Same-sex Marriage, thoughts?

As long as "marriage" continues to be a legal status with legal implications like spousal privilege, inheritance, child custody, power of attorney, etc., then I disapprove of any legal prohibitions on same-sex "marriage".

@cancerlad: The problem with that is that marriage is clearly not a religious institution.

For one, it's existed in all civilizations with all kinds of religions (and "religions" in the Far East tend to be more like what we would call philosophies.) Even explicitly atheist states like the USSR recognized marriage, and the US legally recognizes marriage despite being officially secular.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Let the respective religions decide who they can or cannot marry.

I've never heard of a single good reason why it should be banned. Not even one. All of them fall back to religion or thinly disguised personal prejudice, which invalidates them almost instantly.

NOTE

As far as the law is concerned; let them marry. It's an offense to the sanctity of law (not to mention the principles under which it was written) that they cannot. Essentially, denying homosexuals the right to marry places them in the same dark place that black Americans were shoved during the "Separate but Equal" phase of our history. I've yet to hear an argument against that wasn't grounded in some religious/moralistic bullshit.

as to religion; yes, this country supports freedom of religion. If a pastor wants to declare his altar off limits to gays who wish to marry, that is certainly his right. *

Supporting freedoms does on occasion mean that we have to choke down some inequities.

HOWEVER. Marriage is a legal contract, as far as the State is concerned. I ought to know, I got married in front of a judge. And all are supposed to be equal under the law; it says so on a piece of moldy vellum in Washington DC *

. Those who say "gays shouldn't marry" might as well light an American flag on fire.

Put simply; the legal aspects of marriage should be available to all. Individual religions may worship (and discriminate) as they wish, but the law should rise above such concerns.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

I think they should definitely be able to marry. Homosexuals should have the same rights and marriage benefits as everyone else.

With the religious marriages, I wish the would all let them get married, but if they don't, then that's their right, I guess. No one should force religious institutions to allow gay marriage, but for sure it should be allowed with state law.

"Marriage is a religious institution"

Let's try that one again. Taxation, hospital visitation rights, life support decisions, etc. are things that civil marriage has bearing on, and they are generally the main reason why most liberal people would want to enter a by-now symbolically bankrupt institution. I'm sure some gays love the pomp and circumstance of the wedding and the wedding ring, but it's generally the marital benefits that they're seen to be fighting for - and these have nothing to do with any particular religion, and everything to do with the state.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Two men can't be get married, who going to nag away at the other one's confident and self-esteem?

edited 15th Jun '11 5:29:43 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Title Hop - sure dude, go for it!

On subject, like everyone else on the thread, I am in favor of gay marriage, and I say that after ten years as a happily-married heterosexual.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Have you met my boyfriend? I kid, I kid

Anyway, marriage is not a religious instituion. While it is mostly linked to various religions, each religion only contains the definition of marriage in its tradition, be it with two people or more, who owns what in marriage and wherther you can get divorced or not. But the consept of two (or more) people who love eachother or not forming a loyal partnership is universal in humankind.

The only non-religious objection to same sex marriage that I've heard which I would give any level of merit for is, that a same sex couple cannot have children and thus have a lineage, but that isn't in fact required from heterosexual couples, especially not in the modern age. Hordes of children were needed in an agricultural society, where there were no retirement plans, you needed as many hands on the field as possible, and infant mortality rate was on third world levels. And not allowing gays to marry won't make them straight and willing to reproduce.

the statement above is false

I think it's unlikely anyone on this subforum is going to object to gay marriage.

I don't either, for what it's worth.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Sure they can, but your argument doesn't prove it. Straight people being able to raise a child who turns out gay doesn't mean gays will be able to raise a child who turns out straight.

Take albinos for example. Two non-albino parents, if they're carriers of albinism, can have an albino child. But if two albino parents were to have a child, the child would have a 100% chance of being an albino (barring the rare case of random mutation).

So your argument is flawed, but your conclusion is correct nonetheless.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

Um...there's one big hole in your reasoning. The two albino people together are the parents, with two homosexuals, even accepting that homosexuality is genetic, they won't both be the parents.

Sexuality isn't a learned behaviour, so there's that.

the statement above is false

You're born with whatever sexuality you have. And any child a homosexual couple has will almost certainly be adopted, since homosexuals obviously can't breed. Therefore, the child will have whatever sexuality s/he was born with and whatever genes his/her biological parents have.

