Gay Marriages

[fred rosenberger]

Saying Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage is defined as "one man and one woman" is rediculous.
That's like arguing that slaves shouldn't have been given their freedom because the law allowed for them to be slaves. Change the law/definition, and the argument goes away.
Why should i care what two other people do, if a) they're not bothering me, b) they're not hurting anyone, c) what they do doesn't effect me in any way?
and would it be better to have a gay couple raise a child, or have that child grow up in an orphanage, abusive household, or in poverty?
would it be worse for the child to be "raised gay" or raised by a single parent who beats the s t out of him?
No religious group should be forced to allow gays to marry within the church/synagogue/mosque/temple/whatever.
But isn't denying two people in love a legal status selfish? and should we not allow a straight, single parent the right to adopt? the child might be teased for not having a "mother" or "father".
Weren't there similar arguments as recent as 30 years ago about bi-racial couples? "the child might be teased/not accepted by society". "the child might grow up thinking bi-racial marriages are NORMAL..." sound pretty silly today, doesn't it?

[Tim Baker]

of course not. do you think black people would be happy if they could only get 'negro-partnerships' ?
btw you can think its better i die without hating me yes, although i have little to no impact on the world, so i cant think of any reason why anyone would care.
and being anti- something does not mean you hate people. i'm anti-abortion but i don't hate women who get them. i'm anti-racism but i don't hate racists. off the top of my head the only person i hate is bill gates
and yes i support the rights of any two people to get married. theres no law that says you have to be in love. many women and men get married without love. i don't think there would be many takers however incase they did meet someone they loved you don't want to be married to your best friend

[Tim Baker]

btw afaik someone raised by two men is less likely to turn out gay because they tend to be people with strong relationships with their mothers.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
and yes i support the rights of any two people to get married.

How about a brother and sister (or two brothers)?

[Michael Ernest]

TP: What if two straight guys want to get married to take advantage of tax laws or Social Security benefits? Assuming we allow gay marriage, will you have to prove that you are gay in order to get married?
ME: A man and a woman do not have to prove they are heterosexual, much less planning to have children, in order to get married, so what's the difference?
TP: By the way, some cities have laws that permit all the benefits of gay marriage without actually calling it marriage. NYC has a domestic partner law. Would this be an acceptable option instead of marriage?
ME: Sure, if all gay couples only want from marriage are various social benefits and entitlements. I think the bigger point is that two people who love each other should be able to express their desire to commit to each other in the manner we already recognized. Marriage is an expression of commitment to society as a whole, and a legal contract that regards two fortunes as joined. If it's about raising children, why would you not then regard all childless couples with the same eye of suspicion?

It doesn't hurt or degrade anyone else's liberties if some other couple uses marriage to lowering their tax bill, or gaining citizenship, or just to placate their parents. It may not be the most flattering human behavior ever, but it's not criminal. Does the IRS have standing to declare a marriage void on the assertion that it's a tax dodge? Would you want that?
Contrived marriages are contrived marriages; show me the direct link between homosexuality and evidence of an overwhelming preponderance of sham marriages, and then you can make a case for the need for a separate legal category.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
How about a brother and sister (or two brothers)?

sure but this time as long as they don't try to have cildren together (genetically i mean!)

[Thomas Paul]

ME: A man and a woman do not have to prove they are heterosexual, much less planning to have children, in order to get married, so what's the difference?
TP: So what you are saying is that any two people can get married. Why limit it to two? Why not let any number of people marry? Seems very unfair to groups who want to commit to each other.
ME: Sure, if all gay couples only want from marriage are various social benefits and entitlements.
TP: That seems to be what everyone is saying. Besides what else is their in a civil marriage except for various social entitlements?
ME: Does the IRS have standing to declare a marriage void on the assertion that it's a tax dodge? Would you want that?
TP: I don't know about the IRS but the INS certainly does.
ME: Contrived marriages are contrived marriages; show me the direct link between homosexuality and evidence of an overwhelming preponderance of sham marriages, and then you can make a case for the need for a separate legal category.
TP: That is a bogus argument since we don't have homosexual marriages!

