Same-sex Marriage

[Boerseun]

I don't see what the fuss is all about.

 

It's all relative, and open to interpretation.

 

If you're a staunch orthodox Christian, then same-sex marriage will be wrong on your part. If you're a staunch humanist, it won't be. If your moral code is determined by the Letter of the Law, it merely depends on which State or Country you're in for same-sex marriages to be right or wrong.

 

But I think attempting to prove it universally right or wrong will be an exercise in futility, due to the many and conflicting moral codes out there.

 

And Jway, this thread is clearly not about polygamy - be it same sex or not.

[InfiniteNow]

For me, a fairly accurate definition of marriage refers to: a social, religious, spiritual, emotional and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship.

Which ignores atheists and their legitimate marriages.

[Jway]

Which ignores atheists and their legitimate marriages.

 

My personal definition DOES NOT.

 

I think the Wikipedia would be fairly read as: definition of marriage refers to -a social and/or, religious and/or, spiritual and/or, emotional and/or and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship.

 

But perhaps you disagree even with that. So, we could go with my definition, the broadest of them all and one I believe I am entirely consistent with except when to make a facetious point about those who hold more restrictive definitions.

 

Btw, I'm even willing to update my persona definition to: an union.

Let me know who I may be ignoring now? And show me another anywhere who would be willing to go this broad in current society.

[Jway]

 

And Jway, this thread is clearly not about polygamy - be it same sex or not.

 

I don't really care to discuss polygamy, especially if it is off-limits.

 

I care to uncover a fair, accurate, all inclusive definition of marriage. I believe homosexual marriages (between two or more individuals) fits within the definition that I find most accurate.

[Hasanuddin]

I agree with you 100% InfiniteNow,

 

This is a definite molehill, teacup-storm, and nothing-something. The only reason there is an issue is because people create there to be an issue. And on that note, I think I will say "goodbye" to this thread.

 

Personally I think there are way too many laws on the books in the USA to consider that actual freedom and liberty still exists in the USA. I remember one year it was reported that California adopted over 3000 new laws onto the books. Although it could be argued that among those laws were legitimate causes, many were there simply to curtain the freedoms of others. For example, one law made it illegal to kill, sell, or eat squirrel, which was a direct attempt to control Asian immigrants' vile habits. Personally, I'd say eat'm. What's vile are the squirrels: disease-carrying, marauding, vandalizing rats (with pretty coats.) I don’t like squirrels because they rudely destroy gardens, break into houses, and cause major property damage. What I don’t like either, is that the City of Boston has similar laws. I would have no remorse trapping and drowning them, it’d be just like pulling weeds (culling the herd,) to make things better. But I can’t. If I do I risk going to jail or being fined. Because of someone I don’t know, what I am allowed to do on my property, to protect my property, is curtailed.

 

Marriage is a much bigger deal. Commitments of marriage take years to develop intrapersonally. Trust is something you need to establish and earn. More importantly, marriage is a merging of tribes. A bringing together of two separate clans. Societally marriage has been used as a way of merging empires and establishing peace for cunturies. The “legal” certificate issued by the Commonwealth, State, City, or whatever municipality is almost superfluous. Why does it matter??

 

Well, it matters more for some people than it does for others. Before it was legal to marry in Massachusetts, we were planning to get married in Ontario at our favorite hidden thespian jewel, the city of Stratford. A bizarre little town in the middle of farmland with 5 Broadway sized theatres running a professional festival of theater throughout the summer. (Please note to those skeptics that think that marriage is just being pushed by “the gays” for monetary reasons—note that a Canadian license would have meant nothing to the IRS.) Stratford was ideal because it is midway between my family’s summer cottages in Michigan and Patrick’s family in Boston. But soon things started happening in Massachusetts. When it did pass, I refused to be one of the first to run to city hall. I didn’t want to stand in line. Mainly I wanted it to "count." If I was going to drag my family out from CA, OH, NM, MI, FL, DC, and NYC...I wanted to make sure I wasn't going to be embarrassed by a reversal. We only started making plans once it became “certain” that freedom to marry had been firmly established in this state. As I said in an earlier post, having all of our friends and family, having my father conduct the service, having my niece throw petals, and having my sister break her bracelet and rip her dress because she had a panic-attack thinking she was locked in a bathroom all are very dear memories to me. I’m so glad it happened. And thank you all for your kind words.

Would it have happened without the piece of paper… in Ontario, yes.

 

And what if there were no Ontario… in that case we would have been like gay men of centuries gone by together, committed, but on the down-low.

 

Is that better... no, not for me, perhaps for some uncomfortable straights, but not for me.tter…

Question: Why do you care what anybody else does anyways?

 

.ps: You don’t need to answer that question because I’m leaving this thread. But this is an important question to reflect upon

[Larv]

Question: Why do you care what anybody else does anyways?

 

ps: You don’t need to answer that question because I’m leaving this thread. But this is an important question to reflect upon

Please don't go away mad, because everyone here is just laying out his/her opinion on the matter. What's wrong with that? Isn't that the purpose of this thread? And regarding your question, it makes me want to ask you: Then why do you care about legalizing same-sex marriage if you don't "care what anybody else does anyways."

[Boerseun]

And regarding your question, it makes me want to ask you: Then why do you care about legalizing same-sex marriage if you don't "care what anybody else does anyways."

We honestly don't have to care what anybody thinks of our stance or opinion regarding any matter whatsoever.

 

However, we don't get to pick and choose what legislation applies to us.

