Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

Originally posted by yadda333
reply to post by jheated5

 

Yes. We should require some evidence that the two people actually love each other. This is brilliant--we should institute this right now to prevent men and women from marrying for the wrong reasons. Sarcasm Off.

Seriously?

Yes because otherwise it is called fraud and that is a crime.

Seriously!

reply to post by jheated5

Originally posted by jheated5
... For example if we give gay couples the right to these benefits then what stops anybody from just getting married to wreak the benefits...

What's stopping them now? There's no indication that marriages of convenience (which do occur) will skyrocket. Approximately 90% of the population have that option now. You're talking about adding 10% to the numbers.

Marriage of Convenience

You do realize that there are marriages that have at least one gay partner, right?

Another common reason for marriages of convenience is to hide one partner's homosexuality in cases where being openly gay is punishable or potentially detrimental. A sham marriage of this type, known as the lavender marriage, may thus create the appearance of heterosexuality. Such marriages may have one heterosexual and one gay partner, or two gay partners: a lesbian and a gay man married to each other. In the case where a gay man marries a woman, the woman is said to be his "beard".

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I suppose you forgot to read the rest of my post.....

reply to post by jheated5


No, I read it. I just wanted to put the numbers in a logical light instead of agreeing that gay marriage would allow for the "skyrocketing" of marriages of convenience.

And to ask my question... So, what's stopping them now?

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Ok...so a few different things here I need to admit to before we get into this and a few things I need to explain about the gay rights movement.

#1 -- I'm a married, gay man (20 years) with 4 children.
#2 -- I live in Canada where gay marriage was NEVER an issue and passed without much fuss back in the day.

#3 -- The Gay community is infiltrated with people who like to make money. Much like the religious right who oppose same sex marriage.

They are extremists on both sides of the aisle who continue this nonsense about gay marriage because it makes them rich. All these organizations and members who pay themselves very healthy salaries to spew hate in on direction or another. (both are to blame equally)

#4 -- MOST people, religious or gay, agree that they do not need to call it "marriage" they just require a "Civil Union" that affords the same rights under the law that marriage does. Again, MOST people are moderates on this topic, but being represented by the VERY vocal extremists, on both ends, you can see how that gets drowned out.

#5--The idea that God does not approve of gay people is kind of non sensical. If God does exist, he knows everything that has happened, will happened, and everything in between right?

So he KNEW that when I was "made" that my chemical makeup would make me attracted to men, which there is NOTHING I can do about, save outright denial, chemical castration or some drug that hasn't been developped yet.

Therefore he MADE me this way and then will PUNISH me for accepting who I am and living the life that he technically sought to make for me.

See how that conflicts with the whole, you have a choice thing? Free will under religion is an illusion, because the idea of God's Plan. If he's already decided what's in store for you and then you go about doing exactly what he set out for you in the beginning, how is that fair?

How is God being good when he creates something, broken, according to his standards and then gets upset when that broken thing can't fix itself?

So in closing, it's all about the money.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

So in closing, it's all about the money.

Isn't it always?

We need to get rid of money. But in the process, we won't really be getting rid of it, just converting it to another medium. Such is the way of the world.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


#4 -- MOST people, religious or gay, agree that they do not need to call it "marriage" they just require a "Civil Union" that affords the same rights under the law that marriage does. Again, MOST people are moderates on this topic, but being represented by the VERY vocal extremists, on both ends, you can see how that gets drowned out.

~Tenth

I don't know, Tenth. I have a lot of gay friends, and they aren't what I would consider extremists - but they all believe that *separate* isn't equal.

I just look forward to the day when gay marriage is passed without much fuss everywhere in the world, not just Canada.

reply to post by kaylaluv


It's not "seperate" though that's the problem.

They have an emotional argument based on the meaning of a word, which is stupid.

The argument is for the freedom of rights provided by Marriage, not a licence to use the term marriage.

If the term Civil Union provides the same rights as "Marriage" than it is, legally the same thing.

And the legality is all that matters, period.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

It's not "seperate" though that's the problem.

They have an emotional argument based on the meaning of a word, which is stupid.

The argument is for the freedom of rights provided by Marriage, not a licence to use the term marriage.

If the term Civil Union provides the same rights as "Marriage" than it is, legally the same thing.

And the legality is all that matters, period.

~Tenth

Yes, I agree - it is partly emotional, and symbolic. It's like the old "blacks can ride the same bus as whites, but they have to sit in the back" idea. Those seats in the back are exactly the same as the seats in the front, so what's the big deal? It symbolized the "separateness" of blacks.

