Gay marriage is between a man and a woman

[ParanoiA]

But no one should receive rights based on intimate relationships. Special rights for certain groups isn't any more righteous that restricting rights for certain groups. The whole notion of the state assuming a set of rights applies to me because of a private relationship is perverse. Biological relationship maybe, but intimate relationships based on choice? No.

[john5746]

Biological relationship maybe, but intimate relationships based on choice? No.

 

So if you adopt a child, you have no rights to the child?

[mooeypoo]

But no one should receive rights based on intimate relationships. Special rights for certain groups isn't any more righteous that restricting rights for certain groups. The whole notion of the state assuming a set of rights applies to me because of a private relationship is perverse. Biological relationship maybe, but intimate relationships based on choice? No.

 

It all depends, I guess. If we would like to live in a world where rights go to HUMANS and not specific groups-of-humans, then I would say the laws should not restrict themselves to ANYTHING that is "personal" -- hence, no restriction on gender, religion, personal belief or sexual orientation.

 

In my opinion, btw, the problem of gay marriage is not the "marriage" part, it's that it seems instead of talking about it "globally" ("We want equal rights for ALL HUMANS, regardless of their gender, beliefs, religion or sexual orientation, or any other personal affiliation") we (and the gay/lesbian movement too, imho) argue this as a specifically "gay" matter.

 

It shouldn't be, imo. It's a human-right thing. Just like women have a right to vote not because they're "women" but because they were recognized to have no difference in matter of political rights than men.

 

And african americans were "given the right" to study in the same universities as "white people" not because they are black but because we (as a country/nation/people/whatever) recognized that there is no difference between races in aspects of education and political and human rights.

 

This shouldn't be regarded as a "is homosexuality a good thing" debate, it should be regarded as a "give equal rights to all, whether you agree with what they represent or not, as long as they don't hurt anyone". Personal affiliations do not hurt anyone, they are personal. We shouldn't really care about inner matters of what gays like, don't like or want.

 

They are human, therefore they deserve human rights. Since we aren't supposed to meddle in these private matters (because then we open up a pandora's box of 'through which religion do we look at things' danger, where we currently view things through judeo-christian matters, so other religions are not included, take that into account too), there shouldn't be a restriction about these laws.

 

If a man chose to spend his life with another man, the state should have no right to take that choice off his hand in case he dies, for example, or becomes sick, etc, and not allow his partner (whom he CHOSE), to visit/make decisions/ etc.

 

 

 

~moo

 

p.s (edit):

But no one should receive rights based on intimate relationships.

As the situation is at the moment, Gays have these rights taken *away* from them on the basis of intimate relationships. Gays don't request 'special treatment', they request to receive the *SAME* treatment under the law.

[ParanoiA]

So if you adopt a child, you have no rights to the child?

 

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. But I'll go with my impulse at the moment and give this some more thought.

 

I guess I would have assumed there would be contractual obligations via the adoption process that establish those rights that the state would have to enforce or recognize.

 

Also, as a guardian or parent, there are legal obligations and responsibilities added to you. Like being held accountable for their behavior and so forth. Whereas with a marriage, you shouldn't be held in any position of authority over your spouse, nor be accountable for their actions. So I guess I could see the need for state recognition of the guardian-child relationship, but still not for marriage.

 

That's my premature thoughts anyway. Apparently I need to refine the wording of my position. Gee...thanks John...

[Sayonara]

This thread is now developing in the same way as the other threads in which we have debated this matter in exhaustive detail; IOW, it is now at the point where it needs to be closely watched.

 

Please stick to the issues and do not use logical fallacies. Emotive outbursts are not advised from members OR staff. I don't want to pick on people, but I think Agentchange needs to consider his own views with his objective and critical hat on, and YT - based on his experiences in prior threads on the same topic - might want to just not read this thread, unless he can bring himself to distinguish between "bashing" and debate.

 

And for the last effing time, you CANNOT attribute consequences (and/or 'blame') deriving from choice to people who - in the vast majority - have no such choice. So just don't do it.

[ParanoiA]

Nice post mooeypoo, I agree with your distinction that this should be about equal rights for everybody. Well said.

 

As the situation is at the moment, Gays have these rights taken *away* from them on the basis of intimate relationships. Gays don't request 'special treatment', they request to receive the *SAME* treatment under the law.

 

And I agree with you here, just that I'd rather not see ANY rights granted nor taken away on the basis of this kind of intimate relationship. Obviously the current trend is to take away those rights, (or keep away) and that's disgustingly wrong.