[InfiniteNow]

Larv - That seems to ignore his point, and misframe his position. He was asking, "Why should anyone be against allowing two same sex partners from being married? What harm does it cause these people who are against it?"

 

The reason Hasanuddin cares is NOT because he wants to control others, nor impose his own morality on to them via legislation, but because equality is worth fighting for. His position caring about the legalization of same sex marriage isn't about caring "what anybody else does anyway." It's about caring that discrimination in our society is rooted out, plucked from our culture like the weed it is.

[Larv]

Larv - That seems to ignore his point, and misframe his position. He was asking, "Why should anyone be against allowing two same sex partners from being married? What harm does it cause these people who are against it?"

 

The reason Hasanuddin cares is NOT because he wants to control others, nor impose his own morality on to them via legislation, but because equality is worth fighting for. His position caring about the legalization of same sex marriage isn't about caring "what anybody else does anyway." It's about caring that discrimination in our society is rooted out, plucked from our culture like the weed it is.

But isn't he saying that since heterosexual people can get married to members of the opposite sex then homosexual people should be able to get married to members of the same sex? How is that NOT caring what other people are legally allowed to do?

[Jway]

I reflected and came up with this:

 

This is a definite molehill, teacup-storm, and nothing-something. The only reason there is an issue is because people create there to be an issue. And on that note, I think I will say "goodbye" to this thread.

 

Question: Why do you care what anybody else does anyways?

 

If he was asking what INow says he was asking, then please update for accuracy, because by walking away from the discussion, you are still creating the issue, especially if announcing it as such.

 

It's okay to walk away.

Just like it's okay to do just about anything and everything.

Unless it's not okay.

Unless there are "issues" being created.

[niviene]

 

Personally I think there are way too many laws on the books in the USA to consider that actual freedom and liberty still exists in the USA. I remember one year it was reported that California adopted over 3000 new laws onto the books. Although it could be argued that among those laws were legitimate causes, many were there simply to curtain the freedoms of others. For example, one law made it illegal to kill, sell, or eat squirrel, which was a direct attempt to control Asian immigrants' vile habits. .... Because of someone I don’t know, what I am allowed to do on my property, to protect my property, is curtailed.

 

While I generally agree with you, and I guess you'll never read this because you left, I am always amused by people who say things like this. Do you ever read the legislative history of the laws before criticising them? I find that almost always, the people complaining have no idea. Since everything around us changes, the laws also have to change. Our legal system (not perfect, but pretty great, relatively speaking) would be ridiculous if the laws didn't change with the times.

 

 

 

(Please note to those skeptics that think that marriage is just being pushed by “the gays” for monetary reasons—note that a Canadian license would have meant nothing to the IRS.)

 

Unfortunately, no matter where you are married, the IRS will not recognize any same-sex marriage for tax purposes under the Defense of Marriage Act. A load of BS, of course, and I can't wait until that goes away.

 

I am ashamed that so many people have issues with same-sex marriage. There is no reason to argue it. We have taken marriage away from being a religious act and have turned it into a legal act. The words alone "I do" are not speech - they are called a legal act; they are treated differently under the law, in courts, under the federal rules of evidence, etc. A legal act should not be allowed only for some people and disallowed for another group of people - equal protection should be jumping off the page here. I have never once heard an argument that made any sense as to why any two natural persons should not be allowed to enter into a legal relationship called marriage (there used to be a good argument for cousins getting married, I try not to giggle, but it's true - years ago in a genetic anthropology course, I learned that there is just as much chance of having a birth defect by mating with a first cousin as there is for a woman over 40 years old who gives birth; perhaps other relational blocks would make sense, but that's about the only thing I can think of). Nor have I ever heard a reason that the Defense of Marriage act should be allowed to override the marital status of two individuals in the state in which they reside; although it applies to federal taxation, all federal taxation is based upon the personal marriage status the individual has declared in his state of residence. Not to mention that any block on same sex marriage can be circumvented by a gender altering surgery, something which public policy should warn us not to push people into.

 

There is no need to revise any definitions anywhere of the word "marriage," except in those places that have changed the meaning to include genders. The biggest issue for me is that with so much horror and hatred in the world, why expend so much energy to stop one thing that is beautiful and good? Why attack people in love, for crying out loud? Legal acts must be uniformly applied. If a church has an issue with any particular couple, that's for the church to complain about, but the legal act itself should be available to same-sex couples as well (and recognized as such by the federal government if recognized in the couple's state of residence).

[HydrogenBond]

The problem is not the union of two people of the same sex, which entitles them to civil advantages. It has to do with highjacking the word "marriage". To many people the term "marriage" has a special meaning, with the highjacking of this term felt to be very insensitive. This is why the reaction gets very emotional.

 

Try this as an experiment, pick another term (that is not highjacked) and use that to see what the reaction is. If it is less emotional, the problem is insensitivity.

 

As an insensitive example, say those into bestiality decided to called themselves gay. Using the marriage term highjack template, the bestial don't have to follow the accepted rules and definition of the term gay. They can highjack the term to alter to its definition in an attempt to use language manipulation to walk the shadow of an accepted group. But the real gays, who may not wish to be confused with the bestial, may try to outrun them to maintain differentiation. Those on the side-lines, who are out of touch with cause and effect, may side with the underdog bestial-gay and become even more insensitive to the real gays who were wronged in the first place. This is the dynamics in a nutshell. No offense was intended, just a stroll in another's shoes.