If gay marriage was legalized...

Thank you for being civil. Not destroying marriage is your opinion and I have mine. What I believe is not religious based. I am not a religious person.
If you read my first post I said I understood the gay marriage would be the law of the land eventually. I acknowledged that. I dont agree with all laws, do you ? does anyone?
Gays dont want to accept every right that married couples have without the formal marriage tag. They think they are entitled and I do not. They are entitled to the benefits but not to disrupt marriage as it always was. Gays and their supporters refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality is not the norm they dont want to acknowledge that the term and act of marriage was created to be between a man and a woman. The vows as written and performed have always been man and woman, husband and wife.

 

So far, I can't discern any reason they should have to accept a label that marks them for discrimination. The only reason to maintain this separation seems to be so that some people can pat themselves on the back for being so tolerant while maintaining their own misplaced feelings of superiority.

Still waiting to hear anything approaching a valid reason why.

Still haven't explained how this "disrupts" marriage.

Baloney. I don't think it's a "norm".

norm
/nôrm/
Noun
Something that is usual, typical, or standard.
A standard or pattern, esp. of social behavior, that is typical or expected of a group: "the norms of good behavior in the civil service".
Synonyms
standard - rule - model - pattern - criterion - rate

Oh, and thanks for revealing that you apparently think gay people have "hive mind"; that they can't think for themselves or hold differing opinions.

Actually, it was created as an economic/social transaction between two men: the groom and the bride's responsible male relative (usually her father, if living).

There is no singular set of vows. Many people write their own these days.

Guess what - life = change. There is nothing that says a same-sex couple can't exchange vows in formalizing their marriage contract.

You say you're not religious, but you're hung up on marriage vows? Really?

Let's have one thing be perfectly clear: You don't own the institution of marriage. No one person, group, or entity does. So you don't get to dictate to other people the terms of their marriage.

 

I guess I just don't understand what's gained or lost if you were to call it marriage... maybe they can't create their owe children alone, but I don't see what difference that makes? A family is a family, I don't see the need to complicate things by distinguishing. Is a family somehow less of a family if they are not all born to each other by blood in the traditional sense? I can be civil without calling anyone a bigot or homophobe in a sincere conversation that isn't intended at belittling people, so by all means, speak candidly... I just don't understand your position, it seems to me like you're splitting hairs.

 

Just a side note, but while the tradition of marriage has almost universally been between a man and woman, the context, implications and nature of the relationship were often very different. Traditionally, and in a very practical sense women were regarded as property of their husband, there specifically for the purpose of breeding to create heirs. While breeding and creating children is still a common intention in marriage, the nature of marriage and the relationship between the partners is very different today than it was in the past, accommodating. Marriage, today, is valued as a sign of love and commitment between two equal individuals, and bestows on the couple formal recognition of their legal and financial ties. The expectation of children is not implicit in the union... the context of the modern union is defined by the individuals, based on their personal and religious feelings about marriage which may be dramatically different from anyone else's.

Marriage laws accomodate a variety of different religions and personal beliefs about who should be married, when, how and to whom... it's not about substituting forcing anyone's values on anyone else... it's about making an institution that's accommodating to each individually. It's kinda like the freedom of religion... the fact that we are all free to practice our own religion doesn't degrade or demean my personal choice and feelings about religion... it just means I can practice and fulfill my own while you practice and fulfil your own independently. One might say the same about marriage.

 

I dont think im splitting hairs and what makes this complicated is that a few want to change marriage and what it is and always has been...between a man and a woman and they are not satisfied with having every benefit that heterosexual married couples have with civil partnerships. I view this as a few that are different who just want to change things to suit themselves.

 

As I said before, the context, implications and nature of the relationship is already dramatically different than it has ever been. Women are no longer the property of the husband who's sole purpose is to breed and tend to the home and children. Homosexuals didn't change marriage, heterosexuals did that long before us.

