Why I'm opposed to gay marriage

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT
 

Volf99:
snip

Le sigh.

Your idea is non functional.

If a separate form of marriage is invoked then the bigots win, gays aren't worthy of "true" marriage.

It doesn't matter that it is essentially equal, it's the principle. Feelings are involved, maybe you forgot to take them into account. People care about things, inconvenient and sometimes unpredictable I know but they do; especially when that thing is as emotionally invested as marriage is. Marriage is supposed to symbolise dedication and devotion to another, it's the crown of the romantics outlook.

I understand that you want to see yourself as the impartial mediator but it will not work in this case. One side has to "win", there is no middle ground. Being married is a stamp that comes with social and emotional weight, it cannot be replicated by your newly minted idea.

Gays being excluded from marriage is a bigot win, gays being included is a fag win. I, because I can't think of any reason to exclude homosexuals from marrying each other, find myself on the side that isn't arbitrarily* excluding anyone.

*Read, having any reason that is not based in hate/fear/disgust/scorn.

Where to begin...

I hear this argument all the time, but I still can't figure out how two humans marrying is the same as interspecies marriages.
If you want to cut down on "joke" marriages, maybe you'd want to shut down on those in and out chapels in Las Vegas? The kind of place you can get married and anulled in the same place? I don't see why marriage is even put into seperate catagories. Up until about a hundred years ago, marriage was a property agreement, so marrying for love is a fairly new concept.

So toss that around for a bit.

Shaoken:

Volf99:
However, I'm up for different ideas. If it was up to you, and the one thing you had to do was try to make BOTH sides happy, how would you do it? How would you try to make a compromise? (Remember you would be trying to make both sides happy, not just completely favor one and tell the other to get lost)

Why should we make the other side happy? Why compromise? With your country did compromising on Slavery (only have of the new states would allow it) solve anything? Did compromising with "Seperate But Equal" help blacks in any way? Why does the opposing side deserve to be made happy? Especially since they won't be happy anyway.

...you make it sound like the other side are all bad people, which is far from the truth. They are people just like everybody else.

I'm trying(and it appears failing) to make both sides happy. But it seems that people who are in favor don't want to compromise when I talk to them anymore than people against it do. *sigh* I really wish both sides could quit being so hard headed and see where each other are coming from. I mean for you to say, "Why should we make the other side happy? Why compromise? [...]Why does the opposing side deserve to be made happy? Especially since they won't be happy anyway." I can't help but smh at such an attitude towards communicating with people that you don't agree with. You realize that when I have brought up this idea on more conservative forum sites, to people on the other side of fence they typed nearly the same response that you did? I almost get the feeling that it's no longer about gay rights, its about two sides trying to beat and conquer one another, which only leads to more arguing.

Moving on, if liberal places like California are banning same sex marriage, then I think that it shows that there are a far number of people against the idea of same sex marriage. Hence, this is why I feel that if there was a compromise on both sides, it would make more people on both sides happy(and expand the opportunities for homosexuals). Obviously this idea would still irritate some people who want homosexual marriage to be considered the same as heterosexual marriage, and it would irritate people who don't like homosexuals, but I think that the main goal would be achieved(which is Jon being able see his partner Larry at the hospital, just like how Jane would be able to see her husband Luke at the hospital). I think you being presumptions about those who are against it though, because I think that there would be some people(who are against homosexual marriage) who would be happy with what I proposed. But...

Perhaps you could think of my idea as not a "solution" to this issue, but as a stepping stone towards something that the homosexual community would like to have. I mean could you at least agree that my idea would be a step(but not the final step) in the right direction for the US?

Volf99:
I, as well as many other, would disagree that there isn't something sacred about marriage. I came up with the idea because I thought it would best appease both sides of issue, by giving homosexuals all the tax/spousal rights that they want, while also giving other people the claim to the word, "marriage". Honestly I think it's a pretty good trade that is more favored towards homosexuals, because homosexuals gain tax/spousal rights and benifits while the opposition gets claim to a single word. That's it. Think about it, it's a single word that one side gets, while the other side gets a great deal more than that. I think my idea is much more in favor of those who are pro-homosexual marriage than those who are against it. If anything I think those who are against it might be angry at me for only giving them claim to a single word, don't you think so?

However, I'm up for different ideas. If it was up to you, and the one thing you had to do was try to make BOTH sides happy, how would you do it? How would you try to make a compromise? (Remember you would be trying to make both sides happy, not just completely favor one and tell the other to get lost)

Again, you seem to keep on assuming that those who are anti-gay marriage will be okay with civil unions. Gay people want marriage, and we know that eventually we'll get marriage, but in the mean time, as a gay person, I'd sign up for something that was called a "license for faggot sodomy" if it meant that my partner and I would get the same legal benefits straight couples get from marriage. The problem is that most of the political right will not compromise, period. Bans on gay sex were ruled unconstitutional in 2003 and you've got state Republican parties all over the country calling for the recriminalisation of gay sex in their official party platforms. These people don't even want us to be able to have sex together, why would they be okay with a civil union that allows the government to legitimise our relationships?

I'm sincerely not trying to be condescending or anything, I just want to be absolutely clear, most people who are against gay marriage aren't just against gays having access to that word, they have a deep personal conviction, almost always a religious conviction, that sees relationships between people of the same sex as fundamentally wrong and against all that is decent and moral, and the government must not grant any legitimacy to these relationships. More states have constitutional bans on civil unions than states allow civil unions. Neither party has even tried to introduce a bill in the US congress that would allow federal recognition of civil unions because it's unworkable on a national level because of things like huge inconsistencies between the civil unions in the states that have them and state constitutional bans, and it would face too much Republican opposition to pass. It's a red herring.

Here's what I'd like to see, removal of laws that discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation the right for a couple to have a civil marriage recognised by the US government, with no religious institution being obligated to perform or recognise marriages for gay couples. I'm perfectly fine with private citizens rejecting the idea of a marriage of a gay couple because according to their religious convictions marriage is only between a man and a woman, I'm a big boy, I don't need the whole country to love me. I just want the government to give my partner and myself access to the same things that we would have if one of us was a woman.

Volf99:

I, as well as many other, would disagree that there isn't something sacred about marriage. I came up with the idea because I thought it would best appease both sides of issue, by giving homosexuals all the tax/spousal rights that they want, while also giving other people the claim to the word, "marriage". Honestly I think it's a pretty good trade that is more favored towards homosexuals, because homosexuals gain tax/spousal rights and benifits while the opposition gets claim to a single word. That's it. Think about it, it's a single word that one side gets, while the other side gets a great deal more than that. I think my idea is much more in favor of those who are pro-homosexual marriage than those who are against it. If anything I think those who are against it might be angry at me for only giving them claim to a single word, don't you think so?

the thing that disturb me is that you think the only the heterosexual have a sentimental relation with the word marriage, and that homosexual want to marry only for the tax/spousal benefit. 15000 homosexual marriage have been perform in canada since we legalize it, and from that number 5000 couple were not canadian. from those 5000, most of them were americans. And since when they go back home their marriage mean nothing legally in your country, they do it for another reason dont you think ?

