posted on March 30, 2001 01:15:07 AM new
I think Vermont recently said no to same sex marriages. I'm not sure why. The way I see it, the world's a crappy old place and if you can find someone to love, more power to you. Man or woman, who cares? We're all adults.
Got no problem with gay couples adopting/raising children, either. I think we're all pre-programmed in utero. Heterosexual or homosexual -- it's nature, not nurture, that determines who you'll be. As long as the child is in a loving home and has parents he/she can depend on, that's the important thing, right?
Yet apparently there are still people out there who have a problem with all this. Do they have legitimate reasons? Or are their objections just personal insecurities and ignorance couched in neopuritanical self-righteousness?
posted on March 30, 2001 01:26:58 AM new
In my opinion it is my freedom of religion to be able to marry a member of the same gender.
At one time black slaves were not allowed to marry. It was only about 38 years ago that nationwide, interracial marriages were legal (there were some states that it was made legal by Loving vs Virginia).
posted on March 30, 2001 01:46:51 AM new
A lot of gay couples would be better and fitter parents then the traditional man/woman parents.
If a couple can provide a stable, sercure, loving home for a child, what more could you ask for. How many homeless or unwanted children are in the world that need a loving parent, does it really matter if they are 2 men or 2 women.
Spaz you ask the questions:
Do they have legitmate reasons? I think most people live in fear or the unknown, they are afraid of what might be, or some are simply bigots. I am not sure if any one could have a legitimate reason, unless the person was a sex offender or had a major criminal record. Then yes I would have to say that I would be against adoption, it would not matter who it was if they were a sexual preditor or a crim.
The second part of your question:
Or are thier objections just personal insecurities and ignorance couched in neopuritanical self-righteousness?
In most cases yes it is based on ignorance and a lot of the time I think it is based on fear. The church based groups seem to have a self righteous element to their dealings with most gay groups.
posted on March 30, 2001 01:52:06 AM newI believe God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve.
Tabbs,
You might want to check out my "Is the Jerry Springer Show for real?" thread. I reckon you're a viewer, given your familiarity with Springer catch phrases like the one you used above. Feel free to respond with other cliches like "Trade that zero for a hero" and "Save the drama for your mama."
posted on March 30, 2001 02:06:51 AM new
Actually I think Vermont stills have the same-sex marriage on the books it's just that in the last election there were some who were mad at the legislators who supported it and were threatening to kick them out of office in retaliation.
posted on March 30, 2001 02:12:26 AM new
But seriously tabbs, if you use the Adam & Eve story to justify your stance against same sex marriages, aren't you opening up a whole other can of worms? I mean, if we look at the story of Adam and Eve and their family, aren't we talking about some incest of Biblical proportions? Adam and Eve were the first man and woman ... they had children, right? So who did the children produce their offspring with? Hmmm? Hmmm?
posted on March 30, 2001 02:27:59 AM new
A few years back when the US Congress was debating DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) the Holy Bible was used so much I thought the seperation of church and state was obsolete.
posted on March 30, 2001 02:38:27 AM new
One argument against same gender marriages is procreation. So are we going to outlaw any and all marriages that can't reproduce and obviously are having sex only for recreation? If they are.....
Another agrument is it is unnatural. Well to some -even today- interracial marriages are unnatural.
posted on March 30, 2001 02:46:51 AM new
Who are we to say what is unnatural. Even in a conservative heterosexual relationship, what one person calls natural another could call unnatural.
Gay couples possibly think that a 'straight' male/female coupling is unnatural.
posted on March 30, 2001 05:15:57 AM new
I agree with spazmodeus. I have a lot of gay friends. The gay community is not a monolithic block. Its members are liberal,conservative,apolitical,religious,atheistic,parents,nonparents,etc.
We who are straight often take for granted some fundamental priveleges - in how we can jointly own property as a married couple or how we can immediately have knowledge of our partner's medical condition in an emergency. I have two lesbian friends who now carry a card in their wallets naming the other as "sister" after being in an auto accident together and being unable to find out the other's medical status for about five hours - not knowing if their partner had lived or died - because the hospital would only tell a relative. I have another friend who is a wonderful gardener, but when he works in his front yard, passing motorists feel free to yell slurs at him from their cars.
Whoo. This is making me mad! I think fear and ignorance are the big culprits.
posted on March 30, 2001 05:52:03 AM new
It boils dowwn to if you are interested in marriage as a religeous act and rite or as a civil ceremony and contract.
If the government truly had no interest in the religeous aspect of marriage it would allow polygamy such as is legal in Arab and African countries.
If it were a civil contract with the aim of preserving wealth and providing for the support of children and spouses it woiuld allow any form of marriage the mind could imaigine. In the novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" Heinlein proposed some interesting forms of marriage. For example a line marriage that never ends. New members are added as old members die off and the marriage is never terminated by death unless they stop adding new spouses.
