Majority in Mass. poll oppose gay marriage

[wdlove]

A majority of Massachusetts residents said they oppose legalizing gay marriage, a significant increase since the state's highest court ruled three months ago that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, according to a new Boston Globe poll.

The poll also found that an overwhelming majority of those surveyed wanted the voters, not the courts or the Legislature, to define marriage in Massachusetts, through a statewide ballot question to amend the constitution. And it indicated significant support for civil unions.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/22/majority_in_mass_poll_oppose_gay_marriage/

[ebow]

(this is not directed at you, wdlove)

Did the voters get to decide, during the Civil Rights movement, that separate but equal (Jim Crow et al) was inherently unequal? No! That's what the courts are for. Screw you and your notion of "activist judges," President Bush. And when the hell was the last time we wrote amendments into a constitution that restricted the rights of a group of people? I don't know much about the Massachusetts Constitution, but in the U.S. version the only one that comes close is the 18th--Prohibition (yeah, it's not restriction the rights of one group, but it's the only similar restriction one I can think of). And that worked so well that they had to come out with number 21 fourteen years later--repealing prohibition. :rolleyes:

[Krizoitz]

And in related news a poll of voters in 1830's South Carolina found they are in favor of slavery....
Majority doesn't equal right all the time.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by ebow
(this is not directed at you, wdlove)

Did the voters get to decide, during the Civil Rights movement, that separate but equal (Jim Crow et al) was inherently unequal? No! That's what the courts are for. Screw you and your notion of "activist judges," President Bush. And when the hell was the last time we wrote amendments into a constitution that restricted the rights of a group of people? I don't know much about the Massachusetts Constitution, but in the U.S. version the only one that comes close is the 18th--Prohibition (yeah, it's not restriction the rights of one group, but it's the only similar restriction one I can think of). And that worked so well that they had to come out with number 21 fourteen years later--repealing prohibition. :rolleyes:

While I agree with you in this case, I do agree that activist judges are a bad thing. Judges need to be appointed who have a record of decisions that don't get overturned, not because of their views on a single issue. 30 some years ago activist judges took what should have been a legislative matter and turned it into a constitutional matter and the country has been dealing with it ever since.

[MacRumorSkeptic]

Gays have the right to marriage, their free to marry someone of the opposite sex any time they want. Lets get the government out of the marraige business so this won't be an issue.

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Gays have the right to marriage, their free to marry someone of the opposite sex any time they want. Lets get the government out of the marraige business so this won't be an issue.

I agree with you in a sense - but I don't think you'll like it. :p

We should indeed "get the government out of marriage." There need to be 2 separate things, and they need to have nothing to do with each other.

The first is a religious/ spiritual union. Each group (Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and so on) can decide who it wants to be able to "marry." If the Catholic Church says it (and "God") will only recognize a union between a man and a woman, so be it. And if Protestants want to recognize a union between a man and a woman, or 2 people of the same sex, that's fine too. The government will have absolutely nothing to say about it. It's purely a matter of faith and spirituality.

The second is legal benefits. As far as I'm concerned, *any* two adults should be able to form a "civil union" that will confer the same legal benefits that marriage currently does. Romantic partners, same sex, opposite sex, family members, whatever. It's not a "marriage;" it's things like power of attorney when incapacitated or joint taxes - financial and legal things.

The two are entirely separate. The government has absolutely no business telling religious groups or individuals what unions are or aren't acceptable, and religious groups in turn have no business performing ceremonies that confer legal benefits.

Many people will want to form such a civil union with the person to whom they are "religiously married." But you can have either one without the other, if you so choose.

MacRumorSkeptic -- How would you feel if you had the right to marry anyone you wanted... of the same sex? But couldn't marry someone you loved of the opposite sex. Does that sound good to you? Fair, equal, *just*? I didn't think so.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
While I agree with you in this case, I do agree that activist judges are a bad thing. Judges need to be appointed who have a record of decisions that don't get overturned, not because of their views on a single issue. 30 some years ago activist judges took what should have been a legislative matter and turned it into a constitutional matter and the country has been dealing with it ever since.

Unfortunately that's not the way it works, and doubtfully ever has worked. When was the last time a president DIDN'T appoint a Supreme Court justice based on a single issue, or several issues? Every judge sitting in this nation was appointed because they would assuredly rule a certain way on certain issues, such as abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc. For Bush to come out a decry "activist'" judges is blatant hypocrisy. If (God forbid) he has the opportunity to appoint a judge, you can be certain that judge will be anti-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay rights, and pro-school vouchers (This list could go on). Either every judge is an activist judge or none of them are.