as a married homosexual (thanks to our canadian government, and by the way for those who said that legalizing homosexual marriage would led to polygamous marriage and marriage with animal, in the last 7 years it didnt happened here yet...) i can talk from personal experience here. i know i'm not american, but the point in valid for your country too.

first i must say that i dont think marriage have any sanctity anymore. the divorce rate is way too high for that. let's face it, getting a sacred bond in the eyes of God, until a lawer says it's over, so can get another sacred bond in the eyes of God with someone else is rather silly for me. and seeing jedi marriage, marriage in bungee, las vegas drive-thru marriage chapels. etc, kill what's left of sanctity. Anyway the marriage itself is not religious, only the ceremony is. at the church the paper you sign is not for God, it's for the state.

so marriage is not a religious thing, but it is a cultural thing. i wasnt born a fully growned adult homosexual female you know, i have a cultural background, like everyone else. It's only a single word you say. Why a word is important ? because of the emotion and memories associated with it. My parents were married, and before i was 15 years old, i was sure that i would get married with a guy. i've seen my parents, i was playing with dolls with i was a kids, sometimes i would married them. Society taught me that an important day in the life of a girl is to get married. many movies show that, tv show, even toys would show me that. so i grew up with the idea that getting married is important, and a wonderfull thing.

then i realised that i could only fall in love with other girls. That doesnt erase my background. i'm still that little girl who always believed that she would get married one day. Creating something that would give the same benefits as marriage but that would be call something else lack the emotions associated with the word marriage since i was a kid. For me and for many other it's more important that the benefits.

Skeleon:

Volf99:
NOTE: I apologize about not addressing this earlier, but I'm typing about this "issue" with the United States of America in mind and not any other country. What other countries do, is up to them

I won't get into this debate you're having since I already said my piece in response to the OP and you can easily extrapolate from that, but why would you think people would care that you want your policies specifically in the USA? Presumably, they'll think those policies will suck regardless of where they are implemented because they consider them flawed in their basic principles regarding equality. I mean, we don't consider infringements in Saudi Arabia to be more in line with our ideals just because they happen in Saudi Arabia or what have you.

EDIT:

Volf99:
It irritates me because I think that by calling someone that, you are making false accusations against them. Also, the fact that some people use the word out of ignorance to mean "someone who dislikes homosexuals" when it actually mean "to have a fear of homosexuals" makes light of the word(and the medical condition), much in the same way the word "rape" is made light when I hear people say they "raped" a test/exam/interview/race/[insert word that has to do with making a evaluation/assessment of something] to convey that they did well.

My knowledge of adapting Greek word stems into English is limited, but based on what I know, I guess you could use "misohomosexualist" or "misohomosist" instead. You know, like "misanthrope" or "misogynist". On the other hand, you don't say "misoxenosist" or "misoxenose" when you talk about somebody who dislikes foreigners, you call them a "xenophobe". It's basically the same with "homophobe", isn't it.

Oh, well it was an attempt on my part to acknowledge that I'm typing with a very American centric viewpoint (basically I'm trying to admit that everything I write about, is solely with the US in mind). I also don't want to speak for people in other countries that oppose homosexual marriage, because I don't know their reasons. In addition, I haven't presented my idea to people(who oppose homosexual marriage) from other countries so I don't know what their response would be to it, where as I have talked to US Americans that are against it so I have a general idea of how they feel.

I would disagree because when I talk to therapist about the word, they have all repeated the same(not word for word mind you) thing about the term homophobic. It apparently has to do with when it was considered more taboo to be openly gay, so people(usually men) who actually were homosexual would try to suppress/deny to themselves their sexual/romantic feelings they had towards other people of the same sex, and the idea of they, themselves being a homosexual, caused them to have a fear that they might be attracted to men. So with this in mind, after hearing where the term comes from, I can't help but smh at people equating hatred for homosexuals with a word that has to do with men(or women) internally suffering because their afraid that they themselves have homosexual feelings(which they should have nothing to be afraid or ashamed of). As to why I don't like how it's used, as stated before, calling someone homophobic makes light of (what I presume) a very difficult situation that some people are in where they are afraid of their own sexual feelings, by casually labeling someone who hates homosexuals as homophobic. Just because it is a popular term, doesn't mean it's right. Case in point, where I live, people would say that they "raped" a college(University) final exam if they did well on it, which I felt made light of the word "rape".

So I don't like people misusing the word homophobic anymore than I like people misusing the word "rape" because I think it makes light of the word.

Hazy992:

Volf99:

Hazy992:

I hardly think it matters. If that's what everyone uses the word as then why does it matter? Now you're just nitpicking. And what does this add to the discussion about same-sex marriage exactly?

It irritates me because I think that by calling someone that, you are making false accusations against them. Also, the fact that some people use the word out of ignorance to mean "someone who dislikes homosexuals" when it actually mean "to have a fear of homosexuals" makes light of the word(and the medical condition), much in the same way the word "rape" is made light when I hear people say they "raped" a test/exam/interview/race/[insert word that has to do with making a evaluation/assessment of something] to convey that they did well.

I got this from dictionary.com; 'unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.' The scientific and layman definitions of something can differ and that's clearly the case here.

True, but I feel the same way about misusing the word "homophobic" that some people feel about misusing the word "gay" to mean something that is unlikeable, or undesirable. You bring up a good point though

Mortai Gravesend:

Volf99:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

LOL WUT

You're gonna have to explain that one, champ.

It's not that hard to imagine, it's the idea of the slipper slope. If we shouldn't say that marriage should be "limited" to just two people of the opposite sex, then why should we be able to say that it should be "limited" towards the idea of just two people? Why should one be ok, and not the other since it would be between consenting adults? I think that is the idea.

This totally. Just like how after we got interracial marriage everything fell apart and we had to repeal it. Oh wait a minute that didn't happen when we expanded it before. Maybe this slippery slope is fallacious garbage. HMMMM.

I didn't state that I was 100% in agreement with OP, just that I was trying to help explain what they were trying to express.

Katatori-kun:

Volf99:
It's not that hard to imagine, it's the idea of the slipper slope.

There is a reason the slippery slope is frequently a fallacy, you know.

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done-an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

As I just stated to another person, I'm not saying that I agree 100% with this idea, just that I was trying to explain what OP stated.

Volf99:

Mortai Gravesend:

Volf99:

It's not that hard to imagine, it's the idea of the slipper slope. If we shouldn't say that marriage should be "limited" to just two people of the opposite sex, then why should we be able to say that it should be "limited" towards the idea of just two people? Why should one be ok, and not the other since it would be between consenting adults? I think that is the idea.

This totally. Just like how after we got interracial marriage everything fell apart and we had to repeal it. Oh wait a minute that didn't happen when we expanded it before. Maybe this slippery slope is fallacious garbage. HMMMM.

I didn't state that I was 100% in agreement with OP, just that I was trying to help explain what they were trying to express.

Except it blatantly doesn't reflect the reality of how things are. Pretty sure the idea is rather obvious, what's always missing is how any reasonable human being can get from point A to point Ω

Volf99:

Shaoken:

Volf99:
However, I'm up for different ideas. If it was up to you, and the one thing you had to do was try to make BOTH sides happy, how would you do it? How would you try to make a compromise? (Remember you would be trying to make both sides happy, not just completely favor one and tell the other to get lost)

Why should we make the other side happy? Why compromise? With your country did compromising on Slavery (only have of the new states would allow it) solve anything? Did compromising with "Seperate But Equal" help blacks in any way? Why does the opposing side deserve to be made happy? Especially since they won't be happy anyway.

