Gay Marriage - poll added

[Miss Critter]

It has always confounded me that there are those who would condemn the "gay lifestyle" as one of frivolous sex, and then deny gays the option of a sanctioned monogomous relationship. In no way does gay marriage threaten me or my marriage. Love is love, baby, and if you ask me, the world could use more of it. But then again I'm one of those weirdos who feel that sexual preference is chosen - you know, like the way you choose your eye color or height, or hair color (well, maybe not so much hair color ).

 

[LuciferSam]

Since I didn't want to get off track on another thread I've decided to start this one.

Obviously my views on gay marriage are very biased.

I'm just curious why, if myself and my partner were to get married, would it adversely affect anyone else? At no time have I ever attended a straight marriage and felt that my life was now affected in a negative way.

Quite frankly it comes down to being a second class citizen. It wasn't too long ago that it was illegal for a black person and white person to marry. We as a society have since realized that this was based on nothing more than hatred and misinformation.

If you can give me just one good reason how a gay marriage would affect anyone other than the two involved please be my guest.

I can't give you a good reason, but I'll take a guess at the mindset. Marriage is an institution, and to some people an institution is as real as a neighborhood and its associated property. Some people feel a very strong connection to the institution, perhaps even ownership. To them a gay marriage corrupts the institution in the same way that a satellite dish antenna violates a homeowners association covenant. It becomes a reflection on them. God, that's one painful mindset. Really that hurt.




I don't feel this way, but it would be interesting to hear from those who share some of these ideas.

 

[elgordoboy]

I would really be interested in seeing someone's post who was against gay marriage. Would you get any takers on the political forum? Do you need/want a proxy poster to engage the unwary and begin a debate?\
*edit* I thought I was in the lounge.. I found what looked to be a Lortab on the ground in the west end Thumb and ate it. Disregard all but the first sentence of my above raving.

I change my mind I just read some of 6thGens comments on the other thread. It wasn't interesting, but that may be my fault not his atm I can not be sure.

 

[4dogs]

Bigotry

Bigotry is a terrible disease on our society.
No one should be able to tell another you can not get married because they do not approve of the choice of gender.

 

[30ashopper]

Since I didn't want to get off track on another thread I've decided to start this one.

Obviously my views on gay marriage are very biased.

I'm just curious why, if myself and my partner were to get married, would it adversely affect anyone else? At no time have I ever attended a straight marriage and felt that my life was now affected in a negative way.

Quite frankly it comes down to being a second class citizen. It wasn't too long ago that it was illegal for a black person and white person to marry. We as a society have since realized that this was based on nothing more than hatred and misinformation.

If you can give me just one good reason how a gay marriage would affect anyone other than the two involved please be my guest.

I've always been confused about the differences between civil unions and "gay marriage" at the state level, and federal level. If by supporting gay marriage you have no expectations that the government will some how force religious entities to support it, ok. The federal government and states should be divorced from religious marriage, but afaict, that might not be the case. I'm for legal civil unions, and all the tax benefits that go with it. I do not however want the government forcing a church to somehow honor, or adopt such beliefs if it is against their doctrine.

Can anybody give any details on the legal differences / expectations of the gay community?

 

[Miss Critter]

Why should it be any different than straight marriage in that regard? You are not required to be married in any church to have a legal marriage; all you need is a judge and the proper paperwork. I don't believe churches should change their doctrine, either, but I do believe that the government should recognize a spouse and all the privileges that offers, regardless of sexual preference.

 

[30ashopper]

Why should it be any different than straight marriage in that regard? You are not required to be married in any church to have a legal marriage; all you need is a judge and the proper paperwork. I don't believe churches should change their doctrine, either, but I do believe that the government should recognize a spouse and all the privileges that offers, regardless of sexual preference.

I agree - as long as we're talking about a pure legal agreement. I seem to remember though something up on the east coast a while back where a state tried to force a church to somehow legitimize gay marriage. I might be wrong about that, but that's one of the reasons why I ask the question. Is this a grey area or is there a very absolute legal / religious dividing line in all potential changes to both state and federal law made in support of gay marriage.

 

[scooterbug44]

I can't really think of anything the "church" would be required to 'recognize/sanction against their will' if the government allows gay marriage besides a change in the possible employment & insurance benefits for their staff.

The church does not make or enforce any US laws (or at least they aren't supposed to), their only role is to ensure that they do not violate any laws.

Any ceremonies taking place in a sanctuary are still subject to the additional restrictions and approval of each religion/church. Just as I and the imaginary Mr. Scooterbug would have to meet certain requirements and get permission to marry in a specific church or location, so would any gay couple.

For example, a divorced heterosexual cannot remarry in some churches (only if they get the marriage annulled), even though US law says that they can. The government does not force the church to perform the ceremony because the religious and legal status of marriages are 2 very different things.

The "institution" of marriage is damaged much more by Vegas's 24 hour chapels, quickie & multiple divorces, marriage for money or status, forced marriages, and a variety of other common heterosexual actions.

 

[NoHall]

I've always been confused about the differences between civil unions and "gay marriage" at the state level, and federal level. If by supporting gay marriage you have no expectations that the government will some how force religious entities to support it, ok. The federal government and states should be divorced from religious marriage, but afaict, that might not be the case. I'm for legal civil unions, and all the tax benefits that go with it. I do not however want the government forcing a church to somehow honor, or adopt such beliefs if it is against their doctrine.

Can anybody give any details on the legal differences / expectations of the gay community?

I think I'm saying the same thing as Punzy when I say that government should neither condemn nor recognize ANY sort of marriage. It's a religious institution. Government needs to butt out of it.

 

[Rudyjohn]

yes, but the "religious institution" is strictly ceremonial.
.