[Michael Ernest]

TP: So what you are saying is that any two people can get married. Why limit it to two? Why not let any number of people marry? Seems very unfair to groups who want to commit to each other.
ME: We have case law en pointe. I don't know what the objection is/was to polygamy, but I don't see why not. The "Catholic link" I posted earlier to Jason's post has exactly that in mind: the contract of marriage can be construed to allow for such arrangements.
In general, I would guess the prohibition is cultural, not moral or social. If the practice serves a particular social purpose, ok. If a church sanctifies it -- which for me personally is neither here or there -- you have the mantle of religious belief to defend it as well.
-----
ME: Sure, if all gay couples only want from marriage are various social benefits and entitlements.
TP: That seems to be what everyone is saying. Besides what else is their in a civil marriage except for various social entitlements?
ME: Choosing to marry in the eyes of the state solely does not, in my opinion, create any meaningful separation from those who choose to marry in a house of worship. But this is a question of religious persuasion, not sexual orientation. I can think of any number of homosexual people who take their faith very seriously and strive for acceptance of who they are and what they believe. I can also think of at least one heterosexual ne'er-do-well where ecumenical faith is concerned. I don't see what a wedding in a church endows two people with that is denied to a couple in any other setting. Aesthetics? Approval by a minister or priest? What?
-----
ME: Does the IRS have standing to declare a marriage void on the assertion that it's a tax dodge? Would you want that?
TP: I don't know about the IRS but the INS certainly does.
ME: Yes but the INS is worried about shallow claims to citizenship, not tax law. Apples and oranges, in my view.
----
ME: Contrived marriages are contrived marriages; show me the direct link between homosexuality and evidence of an overwhelming preponderance of sham marriages, and then you can make a case for the need for a separate legal category.
TP: That is a bogus argument since we don't have homosexual marriages!
ME: Let me put it another way: What indicators would you use to demonstrate that same-sex marriages, if allowed, would far more likely be entered into casually, or for the "wrong reasons," than marriages that are permitted today?
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What if two straight guys want to get married to take advantage of tax laws or Social Security benefits? Assuming we allow gay marriage, will you have to prove that you are gay in order to get married?
By the way, some cities have laws that permit all the benefits of gay marriage without actually calling it marriage. NYC has a domestic partner law. Would this be an acceptable option instead of marriage?
If we just called them all marriages and were done with it, no one would have to prove anything.
Heterosexual couples only ever have to prove something when an immigrant is one of the partners, and only then that their relationship is genuine.

[Thomas Paul]

ME: Choosing to marry in the eyes of the state solely does not, in my opinion, create any meaningful separation from those who choose to marry in a house of worship.
TP: Well, it does depending on the religion. For example, a Catholic who marries outside of the Church is living in sin. But I don't think this is relevant because we aren't forcing Churches to marry homosexuals, are we? The question has to do with civil marriages which is all the state should be concerned with anyway. So the question is what does civil marriage give other than certain legal entitlements?

[Michael Ernest]

TP: Well, it does depending on the religion. For example, a Catholic who marries outside of the Church is living in sin.
ME: But you have to care what the Catholic Church says for that to matter. More to the point, the Church's views on marriage are not the state's views on marriage. You may believe whatever it is your faith tells you marriage accords to the married, and thank you America for defending that right. But marriage is protected as a civic rite, and as such I think any citizen ought to enjoy that option. The Pope can go on all he wants about what he thinks is right or wrong, and if he doesn't like your style then you can't use his house for gettin' hitched. Fine -- unless you're Catholic, and gay, and want to get married...
TP:But I don't think this is relevant because we aren't forcing Churches to marry homosexuals, are we?
ME: Of course not. Separation of church and state, and all that. Now if we could keep those priests' hands off the young boys.
TP: So the question is what does civil marriage give other than certain legal entitlements?
ME: The easy response is "nothing." But if legal entitlements are all there is to gain, then what distinguishes domestic partnering from marriage in the first place? Endorsement by a religious leader?
The better answer is: any marriage is a public declaration of two people committing their lives and fortunes as one -- one hopes for love and caring between those people, of course -- and you don't need a church or a minister to find a cause for celebration in that.
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

