Gay marriage is between a man and a woman

[iNow]

I certainly understand the insistance of parity, but I'd rather spend my energies on getting rid of the law. You're right, we certainly are aligned, ultimately, but I'd rather deliver some huge doses of libertarian remedy.

 

A thought just occurred to me. What if, while travelling abroad, whether it be for work or for pleasure, I found a woman and fell completely in love with her, and her for me. However, I had to return home to the US to continue my occupation, and I wanted to bring her with me. We get married. Wouldn't she be an illegal alien living in my home if the state didn't put some legal framework around the marriage?

 

I'm thinking no green card, no way I could bring her home. Do you have any insight or existing thoughts on this?

[ParanoiA]

Well my initial impulse is to question the necessity to put legal framework around the marriage rather than just herself. She's not illegal if she immigrates here through the legal process, which is quite liberal. I mean, I would think she could fly right back with you, like any tourist, and then complete the citizenship process. I don't see how she'd be illegal, really. But I admit I'm no expert on the requirements for international travel and citizenship.

[Realitycheck]

A thought just occurred to me. What if, while travelling abroad, whether it be for work or for pleasure, I found a woman and fell completely in love with her, and her for me. However, I had to return home to the US to continue my occupation, and I wanted to bring her with me. We get married. Wouldn't she be an illegal alien living in my home if the state didn't put some legal framework around the marriage?

 

I'm thinking no green card, no way I could bring her home. Do you have any insight or existing thoughts on this?

 

I think you would have to leave her there and start the naturalization process, though if you could somehow smuggle her into the country, then you could circumvent the wait.

[iNow]

Unless, she were a he, of course.

[Realitycheck]

They don't

According to this article, in California, they do.

 

 

Isn't marriage the joining of two people who love each other? Why should gays be treated as second class citizens?

 

How is allowing gays to marry "encroaching on the bastion of marriage"? Why is it any skin off your nose?

 

They are not second class citizens, but they are also not mates. There's this gigantic difference between mates and friends. It has this real "Let's pretend" feel to it.

[ParanoiA]

Unless, she were a he, of course.

 

What does that have to do with it?

[iNow]

What does that have to do with it?

 

IMO, abso-freakin-lutely nothing. However, it appears that there are others who wish to make gender/sex an issue, despite it's inherent irrelevancy when it comes to love between two people.

[Reaper]

They are not second class citizens, but they are also not mates. There's this gigantic difference between mates and friends. It has this real "Let's pretend" feel to it.

 

And why not, or rather, why can't they be? I find it absolutely preposterous that you are objecting to allowing two people who love each other to marry, on the basis of their sex and orientation.

[Realitycheck]

As I find it absolutely preposterous that friends who are unable to mate call themselves mates.

[Rev Blair]

She's not illegal if she immigrates here through the legal process, which is quite liberal. I mean, I would think she could fly right back with you, like any tourist, and then complete the citizenship process. I don't see how she'd be illegal, really. But I admit I'm no expert on the requirements for international travel and citizenship.

 

I have a friend who married a woman from Seattle. The rules are actually quite stringent and the US immigration people seem to think everybody is a criminal.

 

IMO, abso-freakin-lutely nothing. However, it appears that there are others who wish to make gender/sex an issue, despite it's inherent irrelevancy when it comes to love between two people.

 

Exactly. Some people don't like gays. They get all freaked out by people of the same gender having sex, often because of the type of sex they are thought to have.

 

Personally I get freaked out by a lot of people having sex, no matter what their gender or what type of sex they engage in. We are, when you consider the general population, a fairly ungainly species. What other people do, or look like while doing it, is none of my concern though.

[Realitycheck]

C'mon, you all can do better!!!! But they love each other, ooh, ooh, ooh!. Dad, I love you, let's get married! Mom, I love you, let's get married. Son, I love you, let's get married. Just where is the defining dividing line? But they love each other!!!! Now what kind of love is that? It just does not fit in the same classification. Marriage is about mates. It is not about homosexual trysts. It is apples and oranges.

[Reaper]

I remember reading somewhere that in antiquity that homosexuality and bisexuality was actually quite respected. Indeed, you see references of such all over Greco-Roman mythology......

 

And now, 2000 years later, here they are trying to fight for what is most certainly an inalienable right.

 

C'mon, you all can do better!!!! But they love each other, ooh, ooh, ooh!. Dad, I love you, let's get married! Mom, I love you, let's get married. Son, I love you, let's get married. Just where is the defining dividing line? But they love each other!!!! Now what kind of love is that? It just does not fit in the same classification. Marriage is about mates. It is not about homosexual trysts. It is apples and oranges.

