Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

In reply to z31maniac:

i don't know that thats anthropologically complete/correct...(may only apply to small sect of Christian marriage history, not the whole world)... and not sure if relevant to what you were quoting from me...

yamaha wrote:

Javelin wrote: I fully support the rights of anyone to marry, and live in one of the 9 states where it's legal. To deny them that right disenfranchises them of equal standing amongst other couples including in filing tax returns, health car, other insurance coverage, and rights involving children. Not to mention the ridiculousness that is forcing a religious belief upon another people! I have a niece that is openly gay and in the military (also about damned time).

I do agree with this, they need to revamp the whole thing to just be a "civil union" across the board whether you're man/woman, cousins(only in kentucky/west virginia/tennesee), man/man, woman/woman, it/it, man/dog, woman/gorilla, it doesn't berkeleying matter....Make it all the same. It shuts the religious brigade down on the whole "Marriage is between a man and woman" arguement and it cleans up the whole damned mess it has become.

I agree completely except the rules should be between two consenting Legal adults (or minors with approval of their parents just like it is now for marriage). I know when it's boiled down like this opposition people will bring up Polygamy, Human/Non-Human, Human/Lamp relationships however that's just rediculous. You want those things we can have those discussions seperately this is not the same. We are 100% restricting a right granted to heterosexual couples in 41 states and not granting it to homosexual couples. Current legal constructs to get around it fall appart in numerous ways that have been talked about in this thread. I'm very sorry ultra conservative christian that it makes you "uncomfortable" seeing all thos Queers getting married but it is their RIGHT. It was arguable before civil unions existed but once that first state voted to allow it it became IMHO a right that is being infringed. I file my US taxes Married filing jointly. That is allowed in 50 states for heterosexuals and only 9 for Homosexuals. That must end.

The bold stuff at the bottom I think really captures most of what I want to say, probably even better with the absence of the rambling here.. So if you don't feel like reading all this nonsense just skip to the bottom.... But I'll leave the rambling as a tool for those who would hope to understand my thought process better...

What happens in Sodom and Gomorrah.......

I also want to offer a dissenting opinion, but I just don't know why..... well, not why I want to offer it, but instead why I want to offer it here. Surely I am bound to be misunderstood, and not only due to my lack of skill in communicating my ideas.....

I am not "pro gay", yet I damn sure ain't some kind of "anti gay" bigot either. I pass the "I have gay friends" muster quite well in fact. I have had these same conversations and expressed my opinions openly in conversations with these men and women and found them very receptive and open to listening to my positions as I accepted their own, which I fear matched my own on more deeper levels than I might of expected, and honestly would have hoped for.

The gay population is a very small percentage of the population. Then the number of people who are actually gay, transgender, ect. and not simply putting on a big show for whatever reason is a smaller percentage of the gay community again. I say this because the people, while they are everywhere, and you certainly know them, they are not everybody. This means those who 'fear' a gay overrun are being a bit silly, and those who think huge numbers of people are truly being unjustly repressed are overreaching a bit also... For whatever reason, this is a bigger issue than it should be, or needs to be....

One of my good friends as a gay man specializes in mental health/ sexual health (psychological) within the gay community his insights are really amazing to me... So much of what happens WITHIN that environment is so VERY destructive to human beings, and it really takes a very special person to overcome those kinds of challenges... There isn't pressure and problems applied to the gay community by the 'outside' which even compare to the internal pressures they face. Heck... from what admittedly little I know about it, the gay couples who fair better as people in general are further removed from the 'gay world' than many of their peers...

Yeah... I know.. I am rambling.. I do that... sorry...

I worked for an apartment management company for several years.. We had a couple large 75 unit or so buildings that were known 'gay friendly' buildings.. It was VERY strange to me at the time. Before this exposure to the community I had certainly met and been friends with gay men and women. It was never really a big deal to me... and still isn't I guess... The thing is I had seen the made for TV gay guys... and the gay guys I knew might have been a little lighter on their toes than you might expect to see for a guy, but still nothing to write home about.. They were just people doing their thing...... well... except for the Rugby chicks, and roller derby gals..... but then they are another story all together...

again rambling... sorry...

