Same-sex Marriage, thoughts?

I have rather complex views on this. But I'd like to hear what y'all have to say.

It's actually very simple for me. Gays are people. Straights are people. Straights get marriage rights. Gays ought to. What's your opinion?

I think all the legal wrangling over the issue is a waste of time.

Pass the ERA and sweep this and all the other gender and sex related legal debates under the rug. Also: DRAFT CARDS FOR EVERYBODY!

edited 14th Jun '11 2:50:55 PM by HungryJoe

None of my business who you spend your time with, or why, or doing what. However, since the government grants explicit and implicit rights to marriage partners, that means it has an obligation to do it responsibly, and that means not denying it to others out of caprice.

Marriage in the secular area? Yes. Make this legal. Marriage in Catholic churches and shit? Let the church make the rules.

For it.

I really see no reason why they shouldn't be able to marry. Any argument I've seen falls flat.

Any argument against gay marriage that's back by religion should simply be thrown out the window altogether. We are simply not a theocracy, religion shouldn't have any bearing on any of the laws. Besides, we already allow things in marriages that some religions frown upon. For example, we allow divorce and remarriage, which the Catholic church does not allow.

Some people argue that any adopted children will not grow up properly since they'd only be raised around one gender, and children need to be raised by both genders. If that were valid though, then we would take children away from any and all single parents. After all, if we're talking about gender equality, then a single female is no better than two females. Besides, considering the alternative, a foster home doesn't exactly have the ideal mother/father raising either. The children also would not necessarily grow up gay, since your sexuality can't be changed, it's in you from birth. If gays only raised other gays then it stands to reason that straights can raise only other straights, which we all know doesn't happen.

That last point is a bit of a logical leap Washington, but I agree with most of what you said.

I think it's important for a kid, especially a boy to have a "father figure", and I think a man is generally better suited for that role, but it doesn't need to be a man EVERY time or even a parent. No reason a relative or neighbor or even a kindly bus driver like in They Cage The Animals At Night.

edited 14th Jun '11 3:04:35 PM by HungryJoe

What Aondeug said.

I believe that same-sex partners should receive martial relationship benefits and I also believe that said benefits should be restricted to the realm of civil marriage either.

What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is absolutely none of my business. If they want to marry, none of my business.

If marriage is a secular issue, then the government has no choice but to grant equal rights for everyone. Giving benefits to straight couples but not gay ones is discriminatory.

If marriage is a religious issue, it's up to the individual church. The government can't force a church to marry gays. However, once they're married, the government has no choice but to give them all benefits etc etc...

In other words, no matter what, it should be legal in all states.

The state shouldn't have anything to do with marriage.

Well here's the thing for me. Marriage is a religious institution, so the government has no business saying who can marry and who cannot. So individual religions can say yes or no.

On the other hand, there are a lot of legal rights, including tax credits that married people have. As for the tax credits - I don't think there should be any tax credits. It should be a flat, inflexible tax. So, take away tax credits for married people and the issue become less complex. Even if marriage was impossible, there would be no tax penalty for the un-married, making the point moot.

The legal things are a little more difficult. Things like adoption, next of kin, medical surrogate, family visitation, inheritance, and property rights are a bit more complex. Marriage allows for easy adoption of children. In recent years this has been changing, and same sex couples have made tremendous strides in equality. Even so, it is still difficult to do so. Next of kin can be filled out with some legal documentation, but this can be expensive, and thus prohibitive. Actually, all the rest can be overcome with legal paperwork. However, with medical surrogates, in an emergency the necessary paperwork may not be available, making it difficult to guarantee that one partner's wishes are respected. Often same sex couples are not allowed to visit their sick partner outside of normal visiting hours at hospitals because they are not family, and are barred completely from areas like the Intensive Care Unit.

Property and Inheritance is so complex, even for family members, that I can't even imagine what troubles same-sex couples have to go through. I know of at least one occasion when a gay man was forced to leave his home when the title-holding partner died.

Because marriage is a religious institution, it is hard to force people into a society that does not match their beliefs. Especially when their beliefs were in the majority for hundreds of years.

There needs to be a secular version of marriage that bequeaths the benefits of marriage without invoking a religious institution. If people could register as, oh, consorts (for lack of another word), then it could function as an alternative to marriage, thus evading the issue altogether.

Some people are now thinking, and typing, what the hell is he talking about. What you're proposing is just marriage by a different name. You haven't solved anything. Maybe I'm wrong. I probably am. But the way things are right now, neither side is going to get what they want.

Marriage should not be a religious matter and still have state-supported benefits tied to it.

edited 14th Jun '11 3:10:58 PM by Yej

Marriage in Buddhism is considered a secular matter. I'd like both religious and secular marriages around as a result. The one that gives you benefits is the civil marriage. The religious thing gives you nothing legally.

edited 14th Jun '11 3:14:26 PM by Aondeug

^^^All of those instances are things that have to do with the state and not a religious institution.

Marriages happen in courthouses in front of judges as well as in churches in front of priests or ministers.

Some split hairs and call a secular one a civil union.

edited 14th Jun '11 3:13:59 PM by HungryJoe

I don't think you can duck the issue of marriage by saying it's a religious issue, you'd have to remove way too many laws for it to be removed entirely from the auspices of the state.

Truth be told, I don't see any problem with it. Whom people want to marry is not my concern.

I see no issue with it.

Those who say that "government has no place in marriage" should note that they support removing governmental benefits for being married; I would like for the state concept of marriage to be divorced from the religious one, but that is unlikely.

I'm always confused by the religious argument when it's always been a legal matter, hence it's not tied to religion per se but religion was once used for legal systems.

In any case, my view? Why not? I'm not sure what the big deal is here because the effect of gay marriage is that gay people can get married. The effect on non-gay people is negligible to mostly positive (I'd much prefer functional gay families than loose gay couples). These are one of those things that I never understand why people have to discuss so much. It's so pointless.

It should be pretty obvious. Mainstream reasons against it either revolve around arbitrary religious texts or around moot points about gay marriages that often apply to many straight marriages anyway.

EDIT: Heh, "divorced."

edited 14th Jun '11 3:25:07 PM by neoYTPism

How so? You don't think gays are capable of raising a straight?

True, it is ideal to have a kid raised by a mother and a father. But we don't take boys away from their mother just because the mother is single, and there is no man around. No reason two lesbians couldn't do the same or better.

I know personal anecdotes shoudl stay out of psychological debates, but I'm just gonna throw it out there; I was raised without a father, and I turned out alright.

I don't see the big deal. If it's to do with "religion says that marriage is sacred and is a bond between man and woman", then legalise civil partnerships. Same rights as a 'marriage', can be performed by a place of worship - if wanted - but is effectively a secular marriage except in name.

That's what OECD countries like Britain, France, etc., have. I don't really see why America can't have it. Along with universal healthcare and environmental policies, America is (one of) the only OECD nation to not have a stringent implemention. At least give gay rights and civil partnerships. That doesn't have anything to do with religion at all.

In some states we do. Most of New England, in fact.

@Washington: Oh, I read that wrong.