apparent majority opinion)
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, the notion of gay marriage doesn't frighten me in the least. I appear to be in the minority on this issue, however.

Given that many Democrats are citing the sentiment against gay marriage as a decisive factor in their election post-mortems (and huffing about how shamelessly the Republicans played on homophobia for political gain), I find it quite interesting that even in the strongly blue states where they were on the ballot, the gay-marriage-related amendments were favored by more voters than voted for Kerry, by a substantial margin. So I think the Dems need to re-think the whole thing. Not that they will.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
The problem with gay marriage is that marriage is not just an acknowlegement of a relationship, it is one that is recognized by whatever deity you happen to believe in. For most in this country that would be the Christan god, but since we have this freedom of religion thing that shouldn't matter. What does matter is that by putting the term marriage beside a gay marriage, you put a religious connotation next to it. By doing that you force those religions to accept homosexuality as ok. Most religions consider it a sin. We should not hate the sinner, but the sin. All of us have sinned.
I have no problem with a civil union with all the rights of law that a marriage has, but cannot accept the religious connection. Its not surprising that ammendments to ban gay marriages passed. Recent national polling suggests that only a third of the population favors gay marriage. What I have a problem with is that these votes to ban gay marriage were a transparent attempt to mobilize the conservative right to vote in greater strength and win the election for Bush and the Republicans. The issue would pull even those from states who did not have a referendum. Kerry, like Bush, was publically opposed to gay marriage. What is not clear is whether the President would back a proposal for civil unions. I have a feeling he would not for fear of alienating his base. That same recent poll shows that 37% of Americans oppose even civil unions for gays. Do these people believe that by denying homosexuals that in frustration they will go straight? By having civil unions, states would be promoting non-promiscuity amongst the gay community which in turn would lower the risk of AIDS. Jesus taught compassion. He forgave a prostitute, why not a homosexual. Focus a little more on the New Testament.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
mar·riage n.


You want to play this one by the dictionary... hmmm

Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
From Webster’s
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
I think the Dems need to re-think the whole thing. Not that they will


Clinton already told them this (he told Kerry to strongly state he supported Civil Unions and was against gay marriage). Eh, why listen to a two term President though, what the hell could he know?
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top
From Webster’s


Not from my Websters, or any other dictionary I can find, online or otherwise. It is interesting that the first definition has added "contractual relationship recognized by law". I wonder if they'll remove the second one once states define it. Guess that just shows that all those people that don't want it re-defined had cause to vote in those amendments. Marriage has been a man + woman since the 1750's.

it is one that is recognized by whatever deity you happen to believe in


So atheists aren't married?
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not from my Websters, or any other dictionary I can find, online or otherwise.


It’s in the new version of Webster’s (and online : Link). Oxford dictionary also amended its definition of marriage last year. Wether you like it or not (or pass many laws against it), the term and concept of gay marriages are part of the general culture of the occidental world and won’t disappear.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is the opinion I gave in my blog (Glimps into an insane mind.... Mine, part 1 politics) Link

Gay marrige.... I think civil union would be a better word for all married partners that the cerimonies were not performed in a church, Civil Union should be what the Government recognizes, leave mariage to the church. Would it be possible for a Gay couple to get married, sure, but I think you should able to be married without the states regognition of it, or married and Civilly United, with the gov reconizing the CU, or just Civilly United with the Gov recognition. After all, quite freqently, a male/female couple does get church married and forgets to file the paperwork with the gov, and the church still recognizes the mariage. That would seperate the church from the state, save the "sanctaty of mariage" and still allow GL couples to be legally united as a couple.. middle again.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
I side with msladydeath. Makes perfect sense to this conservative.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #35 By: whoman69 - 11/6/2004 1:41:14 AM
The problem with gay marriage is that marriage is not just an acknowlegement of a relationship, it is one that is recognized by whatever deity you happen to believe in. For most in this country that would be the Christan god, but since we have this freedom of religion thing that shouldn't matter. What does matter is that by putting the term marriage beside a gay marriage, you put a religious connotation next to it. By doing that you force those religions to accept homosexuality as ok. Most religions consider it a sin. We should not hate the sinner, but the sin. All of us have sinned.


I could not have said it better myself.
Reply #43 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.


Have you read what I wrote? You go on and on about something I explained several times. I said the issue at hand now is not about legal rights. If it is about legal right, then Kerry, Clinton and Bush have already endosed the notion of civil union between gay couples. This new binding shall grant couples all the equal rights and responsibilities. But no, the arguement is about the naming of this binding. "Marriage" versus "Civil union". So I am not understanding why you keep talking about "worth". Here is the problem you are not seeing. Most American support the idea of civil union, but not gay marriage. Because civil union grants exactly the same benefits and responsibilities as normal marraige, your argument of legal inequility falls apart. However, government has no right to tell people how to define something. This is the problem when someone insists that the government must call a civil union, a marraige. Then US government would be playing a role of "defining language and culture."
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
And the Religous Right shouldn't be pushing it down the liberal states throat by trying to amend constitution or making laws banning all Gay Marriage everywhere.
Why not?
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Because civil union grants exactly the same benefits and responsibilities as normal marraige, your argument of legal inequility falls apart. "

