Same Sex marriage - my view point

[fskimospy]

This is really about CIVIL rights so then the emphasis should be on CIVIL union rights, not marriage rights. Gay people, my advice is take the word "marriage" out of your campaign, and fight to get state laws changed so that the licensing process allow civil unions for any two adults, which gives everyone the same civil legal rights.

Let the religious have their term marriage. Religions still have the right to deny gays the option to marry, but there are many churches who will marry gays, if gays choose that route.

I think alot of people in the gay community would be suprised if they knew who was going into the voting booth and voting against same sex marriage. Often people say one thing to your face or seem supportive, then in the privacy of the voting booth do something far different. As long as the religious right can steer the issue to the ballot box (and they're doing a masterful job of it) marriage equality is going nowhere. Civil rights should never be handed over to voters, but the right has turned it into a work of art in this case. It's working for them, and they'll continue to do it.

Again, you're arguing for separate but equal. It's a really bad idea for gays to go for 'civil unions that are just like marriages'. The anti-gay movement is losing ground every year and it's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal nationwide. The younger generations are overwhelmingly supportive of gay marriage, and once the baby boomers die off gay people will be home free.

The surest way to make it so that you can never muster sufficient support for true equality however is to aim for something that's 'close enough'. If I were them I wouldn't settle either, especially when you don't need to as time is on your side.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Tsk tsk Beemer, your bigotry is showing.

Any Person Who Gets Married deserves a life of misery for their stupidity.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Again, you're arguing for separate but equal. It's a really bad idea for gays to go for 'civil unions that are just like marriages'. The anti-gay movement is losing ground every year and it's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal nationwide. The younger generations are overwhelmingly supportive of gay marriage, and once the baby boomers die off gay people will be home free.

The surest way to make it so that you can never muster sufficient support for true equality however is to aim for something that's 'close enough'. If I were them I wouldn't settle either, especially when you don't need to as time is on your side.

I agree with you about the anti gay movement dying a slow death, and "equality" would be a great reality, but I'm gonna assume (And this is just my heterosexual assumption) that most gays are not particularly looking for "equal". They don't need to get "married", but what they want is for the government to acknowledge and value their relationship in the same way and to the same degree that it does for opposite-sex couples. More of a respect, validation thing, and regard that other citizens have. Will gay marriage bring about REAL social equality, I don't think so, but it is a step in the right direction.

The gay marriage battle is not one that the pro-gay movement chose to fight. Much like thrusting women's rights onto the Civil Rights Act in order to make it unpalatable. Gay marriage was thrust on the country by religious conservatives who wanted to scare the general population - and as we have seen, that has worked quite well.

But a lot of LGBT folks and allies have really started to believe that marriage is the be-all end-all of the movement, which is a false dilemma IMO. Even having the right to marry is not the same thing as being fully legally "equal". For example, marriage can actually hurt a lot of LG couples, because being in a legally recognized homosexual union is enough to prevent many foreign countries from allowing adoptions. The system's far from fixed, but marriage rights are only a tiny piece of the social, political, and religious obstacles that LGBT folks and their allies must overcome in order to be truly equal.

I do think gay unions will have better prospects for success. One reason is that there's no societal presumption they will marry. It's completely voluntary. And two, there's no gay wedding industry. I don't think the issue is gay marriage = social equality, but unconditional constitutional equality, including the right as Americans to have the more than 1300 federal and state laws attached to this contract between two people and the government. The whole issue of marriage equality is about legal rights. When gay people marry, it changes nothing about their relationship, which is something they work out between themselves, the rules of which do not resemble traditional heterosexual marriage. What it does change is their relationship to the state,and before the law.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you might underestimate the impact of marriage in terms of social equality. The slate of benefits and rights you acquire through marriage are pretty huge. In addition the government granting the rights of gay couples to marry in the same way as anyone else provides a lot of legitimacy. While marriage doesn't equal equality, I bet you it would go a lot farther than many people think. I also think this is why gay people are going for marriage rights.

I think that gay unions have a much better prospect for success, but I think it would harm the long term movement to legalize gay marriage. From a rights standpoint I believe the gay rights movement is wise to hold out for marriage (which they will get anyway) instead of endorsing a stopgap measure that they might regret a few years down the line.

