Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

IMO, this is a very important and timely topic to discuss. In the US, it's certainly a hot topic right now! I'd love to hold a good discussion on this issue, and it's been discussed on the "Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals" thread, but some people have complained that it's taken over that thread. It's also been discussed on the "marriage" thread, but katya (the thread starter) didn't want it discussed. SO - to honor those feelings, here's a thread that is specifically to discuss the subject of homosexual marriage and related side-issues

This is one of those topics where people can get emotional, so as thread-starter I request that people be considerate of others. PLEASE feel free to vigorously point out perceived errors in a person's opinion, logic, conclusion, deduction, data, etc - but do NOT attack the person! And please do NOT speak for other people - let them speak for themselves. Please do NOT assume a person holds an opinion until they say they do - go ahead and ask them if you're not sure. Let's not stereotype! Let's not hold arguments with imaginary people.

I think it's very valuable to discuss issues with people that hold opposing opinions. Let's go for it! People involved in the discussion - please copy over some posts from the other threads to start us off.

[Rían]

Some good starting posts would be IRex's recent post explaining his views, and Wizard from Milan's article about the judge in California.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Ok, here it goes again

I want to reproduce two phrases from the California court ruling (Judge Kramer)
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,"
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
These sentences are quite obvious and not particularly remarkable to me, but I post them because other people here think otherwise

but please note that it is not me who is triple posting.
I am actually not sure that all this compartimentalization of threads improves clarity.

Separately, "Homosexual marriage" is a misnomer because there is no such a thing as a new type of marriage that is of the homosexual type. I think that the thread should be called "Marriage of same-sex couples". For short "same-sex marriage". I may well have been liable of having called it "gay marriage" before, but it should be clear that it is a marriage exacly like the one among different-sex couples, not a new type of marriage

[Artanis]

Are we talking civil unions or traditional marriage in church? Or both?

[Nurvingiel]

I think all types of marriage that gay people would like to be a part of can be discussed here. So, civil and religiously blessed.

One point of confusion for marriages in general, is Christian priests (I'm pretty sure all, or at least most) are also allowed to give marriage licences ie. preform civil unions. When you're married in a Christian ceremony, the civil union aspect is incorporated into the ceremony. If you were blessed without the civil union, you wouldn't be considered married in the eyes of the law.

Any further points on that we should discuss in Katya's marriage thread, but I wanted to clear that up here because any discussion of marriage can be confusing. You can say marriage to mean civil unioned or married to mean blessed in your church, or both at the same time.

I don't think the term "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" is misleading here, because it means gay people getting married. I don't think it suggests a new sort of marriage.

Onwards, I think people pretty much know what I think on the issue... for clever, well-written, and intelligent posts, read someone else's! Just kidding! Check out my posts in the GLB thread.

I think that including gay people in the institution of marriage (civil unions) would not only be good for marriage, but for society as a whole. I don't think the government should be party to discrimination against gays.
However, I also don't believe churches should be forced to preform ceremonies they don't believe, but I don't think anybody is asking for that here. Unlike the government, churches can choose which couples they believe are fit for marriage no matter what their sexual orientation is. A church would deny marriage to a straight couple they didn't feel was ready for this commitment, but the government will allow any couple to marry.

It's not the business of the government to police people's sex lives, but it is there job to uphold people's rights. This means they will and should protect the rights of minors, (ie. not allowing underaged people to get married). Therefore I see no reason why the government should not allow gay people to get married, and neither does the Canadian government.

I think this is an important step in overcoming discrimination against gay people.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Artanis

Are we talking civil unions or traditional marriage in church? Or both?

I'm talking about traditional marriage, but it's fine to discuss civil unions or any other related topic here. I was just trying to free up those other two threads, because some people had complained that it was taking over the thread.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm talking about traditional marriage, but it's fine to discuss civil unions or any other related topic here. I was just trying to free up those other two threads, because some people had complained that it was taking over the thread.

What is a traditional marriage if not a civil union? The civil union aka the marriage anyone can enter in to is the current form of traditional marriage in our respective countries now. The other option is one preformed by a religious institution. This is also traditional marriage.

What is traditional marriage if not those two defenitions?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

but please note that it is not me who is triple posting.

yes, and thanks for moving your quote over here

I am actually not sure that all this compartimentalization of threads improves clarity.

People complained that the subject was taking over the gay/les/bi thread, so I wanted to honor their complaint, because I wanted to talk about the subject some more.

Separately, "Homosexual marriage" is a misnomer because there is no such a thing as a new type of marriage that is of the homosexual type. I think that the thread should be called "Marriage of same-sex couples". For short "same-sex marriage". I may well have been liable of having called it "gay marriage" before, but it should be clear that it is a marriage exacly like the one among different-sex couples, not a new type of marriage

I see what you're saying, and I agree with some of it, but I was just using a popular term. I usually see it called "gay marriage", but I prefer using the term homosexual. "Marriage of same-sex couples" would be fine with me, but I think keeping the title would facilitate searches for it later on.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Wizard from Milan

I want to reproduce two phrases from the California court ruling (Judge Kramer)
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,"
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
These sentences are quite obvious and not particularly remarkable to me, but I post them because other people here think otherwise.