 

And for the last effing time, you CANNOT attribute consequences (and/or 'blame') deriving from choice to people who - in the vast majority - have no such choice. So just don't do it.

 

But doesn't this presuppose that homosexuality is 0% choice? I don't think that's any more accurate than it being 0% genetic, or innate.

[Sayonara]

But doesn't this presuppose that homosexuality is 0% choice? I don't think that's any more accurate than it being 0% genetic, or innate.

No it does not presuppose 0% choice, because of the words I used and because of the words I didn't use.

Also please keep in mind we are talking about people who wish to enter gay marriage, not the entire spectrum of human sexual behaviour, which somewhat narrows our attention.

[YT2095]

keep in mind we are talking about people who wish to enter gay marriage

 

Wish implies Choice.

and if Agentchange is opposed to that choice or is even Disgusted by that, then by all standards set here throughout the forum, he should be allowed to voice this.

 

And be as disrespectful as the Other precedents set here, when it comes to peoples "Choices".

 

 

wouldn`t you agree?

[Sayonara]

Wish implies Choice.

Well, yes. But ParanoiA and I are talking about the homosexuals who want to get married being mostly in the group who have no real choice about their sexuality. We are not talking about people somehow being magically conceptually incapable of choosing to get married.

 

and if Agentchange is opposed to that choice or is even Disgusted by that, then by all standards set here throughout the forum, he should be allowed to voice this.

No, I disagree. When you make emotive and arbitrary value judgements based on factually incorrect information you are being bigoted, which our rules explicitly prohibit. I am not going to debate forum policy any further with a member of staff in a public thread so if you want to argue the toss, feel free to PM me.

 

Agentchange is of course as free as anyone else to add rational and constructive ideas to the discussion, so in the interests of not discouraging him from doing so please don't use him as a puppet for your own agenda.

 

And be as disrespectful as the Other precedents set here, when it comes to peoples "Choices".

This thread was started to discuss a perceived iniquity in the way that the state treats different groups of citizens with regards to their rights, and the way in which society perpetuates this scenario by suppressing the actualisation of equality. I for one am not going to leap to the defence of people who - in your words - "bash" those groups in this thread, nor am I going to hide the fact that I will take a dim view of staff members who undermine that position.

[ParanoiA]

No it does not presuppose 0% choice, because of the words I used and because of the words I didn't use.

 

Well then what's the value of the statement? There's obviously some measure of choice here, so consequences and blame are perfectly valid discussion points I would think. I would reject the logic in those notions, but as long as choice is measurable, then consequence seems natural.

 

and if Agentchange is opposed to that choice or is even Disgusted by that' date=' then by all standards set here throughout the forum, he should be allowed to voice this.

 

And be as disrespectful as the Other precedents set here, when it comes to peoples "Choices".

 

 

wouldn`t you agree? [/quote']

 

Not sure I see the disrespect you're talking about though. I could see an argument for PC gangs, like Pangloss has pointed out in other subjects, but I'm not seeing the bashing you were talking about.

[YT2095]

 

Not sure I see the disrespect you're talking about though.

 

that`s My own fault, by Here I mean Here on SFN across the board, not IN here (this thread).

 

Apologies.

[Sayonara]

Well then what's the value of the statement? There's obviously some measure of choice here, so consequences and blame are perfectly valid discussion points I would think. I would reject the logic in those notions, but as long as choice is measurable, then consequence seems natural.

What I was trying to say is that the sort of people who want to enter into a gay marriage arrangement are very likely to be in a group in which the members do not have any choice about their sexuality (or certainly don't feel they do, and who are we to contradict them?), so it is not helpful to make spurious remarks that imply they are just being a bit difficult. I could have explained the point in more detail and you are right to question it.

 

It is not so much what has been said already in this thread which concerns me, but what is almost certainly around the corner. See the previous threads on this topic if you want to prepare yourself for the ordeal.

[iNow]

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...<snip>

Yes, I actually find it FAR more acceptable to raise my children in an environment where homosexuality is accepted (as well as marriages between people who love each other despite gender) than to bring my children up in an environment where these things are not accepted.

 

 

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.

Thanks for the first person experience. I was bringing this up since ParanoiA and I had discussed the idea that the state should not be involved at all in marriage.

 

I had a thought later in the day that the state is involved for reasons such as the above... beaurcratic, yes, but he was able to become a citizen and have kids inside the US with your sister. Was marriage not part of the process, and did he just go through the normal application for citizenship process? Or, was it different since the two were married?

 

In addition to the question above, I'm also asking, if the state is not part of the equation, what will be the impact to folks like your sister and her husband (had they tried doing this after the state was removed from the process)?