And on a side note, I personally don't care whether it's called marriage or a civil union, it's just a label. But for practical intents and purposes, civil unions have never been treated the same as a marriage under law, and I don't think it will be if people find it important enough to label it differently in the first place.

 

Don't tell me you think I am leekohler

 

Civility is usually a good thing, indeed.

I agree that not only the religious oppose 'homosexuality' or homosexual marriage.

It probably will be as you say.

There are many laws that I don't agree with; but I tend to calm down and accept them over time, once I realize or ponder the logic behind them. It's similar with 'legally' allowing homosexual couples to marry.

Please explain or expound upon that thought; it's a curious thing to say.

What is it 'exactly', that you do not believe they are "entitled"? If homosexual people (and others) are seeking equal rights or opportunity in their pursuit of happiness, then I'd say they have a case to make. Regardless of what you, I or someone else make think... they have a right to make their interests known in this society. We cannot just shut them down, because of arbitrary perceptions of what they should or should not be "entitled" to.

The U.S. Constitution leans toward affording individuals rights, despite social prejudices which others may regard concerning those individuals. Many court cases have tended to conclude in accordance with the same.

I'm a gay man, and was a time where I once "believed" the prejudices of others (and the sense of 'guilt' they placed upon me), should be reflected in the laws of this land. As I grew older and learned that those prejudices weren't solidly grounded in reason, I rejected BOTH the self-imposed guilt and the notion that laws should restrict rights which don't generate victims or infringement upon the rights of others. Being gay, having gay sex and gay marriage all fit in that description.

How (exactly) is it that two gay people being married, would somehow "disrupt marriage as it always was"?

Also, please consider that "marriage" has not been defined in the same way over time/space. Many assume that marriage has always been the same... but a cursory study of history and culture (easily done on the internet today), would prove how wrong that thought actually is.

Their right to legal marriage is not rightly predicated upon that. And it is certainly debatable anyway.

That isn't necessarily what marriage has meant; history proves that. Even so, in this society (the United States of America) that does not justify denying homosexual couples the right to life, liberty and the (actual) pursuit of happiness. You and no one else could deny, that allowing homosexual men and women to marry a mate they are compatible with would bring a massive amount of joy (happiness) into their lives. The legal benefits of marriage alone add value to the relationship; that is well-known.

No... not always; and certainly not today.

 

Hello Johnny C I need to explain im too old and disorganized to do the point by point thingy..I get confused and I dont know how to do the individual quotes. So I will address two points I think are important if thats ok

1. What is it 'exactly', that you do not believe they are "entitled"? If homosexual people (and others) are seeking equal rights or opportunity in their pursuit of happiness, then I'd say they have a case to make. Regardless of what you, I or someone else make think... they have a right to make their interests known in this society. We cannot just shut them down, because of arbitrary perceptions of what they should or should not be "entitled" to.

Lets take this for what it is a group of individuals that are different that want what has always been for the majority to change to suit them.
Im 65 Johnny and my entire life and for what I know of my fathers and grandfathers and that goes back to the 1800s marriage is between a man and a woman and the vows as stated by Religious marriage rites and Mayors reads basically the same. So now gays want that rite to change, because it cannot stay the same...there will be no man and woman nor husband and wife. Or are we going to have two separate marriage rites ?
Having "EQUAL" rights isnt enough and Ill explain what I mean by that. Being able to make decisions as a husband does or wife for indigent or sick partners. Sharing benefits and being able to insure each other and passing on social security and having the tax breaks married couples have. All the same entitlements that conventionally married people recieve...because thats what this is all about right ? money, getting the bene's of being married. Single men and women do not have the ability to pass on their social security and medicare and share benefits with the ones they love and surely you would admit that a single person loves their mother brother father sister just as much.
Gays are not satisfied with domestic partnerships or civil partnerships or whatever you want to call it that enables them to have every single benefit of a married man and woman. They want all the tenants of marriage changed to suit them. I dont agree with that. I dont want them to be denied anything. I do not want to be forced to accept homosexuality as normal because it is not...its not if your religious and its not by darwins evolution. The bottom line is plain as day, it takes a man and a woman to create life and it takes a Man and a Woman to make a husband and wife and I dont believe that should change.