In the case of Roe v. Wade, however, I would hardly say the decision was made by "activist" judges. In 1973, the court was a 5-4 conservative court. In this case, of the seven justices in the majority, four were conservative judges appointed by conservative presidents: Burger and Powell by Nixon, Brennan and Stewart by Eisenhower. The dissenting conservative? Then associate justice Rehnquist. So who are the activist judges in this case? The four who decided in opposition to how most would expect them to vote, or the one who didn't?

In addition to that, turning legislative matters into Constitutional matters is the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court exists to interpret whether or not laws passed by the United States Congress or enacted by the individual states are legal and sustainable in the context of the constitution. In Roe v. Wade the great majority of justices interpreted the Texas prohibition of abortion to be incompatible with the rights granted and guaranteed by the constitution. The reason we continue to stuggle with the issue today is because a vocal minority refuses to accept a judicial decision. The fact is, no matter their personal opinion, most people (two-thirds) oppose any legislation forbidding or even restricting a woman's right to choose. (L.A. Times Poll - June 2000) (http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/2000/06/kr000619.1.htm) None of us should abandon efforts to affect change in the direction we feel is right; we cannot, though, expect the constitution to fit our views all the time. If it did, it would cease to have any real value to our country.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
anti-choice
Does this mean I can start calling the other side pro-baby-killer?

Lets keep it polite and call it pro-life and pro-choice.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
The second is legal benefits. As far as I'm concerned, *any* two adults should be able to form a "civil union" that will confer the same legal benefits that marriage currently does. Romantic partners, same sex, opposite sex, family members, whatever. It's not a "marriage;" it's things like power of attorney when incapacitated or joint taxes - financial and legal things.

The two are entirely separate. The government has absolutely no business telling religious groups or individuals what unions are or aren't acceptable, and religious groups in turn have no business performing ceremonies that confer legal benefits.


I wonder where this will all go when/if, the possibility of procreation is added to the definition of "marriage."

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Does this mean I can start calling the other side pro-baby-killer?

Lets keep it polite and call it pro-life and pro-choice.

I didn't realize I was being impolite. It truly wasn't my intention in any case. A thousand apologies.

If you feel like calling me pro-baby killer, fine, that's your prerogative. But in the spirit of fairness, perhaps anti-life would be more appropriate and more polite.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Gays have the right to marriage, their free to marry someone of the opposite sex any time they want. Lets get the government out of the marraige business so this won't be an issue.

Where do you think marriage comes from???

I also think that not letting people marry more than one person is discrimination! :D

Come on people, we have laws for a reason and it's not so you can do anything you want!

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Does this mean I can start calling the other side pro-baby-killer?

Lets keep it polite and call it pro-life and pro-choice.

I agree that the discussion should remain on a civil level, arguments are best made with proper words not slang.

It should be pro abortion and pro life, because either decision you make it is based on a choice. The same as it is either heterosexual or homosexual marriage. This isn't really a human rights issue. The problem is what will be the end results of this, it could be a real Pandora's box.

I pray that this doesn't' get out of hand. In the end all I have to worry about is that my own house is in order.

[zamyatin]

ebow, QCassiday, ColoJonBoy, you have all put some great thoughts into this thread already, and there's not much more for me to say!

Though, I think it's also important to point out how the Courts act as a check (and balance) on the "tyranny of the majority" which is a danger in democratic governments. (Remember the mess of McCarthy and the Red Scare?) The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics and fads; in a way it is the official philosophical body or even conscience of the nation's government. They are tasked with piercing through the fog to expose and uproot our own hypocrisies. (Though I'm referring to the federal government and the issue is actually just one state, I think the states are usually modeled after the federal government's systems.)

In this case, I believe the court is right and that most people polled are reacting hotly and without fully considering the issue. In the eyes of government, marriage is different than what it is to various religions, and the two should be separate. Any individual objectively analyzing the issue would probably arrive at the same decision the court has made.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by wdlove
It should be pro abortion and pro life, because either decision you make it is based on a choice.

No, no it should be pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'm not gung-ho about abortions. I think abortion is a reprehensible act; I believe, though, that the choice of whether or not a woman should carry a pregnancy to full term should be entirely hers. If pro-life legislation were enacted, though, that choice would be denied.

