[Big Mac]

If we've had a thread on the subject recently please forgive me. Where do you stand on Gay Marriage and why?

Here's my view: No on Gay Marriage. I say no not out of hate (although that's what the opposition to it is accused of) but out of opposition to the redefinition of the term and institution that is among the oldest human institutions that crosses all cultural boundaries. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Now sometimes in other countries it's between a man and many women, but it's always between at least a man and woman. I don't think it's at all proper to redefine the term. We don't redefine other enduring terms, unless you can point an example out. Furthermore, I don't see why Gay Marriage is necessary if "civil unions" are available instead. What benefit would Gay Marriage provide that civil unions do not? That's my view.

[Paco500]

We've redefined lots of enduring terms throughout history. A citizen used to mean, at various points, landowner, male, white. A Priest used to be exclusively a male role. The list can go on and on.

Aside from that, your contention that marriage (as a concept, obviously word is english) has been between man & one or many women exclusively throughout history is just wrong. There is extensive evidence of same sex unions throughout history, including in ancient greece, rome, and egypt.

20 years or so ago I went to the cinema with a friend who, due to a car accident, was temporarily in a wheel chair. To get to the actual screens, you had to take an escalator- there was no elevator (this was pre-ADA). My friend, after having to be carried down, let her displeasure known, in stark terms, to a poor 16 year old usher telling him quite loudly and angrily that this was discrimination. His response?

"It's not discrimination! It's always been this way!"

[Ω]

Why not. To me marriage is an antiquated "institution" that has legal ramifications.

Also what is the difference between a civil union and marriage? (I am asking because I don't know)

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

We've redefined lots of enduring terms throughout history. A citizen used to mean, at various points, landowner, male, white. A Priest used to be exclusively a male role. The list can go on and on.

A citizen still is only a single person. And as far as I know, Catholic priests are still men.

Aside from that, your contention that marriage (as a concept, obviously word is english) has been between man & one or many women exclusively throughout history is just wrong. There is extensive evidence of same sex unions throughout history, including in ancient greece, rome, and egypt.

The key there is that you said "there is extensive evidence of same sex unions" unions perhaps, not marriages. What countries historically recognized in an official way same sex marriages? Look at the dictionary definition. It doesn't include same sex unions.

20 years or so ago I went to the cinema with a friend. . . .

Your example is of a situation in which a person was denied access to a public facility due to a disability. What are homosexuals being denied access to if they have civil unions but are unable to change the definition of marriage?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A citizen still is only a single person.

But the definition of what kind of single person can be has changed.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And as far as I know, Catholic priests are still men.

Catholicism does not have a monopoly on Priests. There are now female Anglican/Episcopal priests.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The key there is that you said "there is extensive evidence of same sex unions" unions perhaps, not marriages. What countries historically recognized in an official way same sex marriages? Look at the dictionary definition. It doesn't include same sex unions.

I checked Dictionary.com and found three things of interest.

1. There is a mention of same sex unions
2. It makes no mention of polygamous marriages, but you claim they fit in historic definition of marriage, meaning either A) You don't actually take much stock in dictionary definitions or, B) more likely- the definition has changed throughout history.
3. The origins of the word as is it commonly used in English dates from the 14th century and is from the French. So no, the greeks, romans and egyptians did not call these same sex unions a "marriage," but neither did they call the union of one man and one woman a "marriage" either. There are other languages beyond english you know.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your example is of a situation in which a person was denied access to a public facility due to a disability. What are homosexuals being denied access to if they have civil unions but are unable to change the definition of marriage?

You kind of missed the point of the story. The offence is not waht makes it interesting, or perhaps, laughable. It's the defence. The argument that something is right just because is has always "been this way" is not valid.

[osiris]

If gay people want to suffer too, then fine. Marriage for everyone.

[The Godfather]

Whether the government recognizes same sex unions as marriages is irrelevant. The quabble lies in the fed/state benefits that need to be extended to gay couples: hospital/jail visitation, taxes, insurance, adoption, immigration, as well as post-marriage responsibilities, such as alimony and child support.
Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_..._United_States

You can't force a rabbi to declare your union a marriage or stop calling your kids bastards, and you are free to walk away. The definition of marriage is nobody's business but those who created them: religious institutions.

However, the government can and SHOULD change every law that refers to marriage/married/spouse, white it out, and print "civil union"/"in a civil union"/partner. How would religious institutions have a problem with that?

