I keep struggling the the Gay Marriage issue and it's not something that is an easy decision for me. But I am still against it because it's a matter of trying to stretch a definition beyond reality by slowly pussing the limits over the line. But - I do support civil unions - and this has nothing to do with "morality".
Let's say I were to tell you that I believed that a dog and a cat were the same species. That a dog is just a different form of cat. Am I wrong? Yes - but - they both have hair - walk on 4 legs - have claws - in fact are better than 90% genetically identical. So - why isn't a dog a cat? Why don't we just broaden the definition of cat to include dogs? See what I mean?
So - is there a difference between gay and heterosexual relationships? Well - of everyone who is on earth today, their biological parents are a man and a woman - and none of them come from two men or two women. There is a difference and it is a significant difference. It's about our very existence. The word marriage has meaning and it's not the same any more that a dog is a species of cat.
But - what about non-reproducing heterosexuals? Well - there's the fuzzy line thing again. And - as I have said many time - if it were up to me to move the line - it would be the other way. But - I have an even more interesting point to make about where the line should be.
Clearly reproducing heterosexuals are within the definition of marriage and clearly marrying a pet is clearly outside the definition. Gays want the line moved to include them arguing equal protection and pointing out the real fact that many of these relationships have lasted for decades and are in fact real relationships.
But also in the life are poligimous heterosexuals. The Mormons truely believe that poligamy is OK and only denounce poligamy for political purposes and do it underground. In Utah there are some 20,000 to 30,000 poligimous families with children. So - where do they fit into the argument?
To me if there is a "line" that we are talking about regarding the definition of marriage - then poligimous heterosexuals with children are closer to the definitions of marriage than gays are. So - if we are moving the line all the way to gays - then we also have to include poligimous heterosexuals. You can't just skip over parts of the line and include gays and not mormons.
So - I ask the question of my gay friends and family - are you willing to include poligimous mormons in marriage? If you respond that marriage is limited to only 2 people then my response is yes = it is limited to a man and a woman too. You see - you can't point to two as absolute and say heterosexuality and reproduction is optional. I can't take the argument seriously unless you are also including Mormons - and then there's the problem of multiple same sex marriages. And - why should I be prohibited from marrying my sister or brother if we are non-reproducing?
Lines are interesting things. If I have sex with a girl one hour before her 18th birthday then I'm a rapist. If I wait an hour - then I'm not. Suppose I have sex with her one hour before her 18th birthday on the west coast but she was both on the east coast and that's 3 times zones ahead of California making her technically 18 if you take that into account. Would I be guilty of rape then?
So - as I keep saying - having come to this conclusion I am still uncomfirtable with it. But - a dog is not a cat and a same sex relationship is not a marriage. Find a different word - grant similar legal rights to it - I'm fine with it.
At some point when the technology exists for same sex couples to reproduce then I will rethink this because that would cross the line. But until then - I can't support it.
Why waste time on fighting gay marriage? Let them get married if they want. They can't help being the way they are. You are born gay. I'm sure their love is as real and intense as heterosexual love.
Maybe it's because I'm from Holland (= tolerant bunch), but I just can't think of a solid case against gay marriage. In my country it's legal, and it hasn't caused any problems so far. Nobody gives a shit about gays getting married. It's all fine by us. Empirical evidence of the fact that it should be legalized worldwide. This would allow governments to put their time into *important* issues, such as stemcell research, the economy, etc.
Posted by: Jay at December 26, 2004 03:34 PMI wish I lived in Holland. There, the laws make sense. Our laws, usually, dont.
Posted by: Chris at December 26, 2004 03:52 PMI would love to see marriage or unions addressed in the Church of the Reality. Marriages are a religious event. Why can't governments recognize unions between two consenting adults as the legally binding relationship while religions recognize the marriage. If you want to be bound spiritually then get married. If you want to be bound contractually then get a civil union.
Posted by: JimBob at December 26, 2004 08:10 PMWell, you said it all, Jay. It's just that simple, but apparently the idiots running the country and the homophobes living in it can't grasp simple logic. There exists no acceptable reason not to allow it.
There is simply nothing wrong with it.
Period.
