Same Sex Marriage?

[tasha99]

I am all for it. Like others have said, I think this will be the civil rights issue that our grand kids will be scratching their heads about (and wondering how their grandparents could have been so small minded).

I am also okay with polygamy. It's an ancient practice and if consenting adults want to do it, it's no one's business but their own. I don't buy the "oh a divorce would be so difficult" with polygamy. We could set up laws of intestate succession for polygamous marriages, and just like with non-polygamous marriages, if a family doesn't like it the default option, they can write a will.

 

[suzanna1066@comcast.]

I do not think this is a religious issue even though some try to turn it into one. Marriage is a social contract that transcends religion and has existed in some form or another throughout human history.

Therefore, I am perfectly fine with religious organizations refusing to marry couples for whatever reason. Governments, on the other hand, are denying equal rights when they outlaw gay marriage.

 

[Magpie]

Who is? I know you said "the general you", but why do you think that most people who are in favor of same sex marriage are against polyamorous marriage? That is not the impression I am getting in this thread, nor elsewhere. Personally, I have not given it enough thought to form an opinion. In general, I am fine with whatever relationship other consenting adults choose for themselves, it does not affect me or my marriage. I do see logistical issues with the legal recognition of these relationshiops that would not occur with same-sex marriage, but that does not mean I am against it. It just means that it is something that needs to be analyzed and all issues hammered out before I'm going to start arguing in favor on the internet.

Again, who is saying one is acceptable and the other isn't? And even if "they" are, that is my point, isn't it? We make our moral decisions one issue at a time, based on each issue's own merits. That's why I think slippery slope is a lousy argument.

This!

As for the logistical and legal issues around polyamory, if it ever comes to that, I'm sure people are intelligent enough work it out.

FWIW, I do know some polyamorous families, including a woman who has been happily sharing her life with two men going on thirty years now. It's not unheard of in the Pagan community, though they tend to keep their heads down due to the social climate right now. I personally think it'd be nice if there was some legal protections in place for these families.

Heck, I felt awful for that Saudi man who was legally married to two women in Saudi Arabia. A successful business man, he wanted to move his company to Canada. He was told by Immigration that he'd have to divorce one of his wives and abandon her if he wanted to emigrate to Canada! He chose the ethical route and opted not to emigrate here. But it was a cruel choice to force on him.

But, all that aside, I don't think I really need to concern myself with the issue of polyamory when I'm discussing gay marriage. To me, gay marriage and polyamory are two *entirely* different issues.

I can support gay marriage right here, right now, without having to debate polyamory at all. And I do.

 

[ChrizJen]

I'm a lesbian in a 13 year (and still going strong ) relationship with my partner. We hope for our union to be legally recognized someday. In the meantime, I can actually respect some of the arguments against same sex marriage. I don't agree with them, but I can respect them. One of the recent discussions I had on the matter was with a co-worker who said that she just didn't want to have to change the definition of marriage. I can actually respect that. But my argument with that was that we're not looking to change any definition. My recommendation would actually be to just give it a new name entirely. Let the religious institutions handle "marriage" and what they want to include and/or exclude. I would never insist that any church perform my union ceremony. The legal side should be seperate anyway. I only ask that whatever name the government sees fit to use, that it be used for all unions, both gay and straight. Otherwise, it creates a seperate but equal situation, and that' still not right.

As for the "slippery slope" argument, I don't gtet that either. My view is that consenting adults should be legally entitled to the same rights. Period. As long as everyone involved is of legal age (and human ), then who's being harmed? Seriously...I'm sure there would be logistics involved in allowing polygamous marriage just as there would be with same sex marriage. But we work through the issues, the same way we work through the logistics of any law-making process.

Thanks, OP for this thread, and thanks for all of the input. It's very nice to see that folks are willing to talk about these issues. That's how we'll eventually get things done.

 

[LukenDC]

If marriage is religious by default, then what about the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples who were not married in a church setting or by a minister? Are their marriages valid? Can heterosexual atheists be married?

 

[CandyMandy]

Yes, why not three or four in a marriage? Honestly, WHY NOT?! If these four people are in love and consenting adults and want to commit to marriage, I think they should be able to. Maybe it's time for a MAJOR reform on marriage altogether.

Why stop there? Given some of the logic we are seeing this thread, we might as well "reform" legal marriage so:

- people can marry animals

- people can marry children

- people can marry a dead person....

Yep, let's just say "anything goes"......

 

[SunnyP4Disney]

Why stop there? Given some of the logic we are seeing this thread, we might as well "reform" legal marriage so:

- people can marry animals

- people can marry children

- people can marry a dead person....

Yep, let's just say "anything goes"......

That's not a logical argumet because the emphasis is on CONSENTING. Children, gerbils, and zombies do not have the capability for legal consent. That's like Elizabeth Hasselbeck saying gay marriage is a slippery slope to marrying a toaster.

 

[LukenDC]

Why stop there? Given some of the logic we are seeing this thread, we might as well "reform" legal marriage so:

- people can marry animals

- people can marry children

- people can marry a dead person....

Yep, let's just say "anything goes"......

It is unreasonable to compare animals, children, and dead people to consenting adults. I view marriage as a contract first and foremost. Animals, children, the deceased, plants, and inanimate objects cannot enter into a contract.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It should not be the governments place to decide such things.

It's absolutely the government's place to decide such things. A religious facility or officiant may perform a wedding ceremony, but only the government can grant the legal rights and benefits that go with being married.