[Big Mac]

Religious institutions would not (except for the most extreme on the fringe). Whatever the State wants to in recognizing civil unions is fine with me, but calling them marriages is not.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

Whether the government recognizes same sex unions as marriages is irrelevant. The quabble lies in the fed/state benefits that need to be extended to gay couples: hospital/jail visitation, taxes, insurance, adoption, immigration, as well as post-marriage responsibilities, such as alimony and child support.
You can't force a rabbi to declare your union a marriage or stop calling your kids bastards, and you are free to walk away. The definition of marriage is nobody's business but those who created them: religious institutions. However, the government can and SHOULD change every law that refers to marriage/married/spouse, white it out, and print "civil union"/"in a civil union"/partner. How would religious institutions have a problem with that?

I agree with the spirit of your argument, but quibble with your assertion that marriage is strictly a religious institution. It may have been at one point, I don't know, I've never studied the history of marriage in detail. However, marriage as a secular, legal institution devoid of religious connotations has existed for quite a long time now. I think it would be too messy and rather unnecessary to separate a religious marriage and a civil union.

[Dork.]

I never understood why some people feel threatened by the concept of same-sex marriages. IMHO, folks who say that they support same-sex civil unions but object to same-sex marriages are just arguing with themselves over semantics. But these are not the folks I am talking about. I am talking about the ones who insist the very moral fabric of our society will be permanently torn if we let the gays get married. These are often the same folks who say it's not a civil rights issue, because gay men currently have the same rights to marry a woman that straight men do. I simply don't get it.

All I know is that gays are getting married all the time now in certain states in the US, and somehow it has not diminished my marriage one bit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by osiris 

If gay people want to suffer too, then fine.

Damn, beat me to it.

Yep. I'm not down with gay "marriage" being used as a tool to hammer the church with (i.e. demanding that churches perform the ceremonies) but civil partnerships, no problem. As long as the state doesn't force everybody to recognise them.

I'd make divorce illegal though. We'll see how many folks want to get "married" if it really is for life.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I think it would be too messy and rather unnecessary to separate a religious marriage and a civil union.

Interesting factoid: In the UK, they're actually separated out already. You can have your religious service but until you sign the register, a secular legal document, you aren't actually married in the eyes of the law.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I agree with the spirit of your argument, but quibble with your assertion that marriage is strictly a religious institution. It may have been at one point, I don't know, I've never studied the history of marriage in detail. However, marriage as a secular, legal institution devoid of religious connotations has existed for quite a long time now. I think it would be too messy and rather unnecessary to separate a religious marriage and a civil union.

I don't know much history of marriage to agree or disagree about your quibble, but you shouldn't be too worried about the "messiness" that separating civil unions and religious marriages would bring. One institution is unflexible and unmovable: the religious institute, while the other is, in theory, "by the people, for the people" (or whatever your country's equivalent is). If one side has the power to change the scope of civil unions/marriages, that is a democratic government.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Interesting factoid: In the UK, they're actually separated out already. You can have your religious service but until you sign the register, a secular legal document, you aren't actually married in the eyes of the law.

Same as in the US. I'm talking about separating conceptually. I suppose my point, not expressed very well, it that it would be unnecessary to create a two tier system. As it stands, a marriage performed legally by a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony carry the same weight in society. It seems silly to separate the two conceptually.

I still don't think I'm expressing this very well, but I'm jet-lagged beyond reason, and were I not, I'm convinced you would see the brilliance and insight of my statement and completely rethink your rethought opinion of me.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I still don't think I'm expressing this very well, but I'm jet-lagged beyond reason, and were I not, I'm convinced you would see the brilliance and insight of my statement

I can sort of see where you're coming from and have no argument with it at all.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Same as in the US. I'm talking about separating conceptually. I suppose my point, not expressed very well, it that it would be unnecessary to create a two tier system. As it stands, a marriage performed legally by a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony carry the same weight in society. It seems silly to separate the two conceptually.

I still don't think I'm expressing this very well, but I'm jet-lagged beyond reason, and were I not, I'm convinced you would see the brilliance and insight of my statement and completely rethink your rethought opinion of me.

But the two tier system is necessary, due to the separation of church and state. Just because the two have different ideas of "marriage", should the populace force them to agree in that one? This two-context system is supposed to work, why mess with it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If we've had a thread on the subject recently please forgive me. Where do you stand on Gay Marriage and why?

I voted "it depends". I'm a civil unions proponent.

Here's my view: No on Gay Marriage. I say no not out of hate (although that's what the opposition to it is accused of) but out of opposition to the redefinition of the term and institution that is among the oldest human institutions that crosses all cultural boundaries.