Basically, what you're arguing is any non-albino adopted by albino parents will turn albino. Which is just silly.

edited 15th Jun '11 2:48:31 PM by washington213

OK, firstly, I'm not saying kids raised by a gay kid will turn out gay. The research shows that this is not true.

Secondly, the albino example was not meant to be taken so literally. All I meant was 'X doesn't always produce X' is no guarantee that 'Y won't always produce Y'. I'm not sure how to explain this more clearly, since if I give another example you guys will probably turn it around into something ridiculous as well.

Thirdly, most kids of gays, from what I've heard, are biologically children of one of the parents - either a child from a pre-coming-out marriage or in vitro fertilization or surrogacy.

Fourthly, the cause of homosexuality is unknown. It's probably not upbringing, but we don't know for sure. Research hasn't found much yet. Personally, I don't think the cause matters - gays deserve equal rights no matter why they're gay.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

You have not made yourself any more clear, at least not with whatever you were trying to explain with your reference to albino parents.

edited 15th Jun '11 2:51:24 PM by blueharp

Even in that case, it has one of the parents. Which means that, even if the genes for homosexuality are thrown in, there are also the genes for heterosexuality.

To compare to your albino analogy, it would be like an albino and a non-albino breeding. It could go either way.

Fair enough. However, it most likely is to do with genetics since homosexuals have a strong tendency to be have certain physical traits. Also the fact that it's highly unlikely to be psychological, since it's been more or less proven that it's impossible to cure homosexuality with therapy, no matter how hard a person tries.

OK, what exactly is unclear about the concept of an analogy?

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

Perhaps a bit anecdotal and therefore not that useful (Forgive me, if it is, I'm a Biologist ) but I'd like to one day propose to my boyfriend and have it mean something to more than just us.

edited 15th Jun '11 3:08:24 PM by Lanceleoghauni

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"

<Mod Hat ON>

This is off-topic.

And non-productive, to boot, particularly because you both agree as to the conclusion and are simply arguing over the wording of the reasoning.

<Mod Hat OFF>

edited 15th Jun '11 3:14:08 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Thread Hop.

I think marriage, essentially a contract between two heterosexual people of opposite sexes, is a terribly outdated thing that never should have existed in the first place.

Cancerlad, your idea of a less-idiotic tax system is something I can support wholeheartedly.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

Well, if one is going to get technical and nitpicky, then two gays are allowed to marry. A gay man can marry gay woman.

But seriously, this one thinks that same-sex marriage should be universally allowed. Gay people deserve happiness with their loved ones no less than anyone else, and same-sex marriage harms noone. Oh, people can claim whatever effects on "society as a whole" (a claims that are eerily similar to protests against interracial marriage, by the way. But that's another point entirely) they like, but please, show this one one person that is harmed by same-sex marriage?!

This one is speaking strictly of marriage strictly as of secular institution, of course. Various religious organisations are free to recognise it or not - just like they always were. But their opinion should have no bearing on legal benefits same-sex couples receive.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

On that note: gays do have the same rights as straight people. Gays have every right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, just like a straight person. They just won't enjoy it as much.

From a civil point of view, civil "marriage" is nothing but a contract specifying some stuff about inheritance and the like. I see no reason why the gender of the participants should be of any importance for that. From my point of view, civil "marriage" is not really marriage at all, actually; but eh, I'm not going to start a fight about terminology.

From a religious point of view, though, matters are a bit more complicated for me. On one hand, as I mentioned in the other thread I do not think that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity; but on the other, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church disagrees with me at the moment, and it's them — and definitely not me — who have the authority to decide on something like that. So, while still voicing my doubts, on this topic I bow to the opinion of the rightful successors of the Apostles: if they say that religious gay marriage should not be allowed, then their opinion should be followed — for example, while I sympathize with the Catholic priests who attempted to perform homosexual religious marriages, it is undeniable that their was an abuse of power.

EDIT:

From what I heard (but it was just some website somewhere, so it's not precisely a trustworthy source) it might have less to do with genetics than with hormone levels during pregnancy, perhaps. But eh, same difference.

edited 16th Jun '11 12:08:04 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.