Gay marriages

Okay, I'll start the crazy debates.

I was wondering what everyone thinks of gay marriages. I have always had a pretty open mind about gays, I think. I had several good friends from high school that were gay but at the time I had no clue because sexual orientation was so far off my radar back then that it didn't even occur to me. Fast forward to my 10 year high school reunion and WHOA, a whole Oprah-sized closetful came out. But I didn't think any differently of them after that I knew.

I don't know if it's an "aberration" to be gay but I do think that biologically, homosexuals would obliterate their own kind because they cannot procreate, a clear necessity in continuing the species. But it does seem cruel to me to deny people the chance to love someone if it's mutual. I can't imagine deliberately choosing to be ridiculed and discriminated against so I find it hard to swallow as a lifestyle choice. I definitely do not condone any sort of discrimination, hatred, or homophobia.

Having said that, I don't think it's a good idea to allow gay marriages. I know that seems contrary to what I just said but I'm afraid of all doors being opened in terms of everybody and their dog laying claim to a legitimate marriage purely on the idea that "they love each other." Should cousins be allowed to marry? Stepbrothers and stepsisters? Where will the line be drawn? If everybody can get married, where's the sanctity in the institution? Or has the institution of marriage fallen so far from grace that we just shouldn't even care anymore? Especially since it's clear that many heterosexuals haven't even figured out how to stay together anyway?

Unlike most other controversial issues, I find this one to be one in which I think I could actually be swayed with a good argument as to why gay marriages should be allowed. I've read quite a bit on this and so far, no one has written anything compelling enough to sway me.

Any thoughts?

[spotty_dog]

I should know better...caution, I've gotta go to work soon so I'm not going to proofread this till I get there, but please take it as an academic argument and not an angry rant.

I can tell you that while homosexuality might not be an evolutionarily successful behavior pattern, we are living in a society of luxury where many people are able to perpetuate their genes that wouldn't be able to in a more rigorous state of natural selection. From babies born by C-section to paraplegics living normal lives, I just don't think that "naturalness" is a valid argument. Besides which, there is homosexual behavior in many other species than our own. It might even provide a species-wide benefit that we're not recognizing. (Like, for example, in the case of the current overpopulation of our species. Fewer breeders takes a bit of pressure off.) Remember that natural selection is about perpetuating genes and species, not individuals. You're letting a bit of bias show when you talk about gay people being their own "kind". They're your "kind" too. When their relatives procreate, when they have kids (potentially of any sexual orientation) of their own genetic material they're probably perpetuating some tendency to gayness.

Why shouldn't marriage be defined by love? Why would there be a cascade to immorality if every two people who love each other were permitted to call their loved one their husband or their wife? Where do you draw that line? My first cousins are indeed getting married. They love each other as much as I've ever seen two people love each other. (They're also not related by blood.) Does their marriage undermine yours? What other people do in their marriages has no impact on what I do in mine. No number of gay couples putting a legal tie into their relationship is going to change the validity of my marriage to my husband.

Talking about the "sanctity" of marriage in this context has about as much meaning as the "sanctity" of welfare or social security. Marriage is a legal affair affecting the way the government treats you: from two individuals you become one couple, subject to special treatment. Every couple deserves the privilege of creating that legal bond if any couple does. As it turns out, there's a spiritual religious affair by the same name that's generally treated in the same ceremony. But the religious aspect of marriage is, by virtue of separation of church and state, none of the government's business.

Because of this it's been suggested (and is the position of the Democratic candidate in the upcoming Presidential election) that gay couples should be given the legal rights of marriage but that it should come under a special name: civil union. But that's not enough. We don't need to sit around worrying about differences. People are people are people. Boys marrying girls, girls marrying girls, ex-girls marrying hermaphrodites. What they do in the bedroom is their business. On the surface, what matters is that their legal union is identical to ours. Call them all civil unions or call them all marriages, but enough with the discrimination. Ya know?

[fluffhead]

In essence, the government can decree tax breaks or other benefits to "civil unions" and has no right to discriminate between hetero marriages, "shackups," or gay couples. But where does the govt come off legislating marriage? I think religious institutions should do whatever marriage business they need to do, and govt should butt out.
Thus the civil union issue would be granted to whomever wants it or needs it, and marriage would be only a religious term.
In a perfect world, I don't think couples should get benefits not granted to single people. Joint filing should not include any breaks (other than child tax credits or whatever) for being married. Health benefits shouldn't be legislated by govt.