And I repeat my objection for the third time

Does this judge somehow think that the millions of Californians who voted to keep marriage between an adult consenting man and an adult consenting woman voted to do so merely because it's "traditional" and it's always been "done so before"?! This reminds me of the claim from a few Democrats that people that voted for Bush were "stupid".

I believe that if you think you're right, then you should try to persuade people. Give people the dignity of assuming they think about things, and realize that if they disagree, it doesn't have to be because they're "stupid"; perhaps YOU'RE wrong, or perhaps you just have different worldviews. Why is this man the sole arbiter of what is "rational"? (in another quote he said something like he couldn't find a rational reason to deny same-sex marriages.) Bring it before the good people of California for a fair vote! Oh wait, we already did that - and the good people of California voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. I voted this way, and I certainly didn't feel constrained at ALL to vote this way because it was "traditional" or it's always been "done so before"! Sheesh!

The people that fought and died to establish the USA did so to get out from under the tyranny of the few. Judges like this are what people fought and died to get away FROM!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

ok so this is just a subscription post for me, but i do want to comment on one thing: tyranny????

[katya]

Thank you, RÃ*an! Maybe my thread that I don't care about any more will be free now!

My consience (spelling?) tells me I must say something on topic, so... I think that people spend too much time worrying about things, and I think that there's no problem with gay marriage. Well, it could cause problems, but so could a lot of things that no one has any right making illegal. And, this way, I can marry my imaginary female friend and we can share benefits and live more cheaply than if we were alone. And then we can XXX and XXX every night- just kidding! I'm only in it for the money, haha!

[hectorberlioz]

So do we all know about Elton John's "aha!" solution to ending violence? Yeah, ban organized religion. Sorry Mr. John, but that's already been tried. What he really meant, of course, was Ban Chrisitianity...since one of his reasons was that "religion (aka that evil religion christianity) encourages hatred against gays."
And we all know that christianity is the most anti-gay of all religions, and that its constituents are the most wild-eyed evil people who ever walked the face of the earth.
Oh well, any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with, eh?

[Insidious Rex]

Yeah it is a silly suggestion to ban organized religion even if christianty and Islam DO encourage hatred against gays.

[Earniel]

Did he specifically say to ban christianity? Because you know, organised religions are bit bigger than just that.

It's an impossible solution but still, if we hadn't have religion, I can't help thinking we'd have a lot less of the current conflicts. But of course, knowing us, we'd find some other characteristic to pick fights over...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Did he specifically say to ban christianity? Because you know, organised religions are bit bigger than just that.

It's an impossible solution but still, if we hadn't have religion, I can't help thinking we'd have a lot less of the current conflicts. But of course, knowing us, we'd find some other characteristic to pick fights over...

No he didn't SAY, but he implicity implied. Not sure what you mean by "bit bigger than that"...what is usually meant by "organized religion" is "people who go to church". Basically he wants religion to be a feel-good, stay-at-home type of thing. "Ya know, I just really feel the sugar/God thing flowing through me right now. Sure wish I could go to church, but since the super-smart Elton John came with this great idea of banning religion, I guess I'd better not. "....

Thanks Rex, for realizing it's a useless suggestion

[brownjenkins]

Keeping religion to yourself ain't such a bad idea, though I'd never ban it.

It's like sex. As long as it's kept in the bedroom, people can do as they choose.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No he didn't SAY, but he implicity implied.

Sooo, you're taking this as an insult to christianity on account of a supposed implication that organised religion can be no other but christianity?

The term organized religion does not solely contain christianity, that's what I'm saying. Not every 'stick' thrown at 'organized religion' hits christianity on the head. I'm sure all the other organized religions want their share of stick beatings too.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yeah it is a silly suggestion to ban organized religion even if christianty and Islam DO encourage hatred against gays.

Well, I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity in its idealism, if you will, does not encourage hatred of anybody, let alone gays. Christianity takes a decided stance against homosexuality, yes, but it does not by any means encourage hatred of homosexuals. People who hate gays in the name of any organized religion will still hate gays in the absence of any organized religion.

[hectorberlioz]

Great post, Rosie

...People talk about what the world would be like "if christians had the power!?". I can understand how a lot of Muslims must feel, going through this time, having to be associated with terrorists. Rosie O'Donnel apperantly thinks "extreme" christianity is "just as dangerous" as "extreme Islam". Heck, some weirdo author thinks christians are so bad, she wrote a novel (The Handmaid's Tale) about how it would be for women if christianity took over. The fact is that christianity is the thing that liberated women.

...well, futile to talk about it taking over, because it already did takeover, and it produced this country of America.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

...well, futile to talk about it taking over, because it already did takeover, and it produced this country of America.

Yes but thankfully weve moved away from our Puritan stage and have developed into a more tolerant nation.