 

I'll say it one more time- I'm glad your opinion does not make law and I'm even more glad that rights are not subject to popularity. Separate but equal does not cut it. And most people on your side won't agree to civil unions either, so there goes that. We tried to do it that way already- didn't work. The religious still screamed injustice to the heavens, and we were promised equal treatment, but it didn't happen because we weren't "married". Just because something is traditional does not make it right.

Some articles for you to chew on:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-ormsby/cardinal-george-oppositio_b_790168.html

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/07/02/advocacy-group-says-ill-civil-unions-not-working/

Please read those, and maybe you'll understand why we're fighting so hard.

 

Except that isn't the actual effect of domestic partnerships or civil unions, and their availability is very limited. My state bans the recognition of any agreement other than one man/one woman in marriage for any purpose.

There is no recognition at all at the federal level (also unfortunately true of same-sex marriage). They aren't portable from state to state if a couple is traveling or has to relocate. The difference in terminology marks the same-sex couple as targets for discrimination. Regardless of what the law purports to accomplish, people living in states with a status "equal" to marriage don't experience it as equality. We know that from all the testimony brought forth during the hearings in New Jersey. Same-sex couples with civil unions in Vermont were worse off than married same-sex couples in Massachusetts despite civil unions having been around much longer, so it's not something cured by the passage of time and people getting used to the idea. Withholding the word 'marriage' has real world consequences for these couples. It is not merely a matter of feelings; they experience real inequality.

Civil marriage is a creation of mankind, and mankind can change it to keep pace with an evolving society.

What about freedom of speech, freedom of religion? There are churches that provide marriage rites to same-sex couples. A same-sex couple that marries in those churches is nonetheless being told that they can only have a civil union (or domestic partnership), not a marriage - even though they and their church consider them to be married. They can't call themselves married in any legal document. And while I don't think this is necessarily and infringement of those First Amendment rights, it does have a chilling effect. There is no getting around the fact that civil unions/domestic partnerships are perceived by the public as something less than marriage, and these couples experience inequal treatment accordingly.

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/curc.html

 

The vows between a gay couple will not disrupt the vows between straight couples. They will simply exist alongside them. Whether or not something is the norm has nothing to do with it, nor does appealing to the way things were mean that is the way they should be now and forever. You argument simply has no ground upon which to stand.

 

Gay marriage and homosexuality are 2 seperate issues. Nobody is trying 2 criminialize homosexuality, not even far right conservatives who want the definition of marriage 2 be strictly between one man and one man. Gay people have the legal right to engage in gay relationships. Nobody is trying 2 change that. Gay people already have rights.

However, giving a legal blessing/recognition of that gay relationship is a totally different story. Why? Partially, all god beliefs aside, it can open the gateway/the doorway to other forms of marriage. That's why.

 

They would if they could. Read the Oklahoma GOP platform for 2012, decrying the decriminalization of sodomy in the context of speaking about homosexuality. "Far right conservatives" are father right than you apparently realize.

A right not recognized before 2003 in several states. A right that many would indeed argue isn't a right and can be regulated.

RIghts aren't something governments dole out. Their existence is something governments acknowledge and protect. And when they fail to, many feel the weight of oppression.

In other words, you don't really have a good answer for why in terms of something that gay relationships cause, only an excuse framed as something you mistakenly assume would be the consequence of providing them equal legal status with opposite-sex couples'.

Recognition of same-sex couples' marriages in specific doesn't open the door to other forms of marriage; the recognition of any marriage does, as a consequence of the government's obligation to provide equal protection of the laws. That obligation is not however one that requires treating everything asserted to be a valid marriage as equally qualified. What it does is put the onus on government to show that the purpose of its regulation has at a minimum a rational basis. It may even be asked to show that the regulation forwards a legitimate interest through the most narrowly tailored, least restrictive means available; that it has not created a classification for a suspect purpose. Where fundamental rights are concerned, the burden can be even heavier.