 

 

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

You kill me, sometimes.

[ecoli]

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.

But marriage doesn't have to be the answer to this issue. It's what wills are for.

 

Wills can be more powerful than simply being married or even blood relation. When my girlfriend's father died her father's will was not up to date, and his siblings got all his life insurance money (a considerable sum, from what I know). His wife and child didn't get any of his insurance money, even after taking the other family to court.

 

If a court can deny life insurance money to a widow and her 7 year old daughter, than I'm pretty sure it can grant these rights, upon death, to a gay partner.

 

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.

If they are both legal guardians of the children, there's still a role for family courts here (and child support, etc). I don't see that there's an area that can't have a potential legal work-around, that would allow us to get rid of state-sponsored marriages.

 

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.

I don't think married couples should have these 'rights' either. And should be worked into their wills when they decide to become partners (or get married by a church).

 

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.

Well, I'm sure there would still be some people who would find a reason to complain.

 

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.

I know what you're saying, Moo, but I think equal rights should be granted by taking away these supposed 'rights' of heterosexual married couples.

 

 

By the way, doesn't Israel not have civil marriages?

[mooeypoo]

Wish implies Choice.

and if Agentchange is opposed to that choice or is even Disgusted by that, then by all standards set here throughout the forum, he should be allowed to voice this.

 

And be as disrespectful as the Other precedents set here, when it comes to peoples "Choices".

 

 

wouldn`t you agree?

May I propose an alternative view point to this?

 

I think that the issue of choice here should be separated into 2 main issues so we can continue debate on this properly: (1) Choosing to be gay (or is this a 'choice' or a genetic thing) and (2) Choosing to get married.

 

These are two completely separate issues. The first one has little to do with the issue of equal rights, and the second one only has bearing on equal "marriage rights" for those who choose to get married.

 

We should also remember that there can be many reasons that people decide to get married or not to get married, the problem is not "should we" or "shouldn't we" or are we encouraging marriage or not. The point is that the part of the population of this country who *WISHES* to get married, CAN get married.

 

Gays excluded.

 

 

 

 

That last sentence is the problem, and the issues of being disgusted of gays, or thinking it's wrong, or moral values or family values or children or love or sex or whatever else -- are utterly irrelevant.

 

There are rights given to citizens in this country. And gay citizens are excluded from those rights.

 

That is the bottom line.

 

By the way, doesn't Israel not have civil marriages?

 

Israel accepts Gay marriage, and has a very close-to-marriage-by-law status on Civil Union - for both gays and heterosexuals.

 

For that matter, if a gay couple got married in Canada, where it si legal, the come to Israel and are *considered* married by law.

 

 

It's still not possible to get married in Israel as gays, but (1) that is still being fought against and (2) still, it seems Israel is more pluralistic in that matter than the USA... funny, eh?

 

BTW - Israel has a lot of laws that try to make sure gays are equal-rights citizens in the country, including laws about adoption, after-death-rights for partners, dividing property in "civil union" or just by living together, having workplaces recognize a gay partner as a spouse to get the same rights other couples get, etc.

 

P.s -- in that aspect, ecoli, Israel has, sorta, created a "new" term for marriage ("Civil Union"). Marriage has more than just "will" in the eyes of the law (as I said, an example, is workforce benefits, government tax payouts, discounts for house, or whatever else.. there are a lot more to having the government recognize a couple as an actual couple).

I don't care, for that matter, if instead of having a marriage we have a "booblalala". Call it whatever you want. But if the government decided it gives certain rights to the life-partners of people, then ALL PARTNERS from ALL GENDERS and ALL RELIGIONS should get the same.

 

I am not sure if I agree about taking it away, I think it isn't that bad to recognize that couples that raise children or house or whatever get certain rights. I just think that if the govt DECIDED this is good, then it cannot just pick and choose who this right is given to.

 

--- <sigh> I'm sorry, I don't mean to edit that much, I'm just at work and my attn span is off and on, so.. this is the last time i edit-in somethin, I promise ---

 

ecoli, I just thought about another example -- wills are good and all, but there is something to be said about the "power" of a family. For example, a person dies unexpectedly in a car accident or whatever else -- not necessarily has a will. But is it fair to take away stuff -- from rights to his picture album, to the right to decide where to burry him - from the person who knows him/her the most ? there has been a few cases I remember where the rights were taken away from the same-sex partner and given to the parents, who kicked the now-deceased person out of home many years before. Is that a "right" thing to do? not sure, probably there are several ways to look at it, but it should certainly make the issue less "simple" than to just take rights away completely, or just take them away for gays.

