Your stance on gay marriage

[Shikkago]

I can drop demands, except when they border on intolerance. What demands could be dropped in a "gay marriage/no gay marriage" debate? Where's the middle ground?

There are several solutions. Look, if the people of a country really oppose the gay marriage, you can invent a temporary interim solution.
Eg. do not talk about marriage but a “civil partnership”, which is possible between anyone (male - female, male - male, female - female).

Give that “civil partnership” the same legal benefits and disadvantages as the marriage.
In short there’s no real difference between this and the marriage, but it doesn’t upset a religious majority who correlate the marriage with something religious.
Later, if people are used to the idea, you can start with a real marriage available for all.

Sometimes you have to climb over obstacles to reach your destination. This is better than not reaching your destination at all.

"butt buddies"?

It's just another "separate but [un]equal". I'd argue that while it may seem a necessary half-step to progress, it's an insulting compromise and can slow down progress. It's a dangerous mandate that says we are not equal citizens instead of just giving us our equality.

Civil Unions are NOT equal in several ways. For example, other states don't have to recognize them and have done stuff like banned a woman from her wife's deathbed. The myth that it's about a word is so silly.


... But there's also the possibility of backlash (ie Abortion) if you make a broad sweep when ppl aren't ready.

Still, I tend to think you should go for the goal, do the right thing, not compromise too much, let the chips fall where they may and all that.

Like I said before, either legal marriage for all or legal marriage for none. I'd be happy with either.

[Arimaon]

Perfectly acceptable as long as you keep religion confined to homes and temples.
The only disasters caused by 2 men or women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other for life, are to be found in the fables of the bible and its similars.
Don't they say that geez commanded us to love one another??

[Hartert]

You know, I have to say, I have never seen a good LEGAL argument against same sex marriage.

There is none.

That's exactly my point! Yet here we are, debating the legality of it.

I can't wait until Prop 8 is repealed. Then I'll go to a Mormon temple and scream "Take that, bitches!"

[Samuraikoku]

Like I said before, either legal marriage for all or legal marriage for none.

Legal marriage for all sounds like the best answer. I know people want to keep the state out of marriage but the law is interested in protecting the mutual commitment of spouses of having a life together, and to protect the children that will come out of that union, either via procreation or adoption.

[Marlboro Kid]

There are several solutions. Look, if the people of a country really oppose the gay marriage, you can invent a temporary interim solution.
Eg. do not talk about marriage but a “civil partnership”, which is possible between anyone (male - female, male - male, female - female).

Give that “civil partnership” the same legal benefits and disadvantages as the marriage.
In short there’s no real difference between this and the marriage, but it doesn’t upset a religious majority who correlate the marriage with something religious.
Later, if people are used to the idea, you can start with a real marriage available for all.

Sometimes you have to climb over obstacles to reach your destination. This is better than not reaching your destination at all.

"butt buddies"?

It's just another "separate but [un]equal". I'd argue that while it may seem a necessary half-step to progress, it's an insulting compromise and can slow down progress. It's a dangerous mandate that says we are not equal citizens instead of just giving us our equality.

Civil Unions are NOT equal in several ways. For example, other states don't have to recognize them and have done stuff like banned a woman from her wife's deathbed. The myth that it's about a word is so silly.


... But there's also the possibility of backlash (ie Abortion) if you make a broad sweep when ppl aren't ready.

Still, I tend to think you should go for the goal, do the right thing, not compromise too much, let the chips fall where they may and all that.

Like I said before, either legal marriage for all or legal marriage for none. I'd be happy with either.

There is no discrimination, since the "civil partnership" would be available for all. That's including heterosexuals.

[Samuraikoku]

There is no discrimination, since the "civil partnership" would be available for all. That's including heterosexuals.

Except religious people would say "you're not married, you're in a civil partnership". Where is the equality?

[Shikkago]

Like I said before, either legal marriage for all or legal marriage for none.

