Gay marriage?

[Anonymous]

I have an assignment on this and i was wondering if anyone had any imput on gay mariiage e.g. should or should not it be allowed? (honestly)

[RedRonin]

Two, or more people for that matter, have the right to determine who and how they love.

It's nobody else's friggin business.

[Sebbi]

Since I reckon the general view here will be fairly liberal and the general consensus will be along the lines of what Red said, I think you should play devils advocate.

Argue as best you can why it shouldn't be allowed.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Sebbi. That way, you'd be getting a good assembly of responses and opinnions to every argument...as you know what they say (I hope): every good paper covers its opposite, too.

[Sewa Yoleme]

As a gay man, you better believe I think it should be allowed. "Gay marriage" is the very definition of family values.

I try to be understanding of the other side, I really do. I know it springs from their interpretation of the Bible, and I know how deeply ingrained that can be. But honestly, it's like asking a black man if he thinks he should have the right to vote, or a woman if she feels she deserves equal pay for equal work. It's more than a little upsetting for someone to legislate their morality and make me a second-class citizen without the basic protections that other people enjoy.

Moreover, as a Pagan, my faith tells me that I wasn't a mistake, that God (the Universe, the Goddess, the Great Spirit) didn't screw up when I was made. My love is not a sin, and my life is not an abomination.

I firmly believe gay people need to act "as if." We need to wear wedding rings, talk about our spouses or husbands or wives, celebrate weddings, use the word marriage---proudly and overtly. In essence, we need to refuse to sit in the back of the bus. We need to act "as if" gay marriage were legal and universally accepted.

On the other hand, if the government wants to get out of the marriage business altogether, and leave it up to individuals and private religious institutions to do as their conscience dictates, I'd be more than happy to go along with it.

.:. Sewa Yoleme

[NachtSorcier]

Sewa took the words right out of my mouth.

What I think is wrong is the government telling the public who it can and cannot marry.  For a lot of us (gay men and lesbians), I think that marriage is more about equality than love.  Since the beginning of time, gay men and lesbians have been able to show love for one another and share a life that is much like that of a heterosexual married couple.  However, the fact that my partner and I cannot marry means that we don't get the benefits that married couples do.  For example, if he had to move cross country because of his job, I would have to drop everything and go with him without being reimbursed.  If I suddenly died, chances are he wouldn't be able to handle my funeral and burial the way I want it handled, because in the law's eyes, my immediate family takes precedence over him, because we are not legally married.  Because of this, we are having to go through some red tape invoving contracts and notaries.  And besides the legalities, I want to get married, I really do.  I've told him that after he retires I would like to move to Canada because of their more liberal government and the fact that we could legally marry there.  And even if we end up staying in the US, we will still probably have an illegal ceremony, or, as Sewa so wisely put it, act as if.

[Fillionous]

On a site like this you will find only open and suporting views to the idea and practice of gay marraige. As others have said It is no-ones business, but the peoples involved as to how they love.

Personnally, I cannot see the problem with gay relationships... any more than with hetrosexual relationships. Love is love. I have never understood why love and to love can be a sin.

Even my science training suports the excistance of gay people as normal and right. More and more evedance is comming to light that gay is a natural state that is activaly valueable to a complex socity that has children that need a lot of suport for a long time... such as we have with humans. This simply suports my belief that the Divine does not make mistakes or errors.

Be bright, be bold
Fillionous

[Anonymous]

I've got two very good friends who are gay and when my son was 3 years old he started asking questions as to why two men only had one bed in their house, why didn't they have children etc (trust a 3 year old.) but james used to collect Ryan from school for me if I was held up at work so he spent quite a lot of time with my friends.     I summed it up with one sentance .....

"It doesn't matter who you love, its how you love them."

Ryan didn't ask much else after that, he accepted what I had said to him and now, at 12 years old, he doesn't see any difference between a gay couple and a straight couple if they love each other and they are happy then thats what counts.    And thats what should count in marriage too, after all thats what marriage is all about - Love and commitment.

And as Red says - its no one elses' business.