IMO, marriage has already been redefined by heterosexuals to mean a life-long commitment you make to one person at least twice in a lifetime with different people and prenups to protect assets. It means; where are you registered?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Now sometimes in other countries it's between a man and many women, but it's always between at least a man and woman. I don't think it's at all proper to redefine the term. We don't redefine other enduring terms, unless you can point an example out. Furthermore, I don't see why Gay Marriage is necessary if "civil unions" are available instead. What benefit would Gay Marriage provide that civil unions do not? That's my view.

I don't think "marriage" is any business of the Federal Government. If marriage is a commitment between two people and God, then that institution is uniquely sanctioned in the respective religious authorities' capacity; separate from the authorities of the government. I believe the Federal Government should acknowledge only civil unions, let the churches "marry" whom they deem fit according to their doctrine. A gay couple should have unfettered access to one another's property, hospital visitation, estates upon death, and other benefits as assigned to those of heterosexual unions.

If it is the Federal Government's duty to provide oversight of "marriage", respective of the religious institutions having defined them, divorce would be illegal. Those fighting for the definition of "marriage" have too often contributed to its ambiguity.

[Andrew Stephens]

Where do I stand on Gay marriage?

With my back against the wall. fnaR fnar.

No, seriously, what should anyone care. I'm married, gay couples should be able to marry as well. Marriage isn't really a religious ceremony for the vast majority of couples, it's a state of union between two people in love who are committed to a future of love and support. What has that got to do with sexual orientation?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Interesting factoid: In the UK, they're actually separated out already. You can have your religious service but until you sign the register, a secular legal document, you aren't actually married in the eyes of the law.

Sounds good to me.

[OldManMac]

If one were to know anything about the history of marriage, especially in the Western world, one would know that the institution of church sponsored marriage didn't even start until the 1100s, when the Catholic Church (which was the predominant church until the Reformation) started getting into the act, primarily to bless the unions of powerful heads of state, political leaders, and military rulers. The common man at that time couldn't read and write, and had more pressing needs (like staying alive past 30 or 40 due to illness, war, or just plain shitty living conditions). Kings and powerful politicians' marriage stock often came from other tribes or countries, in order to join forces against other common enemies. The common man typically married from a locally available base of women, who were usually as uneducated as he was , and love had little to do with it. They didn't have a McDonalds to meet at; they usually met at church or other family approved events, and the approval of the parents often had much to do with whether they married or not. The concept of marrying for love is relatively recent, when people began traveling more, and discovered there was a wider pool of possibilities, and they were becoming less reliant on their parents' approval. Thus, the concept of marriage has indeed been redefined numerous times throughout our history, and what's happening now is that those who haven't got a clue as to what they're talking about are shouting that their "family values" are under attack, because marriage is once again showing its fluid nature, and thus they are showing their homophobia, blaming external forces, which of course is preposterous, rather than themselves where the faults for their own marriages lie.

The state has no business being involved in the act of marriage, other than to issue a license so they can collect a fee when two people want to spend their lives together. If we all worried about our own marriages, instead of others', be it Bill and Bob, Ken and Mary, or Susie and Sally, we'd have far less of the problems than we do on this planet, but some people haven't figured that out yet (and may never).

I long for the day when my daughter and her partner can enjoy all of the same benefits and rights that others enjoy as a result of their union, and it doesn't threaten me, nor should it threaten anyone else, should they choose to call it a marriage.

[BRussell]

I'm against gay marriage, unless both chicks are hot and they post the video.

[nonhuman]

To me, marriage is irrelevant. My wife and I don't need the approval or blessing of the government or a religious official to tell us that our relationship is now somehow different than it was. The reason we had a wedding ceremony was to publicly and officially affirm the nature of our already existing relationship and bring our families together both figuratively and literally. Yes, we got a marriage license, but only because it vastly simplifies the legal aspects of combining our two separate lives and families. Yes, we actually even had a religious official present who performed the ceremony, but only because he was my father, and the ceremony he performed was not a religious one, but one that I wrote myself.

As it stands right now, and always has stood and always will stand no matter how the laws change, any combination of any number of men and women could do exactly what we did with one exception: that little piece of paper that's really nothing more than a convenience. So why shouldn't gay couples, or poly er ...groups? be able to get that paper? What harm is done if they can or do? Nothing actually changes from the way things are except that they suddenly stop having the difficulties they currently do with very important matters like hospital visitation, inheritance, parental rights, &c. Why should the law differentiate between one set of people who choose to join their lives and another?