Legal marriage for all sounds like the best answer. I know people want to keep the state out of marriage but the law is interested in protecting the mutual commitment of spouses of having a life together, and to protect the children that will come out of that union, either via procreation or adoption.

yeaaaa IDK. I can see that argument but I still don't really think it's beneficial. This is a whole 'nother argument I guess but basically kids can be legally adopted etc without marriage, the State doesn't need to have anything to do with "preserving" marriages in fact people should get divorced if they're not happy and keeping the state out of it makes that easier, I don't think you have a right to someone's property just because you shacked up with them, I think people should be able to see whoever they want in the hospital, etc. Like I said, tho, in the real world nobody's gonna give up a right they already have with thousands of years of precedent so it's not at the top of my list.

[Shikkago]

There is no discrimination, since the "civil partnership" would be available for all. That's including heterosexuals.

Except religious people would say "you're not married, you're in a civil partnership". Where is the equality?

^this.

[Samuraikoku]

yeaaaa IDK. I can see that argument but I still don't really think it's beneficial. This is a whole 'nother argument I guess but basically kids can be legally adopted etc without marriage, the State doesn't need to have anything to do with "preserving" marriages in fact people should get divorced if they're not happy and keeping the state out of it makes that easier, I don't think you have a right to someone's property just because you shacked up with them, I think people should be able to see whoever they want in the hospital, etc. Like I said, tho, in the real world nobody's gonna give up a right they already have with thousands of years of precedent so it's not at the top of my list.

All of those issues depend on what the legislation says. Where I live we have no issues of that kind, except for the adoption. However, there have been cases of single people adopting, so that is an improvement.

[Shikkago]

yeaaaa IDK. I can see that argument but I still don't really think it's beneficial. This is a whole 'nother argument I guess but basically kids can be legally adopted etc without marriage, the State doesn't need to have anything to do with "preserving" marriages in fact people should get divorced if they're not happy and keeping the state out of it makes that easier, I don't think you have a right to someone's property just because you shacked up with them, I think people should be able to see whoever they want in the hospital, etc. Like I said, tho, in the real world nobody's gonna give up a right they already have with thousands of years of precedent so it's not at the top of my list.

All of those issues depend on what the legislation says. Where I live we have no issues of that kind, except for the adoption. However, there have been cases of single people adopting, so that is an improvement.

right, so why not just keep the law out of it? Just let folks decide and handle these things by themselves (within private society). We don't need the law to police people's marriages, it just causes more problems generally. At least that's the way it seems to me.

[Genivaria]

Legalize Gay Marriage.

[Samuraikoku]

All of those issues depend on what the legislation says. Where I live we have no issues of that kind, except for the adoption. However, there have been cases of single people adopting, so that is an improvement.

right, so why not just keep the law out of it? Just let folks decide and handle these things by themselves (within private society). We don't need the law to police people's marriages, it just causes more problems generally. At least that's the way it seems to me.

I'll answer to you via TG so as not to derail this thread any further.

[Marlboro Kid]

There is no discrimination, since the "civil partnership" would be available for all. That's including heterosexuals.

Except religious people would say "you're not married, you're in a civil partnership". Where is the equality?

Let them say. Legally it should be more or less the same as the marriage. Btw I've this option in my country, however I will not use it, for tax reasons.

There's no flat tax here.

My girlfriend and me are taxed apart. If we would marry or opt for the civil partnership our income would be combined and taxed, at such we would pay more taxes.

[Samuraikoku]

Except religious people would say "you're not married, you're in a civil partnership". Where is the equality?

Let them say. Legally it should be more or less the same as the marriage. Btw I've this option in my country, however I will not use it, for tax reasons.

There's no flat tax here.

My girlfriend and me are taxed apart. If we would marry or opt for the civil partnership our income would be combined and taxed, at such we would pay more taxes.

Sorry, you just can't let them say. It's still discriminatory, even though it's only semantics. When we speak of equality we speak of equality as a whole, and thus if gay people want to have a commitment of having a life together, their civil union must be recognized as a "marriage".