ME: The easy response is "nothing." But if legal entitlements are all there is to gain, then what distinguishes domestic partnering from marriage in the first place? Endorsement by a religious leader?
TP: Yep. In NYC, for example, there is no civil difference between domestic partners and married couples.
ME: The better answer is: any marriage is a public declaration of two people committing their lives and fortunes as one -- one hopes for love and caring between those people, of course -- and you don't need a church or a minister to find a cause for celebration in that.
TP: You don't even need a guy in a marriage office to do that! Lots of people live together happily and never marry. If all you are interested in is a public decalaration then take out an ad in a newspaper.
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Nick Allen]

Forgive me for not reading the entire page, if I'm just repeating someone else ignore this.
'Gayness' as far as I know, can be either just a natural disposition, or something that develops, say a traumatic response. So homosexuality is perfectly natural in the animal kingdom, although the animals may not be as inventive as their human counterparts on the intercourse front, but that is WAY off topic.
I don't think you can deny any two people the right to join in a loving union. I'm not to sure marriage really applies. Marriage was a religious thing before it was really a legal thing, however common-law couples are granted the same rights as married couples then I think, at least for a start, they should quickly allow homosexual couples to be classified as common-law. I don't know about marriage, because as far as I'm concerned with that one, it's part of religion and therefore out of my scope.
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
-Homer Simpson

[Mapraputa Is]

Our poll intermediate results:
Yes - 13
No - 7
For those who did not vote yet, you can do it here.

[John Dunn]

If all you are interested in is a public decalaration then take out an ad in a newspaper.
and furthermore, if all they want to do is ride a bus, let them sit in the back.
if all they want to do is urinate or deficate, let them use the bathroom around the corner!!
=====================
Do you realize that in hospitals, when they are trying to deal with death-bed decisions, "un-recognized" partners have no say?
btw, I happen to be happily married and I am more than happy to have others enjoy being married as well.
Thomas Paul why are you so indifferent towards gays? Why can't you accept and acknowledge law-abiding, patriotic, mature members of our free society?
Why do you stand so tall for an institution that systematically and categorically turned the other way from molestation of children and homosexuality while accepting funds from constituents to preach a doctrine that was totally against those very priciples?? Would you support a school district that did the same thing? Would you even let it in your town?
Why don't you allow for EVERY individual in our society to enjoy the benefits of loving another consenting adult of their choosing??? Why can you accomodate the priests who molested, but not the gays who want to be married??
Why do you use arguments on some topics and forget about them on others?? (i.e. why can't you supply the same unlimited kindness and empathy towards one "outcast" or disadvantaged group that you do for others?) This just does not mesh up for me...

[stara szkapa]

Natalie Angier, writing in the Times, says that bonobos "lubricate the gears of social harmony with sex, in all possible permutations and combinations: males with females, males with males, females with females," and their sexual acts include "intercourse, genital-to-genital rubbing, oral sex, mutual masturbation and even a practice that people once thought they had a patent on: French kissing."
http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/042397ev.htm
Apparently we are going backwards where we came from. All because there is some group of people playing victims and all the rest is trying to be humane.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by stara szkapa:
Natalie Angier, writing in the Times, says that bonobos "lubricate the gears of social harmony with sex, in all possible permutations and combinations: males with females, males with males, females with females," and their sexual acts include "intercourse, genital-to-genital rubbing, oral sex, mutual masturbation and even a practice that people once thought they had a patent on: French kissing." - Shame on those naughty Bonobos! They'll probably all get monkey-AIDS and it'll serve them right!

