Homosexual marriage

[siamese dream]

I understand some strong personal feelings might come up with this kind of topic, but I would hope we could have intelligent debate about it without it causing a big ol' fight.

Do you think that a homosexual couple should have the right to have their marriage recognized as a legal union by the state they live in? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is already legal in Pennsylvania and in Hawaii. But I'm talking about having it legal in every state of the union, and here in Kansas it's most definitely not legal.

My belief...as you can probably guess, since I lean to the liberal side on pretty much every other controversial topic; Yes, I do believe they should have that right. Here are my reasons: 1. I think that even if someone personally believes that homosexuality is wrong and immoral, that belief should not translate into the laws of this country. If we truly are a free country here, then we should allow a homosexual couple equal rights as a straight couple.

2. No matter what anyone's personal beliefs on homosexuality may be; the fact is that people with this orientation still exist, will find one another, and will want to commit to each other in the same way a straight couple does. Often a homosexual couple will have a marriage ceremony to celebrate their union, but they are denied such things as shared insurance and government benefits given to married couples because their marriage is not recognized by the law.

3. These are my personal feelings, so take them however you will. One of my best friends in this world is a homosexual man, and I know that he wants to meet someone, fall in love, and settle down just like I do one day. But I think it's sad that one day, I will have the right to a legal union with my partner, but he may never have that right with his, unless he moves somewhere that allows it.
Also, my mom and I used to argue this topic with each other a lot, she is a conservative Christian and believes that the Bible says that homosexuality is immoral, and therefore a homosexual marriage is immoral. She used to tell me that a homosexual marriage "makes a mockery of marriage", because of marriage being defined as the legal union between a man and a woman. While I respect her beliefs, I disagree strongly, and I think that the definition of marriage has changed greatly over time. With all the divorce and re-marriage in this country, it seems like the vows aren't always respected, and in that sense you could say that marriage is already a mockery of itself. I don't think that homosexual people should be given "special rights", but I do believe that they should have EQUAL rights and should not be persecuted and discriminated against by others for their sexual orientation.

(edit) I understand we have many members outside the united states on this forum, and their opinions on homosexual marriage, here in the U.S. or in their own country, are completely welcome too. When I say 'the laws of this country' in my post, I'm talking about the country I live in, the United States, but I would be interested to hear what members from other countries have to say about this, and the laws in their particular country.

 

[BigJim]

SD I'm not an especially liberal person, but I agree with you anyway. Love is love is love. Doesn't matter what it's love of, or who it's of. It's the strongest energy that exists and can wipe out all darkness.

 

[BellaRisa]

Good thread topic

I'll be blunt-I was raised by a lesbian couple, my mom and her lover Helen, from age 6 until I went to college at 17. We had our ups and downs like every other blended family I know, and they had the same needs, wants, and dreams of any other couple. Love, happiness, stability, etc. They were partners in every sense of the word, and it would have been truly wonderful if they could have had the kind of legal rights that hetero couples have. There should be no legalities barring two consenting adults from forming that union if they choose to do so.

The two arguments I hear most are that it makes a mockery of marriage and that it's a sin. On personal experience I say that's a lotta hooey. For the sin aspect, if you actually read the bible you'll note that the part discussing this dictates that *rape* is a sin, not homosexuality. That same area of the Bible describes a 'good' man giving his daughter to a rowdy bunch of soldiers instead of the guy they want to kill, so no comment on the decency of the Good Book. As to marriage mockery, I got married because I wanted someone to laugh with, and to share my life forever. Just like my mom did. So I married my best friend. Just like my mom would have, had the government allowed it.

Bella

 

[qjakal]

Liberal...

I'm faaar to the right of liberal, but I'd still say its time to recognize the reality of he situation and acknowledge the union of couples that desire to be "sanctioned" in some form. But...I'm sure we're going to hear a few other viewpoints on this... Q

 

[TicklingDuo]

Most of us here live in America, which CLAIMS to be a free country. I have no doubt that it will be legal across the country one day. Will we ever see all churches support that fact? No. To do so would give up a part of their beliefs as much as NOT doing so would give up part of being American.