When it comes down to it, the two sides of the issue are simply two ways of viewing the same issue. For some, it is a matter of life. For others, like myself, it is a matter of liberty, of the freedom to choose.

[ColoJohnBoy]

I suppose we've taken things off topic (From same-sex marriage to abortion). Anyhow....

To be succinct, yay for same-sex marriage! As much as I like the country, I really don't want to have to move to Canada when I decide to get married.

[krimson]

the way i see it, Civil Unions for all.. marriage for the religious.

Equal rights for all, unless you're gay... :mad:

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by krimson
the way i see it, Civil Unions for all.. marriage for the religious.

Equal rights for all, unless you're gay... :mad:

Dear God, I hope you're joking. If not, prepare to be flamed....

No pun intended.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by MorganX
I wonder where this will all go when/if, the possibility of procreation is added to the definition of "marriage."

I guess all women over 50 would no longer be allowed to get married??

[3rdpath]

history has shown that the majority rarely works in the best interest of minorities...whether they be children, religious minorities, ethnic minorites, economic minorities...much less minorities based upon sexual orientation.

sooner or later ( sooner i hope) all of this nonsense will subside and the majority of people will finally see that love, happiness and religiously recognised commitment are not the private domain of heterosexual couples.

and i just love the argument that people are afraid gay marriages will somehow denegrade the sanctity of marriage...as if the heterosexual community hasn't done that already. let's see, a 53% divorce rate, an above 50% rate of infidelity, domestic abuse, child abuse, incest...take your pick.

the majority isn't marching on the high road regardless of the pomposity of their sanctimonious fervor...

fear and bigotry are poor foundations for sound decision making.

[krimson]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Dear God, I hope you're joking. If not, prepare to be flamed....

No pun intended.
Without turning this politcal/religious..

im completely serious, i dont see a need for being flamed. Unless you dont believe in the Bill of Rights...

Marriage is basically a civil union that is sanctioned by a religion. Strip the priest/pastor from the ceremony, and what do you have?

a civil union. Simple as that, it removes the religious aspect from marriage.

[toaster_oven]

eh- the majority of voters in Massachusetts also think Larry Bird should have his own national holiday, Donut Dunkin' should be taught in the classrooms, and Cam Neely should run for president. go figure.

[3rdpath]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

the first amendment seems to clearly state that the government has no place in the " free excercise of religion". so technically marriage is none of the gov's business.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by Flowbee
I guess all women over 50 would no longer be allowed to get married??

Good point. And what about infertile/sterile men and women?


What I don't get is the argument that it somehow diminishes the sanctity of marriage. Even if I disapproved of gay marriage (and I don't), the fact that gays are now marrying has not in any way lessened the sanctity of my marriage because it is mine. It is what I make of it. And in turn, each couple's marriage is what they make of it, not what their neighbor makes of it. So let 'em marry, dammit. It's not your marriage. It's theirs.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
...and i just love the argument that people are afraid gay marriages will somehow denegrade the sanctity of marriage...as if the heterosexual community hasn't done that already. let's see, a 53% divorce rate, an above 50% rate of infidelity, domestic abuse, child abuse, incest...take your pick.

...

fear and bigotry are poor foundations for sound decision making.

Everyone has the same rights whether they are gay or not, MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT...you people need to get that through your heads! Anyone can get married at a church but the state only has to recognize marriages that are benefical to the society. That's why you can't have two wives or marry your children etc.

Gay marriage is just the gateway to marriage becoming completely meaningless. The next thing you know is people will be claiming the right to marry their dog (some people already have).

This is a democracy, not anarchy, you can't do what ever you want just because you feel like it!

[krimson]

So because two people get married and they happen to both have a penis, or both have vagina's, that makes Marriage meaningless??

ridiculous. Pretty shallow if you ask me.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by krimson
So because two people get married and they happen to both have a penis, or both have vagina's, that makes Marriage meaningless??

ridiculous. Pretty shallow if you ask me.

You proved my point exactly, thank you.

[krimson]

No no, YOU proved MY point.

Thank YOU. :D

[Dippo]

Originally posted by krimson
No no, YOU proved MY point.

Thank YOU. :D

Oh gosh, that's the best you could come up with?? :p
Of course this could go on forever... but

I think the meaning of marriage got lost some where in the argument. It's no longer wanting to be with someone for their life and being commited to them. It is now they want tax breaks, and health insurance, and visiting rights, etc. The meaning got lost long ago.