[Rowan CedarWolf]

my father is a gay man, and one of my dearest friends is a gay man, and you know what? I ask all the time why is it that they are not entitled to the same rights as I am, being hetero. Why is it that my father can not provide health insurance for his partner through his employer? Why is it that if my father were in the hospital or in a life threatening situation, I or my sister would have to find a way to get to him before medical attention could be given? My sister and I are his next of kin, but why is it his partner can not give legal consent for medical treatment? THis last reason alone should be given serious consideration. I feel it is totally unfair! And if my father should die, he is in Florida I am in Maryland, how would I possibly be able to make proper arrangements for him and be able to arrange to get there at the same time? The inequity makes me sick!!!

[TheBriarRose]

I think you should further define the question.  Any two people can have a marriage ceremony with a relgious leader or someone ordained specifically for weddings.  They can exchange rings, wear white, and crush a glass under their heels after the vows.  They can kiss.

What is not allowed it the rights that come from possessing a government-issued marriage certificate.  And why should it stop there.  The rights at stake here are the rights of determining who can have your power-of-attorney should you become so ill you cannot speak for yourself, rights of who you can extend your medical insurance to cover, who can decide what to do with your remains.  

Legal Marriage has nothing to do with love.  If it did, then the heterosexuals would have to go through some counselling to prove their love for each other.  They don't.  I know several couples in college who got married so that they could benifit from financial aid and other priviledges reserved for "married couples".  There was no love.  How many "arranged" marriages have taken place in the US throughout history?  Arranged marriages that made "good financial sense"...."She married for money!" Who doesn't?!?!?!?  

Gay marriage isn't illegal, it just isn't recognized by the institution that runs the "marriage" business.

I've said before, were it not about financial things, I wouldn't have married my current husband.  I would have just lived with him, and legally changed my name back to my maiden name.  I married him to get on his insurance, to let him use me as a tax deduction, and other financial reasons.

Love is love is love...and we should be able to choose who benifits and shares in our financial and medical futures.  Should it go to some relative who doesn't even know us over someone who's spent every hour at our side...

That's how I feel about the current restrictions on marriage....

[mermdotcom]

As I've stated before in another thread, I'm very much supportive of equal rights for gay couples.  However, my personal beliefs aside, here is my take on the legality of not allowing gay couples to marry:

According to the United States Constitution, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.  Yet, every argument I've heard opposing gay marriage has been Biblical.  "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" and BS like that.  I have not heard one valid legal reason why gays should not marry.  The arguments against it are constitutionally irrelevent, and thus the laws against it are unconstitutional.

Quite frankly, I'm confused as to why pro-gay rights politicians haven't made a huge stink about this point.  I think it's about time.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that there should be a law that says that you can't marry who you love. If i couldn't marry my bf i would be devstated.

P.s. did you know that in the 1960's it was considered to be a mental illness if you were a homosexual.

[RedRonin]

I don't think that there should be a law that says that you can't marry who you love. If i couldn't marry my bf i would be devstated.

It was still in my lifetime that the Supreme Court struck down state laws outlawing inter-racial marriages.

If you go back and read up on the issue at the time, the same lame arguments were being thrown around then as are being thrown around now.

The "against the laws of God and man" crap not only is tossed around in the gay marriage issue and was used in the inter-racial marriage debate, they also trotted it out as a reason to not let women vote in early part of the 1900s.

[Shadow]

The "against the laws of God and man" crap not only is tossed around in the gay marriage issue and was used in the inter-racial marriage debate, they also trotted it out as a reason to not let women vote in early part of the 1900s.

You are so right.  It has been said that those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.  Maybe we should get rid of some of the damned lawyers and oil men we have in office and elect a few historians.

[Anonymous]

The "against the laws of God and man" crap not only is tossed around in the gay marriage issue and was used in the inter-racial marriage debate, they also trotted it out as a reason to not let women vote in early part of the 1900s.

You are so right. It has been said that those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. Maybe we should get rid of some of the damned lawyers and oil men we have in office and elect a few historians

To true!