 

[blackangst1]

but I'm gonna assume (And this is just my heterosexual assumption) that most gays are not particularly looking for "equal". They don't need to get "married", but what they want is for the government to acknowledge and value their relationship in the same way and to the same degree that it does for opposite-sex couples. More of a respect, validation thing, and regard that other citizens have.

May be anecdotal, but a good friend and co-worker of mine who is gay says in his circles, this is farthest from the truth. They couldnt care less what it's called. Theyre just looking for the legal bennies from marriage i.e. survivor, beneficiary, etc. Has nothing to do with validation. Most of the gays Ive know over the years couldnt care less what people think.

 

[blackangst1]

I think that gay unions have a much better prospect for success

Why?

 

[fskimospy]

Why?

Support for civil unions pretty much always polls higher than support for gay marriage.

 

[k3n]

Alan Keyes gives a pretty good arguement as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Children of same sex marriage born through unnatural means, they will likely not know who their father/mother's are, giving rise to incest in the worst case scenario. I don't advocate this but it is something good to think about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFchWdPbZQc&feature=related

 

[actuarial]

Alan Keyes gives a pretty good arguement as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Children of same sex marriage born through unnatural means, they will likely not know who their father/mother's are, giving rise to incest in the worst case scenario. I don't advocate this but it is something good to think about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFchWdPbZQc&feature=related

I couldn't watch that whole video, because it made my head hurt, but what the hell does the bolded mean, and why does it apply to same sex marriage adoptions only?

 

[Corn]

I couldn't watch that whole video, because it made my head hurt, but what the hell does the bolded mean, and why does it apply to same sex marriage adoptions only?

It doesn't, he's just a moron whose best ignored.

 

[dahunan]

Alan Keyes gives a pretty good arguement as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Children of same sex marriage born through unnatural means, they will likely not know who their father/mother's are, giving rise to incest in the worst case scenario. I don't advocate this but it is something good to think about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFchWdPbZQc&feature=related

OK.. the biggest mass Child Molestations in recent history were committed by THE CATHOLIC FUCKING CHURCH

Funny thing is ... people like Alan Keyes are the Pervs here and all those who say gays are child molesters

Shouldn't someone like Alan Keyes know a little something about discrimination and evil stereotypes?

 

[LunarRay]

Alan Keyes gives a pretty good arguement as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Children of same sex marriage born through unnatural means, they will likely not know who their father/mother's are, giving rise to incest in the worst case scenario. I don't advocate this but it is something good to think about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFchWdPbZQc&feature=related

huh? I don't mean to be rude, but could you maybe illuminate the second sentence?

 

[CitizenKain]

Alan Keyes gives a pretty good arguement as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Children of same sex marriage born through unnatural means, they will likely not know who their father/mother's are, giving rise to incest in the worst case scenario. I don't advocate this but it is something good to think about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFchWdPbZQc&feature=related

Alan Keyes is a nutjob, and judging by your post history, so are you. I'm pretty sure kids would figure out who their mother or father is, as they could ask the people who raised them. Take your stupid elsewhere.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

When you say 'all of em', as in straight AND gay marriages, I agree, and that's an equal compromise (it's still stupid in my mind, but whatever). What I'm talking about is the government having 'marriage' licenses for tradition marriages and 'civil union' licenses for gay marriages, which is what a lot of people seem to be advocating.

Yes, I mean straight and gay couples who are in a legally binding relationship should be called the same thing. Be that civil unions, marriage, or whatever word you want as long as both groups are called the same thing.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Alan Keyes gives a pretty good arguement as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal.

No he doesn't. He provides fear mongering reasons that are complete fabrications of homophobic nightmares.

Children of same sex marriage born through unnatural means,

Uhhh, well either a lesbian couple chooses artificial insemination in which case they give birth to a biological child. So, if that's unnatural means that's your belief. It's not unnatural, because it's sperm entering an egg and a child being born. Just science and technology provide a helping hand.