[Shikkago]

right, so why not just keep the law out of it? Just let folks decide and handle these things by themselves (within private society). We don't need the law to police people's marriages, it just causes more problems generally. At least that's the way it seems to me.

I'll answer to you via TG so as not to derail this thread any further.

if you like. IDK if it's really derailing it, if you're talking about gay marriage being legalized I think that the legal status of marriage itself comes into play, but maybe you're right, that is a whole nother can o worms...

[Marlboro Kid]

Let them say. Legally it should be more or less the same as the marriage. Btw I've this option in my country, however I will not use it, for tax reasons.

There's no flat tax here.

My girlfriend and me are taxed apart. If we would marry or opt for the civil partnership our income would be combined and taxed, at such we would pay more taxes.

Sorry, you just can't let them say. It's still discriminatory, even though it's only semantics.

People get used to the idea, discover that it doesn't harm their personal worldview, bit later they will start the debate and give gay people the right to marry. That's how they fixed it in my country.

Like I said, sometimes you have to search for a consensus to reach a goal. The civil partnership is just a milestone, not the finish line.

[Samuraikoku]

People get used to the idea, discover that it doesn't harm their personal worldview, bit later they will start the debate and give gay people the right to marry. That's how they fixed it in my country.

Like I said, sometimes you have to search for a consensus to reach a goal. The civil partnership is just a milestone, not the finish line.

In the meantime the problem is still unsolved. Civil rights are not to be jeopardized by any majority, and much less for a cause such as religion.

[Shikkago]

Sorry, you just can't let them say. It's still discriminatory, even though it's only semantics.

People get used to the idea, discover that it doesn't harm their personal worldview, bit later they will start the debate and give gay people the right to marry. That's how they fixed it in my country.

Like I said, sometimes you have to search for a consensus to reach a goal. The civil partnership is just a milestone, not the finish line.

wait a second... Barack, is that you?



okay tho, for cereal, don't give us half our rights gradually. Just give us our friggin' rights.

[Marlboro Kid]

People get used to the idea, discover that it doesn't harm their personal worldview, bit later they will start the debate and give gay people the right to marry. That's how they fixed it in my country.

Like I said, sometimes you have to search for a consensus to reach a goal. The civil partnership is just a milestone, not the finish line.

In the meantime the problem is still unsolved. Civil rights are not to be jeopardized by any majority, and much less for a cause such as religion.

But you created a hole in the marriage wall.

Politicians sometimes create bad laws, while they know it’s a bad law, they also know it’s sometimes needed to influence the public.
It's better to move slowly than not moving at all.

[Underhell]

When I think gay marriage, I don't just think of the country I was born and live in (the USA) or those I have visited (Portugal, Germany, Canada, ect). I consider the worldwide ramifications.

Me, personally, I think that a person's sexual preference is irrelevant when compared to the spate of issues that go into marriage. After all, is a man-and-wife who prefer using sex toys, anal sex, and oral sex any better or worse then a same-sex couple who prefer the same things?

Better, I think, to consider something other then the relative genders involved. Do the people love each other? Can they get along with each other without fighting tooth-and-nail over every little issue? Can they support one another, be it financially or emotionally? Do they share values and can they be happy together?

If the answers here are all yes, then I personally don't think that the genders of the people involved is even an issue. Me, I'm male and married to my wife and happily so, but have not been immune to being held and cuddled by people I care about, male or female.