I'll say again: the legal/civil aspect of marriage doesn't actually change anything or cause anything to exist that didn't before, it's merely a convenience necessitates by the ever increasing intrusion of government into our private lives. There are currently, at this very moment, gay and poly relationships that are, in every important way, as much marriages as the one that my wife and I have. If it's important to the people in those relationships, they can already get the religious blessing aspect of a marriage. The only thing they can't get is a stupid little piece of paper that does nothing except to help them navigate the complex legal framework of our society.

Oh yeah, so my answer is basically yes. So long as there is a legal institution of marriage (or civil unions, or whatever) I fully support the right of any number of people of any sex to enter into it. I don't care what it's called, but it should be called the same thing for everyone.

[lpkmckenna]

This quibble about marriage vs civil unions is just an example of how petty some people are. Having two separate words to define the same phenomenon just to satisfy self-righteous indignation is stupid. How about we argue about the meaning of the word "is" too?

Will gays be required to have new words for husband and wife, too?

[TheMosco]

I think that everything recognized by the state should be a civil union. If you want to get married in a church, go ahead.

[mduell]

Why should the government be involved in marriage at all? What about marriage can't be covered under contract law?

Create a contact with lawyers representing each side, sign a legally binding contact, then do whatever you want for a ceremony/reception to celebrate it (with a minister, elvis impersonator, friend, whatever acting as the MC).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

If one were to know anything about the history of marriage, especially in the Western world, one would know that the institution of church sponsored marriage didn't even start until the 1100s, when the Catholic Church (which was the predominant church until the Reformation) started getting into the act, primarily to bless the unions of powerful heads of state, political leaders, and military rulers.

If you dig a little further, it was the Calvinists.

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[16] for recognition. That was the first state involvement in marriage.

before that it was stricly a church matter.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If you dig a little further, it was the Calvinists.


before that it was stricly a church matter.

Your statement has nothing to do with what I stated. I was pointing out that church sponsored marriage, in the Western world, didn't start until 1100s, when the Catholic Church got involved, under limited circumstances. The Calvinists were Protestants, who came along much later, and they had an impact on state-sanctioned marriage. Two entirely different points, and not incongruent.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your statement has nothing to do with what I stated. I was pointing out that church sponsored marriage, in the Western world, didn't start until 1100s, when the Catholic Church got involved, under limited circumstances. The Calvinists were Protestants, who came along much later, and they had an impact on state-sanctioned marriage. Two entirely different points, and not incongruent.

And furthermore, my understanding is that as recently as a few hundred years ago most regular people didn't get officially married. They just lived together and were assumed to be "married" - like a common law marriage. This idea that official church/state marriage has been the cornerstone of society is just historically wrong.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'd make divorce illegal though. We'll see how many folks want to get "married" if it really is for life.

Good idea. Divorce rate will go down, and the homicide rate will equally go up

-t

[ort888]

Yes. 100% yes.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And furthermore, my understanding is that as recently as a few hundred years ago most regular people didn't get officially married. They just lived together and were assumed to be "married" - like a common law marriage. This idea that official church/state marriage has been the cornerstone of society is just historically wrong.

You understand correctly. Unfortunately, most people are blissfully ignorant of the history of an institution they claim to know so much about. They just accept as fact whatever they're told while growing up; when a certain age approaches, it's time to get married, have children, etc., etc.

[Rumor]

I say no.

Marriage should be a Church governed activity. It should have nothing to do with the State, or any aspect of government. It should be up to the Church to decide whether they will permit it or not.

Should homosexuals be allowed civil unions with the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts? Yes they should. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness should not be limited to heterosexuals.

It is my belief that it is time for the concept of marriage to be completely changed and have no bearing on tax status, benefits, or anything other than being able to call another your husband/wife.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

To me, this is just another of those "issues" designed to distract us from a million other things of far more significance- like empty suited crooks at the local, state, and fed level constantly plotting new ways to suck money out of our wallets.

I couldn't care less what any other pair of adults that love each other choose to do, get married or live together, or otherwise. Gender has nothing to do with it for me.

I know what marriage is, for my wife and me, and that's all that matters. Everyone else on earth can define marriage however they wish- it won't change a thing about my own definition.

This is one of those "issues" that conservatives just need to stop falling for. Even if you believe that 99.9999% of everyone else around you is going to hell in a handbasket because they support or take part in gay marriage- LET THEM. It's part of living in a free society.

Meanwhile, focus on the real issues- daily encroaching threats on all of our financial freedoms, for one.

[The Crook]

The government should get out of the "marriage" business completely.

