Gay marriage soapbox

Datsun1500 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: You're making some strange analogies, man... You can choose to be a doctor. You can choose to be married. You cannot choose to be black.

That makes sense, but here is where I get confused. You want rights based on who you sleep with, that is the very definition of homosexuality. I can look at you and tell if you are black. I can look at you and tell if you are female. I can't look at you and tell who you are having sex with, if anyone. Homosexuality is a sexual preference (and I don't believe it is a choice, I do believe you are born with it) so why do you get special rights for that? If you don't tell me who you are having sex with, I will have no idea if you are straight or gay. You don't have to tell me you are black or white, male or female that's pretty obvious (most of the time) Does someone that is not having sex with anyone deserve special rights? I don't see how you can demand certain treatment based on who you are having sex with. I was taught to feel this way by my parents who also feel this way. They are also both men. Yes, I was raised by a homosexual couple who think that what they do in the bedroom is between them and no one else. They feel they are committed to each other and that is good enough for them. Betcha didn't see that one coming

I should clarify: I'm all for gay marriage. I'm honestly a bit disgusted at society that this is even a hot debate.

I'm saying that you should have no special rights/privileges that others do have. I don't care if you're having sex. If you are, i don't care with whom.

Datsun1500 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: You're making some strange analogies, man... You can choose to be a doctor. You can choose to be married. You cannot choose to be black.

That makes sense, but here is where I get confused. You want rights based on who you sleep with, that is the very definition of homosexuality. I can look at you and tell if you are black. I can look at you and tell if you are female. I can't look at you and tell who you are having sex with, if anyone. Homosexuality is a sexual preference (and I don't believe it is a choice, I do believe you are born with it) so why do you get special rights for that? If you don't tell me who you are having sex with, I will have no idea if you are straight or gay. You don't have to tell me you are black or white, male or female that's pretty obvious (most of the time) Does someone that is not having sex with anyone deserve special rights? I don't see how you can demand certain treatment based on who you are having sex with. I was taught to feel this way by my parents who also feel this way. They are also both men. Yes, I was raised by a homosexual couple who think that what they do in the bedroom is between them and no one else. They feel they are committed to each other and that is good enough for them. Betcha didn't see that one coming

I don't think it's "special treatment because of who you have sex with", I think that it is "equal treatment REGARDLESS of who you have sex with."

Joey

Osterkraut wrote: I'm opposed to government recognition of gay marriage. I'm opposed to government recognition of all marriage, actually. Because it's an inherently religious institution, the government shouldn't be using it as a metric at all. Everyone should have to legally have a civil union. If you want to call it marriage that's fine, but when you do your taxes it's "Civil Union, filing jointly." I also don't have a problem with churches being unwilling to marry gays. It's their field, they can control who gets the ball. Churches should pay taxes, though.

See, and I would 100% back this. As I said, what I have a problem with is the LGBT community trying to take the word marriage for itself, whether you (this is a general you) see it that way or not is not my problem, "I" feel it is a valid concern and I take issues with the implications it has for the word marriage. You trying to negate my concern by telling me "you're wrong" (this is for you Salanis) does not actually do anything, as your "points" about what is wrong with my "opinion" are because your values/beliefs in our societal systems are not the same.

Also, I am Canadian. Gays can be "married", and once that sort of legislation is done, you can't turn that back. This is why I typically don't wade into this conversation anymore, as it doesn't really matter what I think, it won't change here. Our laws, charters, rights, etc differ from yours in many ways, sorry that I haven't read the whole US constitution, I am not arguing this point from that view.

Curmudgeon wrote: Marriage has long been assumed to be a legal union between a man and woman for the purpose of starting a family. That's deeply rooted in human tradition and history.