If you're referring to adoption, then you're even more of an idiot. Many straight couples adopt, and these kids were born the exact same way as non-adopted kids. Most GLBT couples adopt, with some couples having their own by one person getting pregnant or inseminating a surrogate mother.

they will likely not know who their father/mother's are,

They would know who their parents are. They are the people who raised them. They may or may not know their biological parents, but that happens in straight couples who adopt as well.

giving rise to incest in the worst case scenario.

Bullshit. Please, show me ANY legitimate study that shows being raised by a same sex couple increases incest. You're an friggin moron if you believe that. Wake up, and become educated before you go spouting your homophobic fear mongering.

I don't advocate this but it is something good to think about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFchWdPbZQc&feature=related

You don't advocate that link, but you post it as "something good to think about"? If you don't advocate it, then how can it be "something good to think about"? You're advocating it is something to watch because it provides something people should think about with gay marriage. Stop posting until you get an effin clue. Thanks.

 

[Red Irish]

You're advocating it is something to watch because it provides something people should think about with gay marriage. Stop posting until you get an effin clue. Thanks.

I think you are overly optimistic: he should just stop posting.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I think you are overly optimistic: he should just stop posting.

I try to at least give them a chance to get a clue and see if they are still as stupid.

I don't have much hope for him though. When you make comments like, "I don't advocate this, but this is something good to think about" it shows that you are irrational and do not use logic. I'm not racist, but this guy saying blacks aren't equal has some comments that are good to think about.

 

[Red Irish]

I try to at least give them a chance to get a clue and see if they are still as stupid.

Well, I can't fault you for that.

 

[k3n]

No he doesn't. He provides fear mongering reasons that are complete fabrications of homophobic nightmares.


Uhhh, well either a lesbian couple chooses artificial insemination in which case they give birth to a biological child. So, if that's unnatural means that's your belief. It's not unnatural, because it's sperm entering an egg and a child being born. Just science and technology provide a helping hand.

If you're referring to adoption, then you're even more of an idiot. Many straight couples adopt, and these kids were born the exact same way as non-adopted kids. Most GLBT couples adopt, with some couples having their own by one person getting pregnant or inseminating a surrogate mother.



They would know who their parents are. They are the people who raised them. They may or may not know their biological parents, but that happens in straight couples who adopt as well.



Bullshit. Please, show me ANY legitimate study that shows being raised by a same sex couple increases incest. You're an friggin moron if you believe that. Wake up, and become educated before you go spouting your homophobic fear mongering.



You don't advocate that link, but you post it as "something good to think about"? If you don't advocate it, then how can it be "something good to think about"? You're advocating it is something to watch because it provides something people should think about with gay marriage. Stop posting until you get an effin clue. Thanks.

Unnatural means refers to artificial insemination dhead. Watch the entire video before spouting your mouth off like an irrational wife on PMS. Your are institutionalizing (making certain) the birth of motherless/fatherless births. Adoption is a different case, since these adopted kids were likely ACCIDENTAL births/orphans.

I don't care what two mature adults wish to do in their personal life behind closed doors. In the end, it all comes down to collectivism, and doing whats best for our society as a greater whole. I suggest you all look at the realism "ideology" or reasoning as I like to call it..

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Unnatural means refers to artificial insemination dhead. Watch the entire video before spouting your mouth off like an irrational wife on PMS. Your are institutionalizing (making certain) the birth of motherless/fatherless births. Adoption is a different case, since these adopted kids were likely ACCIDENTAL births/orphans.

I don't care what two mature adults wish to do in their personal life behind closed doors. In the end, it all comes down to collectivism, and doing whats best for our society as a greater whole. I suggest you all look at the realism "ideology" or reasoning as I like to call it..

Uhhh so it's unnatural to have a sperm impregnate an egg, because the sperm was put there by a plastic tube instead of a penis?

Artificial insemination means that the woman still gets pregnant, and still carries the child to term. So, automatically the child has a mother by that fact alone. The child has a biological father obviously as well, because the sperm came from a man. As it relates to this thread, gay couples who choose to have a child through artificial insemination have a kid who has two parents. Only one of them is their biological parent obviously, but the child will have two parents regardless.

It's actually currently impossible to have a motherless/fatherless birth, unless you know of some scientist who has created artificial sperm and eggs then have a kid grown in an artificial womb. Every person on this planet has a biological mother and father, which means there has been exactly 0 "mother/father-less births". After birth if a child has a mother or father figure is a different story, but you stated at birth so that's what I'm talking about.

PS "your are"? Either it's "you're" or "you are", take your pick. Just thought I'd help you out.

 

[Red Irish]

@DisgruntledVirus: I tried to tell you

 

[k3n]

when i bring up motherless/fatherless i'm talking in the sense of a bastard/illegitimate child that don't know who one of their parent is. Damn, do you pro same sex marriage activists need everything spelled out for you?

 

[Red Irish]

when i bring up motherless/fatherless i'm talking in the sense of a bastard/illegitimate child that don't know who one of their parent is. Damn, do you pro same sex marriage activists need everything spelled out for you?

Ahm, yeah, thanks for clarifying, your posts now make perfect sense. I just needed that one missing piece of the jigsaw to make it all click into place.

 

[K1052]

when i bring up motherless/fatherless i'm talking in the sense of a bastard/illegitimate child that don't know who one of their parent is. Damn, do you pro same sex marriage activists need everything spelled out for you?

How is that any different from the multitude of kids born out of random one night stands where the mother doesn't know who the dad is?

If this is the strongest argument you can muster I think it is time to reconsider your position.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I think you might underestimate the impact of marriage in terms of social equality. The slate of benefits and rights you acquire through marriage are pretty huge. In addition the government granting the rights of gay couples to marry in the same way as anyone else provides a lot of legitimacy. While marriage doesn't equal equality, I bet you it would go a lot farther than many people think. I also think this is why gay people are going for marriage rights.

I think that gay unions have a much better prospect for success, but I think it would harm the long term movement to legalize gay marriage. From a rights standpoint I believe the gay rights movement is wise to hold out for marriage (which they will get anyway) instead of endorsing a stopgap measure that they might regret a few years down the line.

I should probably state my position more clearly. I am FOR SSM, not just civil unions. Where we differ is how to get there for full legalization of SSM. My original point in my first post is that this is a civil rights issue and should not be in the hands of the voter. Civil rights laws would never have been passed if left to the voters. The civil rights of any other group have never been handed over to the popular vote for resolution. Thats one of the central philosophies behind the Bill of Rights - the protection of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority". If rights were up for a vote, the opposing argument would be, "Well, we've always done it this way." Established precedence becomes the societal norm.

SSM will only happen through the legislature and in the courts. The religious right wing has done a masterful job of steering it into the hands of the voters where it will always lose in years to come IMO. The rest of the industrialized world is far ahead of us on this and once its an established norm it will become a business and commerce issue and there will be a federal law passed with little fanfare legalizing it. But I think we're years away from that. There are many demographics like blacks and hispanics who will still vote against SSM. Civil Unions might be an important step in many states like CA towards the process of legalizing SSM. There are many state-level benefits that gays get from Civil Unions, and I think it helps some people get used to the idea that gays aren't some exotic, perverted group of people.

I understand that the Boomers are dying off, but some have to realize that some gay couples ARE boomers who have finally gotten confortable coming out. Some of these couples are growing old and don't have much time left to wait for legalization. Quite simply, what gays want are the rights that are taken for granted by heterosexuals. I know a same sex couple that have lived together with the same partner for 36 years. They are now advancing in years and have to face the fact that one of them could die in the not so distant future. Put the case that one of them is in hospital long term: The partner would not have visitation rights and could be barred from his other half's bedside. Wills would be a nightmare, and family could exclude one from the funeral of one's life partner. They are running out of time.

I think gay couples would be better served by fighting for full legal rights first as couples. They could go further, faster, and achieve the same actual results without having to convince the rest of the ignorent populace that “red is red”, so to speak.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule that gay marriage is either a matter of fundamental right or simple equality. They will have a chance to do that, as the various lawsuits generated by this constitutionally repulsive procedure make their way up in the next few years. But one thing the experience with same sex marriage should make clear. Whether we like the outcome or not, the last thing the court should do, in deciding that question, is follow the election returns.