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by stara szkapa:

Apparently we are going backwards where we came from. All because there is some group of people playing victims and all the rest is trying to be humane.

so you accept evolution but your still a gay basher?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
So, you tell me: "Am I anti-Catholic?" That is really harsh, bro.

Only you can honestly answer that question. I can only tell you what it appears like from where I'm standing. I don't think my asking if you were anti-Catholic was any more or less harsh than characterizing Paul as a homophobe though.
You said:
JD: Ironically in the last 10 years, one of the biggest proponents of gays turned out to be the biggest offenders of "their" so-called evils. (Catholic church leaders.) (emphasis mine)
To be honest your whole proponents versus opponents thing confused me a bit as to what you were trying to say, and I initially responded to what I thought you were talking about. However I'll let my comments stand. You cannot characterize Catholic church leaders as the biggest offenders. That is a blanket generalization, and most likely false. I personally don't know who the biggest offenders are, as they don't keep statistics on such things. So in making such a blanket statement with such a negative connotation, a statement which you must know no evidence exists to indicate it is a true or not, one would have to ask what would motivate such a statement. Hence the question, "Are you anti-Catholic?"

Why do you have such a hard time hearing criticism against the Church? Are you Catholic? Does your personal identity suffer if the Church is not PERFECT?

I have no problem with fair criticism. I realize the Church, like any organization, is far from perfect. I have problems with people defaming Catholics with untruths however.
** Hmm... It seems I missed your most recent post before writing the above comments. It does seem to re-affirm some of my original thoughts though, but Thomas has already addressed my concerns so I see no reason to as well.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[fred rosenberger]

Heard this morning on NPR that the Senate has introduced a bill in "protection of marriage". They want to alter the U.S. Constitution to DEFINE marriage as being "between one man and one woman".
it scares me to death anytime anyone proposes changing the Constitution for ANY reason...
My real point is that i don't see how allowing gays to marry in ANY WAY harms the institution of marriage. in fact, i think it would make it STRONGER. the more people who do it, the better it is, right?
If ANYBODY can explain to me how it would HARM anything, i want to know.

[Michael Ernest]

Oh, people want to put strange shit in the Constitution all the time. It's not unlike every factory floor worker who wants to take his problems straight to the company president: go to the source, right?
That's the fun of every Republican administration as far as I can remember. Some yokels come out insisting that their brand of Decency needs Constitutional protections.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
That's the fun of every Republican administration as far as I can remember. Some yokels come out insisting that their brand of Decency needs Constitutional protections.

Actually that happens in every administration period. I should point out though that it is the legislative branch which writes laws, not the Executive branch. I would also point out that it is not often that the same party controls both the legislative and executive branches of our government, so in every Republican administration that you can remember, the legislature, the people who would actually have to write the amendment, was probably controlled by the Democrats.

[Thomas Paul]

Do you realize that in hospitals, when they are trying to deal with death-bed decisions, "un-recognized" partners have no say?
Which, of course, has nothing to do with marriage. State laws could be changed to correct that problem without changing marriage laws.
Thomas Paul why are you so indifferent towards gays? Why can't you accept and acknowledge law-abiding, patriotic, mature members of our free society?
The stupidity of that statement will be ignored. I would ask you to show me any evidence of my indifference to gays.
Why do you stand so tall for an institution that systematically and categorically turned the other way from molestation of children and homosexuality while accepting funds from constituents to preach a doctrine that was totally against those very priciples??
You mean the US Senate? If you mean the Catholic CHurch then you are spouting untruths. It is true that some Bishops did nothing out priests who were molesting children but that is based on several issues that you choose to ignore: (1) Bishops were told by competent psychiatrists that the molester could be cured (2) The Church is based on forgiveness (3) many of these events happen3ed years ago before we were as smart about child molestation as we are today (4) a few Bishops acted stupidly. Why you think that says anything bad about the Catholic Church is beyond me unless you are revealing your simple hatredc of Catholics in general.
Would you support a school district that did the same thing? Would you even let it in your town?
I'll bet many school districts have done exactly the same thing. Certainly many Protestant faiths have had the same problem. In fact studies have shown that a Protestant minister is far more likely to be a child molester than a Catholic priest is.
Why don't you allow for EVERY individual in our society to enjoy the benefits of loving another consenting adult of their choosing???
I am not stopping anyone from loving anyone they want.
Why do you use arguments on some topics and forget about them on others??
I have no clue what you are talking about.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by fred rosenberger:
My real point is that i don't see how allowing gays to marry in ANY WAY harms the institution of marriage. in fact, i think it would make it STRONGER. the more people who do it, the better it is, right?
If ANYBODY can explain to me how it would HARM anything, i want to know.

