Gay Marriage

[Saydrah]

I don't see what the big fuss over gay marriage is

I think ALL marriages should be gay!

If the USA was 200% more British, they'd all agree with me....


Being serious though, I think it's inexcusable that gay marriage is still not legal in our country. I mean, who the HELL thinks heterosexuals are doing a great job of preserving the fine old institution of marriage? Raise your hands! 50% divorce rate going once, going twice? Anyone?

As Mae West said, "Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not quite ready for an institution."

I'm all for the "marriage is a union between two or more consenting adults," and would be even if I weren't a bisexual, polyamorous chickie myself.

[Sylvia727]

I think the USA is slowly and surely moving towards gay marriage. Several states have 'civil unions', corporations are factoring domestic partnerships into their decisions, and more and more people are becoming educated about the issues. It's really just a matter of time.

[AFPheonix]

I'm hoping within a generation that it will become a reality.
It still pisses me off that even in a state as liberal as Oregon, idiots managed to get a gay marriage ban passed. We have a domestic partnership law that was just enacted, but the same idiots who campaigned on the gay marriage thing are trying to bring the domestic partnership law to account via the initiative process. Just leave them alone, you fuckers.

[DexX]

...even if I weren't a bisexual, polyamorous chickie myself.

Another one! Hooray! We will take over the universe. Robert Heinlein* said so.

Seriously, though, the human race is slowly, ever so slowly, moving toward more acceptance and open-mindedness. Same-sex marriage is only a matter of time.

* Actually, to be honest, I've never read any Heinlein. What kind of poly man am I anyway?

[Saydrah]

I cut my teeth on Heinlein. My dad read him to me for bedtime stories. Maybe that's why I turned out poly

*high fives* There's another of us on the main CS site, too. Woot! Our numbers continue to grow!

And yes, I totally agree about society's gradual march toward openmindedness. I feel very glad to be born in this generation and era- I hear so many stories about how hard it was to come out as GBLTQ or poly, mostly from older people, and I have never really had trouble with it, beyond the many people who don't understand that poly =/= easy/trashy. It was more of a "Oh, that's something people can be? So that's why I'm never jealous and don't understand the idea of monogamy..." and similarly with the bi thing, it wasn't so much soul searching and a momentous revelation as, "Hm. I just woke up with my best female friend. I think that makes me bi. I should probably tell my boyfriend."

Even my parents have been quite accepting- Pops figured it out on his own somehow, and my mother was just a little confused as to why anyone would want to deal with more than one man at a time.

Given that 30-some years ago homosexuality was still a "mental illness," I'm hoping that by the time my niece/surrogate daughter since I don't want kids (7 at the moment) has to figure these things out, she'll be able to dream all about her legal and legitimate wedding to one or more people of whichever gender she darn well prefers, and nobody except a few crazies will be bothered.

[DexX]

I have asked my boyfriend to marry me, and he's said yes, so now we just have to wait for the legislation to catch up!

Legally recognised plural marriage is going to be a much more complicated issue than same-sex marriage, though. Two queers want to marry, then the state just has to say okay and the old model gets renovated to accommodate same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. Get more than two people involved, though, and everything has to be reassessed from the fundamentals. You're no longer talking about one legal spouse, but the possibility of several. Whole swathes of legislation would have to be rewritten. Old simple things like "If the account-holder should die, 100% of the account shall pass to their legal spouse" suddenly get complicated: Both spouses? Two account holders, or two halved accounts? And so it goes.

About the only way I can see it working legally is forming some kind of "domestic corporate body" (sounds romantic, I know) which would essentially be a legal body of two or more people which members can "sign into". Essentially, it would be a single "traditional" marriage but with three or more people.

It wouldn't be perfect, of course - I mean, I'm legally married, and so is my boyfriend, so there are already two "compounded legal entities" in existence. Short of divorce, the only way I could marry my man would be for all four of us to be married under the same agreement, despite the fact that my wife and his wife are friends but not romantically involved.

Reading back over this, it really puts paid to the "slippery slope" argument. Maybe legal plural marriages will come in the next few decades, or maybe they won't, but they definitely won't follow hot on the heels of same-sex marriage - they are very different set-ups, and both face their own unique legislative challenges.

[BookstoreEscapee]

OK, I realize I’m reiterating some old ground here, but I just came into this thread (well, the whole site, really) and I don’t often get the chance to really formulate my opinions into words, so, well, I’m gonna do it now

So here's to hoping no one gets injured while out of the state, because the other will not be able to see or be able to make decisions in the first's stead.

I suppose each partner could set up a medical power of attorney for the other in the event of injury/illness...it's unfortunate that they should have to go to extra lengths just to ensure rights that married couples get just by saying "I do" though.

I find that humorous--the Act was signed into law...by the very same president who seemed hell-bent on destroying his own marriage. Anyone see the hypocrisy there?

But he was trying to destroy it with another WOMAN, so it's OK...

If they change the definition of a same sex union to a "union" or some other word, then I am totally in agreement...but I know people will disagree with me because they don't see it as equal.

I see your point, but you're right, I do disagree. For one thing, it's just a word. Why does the church or anyone else get to "own" it? Also, using phrases such as "Civil Union" sets the gay couple's relationship apart as something different. They want to be married because they are two people who love each other and want to spend their life together. How is that different from a heterosexual couple getting married? Most straight people don't think of getting married in terms of the social/financial/etc. benefits they will gain by doing so...they think of it in the romantic terms of "we are two people who love each other and want to spend our life together so we are getting married." Why should a committed gay couple be portrayed as something different?

