Marriage

[cairo140]

Isn't there an option to allow for multiple responses? If there isn't, there should be.

I didn't vote, because I believe that polygamy is fine if you're hell bent on it; and gay marriage is absolutely fine. As society, these things SHOULD happen, and lawmakers should make them happen. Religions have always been internally governed by their own religious jurisprudence (aka. Sharir Law), so if they want to be stubborn *******s, let them; just don't let indealistic traditionalists guide the laws of the nation.

 

[Turner]

Civ General would you accept a union if it was merely to give a person the same rights as a heterosexual couple, no religous implication just a right to be treated equally? Would this conflict with the objections of your church and if so why?

Again, I want to point out how well Seperate But Equal worked out in the United States last century.

 

[The Yankee]

I would not accept a union because it is accepting an immoral activity (which is same-gender sex). Accepting a homosexual union conflicts with the objections of the Catholic Church and I have posted numerous quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Well, couldn't you just not accept it? You wouldn't be the government, after all and it'd still be everyone's right to think it was...odd or against their own views. Other than that, it would have no impact on your life or your morals.

 

[The Yankee]

Didn't see it on TV, but I managed to watch it online. The authors did a good job showing how gay marriage may have actually increased the rate of straight marriage in Scandanavian countries. There was a note that there was an increase in co-habitation without marriage, but that was blamed on a legal recognition of such. (O'Reilly seemed to believe that the increase in co-habitation was caused by the gay marriages.)

Right, O'Reilly was getting it wrong throughout the whole segment, as usual, but the comments given by the two authors were interesting. Co-habitation is independent of homosexual marriage.

Makes sense to me. I don't see how two lesbians getting married has any impact on the thousands of other straight couples getting married. When I was about to be married, I wasn't thinking whether gays get married, and that it should somehow factor into my decision. I also don't get the conclusion. Even if heterosexuals actually considered the marriages of gays, why would allowing gays to marry de-emphasize marriage? You would think it would encourage MORE marriage, not less.

The most heard of argument was that it devalues marriage. But, if one person broke off their marriage because someone else were given legal rights, then that person either wasn't committed to their own marriage in the first place and was probably hiding their own feelings during the marriage anyway.

This is surely a religious objection. Christians regard marriage as a sacrament (which it wasn't until about the 10th century), so they object to gays marrying on those grounds. That's why you get a lot of talk about "civil unions" instead of "marriage", even though they amount to the same thing.

Agreed, even though it's somewhat masked with less religion and more "destroying the family" (as if any of several thousand other things don't do that already). There seems to be few people that actually have the guts to say that their position is based on a religious doctrine. Perhaps because then they'd have to argue why that should be implemented in the Constitution.

 

[croxis]

In more happy news, the federal marriage ammendment failed.

http://www.hrc.org/voteno/headlines.htm

 

[MobBoss]

In more happy news, the federal marriage ammendment failed.

http://www.hrc.org/voteno/headlines.htm

Ah, but it got 1 more vote than it did 2 years ago!

Give us a couple of decades...we will "get er done".

Doh. Disregard. Apparently I heard wrong. We got 1 less. Oh well, corks out of the bottle. Champagne anyone?

 

[IglooDame]

Ah, but it got 1 more vote than it did 2 years ago!

Give us a couple of decades...we will "get er done".

Doh. Disregard. Apparently I heard wrong. We got 1 less. Oh well, corks out of the bottle. Champagne anyone?

Sure, I'll toast my New Hampshire senators, both Republican, both voting no, one having flipped from a 'yes' last time it came up.

 

[croxis]

Don't forget some may be againced gay marraige but for state rights.

 

[IglooDame]

Don't forget some may be againced gay marraige but for state rights.

Indeed, and the quote by Senator Gregg (the flip from 2004) bears this out:

Gregg said that in 2004, he believed a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would undermine the authority of other states, like his, to prohibit such unions.

"Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued," Gregg said. "The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach."

 

[CurtSibling]

Marriage should be left up to the individuals involved. If that means a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a group of individuals, more power to them.

I am with this gentleman's opinion...!

.

 

[Sidhe]

Again, I want to point out how well Seperate But Equal worked out in the United States last century.

That's a terrible analogy, Gays aren't being sperated in any way, the only way they are being dicriminated against is by the church, and I doubt many gay people would give a damn about that.

Being acknoweldged by the law and a right to marry in the same civil cicumstances as everyone else is a world away from sperate facilities for two races. That was pointless bigotry this is an attempt to appease the religous nuts and at the same time give equality to people, the only objection I've seen to this was that it might encourage people to become gay. And that's not just patently wrong but pathetically ignorant.

Same sex civil ceremonies create a fair and equal tax system for both parties, in my country at least, I can't see how your country would be any different, except fundies everywhere would weep into their bibles and have to go and find some other minority to discriminate against in the name of peace love and tolerance Ahh religous hypocrisy, at least with the non believers you don't expect them to live by there beliefs, sad world is it not.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Perhaps it would help to illuminate the issue if we asked ourselves "what is marriage", in other words why do we have it and what is the goal or benefit from it?