Marriage is already greatly harmed by the number of divorces and the ease of getting divorces. Gays will be far more likely to divorce because they will have no children. The number one reason why heterosexuals with problem marriages stay together is "for the children". Personally, I think civil marriage is on the verge of being meaningless.

[Frank Silbermann]

When Tulane University announced that they would provide dependent health benefits for "domestic partners" I could just imagine how proud they were of their progressiveness.
A friend said, "They don't realize that their grandchildren are going to scorn them for their narrow-minded intolerance. Sure, they provide health benefits to gay partners, but where is the veterinary coverage for the professor who stupps his dog?"
I asked him, "So, do you oppose gay and lesbian sex?" He answered, "Lesbianism is OK, as long as they're both cute and I get to watch, and maybe join in."
So I asked an Orthodox rabbi, "I know that Halacha forbids homosexual behavior, along with a lot of other things that people of all sexual orientations do. What does it say about a married couple in their 70s or 80s, who obviously can no longer have children?" He said that elderly married couples are encouraged to continue having sex if they can, as a testament to their faith that God can do miracles!

[fred rosenberger]

Gays will be far more likely to divorce because they will have no children. ... The number one reason why heterosexuals with problem marriages stay together is "for the children".

do you have evidence to support that second statement? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, i just don't think i can take that on (pardon the phrase) faith.
Also, if you'd ease the restrictions on gays adopting, then they WILL have children, and if the above statement is true... problem solved.

Marriage is already greatly harmed by the number of divorces and the ease of getting divorces.

then make getting divorces harder.
also, just because they stay together for the children doesn't mean it's the best thing for the children.

[Michael Ernest]

JM: I should point out though that it is the legislative branch which writes laws, not the Executive branch.
ME: Yes yes, the protocol of how legislation gets created is well understood. It hardly bars the Executive from wielding the influence needed to get that process going on its own behalf.
JM: I would also point out that it is not often that the same party controls both the legislative and executive branches of our government, so in every Republican administration that you can remember, the legislature, the people who would actually have to write the amendment, was probably controlled by the Democrats.
ME: "Controlled" is an awfully strong word here. If a proper majority in the House or the Senate was all that was necessary to control all legislation, nothing would ever get done. It's a fairly recent development that partisanship has become so extreme as to dominate, rather than guide or influence, how things work in the House and Senate.
There is a big difference between writing an amenndment and proposing one, much less getting enough votes together to pass it. Anyone can write an amendment, although it's going to take some amount of persuasion to get Congress to consider it. But say such a thing finds a sponsor, gets past sub-committee and committee hurdles, and is presented to the open floor. Even after all that, you're going to need a substantial vote to get the thing passed. But as with any campaign, one way you create exposure and momentum is simply by announcing that you're going for it. You'll have a hell of a time, I think, proposing a constitutional right that can only be shared by members of opposite sexes, but that won't prevent people from worrying that it could happen.

