Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Iamsemisweet -> Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:17:13 AM)

Yes, yet another gay marriage thread.
An interesting fight is shaping up in the state of Washington. The outgoing governor is insisting that the legislature take up the issue of gay marriage this session. She is doing this very publicly and insistently, and forcing them to take a stand.
The legislators, for their part, are bleating on about how they need to concentrate on budget issues ( guess they can only do one thing at a time) or, conversely, insisting that the issue needs to go to a vote of the people (we get to vote on other people's civil rights, now?).
Still others are screaming about what a slippery slope this is, since Washington passed an "everything but marriage law" just a few years ago. Allowing marriage among gays is just another step closer to the state sliding into hell.
I don't get it. Why are some, both repub and dem, so set on denying others their civil and legal rights? I know this is a pretty sex friendly crowd on here, but can anyone make an intelligent argument as to why gay marriage would be the end of life as we know it? The pope certainly couldn't, as evidenced by the other thread. Conversely, why isn't an "everything but marriage" law good enough?



Moonhead -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:30:49 AM)

For the same reason that "everything but marriage" isn't good enough for heterosexual couples, I'd have thought.
Isn't that obvious?



Hillwilliam -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:43:34 AM)

It's a "Happy Feely" bit of legislation where the people in office can pretend they're actually doing something while letting the state (or nation or county or city) go into bankruptcy.



Fornica -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:44:46 AM)

This
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

For the same reason that "everything but marriage" isn't good enough for heterosexual couples, I'd have thought.
Isn't that obvious?




Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:46:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I don't get it. Why are some, both repub and dem, so set on denying others their civil and legal rights? ...Conversely, why isn't an "everything but marriage" law good enough?

I don't see it as having anything to do with denying anyone their civil rights. I see it as a fight over the word "marriage." In the traditions of all three of our Western monotheisms, marriage describes a special relationship between a man and a woman. If the goals of the gay and lesbian community were limited simply to gaining equal legal status for same-sex unions, I'm quite sure they could have had that long ago. There is really no defensible argument against such. It is solely their insistence on the word "marriage" that has stirred such deeply felt opposition.

K.



Moonhead -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:57:00 AM)

Nothing to do with the attitude some of the religious right has that all homosexuals are wildly promiscuous and so morally inferior to breeders, then?
That one would soon go out the window if gays could get married in a church and settle down into a ratified ltr, after all.

(It's also worth mentioning that the marriage thing isn't purely a matter of religion: there are a few legal benefits married couples derive that common law couples don't.)



xssve -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:06:48 AM)

'Cause unless the Taliban tops 9-11 sometime soon, they got nothing else fear-wise to campaign on.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:10:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Nothing to do with the attitude some of the religious right...

(It's also worth mentioning that the marriage thing isn't purely a matter of religion: there are a few legal benefits married couples derive that common law couples don't.)

Resistance to gay marriage is not limited to homophobes. As for common law marriage, I have no clue how that relates to my post.

K.



farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:10:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
In the traditions of all three of our Western monotheisms, marriage describes a special relationship between a man and a woman.


In the Laws of the State of New York, specifically, the Domestic Relations Law, Marriage is -- and always has been -- defined as a Civil Contract.

The Uniform Commercial Code states that Contracts are to be construed without regard to gender.

QED.



Moonhead -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:12:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Nothing to do with the attitude some of the religious right...

(It's also worth mentioning that the marriage thing isn't purely a matter of religion: there are a few legal benefits married couples derive that common law couples don't.)

Resistance to gay marriage is not limited to homophobes. As for common law marriage, I have no clue how that relates to my post.

K.

Just pointing out that there's other advantages marriage has over a civil partnership besides a church wedding and church recognition. I apologise if it wasn't clear that was what I was getting at.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:25:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Just pointing out that there's other advantages marriage has over a civil partnership besides a church wedding and church recognition. I apologise if it wasn't clear that was what I was getting at.

Why would a same-sex civil union confer different advantages than a heterosexual one?

K.



farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:29:43 AM)

All marriages are Civil Unions. Any distinction is artificial, and you have to wonder what the motives are of those who would try to construct one.



mnottertail -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:30:13 AM)

Not the way mine went.



farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:31:07 AM)

Yeah, well neither was the Civil War...



Moonhead -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:32:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Just pointing out that there's other advantages marriage has over a civil partnership besides a church wedding and church recognition. I apologise if it wasn't clear that was what I was getting at.

Why would a same-sex civil union confer different advantages than a heterosexual one?

K.

Neither offers the same advantages as a marriage, was my point.



mnottertail -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:32:40 AM)

I used to be married to a girl that looked like Ibrahim Lincoln once, but she was mean, so I left her...



farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:36:51 AM)

Good call.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I used to be married to a girl that looked like Ibrahim Lincoln once, but she was mean, so I left her...




Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:40:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

All marriages are Civil Unions. Any distinction is artificial, and you have to wonder what the motives are of those who would try to construct one.

One also has to wonder about the motives of people who can't address the point and instead stuff the thread with irrelevant nonsense.

There are a great many people who are neither homophobes, nor in any way fundamentally opposed to civil rights for gays and lesbians, who nonetheless cherish a sincerely held belief in the sanctity of marriage as a deeply special relationship between a man and a woman. Taking the attitude that they need to get over it, that if they don't adopt a broader view of marriage then they are just a bunch of ignorant bigots, and pointing a long accusing finger at them when they react to that approach with hurt and anger, is not a plan likely to accomplish anything constructive.

And neither is whinging about reaping what you sow.

K.



farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:43:50 AM)

The fact that "Marriage" has ALWAYS been defined as a "Civil Contract" ( aka Union ) is totally relevant.

Pointing out that this has been this historical case, in opposition to the falsehood about Marriage being defined differently in any way is totally relevant.

Pointing out that those who pretend to remain ignorant of these facts may have questionable motives behind their feigned ignorance is totally relevant.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:22:23 AM)

Apparently not, since the argument is being trotted out.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

For the same reason that "everything but marriage" isn't good enough for heterosexual couples, I'd have thought.
Isn't that obvious?



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875