PS: I guess we are going to have to allow gay divorces too?

[krimson]

Originally posted by Dippo
Oh gosh, that's the best you could come up with?? :p
Of course this could go on forever... but

If you'll read my original post on this thread, you'll see that you've proved my point. Leave the "marriage" to those that are religious, and the Civil Union's for the government, including all the rights that is bestowed (tax breaks, insurance, pensions, etc) ;)

Originally posted by Dippo
I think the meaning of marriage got lost some where in the argument. It's no longer wanting to be with someone for their life and being commited to them. It is now they want tax breaks, and health insurance, and visiting rights, etc. The meaning got lost long ago.

PS: I guess we are going to have to allow gay divorces too?

divorce is just dissolving of a marriage.. a divorce is a divorce... there would be no need for "gay" divorce :D

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Awimoway
Good point. And what about infertile/sterile men and women?


What I don't get is the argument that it somehow diminishes the sanctity of marriage. Even if I disapproved of gay marriage (and I don't), the fact that gays are now marrying has not in any way lessened the sanctity of my marriage because it is mine. It is what I make of it. And in turn, each couple's marriage is what they make of it, not what their neighbor makes of it. So let 'em marry, dammit. It's not your marriage. It's theirs.

The 50-year old is not a good point, I think women as old as 80 have been known to coneive. Have to check Guiness. The infertile/sterlile men and women arguement is a valid one, and opens up a Pandora's box.

Anyway, I do think that unless there is a compromise this is where the debate will go next.

[kristo]

I find this all pretty funny. I mean, honestly, who cares who marries who? Will it hurt you if a man marries another man? Will you get "gay"? Will the union somehow decay the moral fabric of society down to the level where the very earth falls apart?

I doubt it.

I am living in the Netherlands at the moment where gay couples are allowed to marry, they have all the same rights as other couples and I have not seen anywhere where anyone cares. Well, they gay people do I guess, but no one seems to think its a bad idea. A colleuge of mine is gay, openly, has a state recognized partnership. This has not caused the dykes to burst, nor do I think that the sky will fall.

I mean, the people who oppose this, I dunno, I just get the feeling like somewhere inside themselves, they are scared, not of the gays though, no.

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by Dippo
I think the meaning of marriage got lost some where in the argument. It's no longer wanting to be with someone for their life and being commited to them. It is now they want tax breaks, and health insurance, and visiting rights, etc. The meaning got lost long ago.

Uh, think about this. In fact, think about ANY of what you post before you do it. We can already form relationships and be committed, as millions of gay people already do. The law can't do a lot to stop that, at least in the USA. And the word "marriage" isn't necessary for that. But, the rights granted to married couples are there for a reason, if two people are married they deserve to share benefits, have legal rights, etc. That, the law *can* deny us (not legally, but that doesn't stop popular bigotry). So obviously we're fighting primarily for those rights, because it's the only tangible thing that we can claim we want. Otherwise, idiots like you suggest we just form a commitment and forget marriage. Those 1,000+ rights are the real-world application of your discrimination, and they're there for you to see. Whether or not you'll own up to it.

Wdlove, I just have to say, I think you're ignorant for continuing to call homosexuality a "choice" with absolutely no evidence to back that up. I should imagine it would infuriate you just the same if i went around saying "Christianity is a racket, it's just there to pull in money" or "Women choose to have periods and menopause" or "You shouldn't have any rights because I disagree with you". It's not your opinion that I have such a problem with, its the fact that you're so ****ing attached to that opinion that you want to inflict it's practice and consequence on the general public. Oh, i forgot, jesus told you to do that.

paul

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by Dippo
Anyone can get married at a church but the state only has to recognize marriages that are benefical to the society....

Gay marriage is just the gateway to marriage becoming completely meaningless.


I guess Britney Spears' drunken one-day Vegas marriage was both meaningful AND beneficial to society??

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by MorganX
The 50-year old is not a good point, I think women as old as 80 have been known to coneive. Have to check Guiness.

Bad logic. Just because one or two women have done this, doesn't mean that it's possible for all women to do it. The fact is, that by the time they reach 50 years old (or so) the vast majority of women are unable to conceive children. (The Guiness Book is a good source for 'beard of bees' info, but not medical research). And if 'bearing children' was a criteria for marriage, the vast majority of women over 50 would not be allowed to marry.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
But, the rights granted to married couples are there for a reason, if two people are married they deserve to share benefits, have legal rights, etc.