Yes, very welcome...Without opposing views there's nothing really to debate, and then it's just us loony liberals telling each other how right we all are...

Will-Mun, you are so right!

You wanna feel icky about man man love? Whatever, you don't understand that kind of attraction, thats you're right.

By that logic:
Hell, I see a lot of women with guys who I would never in a million years be attracted to. I don't understand that attraction, either. Do I get to deny them marriage rights too?

But okay...Lets go onto the argument... If we allow gay people to marry, when will it end, Pedophile marriages? Animal Marriages? Necrophiliac Marriages?!

Let me ask a question... Are ANY of those partners a legal adult authorized to sign a Marriage license? NO!

Thank you. I've never had a good comeback for that argument. I'll have to remember that. I just could never grasp how anyone's brain goes from "2 consenting adults who happen to have the same equipment below the belt" to "OMG he wants to marry a goat!"

Like cousins, brothers, sisters, whatever. It is neither more nor less natural to have sex with your sister.

Actually, first cousins can marry in 22 states:
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/7286/Where.htm
I believe second cousins can marry in all states.

You'll bring up the fact that they produce children with birth defects, well gay people have a higher spread rate of HIV, AIDS, than intravenous drug users.

I don't know the stats on that so I will take this claim at face value (though I doubt it’s true), but I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The spread of HIV is, for the most part and especially in this context, a consequence of lifestyle choices. A committed, monogamous gay couple has no more risk of passing on HIV than a straight couple in a monogamous relationship, provided both parties have tested negative and don't engage in other risky behavior like IV drugs. The possibility of genetic problems arising between married cousins (which according to some recent studies I've read about, which I do not have links to at the moment, is not as high as most people think) is not passed on by the same "mechanism." Simply having sex risks HIV transmission; genetic problems only (potentially) arise if the couple has children.

There is actually a very simple solution to the whole question of same-sex unions, but it isn't one that the fundies like very much.

You ask the fundies, "Is marriage a religious ceremony or a legal procedure?"

I like your thinking!

[AFPheonix]

Thank you. I've never had a good comeback for that argument. I'll have to remember that. I just could never grasp how anyone's brain goes from "2 consenting adults who happen to have the same equipment below the belt" to "OMG he wants to marry a goat!"

For some reason, the most conservative people have the dirtiest minds. Hell, they give me a run for the money.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Why should a committed gay couple be portrayed as something different?

According to those opposed to gay people marrying, the express purpose of marriage is to produce children. Homosexual couples, barring outside means, are unable to do this. (This is, incidentally, also why married straight couples get more benefits; it's assumed that such tax breaks will encourage propagation)

Nevermind, of course, that for CENTURIES people married for reasons that had nothing to do with love - the majority of those marriages had everything to do with securing political alliances, or breeding more farm hands, or passing on nobles' names/lineage. And very often the female had no choice in the matter - her father snapped his fingers, it was as good as done.

Given that there's no clear evidence that children raised in a homosexual coupled household turn out any worse than those raised in a heterosexual coupled household, and that more evidence points towards homosexuality being an innate trait instead of learned from seeing two men or two women kissing each other the way that Mommy kisses Daddy, it really doesn't make sense IMO to deny two people who love and respect each other from codifying their relationship.

For some reason, the most conservative people have the dirtiest minds.

If you weren't getting any, you'd probably obsess on it too. And for that matter, ever notice how they LOVE to fixate on homosexuality, despite the fact that they claim to be straight themselves?

[AFPheonix]

Isn't that the truth? Is it just because the missus doesn't like the hershey highway or something?

[DarthRetard]

I do believe it eventually comes down to a religious debate at its most basic form. In Leviticus the bible clearly states that "thou shall not lay with another man" (paraphrasing of course, i'll look it up word for in a second).

[Saydrah]

Leviticus also says that you should not eat shell fish, sit on the same stool a menstruating woman has sat on, or re use a pot a dead lizard has fallen into. Leviticus also castrated himself long before anesthetic was invented. Now, tell me again why a single word of Leviticus is applicable to modern life?

Bible thumpers love to take one quote totally out of context and use it to meddle in the lives of others.

[Seshat]

I do believe it eventually comes down to a religious debate at its most basic form. In Leviticus the bible clearly states that "thou shall not lay with another man" (paraphrasing of course, i'll look it up word for in a second).

And why should a line in a religious book dictate law in a country which states that one of its core values is the principle of a separation between church and state?

[Sylvia727]

And why should a line in a religious book dictate law in a country which states that one of its core values is the principle of a separation between church and state?

Because something like 70% of USA is Christian (don't quote me on that exact number). Since their religion tells them that it's icky, then they decide that they don't want it around them. There's no logic involved in the thought process at all. Of course, not all denominations and parishes are homophobic, and not all homophobics are Xian. But there is a pretty large crossover.

[lordlundar]

In terms of legal, I don't see the issue. Union is union. Marriage is a religious term though, so if a religion doesn't like it, then they don't have to refer to it as such. As well, a priest/minister/rabbi/etc. doesn't have to perform the ceremony if they do not wish to.

That said, it is a personal choice which is theirs alone. It is the couple's choice to get the legal status, and it's the religious leader's right to refuse religious recognition (though not to decry it). Anyone else pushing their beliefs into these particular peoples lives need to take a long walk off a VERY short pier as far as I'm concerned.