I've been married (hetero) for 12 years and we actively chose not to have children. I think there are probably some groups who wouldn't logically recognize my marriage. I guess if their criteria is that marriage is for procreation, I'm not technically married

In the interest of achieving things incrementally, I'd suggest that the LGBT community perhaps choose another word for such a union which would give all the rights etc but only be called something different ('A rose by any other name smells as sweet'). Get that written into law, then work over time to merge it with the traditional hetero definition. It's like the old saying 'How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time'.

We are kinda there. Civil Unions are that word, but imagine being black in the 60s in Mississippi. When "separate but equal" came around, they were supposedly granted additional rights, but they still had to have different entrances, water fountains, classrooms... I think the issue I would have is that its a tiny step, but just not necessary.

I understand that you have to spoon feed the conservative opposition one tiny spoonful at a time. Ya know, toss them a bone and ease them into change. But how long will we have to do that? This has been a big issue for decades.

I guess my main motivation for writing the essay was; if conservatives are going to rally around LGBT issues as their witch-hunt-du-jour, I'm going to stand up and be equally vocal for equal rights.

HiTempguy wrote: Why is marriage a "right:" for the LGBT, or for the matter, anyone? As mentioned, marriage for millennia has been between man and woman. The word MARRIAGE means a union between man and woman. I take offense to the fact that anybody feels they have the "right" to co-opt something that isn't theirs to begin with. As is typical with a minority view, they want to take something from others. A civil union can give a LGBT couple the exact same "rights" as a married couple. But noooooo, that's not good enough! And finally, I will NOT debate with anyone who picks apart the "analogy" portions of this whole post. It is well worded, and quite clear to it's intent. It is not a "right" to be defined as being married.

Sorry, you put something out there, you don't get to decide if/how people respond to it. You're welcome to your opinions, without doubt, but you don't get to just put them on display and refuse to accept rebuttals.

1) I'll agree that "marriage" is not necessarily a "right" for anyone. But if it IS being granted as a right, it is patently UNFAIR to apply it to certain qualifying individuals (adult, mentally competent) and not to other qualifying individuals.

2) How, exactly, is granting the right to marriage for gay couples taking something AWAY from others?! It's not like gay-marriage supporters are trying to ban hetero marriages. As IF. Just because my gay friend got married to his (male) lover, how did that in any way affect MY marriage to my (female) wife? Here's a hint: IT DIDN'T.

3) So, you say that a "civil union" gives the same benefits as "marriage". Does that also mean that you think "Separate But Equal" was a valid form of social law? After all, as long as black people have buses they can ride in too, it's OK if they're not allowed in the white folks' bus? As long as they have a "blacks only" door or public restroom, it's OK to exclude them from the "whites only" version?

Seriously.

I should also add that precisely nobody is talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages if it goes against their principles. They are welcome to do as their members and clergy see fit. But that doesn't include usurping ownership of the definition of a word.

Datsun1500 wrote: Homosexuality is a sexual preference (and I don't believe it is a choice, I do believe you are born with it) so why do you get special rights for that? I don't see how you can demand certain treatment based on who you are having sex with.

I agree with your basic statement that nobody should get "special rights", but I guess I don't share your perspective. As it stands, in many places straight people currently possess "special rights" to marry the person that they love. They get exclusive access to marriage in these places by way of their sexual preferences. I don't think straight people should get "special rights" based on who they're having sex with.

I tend to agree with Osterkraut that we should just call everything a civil union, I also wish the government could just get out of the business of defining and upholding a religious institution, but as anyone who's been involved with SCCA rules knows, takebacks are a bitch. You think people got pissed off when they found out had to put the A/C back in their ST car, just wait until you tell bible belt america that their marriages aren't legal anymore.

HiTempguy wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: I'm opposed to government recognition of gay marriage. I'm opposed to government recognition of all marriage, actually. Because it's an inherently religious institution, the government shouldn't be using it as a metric at all. Everyone should have to legally have a civil union. If you want to call it marriage that's fine, but when you do your taxes it's "Civil Union, filing jointly." I also don't have a problem with churches being unwilling to marry gays. It's their field, they can control who gets the ball. Churches should pay taxes, though.