Posted by: vortican at December 27, 2004 01:27 PMI'm with Jay. Gays don't hurt anyone. All the talk about dogs and cats mean nothing. A gay person is a human and is born that way. Just as you're born with male tendencies and I'm born with female tendencies, a gay person is born into one gender while having the tendencies of another gender.
Its an accident of birth, nothing more. I have blue eyes, you have brown eyes. Big deal. Does that mean we can't marry? (just kidding, Marc)
Outlawing gay marriages is downright stupid. Its a great way to cut down the ever-increasing population! And gays CAN reproduce! A gay man is entirely capable of inseminating a female, he'd just rather not. Adoption is a great way for a gay family to have children. Any child would rather have a mother and father than be in foster care, even if both the mother and father are the same sex.
If you don't believe me on the adoption issue, just ask a kid in foster care.
Posted by: Karel at December 28, 2004 05:56 PMOk, you wanted to ask a kid in foster care, so you have.
I was raised in foster care until the age of 6. I'd rather be in foster care than living with two fathers or two mothers.
Posted by: Mance at December 29, 2004 01:19 PMI'm sorry for the way you grew up, Mance. Being a foster kid is tough, no matter how good, or rotten, your foster parents were.
I was paraphrasing from a study done in my state on gay adoptions. Needless to say, this study concluded that gay adoptions were better. Of course, it didn't say how much better..lol.
Posted by: Karel at December 29, 2004 04:27 PMAs far as Americans being intolerant, I think that is a bunch of BS. Nor do I think that everyone that is opposed to gay marriage is a hateful sexual orientation bigot.
I really believe most Americans feel that your sexuality is your own business, and it is. Our problem is that we split legal hairs all the time.
I think tha actual term "marriage" is a religous one just like "bible" and "Priest" If there is to be a separation of church and state, then this is not a matter for the government at all. It shouldn't be explicitly legal or illegal.
A constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is a bunch of BS too. Our constitution is about what we can do, not what we can't.
If the government recognized civil unions, most of us would not really give a shit. Let us also extend the marriage tax penalty to include civil unions along with the inheritence law interpretation junk.
I guess what I want is a reason why. Why are gays wanting the term "marriage" at all? Is this really about equal protection? Do I as a married, heterosexual man really have any additional protections? Is this really about gays having the need for society to sanction their behavior, or are there real additional rights to be claimed?
I know that divorce lawyers are chomping at the bit to get these marriages recognized. This is not necessarily a dig at the short-term, unstable relationship stereotype of gay relatonships, it is a simple fact. More marriages = more divorces = richer lawyers.
What a screwed up country
Posted by: DougK at December 30, 2004 06:32 AMI'm with Jay, leave the gay folks alone. Let them get married if they like. I don't want to go down your road Karel and Mance. This is two or three different discussions with little to do with our original thought.
Posted by: stew at December 30, 2004 08:40 AMI agree with most people here.
Language is flexible. Definitions/ideas change with the times. Years ago marriage between the races was seen as wrong. For some people it still is.
I really don't care what gay people do with other gay people. If they want to get "married" and live together, etc. then they should be able to.
The govt should stay out of the marriage business entirely. Let churches or other religious organizations deal with it. If the Catholics don't accept gays, then they shouldn't be forced to marry them. If another church wants to marry them, they should be able to.
To sum up: I don't think it's any business of Marc's what gays call their relationships. If they want to call them marriages, then they should. If that upsets Marc, then he should ignore them or heckle them from a distance. But no one should take his definition any more seriously than the gays'
Posted by: curt at January 1, 2005 06:18 AMI agree with most of the post here that support the idea of "gay" unions, marriages, or any other name that you call it.
The only problem that I have with it, I have stated here before. I will now ramble through it again.
Most of the arguments that I have heard from gays about their right to marriage stems from fairness in benefits. Very seldom do you hear a gay couple argue that they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. If that was their argument there is nothing that stops them from spending their lives together.
The argument is benefits. Married people share benefits that other "couples" do not. If I die (GOD forbid), my wife inherits all of my worldly possesions, tax free. If a gay guy dies (GOD forbid) his gay partner does not inherit his worldly possesions, tax free. They want to be allowed to be married so that they can have the benefits of matrimony. Is that okay? Read on before you answer that question.