Your tax form doesn't ask if you're civil unioned filing jointly or civil unioned filing separately.

However, I FULLY support legal civil unions that give couples the same rights and benefits as any married couple.

Separate but equal has never been.

 

[roscoepc1]

I'm a lesbian in a 13 year (and still going strong ) relationship with my partner. We hope for our union to be legally recognized someday. In the meantime, I can actually respect some of the arguments against same sex marriage. I don't agree with them, but I can respect them. One of the recent discussions I had on the matter was with a co-worker who said that she just didn't want to have to change the definition of marriage. I can actually respect that. But my argument with that was that we're not looking to change any definition. My recommendation would actually be to just give it a new name entirely. Let the religious institutions handle "marriage" and what they want to include and/or exclude. I would never insist that any church perform my union ceremony. The legal side should be seperate anyway. I only ask that whatever name the government sees fit to use, that it be used for all unions, both gay and straight. Otherwise, it creates a seperate but equal situation, and that' still not right.

As for the "slippery slope" argument, I don't gtet that either. My view is that consenting adults should be legally entitled to the same rights. Period. As long as everyone involved is of legal age (and human ), then who's being harmed? Seriously...I'm sure there would be logistics involved in allowing polygamous marriage just as there would be with same sex marriage. But we work through the issues, the same way we work through the logistics of any law-making process.

Thanks, OP for this thread, and thanks for all of the input. It's very nice to see that folks are willing to talk about these issues. That's how we'll eventually get things done.

Very well said. I appreciate your opinion!

I also agree that this thread has been refreshing, in that we are discussing, rather than getting hot-headed!

 

[kaytieeldr]

"marriage is a religious term"

While I disagree with this statement (my marriage license has a spot for "officiant" to sign, and that can be a JOP as well as a clergyman),

Heck, in Massachusetts it can be anyone who gets a special one-day license in advance!

 

[roscoepc1]

I've been asking for a sister-wife for as long as I can remember! Even the kids know I want one, and I know many who would do nicely (if they weren't married - you know the type - clean homes, organized, great cooks). So far, my wish has not been granted, and it's all me!

I'd be thrilled to have a sister-wife! Someone to kvetch about dh's faults with, someone to take over the sex part (I have next-to-no drive, lol), someone to split the yuck jobs with around the house! I think I'd insist on her being a nymphomaniac though...it'd stop a lot of dh's and my arguments!

 

[roscoepc1]

It's absolutely the government's place to decide such things. A religious facility or officiant may perform a wedding ceremony, but only the government can grant the legal rights and benefits that go with being married.

Your tax form doesn't ask if you're civil unioned filing jointly or civil unioned filing separately.

Separate but equal has never been.

Maybe it should...it would simplify a LOT!

 

[december]

If marriage is religious by default, then what about the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples who were not married in a church setting or by a minister? Are their marriages valid? Can heterosexual atheists be married?

Where is the like button...........

 

[chell]

I'm for same sex marriage. There are many wonderful same sex couple out there who deserve all of the same rights as those in a "traditional" marriage. I'm for it because they are humans just like us and deserve to be treated as equals.

When we attended the MLK service 2 weeks ago I was sitting there thinking and hoping that in 20 years we'll have come as far in accept GLBT as we have accepting that "black" people have just as much rights as the "whites" and that women have the right to vote. I hope this is just another tiny speed-bump in the road of equality and that we will soon be over it and it will be a small spot in the rear-view mirror of life.

 

[Wall-E1]

That's not a logical argumet because the emphasis is on CONSENTING. Children, gerbils, and zombies do not have the capability for legal consent. That's like Elizabeth Hasselbeck saying gay marriage is a slippery slope to marrying a toaster.

Actually, there still is some debate over the intellectual capacity of a zombie to make an informed decision on marriage. Some higher functioning ones, such as Bub(from Day of the Dead) may very well be classified as a consenting adult zombie. So, it appears that you stand corrected.

But seriously, that comment about animals and dead people was so completely ridiculous - does it even warrant a response?

 

[FireDancer]

That's not a logical argumet because the emphasis is on CONSENTING. Children, gerbils, and zombies do not have the capability for legal consent.

Exactly. Someone always brings up the children or animals issue but the key is consenting, legal adults.

 

[sunnyday123]

I'm all for it.. My best friend since high school is a lesbian. If she decides to get married, I believed she should be allowed to . HER getting married doesn't affect me or my marriage one iota.

Exactly. I firmly believe that if two men or two women want to be as misreable as I was, then by all means, they should be allowed to get married. Why should straight people bear the brunt??


Just kidding, but I don't think having a gay couple would affect anyone elses marriage or the "institution".

 

[chell]

Exactly. Someone always brings up the children or animals issue but the key is consenting, legal adults.

Sorry if this has already been covered in this thread but I think it is wonderful that Jason Mraz & his fiance won't get married until it is legal for gays & lesbians to do the same.

 

[roscoepc1]

Actually, there still is some debate over the intellectual capacity of a zombie to make an informed decision on marriage. Some higher functioning ones, such as Bub(from Day of the Dead) may very well be classified as a consenting adult zombie. So, it appears that you stand corrected.

But seriously, that comment about animals and dead people was so completely ridiculous - does it even warrant a response?

I'd prefer a Vampire over a Zombie any day....are Vampires capable of consent?