[SueC]

Having several gay friends, I have to say I'm in full support of gay marriage. I think gay couples get screwed when it comes to property and custody issues. Some friends of mine just fought (and won) to allow the partner to legally adopt the other gal's son. They had been together something like 11 years, one of the gals adopts a baby from Mexico but legally he was only hers. He is almost 5 now and the other partner is finally legally one of his parents, even though she has spent the last 5 years raising him. What would have happened if something horrible had happened to the adoptive mother before then? The partner would have had no claim to him even though he knew her as his mother!
Aside from that, I don't feel it is my place as a straight person to tell a gay person who they can and cannot marry. Why should they be denied the moment of walking down the aisle and actually getting to define the person they plan on spending the rest of their life with as their spouse. And in this country where half of all marriages end in divorce, I don't see how gay people can bring down the perception of marriage anymore than we have already brought it down ourselves. I belong to a pretty liberal church (I'm Episcopalian) and our Priest actually delivered a sermon where he feels we are being called to open our minds to the issues of gays and marriage and I have to say I agree with him. I live in a neighborhood that probably is 1/3 gay and it kind of makes me sad that while it is socially acceptable for my dh and I to walk down the sidewalk holding hands, these couples are expected to appear in public as if they are monogamous friends. I realize I'd have to explain to my kids about homosexuality if gays were more open in public, but my kids are already open-minded about it since they are growing up around it. Maya never really questioned that Gabe (the little boy I took care of for 3 years) has two mommies while she has a mommy and daddy. She just accepted it. I've had his moms babysit my kids several times and it never occured to them that their home and lifestyle is any different than ours.
Well, that's my two cents. Good topic Thu Van! I'm sure it will stir up all kinds of controversy!!!

[DCJenn]

I think, for me the question is "what is marriage" period.

There are two distinct ways tolooks at it- a civil union- i.e. legal performed by any of a number of people who are legally qualified to do so- including religious personnel, judges, mail-order clerks, etc. The other, is the religious union- which may or may not legalize the union.

For some, the important part of the "coming together" part is the recognizing of the union in front of whatever higher being a couple may believe. For others, it's the recognition that legally these two people are bound together and are therefore responsible for each others debts, children, advanced directives for medical decisions, etc.

I think it's horrible that my co-worker who has spent the better part of her life with her partner, raised a child with this woman, bought a house together, etc.- 1) can't depend on her partner being recognized by medical personnel as the person to make decisions (instead, it's either her brother or her 18 year old daughter) and 2) can't cover her partner under her health insurance and 3)can't share in other financial decisions- like social security (although that may actually not be so bad) etc.

In my opinion, if you are personally opposed to homosexuality and you find it distasteful or immoral or whatever, and you belong to a religious group that believes the same way you do, then by all means, don't recognize gay marriage, don't promote it within your religion, don't adovcate that your higher ups within acknowledge gay marriage. But- 1) It's exceptionally hypocritical to continue to portray marriage between men and women as an example. For one, it's a relatively new social construct that accompanied the development of the middle class. Arranged marriages still happen, it's still an economic process in most other countries. Secondly, male-female abuse is significantly more common than male-male abuse and exceptionally more common than female-female abuse.

So, I am all for recognizing a legal relationship for what it is- (on a personal note- I was in no way going to up and move to Texas to be with some peds resident who, yes I happened to love, without the support of a legally recognized partnership. Did I love him, yes. Did I want to spend the rest of my life with him? yes. Did I make it clear that I was not going to leave my house, my job, my family and my friends without some guarantee that if he decided to flake out, I was legally entitled to compensation. Damned straight. Unromantic, but realistic) Keep the religion out of the decision and it is pretty clear to me- people deserve to have their unions recognized as legal entities- period.

Separation of church and state, just like the founding fathers said...

Jenn

Alison, I want to clarify that when I said "their own kind" I did not in any way mean that heterosexuals were superior or homosexuals were inferior in anyway, something I think you may believe I inferred. So in that sense, since I am not homosexual, I am not their "kind." But if that sounds impersonal or harsh, then let me rephrase it. Well, nevermind, because the sentence in which I used it was a weak argument and I don't believe homosexuality will ever just be obliterated anyway.

However, I must ask you if you are to take issues with politically incorrect wording, to please not use "breeders" to describe people who have more than their allowed number of children, in your opinion, more than 2. I wonder if you would support government only allowing people to only have 2 children and then stopping. Because then it would ironic to say no, government should have no say in who can get married, but it's perfectly okay for Big Brother to say how many kids one can have using one's own genes.