But why? Your just changing one word. I have no problem with granting them civil unions to them that have the same rights... but honestly what's the point. To protect the meaning of marriage? Then why don't you solve the whole problem all together by stopping government from using the term marriage and applying the term civil union to all these government recognized unions. That would solve everything because then the government would't be trespassing on such a 'sacred' bond in any way because it wouldn't be using the termed.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
DPS,

You are missing the point completely. How many times do you have to miss read people. Calm down and read my writing carefully. I am not against using the term marriage for gay couple. However, I am against government using a term which is not agreed by majority of the people. If a great majority of the people want to call gay marriage is a marraige , good. However, before that happens, government does not and should not have the right to change definition for people. As to why people don't accept gay civil union as marraige, you have to ask them. For the record, I vote against any amendment to be made for defining marraige.

As for your second question of why don't we stop government from using the term marraige and only grant civil union to all couples. Fine, IF that is what most people want. You don't seem to understand the role of government and the role of people. Government do not serve you and your purpose. What you have been saying is "I don't care for the majority of the people, I only want what I want and I don't care if I will create a dictatoral government" No matter how correct you think you are, you have to ask if changing defintion of a word and culture is government's responsibility. My argument is that government does not change defintion, only people do. You were arguing that we should let government do it. The problem is what goes around, comes around. Let's say in 10 years 70% of the American finally accept gay marraige as marraige, should government now have the right to change people's defintion and prevent people using the term marraige for gay.

You see if government has the right to grant the word "marriage" to gay couple, it also has the right to take it away tomorrow. The question you have to ask yourself before replying to me is: does government has that right and responsibility?
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I don't care for the majority of the people, I only want what I want and I don't care if I will create a dictatoral government"

Of course I care and i have never even proposed going against the majority. I am just trying to understand why people are against it.

"Fine, IF that is what most people want. You don't seem to understand the role of government and the role of people. "

I understand that. I was offering an alternative. Not forcing an alternative. I could only do that if I was in control.

I am not forcing alternaritives or calling people bigots for not accepting them. I am trying to offering them and trying to understand the reasoning behind not accepting it.

"You see if government has the right to grant the word "marriage" to gay couple, it also has the right to take it away tomorrow. The question you have to ask yourself before replying to me is: does government has that right and responsibility?"

Well it depends. The government will do whatever it want depending on majority opinion and representation. Though this could all be avoided if the government decided to remove the whole term of marriage from their laws and left the word to it's predominatly religous connotation and exchange it for civil union.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well it depends. The government will do whatever it want depending on majority opinion and representation. Though this could all be avoided if the government decided to remove the whole term of marriage from their laws and left the word to it's predominatly religous connotation and exchange it for civil union.


But that is my point, heterosexual couples want to be called marriage. They don't want to be called civil union.

Here is a off topic issue for you. Blacks were not granted the same right as whites before 1965. The government has the right/responsibility to grant voting right to all people (civil right), so it did. However, government didn't stop people decribing blacks as blacks. The government do not has right to regulate how to call a black person: a black, a negro, or an African American. The word "nigge*" is an exception because it is considered as a fighting word. So in drawing a parallel, government can amend laws to grant gay couple the same rights, but the only way today US governement can forcefully change the word "civil union" to "marraige" is that it finds "civil union" as an offensive words, which will never happens. Only under these special situations, government can regulate language usage.
 So in drawing a parallel, government can amend laws to grant gay couple the same rights, but the only way today US governement can forcefully change the word "civil union" to "marraige" is that it finds "civil union" as an offensive words, which will never happens. Only under these special situations, government can regulate language usage.
Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top
Now theres food for thought. Ive always thought gay marriage should be legalized, and heres two points Ive thought of:

1. If you think gays can ruin the sanctity of marriage, ask yourself: How will two people joining together in a union ruin something that is basically joining two people into a union any more than destroying said union?

2. If you think God is against gays or some other religious reason, then why would gays be allowed to exist?
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
"But that is my point, heterosexual couples want to be called marriage. They don't want to be called civil union. "

They can call themselves married. I am not say regulate the word.They can call themselves married all they want. What I am saying is regulate the use of the word when a government recognizes these unions. They should recognize them all as civil unions(heterosexual or homosexual) rather then part of the population as marriage and part of the pupulation as civil union. Plus it will leave marriage to a postiviely religous connotation and people can use it in any matter they want. The argument for gay marriage will rest, simplicty will be restored, people won't have to worry about govenrment's destruction of their religous term ( since they can just refuse to beleive certain people (gays or other people who according to their religion are not supposed to be considered married) , and everyone will have secured their best interests and beleif in the definition of the term marriage. It might not seem conventional or practical but it seems like it could solve the problem.

"Only under these special situations, government can regulate language usage."

I am not suggest the government change language usage in everyday life between the public but rather in the way it recongizces these unions between consenting partners.