Is it just so a heterosexual man and woman can have a 'special status' in relation to homosexuals and single people? If this is the answer then I see no reason we need to continue the practice at all.

Is it a ceremony of commitment between people in an effort to show devotion to each other for the rest of their lives? If this is the answer then I see no reason that any group of two or more consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to commit themselves to the well-being of each other and therefore legally share in the right to the participate in the ceremony.

Is it just for monetary purposes such as legally acknowledging your offspring and making them the heirs to your estate and such? If this is the answer then marriage can either be eliminated and replaced will other legal documents such as wills, or it should be open to homosexuals too as they have the same monetary concerns as heterosexuals do.

My guess would be that it originally existed to promote permanent, lasting family units for the purpose of having a stable environment for the raising of children. Can anyone think of a better reason it exists? Is there some other reason I may be missing?

If marriage is all about helping to raise kids in a steady and secure environment then why should it just be limited to heterosexuals? Homosexuals are allowed to raise children and as long as they continue to be allowed to do so then why would we want to deprive them of a tool that may help encourage stability for their children?

If it is about helping kids, then why do we allow couples without children to participate in the institution? Many couples don't want kids, are physically unable, are too old, etc. Why should they get special status and privilege when they have no children to benefit from the marriage? Wouldn't it then make sense to only allow marriage to couples that have children on the way, are in the process of adoption, etc. and if their attempt to have children is unsuccessful then the marriage can be annulled as the childless couple is no longer in need of special treatment on behalf of children they don't have.

Why don't we define the goal of marriage and then grant it to those who are seeking that goal, without any interference based on our own personal religious or sexual-orientation biases hindering logical thinking.

 

[RameNoodle]

Wow, I can't believe the conservative stance is blowing away everything else here. I voted for man and a woman, by the way.

 

[Bill3000]

Wow, I can't believe the conservative stance is blowing away everything else here. I voted for man and a woman, by the way.

It's probably because the other choices are so poor. There's no actual choice for just "two people".

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

It's probably because the other choices are so poor. There's no actual choice for just "two people".

That is the exact reason I have not voted on this poll. No option for "two people".

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, couldn't you just not accept it? You wouldn't be the government, after all and it'd still be everyone's right to think it was...odd or against their own views. Other than that, it would have no impact on your life or your morals.

I cannot accept it because it directly supports a lifestyle that I find immoral, therefore I cannot accept a lifestyle that I feel is immoral and I disaprove of. I cannot do things that directly support such an immoral lifestyle such as going to a wedding between two men or two women. I can help a freind who has SSA (Same Sex Attractions) fix their car, find a job, or watch a game.

I dont need to shun people, nor do I wish to shun people who have SSA (I am starting to use SSA now insted of "Gay" or "Lesbian"). I would still have freinds, family, and coworkers who would fall in this category some point in my life. However, for those living an actively "gay" lifestyle, I should be cautious with whether or not I would be giving such approval to their lifestyle.

I feel that people who have SSA should be "called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." - CCC 2359

 

[YNCS]

I cannot accept it because it directly supports a lifestyle that I find immoral, therefore I cannot accept a lifestyle that I feel is immoral and I disaprove of. I cannot do things that directly support such an immoral lifestyle such as going to a wedding between two men or two women. I can help a freind who has SSA (Same Sex Attractions) fix their car, find a job, or watch a game.

In other words, you want to impose your morality on other people.

BTW, the two reasons I've come across for people objecting to homosexuality are:

1. I think it's icky.

2. God thinks it's icky.

Considering that God thinks that eating shellfish and wearing cotton-polyester blend shirts are also icky, I'm not too impressed by reason #2.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

In other words, you want to impose your morality on other people.

No, you only impose your morality on other people when you actually attempt to affect their behavior, not when you just modify your behavior towards them. "imposing your morality" is a phrase that I think gets overused.

Anyways, I still think that despite the media's term for it, yesterday's vote was not about "banning gay marriage" but about letting the Constitution define what sort of marriage the government will recognize. But in my opinion the true definition of marriage must come from society, not the government.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

SSA? I like that.

Do I have OSA (Opposite Sex Attraction)? Can I get disability payments for that?

Homosexuality is not a disease that needs either a fancy pseudo-scientific name nor a cure. It is just two consenting adults making each other feel good at the least and being in love with each other at the best. Can't we all just be happy for them and leave it at that? Is that really too much for them to ask?

 

[RameNoodle]

Homosexuality is not a disease that needs either a fancy pseudo-scientific name nor a cure. It is just two consenting adults making each other feel good at the least and being in love with each other at the best. Can't we all just be happy for them and leave it at that? Is that really too much for them to ask?

So do you think that homosexuality is a biological trait, or something else? I think that there is something biological that gives the propensity for one to become homosexual as a product of their environment.