On a personal note: I was raised a Catholic and taught that sex outside of marriage is wrong. That presupposes that the marriage is a sacramental one recognized by the Church. When my middle brother came out to me that he was gay, I rejoiced that he'd finally been able to state the fact (I'd suspected for a long time). At the same time, I struggled with the fact that many would not accept him and would put him down. I love my brother dearly and was afraid for him. I also struggled with my own faith and questioned the rightness of this teaching. Admittedly, I still do. But, what I've come to feel is that I'd rather see my brother (OR ANYONE) in a loving and committed relationship than in one that's accepted by others but a lie for themselves. If John ever decided to get married, I would joyfully take part out of love for him.

Ann

 

[Haltickling]

Homosexual marriage has been legalized in Germany only recently. Some of our conservative-ruled federal states fought this law at the Supreme Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), but their appeal was denied. One of the first couples was a member of my home town's City Council, and even TV covered that event. Germany and Netherlands are pioneers in that area (I think Sweden also legalized it).

Of course, they are not allowed the sacrament of marriage by the church, but some open-minded priests hold a brief blessing ceremony for homosexual couples.

I've always fought for the rights of minorities (including homosexuals), although I'm a hetero. In most discussions, I found objections to homosexuality to be mostly prejudices. Nothing you can really have a logical argument with. So if you object to it, do so. But nobody should be opressed just because whom he/she loves.

Over the years, I've met many homosexuals. One of them was my former boss, a damn fine and upright man. Another one was a girl whom I became a good friend with. Neither of them ever forced their opinions on me, and I didn't try to convince them that their kind of love was 'wrong'. And none of them fitted the clichéd picture drawn by opponents.

They married homosexuals are allowed the same jurisdictional rights as hetero couples, in taxes, inheritance, and medical decisions. The only right still denied to them is adoption of children.

So much for the German situation, and my personal opinions.

 

[Neutron]

Sure

Why not.

Tron

 

[TicklingDuo]

They married homosexuals are allowed the same jurisdictional rights as hetero couples, in taxes, inheritance, and medical decisions. The only right still denied to them is adoption of children.

So much for the German situation, and my personal opinions.

Hmmm....Interesting, Hal. There are many homosexual couples here in the states who adopt. It's apparently not dependant on the marriage issue. Some states are offering legal rights for SOs who haven't yet married or who choose not to marry. I think there's a time period that the couple has to be together for or something. I haven't really looked into it. But, while it seems to be a step in recognizing that not everyone views marriage as a goal, I often wonder if it isn't also an avoidance of legalizing homosexual marriage...as if the only reason two men or women who happen to be homosexual would marry is for the legal rights/benefits.

For many gay/lesbian people I've spoken with, it's more important that the recognition of the validity of the relationship is there. The benefits are simply an added bonus...and one that shouldn't be denied them because they're supposedly "different".

Ann

 

[tklr5150]

Absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be legal. I don't think it's any more inherently moral or immoral than heterosexual relationships, and besides, the only morality a society can justifiably legislate is that which directly pertains to the safey and libery of that society and its individuals.

As Lewis Black once said, "On the list of things we need to be worrying about in this country, letting homosexuals marry is on page 80, right after, 'are we eating too much garlic as a nation'!"

 

[BellaRisa]

Originally posted by tklr5150 .

As Lewis Black once said, "On the list of things we need to be worrying about in this country, letting homosexuals marry is on page 80, right after, 'are we eating too much garlic as a nation'!" [/B]

COOL, someone else who digs Lewis Black!!!! We went to see him live at the Funny Bone just a few months ago, one of the best nights of stand-up ever.

Bella

 

[Krokus]

Well

In short, No.

 

[kurchatovium]

First things first I too think Lewis Black is one of the funniest comedians around right now. Really loved his routine on the Starbucks across the street from another Starbucks.