No these apartment buildings... It was honestly sad... Even today, honest to God we can go down there right now and find the Rocky Horror picture show going on... It was non stop... Then to top it off at the time the "leaders" of the scene were a couple of the creepiest looking dudes suffering from advanced stages of AIDS... And I had to fix the toilet.... Yeah... I am human.. This changed some perceptions for me... All this time I figured the gay gays were those clean athletic types types you see on TV.. and now here I am face to face with those "hateful, bigoted statics" (1 in 5 gay men with aids ect).....

Maybe this experience, (or the family vacation my dad planed to San Fran without checking to see when the Gay pride convention or whatever was happening that cause mass craziness all over town) is causing me to view the community as a whole differently than I should... I really don't think this is the case though...

At the end of the day I would hope to be supportive as I possibly can be of my my gay friends without promoting the lifestyle. and I struggle with trying to make sense of that, not only for me but struggle to make it into something I can communicate to anyone else....

I want to be supportive of these people I know to be good and as decent as any of the rest of us heathens...

Yet at the same time I honestly even as much as my friends may love each other, I don't see something which I think should be defined as marriage. I just can't.

It has been brought up that marriage can be defined as "connecting horses to carts. "

Well connecting one horse and one cart is going to prove a much healthier and productive marriage than connecting two carts in the absence of the horse (you sicko's want to add more horses and carts to the marriage, I'll leave that to ya'll )

Ya see if you join two carts and call it a marriage in the same sense of the word that you call it a marriage when a horse and cart are joined.... Or you join two horses thinking one of them will serve the purpose of the cart equally as well..... You just don't end up with the same thing now do you???

What happens is one horse or the other begins to cut its hair short, wear plaid shirts with the sleeves cut off... or even worse... Puts on a pink tutu and begins prancing around in the streets... and before you know it neither is able to fill the role of either horse nor cart. Thinking they are the same as each other they become unable to serve either role.

Despite societal attempts to disregard the importance of gender roles in our relationships they remain not only significant, but KEY to healthy and thriving relationships... Not gender superiority.. Or gender dominance... but the unique DIFFERENCES within the genders which are made more whole by the other...

And the kicker here... Not only is this important for healthy heterosexual relationship.. But it may even be MORE important within a health gay relationship!

and as a society we must regain respect for these roles, or we do EVERYONE a disservice.

so... scardeal:

you are saying gays should not be allowed to marry, because unlike hetero marriages Kids wont learn how to deal with the opposite sex of the gay parents?

No offense, but that is pretty close minded. MANY married couples do not have kids. (hetero and gay) Many married couples WITH kids are downright abusive to each other (and that is not teaching anything but the wrong thing.) many kids have only one parent... many gay couples have a kid (they just aren't legally married). many kids have no parents... the list goes on.

Going by the logic you present (irrelevant if it is sound or not): the only people that should be allowed to marry are hetero couples, that are going to have kids ASAP, and are paragons of society, and will never divorce, never die, never do anything other than be perfect parents.

can't have a kid? can't get married, because marriage is only for raising kids as a perfect couple.

don't want a kid? can't get married, because marriage is only for raising kids as a perfect couple.

might die in less than 18 years? can't get married, because marriage is only for raising kids as a perfect couple.

gay? can't get married, because marriage is only for raising kids as a perfect couple as a perfect couple.

abusive? can't get married, because marriage is only for raising kids as a perfect couple.

one is a Jerk? can't get married, because marriage is only for raising kids as a perfect couple.

Marriage has nothing to do with having kids. I am not married right now, but I sure as heck could legally have a kid.

nocones wrote: ...I know when it's boiled down like this opposition people will bring up Polygamy, Human/Non-Human, Human/Lamp relationships however that's just ridiculous. You want those things we can have those discussions separately this is not the same...

I tend to agree with your reason of it muddying the waters. Realistically though the opposition of "civil unions" between a person and a relative / animal / plant is fundamentally ridiculous. When mentioned, people seem to assume a sexual relationship, there is no reason for this (jokes aside).

If you have a "civil union" with your sister / dog / ficus, that does not give you the right to have sex with it, there are already some pretty clear laws against that (well, maybe not the plant). A civil union with a relative would generally be necessary since you already have a fair number of rights in that area, and your dog will not be covered under your medical plan, or get tax benefits.