I say, like others before me, make "civil unions" the only legally binding designation available for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. What you call your relationship should be a private, religious, familial, or spiritual affair. The government getting involved just upsets too many people, from conservative heterosexual couples who feel the government is changing the meaning of what they feel is a religious term, to homosexual couples, who feel discriminated against because the name of their legal relationship is different and inferior.

[paul w]

As someone who just got married at city hall (to my very pregnant fiancee) I have no problem with it. As long as marriage exists outside the churches as a civil status it should be open to same sex unions.

Otherwise you wanna give me, and gays, a civil union that will means the exact same thing - civil status, rights etc- to me as marriage and keep the word "marriage" for the church unions, well go ahead.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

To me, this is just another of those "issues" designed to distract us from a million other things of far more significance- like empty suited crooks at the local, state, and fed level constantly plotting new ways to suck money out of our wallets.

I couldn't care less what any other pair of adults that love each other choose to do, get married or live together, or otherwise. Gender has nothing to do with it for me.

I know what marriage is, for my wife and me, and that's all that matters. Everyone else on earth can define marriage however they wish- it won't change a thing about my own definition.

This is one of those "issues" that conservatives just need to stop falling for. Even if you believe that 99.9999% of everyone else around you is going to hell in a handbasket because they support or take part in gay marriage- LET THEM. It's part of living in a free society.

Meanwhile, focus on the real issues- daily encroaching threats on all of our financial freedoms, for one.

OMG - hold the roof up! I agree with Crash! What's this world coming to?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

OMG - hold the roof up! I agree with Crash! What's this world coming to?

Not so fast OldManMac, count me in.

[Oisín]

Gay Marriage: Where Do You Stand?

On the groom’s side.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This quibble about marriage vs civil unions is just an example of how petty some people are. Having two separate words to define the same phenomenon just to satisfy self-righteous indignation is stupid. How about we argue about the meaning of the word "is" too?

Will gays be required to have new words for husband and wife, too?

My sentiments exactly! This is no different than the separate but equal doctrine.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This quibble about marriage vs civil unions is just an example of how petty some people are. Having two separate words to define the same phenomenon just to satisfy self-righteous indignation is stupid. How about we argue about the meaning of the word "is" too?

It's not different than any other issue, in that both sides need to feel like they won some sort of concession from the other. It's a power trip. If any side ever wins any of these BS issues unconditionally, the resentment will be intolerable, and nothing will get done in the country until that decision is reversed. It's pathetic, true, but what can you do?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's a power trip.

Well, think about it another context. Would it make a difference if we had official designations like "citizen" for white people and "black citizen" for black people (or some other variation)? Words do mean something.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not different than any other issue, in that both sides need to feel like they won some sort of concession from the other. It's a power trip. If any side ever wins any of these BS issues unconditionally, the resentment will be intolerable, and nothing will get done in the country until that decision is reversed. It's pathetic, true, but what can you do?

Nah, in 25 years no one will think think twice about gay marriage, just like today we don't think twice about most of the things that conservatives have opposed in the past.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Nah, in 25 years no one will think think twice about gay marriage, just like today we don't think twice about most of the things that conservatives have opposed in the past.

"Waiting it out" for 25 years isn't what most people would consider winning, for either side. Anyway, I'll wager the reason no one thinks twice about it in 25 years is because there won't be any "marriage" anymore, as the conservatives will have held strong on ebuddy's solution, as meaningless as the distinction is, so as not to have to declare defeat to those dirty libruls.

[- - e r i k - -]

Crash making sense? What's the world coming to? Soon cats and dogs will be living together. Get married even!

[brassplayersrock²]

isn't that what the cartoon cat/dog tried to do?

seriously though,
all marriage is (in my way of thinking) is two people who love each other holding a ceremony to bind their love. two people, doesn't matter the sex, just, two people.

*don't start with the one man more then one bride thing please.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

My sentiments exactly! This is no different than the separate but equal doctrine.

Maybe glancingly, but I don't think that's a good analogy.

Very few people are suggesting we have legal standards for both marriage and civil unions.

[GSixZero]

I think government should remove the word marriage from the law books, replacing it with civil union which will allow anyone to share marriage-like rights with anyone they choose. If people want to get married they can go see a priest to receive whatever union their religion approves of.

[brassplayersrock²]

*gets on a knee an asks "will you civil union me?" *

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

*gets on a knee an asks "will you civil union me?" *

That's exactly what won't happen if what everyone in this thread wants happens. (and is why some people are against civil unions all together.) Civil unions will become the law, marriages will be in the church only, and people will keep referring to committed loving adults as 'married'.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

OMG - hold the roof up! I agree with Crash! What's this world coming to?

Ha! Stranger things have happened!