Symbolically, civil union is not the same thing as marriage. Symbolically, it keeps gays separate from the rest of society. There's no reason for that.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Ok...so a few different things here I need to admit to before we get into this and a few things I need to explain about the gay rights movement.

#1 -- I'm a married, gay man (20 years) with 4 children.
#2 -- I live in Canada where gay marriage was NEVER an issue and passed without much fuss back in the day.

#3 -- The Gay community is infiltrated with people who like to make money. Much like the religious right who oppose same sex marriage.

They are extremists on both sides of the aisle who continue this nonsense about gay marriage because it makes them rich. All these organizations and members who pay themselves very healthy salaries to spew hate in on direction or another. (both are to blame equally)

#4 -- MOST people, religious or gay, agree that they do not need to call it "marriage" they just require a "Civil Union" that affords the same rights under the law that marriage does. Again, MOST people are moderates on this topic, but being represented by the VERY vocal extremists, on both ends, you can see how that gets drowned out.

#5--The idea that God does not approve of gay people is kind of non sensical. If God does exist, he knows everything that has happened, will happened, and everything in between right?

So he KNEW that when I was "made" that my chemical makeup would make me attracted to men, which there is NOTHING I can do about, save outright denial, chemical castration or some drug that hasn't been developped yet.

Therefore he MADE me this way and then will PUNISH me for accepting who I am and living the life that he technically sought to make for me.

See how that conflicts with the whole, you have a choice thing? Free will under religion is an illusion, because the idea of God's Plan. If he's already decided what's in store for you and then you go about doing exactly what he set out for you in the beginning, how is that fair?

How is God being good when he creates something, broken, according to his standards and then gets upset when that broken thing can't fix itself?

So in closing, it's all about the money.

~Tenth

Do me a favor... I am responding here, but either try to move this topic, or make any comment that discusses how right or wrong they feel about homosexuality itself to be off topic. (that is not the topic, what people personally feel about others personal lives is not at issue)

I have no problem with what other people do in the privacy of their own home. I do not believe in public displays of affection for any couple, whether that be homosexual or hetrosexual... some things we have homes for, but that is only my personal opinion, so I practice my personal opinion where I am concerned, and leave my opinion to myself since that is not against the law, and I suppose it probably shouldnt be, as their are times, such as picking up a loved one at the airport, that a hug is nice.

Thats how I personally feel about gay people, to each his own it is not my life to live, nor my place to judge others. I dont like it when people judge me, and I will be damned if I judge anyone else.

Legally speaking.... right now, marriage is something that is protected under freedom of religion. As you probably know, the people of the Jewish faith have rabbanical courts for their civil matters such as divorce whose rulings are recognised by the state. (ie: the United States government)

As you also probably know, other religions would like to also be able to divorce, and have our marriage contracts recognised under the same religious freedoms that the consitution currently recognises.

If we change the definition of marriage, taking it out of the umbrella of any type of religious freedom, we may all loose our rights to be able to divorce according to our religious beliefs in this country.

does this makes sense?

This is why I would rather see marriage itself, taken out of the state, and have all peoples conduct their own civil matters such as divorce and child custody, according to their own beliefs, regardless of what those are, rather than have any of it mandated by the state, and defined as a state contract instead of any other kind.


But I believe everyone regardless of any belief, or lack thereof, or race, or sexual orientation, should have equal rights under the law. I think this is a thing we can all agree upon..... and all fight for. It is what the constitution is about right?

I guess I am just the most worried about that, loosing my rights under the constitution... and I think as it stands it is already on shaky ground.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I can agree with that.

But do you notice how the Congress spends half of its time trying to make inequality look like equality, and the other half turning equality into inequality?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

It's not "seperate" though that's the problem.

They have an emotional argument based on the meaning of a word, which is stupid.

The argument is for the freedom of rights provided by Marriage, not a licence to use the term marriage.

If the term Civil Union provides the same rights as "Marriage" than it is, legally the same thing.

And the legality is all that matters, period.

~Tenth

Yes, I agree - it is partly emotional, and symbolic. It's like the old "blacks can ride the same bus as whites, but they have to sit in the back" idea. Those seats in the back are exactly the same as the seats in the front, so what's the big deal? It symbolized the "separateness" of blacks.

Symbolically, civil union is not the same thing as marriage. Symbolically, it keeps gays separate from the rest of society. There's no reason for that.

See, but that comparison isn't correct. Symbolic's aren't a factor in law. Neither is emotion.