As far as okaying relatives getting married, would you also support sisters getting married? Or brothers and sisters? Father and daughter? Uncle and niece? Why not, if they love each other, right? What about Farmer Joe and his pet donkey? If I looked beyond the "ick" factor, I would venture to say that no, their marriage would neither be better or worse than mine. People who get married have their own issues and personalities to resolve to make them livable (whether gay or straight) and I definitely do not have any judgement as to whose marriage is better. So, no, I do not think their marriages would undermine mine or that somehow mine was inherently better. But I don't think not calling all unions a marriage is somehow discriminatory just because it's given a different name. Am I discriminating against the color blue when I call it blue and not yellow? Okay, blue, sorry, he's yellow, you're blue. How is that bad? Yellow's a good color, I like yellow! I fully support yellow having the same legal rights as blue enjoys.

Fluffhead, your post makes perfect sense. I can support civil unions and their legal rights and make "marriages" only in religious context. And I agree, unless you've got children, couples should not be allowed special tax breaks. Only problem with keeping government out of our lives is, well, it's pretty much everywhere in it.

Sue, yours is a very compassionate view. I do think it's unfair for gay couples. I definitely do not teach my children to be hateful in that regard.

[Auspicious]

I think they're already married.

They're making commitments to one another, honoring each other, making sacrifices, having their commitments sanctified by the clergy member of their choice, buying houses, raising kids, sticking together for better or for worse--doing all the exact same things my conservative, midwestern, married-35-years parents do. That ship has already sailed. The question is whether we're going to start giving the legal rights and governmental recognition of marriage to these couples. I haven't heard a single convincing reason to tell these people no.

I know a number of gay couples in their late fifties and early sixties (friends of my aunt . . . uh, who is straight, for the record) who have been together fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years. I look at those relationships and they're healthy and admirable--I don't see anything that would be lost by, or degrading about, granting them a legal marriage. Who would be hurt by it? The sanctity of marriage is more threatened by J-Lo.

I think civil unions were a transitionary device whose time has come and gone. I think it's fine to use the same terminology in this case for both governmental and religious purposes--otherwise your still setting up two classes of relationships, and still giving people the chance to say "well, you're not really married . . ." The only thing it accomplishes is that now it's switching the prejudice to be against non-religous couples rather than gay couples. I don't want to be pushed out of the marriage club any more than gay people do.

I also don't think we can deny homosexuals access to marriage based on what other, unrelated groups might ask for in the future. They used to say the same thing about interracial marriage: "Oh now ANYONE can get married--what's next?" People who want to marry their cousin or goat or their third simultaneous wife or whatever have nothing to do with gay people. Or each other, really--each is a separate issue. And as Alison pointed out, a lot of those people already CAN get married. I was pretty shocked when I went to look up the marriage license requirements in my home state and learned that it's legal to marry a blood sibling as long as the woman is over 50 years old. Whoa!

I definitely respect the right of individual churches to only recognize the marriages they choose (many, certainly, would not recognize my marriage to FH, and that's their right), but when it comes to the legal aspect, I think this is a civil right that's currently being unfairly denied to homosexuals, and I'm not okay with that. I can understand people feeling tentative about it because it's new, but I think we have to put that aside and give these people their due.

[Auspicious]

I cross-posted with the last several people.

[spotty_dog]

Alison, I want to clarify that when I said "their own kind" I did not in any way mean that heterosexuals were superior or homosexuals were inferior in anyway, something I think you may believe I inferred. So in that sense, since I am not homosexual, I am not their "kind." But if that sounds impersonal or harsh, then let me rephrase it. Well, nevermind, because the sentence in which I used it was a weak argument and I don't believe homosexuality will ever just be obliterated anyway.

And again I find myself embroiled in an argument in which I am called upon to defend a point I didn't really make. I knew better, I knew I wouldn't be clear, and yet I posted anyway so I have only myself to blame.

You said, "biologically, homosexuals would obliterate their own kind because they cannot procreate". As I read your sentence, I understood that you probably meant that if everyone were gay there'd be no procreation and the population would die out. But my point was that biologically, homosexuals could well be contributing to the success of their "kind", the species Homo sapiens, precisely because they don't procreate, and that a diversity produces stability, and that the species is probably better off for its homosexual contingent.

However, I must ask you if you are to take issues with politically incorrect wording, to please not use "breeders" to describe people who have more than their allowed number of children, in your opinion, more than 2.