 

 

That's a strawman, because no one is arguing over incest, or indeed the kind of love between family members. Neither is same sex marriage incest either, so that is also a hasty generalization and an irrelevant appeal. And marriage isn't all about mates.

[Realitycheck]

If I recall, there have been plenty of examples of incest throughout history, just as appalling as homosexuality anywhere other than Greece.

[Reaper]

If I recall, there have been plenty of examples of incest throughout history

 

And, so what? That is strawman.

 

just as appalling as homosexuality anywhere other than Greece.

 

Well, it appears as if you already made up your mind about it. Just because you find it appalling does not give you, or the religious right, or the state, the right to deny them their right to a marriage or a civil union, or both. What they choose to do in private is none of anyone's concern, and certainly it does not concern you if some gay couple want to get married.

[iNow]

C'mon, you all can do better!!!! But they love each other, ooh, ooh, ooh!. Dad, I love you, let's get married! Mom, I love you, let's get married. Son, I love you, let's get married. Just where is the defining dividing line? But they love each other!!!! Now what kind of love is that? It just does not fit in the same classification. Marriage is about mates. It is not about homosexual trysts.

 

If I recall, there have been plenty of examples of incest throughout history, just as appalling as homosexuality anywhere other than Greece.

 

I find it appalling that it's the year 2008 and people still hold such ignorant mindsets.

[Realitycheck]

I find it appalling that it's the year 2008 and people still hold such ignorant mindsets.

This is an ad-hom.

 

Let me put it to you this way.

 

Do most of you stand for nothing? Do you find it perfectly acceptable to raise your child in an environment where homosexuality is ever-more and increasingly acceptable and prevalent to the extent that homosexual marriages are commonplace and popular in mainstream sitcoms, making Johnnyboy think twice about his sexual orientation much easier because 1) pop culture propels war between the sexes, 2) the cost of gas is so high that he cannot afford to ask a girl on a date, and 3) more and more homosexuals are closer to him, feeding on his insecurities and generally making the situation worse than it has to be. If these plausible outcomes are perfectly fine with you and your dreams of fatherhood, then so be it. This is the ultimatum that I bestow upon you and your own ignorance.

[Pangloss]

A thought just occurred to me. What if, while travelling abroad, whether it be for work or for pleasure, I found a woman and fell completely in love with her, and her for me. However, I had to return home to the US to continue my occupation, and I wanted to bring her with me. We get married. Wouldn't she be an illegal alien living in my home if the state didn't put some legal framework around the marriage?

 

I'm thinking no green card, no way I could bring her home. Do you have any insight or existing thoughts on this?

 

My sister married a New Zealander, and they went through that process. They've been married for many years now and have two beautiful kids. They had to deal with a lot of bureaucratic paperwork, and some sleep was lost worrying about the handling of said paperwork, but in the end it was no big deal. Terrorist watch lists were consulted, etc etc, yadda yadda, you're a citizen, congrats.

 

I am kinda curious what would have happened had he been a she. Aside from shocking my mother, of course.

 

I find it appalling that it's the year 2008 and people still hold such ignorant mindsets.

This is an ad-hom.

 

It was borderline. Let's be nice' date=' everyone, you don't like me when I turn into the Topic Hulk (rAr! ), so let's avoid that, please.

 

 

Do you find it perfectly acceptable to raise your child in an environment where homosexuality is ever-more and increasingly acceptable and prevalent to the extent that homosexual marriages are commonplace and popular in mainstream sitcoms, making Johnnyboy think twice about his sexual orientation

 

Personally I couldn't care less. And those parents I know who do care are, IMO, overly concerned about it and are therefore not qualified to hold a position on this issue, because they are unable to separate their unrealistic concerns about their own children from what's best for society.

 

Being a parent does not automatically make one more qualified to be a better judge of what's best for society, and it can very well make you LESS qualified. That same instinct informed a parent to lie, cheat, or steal for their child, because their child is more important than the good of society (SHOW me a parent who won't lie for their child after he commits murder).

 

But most parents I know don't feel that way. They don't think that increased exposure is increasing the odds that their children will turn gay, and I think they're correct in not being concerned about it. I don't think we have more gays in this country today, I think we just have fewer of them in the closet.

[YT2095]

I can`t believe the Hypocrisy here!

 

everyone is jumping on Agentchange, for his opinion, and yet just as strong opinions are held here and equaly if not Stronger attacks are made against other Groups that similarly hold strong convictions!