...you make it sound like the other side are all bad people, which is far from the truth. They are people just like everybody else.

They are people who through their actions are making other people feel like they aren't equals. That is not a good thing. If it sounds like they are bad people, perhaps there is a reason for that?

I'm trying(and it appears failing) to make both sides happy. But it seems that people who are in favor don't want to compromise when I talk to them anymore than people against it do. *sigh* I really wish both sides could quit being so hard headed and see where each other are coming from. I mean for you to say, "Why should we make the other side happy? Why compromise? [...]Why does the opposing side deserve to be made happy? Especially since they won't be happy anyway." I can't help but smh at such an attitude towards communicating with people that you don't agree with. You realize that when I have brought up this idea on more conservative forum sites, to people on the other side of fence they typed nearly the same response that you did? I almost get the feeling that it's no longer about gay rights, its about two sides trying to beat and conquer one another, which only leads to more arguing.

You're failing because no compromise exists; just like no compromise existed for the civil rights movement, or the slavery abolishment movement, or any other movement where a minority wanted equal rights.

What the fuck is hard headed about wanting to be treated as an equal? Explain that. Homosexuals want to be equal, there can be no compromise for that. It's all or nothing. You can't have a little bit of freedom or a little bit of equality and say that's good enough. That is not how it works, and for you to imply that it's that simple is incredibly naive.

Moving on, if liberal places like California are banning same sex marriage, then I think that it shows that there are a far number of people against the idea of same sex marriage.

California banned Same Sex marriage with less than a 1% majority. And there was a lot of slandering by the pro-prop 8 crowd about what Gay Marriage actually meant (that it would force schools to teach that gay marriage is great, that it would forces churches to marry gays, etc. etc.)

Hence, this is why I feel that if there was a compromise on both sides, it would make more people on both sides happy(and expand the opportunities for homosexuals).

Showing your ignorance. Do you honestly believe you're the first person to ever come up with such an idea? Or that an idea has been rejected because it misses the point entirely?

pquote]Obviously this idea would still irritate some people who want homosexual marriage to be considered the same as heterosexual marriage, and it would irritate people who don't like homosexuals, but I think that the main goal would be achieved(which is Jon being able see his partner Larry at the hospital, just like how Jane would be able to see her husband Luke at the hospital). I think you being presumptions about those who are against it though, because I think that there would be some people(who are against homosexual marriage) who would be happy with what I proposed. But...[/quote]

Those people who would be happy about it would be happy because they can look down on civil unions and be happy that they didn't get "marriage." They would still be able to believe taht what they have is superior, and that defeats the entire purpose; a purpose you seem incapable of understanding.

Perhaps you could think of my idea as not a "solution" to this issue, but as a stepping stone towards something that the homosexual community would like to have. I mean could you at least agree that my idea would be a step(but not the final step) in the right direction for the US?

It's a stepping stone, but the people pushing for it don't want it as a stepping stone; they want it as a wall. Give them that inch and they'll take the damn continient before they budge another inch.

requisitename:

Volf99:

I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

I've seen this a lot and every time I see/hear it, I'm insanely curious about something: Why does the word used matter? If it's exactly the same in every way and completely legally indistinguishable from marriage for purposes of taxes/inheritance/child custody/etc., how does it protect the sanctity of the aforementioned by calling it something else?

Using the slippery slope argument presented here, it would obviously follow that if same-sex.. hmm.. fourteen.. were allowed, then sooner or later, polygamous fourteen might be allowed. Or, even fourteen between man and beast.

Changing a word doesn't change the idea behind the word if it's going to be precisely the same thing as heterosexual marriage.

I can't speak for everybody but I think its that there is a certain identity/history/culture/religious association with the word. If in exchange for homosexual couples getting everything that heterosexual couples get, the word "marriage" was a something that heterosexual couples got to keep, why would that not be enough? If it really is just a silly word, then why do people who are pro-homosexual marriage insist on having the word apply to them as well if they would be given the same benefits? Do they really care if it's something that heterosexuals get to use? Why not have homosexuals make up their own word, and have amazing celebration parties so that when people think of that word, they would think of having a good time, where as if they thought of marriage they would think of some boring dry ceremony where vows are exchanged? I think it could actually work in homosexuals favor so that heterosexuals start to envy them. Then the tables could be turned with heterosexuals wanting to use that word, instead of the word "marriage".

Eh, maybe I'm being to idealistic about the whole thing, but I really think that homosexual couples could turn this opportunity (which is creating a word from scratch and making it something which represents love, joy, happiness and celebration in a way the word "marriage" never did) into a positive.

My idea behind changing the word is that it is a way to appease both sides, because it would give homosexuals all the same rights while giving the opposition something as well. I think of it as a compromise on both sides.

Volf99:

requisitename:

Volf99:

I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

I've seen this a lot and every time I see/hear it, I'm insanely curious about something: Why does the word used matter? If it's exactly the same in every way and completely legally indistinguishable from marriage for purposes of taxes/inheritance/child custody/etc., how does it protect the sanctity of the aforementioned by calling it something else?

Using the slippery slope argument presented here, it would obviously follow that if same-sex.. hmm.. fourteen.. were allowed, then sooner or later, polygamous fourteen might be allowed. Or, even fourteen between man and beast.

Changing a word doesn't change the idea behind the word if it's going to be precisely the same thing as heterosexual marriage.

I can't speak for everybody but I think its that there is a certain identity/history/culture/religious association with the word. If in exchange for homosexual couples getting everything that heterosexual couples get, the word "marriage" was a something that heterosexual couples got to keep, why would that not be enough? If it really is just a silly word, then why do people who are pro-homosexual marriage insist on having the word apply to them as well if they would be given the same benefits? Do they really care if it's something that heterosexuals get to use? Why not have homosexuals make up their own word, and have amazing celebration parties so that when people think of that word, they would think of having a good time, where as if they thought of marriage they would think of some boring dry ceremony where vows are exchanged? I think it could actually work in homosexuals favor so that heterosexuals start to envy them. Then the tables could be turned with heterosexuals wanting to use that word, instead of the word "marriage".

Eh, maybe I'm being to idealistic about the whole thing, but I really think that homosexual couples could turn this opportunity (which is creating a word from scratch and making it something which represents love, joy, happiness and celebration in a way the word "marriage" never did) into a positive.

My idea behind changing the word is that it is a way to appease both sides, because it would give homosexuals all the same rights while giving the opposition something as well. I think of it as a compromise on both sides.

Okay, what you're describing is making homosexuals create an entirely new concept and apply a few centuries worth of societal meaning behind it so it holds the same weight that society has imbued into the word "marriage." That is simply impossible; society will continue to put that meaning into the word "marriage" and whatever new word would always be playing second fiddle to that.

Again, they want equality; making a seperate legal term by definition is not equal.

Shaoken:
Just to bring something that the rest of you seem to have missed;

Volf99:

OP I agree with some of what you said, if homosexual couples don't already, I would just make something called [insert word other than marriage that homosexuals would approve of], which would give homosexual couple all of the same benefits(like tax breaks, spousal privileges,ect.) that heterosexual couples have, with the exception being adoption because that is a whole different issue.