Nobody is making gays sit at the back of the bus when it comes to civil unions. They are being afforded the same exact rights as heterosexual couples. There is no actual legal difference between the two institutions other than the name.

The same rights.

I'll say it again.

The Same rights.

That is what the original plight of the gay community was. To be provided the same rights under the law for their legally recognized relationship.

They would have that with civil unions. Therefore there is no reason to complain. I rightly call those who oppose the idea of civil unions, which again gives you exactly what you wanted, because of the term used to describe it as "Extremists".

Their unwillingness to compromise on a major issue for religious folk is extremely poor form. If those people are going to carry on a fight, and actually change the basic principles of the movement then they need to stop asking for legal rights and start asking for the term marriage be defined legally by the supreme court as something different than " one Man, one woman".

~Tenth

reply to post by AfterInfinity


lol... yes.... and to me the government as a whole is getting to the height of ridiculousness!

There is too much government, too many taxes going no where or anywhere but where we wanted them too.... thats a list that could go on forever.


I think we all just need to get back to the constitution, and quit worrying about big government.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Ok I see where you are coming from.

Let me elaborate a bit on my position, we are probably far closer aligned that one might think..

I think it's a real shame that marriage was made into a legal institution by the government. They never should have had a hand in this. It never should have been "marriage" in the first place.

It should have ALWAYS been civil contracts between two or more parties. Marriage has always been a religious institution and should have remained that way, untouched by the legalities of government.

Since the government actually broke the 1st amendment and put your rights at risk by making marriage a legal concept to begin with, it would actually benefit your rights to religion if it was removed from the legal space.

That way your right to religion does not conflict with any legal contracts required by the states for rights granted to couples vs non couples.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I think, lol.... if I did understand you properly.... that what you just said is exactly what I am asking Americans to agree upon!

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


That is what the original plight of the gay community was. To be provided the same rights under the law for their legally recognized relationship.

They would have that with civil unions. Therefore there is no reason to complain. I rightly call those who oppose the idea of civil unions, which again gives you exactly what you wanted, because of the term used to describe it as "Extremists".

Their unwillingness to compromise on a major issue for religious folk is extremely poor form. If those people are going to carry on a fight, and actually change the basic principles of the movement then they need to stop asking for legal rights and start asking for the term marriage be defined legally by the supreme court as something different than " one Man, one woman".

~Tenth

Yes, I think the movement has evolved, over the years. I think there are those who came to realize that the "state" is not supposed to favor one religion over another, or even no religion at all. So, either the state should hand out civil union licenses for everyone, or hand out marriage licenses for everyone - regardless of their religion (or lack thereof) or sexual orientation.

I don't believe this forces religious people to compromise on anything. I don't believe that religious organizations should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. But the state is not a religious organization, and religion has no place in state-provided licenses. Period. I think the gay movement would be happy to have the Supreme Court rule on this, but that's totally up to the Supreme Court.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
If we change the definition of marriage, taking it out of the umbrella of any type of religious freedom, we may all loose our rights to be able to divorce according to our religious beliefs in this country.

does this makes sense?

NO! Marriage is NOT under the umbrella of religious freedom. I am married and I'm an atheist.

I guess I am just the most worried about that, loosing my rights under the constitution...

You still haven't said what that right is.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Civil union is what it's called.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Ok I see where you are coming from.

Let me elaborate a bit on my position, we are probably far closer aligned that one might think..

I think it's a real shame that marriage was made into a legal institution by the government. They never should have had a hand in this. It never should have been "marriage" in the first place.

It should have ALWAYS been civil contracts between two or more parties. Marriage has always been a religious institution and should have remained that way, untouched by the legalities of government.

Since the government actually broke the 1st amendment and put your rights at risk by making marriage a legal concept to begin with, it would actually benefit your rights to religion if it was removed from the legal space.

That way your right to religion does not conflict with any legal contracts required by the states for rights granted to couples vs non couples.

~Tenth

Just saw this post. I pretty much agree, with one minor exception. Marriage was not always a religious institution. But it wasn't always regulated by governments either. Way, way back, marriage was a private matter just between two people, or two families. Then, religion horned in, then government wanted a piece of the action as well. Oh, if we could only go back to it being a private matter! We've complicated it way too much.

reply to post by kaylaluv


That is what I am asking for, government to stop putting their nose into all of our private matters. It would be nice, plus, NO ONE would ever be denied their civil and/or religious rights!

So long as criminal laws and so forth are heeded to, of course!

Its really not the governments business. We put too much taxes into all this anyway, and for what exactly?