Second. I am on most things very conserative but IMHO this is one thing that the goverment should not be involved in. If gay people want to get married then let them.

 

[Neutron]

Kurchatov..

A very interesting man. The one man Kruschev said should be the Soviet man of the century.


Tron

 

[kurchatovium]

Rutherford ripped me off. I still kind of upset about that whole periodic chart thing.

 

[Strelnikov]

The State IS involved in marriage. Even at church weddings, the preacher has to be licensed by the State to perform marriage ceremonies or it doesen't count.

Marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. Period. It has the socially useful functions of civilizing men, providing financial support for children and their mothers, and conserving wealth. That's why governments grant special status to marriage. I have no problems with gays who want a committed relationship (though that's extremely rare), but it isn't a marriage, nor should it have the legal status of marriage.

Adoption rights are a separate issue, unfortunately. IMO no single, unrelated person should be allowed to adopt. Married couples only, unless the single adoptive parent is related to the child by blood or marriage. Just coincidentally, that excludes gay couples completely.

Strelnikov

 

[JoBelle]

Marriage, as recognized by most relious organizations, is a union of man and woman for the purpose of reproduction. Makes it all legit, ya know? But, how about the simple fact that love between two people has zip to do with reproducing children? With all due respect as well, there are more than a handful of folks who don't believe the holy books have any bearing on their lifestyles.

By definition, a marriage is also a "close union." Applying this particular definition, we can keep up with societal changes. I'm not sure why we expect social evolution to screech to a halt in today's world, but it seems to be the norm.

The way I see it...

If a couple, be it same sex or not, is willing to follow the rules of the 'state,' then they deserve the same rights as all others. The only reason I can see for denying that is based in theology that it is somehow "wrong or immoral." That's for the big guy upstairs to decide, and frankly, I see nothing wrong with love between two consenting adults on any level.

Joby

 

[BigJim]

Adoption rights are a separate issue, unfortunately. IMO no single, unrelated person should be allowed to adopt. Married couples only, unless the single adoptive parent is related to the child by blood or marriage. Just coincidentally, that excludes gay couples completely.

Strelnikov

How does it exclude gay couples completely?

 

[BigJim]

Re: Well

In short, No.

Why Krokus? What are your reasons for having that opinion?

 

[siamese dream]

I have no problems with gays who want a committed relationship (though that's extremely rare)

Just curious the reasons behind this comment. Not trying to say you're opinion is wrong, but how many homosexuals do you actually know? (I mean personally, not just acquaintences.) In my experience, and I've had quite a few gay friends, they mostly want basically the same thing that a lot of straight people want... just to meet someone, fall madly in love and to be together exclusively. Often they also want to have their marriage recognized as a legal union, but some find it unimportant to pursue marriage at all, just as some straight people also feel this way.

Originally posted by BigJim
How does it exclude gay couples completely?

Yeah, how does it? For instance... say a child becomes an orphan at a young age, but a sister of the child's mother adopts the child. Now say that the sister is a lesbian, and the child is raised with the adoptive mother and her partner. According to your definition, they should be allowed to adopt, yet they would be a gay couple raising an adopted child.

 

[Ticklish9's]

Marriage...

As a Catholic, we believe that Homosexuality is a "bad thing". The Bible says "Do not lay with a man as you would with a woman, for that is an abomination." On the other hand, I believe that this is a free country, and imposing one religion's morality on everyone is hardly "Free". As far as the whole love thing...well, we all know I don't believe love even exists - but if it did, it should hardly be denied on the basis of "tradition". I mean, what is tradition? My parents made these mistakes, so I should make the same ones? I don't buy it.

 

[Ticklish9's]

Just curious the reasons behind this comment. Not trying to say you're opinion is wrong, but how many homosexuals do you actually know? (I mean personally, not just acquaintences.) In my experience, and I've had quite a few gay friends, they mostly want basically the same thing that a lot of straight people want... just to meet someone, fall madly in love and to be together exclusively. Often they also want to have their marriage recognized as a legal union, but some find it unimportant to pursue marriage at all, just as some straight people also feel this way.