Actually most of those aren't rights, they are benefits. You don't have the right for your job to let you share your benefits with your wife, they do it because its cheap for them and keeps their employees happy and not working elsewhere. I imagine if a company started offering health care for gay partners and that cause other companies workforce to suffer than other companies would do it to.

You have to understand that some of these benefits extend back into the days before the woman worked. They were intended for that situation, but when women started working it would have been tough for them to say well now that your wives can get benefits we are going to take this away. Not all women were working and even if they were it would have looked really really bad.

Some of the other things, like medical decisions can be done legally right now anyway, so its not denying them a right either.

I would be interested to see what rights and not privileges that gay couples are missing out on.

And before you say we aren't allowed to give priviliges only to one group, here are some examples of tax privileges:
College students
People who make below a minimum amount
non-profit organizations
any buisness that Bush has ties too (How did that one get in there ;) )

In addition here are some examples where certain groups have limited rights that no one seems to have a problem with:
Voting age of 18
Drinking age of 21
Running for House of Reps age of 25
Running for Senate age of 30
Running for President age of 35
Only men must register for the draft (even though its not active)

[Dippo]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
Otherwise, idiots like you suggest we just form a commitment and forget marriage. Those 1,000+ rights are the real-world application of your discrimination, and they're there for you to see. Whether or not you'll own up to it.

I am glad we have progressed to name calling, a clear sign that you are losing an argument.

In the end, this is going to be a non-issue because an admendment is going to outlaw this madness.

You can argue all you want but homosexuality is unnatural. If nature intended for us to be gay then we would be able to reproduce with the same sex, but alsa that requires different genders.

[mactastic]

If nature didn't intend for homosexuality to be a trait in most animals, nature wouldn't have made it so. Oh wait, you probably think being gay is a choice kind of like which side you part your hair on.

Do you suppose animals that exhibit homosexual behavior have 'chosen' to do so? And if so, does that mean animals know and understand what a choice is?

At what age did you fight off your homosexual urges and choose to be straight?

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by Dippo
I am glad we have progressed to name calling, a clear sign that you are losing an argument.

In the end, this is going to be a non-issue because an admendment is going to outlaw this madness.

You can argue all you want but homosexuality is unnatural. If nature intended for us to be gay then we would be able to reproduce with the same sex, but alsa that requires different genders.

no, i just blew off the nice-guy approach, because i'm sick and tired of playing the "it's OK to fell this way" game. You may have the right to, but being an anti-gay bigot is not OK, anymore than being racist is OK.

At least now i can see the point of view of historic oppressors. i'm talking to one.

try as you might, a gay marriage amendment will never pass, because people do not want discrimination written into the constitution. period. the constitution was written to extend rights to people, not deny them. tell me, where are you going to get the states to ratify? Especially since a federal amendment would be so far away, the tide is only getting better... the number of people that want an amendment is a minority, and it is falling. People can see that the only reason to be anti-gay is for a chance to attack people, like animals.

as for the rights of marriage-- some of those are indeed sexist, but there are an awful lot that are necessary. FLMA rights, for one... if my partner died tomorrow, my boss might not let me attend the funeral. that's beyond sick. there are a lot of things that fall outside of contractual obligations. And yes, i have drawn up paperwork like a will, domestic partnership agreement (for financial responsibility) and durable power of attorney, but those can't cover everything. And anyway, to even come close to marriage rights, it costs thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers fees, and yet, unless hard copy of the documents is sumbitted, they virtually do not exist (if he and i were in a car accident away from home, and didn't have our papers on us, i'd not be able to visit him)... Even if you can produce these contracts, they can be contested for the question of validity. All of this replaced by one little marriage license, and you people are too sadistic to simply grant that. **** you.

The constitution provides the right to the pursuit of happiness. That's not upheld very well, but this squarely falls into that catagory. It doesn't say "unless you're gay", or any other BS. Freedom of marriage is a right.

paul

[rainman::|:|]

You wanted a list of marriage benefits, you got it. This is a 1997 report by the GAO... i challenge anyone to read that report and explain to me why one loving couple is any less deserving of these benefits than another.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

paul

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
Freedom of marriage is a right.

You have the right to be with anyone you want.
You have the right to call it marriage if you want.
You have the right to find a religious person to perform the ceremony if you want.
You have the right to call that person your husband/wife if you want.
You have the right to have sex with them if you want.