See, and I would 100% back this. As I said, what I have a problem with is the LGBT community trying to take the word marriage for itself, whether you (this is a general you) see it that way or not is not my problem, "I" feel it is a valid concern and I take issues with the implications it has for the word marriage. You trying to negate my concern by telling me "you're wrong" (this is for you Salanis) does not actually do anything, as your "points" about what is wrong with my "opinion" are because your values/beliefs in our societal systems are not the same.

I 100% agree with this too and think it is the most reasonable option. However, it will not happen because people will get pissed that the government is taking marriage away from them. Our society has decided that we are going to call this sort of union "marriage" and any pair of consenting adults who make that sort of commitment should be able to call the same commitment by the same name.

I'm not trying to negate your concerns just by saying "you're wrong" (I think you're wrong... and you think I'm wrong; which is why this is a debate). What I'm saying is that you keep repeating that homosexual marriage is taking something away or co-opting it for a different purpose. I think it is not. I can explain to you why I think it isn't (primarily because it does not change or degrade the rights you have). I would like you to explain why you think homosexual marriage would take away or co-opt marriage.

Unless I've missed something, your only argument on that point is that marriage didn't used to be like that in the past, and I've argued that the definition of marriage has evolved considerably since it began as a contract to assure a woman that a man would protect her and her children and that the woman would assure the man that all the children were his.

Josh wrote: I agree with your basic statement that nobody should get "special rights", but I guess I don't share your perspective. As it stands, in many places straight people currently possess "special rights" to marry the person that they love. They get exclusive access to marriage in these places by way of *their* sexual preferences. I don't think straight people should get "special rights" based on who they're having sex with.

Homosexual people aren't asking for special rights. They don't want something new and fancy created for them. They want the same right/privilege hetero couples receive to be extended to them.

Datsun1500 wrote: That makes sense, but here is where I get confused. You want rights based on who you sleep with, that is the very definition of homosexuality. I can look at you and tell if you are black. I can look at you and tell if you are female. I can't look at you and tell who you are having sex with, if anyone. Homosexuality is a sexual preference (and I don't believe it is a choice, I do believe you are born with it) so why do you get special rights for that? If you don't tell me who you are having sex with, I will have no idea if you are straight or gay. You don't have to tell me you are black or white, male or female that's pretty obvious (most of the time) Does someone that is not having sex with anyone deserve special rights? I don't see how you can demand certain treatment based on who you are having sex with. I was taught to feel this way by my parents who also feel this way. They are also both men. Yes, I was raised by a homosexual couple who think that what they do in the bedroom is between them and no one else. They feel they are committed to each other and that is good enough for them. Betcha didn't see that one coming

Well, here is where I get confused: how does wanting the same treatment as everybody else gets constitute "wanting special treatment" in ANY way?

Josh wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: Homosexuality is a sexual preference (and I don't believe it is a choice, I do believe you are born with it) so why do you get special rights for that? I don't see how you can demand certain treatment based on who you are having sex with.

I agree with your basic statement that nobody should get "special rights", but I guess I don't share your perspective. As it stands, in many places straight people currently possess "special rights" to marry the person that they love. They get exclusive access to marriage in these places by way of *their* sexual preferences. I don't think straight people should get "special rights" based on who they're having sex with. I tend to agree with Osterkraut that we should just call everything a civil union, I also wish the government could just get out of the business of defining and upholding a religious institution, but as anyone who's been involved with SCCA rules knows, takebacks are a bitch. You think people got pissed off when they found out had to put the A/C back in their ST car, just wait until you tell bible belt america that their marriages aren't legal anymore.

I get your point, but why would we tell any bible beltters that their marriage isn't legal anymore?