Wow. You've extrapolated so far beyond what I actually wrote. I used the word "breeders" to indicate heterosexual child-producers. This is conventional jargon or slang and I'm sorry if I used it loosely or out of context. Number of children has nothing to do with the term; I am childless (as opposed to childfree; another bit of jargon) but am a breeder and will be whether I have no children or ten. I'm going to skip the issue of the government's influence on number of children, mostly because I still have a lot of thinking to do on the matter, and I don't feel that I have a defensible position at this point.

But I don't think not calling all unions a marriage is somehow discriminatory just because it's given a different name.

But here's the thing. Say Jim and John unite in a civil ceremony. Their friends and relatives call up. "How's civilly united life treating you?" Jim introduces John at a party, "And this is my civilly united partner, John." Just 'cause they're both male, suddenly the language makes them *different*, and in my eye, marginalizes their union as something less valid. Why can't Jim go down on one knee and ask John, "Will you marry me?" Why can't John pledge to be the best darned husband to Jim that he can be, for better or for worse?

In addition, there's the folks that don't fit into easy definitions of man and woman. If a female-to-male transsexual wants to marry a man, can he do so before obtaining a sexual reassignment surgery and not after?

Fluffhead, your post makes perfect sense. I can support civil unions and their legal rights and make "marriages" only in religious context.

I'm afraid that you've come at my post with a view for conflict, because this is what I supported too. It's just equality I want to see: if it takes a civil union to gain legal rights as a couple, sign me up, just don't double check for necessary equipment first. If I have to go before a minister to call it a marriage, that kinda sucks but it's acceptable as long as that's what everybody has to do, since there are several religions that will recognize a loving bonded union regardless of the gender of the participants -- the minister who married me has presided over such ceremonies. But I don't want to raise my kids in a country where the constitution explicitly strips civil rights from people based on their sexual orientation, because that concept goes against some of my most fundamental beliefs.

And now I'm really going to stay away from this site. I've always had trouble fitting into online communities where my ready smile and soft-spoken nature are replaced by a sterile medium and a tendency to type my mind without thinking. I wanted finally to stick around someplace long enough to be "one of the crowd" but it just doesn't seem that was meant to be. FWIW I've spent maybe two hours trying to compose this reply in between spats of work, but I know it'll still be inflammatory, and there's not much I can do about that.

Best wishes to all.

Alison: Well, I guess there were misunderstandings abound. I misunderstood your meaning/use of "breeders." Sorry. I guess I got a little ranckled when told that I was "letting my bias" show. I am trying very hard to be open-minded about this and those that know me know that I wouldn't start a thread on something just to scare or piss people off. So I hope you really didn't take anything I said personally because it certainly wasn't meant to be. I certainly wasn't trying to target you in anyway. As far as fitting in goes, your views by far fit in way more easily than mine do. So know that you are in good company with your views and not be ashamed to share them. Even as a minority in terms of my conservative views, I am not ashamed of my opinions and neither should you be.

Anyway, since I've already managed to be an a#@ without even trying, I'll let this go and have an early cocktail.

[Auspicious]

But I don't think not calling all unions a marriage is somehow discriminatory just because it's given a different name. Am I discriminating against the color blue when I call it blue and not yellow? Okay, blue, sorry, he's yellow, you're blue. How is that bad? Yellow's a good color, I like yellow! I fully support yellow having the same legal rights as blue enjoys.

So does that mean that if they were going to recategorizie all unions in such a way that your union would now be considered a "civil union" and not a "marriage" you would be okay with that? (Like all people joined west of the Mississippi are going to be civil unions and all people joined east of the Mississippi are going to be marriages. Or all people joined before they reached the age of thirty are going to be called civil unions and all people joined when they were over the age of thirty are going to be called marriages. Or whatever.) Would you be okay with being in the "only civil unions allowed" group and not feel discriminated against?

'Cause I'd be alarmed, even if I had the same legal rights as the marriage group, and I'd still feel discriminated against.

[PrincessFiona]

I'll send you a pacifier, ThuVan.. (inside joke....sorry)!

First let me say I think it's great that the debate forum is already moving...second...I can't believe that you started the debate ThuVan 8)

I believe that homosexuality has a biological basis...it is not a lifestlye choice. As to the gay marriage issue...I'm on the fence. I think that gay couples should have the right to form a sacred union and be protected under the same laws that heterosexual unions are. They should be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital and collect social security from their spouse in the same manner that heterosexual couples do. If one of my children were gay I would want them to have equal rights.