If it were a civil matter two people of the same gender could marry who were business partners and enjoy all the legal benefits without the government concerning themselves with whether a sexual component of the marraige existed at all. Marriage was a tool of commercial and political alliance far longer than the current favor of romantic love being prime.
Polyandry - marriage between close relatives that are regarded as incest - all are more religeous issues except the posibility incest will put a burden on the state if people take a chance of producing defective children by inbreeding.
Have you people really never known a household of two couples or a household of three people that everyone in town knew were a set but everyone minded their own business because they are decent people to do business with and what arrangements they have at home are their own business? We had a man that lived with two sisters in Ohio in the 60's and they never caused anyone any grief. He was married to one, but they both had children.
posted on March 30, 2001 07:56:50 AM new
Sure, they're okay. They would obviously promote family values. If Bush were serious about his commitment to furthering family values, he would support the issue of same sex marriages.
posted on March 30, 2001 08:19:41 AM new
I only object to the spousal tax deduction. Actually, I don't really understand the rationale for the tax deduction when the spouse is a different sex. It makes more sense (to me) to provide more tax relief instead to anyone, whatever their marital status, who is raising children.
[ edited by stockticker on Mar 30, 2001 08:20 AM ]
posted on March 30, 2001 08:20:53 AM new
The only reason they give basically is "its against God's will"."It stated in the bible", etc...
*sigh*
I thought
there was suppose to be a separation between church and state. However it seems lately its all over Capitol Hill. Whether its on this issue, abortion, cloning, just to name a few. They might say its not because of their beliefs, but set an example of high morals in this country.
Ok, what would you consider high morals?
Its immoral for two people who love each other and want the same things as normal couple have?
Or as stated in another post its immoral to have sex for pleasure since you can't procreate?
If thats so then I guess its immoral for normal couples to have sex for pleasure not planning on procreating.
Lets analize the bible and figure out why it was this issue was stated in there.
Back then, there was alot of homosexual activity, especially during Roman times.
Romans were consider tyrants, unethical and immoral. Who knows maybe Babylon was based on Rome. Now who's to say that because of the hatred towards the Romans and besides the nonprocration that statement was but in the bible. Basically, the Romans are immoral don't do what the Romans do kinda thing.
Ok, I might be way off base on that but I like to throw that at some people who say "but it says in the bible..." It shuts them up for a minute or two and only comeback with but its God's will.
I guess I'm just a immoral person then.
Sorry about spelling errors and I hope what I wrote makes sense I have a nasty head cold. I have medicine-head
cyanide
posted on March 30, 2001 09:03:08 AM new
my girlfriend's dad has been married six times. at her upcoming wedding this June, three of the wives will be there. I asked her what the difference is between her father and a religious Muslim, who may have up to 4 wives concurrently as long as he can support them. To me, having six one after the other and having kids with all of them is no better or worse than multiple wives (or multiple husbands).
I am in favor of marriages or legal unions between whoever wants to have them. as someone who was a survivor of multiply-married and divorced parents, stepparents, stepsisters and brothers, etc., I am no great respecter of marriage as it stands anyways.
gay people should be able to be married if they want to.
i think some folks object to it because then they would not be able to point fingers and call gays 'promiscuous'.
posted on March 30, 2001 09:54:16 AM new
Well if its legal for same sex marriages, for such reasons as insurance, taxes etc
(the legalese part) THEN a significant other, one that you live with, but never 'legally' wed should be able to get the others benefits?
As for the question on the Bible and incest, as I do not have a Bible handy
In the 7 days God created, there is a passage where he created men and women to go forth and multiply, and then he created Adam from the dust of the earth.
Some theorys believing then that there was other people besides just Adam and Eve, and solving Caine's problem about a wife. [email protected]
posted on March 30, 2001 10:02:31 AM new
Count me as "for."
If marriage is only for procreation, I guess no sterile, old, or hetero's who just want to be childless should marry.
I see it as a civil issue, since marriages are currently recognized even if not performed by clergy.
It's sad when two people love each other and have no protection under the law. Eg. Two people live together, co-mingle their assets, etc. for 15 years. One dies suddenly, having not thought to make a will. The family of the deceased swoops in to take "what is theirs," though they haven't even spoken to the deceased in the last 5 years. This can happen to gays or straights.
Medical benefits are an issue also. Live with someone for 20 years, you're not covered under their benefits. Get married, and zap 30 days later - benefits.
For these reasons, and the fact that I don't think we should legislate love, same sex marriages should be legal.
While I think also that significant others should be covered, the basic difference is that under the current system a different sex significant other can opt to marry, while the same sex can't.
[ edited by sadie999 on Mar 30, 2001 10:07 AM ]
posted on March 30, 2001 10:04:32 AM new
There was a story on the radio about a guy who married his cockerspaniel... after they lived as commonwealth partners for years.
Should they should be eligible for the tax deduction and other benefits as well too?
This is by no means an anti-gay statement, but where is the line drawn on what constitutes a real "marriage".