Those are (or should be, soddomy laws are dumb) your rights.

You don't have a right to recieve extra benefits. Neither do I. Those are extra benefits. They aren't denying you the right to vote, to speak your mind, or anything. They are just providing incentives for married couples because society feels that married couples are the most beneficial to society. Just like we feel that 18+ year old voters are more beneficial than a 8 year old.

Now as for sick leave, yes I think you should get that regardless if they are your boyfriend or best friend. Death is death, people need time to grieve.
Visitation rights should be up to the individual and should be whomever they wish it to be. There are probably others, but they don't have to be tied to marriage in any way to make them fair.

I think the gov't needs to get out of the marriage buisness to save us ALL the headache. Neither side is going to be ok with a compromise thats for sure. Gays will never accept just civil unions and their opponents will never accept gay marriage.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by mactastic
If nature didn't intend for homosexuality to be a trait in most animals, nature wouldn't have made it so. Oh wait, you probably think being gay is a choice kind of like which side you part your hair on.

Do you suppose animals that exhibit homosexual behavior have 'chosen' to do so? And if so, does that mean animals know and understand what a choice is?

At what age did you fight off your homosexual urges and choose to be straight?

Biologically homosexuality is a deviation, it provides no benefit to the species. Of course so is being blind (I doubt people choose to be blind) and I don't think discriminating based on blindness is ok.

The animals that tend to be homosexual are primarily the higher mammals, also those capable of sex for pleasure, and in many species it is seen as a sign of dominance not love, so thats not a good counter argument.

As for choosing to be homosexual, I agree that it isn't a choice, but you do have the choice to act on those behaviours, which is what my church and most others teach is sinful. Of course they feel the same about premarital heterosexual sex as well, so its not just gay sex that they oppose, but I also know that its not the people they hate either and any group that uses the Bible as an excuse to hate people clearly didn't get the memo Jesus sent about LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORS.

Oh and for the record a Constitutional Ammendmant? What a horrible way to institutionalize hatred and bring religion right into the middle of government. Bad bad bad bad idea, and I don't even LIKE the idea of homesexual marriage on a moral level, but thats a religious view and I don't think that enforcing it in this case is a good idea, in fact I think it is a BAD idea. As a previous poster pointed out institutionalized discrimnation is a bad step down a very bad path.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
You wanted a list of marriage benefits, you got it. This is a 1997 report by the GAO... i challenge anyone to read that report and explain to me why one loving couple is any less deserving of these benefits than another.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

paul

gee thank paul, 75 pages?!?! How am i supposed to get my school work done with that to read :-) I'm sorry proffesor paul sent me a 75 page article to read for a message board so I couldn't do the assignment lol

[rainman::|:|]

marriage and the accompanying rights are not designed to praise and further heterosexuality; it's because two people that are married have to share the burden together, individuals don't need more rights because they're on their own... but marriage benefits are society's way of coping with the odd arrangements that marriage can create. obviously a woman won't get social security if she's unemployed, raising children, not making or spending any money; the same could be true for a gay person, but they would not be a part of the legal family, so once one person dies-- the other is out cold, no money, nothing. again, even contracts will incur serious monitary penalties for interitance or insurance... because the law only sees that partner as a stranger.

If these rights were not necessary, then we should be able to strip them away, hypothetically, from heterosexual marriages without causing problems. I don't think that could happen. people would be homeless, without medical care, helpless. Imagine all of the things a straight couple would be without, if we stripped these rights off. Gay couples are forced to live like this today, for no good reason.

paul

[vniow]

Originally posted by kristo

This has not caused the dykes to burst, nor do I think that the sky will fall.


I don't know, I've seen more than a few dykes bursting with joy during the past week or so.

[wwworry]

Biologically homosexuality is a deviation, it provides no benefit to the species.

that you know of now.

Scientists are finding more and more of it in more species and are beginning to think that it might be beneficial to have males in a group "occupied" with something other than a competition for females. The group as a whole then has more population with less competition.

Kind of makes sence.

The other thing to note to "naturalists" who think 1 man/1 women relationships are "natural" is to say that it depends on the culture. A male can mate with many females in a short amount of time so the real question becomes "How did females convince males to be monogamous?" (Trickery, I say. ;) )
Some cultures find (agrarian or agrarian derived) that having a male commited to raising children helps that child to survive and in the interest of having his own bloodline extended the male will forego more adventuresome practices to make sure HIS child lives. This is the patrilinial model - the one man- one woman raising a family unit to defend and work on one defined piece of land.