[ecoli]

Civil unions, but not civil marriages... for heterosexuals or homosexuals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage_in_Israel

[mooeypoo]

Civil unions, but not civil marriages... for heterosexuals or homosexuals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage_in_Israel

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming Israel is openminded in this issue.

 

I am simply saying it's a bit MORE openminded than what it seems to be here in general.

 

But again, that's less of the issue.

[ecoli]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming Israel is openminded in this issue.

 

I am simply saying it's a bit MORE openminded than what it seems to be here in general.

 

But again, that's less of the issue.

No, you misunderstand my purpose. In arguing against civil marriages, in general, I'm just trying to figure out if I like the way Israel is doing it.

 

Is the fact that they don't have civil unions help dissociate personal relationships from the state... or is religion so associated with the state, that it renders this point irrelevant?

[mooeypoo]

No, you misunderstand my purpose. In arguing against civil marriages, in general, I'm just trying to figure out if I like the way Israel is doing it.

 

Is the fact that they don't have civil unions help dissociate personal relationships from the state... or is religion so associated with the state, that it renders this point irrelevant?

 

Wait wait.. I think I understand what you're saying but we're arguing two different thigns here.

 

Whether or not a marriage should remain something the government has its hands on is an entirely different argument (an interesting one, I agree) than whether or not Gays should have the same right to it.

 

The bottom line is that whether or not we agree with it, the government (and Israeli government too, for that matter) *does* have it's "hand" in marriage, even for the fact that it gives some 'extra' rights to married couples over non-married-couples.

 

Since that is the case, then *all human beings* should be equal in the eyes of the law, which is why the gay and lesbian movement is fighting to get the right to be married. I can tell you that many of them don't mind the actual "ceremony" and if they do, they make one uniquely for family or "party" or whatever else, the point is not the declaration of marriage, it is the rights that accompany it.

 

The argument of whether or not we SHOULD add rights to married couples should be carried on regardless - but SEPARATELY - from the issue of Gay rights to be considered EQUAL under the *current* law.

 

... I .. hope I was clearer too now..

 

About Israel in specific, well, sadly, the "internal" matters are being "governed" by largely religious parties, for various political reasons. There are huge huge groups in Israel that fight against it, but the current situation is that the Ministry of Internal Affairs (that 'governs' marriages, among other things) was, for many many eyars, governed by the religious party, and is today still largely politically affected by it.

 

So the *only* *JEWISH* marriages that are available are *ORTHODOX* marriage. Arabs, Christians and all other religions can marry using their religion, of course, but there is no "atheist" marriage in israel, because of the religious parties.

 

For that matter, I have some friends, for example, that are perfectly heterosexual, non religious (though 'cultural' jews.. hence, follow culture and not religion so much) did *not* want to marry through an orthodox wedding, because of mainly the "message" of such marriage (the biblical 'ketuba' -- "agreement" of marriage -- is hinting towards a "sale" of the woman to the man). Many couples don't want that type of schauvinistic ceremony.

But Israel doesn't quite recognize, officially, any other type of marriage, including other Jewish "streams". So what many many people do, is fly to any other country (usually cyprus, because it's close and cheap) - get married in a civilian contract marriage (which is recognized as marriage in israel, because it's internationally recognized as marriage), go back to Israel and have a *CEREMONY* whatever way they want it.

 

Backwards way, but it works.

[tvp45]

A modest proposal...

If marriage is so very special that it requires definition and defense by the state, then I suggest a constitutional amendment that marriage be only permitted between a fertile man and woman, that divorce not be permitted under any circumstances, and that adultery be punished by death.

[Pangloss]

Well I think YT had a good point, but I also agree with Sayo that the bashing needs to just plain stop. Let's just move on and keep it real, folks. I don't share agentchange's opinion on this subject, but I share his opinion on many others and I respect his right to have a different opinion from mine on this. And "pointing out faulty logic" is something you do with facts, not opinions. We respect opinions here, we don't castigate them.

 

 

Incidentally, I got an email from the Center for Inquiry today bragging about the fact that they filed an amicus brief in this case. An amicus brief from an organization that, by its stated focus, should have zero interest in this issue. PC-ness is not an SFN-only phenomenon, sad to say.

 

-------------

 

Thanks for the first person experience. I was bringing this up since ParanoiA and I had discussed the idea that the state should not be involved at all in marriage.

 

I had a thought later in the day that the state is involved for reasons such as the above... beaurcratic' date=' yes, but he was able to become a citizen and have kids inside the US with your sister. Was marriage not part of the process, and did he just go through the normal application for citizenship process? Or, was it different since the two were married?