Explain the bolded part; you support giving homosexual couples the same right as hetrosexual couples, except for the name (which makes it an oxymoron; you can not have something be the same thing if it has a seperate name; that makes it a seperate thing by default) and adoption. Something does not compute.

Ah, the adoption issue. Well for that issue, I'm speaking from an exclusively American-centric view point. I must also admit that being a child of divorced parents and seeing how other parents got divorced and fought for custody for selfish reasons that don't have to do with the children, when issues pertaining to children in either adoption or divorce come up over who is best suited to raise a child after a divorce or through adoption, my primary concern is what is best for the child, not what is best or fair for the potential parent(s).

Now with that in mind, here in the US people get bullied if they are gay, one of their relatives are gay or if one of their parents come out as gay. As a result, in an attempt for the potential adopted child to not be bullied because they are being raise by a homosexual couple, I would be against the child being adopted by them. Yes I realize that this isn't a kind stance towards potential homosexual couples who might be good or better parents for the child than a heterosexual couple(which I don't doubt for a second that the homosexual couple could be better), I don't think its fair that the child should have to be bullied because they were adopted by a homosexual couple.
However, should the US public change their ways about bullying people(to the point where some people kill themselves[I feel sad/sympathetic for those families that have lost their children to such terrible bullying]) who are homosexual or are somehow related to someone who is homosexual, I would fully support homosexual couples adopting children. On a side note, I would like to make clear that I think it's incredibly stupid that people think that somehow homosexual couples are going to "make" the child a homosexual. I mean think about it, if that was true, then why don't heterosexual couples "make" children that would be homosexual, heterosexual? The reason? Because while parent might influence sexuality, I don't think they don't have some magical hold over their child's sexual orientation.

I think we should abolish marriage. Like the legal concept. Have people who want to commit their relationships get a new thing, like a civil union but without the old connotations. Lets for hypothetical sake call it a "Joining". All the rights, responsibilities and tax benefits of being married for both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Then if you want all the fanfare of a wedding you sort out you own ceremony with either a church or function place. Churches as a religious institution can refuse to perform ceremonies on their property, but can't push their agenda outside of that.

ten.to.ten:

Volf99:
OP I agree with some of what you said, if homosexual couples don't already, I would just make something called [insert word other than marriage that homosexuals would approve of], which would give homosexual couple all of the same benefits(like tax breaks, spousal privileges,ect.) that heterosexual couples have, with the exception being adoption because that is a whole different issue.

The problem you've got here is that about half of the US states have constititonal bans on gay marriage, gay civil unions, gay registered partnerships, gay unregistered partnerships and any and all other recognition of a relationship that isn't a marriage between a man and a woman. In the remaining five or so states that only have constitutional bans on gay marriage you still face constitutional problems because of the idea of a "civil union", say, being a marriage in everything but name therefore it actually is a marriage and could be argued is unconstitutional.

Civil unions don't satisfy gay people because gay people want full equality, civil unions don't satisfy people who don't like gays because it's either a slippery slope to gay marriage or it's marriage with a different name or just too close to marriage to be comfortable. If you think that most people who don't like gay marriage would be happy with civil unions you're sorely mistaken, it's any and all formal recognition of gay couples as legitimate that people hate. The only groups that civil unions appeal to are libertarian Republicans and blue dog Democrat types who mistakenly think that it's a tenable compromise.

As I said, my idea would be a compromise to make both sides(excluding the extremest on both sides) happy. Obviously you can't make everybody happy, so (imo) the best thing you can do is compromise. On one hand, you would have all the same tax/spousal rights as me or any other heterosexual, but on the other hand people who feel that it goes against the sanctity of marriage could have some reassurance that their idea of marriage was preserved. The way I see it, if something like this passed, the only people who could possibly still be against it would no longer be able to talk about "the sanctity of marriage" or use religion as a cloak for their hatred. If both sides can't be happy, I think compromise from both sides should be done, otherwise you'll just have people yelling at each other and we won't be going anywhere towards something that both people can agree on.

Side note, but I was under the impression that there were still some take benefits that people who have a civil union don't receive, but people who get married do. Also that there were some spousal benefits, like being able to see them at the hospital, that marriage grants but civil unions don't, is that correct?

keiskay:

Volf99:

Stagnant:

...Why? Other than for political reasons, obviously... But if we ignore that, why shouldn't we redefine marriage? It used to be defined as something more closely resembling the trading of property (the woman) from one man (the father) to another (the husband)... Why not change it again? Why go through this same "separate but equal" thing? And if we do, how do we deal with things like, say, private institutions only dealing with married couples?

....you acknowledge that there are political reasons that behind why some people might appose a law in favor of homosexual marriage, but you want to dismiss them? ...seeing as how there is political reasons, as you put it, in favor and apposed to a law that makes homosexual marriage legal, I don't know how you can have a serious debate on the issue and just say, "besides for political reasons, why are you against a law?"

I think it's important to look at the reasons why people are against it, which is why I purposed that idea about a compromise between the two parties. I gives homosexuals all the rights that heterosexuals have, the only change is that there is a difference in the naming. I really don't understand why changing the name is such a big issue if all of same rights are given. I mean, after all, the important thing is that homosexuals get the same tax/spousal rights, correct? Is it really that big of an issue to allow the other side to just keep the word, "marriage"? It seems like a fair compromise, no?

im only commenting on your compromise, since i have my own. i would say that they legalize gay marriage but with a clause or addendum stating that religious organizations have the right to refuse said marriages. now before the shit storm hits, some religions do allow gay marriage i know some don't but this is at least a progressive step forward that doesnt violate anyone else's rights.

hmmm I think that might work as well. However then it begs the question, could religious institutions associated with adoptions, refuse to allow an homosexual couple to adopt if one of the rules of the institution was that the adopter is that it must be a married couple?

Volf99:

I can't speak for everybody but I think its that there is a certain identity/history/culture/religious association with the word.

the problem is that homosexual have the same identity/history/culture/religious association with the word than you do. The very same reasons that you might think of to keep the word are also used by homosexuals to have the right to use the word.

like i said before, usually people have an heterosexual background behind them. parents assume that their child will be heterosexual. they usually think they will be heterosexual, and for most of them they are right...

Volf99:

keiskay:

Volf99:

....you acknowledge that there are political reasons that behind why some people might appose a law in favor of homosexual marriage, but you want to dismiss them? ...seeing as how there is political reasons, as you put it, in favor and apposed to a law that makes homosexual marriage legal, I don't know how you can have a serious debate on the issue and just say, "besides for political reasons, why are you against a law?"

I think it's important to look at the reasons why people are against it, which is why I purposed that idea about a compromise between the two parties. I gives homosexuals all the rights that heterosexuals have, the only change is that there is a difference in the naming. I really don't understand why changing the name is such a big issue if all of same rights are given. I mean, after all, the important thing is that homosexuals get the same tax/spousal rights, correct? Is it really that big of an issue to allow the other side to just keep the word, "marriage"? It seems like a fair compromise, no?

im only commenting on your compromise, since i have my own. i would say that they legalize gay marriage but with a clause or addendum stating that religious organizations have the right to refuse said marriages. now before the shit storm hits, some religions do allow gay marriage i know some don't but this is at least a progressive step forward that doesnt violate anyone else's rights.

hmmm I think that might work as well. However then it begs the question, could religious institutions associated with adoptions, refuse to allow an homosexual couple to adopt if one of the rules of the institution was that the adopter is that it must be a married couple?

well most religious adoption agencies probably already do that so i dont think it will change much.