For polygamy... I am not sure if there is a logical reason to make it illegal. I find it strange, but is it really wrong? I don't know.

I don't think the analogy of marrying a cart to a cart is applicable. How about a gay horse to a gay cart? Relationships mean a lot more than just inserting a penis into a vagina (sorry for my foul language ) There are plenty of "hetero" marriages that don't involve sex at all. There are also asexual people out there that may want to have a companion. People just need to get over their repulsion to someone else's sexual desires.

Your small sample of LGBT that you met and don't like isn't even close to representing the entire community. I can find many more hetero people that disgust me to no end. There are a lot more straight people that should not be able to breed or marry, but we don't regulate that. Why do "we" get to do that with a specific minority?

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

scardeal wrote: ...but the child never sees those intimate dynamics between an adult man and a woman..

And a child in a hetrosexual relationship never sees the intimate dynamics between two men or two women, non are right, wrong or preferable. A self canceling argument.

To reduce the intimacy which happens between a man and a women to the act of sexual dynamic is to misunderstand intimacy...

even in a gay couple.

Children can see this... Why can't you?

One note and one question.

You can't marry your dog, car, plant, whatever. That has nothing to do with this. Gay marriage is between concenting adults who have the legal ability to enter into a marriage contract. A dog, car, plant etc. can not. Polygamy? I don't know. Not sure I can come up with a good reason why it should be illegal.

Which brings me to my question - spekaing in a purely legal sense - what is the argument against gay marriage? What is the law that should allow a contractual agreement between one pair of people, but not another, based only on their sex?

aircooled wrote: For polygamy... I am not sure if there is a logical reason to make it illegal. I find it strange, but is it really wrong? I don't know.

Its not wrong IMHO, but it is a victim of other issues.......the Mormons, before outlawing it, required proof of financial ability to care for multiple wives beforehand.

In reply to Fast Eddie:

Its the religious institutions and individuals taking a stand against it.......which is why I suggest renaming the "Marriage License" to "Civil Union" Its a horrifying can of worms that gets opened when someone threatens your belief system.

ronholm wrote: The bold stuff at the bottom I think really captures most of what I want to say, probably even better with the absence of the rambling here..

My comment on your observation would be: There are strange people of all "types" in this world. I honestly don't think being gay somehow adds to that (ignoring the social stigmas of course). There are certainly mentally messed up people that are gay, and probably people that are gay because of some less then genetic reason, but I don't think it is at reasonable to assume that of the entire population. Remember there are plenty of VERY f'd up heterosexuals in this world, including ones that are hypersexual and deviantly sexual.

One thing I will mention though is that men are typically WAY more sexual then women, this is pretty common knowledge. I don't think anyone should be surprised when you combine two men's sexuality you get something a bit more then the average male / female situation.

I'm not going to debate for or against Polygamy. It's not the issue at hand. I think Fast Eddie sumarized my thoughts well. The Consenting legal adult individuals part takes car of all of that House/ferret/waffle Iron stuff.

I don't understand why people can't look beyond religious views on this one. I'm a Jesus loving christian and personally think homosexuality itsn't for me. I understand the biblical/church views on marriage and I think that's great. I also want other people to find a relationship with god or whatever diety they like to bring themselves a full happy life. I don't want my religion to oppress people (Anymore than it already has in the past) and would like to move towards less oppression. Just because I love Jesus doesn't mean I run around with a metaphorical Supersoaker full of Holy water baptizing people on the street trying to impart my Moral views on them. I vote/form political opionions based on what I feel is right for society as a whole and I REFUSE to let my "religion" get in the way of that. So what Gays get married I end up with 2 aunts. It's not going to break down my marriage, devalue the comitment I've made to my wife, and impact my ability to raise my children to understand the morals I have. What they choose to do with that is there choice. Gay couples will exist in society. Given the Actual statistics if EVERY SINGLE GAY person got Married tomarrow it will do less to "break down" traditional marriage than traditional marriage has on it's own. Divorce rates are >50% with a large poriton of those being families with children. I think that sends a much worse message to children than "Daddy loves Daddy and You" ever could.