If a gay couple is afforded that benefit, then EVERYONE should be afforded that benefit. Is that okay? I hope you still agree.
Let's say that a man is bi-sexual. At the time of his death both of his partners should be allowed to share equally in his worldly possesions, tax free. If you do not agree I have to ask why a gay person should be given a benefit that is not afford to a bi-person?
Wait there is more.
If Mr. and Mrs. Jones next door are married and Mr. Jones dies (GOD forbid) and Mrs. Jones inherits all of his wordly possesions, tax free. Is it not then fair that I be able to wed my mother? If my dear old MILLIONAIRE mother dies (GOD forbid) I will inherit all of her wordly possesions. But that will not be tax free. Our tax addicted government will take 50% and leave me 50%. Now, if I were allowed to marry my mother I would inherit all of her wordly possesions at the time of her death ... TAX FREE.
Should I not be allowed to marry whomever I want to, even if it is JUST to acquire some benfit that is afforded to someone else.
Wealthy parents should be allowed to marry ALL of their offspring.
Curt is probably closest on this, government should get out of the marriage business. They ONLY got involved so that they could sell us some bullshit marriage license anyway.
Posted by: Tomocius at January 2, 2005 06:07 PMI don't believe this would be an issue except that there is a large movement to BAN it altogether. It's not about granting rights so much as DENYING rights. As someone already said, the Constitution and laws in general exist to define what kind of behavior is not acceptable, not what is acceptable. If something is not illegal, then it is considered acceptable. The problem is the fools that decide to outlaw something that is neither dangerous nor harmful, but something they simply don't agree with.
I must also point out that the vast majority of people don't get married for the legal benefits. American culture recognizes marriage as a spiritual and personal union first, a legal one second, so I don't think if gay marriage were legal on a federal level we would have drinking buddies getting married so they can catch more tax breaks, and I don't believe if people were allowed to marry anyone they choose, we'd have sons wedding their mothers and brothers marrying their sisters. Sure, there are some who might, but there are some who do that now, purely for the legal benefits.
If all you've heard from gays is how they want the benefits from traditional marriage, then perhaps you haven't heard from the right gays. My experience has been that gays love the same and simply want the same treatment as heterosexuals.
Why should they not have it?
Posted by: vortican at January 4, 2005 07:45 PMMarriage is just a word and you're arguments are about it's definition. You seem to have a pre-conceived notion of what the word "marriage" means and that is clouding your argument. You attempted to break the defintion down and rebuild it but you didn't go all the way - you stopped short with what you already feel marriage means so your argument is begging the question.
I you don't understand what I mean, think about why you think "Civil Union" is different from "Marriage".
Posted by: david at January 6, 2005 08:26 AMI think that everyonein here saying "leave the "Gays" alone, they can't help that they are "Gay", they were born that way". If im not mistaken, Love is a feeling not a natural born instinct. I was born in love and the "Gays" weren't born "Gay". Obviously for those of you who disagree with the Cats and Dogs thing, you didnt really take the time to actually really read and think about it. You just said, "Eww, this is about not legallizing gay marriage. It's stupid and it doesnt make sense.". Well, it does! It makes absolutely perfect sense and Kudos to the writer for such an absolutely briliant observation. Im not totally against gay marriage because if you dont allow it, they are still going to be together whether or not they are married. Im just saying that everyone is so secluded to their own opinion and they are not looking at both sides.
Posted by: Robby at April 5, 2005 09:03 AMRobby, you are a little confused, you contradicted yourself "Love is a feeling not a natural born instinct." Then you say "I was born in love". Besides sexual orientation has nothing to do with love. It has to do with "lust" which is not a controllable feeling, it's "HARDWIRED" into the brain. Women do not "decide" to be attracted to men. Med do not "decide" to be attracted to women. They just are. It's internal. For some reason gays look one sex and instead of their "hardwiring" causing them to be attracted to the opposite sex, it causes them to be attracted to the same sex. In fact you would notice that many male gays seems feminine and have some wierd tone in their voice. Something is quite off the mark in their body which makes them not 100% men. Bisexuals also aren't 100% hardwired to like the other sex and are "confused" between both sexes. The brain is a machine which has "bad quality control" during "manufacturing" there is a lot of variability and the chance for defects and inconsistencies.