You answer your own question, SD...gay people do want basically the same things straight people do...and I don't know very many straight people that actually want a committed relationship either.

 

[siamese dream]

You answer your own question, SD...gay people do want basically the same things straight people do...and I don't know very many straight people that actually want a committed relationship either.

I do. count me as one of them, at least.

Wow. This is my 100th post.

 

[guitman69]

Marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. Period. It has the socially useful functions of civilizing men, providing financial support for children and their mothers, and conserving wealth. That's why governments grant special status to marriage. I have no problems with gays who want a committed relationship (though that's extremely rare), but it isn't a marriage, nor should it have the legal status of marriage.

Strelnikov

If that were the perpose of marriage (to reproduce) then one partner being sterile would be grounds for an annulment(sp?). This is the same kind of 'logic' used when people say that homosexual sex is immoral because sex is supposed to be for reproduction. If that were the case, then since I'm a parapelegic, I should't be able to have sex with my wife.


I also take issue with your statement about gays in committed relationships. Where exactly do you get that idea from? Just like all people, there are some that only want a series of one night stands, and there is a majority of people who want a committed relationship.

I know a lesbian couple that have been together for over 10 years. And two of my best friends (both male) got 'married' (in a non-legal ceremony), and were together for years until one of them died.

 

[TicklingDuo]

gays and committed relationships.....

While I respect Strel's right to his opinion, it seems based on limitted information/experience. I thought I'd share a little something that I first saw with my brother and have since seen with many of our gay friends...men and women.

Before my brother accepted the fact that he was gay, he'd be jumping in and out of bed with every girl he could get. There was rarrely anything there besides the physical. After giving in to his desires (with a little encouragement from a guy he liked), he realized that one of the reasons he'd acted as he did earlier was that he was trying to drown out and deny what he really felt. There was never any love there before...other than that of friendship with a few of the girls. Now, he sees guys instead of girls. He now has genuine feelings for them. If they become sexually involved, fine. If not fine. It's not about the sex. It's about the love from which that sexual expression may occur. He (and nearly every other gay person I've ever met...which is a lot) wants to find someone to love and commit themselve to.

I know that the bible and my church teach that homosexual acts (not the inclination, just the acts) are wrong. But, seeing the difference in my own brother's attitudes has made me wonder just how wrong it could be, when compared to those he had before. The whole point is that sexual relations should be within a committed sacramental/marital relationship. Part of me agrees with that. I'd also rather see those who choose to indulge outside of marriage doing so out of love for the other person than purely for the sport. If that person happens to be the same sex, so be it.

Scripture says that we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the love of God offered to us. If that's true (which I believe it is), then we have no right to denounce the behavior of others and declare them to be evil/immoral. NONE of us is perfect. NONE of us is deserviing of God's love. But, He loves us anyway. That's something to rejoice in, not something to use to slap others around with. Yet, so many (myself sadly included at one time) use it as a weapon rather than accepting it as a gift. If we'd all learn to share the love He offers us, the world would be a better place for everyone.

Ann (stepping out of the pulpit)

 

[BigJim]

Re: Marriage...

As a Catholic, we believe that Homosexuality is a "bad thing". The Bible says "Do not lay with a man as you would with a woman, for that is an abomination."

The same book also tells me that I should burn an ox to please the Lord every week, should isolate myself for a month if I have a wet dream, stone to death my wife (if I had one) if she is unfaithful to me and make her absent herself from the community for a wekk when she's having her period.

I can take very little the Bible says seriously, because people who condemn homosexuals on it's premise, conveniently forget that the same book also gives a load rules in the same breath, that any modern person would roar with laughter at.
I'm not saying you are 9'er, because you sound like an open minded person, but I truly believe that people who use that passage in the Bible to slam gay people, are using an archaic and irrelavent system of rules, to shore up the crumbling walls of their own predjudice.