Rastelin:

Never claimed you used the term normal people. I am telling you how I read it. You are all for them except for a couple of thing like not having the same civil status as everyone else and not being able to adopt. Sorry but you are not for them as you claim. There is no equality with a price tag. If it has one, it is not equality.

And I am Norwegian. Not that it matter. Basic human rights should not be dictated by borders, even if the sad truth is that they are.

..........I am for them having every civil right in terms of marriage that I have except, for the name.

You can read it however you like, it doesn't change the fact that I never suggested that homosexuals are sub-human(see: not normal people), nor does it change the fact that I'm not some ignorant Christian fundamentalist who thinks homosexuals cause earthquakes, and I don't appreciate the personal insults just because I don't agree with you on this issue.

As for my comment about adoption, I repeat what I said to someone else here,

Volf99:

Ah, the adoption issue. Well for that issue, I'm speaking from an exclusively American-centric view point. I must also admit that being a child of divorced parents and seeing how other parents got divorced and fought for custody for selfish reasons that don't have to do with the children, when issues pertaining to children in either adoption or divorce come up over who is best suited to raise a child after a divorce or through adoption, my primary concern is what is best for the child, not what is best or fair for the potential parent(s).

Now with that in mind, here in the US people get bullied if they are gay, one of their relatives are gay or if one of their parents come out as gay. As a result, in an attempt for the potential adopted child to not be bullied because they are being raise by a homosexual couple, I would be against the child being adopted by them. Yes I realize that this isn't a kind stance towards potential homosexual couples who might be good or better parents for the child than a heterosexual couple(which I don't doubt for a second that the homosexual couple could be better), I don't think its fair that the child should have to be bullied because they were adopted by a homosexual couple.
However, should the US public change their ways about bullying people(to the point where some people kill themselves[I feel sad/sympathetic for those families that have lost their children to such terrible bullying]) who are homosexual or are somehow related to someone who is homosexual, I would fully support homosexual couples adopting children. On a side note, I would like to make clear that I think it's incredibly stupid that people think that somehow homosexual couples are going to "make" the child a homosexual. I mean think about it, if that was true, then why don't heterosexual couples "make" children that would be homosexual, heterosexual? The reason? Because while parent might influence sexuality, I don't think they don't have some magical hold over their child's sexual orientation.

Admittedly I don't know about how homosexuals are treated in Norway, so my issue with homosexuals adopting may or may not be an issue for adopted kids there. If Norway is much kinder in how they treat homosexuals than we are here in the US, I would fully support Norwegian homosexual couples adopting children.

Aris Khandr:

Volf99:
I, as well as many other, would disagree that there isn't something sacred about marriage. I came up with the idea because I thought it would best appease both sides of issue, by giving homosexuals all the tax/spousal rights that they want, while also giving other people the claim to the word, "marriage". Honestly I think it's a pretty good trade that is more favored towards homosexuals, because homosexuals gain tax/spousal rights and benifits while the opposition gets claim to a single word. That's it. Think about it, it's a single word that one side gets, while the other side gets a great deal more than that. I think my idea is much more in favor of those who are pro-homosexual marriage than those who are against it. If anything I think those who are against it might be angry at me for only giving them claim to a single word, don't you think so?

In 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" is not equal.

In the lexicon of the general public, "if it walks like a duck" applies. Even if "gay marriage" gets its own title, it'll still be "marriage" to everyone else. Gays will still invite people to their "weddings", introduce their spouses as "husband" or "wife", and talk about their "marriage". Only the religious who insist that gays not be allowed to use the word "marriage" will try to correct everyone else, and the vast majority will roll their eyes and go back to their conversation. In essence, it's a pointless and futile battle over a word that is going to be used anyway.

I don't think it's just religious people that are against homosexual marriage, although I don't doubt that they play a big part of the reason. I think that there are people (like me) who are not motivated by religion (because if I was I wouldn't have made the proposal that I did).

As for whether or not it will be used, that remains to be seen.

kurupt87:

Volf99:
snip

Le sigh.

Your idea is non functional.

If a separate form of marriage is invoked then the bigots win, gays aren't worthy of "true" marriage.

It doesn't matter that it is essentially equal, it's the principle. Feelings are involved, maybe you forgot to take them into account. People care about things, inconvenient and sometimes unpredictable I know but they do; especially when that thing is as emotionally invested as marriage is. Marriage is supposed to symbolise dedication and devotion to another, it's the crown of the romantics outlook.

I understand that you want to see yourself as the impartial mediator but it will not work in this case. One side has to "win", there is no middle ground. Being married is a stamp that comes with social and emotional weight, it cannot be replicated by your newly minted idea.

Gays being excluded from marriage is a bigot win, gays being included is a fag win. I, because I can't think of any reason to exclude homosexuals from marrying each other, find myself on the side that isn't arbitrarily* excluding anyone.

*Read, having any reason that is not based in hate/fear/disgust/scorn.

First off, it's incredibly dismissive to label everybody opposed to homosexual marriage as a "bigot", and (imo) it comes off as uncalled for to demonize the other side with politically charged name calling. I don't doubt that there are bigots who appose it, but your generalizing when you say everybody who doesn't agree with you on this issue is a "bigot". Also, (imo) I don't think we should be calling homosexuals fags, as it only helps to make matters worse and it's not a very kind thing to say. Now then.....

*sigh*...your right about the emotional factor. As much as I would like to be optimistic that homosexuals could create their own word which could "out shine" the word marriage and make the word marriage seem boring in comparison(like how the word "parade" seems like more appealing than the words "marching line"), I can't deny the emotion that is associated with the word marriage, especially how it is socially ingrained in us to think of it in a certain way.

Again, your right, humans being human. Both sides seem to feel that they must "win", and that there can't be a compromise (which I dislike because it just puts the US in a sort of permanent limbo on the whole issue).

uh, the more I think about how we could make everybody happy the more my head hurts. :(

Volf99:

Aris Khandr:

Volf99:
I, as well as many other, would disagree that there isn't something sacred about marriage. I came up with the idea because I thought it would best appease both sides of issue, by giving homosexuals all the tax/spousal rights that they want, while also giving other people the claim to the word, "marriage". Honestly I think it's a pretty good trade that is more favored towards homosexuals, because homosexuals gain tax/spousal rights and benifits while the opposition gets claim to a single word. That's it. Think about it, it's a single word that one side gets, while the other side gets a great deal more than that. I think my idea is much more in favor of those who are pro-homosexual marriage than those who are against it. If anything I think those who are against it might be angry at me for only giving them claim to a single word, don't you think so?

In 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" is not equal.