 

In addition to the question above, I'm also asking, if the state is not part of the equation, what will be the impact to folks like your sister and her husband (had they tried doing this after the state was removed from the process)?[/quote']

 

I'm not really sure, I'll have to ask, but I think the thing that marriage accomplished in their case was to begin the citizenship process, which is, of course, not automatic. He had legal residency, and at one point they were concerned that he would have to leave and wait to come back because his residency (green card?) had expired. But they just kept plugging away at the bureaucracy and eventually straightened it all out.

 

All of which does open a can of worms regarding immigration implications, with many aspects that could be spun and used by opponents and supporters, but as a practical matter you could probably set it up so that the government could still use marriage as a criteria for citizenship consideration even if marriage was not a legal institution. It would just be another variable that would be investigated by a worker, just as it is now, and various criteria could be used to determine legitimacy. Since this is already done it would seem to be no serious additional headache.

 

I say "consideration", by the way, because nothing about the process was automatic at all. They got married and then he applied for citizenship. He could well have been denied, producing a situation that, while horrid from our perspective, can only be considered necessary from an objective perspective. (Not so much for the terrorist thing, as for people with criminal histories who might prey on others, etc.)

[ParanoiA]

All of which does open a can of worms regarding immigration implications, with many aspects that could be spun and used by opponents and supporters, but as a practical matter you could probably set it up so that the government could still use marriage as a criteria for citizenship consideration even if marriage was not a legal institution. It would just be another variable that would be investigated by a worker, just as it is now, and various criteria could be used to determine legitimacy. Since this is already done it would seem to be no serious additional headache.

 

This seems right to me. I don't see the need in state legislation on marriage in order to use the marriage as a good excuse for citizenship. I'm sure there are other values considered in the citizenship process that aren't legislatively state sponsored values.

 

What I get really sick of, is this idea that "married" folks should get an extra tax break, or for that matter that they choose to have children gets them a tax break. This makes no sense to me. "Hey guys, I want a new truck, so I'm going to need the rest of you to pay a little more of my taxes, thanks a bunch".

[john5746]

This seems right to me. I don't see the need in state legislation on marriage in order to use the marriage as a good excuse for citizenship. I'm sure there are other values considered in the citizenship process that aren't legislatively state sponsored values.

 

What I get really sick of, is this idea that "married" folks should get an extra tax break, or for that matter that they choose to have children gets them a tax break. This makes no sense to me. "Hey guys, I want a new truck, so I'm going to need the rest of you to pay a little more of my taxes, thanks a bunch".

 

I imported my wife from Brazil via a bridal visa. I agreed to take on all her expenses, etc and marry her. I think that is similar to sponsoring an immigrant.

 

Many married people get hit with the marriage penalty, because it is becoming more common for women to make as much as men.

 

I think a society of the people for the people should have an interest in its most precious resource - future generations. A two person family, with a mother and father seems to work well - better than a single mother, so that should be reinforced - preferably with a carrot, not a stick.

 

Gay couples? Well, I must admit that my bias towards men as caregivers makes me a little wary of two men as parents, but it is probably better than one person on average and much better than an orphanage.

[mooeypoo]

Gay couples? Well, I must admit that my bias towards men as caregivers makes me a little wary of two men as parents, but it is probably better than one person on average and much better than an orphanage.

 

What about two women?

 

 

I am half-joking, of course, I see what you're saying, but still, I think that the consideration is that in reality children with no homes exist, period. It is the situation. So since gay couples adopt if they want children (and many do..), I see no harm in it.

 

But I will repeat my previous point -- either you do something *for all* or *for none*. That's equality. The government atm says "all has rights *except* gays" and that's what's wrong here, in my opinion, more than whether or not gays should *want* to get married or if straights should "want" to get married, or if the government should or shouldn't compel people to get married.

 

Equality.

[ecoli]

I was just listening to Laura Ingram on the radio (conservative pundit). I heard a caller make a comment in response to the California supreme court decision.

 

He said (paraphrased) that that if he knew that if knew in advanced that homosexuals would ever have the opportunity to make the same vows that he made to his wife, than he would have never have gotten married in the first place.

 

I couldn't believe my ears. Here's a man so hateful and ignorant about homosexuals, that he doesn't even want to have the potential to be similar to them in any way. He even said that if homosexuals were permitted to marry, he and his wife would consider getting a divorce.

 

In all probability, he wouldn't act on this, but it still serves to demonstrate the type of irrational thinking mostly on the side of the religious right.