[Thomas Paul]

Also, if you'd ease the restrictions on gays adopting, then they WILL have children, and if the above statement is true... problem solved.
Except most gay couples don't want children. In places where gays can adopt it is a fairly rare occurence.
then make getting divorces harder.
I am all for that but society seems to want to go in the opposite direction.
also, just because they stay together for the children doesn't mean it's the best thing for the children.
Actually, studies have shown that unless there is physical violence in the household that most children are better off with the parents staying together.

[fred rosenberger]

TP: most gay couples don't want children.... studies have shown...
Again, can you provide links to such studies?
I've been burned by too many Urban legends to take much of anything just on somebody's word. I'm willing to consider your opinions, but they'd carry more weight if you could back them up with actual research.
On a separate note, I don't see how your argument about why unhappy couples stay together is relavent. the question should be why do so many couples get divorced? Say 5 couples stay together for the kids, 2 couple stay together because of religion, and 10,000 get divorced.
I can say that "most unhappy couples stayed together for the children." but that doesn't address the 10,000 who DO get divorced. Maybe 8000 of them GOT a divorce BECAUSE of the children.
just something else to think about...

[Mapraputa Is]

The Pew Research Center poll

A 55% majority believes it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, and that view is much more prevalent among those who have a high level of religious commitment (76%). About half of all Americans have an unfavorable opinion of gay men (50%) and lesbians (48%), but highly religious people are much more likely to hold negative views.
Religiosity is clearly a factor in the recent rise in opposition to gay marriage. Overall, nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) oppose gay marriage, up from 53% in July. But those with a high level of religious commitment now oppose gay marriage by more than six-to-one (80%-12%), a significant shift since July (71%-21%). The public is somewhat more supportive of legal agreements for gays that provide many of the same benefits of marriage; still, a 51% majority also opposes this step.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=197

Our poll results:
Do you support guy marriages:
Yes - 17
No - 11

[Jim Yingst]

Do you support guy marriages:
Eh? I had assumed we were voting on lesbians as well. Which didn't change my vote, despite Mani's efforts. But I'd hate to think that your results might be skewed somehow.

[Mapraputa Is]

[Mapraputa Is]

I changed the wording. Now it is "Do you support some sex marriages"? Oops, I mean "same sex marriages".
--------------------
"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important." -- Bertrand Russell

[Thomas Paul]

African-Americans are opposed to same sex marriages at a higher number than other groups in the USA. I wonder if this will effect the national vote in 2004.

[Jim Yingst]

I changed the wording.
It still says "guy marriages" in your post above; that was the only part I was talking about.

[Mapraputa Is]

that was the only part I was talking about
I know Didn't want to edit my post for not to confuse other what you are talking about. Here it's harmless, so let it stay...

[Sonny Gill]

>>also, just because they stay together for the children doesn't mean it's >>the best thing for the children.
Actually, studies have shown that unless there is physical violence in the household that most children are better off with the parents staying together.
- Thomas Paul

It may or may not be true that it is better for the children.
But what about the parents? If they are not in love anymore, wouldnt it be better for them to be divorced, and hopefully find someone who they can be happy with? Isnt the collective happiness (of both the original parents and the children) likely to be more in this case.
Whether it is gay marriages, or divoreced parents, how it affects the society and their children is entirely dependent on how mature and responsible those people are as human beings and as citizens.
Two mature and intelligent persons can be in a gay marriage or be separated, and still be able to give love to their children and bring them up to be good human beings.
Of course, now, we need to find out what is the minimum level of maturity and intelligence needed for people to be good parents...may be someone can start another thread on that...
ps. I am really surprised at the number of ppl opposing the gay marriages on Map's poll!!

[Paul McKenna]

From the Opinion Journal - November 28th 2003

One Man and One Woman
By ROBERT P. GEORGE

[ Deleted by Tom Paul as the printing violated the copyright of the Wall Street Journal. ]
[ December 01, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Michael Ernest]

You can just link opinion papers in, please.

[Tim Baker]

or for such bollocks as that not even bother