In the lexicon of the general public, "if it walks like a duck" applies. Even if "gay marriage" gets its own title, it'll still be "marriage" to everyone else. Gays will still invite people to their "weddings", introduce their spouses as "husband" or "wife", and talk about their "marriage". Only the religious who insist that gays not be allowed to use the word "marriage" will try to correct everyone else, and the vast majority will roll their eyes and go back to their conversation. In essence, it's a pointless and futile battle over a word that is going to be used anyway.

I don't think it's just religious people that are against homosexual marriage, although I don't doubt that they play a big part of the reason. I think that there are people (like me) who are not motivated by religion (because if I was I wouldn't have made the proposal that I did).

As for whether or not it will be used, that remains to be seen.

The non-religious reasons and people boil down to two crowds; the "homo, ick" crowd and the "appeal to tradition" crowd. The former would also support more anti-gay legislation, while the latter wouldn't.

Volf99:
Admittedly I don't know about how homosexuals are treated in Norway, so my issue with homosexuals adopting may or may not be an issue for adopted kids there. If Norway is much kinder in how they treat homosexuals than we are here in the US, I would fully support Norwegian homosexual couples adopting children.

Well we do not "treat homosexuals in any particular way". It is irrelevant what they do in bed or otherwise private. We have politicians who are gay and it is not an issue. And we are one of the most humanitarian countries in the world. Not to mention one of the best to live in. And we have gay marriage. And yes it is called marriage and not something else.

I understand that the US are plagued with religious right wing fundamentalist morons in their political arena. And for some odd reason a lot of the American people listen to them and there by giving them power. Thank them for this breach of human equality and compassion. You have politicians like Rick Perry running an election champagne where he is attacking gays for serving openly in the military. People who are willing to serve and protect the country. What is going on down there? US politics is to us foreigners like "that house" where they let anyone in.

ten.to.ten:

Again, you seem to keep on assuming that those who are anti-gay marriage will be okay with civil unions. Gay people want marriage, and we know that eventually we'll get marriage, but in the mean time, as a gay person, I'd sign up for something that was called a "license for faggot sodomy" if it meant that my partner and I would get the same legal benefits straight couples get from marriage. The problem is that most of the political right will not compromise, period. Bans on gay sex were ruled unconstitutional in 2003 and you've got state Republican parties all over the country calling for the recriminalisation of gay sex in their official party platforms. These people don't even want us to be able to have sex together, why would they be okay with a civil union that allows the government to legitimise our relationships?

No I don't think that those who are opposed to homosexual marriages will like it, I think that my idea is a compromise between those passionateness against it and those passionately for it. The whole idea is that both sides won't get everything they want, but it would an attempt to make both parties happy(excluding extremist on both sides). I think the problem is thought, that (excluding yourself) neither side seems willing to compromise on any of their stances. At the end of the day, I just hope that both sides can feel that they gained something from what I proposed, even if that mean that both sides didn't get everything that they wanted.

ten.to.ten:

I'm sincerely not trying to be condescending or anything, I just want to be absolutely clear, most people who are against gay marriage aren't just against gays having access to that word, they have a deep personal conviction, almost always a religious conviction, that sees relationships between people of the same sex as fundamentally wrong and against all that is decent and moral, and the government must not grant any legitimacy to these relationships.

Admittedly, while I am against the use of the word "marriage" when describing a homosexual couple wanting to tie the knot, I'm not against you and your partner having all the same rights that I have.

ten.to.ten:
More states have constitutional bans on civil unions than states allow civil unions. Neither party has even tried to introduce a bill in the US congress that would allow federal recognition of civil unions because it's unworkable on a national level because of things like huge inconsistencies between the civil unions in the states that have them and state constitutional bans, and it would face too much Republican opposition to pass. It's a red herring.

Here's what I'd like to see, removal of laws that discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation the right for a couple to have a civil marriage recognised by the US government, with no religious institution being obligated to perform or recognise marriages for gay couples. I'm perfectly fine with private citizens rejecting the idea of a marriage of a gay couple because according to their religious convictions marriage is only between a man and a woman, I'm a big boy, I don't need the whole country to love me. I just want the government to give my partner and myself access to the same things that we would have if one of us was a woman.

Hmmm...what about religious institutions though? Would you be apposed to religious institutions not proving you with certain services because they didn't recognize homosexual marriage? I think issues like this would still be tricky if what you proposed was passed. What do you think?

Volf99:

First off, it's incredibly dismissive to label everybody opposed to homosexual marriage as a "bigot", and (imo) it comes off as uncalled for to demonize the other side with politically charged name calling.

You might as well plead on behalf of all people against interracial marriage who get called racists. Same damn thing. It's discriminatory against homosexuals to be against it, that simple really. Short of being against all marriage that is, but then there's a much better way for people to propose that stance than just in gay marriage discussions.

Volf99:
As I said, my idea would be a compromise to make both sides(excluding the extremest on both sides) happy. Obviously you can't make everybody happy, so (imo) the best thing you can do is compromise. On one hand, you would have all the same tax/spousal rights as me or any other heterosexual, but on the other hand people who feel that it goes against the sanctity of marriage could have some reassurance that their idea of marriage was preserved. The way I see it, if something like this passed, the only people who could possibly still be against it would no longer be able to talk about "the sanctity of marriage" or use religion as a cloak for their hatred. If both sides can't be happy, I think compromise from both sides should be done, otherwise you'll just have people yelling at each other and we won't be going anywhere towards something that both people can agree on.

Well, the first thing I would argue is that civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage performed by religious sects are two completely different things. I am not asking for a church to marry me, or for people with religious objections to gay relationships to accept me as married, I just want the right to sign a purely secular, legal contract with my partner and apply for certain benefits based on that contract. I would prefer if that legal contract was called a marriage license rather than anything else but I'm not insane, if the US government did set up or recognise civil unions that gave me and my partner benefits equal to that of a straight marriage I would sign it immediately without batting an eyelid.

I must emphasise, though, that you are mistaken if you think that the religious right will accept civil unions as a compromise. The religious objection to gay marriage is based on the idea that gay relationships in general are sinful and wrong, a civil union doesn't make it any more acceptable to them. If you look at just about any scientific poll taken in America on people's attitudes to gay marriage and civil unions, it's usually only a very tiny minority that aren't okay with gay marriage but are okay with gay civil unions, it's only a blip compared to those who either completely support all gay rights or completely oppose all gay rights.

Volf99:
No I don't think that those who are opposed to homosexual marriages will like it, I think that my idea is a compromise between those passionateness against it and those passionately for it. The whole idea is that both sides won't get everything they want, but it would an attempt to make both parties happy(excluding extremist on both sides). I think the problem is thought, that (excluding yourself) neither side seems willing to compromise on any of their stances. At the end of the day, I just hope that both sides can feel that they gained something from what I proposed, even if that mean that both sides didn't get everything that they wanted.

I can live with a compromise and like I said, generational change will make gay marriage a reality in all fifty states in the not too distant future (if the courts don't intervene first), so I'm much more concerned about the rights than the word, though I do still want the word. The problem you have is that a compromise needs to be accepted by both sides, not even the president has the power to dictate one. The only time you will ever see the socially conservative and anti-gay people compromise on civil unions is if they already know they're losing and want civil unions implemented to try to stall the full marriage equality movement.

Volf99:
Side note, but I was under the impression that there were still some take benefits that people who have a civil union don't receive, but people who get married do. Also that there were some spousal benefits, like being able to see them at the hospital, that marriage grants but civil unions don't, is that correct?