Should it be called marriage? I don't know...I am sort of a traditionalist in some ways....that being said, it isn't like we heterosexuals have the marriage thing right. After all, our divorce rate is above 50%. 8O I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know. Why should they be denied the legal rights if they are willing to make a loving commitment to each other?


Alison...remember the motto for the debate forum....leave you feelings at the door! It can be hard to do (trust me, I know...you don't know how many times I've walked away from the sdn only to return for a new round of debates ).

Inflammatory is all good in the debate forum as long as you don't take it personally.

So..stick around (but maybe not in the debate section at first ) and get to know us as people.....I'm going to start an 'updates' thread in the grand rounds....come post, ask questions and tell us about you!

kris

[Flynn]

Hmmmm --dare I comment?

I believe firmly that homosexuals can be loving partners, parents, and fantastic people! I have no problem with homosexuals adopting their partner's child -- or any child for that matter -- and feel that from my experience they make wonderful parents.

I believe that a homosexual comitted relationship should have legal rights such as benefit sharing, next of kin status, and basically every other right afforded to heterosexual married couples. So in a nutshell I believe in civil unions for homosexuals but I must admit I have trouble with the language "marriage."

Why? I am not sure to tell you the truth. I do know that this is how I feel though and don't think the government is out of line to "manage" this issue. Would I freak out if homosexuals were allowed to be married and their union as married people recognized state wide? Nope. Not at all. In fact, if the country were to vote and say that was what they wanted, ok, go for it. Most individual religions would oppose it within their faith but some would not and so I'm sure there would be a ton of new "recognized" marriages.

So to summarize my thoughts:

Civil Unions = YES
using the word marriage = I would prefer it not to be used but I am not freakishly opposed to using it

Lots of good points being discussed here. Must rebut this one, though...

However, I must ask you if you are to take issues with politically incorrect wording, to please not use "breeders" to describe people who have more than their allowed number of children, in your opinion, more than 2. I wonder if you would support government only allowing people to only have 2 children and then stopping. Because then it would ironic to say no, government should have no say in who can get married, but it's perfectly okay for Big Brother to say how many kids one can have using one's own genes.

Oooh. Just waiting to dig up this old chestnut again and jump on it, weren't we? To quote Scarlett's Mammy in GWTW: "And you be waitin', jus' like a spider" for some poor newbie to say something wrong. As I've said so often before that I'm sick of saying it...I'm ALL for you having as many children as you possibly can, provided you support them YOURSELF (without my tax dollars) and you don't barricade them in their rooms to play with matches and burn to death while you are out in the bars (which happened in an apartment complex I used to live in in Denver) or have them to harvest their organs for yourself or another child, or sell them into slavery or some such. I've got big problems with this "You can't tell ME I can't..." attitude when it pertains to what YOU feel is right, but should anyone else use it for something you don't agree with, beware!!

Okay, so why shouldn't gays be allowed to be married? In many cases they do much better with the partnership aspects. I have two women friends who have been partners for over 25 years, and on their worst day they've taught me more about what being married means than Mike and I have ever been able to figure out on our own.

I have trouble with putting words in God's mouth in the first place, and I have a hard time saying with a straight face that abusive marriages, or arranged marriages, or short-term marriages where it's obvious no one is taking the concept seriously are somehow more blessed by God because they include a woman and a man. My faith requires me to try to be LIKE God--to emulate His compassion and forgiveness and mercy, but forbids me from abusing the rights of others in his name. I take that very seriously.

What really makes me support the concept, though, is that I can't imagine spending my whole life with someone, and then being forbidden to sit with them in the hospital while they are dying because their "real" family has the legal rights. My father-in-law hates my guts, and has wished me harm on several occasions. But because I'm a woman legally married to his son, I take on the status of my husband's closest next-of-kin, and there is nothing my FIL can legally do to forbid me from being in that hospital room. I cannot claim to have any heart or any compassion or any humanity and wish to deny anyone else that right. To me, that would mean I knew nothing of what love means. So call them 'civil unions', marriages, or whatever--it's inhuman to deny them. When the chips are down, and I think with both my heart and head, I am ALWAYS ready to toss dogma aside and do the kind thing.

[Meenah]

I believe a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, no matter who the two people may be!!! Big surprise coming from oh so very liberal me! Jenn I could just say ditto after you post.
Luanne


I love having this separate "debate" forum. We can choose to debate or not. Thanks Thu Van.