Sexuality bias seems to me as a silly thing to indulge in. Yes, many homosexuals are "in your face" about it. But then again, so are many heterosexuals; I think we've all met or seen stereotypical examples thereof; the guys who will sleep with any woman they can get drunk, the testosterone-driven sports-bar-dwelling "real man" types. Is a gay guy who wears a t-shirt that says "I Kissed Your Boyfriend" really more in your face then some construction worker who wears a "Free Mustache Rides" t-shirt? It's really all the same, most people just have stopped noticing the "macho" guys. And to date, I've met many more gay men and women who don't advertise their sexuality then those who draw attention to it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that marriage is not an institution, nor is it a legal or religious event. Marriage is really nothing more then people saying "I love and respect and care about you and want to be around you." Who cares about gender? When the government is involved, the number of penises or vaginas really doesn't matter - it's all drab paperwork that only exists to keep people employed by shuffling it around. When religion is involved, then it's up to your god to judge, not you or your pastor or your church; what do you care if someone else might or might not go to Hell? Take care of yourself and let others worry about their own souls. Isn't the world hard enough these days without worrying about others? If your god objects to something, he'll do something about it, either in this world or the next. But that's not your job, it's his. Unless you somehow think you're more qualified to judge another then your deity is?

And on the last legal note. People aren't going to do - or not do - something because of the legality. You can make laws all day long and people will still love who they love, do what they want to do, and live how they want to live. Sure, a law may prevent a small portion of the civic-minded from persuing what they want, but will it stop the majority? Look at how many people smoke marijuana illegally before answering. Or how many people world-wide own contraband, everything from firearms to banned books.

So on the whole, I support marriage - not as a institution between a man and a women - but between people who care for and respect one another. I also strongly object to people marrying who don't; to me, an abusive, loveless, or bitter relationship is far more repugnant then the genders involved. I'd rather see two gay people happy together, then a straight couple where alcoholism, wife-beating, and other such things occur. Not that straight people are more prone to such things; I believe that gender and sexuality have little to do with such issues. Everyone has their issues and imperfections. Instead of worrying about sexuality, worry instead about emotional compatibility.

These are my views. I know that on the grand scope, I am a minority. As a species, we are still trying to escape barbaric cultural values, despite a high level of technology. There are places all over the world where slavery, racial hatred, and religious zealotry are commonplace. Values are left over from times when life was very different, and many have no reasoning behind them in today's societies other then tradition. The world is not the same place it was a thousand years ago, but until people as a whole stop clinging to the past and start looking towards the future, then we will still be plagued by these and other problems. While we should preserve our pasts, it's foolish to live in them like a thirty-five year old still living at home and getting an allowance from their parents. Our past was our species' childhood.

In my opinion, it's time for us to grow up.

~Dalik Of Underhell~

[Samuraikoku]

But you created a hole in the marriage wall.

Politicians sometimes create bad laws, while they know it’s a bad law, they also know it’s sometimes needed to influence the public.
It's better to move slowly than not moving at all.

What is this hole in the marriage wall?

[Grave_n_idle]

All of those issues depend on what the legislation says. Where I live we have no issues of that kind, except for the adoption. However, there have been cases of single people adopting, so that is an improvement.

right, so why not just keep the law out of it?

Because it's a legal matter?

Marriage is a contract.

And when you add to that the ways in which marriage gains significant recognition - like visitation rights, or immigration rights - it's even more important.

[Samuraikoku]

right, so why not just keep the law out of it?

Because it's a legal matter?

Marriage is a contract.

And when you add to that the ways in which marriage gains significant recognition - like visitation rights, or immigration rights - it's even more important.

Does the American legislation see it as a contract? I know we don't, we see it as an "acto jurídico de familia" (a rough translation would be "family juridic act").

[Arivali]

Huh?

I think it's euphemistic, like "ride the pony".

*nods*

Ummm.... ewww.... Even I have standards people!

[Grave_n_idle]

Because it's a legal matter?

Marriage is a contract.

And when you add to that the ways in which marriage gains significant recognition - like visitation rights, or immigration rights - it's even more important.

Does the American legislation see it as a contract? I know we don't, we see it as an "acto jurídico de familia" (a rough translation would be "family juridic act").

That might depend who you ask. Functionally, I would say 'yes'. Theoretically, states are obliged to recognise 'common law' marriage, but in reality, I think only about a dozen do. So, there's a practical requirement for a legally binding document, signed before witnesses, and sanctioned by the state/federal government/constitution.