Unlike marriage, there is no nationwide understanding of what a civil union is, or even what it's called. In some states, like California and its domestic partnerships, gay couples receive all the state benefits of marriage except for the name, Wisconsin's domestic partnerships on the other hand only offer some very limited benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and automatic inheritance rights in lieu of a legal will.

Most importantly, none of these states can offer benefits like the right to sponsor your foreign partner for US permanent residency because there is no federal recognition of civil unions or any other type of relationship other than opposite-sex marriages. Because the benefits of civil unions vary so much from state to state, and there are some very tricky state constitutional grey areas, drafting a federal civil union bill would be very difficult.

I'll use Wisconsin again, because it's a good example. Wisconsin's state constitution says:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

So in this case gay marriage and anything resembling a marriage, like a civil union, is forbidden by the state constitution, which is why their domestic partnerships offer so few benefits. Now the idea that a state that has a constitution that bans anything resembling a marriage allows domestic partnerships is in itself a very tenuous thing, but what happens when you get the federal government involved? Would it violate the state constitution for the federal government to give Wisconsin residents in a domestic partnership benefits that their state partnership bill never intended, and would probably be outlawed by the state constitution? Would the federal government, when creating a civil union bill, have to water it down to the point where it only offers federal benefits parallel to the weakest state civil union so that no state misses out and leave the couples involved with only the most basic protections? And where do exclusively federal benefits like immigration come in?

By far the simplest solution is to repeal the federal law that bans the US government from recognising gay marriages so that those gay couples who want those federal benefits can get married in one of the states that allows such marriages and no matter where they live, receive the federal benefits of being married, even if they have limited state rights. This is the way that it works in Mexico, and is much more feasible than creating an entirely new federal partnership scheme.

Volf99:
Hmmm...what about religious institutions though? Would you be apposed to religious institutions not proving you with certain services because they didn't recognize homosexual marriage? I think issues like this would still be tricky if what you proposed was passed. What do you think?

I'm fine with that. I'm irreligious and I have zero desire for a religious institution to grant me anything and care just as little about a religious institution denying me access to something they offer. Religions are free to do what they want, the US constitution guarantees this and it should stay that way. The question gets more difficult when we're talking about services or charities offered by religious institutions, like homeless shelters for example, receiving tax money and at the same time refusing to accept gays, but generally speaking, I'm 100% okay with religions including and excluding whoever they want from whatever they offer. My only problems are with public funding. When marriage equality was passed in New York state, the bill laid out very clear religious exemptions and it would not have passed otherwise.

Rastelin:

Well we do not "treat homosexuals in any particular way". It is irrelevant what they do in bed or otherwise private. We have politicians who are gay and it is not an issue. And we are one of the most humanitarian countries in the world. Not to mention one of the best to live in.

Well then, if homosexuality isn't something that people get bullied to the point of suicide in Norway, then I would have nothing against having Norwegian homosexual couples adopt kids, because presumably the kid wouldn't be picked on because of their parents sexual orientation. In the US however, that is not the case. The child could be bullied even if there heterosexual, because the adopted kids parents would be homosexual.

Rastelin:

And we have gay marriage. And yes it is called marriage and not something else.

That's fine, my comment about the word "marriage" was pertaining exclusively to the US. As I stated earlier, my concern, viewpoint, and focus is on the US. How other countries handle themselves is not my focus at the moment.

Rastelin:

I understand that the US are plagued with religious right wing fundamentalist morons in their political arena. And for some odd reason a lot of the American people listen to them and there by giving them power.

Seeing as how many people on this site (while not all but a great deal of Europeans in particular) seem to have strong atheist views, I'm not certain you idea of "religious right wing fundamentalist" is that same as the US idea of "religious right wing fundamentalist", so I'd ask you to elaborate on what you mean by that(do just mean people like the WBC or does your idea also include people who are clergy of any kind?).

Rastelin:
Thank them for this breach of human equality and compassion. You have politicians like Rick Perry running an election champagne where he is attacking gays for serving openly in the military. People who are willing to serve and protect the country. What is going on down there? US politics is to us foreigners like "that house" where they let anyone in.

Eh, I'm gonna have to call you out on this one. Your kidding yourself if you thing the extremely religious right are the sole reason why American social values about issues like homosexual marriage are the way they are, because...

....in an effort to avoid patriotic/nationalistic responses, I'm going to ignore your comment about what the Norwegian people think of the US and our politics because I think that would get us way off topic.

Shaoken:

Volf99:

Aris Khandr:

In 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" is not equal.

In the lexicon of the general public, "if it walks like a duck" applies. Even if "gay marriage" gets its own title, it'll still be "marriage" to everyone else. Gays will still invite people to their "weddings", introduce their spouses as "husband" or "wife", and talk about their "marriage". Only the religious who insist that gays not be allowed to use the word "marriage" will try to correct everyone else, and the vast majority will roll their eyes and go back to their conversation. In essence, it's a pointless and futile battle over a word that is going to be used anyway.

I don't think it's just religious people that are against homosexual marriage, although I don't doubt that they play a big part of the reason. I think that there are people (like me) who are not motivated by religion (because if I was I wouldn't have made the proposal that I did).

As for whether or not it will be used, that remains to be seen.

The non-religious reasons and people boil down to two crowds; the "homo, ick" crowd and the "appeal to tradition" crowd. The former would also support more anti-gay legislation, while the latter wouldn't.

I guess I'm the "appeal to tradition crowd" then.

ten.to.ten:

Volf99:
As I said, my idea would be a compromise to make both sides(excluding the extremest on both sides) happy. Obviously you can't make everybody happy, so (imo) the best thing you can do is compromise. On one hand, you would have all the same tax/spousal rights as me or any other heterosexual, but on the other hand people who feel that it goes against the sanctity of marriage could have some reassurance that their idea of marriage was preserved. The way I see it, if something like this passed, the only people who could possibly still be against it would no longer be able to talk about "the sanctity of marriage" or use religion as a cloak for their hatred. If both sides can't be happy, I think compromise from both sides should be done, otherwise you'll just have people yelling at each other and we won't be going anywhere towards something that both people can agree on.

Well, the first thing I would argue is that civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage performed by religious sects are two completely different things. I am not asking for a church to marry me, or for people with religious objections to gay relationships to accept me as married, I just want the right to sign a purely secular, legal contract with my partner and apply for certain benefits based on that contract. I would prefer if that legal contract was called a marriage license rather than anything else but I'm not insane, if the US government did set up or recognise civil unions that gave me and my partner benefits equal to that of a straight marriage I would sign it immediately without batting an eyelid.

I must emphasise, though, that you are mistaken if you think that the religious right will accept civil unions as a compromise. The religious objection to gay marriage is based on the idea that gay relationships in general are sinful and wrong, a civil union doesn't make it any more acceptable to them. If you look at just about any scientific poll taken in America on people's attitudes to gay marriage and civil unions, it's usually only a very tiny minority that aren't okay with gay marriage but are okay with gay civil unions, it's only a blip compared to those who either completely support all gay rights or completely oppose all gay rights.