However, in community based cultures (hunter-gatherers) there is less emphasis on patrimony and more on the group as a whole. Perhaps in a hunter-gather society, which is the bulk of our collective history, maybe it makes sence for some people to be homosexual. THe group may well prosper if the are more males to defend and hunt but less in competition with eachother.

Now as we move away from agrarian based economies (thanks to big capital) to a different kind of temp-industrial economy patriliniage becomes less and less important. We see that its possible and even beneficial to have open acceptance of homosexuality. Here are some:

Walt Whitman
William Shakespeare
Tennessee Williams
Vincent VanGogh
Socrates
Alexander The Great
St. Augustine
Leonardo da Vinci
Roman Emperor Hadrian
Chinese Emperor Pu Yi
Michelangelo
Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten
Oscar Wilde
Roman Emperor Elagabalus
Lord Byron
Rock Hudson
Freddie Mercury
Liberace
J. Edgar Hoover
Ralph Lauren
Prince Edward II
Johnny Mathis
Ray Stricklyn
Tony Perkins
Paul Lynde
Cesar Romero
Brad Davis
Randolph Scott
James Coco
William Haines
Sir Ian McKellen
Elton John
Nathan Lane
Siegfried and Roy
Greg Louganis
Rupert Everett
George Michael
Boy George
Ru Paul

Lesbian

Jane Addams
Saint Gertrude Stein
Catherine Beecher
Emily Dickinson
Willa Cather
Katherine Lee Bates
Emma Goldman
Florence Nightengale
Greta Garbo
Jodi Foster
Ellen DeGeneres
Margaret Cho
Alanis Morissette
Martina Navratalova
Courtney Love
Sandra Bernhard
Melissa Etheridge
Julie Cypher
k.d. Lang
Chastity Bono
Billie-Jean King
Traci Chapman
Indigo Girls
Rosie O'Donnell
Lily Tomlin
(list stolen quickly, Courtney Love??)

Are we not better off that these people existed (except Hoover) and would we not be a better nation if they can partake of all rights and benefits that everyone else has?

SlamDunk!

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Gays have the right to marriage, their free to marry someone of the opposite sex any time they want. Lets get the government out of the marraige business so this won't be an issue.

Fair enough. But then who has the right to issue a marriage? A church?
Certainly I could open my own church and marry gay people every day... no?

Oh yeah, if a persons gay... why the hell would they marry a person who isn't gay? :confused:

Also, why remove the religion part of marriage if a church is allowing you to be married... Just because you get married and your gay you get a civil union -- bah.


Anyway, Polls can be made to look heads or tails.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by wwworry
Walt Whitman
William Shakespeare
Tennessee Williams
Vincent VanGogh
Socrates
Alexander The Great
St. Augustine
Leonardo da Vinci
Roman Emperor Hadrian
Chinese Emperor Pu Yi
Michelangelo
Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten
Oscar Wilde
Roman Emperor Elagabalus
Lord Byron
Rock Hudson
Freddie Mercury
Liberace
J. Edgar Hoover
Ralph Lauren
Prince Edward II
Johnny Mathis
Ray Stricklyn
Tony Perkins
Paul Lynde
Cesar Romero
Brad Davis
Randolph Scott
James Coco
William Haines
Sir Ian McKellen
Elton John
Nathan Lane
Siegfried and Roy
Greg Louganis
Rupert Everett
George Michael
Boy George
Ru Paul

Lesbian

Jane Addams
Saint Gertrude Stein
Catherine Beecher
Emily Dickinson
Willa Cather
Katherine Lee Bates
Emma Goldman
Florence Nightengale
Greta Garbo
Jodi Foster
Ellen DeGeneres
Margaret Cho
Alanis Morissette
Martina Navratalova
Courtney Love
Sandra Bernhard
Melissa Etheridge
Julie Cypher
k.d. Lang
Chastity Bono
Billie-Jean King
Traci Chapman
Indigo Girls
Rosie O'Donnell
Lily Tomlin
(list stolen quickly, Courtney Love??)


Please provide proof that these people are gay/lesbian, i agree that some of them have publically come out to say it, but others are merely historical hypothesis and not proven fact. It is a bad thing to do to list possibilities as facts.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
You have the right to be with anyone you want.
You have the right to call it marriage if you want.
You have the right to find a religious person to perform the ceremony if you want.
You have the right to call that person your husband/wife if you want.
You have the right to have sex with them if you want.