Joey

mmmmmm donuts.

for the record, my brother got married last year, to a man. they have been together for 25 years, the longest standing relationship in my family, my wife and I have been together 22 years, both are records with divorce prevalent in my family. ( my other brother is on his third marriage, my father on his second, and my mother has been married three times)

I look to my oldest brother for holding up marriage.

joey48442 wrote: I get your point, but why would we tell any bible beltters that their marriage isn't legal anymore?

He's talking about arbitrarily replacing all marriages with "civil unions" in the eyes of the government.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Duke wrote: Well, here is where **I** get confused: how does wanting *the same treatment as everybody else gets* constitute "wanting special treatment" in ANY way?

If I get into a fight with a guy because he is an shiny happy person, it's assault. If that same guy happens to be having sex with another guy, it's a hate crime. Why? You can have the same rights as heterosexual couples (hospital visitations, taxes, etc.) without forcing it to be called marriage. Forcing it to be called marriage just brings the religious people into it for no reason....

Marriage? Civil Unions?

Seems to me that the anti gay marriage crowd is down to arguing semantics now because they have lost every other logical argument.

Datsun1500 wrote: If I get into a fight with a guy because he is an shiny happy person, it's assault. If that same guy happens to be having sex with another guy, it's a hate crime. Why?

That's just as misleading as saying that people want special rights.

If you get into a normal fight with anyone, it's assult.

If you get into a fight based on who they are (women, race, sexuality), that's is a hate crime.

There's a big difference. And the hate crime part should need to be proven to stick.

This case is providing equal opportunities to all couples.

Curmudgeon wrote: Disclaimer: for the longest time I did not support gay marriage. As I have gotten older (not necessarily wiser ) I have become more tolerant and open minded. Yeah, I know that's ass backwards. I don't particularly care if someone is gay or whether that person wants to enter into a lifelong relationship with another gay person. It's none of my business. FWIW: a long ago friend of mine just got married to his boyfriend of many years. I wish them all the best. That marriage started a E36 M3storm down here, man I'd hate to be in their shoes right now. But regardless: Marriage has long been assumed to be a legal union between a man and woman for the purpose of starting a family. That's deeply rooted in human tradition and history. Perhaps the real problem is that the stone age simpletons of the world perceive use of the word to describe anything other than the traditional marriage as an attack on the alleged 'values ' attached to it. Yeah, I know, I know: Newt et al have pretty much tore that up. In the interest of achieving things incrementally, I'd suggest that the LGBT community perhaps choose another word for such a union which would give all the rights etc but only be called something different ('A rose by any other name smells as sweet'). Get that written into law, then work over time to merge it with the traditional hetero definition. It's like the old saying 'How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time'. Trying to make the huge leap all at once is bound to meet with opposition from the stone age simpletons. Plus, gays who get married now have the 'luxury' of having to get a divorce. Used to not be that way. Now we straight guys have nothing to envy them for.

So if hetro couples who CAN'T have a family- they should change their marriage to a civil union? I know a LOT of couples who physically can not have children.

separate but equal does not mean equal.

Sure you can. There are several African and middle eastern countries where polygamy is legal.

Datsun1500 wrote: Why does it have to be called a marriage?

Because it IS marriage. It might mean nothing to the opposition, but if you had been oppressed and told for decades that you are "less than" in the eyes of society, you might argue semantics yourself.

Asking LGBT folks to just accept a "separate but equal" policy is not human rights.

Datsun1500 wrote: If I want to sleep with another guy AND 2 other women, can we demand to be able to get married as a foursome? Why not?

I think you should. That is another HUGE thing that religion has imposed on society.

Humans are not scientifically or genetically monogamous. The society and religion we have built simply demands it.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Duke wrote: Well, here is where **I** get confused: how does wanting *the same treatment as everybody else gets* constitute "wanting special treatment" in ANY way?

If I get into a fight with a guy because he is an shiny happy person, it's assault. If that same guy happens to be having sex with another guy, it's a hate crime. Why?

This, I agree with 100%. "Hate crime" laws shouldn't exist. Either you're threatening somebody and assaulting them, or you're not. WHY you're doing it is not important. But that wasn't the topic, was it?

