Gay Marriage

[PrincessFiona]

Matt, you have just become the official moderator of the debate forums!

[Meenah]

I second that!!
Luanne

Again - ressurecting a really old thread b/c I'm getting aquainted.

I think gays should have the right to marry - and I've got no problem w/the word marriage. It's simply a civil rights issue, and you won't catch ANYONE - not even Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly - daring to say that blacks can't have the same rights as whites, or that interracial marriage should be illegal. In a world where people who marry 4, 5, or 6 times are accepted, why can't a gay couple who has been together for 25 years make it legal and ensure themselves of certain rights and priveledges at the end??

[Vanquisher]

Again - ressurecting a really old thread b/c I'm getting aquainted.

I'm happy you're ressurecting old posts, it gives me a chance to jump in on them too, being fairly new myself.

I for one think any person should be able to marry any person that they want with the exception of close relatives, because A) it's just gross, and B) procreation issues. Okay I guess I would even think cousins could marry as long as they were over the age for having children. It would give me the heebie jeebies though. But, two same sex people who are in a loving commited relationship deserve the right to marry! And if they want to have quickie Las Vegas style weddings, I'm okay with that too.

They deserve to be afforded the same rights. They should be allowed to make medical desicions for their partners, and should be able to have parental rights. Gay couples should be able to adopt, or go through sperm/egg donation and do ANYTHING a married couple can do. I don't think there are any qualifiers for this whatsoever.

My .02

[Rapunzel]

Again - ressurecting a really old thread b/c I'm getting aquainted.

I for one think any person should be able to marry any person that they want with the exception of close relatives

Any problems with polygamy then (ie two consenting, non-related adults marrying each other - but one happens to be married to another person as well)?

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

Again - ressurecting a really old thread b/c I'm getting aquainted.

They should be allowed to make medical desicions for their partners, and should be able to have parental rights.

You can make medical decisions for a person to which you are not married nor related to with the proper legal paperwork. Marriage is not the only route to this allowance.

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

why can't a gay couple who has been together for 25 years make it legal and ensure themselves of certain rights and priveledges at the end??

To which rights and privileges are you referring? Just curious....

Jennifer

[spotty_dog]

Again - ressurecting a really old thread b/c I'm getting aquainted.

They should be allowed to make medical desicions for their partners, and should be able to have parental rights.

You can make medical decisions for a person to which you are not married nor related to with the proper legal paperwork. Marriage is not the only route to this allowance.

It is in Ohio. Any legal decision that gives the same rights to an unmarried couple that would otherwise be granted through marriage can be challenged, per a recent amendment to the state constitution.

-Alison

[spotty_dog]

Again - ressurecting a really old thread b/c I'm getting aquainted.

I for one think any person should be able to marry any person that they want with the exception of close relatives

Any problems with polygamy then (ie two consenting, non-related adults marrying each other - but one happens to be married to another person as well)?

Personally, I have no moral problems with polygamy/polyamory but unfortunately polygamous marriage becomes a hairy legal issue. When you start talking about inheritance with multiple spouses, it's quite the sticky wicket.

-Alison

[Rapunzel]

So, it seems that the issue in Ohio is strengthening Healthcare directives and legally appointed "attorneys-in-fact" rather than redefining marriage. Strengthening these directives benefits a much larger pool of people in society as a whole.

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

Personally, I have no moral problems with polygamy/polyamory but unfortunately polygamous marriage becomes a hairy legal issue. When you start talking about inheritance with multiple spouses, it's quite the sticky wicket.

-Alison

It's true - there are some unique details that would have to be worked out. But, if it is considered morally sound then the legal issues would just have to be taken care of, wouldn't they?

Jennifer

[spotty_dog]

Personally, I have no moral problems with polygamy/polyamory but unfortunately polygamous marriage becomes a hairy legal issue. When you start talking about inheritance with multiple spouses, it's quite the sticky wicket.

-Alison

It's true - there are some unique details that would have to be worked out. But, if it is considered morally sound then the legal issues would just have to be taken care of, wouldn't they?

While that makes sense from the current societal perspective, it doesn't jive with my view on marriage. My view, to be consistent, would probably lead to the conclusion that a social construct like a church could choose to recognize or not recognize polygamous marriage as it saw fit, but no matter how I wrap my mind around it legal marriage would have to remain a matter between two people.

Wow - I had no idea what I was resurrecting here!

I think marriage is between TWO people (therefore ruling out polygamy), although I'll say that my basic problem with polygamy is that the groups that practice it tend to restrict women's rights and arrange marriages between men & very young "women" (i.e. 15 year olds). Once again I'll say that what consenting ADULTS choose to do in their homes is their business - but I do not feel that marriage applies to a polygamous relationship. My issue with restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples (especially with considering a change to the CONSTITUTION) is that it limits these people's rights based on their sexual orientation which they have no more control over than the color of their skin or nationality (opening another can of worms here, I know).

I'm not familiar with the change to Ohio's laws that has recently made it easier for non-married couples to handle legal issues, but I do know that Ohio overwhelmingly passed issue 1 to "protect marriage" (much to my embarrassment). Even our republican governor was opposed to it b/c it complicates issues for non-married heterosexual couples, but since most people didn't read beyond the first line of the issue which referred to restricting marriage to one man and one woman, it passed in a landslide.

[spotty_dog]

I'm not familiar with the change to Ohio's laws that has recently made it easier for non-married couples to handle legal issues, but I do know that Ohio overwhelmingly passed issue 1 to "protect marriage" (much to my embarrassment). Even our republican governor was opposed to it b/c it complicates issues for non-married heterosexual couples, but since most people didn't read beyond the first line of the issue which referred to restricting marriage to one man and one woman, it passed in a landslide.

Yes, I'm not sure what Rapunzel is referring to either and I'd like to know more about this legislation in my own state! Did you see in yesterday's paper the court case in which a man appealed his domestic abuse conviction by claiming that the woman he co-habited with couldn't be protected by domestic abuse laws because it would conflict with Issue 1? The judge threw it out because the abuse occured before Issue 1 went into effect but went on the record saying it was a troubling issue with a valid legal stance?