Volf99:
No I don't think that those who are opposed to homosexual marriages will like it, I think that my idea is a compromise between those passionateness against it and those passionately for it. The whole idea is that both sides won't get everything they want, but it would an attempt to make both parties happy(excluding extremist on both sides). I think the problem is thought, that (excluding yourself) neither side seems willing to compromise on any of their stances. At the end of the day, I just hope that both sides can feel that they gained something from what I proposed, even if that mean that both sides didn't get everything that they wanted.

I can live with a compromise and like I said, generational change will make gay marriage a reality in all fifty states in the not too distant future (if the courts don't intervene first), so I'm much more concerned about the rights than the word, though I do still want the word. The problem you have is that a compromise needs to be accepted by both sides, not even the president has the power to dictate one. The only time you will ever see the socially conservative and anti-gay people compromise on civil unions is if they already know they're losing and want civil unions implemented to try to stall the full marriage equality movement.

Volf99:
Side note, but I was under the impression that there were still some take benefits that people who have a civil union don't receive, but people who get married do. Also that there were some spousal benefits, like being able to see them at the hospital, that marriage grants but civil unions don't, is that correct?

Unlike marriage, there is no nationwide understanding of what a civil union is, or even what it's called. In some states, like California and its domestic partnerships, gay couples receive all the state benefits of marriage except for the name, Wisconsin's domestic partnerships on the other hand only offer some very limited benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and automatic inheritance rights in lieu of a legal will.

Most importantly, none of these states can offer benefits like the right to sponsor your foreign partner for US permanent residency because there is no federal recognition of civil unions or any other type of relationship other than opposite-sex marriages. Because the benefits of civil unions vary so much from state to state, and there are some very tricky state constitutional grey areas, drafting a federal civil union bill would be very difficult.

I'll use Wisconsin again, because it's a good example. Wisconsin's state constitution says:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

So in this case gay marriage and anything resembling a marriage, like a civil union, is forbidden by the state constitution, which is why their domestic partnerships offer so few benefits. Now the idea that a state that has a constitution that bans anything resembling a marriage allows domestic partnerships is in itself a very tenuous thing, but what happens when you get the federal government involved? Would it violate the state constitution for the federal government to give Wisconsin residents in a domestic partnership benefits that their state partnership bill never intended, and would probably be outlawed by the state constitution? Would the federal government, when creating a civil union bill, have to water it down to the point where it only offers federal benefits parallel to the weakest state civil union so that no state misses out and leave the couples involved with only the most basic protections? And where do exclusively federal benefits like immigration come in?

By far the simplest solution is to repeal the federal law that bans the US government from recognising gay marriages so that those gay couples who want those federal benefits can get married in one of the states that allows such marriages and no matter where they live, receive the federal benefits of being married, even if they have limited state rights. This is the way that it works in Mexico, and is much more feasible than creating an entirely new federal partnership scheme.

Volf99:
Hmmm...what about religious institutions though? Would you be apposed to religious institutions not proving you with certain services because they didn't recognize homosexual marriage? I think issues like this would still be tricky if what you proposed was passed. What do you think?

I'm fine with that. I'm irreligious and I have zero desire for a religious institution to grant me anything and care just as little about a religious institution denying me access to something they offer. Religions are free to do what they want, the US constitution guarantees this and it should stay that way. The question gets more difficult when we're talking about services or charities offered by religious institutions, like homeless shelters for example, receiving tax money and at the same time refusing to accept gays, but generally speaking, I'm 100% okay with religions including and excluding whoever they want from whatever they offer. My only problems are with public funding. When marriage equality was passed in New York state, the bill laid out very clear religious exemptions and it would not have passed otherwise.

Seriously, there needs to be more people like you(people who don't make personal attacks, threaten violence or refuse to compromise).

Mortai Gravesend:

Volf99:

First off, it's incredibly dismissive to label everybody opposed to homosexual marriage as a "bigot", and (imo) it comes off as uncalled for to demonize the other side with politically charged name calling.

You might as well plead on behalf of all people against interracial marriage who get called racists. Same damn thing.
no its not, and I'm not going off topic on this issue with you.

[b]It's discriminatory against homosexuals to be against it, that simple really. Short of being against all marriage that is, but then there's a much better way for people to propose that stance than just in gay marriage discussions.

I disagree, if I'm offering an alternative with the same opportunities, I think its a positive compared to what we currently have. I also dislike the "your with us or against us" attitude that your suggesting.

Volf99:

However, I'm up for different ideas. If it was up to you, and the one thing you had to do was try to make BOTH sides happy, how would you do it? How would you try to make a compromise? (Remember you would be trying to make both sides happy, not just completely favor one and tell the other to get lost)

How is "You keep what you have, we will not take anything from you in order to give the same thing to those others" a compromise?

Captcha: not hatday

Vegosiux:

Volf99:

However, I'm up for different ideas. If it was up to you, and the one thing you had to do was try to make BOTH sides happy, how would you do it? How would you try to make a compromise? (Remember you would be trying to make both sides happy, not just completely favor one and tell the other to get lost)

How is "You keep what you have, we will not take anything from you in order to give the same thing to those others" a compromise?

Captcha: not hatday

My compromise is that both parties get the same rights, with the exception being heterosexuals get the word "marriage". Homosexuals can pick any other word that they want. Thus the one side can't say that marriage is in jeopardy because what homosexuals have isn't called marriage, and the other side can't say how they don't have the same tax/spousal rights as heterosexuals. It's a compromise because obviously the one side doesn't want to grant homosexuals rights, and the other side wants what they have to be considered a marriage along with all the bells and whistles. But my idea would try to ease some concerns about the idea of marriage while guarantying others all the rights that heterosexuals get.

cool captcha

I don't see any harm in letting gay people marry. In fact it would problem result in fewer children having to go family-less in orphanages. Same-sex marriages will probably be only near 5% of all marriages or less so there is no need for anyone to get their panties in a twist over it. If one really cares about the institution of marriage, efforts would be spent campaigning against divorce. Get rid of "no-fault divorce", alimony, and asset division all together. Reduce child support to more reasonable payments as well.

Volf99:

Mortai Gravesend:

Volf99:

First off, it's incredibly dismissive to label everybody opposed to homosexual marriage as a "bigot", and (imo) it comes off as uncalled for to demonize the other side with politically charged name calling.

You might as well plead on behalf of all people against interracial marriage who get called racists. Same damn thing.
no its not, and I'm not going off topic on this issue with you.

[b]It's discriminatory against homosexuals to be against it, that simple really. Short of being against all marriage that is, but then there's a much better way for people to propose that stance than just in gay marriage discussions.

I disagree, if I'm offering an alternative with the same opportunities, I think its a positive compared to what we currently have. I also dislike the "your with us or against us" attitude that your suggesting.

With a change in wording to continue to discriminate. Less discrimination doesn't mean no discrimination.

If we're going to go by the pathetic standard of 'positive compared to what we already have' then maybe we should have just told slaves they're free after 10 years. That's better than a full lifetime of slavery so it's not discriminatory now, right? /sarcasm

You can whine about the 'for us or against' attitude all you want. But your complaints fail to make it any less true that not being for it is discriminatory. Go ahead, don't be fully on the same side. It's just discriminatory and however much you whine about it it won't make it any less discriminatory.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked