Gay Marriage

[Galahad]

What's wrong with different words? Can't they come up with some word themselves for their commitment ceremony in order not to confuse the issue for everyone else? A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Why should they have to?

I don't know...maybe because "words" are our communication tools.

We call a pencil a "pencil" & an eyeball an "eyeball" because they are different. Should we just call them both "plinkons" or something & hope we can figure it out by the context in a sentence?

[Black Dog]

You missed the point, Galahad. I'm not interested in the semantics of the word marriage, simply wondering why we need to have seperate institutions for gays and straights.

(Edited to add)

You know, the more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the question of "Why marriage, anyway?" In other words, why, in a democratic soceity, is it okay to extend services and benefits to only a certain segment of the population. I'm talking of course about married people in general. With the number of unmarrieds outnumbering the wedded, the rise of "non-traditional" families, why should we continue to support marriage as the primary mode of social organization?

[Galahad]

You missed the point, Galahad. I'm not interested in the semantics of the word marriage, simply wondering why we need to have seperate institutions for gays and straights.

(Edited to add)

You know, the more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the question of "Why marriage, anyway?" In other words, why, in a democratic soceity, is it okay to extend services and benefits to only a certain segment of the population. I'm talking of course about married people in general. With the number of unmarrieds outnumbering the wedded, the rise of "non-traditional" families, why should we continue to support marriage as the primary mode of social organization?

Well you may not want to talk about it, but semantics is the subject.

Gay citizens get all of the same rights with different names.

And any person can set up a set of rights & rules to parallel marraige.

So I have no idea what services & benefits that can only be obtained by "married couples" that you are talking about.

I keep not getting that answer from anyone & it's the key to this arguement.

The rest is touchy feely BS.

[Black Dog]

Well you may not want to talk about it, but semantics is the subject.

Gay citizens get all of the same rights with different names.

Actually they don't have the right to enter into state-sanctioned legal partnerships (aka: "marriages") with members of the same sex.

And any person can set up a set of rights & rules to parallel marraige.

Uh...no. Only the state has th epower to issue marriage licences and, therefore, only the state can determine who gets married.

So I have no idea what services & benefits that can only be obtained by "married couples" that you are talking about.

There are 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to couples in a heterosexual marriage:

Here's a few:

Access to Military Stores

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension

Bereavement Leave

Immigration

Insurance Breaks

Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner

Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Social Security Survivor Benefits

Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Tax Breaks

Veteran’s Discounts

Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

As for semantics, my question is this: what's the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"? Since marriages are only legal when recognized by civil authorities, then aren't all marriages civil unions. therefore, wouldn't gay civil unions be considered marriages?

[Elder]

So I have no idea what services & benefits that can only be obtained by "married couples" that you are talking about.

There are 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to couples in a heterosexual marriage:

Here's a few:

Access to Military Stores

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension

Bereavement Leave

Immigration

Insurance Breaks

Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner

Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Social Security Survivor Benefits

Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Tax Breaks

Veteran’s Discounts

Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

As for semantics, my question is this: what's the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"? Since marriages are only legal when recognized by civil authorities, then aren't all marriages civil unions. therefore, wouldn't gay civil unions be considered marriages?

You have to ask yourself, why do we give the traditional family these benefits? Because the traditional family is the best place for creating a family, for contributing healthy members of society. Whether they are the majority or not has nothing to do with it. We want to encourage these kinds of families. The father has ceratain necessary skills and abillities that the mother doesn't, and the mother has certain skills and abillities the father doesn't. This doesn't necessarily limit them to these roles, but it's where nature (or, in my oppinion, God) intended them to be. Look, I'm no psychologist, but anyone can tell you that men and women are different, both in mind and body.

You can say that the non-traditional family is on the rise (mostly due to divorces, I'm sure) but anyone from a broken home or a widowed home with only one parent (thus only one gender in parenting) will tell you they wish that they had a nice traditional family. I'm sure they can do it, but they still wish for the traditional family. The traditional family is the most effective family, and those from non-traditional families seldom argue. Wouldn't it be nice if we could encourage more of these traditional families. Oh wait, we do. We give married couples benefits!

[Black Dog]

Elder, your assertion that the so-called "traditional" definition of marriage is "the traditional family is the best place for creating a family, for contributing healthy members of society" is a tautology. What exactly makes the traditional family is the most effective family?

[Elder]

If you will read the post, you'll see that I clearly outlined the advantages in a traditional family, including a parent team of father and mother with skills that compliment one another, and the simple fact that even those of broken homes agree that that they'd rather have a traditional family. Out of mild curiousity, and you don't have to answer this (they are rhetorical questions meant to stimulate thinking), do you have a family? How would you rather your own children raised? Bottom line, reread the post.

[Bushmustgo]

Approx. 50% of marriages end in divorce, I guess that is "traditional" as well???

Should we ban divorces with an amendment since that isn't healthy for families?

Banning gay marriage is more of discrimination than anything else because some people think less of them just like Blacks at one time were considered to be a fraction of a human being.

If you recall, this is America and supposedly, "Justice for All," it does not say, "Justice for some."

[Elder]

The divorces are certainly not traditonal, they are a new development, kinda like these gay marriages. I personally believe that divorces are certainly harmful and if they can be avoided then by all means they should. However, if two people want to leave eachother, if they want to stop being family, that is their right. Gay unions is a different situation in that you don't often hear of them wanting a family (unless one partner already has children). A divorce can be healed (remarriage), gay unions would probably end a little more painfully than a divorce would.

Funny, something that a lot of people seem to forget about marriage is that it's more than just a little union where you can have all the sex you want with someone you love and get tax benefits. It's loving, honoring, cherishing for richer or poorer (do you really want me to do the whole marriage sermon?), being there for your loved one when he or she is in need, having a family together, loving that person more than you love yourself, complimenting him or her as he or she compliments you. A man has certain attributes which a woman doesn't, and a woman has certain attributes that a man doesn't. Neither being superior to the other, they make the perfect team, their skills complimenting eachother. You don't have that in a gay union. Gays have every right to enter into marriage, but marriage is this special union between man and woman, and always has been. Same sex urges can be overcome (seen it done), and I've seen two people who both love eachother very much break off relationships because they knew that it wouldn't work, that they couldn't have that family together, because they couldn't fulfill the work necessary for marriage. This is called responsibillity.

[Black Dog]

If you will read the post, you'll see that I clearly outlined the advantages in a traditional family, including a parent team of father and mother with skills that compliment one another,

But why stop at two? Surely multiple wives would be a more efficient way to run a household and ensure that children are raised by an attentive set of parents. Meanwhile having more than one husband would also have the advantage of multiple breadwinners and, were something to happen to one, there would be others to step in.

But in all seriousness, I think the rise of non-traditional families is an indication that the traditional family model doesn't work. It's a sexual contract rooted in monogamy, patriarchy and the preservation of property that historically hasn't worked very well, especially for women.

and the simple fact that even those of broken homes agree that that they'd rather have a traditional family.

If you have some evidence to back this statement up, by all means, produce it. Otherwise, that's not a fact, but simply your opinion.

[Elder]

But in all seriousness, I think the rise of non-traditional families is an indication that the traditional family model doesn't work. It's a sexual contract rooted in monogamy, patriarchy and the preservation of property that historically hasn't worked very well, especially for women.

and the simple fact that even those of broken homes agree that that they'd rather have a traditional family.

If you have some evidence to back this statement up, by all means, produce it. Otherwise, that's not a fact, but simply your opinion.

You know, your polygamous jests aside, that's probably the best arguement I've seen against mine, however I'm going to disagree. The rise of non-traditional families is the result of people forgetting what marriage is truly about. They forget that they are supposed to work through their differences and conflicts (if people would actually do this there would be less divorce). By the way, marriage is far more than a sexual contract. Please read the post just above your own. It's worked quite well in the past (it's been around long enough, surviving for, oh, thousands of years). It has been limiting on women in the past, but that wasn't as much marriage as it was just the rights of the time (an unmarried woman was actually quite at a disadvantage, especially as far working with other women was concerned).

Both my parents came from broken homes. They got by easily enough, but because of their experiences, they both decided that they didn't want to put me or my siblings through that kind of life. They decided to work together on their problems. They fight, like any married couple does, but they always have apologized and never have they let things get out of hand. They work hard to keep the marriage strong (yes, a marriage takes work, and a lot of it). They have been married for..... well, I'm not going to emarass them showing how long they've been together, but it's long enought that they are worried about it showing their age. They are the happy parents of 10 children of which I am the eldest (so don't even think that their marriage has been easy), and you know what, I've never seen a happier family. In case you were thinking that my mother is getting the short end of the stick here, my parents both work when they have to, and my father has picked up some of the slack at the house so that my mother could continue her education, (oddly enough, my father can get the whole house clean a lot faster than my mom can, as he usually drafts my younger siblings to help). I use their marriage as a model of what I want in mine. Do I think that my parents are special because of this? Nope, not really. They just chose very carefully who they would marry (someone who they loved first and foremost, but also of only slightly less important was making sure they could work together, making sure that they were strong enough to forgive eachother, etc. etc.). They made sure that they made their marriage important, and thus they made it work.

Oh, if you'd like proof that those of broken homes prefer traditional homes, I'll work to get you some figures on it, but in the mean time, ask my parents, or in fact, ask anyone from a broken home. Ask a kid who has divorced parents or who has a dead parent. Ask a single mother trying to raise her family. I'm willing to bet that the answers will be in my favor.

[Black Dog]

You know, Elder, I think the biggest problem I have is that you seem unwilling to accept that people in same-sex relationships can be as caring, complimentary and as loving as heterosexual ones. As Martin Luther King said with respect to interracial marriages: 'It's not races that marry, it's people." The same goes for same-sex marriages.

Gay people are, well, people too. They have the same range of human experience as anyone else. They are just as capable of loving and respecting one another, of working hard at their relationship and basically fulfilling all your considerations of what makes a good marriage. I don't see why we can deny a segment of the population a chance to experience the kind of relationship you cited simply because we may not be comfortable with the idea of two men or two women living together, raising families and so forth. There's a lot of bad marriages out there between men and women and a lot of seriously f----d up "traditional" families.

Basically I don't think you can root an argument against gay marriage on such broad generalizations as "a man has certain attributes which a woman doesn't, and a woman has certain attributes that a man doesn't. Neither being superior to the other, they make the perfect team, their skills complimenting each other."

If anything, your eloquent summary of what marriage is actually helps my argument.

[Galahad]

As for semantics, my question is this: what's the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"? Since marriages are only legal when recognized by civil authorities, then aren't all marriages civil unions. therefore, wouldn't gay civil unions be considered marriages?

You differentiate between civil unions by calling one a "civil union" and the other a "gay civil union" and that's wrong!

The word "civil union" is like the word "flower".

For ease of communication, we gave different names to different looking flowers. So don't you think that we ought to, for that same reason, give a different name to civil unions between same sex couples?

You wouldn't call a daisy a pansy, so why do you insist on calling these two different civil unions by the same name?

[Black Dog]

The word "civil union" is like the word "flower".

For ease of communication, we gave different names to different looking flowers. So don't you think that we ought to, for that same reason, give a different name to civil unions between same sex couples?

You wouldn't call a daisy a pansy, so why do you insist on calling these two different civil unions by the same name?

First, the formalized, state-sanctioned relationships between same-sex couples is not (or at least, should not be) different in any way from marriages other than the gender of the participants. Too me, calling them "gay civil unions" instead of "marriages" implies that the former is somehow lesser. It also draws unecessary attention to the singular difference between the two. It's the same kind of "seperate, but equal" thinking that went along with segregation in the U.S.

[Bushmustgo]

They are the happy parents of 10 children of which I am the eldest (so don't even think that their marriage has been easy), and you know what, I've never seen a happier family.

And what if one of those 10 children were gay, do you think your parents wouldn't want the same opportunities for that one as the other nine. Should that family member be forgotten or, would the family be a family and protect that child and wish the best for him/her?

As of now, you prefer that the govt. make the choice for us and leaving us with no option if one of our brothers or sisters or our own children were gay...it's just not right.

Anyone could have a gay child or relative and WE are deciding what's best for them??? It doesn't make sense linving in a civilized, free nation.

Again, the American saying is, "Justice for all," and not "Justice for some."

[Galahad]

Too me, calling them "gay civil unions" instead of "marriages" implies that the former is somehow lesser. It also draws unecessary attention to the singular difference between the two. It's the same kind of "seperate, but equal" thinking that went along with segregation in the U.S.

Well since nothing in the actual WORDS imply "lesser" I can only assume that the label "gay" (which gay folks themselves have co-opted) implies something faulty to YOU.

Lots of things in life are different but equal. Bread & pasta. Men & women. Wood & plastic. Oaks & elms.

It's only your biases that make you think one word sounds "lesser".

[Black Dog]

Well since nothing in the actual WORDS imply "lesser" I can only assume that the label "gay" (which gay folks themselves have co-opted) implies something faulty to YOU.

It's only your biases that make you think one word sounds "lesser".

Your being fatuous. You know as well as I do that it's the biases of people like Elsie Wayne and George W. Bush that are turning this into a semantic nightmare by insisting that gay marriage be called something else so as to distinguish it from what can only assumed to be considered the real thing. It's not the words, it's the context they are used in. Surely you can see how flawed the logic of "let's let gays marry, but not call it marriage" is.

Lots of things in life are different but equal. Bread & pasta. Men & women. Wood & plastic. Oaks & elms.

My point is that, gay or straight, a marriage is a marriage. In other words, not different at all.

Before this derailment continues let's start with the definition of marriage and the significance of the gender of its participants. If, as Elder put it, a marriage is "loving, honoring, cherishing for richer or poorer... being there for your loved one when he or she is in need, having a family together, loving that person more than you love yourself, complimenting him or her as he or she compliments you" then the gender of the participants is secondary.

[Galahad]

If, as Elder put it, a marriage is "loving, honoring, cherishing for richer or poorer... being there for your loved one when he or she is in need, having a family together, loving that person more than you love yourself, complimenting him or her as he or she compliments you" then the gender of the participants is secondary.

Well Elder's definition could also work for two compatible spinster aunts living together, but should we call them "married"?

Maybe the Oxford English dictionary is a better place to look for definitions's than asking Elder's "opinion"?

DEFINTION: Marraige: The state in which a man and a woman are formally united for the purpose of living together.

So what you are actually shilling for is not for gay folks to get "married", but for the English language to change the definition of one of it's words.

Whole different argument.

I never like the definition for "hassock" myself. I think it should define a large stack of paper instead of a cushion . Who do I see about getting the change done?

[Black Dog]

Well Elder's definition could also work for two compatible spinster aunts living together, but should we call them "married"?

Depends: are they screwing?

Maybe the Oxford English dictionary is a better place to look for definitions's than asking Elder's "opinion"?

DEFINTION: Marraige: The state in which a man and a woman are formally united for the purpose of living together.

So what you are actually shilling for is not for gay folks to get "married", but for the English language to change the definition of one of it's words.

Words aren't set in stone. Meanings change over time and definitions shift with the prevailing winds of social change (why, even the word "gay" had a whole different connotation 100 years ago). Why should the term marriage be any different?

Whole different argument. 

No it's not. Were gay marriage legal and we were merely quibbling over what to call it, then you'd be onto something. However, your semantic niggling fails to take into account is that there's no such thing as gay marriage and that existing "civil unions" such as those done in Vermont, aren't enough because they do not extend to same sex couples the full array of rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

[Elder]

I think you all slightly missed my point. Blackdog, I can see a homosexual couple being caring and loving, but I have a lot more trouble seeing them as complimentary. Nature (or in my oppinion, God) made man and woman different for a reason. They were made different so that they could fulfill different roles in a family. I have trouble seeing two men trying to do this with a family. I have trouble seeing to women doing this with a family. By the way, my post about my family was simply to illustrate that the traditional family can and does work. It's not so much that I'm against homosexuality (I think it's wrong, but I also think that heterosexual sex with someone that you aren't married to is equally wrong, and quite frankly, I'm not at all interested in what anyone else does in bed, my beliefs of what is right and wrong are for me to follow, and if anyone believes the same as me, they should follow them as well). By the way, whether or not the two spinster aunts are screwing or not has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. There is a whole lot more to marriage than sex.

Look, I do agree that we should cut the semantics. I do believe that marriage is between man and woman. It could change, but I really don't want to see the day that it does (that's just my oppinion).

Oh, and Bushmustgo, if any of my siblings were to become gay, I would probably try to reason them out of it (mostly out for religious purposes). Everyone has the right to marry (marriage being defined as between man and woman, husband and wife). Even a gay could do it. Everyone has the right to have sex with whomever they wish, in or out of wedlock. To me, gay marriage is gays wanting a special exception to the laws of marriage. That's my point of view anyway. More political correctness.

[Overdose]

Marriage is a church issue, yes, although it has many government ties, and connections. In order to make your marriage legal you have to get it signed in a court of law. You are only allowed to get it signed, if it is a man and a woman (being wed). So in our government or courts of the United States, we are excluding homosexuals a denied right of marriage. Even if you believe it’s between a man and a woman; it’s still a right, which they are denied.

Many say homosexuals have this right, if they do it with someone of the opposite sex? But again, that’s defeating the purpose of being homosexual. It is a heterosexual’s right in America to get a marriage license. It is not a right of a homosexual couple in America. That is a right that is denied. If this denied right is based on a religion, we are going against our Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

All they want are equal benefits, for health care, visitations in the hospital, and equal rights. A "Civil Union" is a great idea, but it fails to give everyone equal rights. A "Civil Union" to gays, is restaurants specific for African Americas in the south. Many people in the South had the attitude of, "We will give them the same right, to eat in a restaurant, but not in ours!" Is that correct? No! Just like a civil union’s are not right for gays.

If they get married, and it’s not according to your definition of marriage, then they aren’t leading a real marriage now are they? So, how does it hurt you? Or better yet, how does it hurt you at all? Some people falsely say that it is morally destroying marriage; to have homosexuals get the same title as heterosexuals. But I ask you this, is a 55% divorce rate in America making marriage such a prized, and morally wonderful license? Isn’t that what is really destroying marriage? Not two people of the same sex actually wanting to share their love, in an equal, fair government instituted, license?

The majority of Americans do not favor this, however. But the majority of whites didn’t favor African American independence, or freedom. But, it was changed, contrary to what the majority thought. The majority of people thought marriage was between people of the same race. People used quotes in the Bible, (as they are now). The majority thought this, but the majority lost. This all comes to our issues today, gay marriage. The same reasons are used, the majority is against it, but that does not mean it is right.

People are criticizing cities for breaking the law for justice? Well, you have to in this case. Blacks had to break the law, to gain equality, and the right to marry people of the opposite race. Woman also had to for the right to vote and got arrested, broke the law, and was criticized by the majority of Americans. In the end they got the right to vote. As gays are doing now in my home Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, New York, New Mexico, and Massachusetts.

Everyone does have the right to pursue happiness. Is love, running around naked? Is love, and wanting to put it in a legal document, so socially wrong? A person running around naked offends people. A person getting married is not noticeable, unless you MAKE it noticeable. That is exactly what the Republican propaganda machine is doing now.

There is most likely going to always be more heterosexual’s in the world. If it’s not natural to be gay, then is it their choice? I honestly, highly, doubt that if it were everyone’s “choice”, everyone would choose to be heterosexual. Why would you ever, in a million years, pick to be homosexual? You will get discriminated against, cannot make children, and everything else that goes along with being gay. Plus, did you ever sit down and go, “em I straight? ” I doubt that, too.

If we are truly a fair, equal, non-religious government, homosexual marriage will and should be legal.

[Overdose]

My picture won't show up...grr

[djpark121]

I don't know why people hold the belief that marriage is a church issue. Then again, it is really a matter of perception and how a couple wants to be recognized. If a couple wanted to be Catholic, they would not be recognized if they were married according to the state, unless they followed the Catholic procedure. Vice versa. Obviously gay couples want to be recognized by the state.

The argument that gay people are being deprived of their rights is just silly. The only "right" they are being "deprived" of is marriage; they have the right to do everything else, including having sex. Sure marriage is a right, but as many people have pointed out so far, it's for promoting strong families, something gay people can't do. Rights should be rights only if people will use those rights and be conducive to society. The freedoms of speech, press, expression are all conducive and promoting to society, just to give a few examples. Yes, heterosexual marriages can turn out bad, and maybe even turn out to hurt society, but as Ender pointed out, marriage is something you have to work at and the potential is there. Gay marriage however, is in no way conducive to society and there is no potential to give back to the society that provides these rights, in terms of marriage. Yes, it's really about whether two people love each other, but three or twenty people can love each other too.

[Overdose]

Wow, homosexuals can adopt...

Saying heterosexuals provide things in society and homosexuals do not is ridiculous. Marriage is a right, and it's a law to have equal rights. So even if marriage isn't that "important" gays deserve to have it regardless.

[Galahad]

existing "civil unions" such as those done in Vermont, aren't enough because they do not extend to same sex couples the full array of rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Sorry, I forgot I was in the "US Politics" forum, I was thinking of Canada.

So please, someone, FOR ONCE PLEASE SPELL OUT EXACTLY WHAT IS MISSING IN A CIVIL UNION CONTRACT in the USA that is in a marriage contract?

In Canada, as far as I know, gays get the full enchilada.