Sorry Minor Tirade there at the end.. I've been aurguing with my Coworker all day about this. He finds gays repulsive and thinks his God hates them so it's been fun.

GPS are those horses pulling a cart loaded with a bundle of sticks?

nocones wrote: GPS are those horses pulling a cart loaded with a bundle of sticks?

Wood to help form the largest patio imaginable.....

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

fine print: "applicable only in Utah"

ronholm wrote: What happens in Sodom and Gomorrah.......

Sorry for cherrypicking here, but my religious studies class has only furthered my dislike for that stupid justification. I don't understand what not providing proper hospitality (the accepted interpretation among biblical scholars these days) has to do with gay marriage. The gay couples I've come across have lovely houses, and are very nice! One even baked a cake for my family!

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/homosexuality_in_sodom_and_gomorrah.html

nocones wrote: GPS are those horses pulling a cart loaded with a bundle of sticks?

Isn't that otherwise known as a faggot?

Nice one

Clearly you are referring to a fasces, right?

Ahhhhh man... missed it by "that much". Come on Beer Man! You aren't supposed to spell it out, just imply it!

scardeal wrote: I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here. The whole point of enshrining marriage in law is to have a social structure which unite children with their mother and father. The tax benefits, joint filing, attorney privileges, etc. all stem from that paradigm of protecting any children that may result from the marriage. The rest is peripheral. Adults are adults, they should be able to handle themselves. Kids need to be protected.

That used to be the point. I was thinking about different "traditional" marriages. All ancient marriage traditions boil down to ensuring the legitimate paternity of offspring.

Heterosexuals have over the course of the past couple centuries slowly been changing the definition of marriage to be about a loving and stable commitment between adults. We see no problem with people who are infertile or sterile for reasons of age, injury, or genetics getting married. The definition of marriage has changed. Now gay people are saying, "Wait, if it's about love and commitment, we have that too."

As for raising and adopting children. I will grant that there are disadvantages to raising a child being raised by adopted parents instead of biological parents. However, those pale in comparison to the disadvantages a child has being raised by no parents, or potentially even a single parent. Gay people wanting to adopt are not making the choice that strait people should not raise their own biological children. The parents already decided they would not raise their children, and gay people are just asking to be allowed to raise these otherwise unwanted children.

I'm just ascared that if they let them queer folks get married it might start an epidemic.

For instance--- I just finished watching Magnum P.I. and got sort of aroused.......does this mean I've caught the gay?

Oh never mind........it was the car. Of course if you let them gays marry, who's to say you can't marry a car? Actually that would work better than most marriages.

Hmm, so far this has been fairly constructive overall. However, I'm scared it might need a locking soon.

New rule for this thread: NO UNSUBSTANTIATED ARGUMENTS.

Opinions are fine, comments are fine, but from now on anything declared as a justification or as a fact needs something to back it up. Quickly-googled links are perfect.

This should help us all learn more about the topic and generally enhance the discussion.

Thanks.

Joe Gearin wrote: Oh never mind........it was the car. Of course if you let them gays marry, who's to say you can't marry a car? Actually that would work better than most marriages.

I think we established in another thread last week that there is very little difference between an Aston Martin and a trophy wife. Except maybe that the Aston will cost you less overall.

Joe Gearin wrote: Oh never mind........it was the car. Of course if you let them gays marry, who's to say you can't marry a car? Actually that would work better than most marriages.

Speak for yourself, but I drove a SAAB for about 2 years sandwiched by old BMW's. I doubt it.

Beer Baron wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: Oh never mind........it was the car. Of course if you let them gays marry, who's to say you can't marry a car? Actually that would work better than most marriages.

I think we established in another thread last week that there is very little difference between an Aston Martin and a trophy wife. Except maybe that the Aston will cost you less overall.

Don't forget that you can kill it whenever you want and they pay you to bury it.

Tom Suddard wrote: Hmm, so far this has been fairly constructive overall. However, I'm scared it might need a locking soon.

Yeah, I knew it would get there. From pg. 1

JoeyM wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: Okay, I know this is a fairly political topic and potential flounder bait, so let's try to keep this civil and if the mods feel like locking it, I totally understand.

I already feel like locking it. (Not because of you, but because of what it will eventually become.) Nevertheless, carry on.....