 

so it`s Not allowed to voice an anti-gay opinion, but it`s Fine to voice an anti-(other group) opinion?

 

Double standards anyone?

[Reaper]

Tell me, YT, do you care to provide any examples of double standards here in this thread? All most of us here did was point out the problems of his reasoning and his objections.

[YT2095]

I don`t care to share with you the details of his opinion here that has been Reported!

 

but it Has been, and in all good conscience this cannot be acted upon.

 

if gay bashing is disallowed, then so should bashing of YECs, Animal rights protesters, certain Political views etc... (oh hang on a sec, the Latter Are!).

 

you can`t have your cake AND eat it!

 

so if we can slag off One group that holds strong convictions, we should be allowed All groups, or NO groups.

 

 

and no, I`m Not speaking as a YEC, Peta, liberal or gay advocate, I`m simply stating the fact of Evident hypocrisy here.

[drochaid]

if gay bashing is disallowed, then so should bashing of YECs, Animal rights protesters, certain Political views etc... (oh hang on a sec, the Latter Are!).

 

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree very strongly with the above. You do not choose to be homosexual, or hetero, or bi .. you just are. Discrimination on the basis of facts you have no control over must be condemned outright.

 

To ridicule a person for their CHOICE of political, animal welfare, religious views is absolutely separate and choice must always be open to debate. You certainly have the right to request that debate not to be openly offensive, but this is absolutely not the same in any way, shape or form as open hostility to a group of people who do not have the choice to be anything else.

[YT2095]

well, you ASSUME that ALL the members of other groups have a Choice!

 

point being, Bashing of ANY group that has strong convictions is Wrong, and shouldn`t happen here on SFN.

 

I draw no distinction between them, hurting someone is hurting someone Fullstop!

 

NOW do you see my point?

[Klaynos]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree very strongly with the above. You do not choose to be homosexual, or hetero, or bi .. you just are. Discrimination on the basis of facts you have no control over must be condemned outright.

 

To ridicule a person for their CHOICE of political, animal welfare, religious views is absolutely separate and choice must always be open to debate. You certainly have the right to request that debate not to be openly offensive, but this is absolutely not the same in any way, shape or form as open hostility to a group of people who do not have the choice to be anything else.

 

I agree there is a fundamental difference between what people are are what they CHOOSE to be.

[ParanoiA]

Let me put it to you this way.

 

Do most of you stand for nothing? Do you find it perfectly acceptable to raise your child in an environment where homosexuality is ever-more and increasingly acceptable and prevalent...

 

We're standing for the principle of liberty. We're saying that the state doesn't get to define morality. It should be left to free thinking society. What you think about homosexuality is irrelevant to legislation. You are free to persuade the masses to agree with you, but to force your morality onto the rest of us, with law, is wrong. I hold the princple of liberty in higher esteem than your principle of mating.

[mooeypoo]

if I had to guess, I'd say its more of what marriage 'represents' rather than the nomenclature.

 

IIRC, the first lesbian couple to get married got divorced several months ago.

 

It's not so much what it represents, it's about what accompanies it. The rights that come along with official marriage are more than just 'being married'.

 

For example, if one of the partners is ill, or dies, then in a marriage the spouse is considered family with *rights* to make decisions, visit, etc. If the couple isn't married, like gays atm, then the partner has no rights whatsoever.

 

Same goes with divorce issues.. if a couple lived for a long time together and shared a life, splitting the assets -- or deciding about the future of the children, if there are any -- are very important, as you can imagine. Having no title of "married" means no title of "divorce", and a hard time preserving the rights of the individuals in the no-longer-couple.

 

Another example: If a gay couple lived together and shared a life for many many years and have built a home for themselves, etc... and then one of them dies -- accident, natural death, disease, whatever cause -- his/her partner has no rights as a family member to either the property or decisions of what to do with the body, etc.

Married couple would have rights if the same happened.

 

If the state found another "term" for the gay marriage issue that gives the exact same RIGHTS to both members of that union, then there wouldn't be any debate. "Marriage" would be the more 'religious/cultural' ceremony, and whatever-else-term (call it.. 'union') will be the utterly LEGAL part.

 

It's true that there's "civil union" but (a) in many states it doesn't apply for gays and (2) it doesn't give the same rights and priviliges as a marriage.

 

 

So it's not a matter of "having an orange juice from apples" - it's a matter of having the same RIGHTS under the law without discrimination.

 

~moo