Withholding legal recognition of same-sex marriages has a suspect purpose: expressing disapproval of homosexuality. The laws that ban recognition are not rationally related to their stated purpose, and are not related to forwarding any legitimate purpose of government.

Does that open the door to other forms claimed to be marriage? No. Those claims will have to stand or fall on their own merits. Recognizing same-sex couples' marriages doesn't help them at all.

 

Hey, so am I! So is LeeKohler, DevilMay, Sadanie, Dan Savage, and everyone else here. And the sooner you understand that, the sooner you can stop acting persecuted because others get to have the same rights you do!

Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

And my opinion is that marijuana causes absolutely no health problems. Shame that my opinion just doesn't really matter because it's evidently wrong.

Blacks don't want to accept every right that whites have without being the same. They think they are entitled and I do not. Going back through history, we have had numerous examples where "separate but equal" has gone wrong, and there's no reason to separate in this case.

Err... What? You mean like the time where it was between a man and a woman ("a woman" meaning "at least one, but usually several women")? Or the time it was between a white man with property and a white woman? Or the time when it was between a man and his chattel? Or the time it was between two people of opposite gender and equal race? Yes, I suppose marriage has always involved at least a man and a wom - oh wait, never mind. But marriage's definition has changed. Different people who used to be ineligible for marriage have become eligible. Different forms of marriage, between people with different qualities, have been legal and illegal throughout history. And now it's looking to go back to where it was thousands of years ago - where it was sometimes based more on love and attraction, rather than on one person being a man and one person being a woman.

Uganda recently passed a bill that would make consensual homosexual activity a criminal offense. If one or more of those involved had HIV, they would all be put to death. Russia seems to be following suit.

Right. Just like white-black marriage did. This is literally the same argument that opponents of interracial marriage brought back in the 50s and 60s. It was dumb then, and it's still really dumb.

 

I for one have gay friends(female lesbian couples),I asked them about this issue,in the following manner

If you are so against Govt intruding into your life,why then are you wanting the Govt into your life?

Ok let me explain my quandary on this"issue",I see the whole marriage issue as merely symbolic in nature,any two people can have a civil union (for shared marital assets and liability),so why then do you want the Federal Govt to regulate your union?

I say the less Govt is in your life,the better

 

Civil unions aren't available in the vast majority of states, and even if they were, and DOMA were to fall at the Supreme Court as expected, they won't give same-sex couples the thousand or so FEDERAL marriage rights. And currently not being able to marry means same-sex couples where one partner is foreign can be deported - sounds like government instrusion to me. Higher taxes is also an intrusion on people's lives relative to their heterosexual counterparts.

 

For starters, marriage is an entirely voluntary intrusion. Don't want the government intruding on your relationship? Don't get married. Secondly, a civil union is the government intruding into your life (again, because you asked it to) - it's simply worse than a marriage in virtually every meaningful way. And you might not like tax breaks, civil protections, and legal privileges such as power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, and the ability to adopt... But I do.

 

Witholding the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage from couples of the same sex isnt oppression.

 

It may or may not be oppression, but it is discriminatory, it is morally wrong, and it is certainly Unconstitutional.

 

Of course and Amen.

 

It is NOT a "totally different story"; that is merely your opinion.

And the 'slippery slope' nonsense you are throwing out there (as many do), is to me, just homophobia rearing its ugly head.

 

A brilliant, clear and accurate response. It is very apparent that you have thought things through very well. Amen!

 

What you are pointing out is a separate issue. Even so, because marriage (the legal aspects thereof) involves many rights and privileges... there will likely always be some component of the union which will be overseen or underwritten by government.

 

I think you hit the nail on its head.