Those are (or should be, soddomy laws are dumb) your rights.

You don't have a right to recieve extra benefits. Neither do I. Those are extra benefits. They aren't denying you the right to vote, to speak your mind, or anything. They are just providing incentives for married couples because society feels that married couples are the most beneficial to society. Just like we feel that 18+ year old voters are more beneficial than a 8 year old.

Now as for sick leave, yes I think you should get that regardless if they are your boyfriend or best friend. Death is death, people need time to grieve.
Visitation rights should be up to the individual and should be whomever they wish it to be. There are probably others, but they don't have to be tied to marriage in any way to make them fair.

I think the gov't needs to get out of the marriage buisness to save us ALL the headache. Neither side is going to be ok with a compromise thats for sure. Gays will never accept just civil unions and their opponents will never accept gay marriage.

Add to your list the right not to be discriminated against by your government on the basis of who you love. One may not have a right to a particular benefit, but that doesn't mean the government should discriminate on this basis.

I've said it a million times in these debates, but one more time, the idea that marriage is something that a particular religion came up with and is a purely religious ceremony that the state is somehow corrupting is totally false. Societies have always regulated marriage. Historically marriages have much more to do with the alliances of clans and family than any concept of "love" or "sacrament with god." It is all a huge distortion of history for the church to claim it has exclusive rights to what constitutes a "proper" marriage. In any case, no one is telling the church, the synagogue, or any other religious organization what they have to recognize -- that too is a lie told to enflame passions.

On a personal level, I got married in a civil ceremony and I would object to any attempt to put my marriage into a "second-class" civil union status just because I don't believe what a particular church's dogma tells me I must. Why should gay couples accept anything less than I would?

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by Sayhey
On a personal level, I got married in a civil ceremony and I would object to any attempt to put my marriage into a "second-class" civil union status just because I don't believe what a particular church's dogma tells me I must. Why should gay couples accept anything less than I would?

Oh please. You think you have the right to set the terms of your union/marriage? Only God does, and only the moral majority speaks for God. When will people learn that marriage is whatever the chosen many say it is? Next you'll be saying that you should be free to choose your wife or husband.


/irony

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Please provide proof that these people are gay/lesbian, i agree that some of them have publically come out to say it, but others are merely historical hypothesis and not proven fact. It is a bad thing to do to list possibilities as facts.

I asked google. It came up first. I thought courtney love was married to curt cobain so maybe the list is questionable. I did mention that the list was stolen quickly. But the fact remains that I know plenty of people who are gay and are just as valuable though not as famous as the people on that list. My point remains, why margianlize and illeagalize them? Then new testement teaches us to watch out for ourselves rather than condemning others. There could be a biological necessity to homosexuality. It is certainly as natural as anything else. It does not harm anyone else. What more do you want?

It's just time to get over your fear. Really, it's gone on long enough. Time to grow up.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Awimoway
Oh please. You think you have the right to set the terms of your union/marriage? Only God does, and only the moral majority speaks for God. When will people learn that marriage is whatever the chosen many say it is? Next you'll be saying that you should be free to choose your wife or husband.


/irony

I know, I know. I just haven't gotten it through my thick head to accept the verdict of the "chosen." ;)

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Dippo
This is a democracy, not anarchy, you can't do what ever you want just because you feel like it!

now i get it...i didn't realize this whole gay marriage thing was "anarchy"...

so dippo, by all means, please keep saving the world from this anarchy. stay close-minded. withhold empathy and judge others as harshly as possible. divide them into groups and label them as threats to your hallowed democracy.


then get some therapy.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by wwworry
I asked google. It came up first. I thought courtney love was married to curt cobain so maybe the list is questionable. I did mention that the list was stolen quickly. But the fact remains that I know plenty of people who are gay and are just as valuable though not as famous as the people on that list. My point remains, why margianlize and illeagalize them? Then new testement teaches us to watch out for ourselves rather than condemning others. There could be a biological necessity to homosexuality. It is certainly as natural as anything else. It does not harm anyone else. What more do you want?

It's just time to get over your fear. Really, it's gone on long enough. Time to grow up.

Is this addressed at me? I have no fear. I just like to point out that its not as cut and dry as either side likes it to be. My position is that an ammendmant is a terrible idea. Marriage isn't really a right, but society would be better if people had equal protections and that the gov't should get out of the marriage buisness all together.