Datsun1500 wrote: You can have the same rights as heterosexual couples (hospital visitations, taxes, etc.) without forcing it to be called marriage. Forcing it to be called marriage just brings the religious people into it for no reason....

And with this, I still don't get it. See my post above about "separate but equal".

Osterkraut wrote: I'm opposed to government recognition of gay marriage. I'm opposed to government recognition of all marriage, actually. Because it's an inherently religious institution, the government shouldn't be using it as a metric at all. Everyone should have to legally have a civil union. If you want to call it marriage that's fine, but when you do your taxes it's "Civil Union, filing jointly." I also don't have a problem with churches being unwilling to marry gays. It's their field, they can control who gets the ball. Churches should pay taxes, though.

I agree with this exactly (civil union = legal, marriage = religious), but good luck getting it to happen in our society any time soon.

Not answering any particular item above, just voicing my general agreement with recognizing gay marriage.

Heck, I don't get argument over ownership of the term "marriage" when the concept's existed separately in any number of cultures and languages and with variation in defintion and purpose far longer than either the English language or the Christian church have existed (not to lay opposition solely at the feet of Christianity, which would be inaccurate)...

Datsun1500 wrote: Seems to me the pro gay marriage crowd is arguing semantics. Why is the exact same benefits not good enough? Why does it have to be called a marriage?

I mean sure. They were both drinking fountains right? why were they so upset? We gave them their own separate ones all special just for them right?

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: Seems to me the pro gay marriage crowd is arguing semantics. Why is the exact same benefits not good enough? Why does it have to be called a marriage? You also assume that I am against gay marriage. If I want to sleep with another guy AND 2 other women, can we demand to be able to get married as a foursome? Why not?

I'm not assuming anything. I said 'anti gay marriage crowd'. I didn't mention you or anybody else specifically

Do you have any logical reason not to call it marriage. No specific religion owns the word. I know atheists and wiccans who are married and even created their own ceremonies.

Why not call it marriage? If it walks like a duck...

O/T for a second...

Duke wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: If I get into a fight with a guy because he is an shiny happy person, it's assault. If that same guy happens to be having sex with another guy, it's a hate crime. Why?

This, I agree with 100%. "Hate crime" laws shouldn't exist. Either you're threatening somebody and assaulting them, or you're not. WHY you're doing it is not important. But that wasn't the topic, was it?

WHY is important. If a black guy's an shiny happy person to me and I go off and start a fight with him, that's assault/battery. If I start that fight because he's black (and that's very obvious to witnesses and the charge can stick in court), that's a hate crime.

Just like there's a difference between manslaughter and capital murder, there's a necessary distinction in the two assaults above. It's unfortunate that we need these distinctions, but the worst elements of our society keep insisting that we do. (See: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. for recent examples.)

I'm right there with Josh. Call it whatever term you want, marriage/civil union/joint misery, just call it the same for all. I do think the term marriage has a religious connotation to it, and across multiple religions. Interesting side note. I live in Vermont. We voted in the first civil union legislation. As a result, my then girlfriend(now wife), was able to get health benefits through my workplace and a few other benefits, because a marriage certificate no longer had the same legal value.

A comedian once said that he supported gay marriage, because he thought gay people had every right to be as miserable as he was. I agree. I just don't see any compelling reason why two consenting adults can't get hitched in some form or another. I don't even think you need to have intimate relations(like the movie chuck and larry). If two folks want to commit to each other in a legally binding manner, so be it.

I think it's sad that it is even a debated by .the federal gov't, I think there are faaaaaar more pressing matters to concern our lawmakers.

I'm not discounting religious beliefs. If your religion, is against gay marriage, I'm not suggesting a gov't over rule a religious belief. However, I see the religious definition of marriage being different than the legal definition. If religions are going to get all offended that the government uses the term marriage, they should have trademarked the name to prevent it's use by others.