Gay marriage? Agree or disagree?

[danprobo]

After a heated and often emotional debate, New York state Senate rejects gay marriage. http://bit.ly/8XqQ7C

How about you? whether you agree with the marriage between fellow men?

I also do not agree, and support the decision of the New York senate. Viewed from any aspect, marriage fellow man is very strange.

 

[fractalfeline]

Marriage these days is either a romantic gesture or a financial arrangement anyhow, maybe with child-rearing as a distant third purpose (secondary to the first two usually). Viewed from this perspective, there's nothing particularly sacred or meaningful beyond that. Why not allow gay marriage? While I may think that homosexuality is strange, or can't wrap my head around it, I still won't limit other people's rights or capability to do what they think is best.

Meanwhile, from the perspective of religious or moral reservation, where homosexuality and gay marriage are viewed as sinful/unnatural/wrong, and where marriage is considered a sacred rite, then to that I say: there's a reason why church and state are separate. The purpose of government is to keep order, and to keep society running smoothly. Government is not there to impose morality. If the church disagrees, or if individuals with their moral standards disagree, they can simply refuse to honor or recognize the marriage.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether gay marriage is legitimate or not. To the government, romantic ideals and moral ideals are secondary. Marriage to the government is a matter of tax laws and who has rights over the children, pets, and property. And... to decide how to partition the property when a couple decides to have a divorce.

Hell, according to the Catholic church, my parents aren't married. But they still file their taxes jointly, and I imagine if one of my parents was unconscious, the other would have the power to decide what kind of medical care and legal matters are necessary. Screw the Catholic Church if they don't believe in divorce, and believe that my father is still married to his first wife. He hasn't even seen the first wife in something like 40 years. But... the Catholic Church has every right to believe what they want to, and decide whether they want to recognize it or not.

(Fun story, that. It involves the husband of the second wife wanting to convert to Catholicism and have his marriage recognized as legitimate. If anyone ever calls me a bastard, I can truthfully respond with "Actually, according to the Church, I am a bastard.")

Though, when it comes down to it, I believe the government has allowed "civil unions" between gays, but not "marriage". I have to say I don't know what the difference is, legally. Google to the rescue!

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

I would be in favor of expanding "civil unions" to a Federal level, and including most of the rights and privileges of marriage into it. Or, for that matter, rename "marriage" as "civil union" in order to detach any cultural and idealistic meanings from the legally binding contract between two people. "Marriage licence" becomes "Civil Union Licence" and all the legal wording gets reworked to be politically correct and orientation neutral. I believe most of the opposition to "gay marriage" is semantic anyhow.

 

[joejv4]

I said "Disagree" - but I have to qualify that answer.

Why?

Well, first-off, marriage is between a man and woman, husband and wife. That is what marriage is and always has been, around the world for centuries. That is the definition of marriage - period.

Now the qualification of my answer...

Same-sex couples really should have a mechanism to become each-other's spouses and be afforded the same legal rights and benefits afforded to married couples. Some of those being things like joint bank accounts, joint income tax filing, dependent status for insurance, essentially all of the rights and benefits that are associated with marriage - but lets not call it marriage, because it is not.

It is not marriage, because, again, marriage is a male + female thing, but there needs to be a mechanism, call it "Civil Union" or "Spousage" or something else, that provides these equal rights to gay couples that have made a lifetime commitment to one another.

That is my 2 cents.

 

[adamparkzer]

I disagree because having two parents of the same gender doesn't really suffice. They will always think there is something missing in their lives. If we openly allow same-gender marriages, there will be many children exposed to unconventional ways of life that could result in the slowing psychological development.

 

[compass]

I voted "agree".
Yes, joejv4 has a good point, the word "marriage" has had a clear meaning of male + female until now.

But, as the word is now used in a legal context to grant certain rights and responsibilities to an association of (so far!!!) two people then I guess the point is that, as far as the secular law is concerned, then let it be called marriage.

What churches and religious people do and accept is of course their business. Though a lot of them seem to think that whatever everyone else does is also their business...

As for the 2 parents of the same gender idea, first, I don't see how the statement "children exposed to unconventional ways of life" necessarily implies the conclusion “...could result in the slowing psychological development".
A lot of children in the Western world grow up with a missing parent, abusive parents (in many ways) with little or no support from extended families.
Some of them end up really messed-up as a direct consequence of their parents’ behavior, and some do not.

 

[Smith6612]

I am person who doesn't agree with Gay marriage as it's something that goes against my beliefs, however I don't care what people do in terms of such things so if there were a neutral option I'd choose that. I'll pick Disagree though. I'm in NY anyways.

 

[shan564]

One thing I've always wondered is why we need to create a legal institution with the title of "marriage." I understand that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman - but shouldn't that be a personal/religious institution?

Same-sex couples don't like the fact that their "civil unions" carry a different connotation than a traditional "marriage." But if most of us believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, there's no way to guarantee equality for same-sex couples as long as the government formally recognizes something called "marriage."

So what if all "marriages" were legally called "civil unions?" The term "marriage" can be used for religious and social purposes, but it doesn't necessarily need to carry any legal meaning... or does it?

 

[mesenberg]

basically, the problem Christians have with "gay marriage" is the fact that gays want to be included in the pre-predominately and historically Christian idea of marriage while in the Bible homosexuality is condemned. It's like a Jew joining the Nazi party. Now I'm a Christian and I don't agree with homosexuality. But I dont hate gays and I believe people have the right to make their own choices. So I think definitely they can have equal federal rights and all that just don't try to force your lifestyles on us by changing marriage. simple as that

 

[risket]

I don't see a problem with it at all.

I'm not gay nor have I ever "wondered". I'm a man married to a woman and that won't change. But I don't see how a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman that they are deeply in love with is any of our business to tell them no.

I'm not here to start any arguments (so please keep all your personal attacks out of your replies) but I'm so tired of hearing the whole "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman." That's the most pathetic argument I've ever heard.

Definitions of words change over time. Who cares what the definition of a word is? We change the definitions of words on a daily basis to our own convenience. Think of words like dude, dick, cock (chicken), or b-i-t-c-h (female dog)....

Then there are those people who say, "It's just not right." I've come across some pretty small-minded people who thought a white woman and a black man was "just not right." So should it be illegal for them to get married because small-minded people think it's "icky"? The whole issue just seems so childish to me. "You can't have certain privileges because I don't agree with them." Hell, I don't agree with most people over the age of 70 being allowed to have a license but I'm not going to demand that it become illegal. It's my opinion. I'm decent enough to not make others suffer because of my own opinion of a situation.

Then there are people who say a child having same-sex parents will turn them gay. Like the gayness will rub off on them as if it was some kind of contagious disease. Which is hilarious because I'm willing to bet 90% (or more) of the gay people in today's society all had straight parents. Any guy will tell you that no one can force him to be attracted to another mans dong.... that's something that they would have to discover on their own by going, "Hey.... that's kinda nice." Not by going, "Ok my dads like penis so maybe I should too.... even though boobs are very tempting, I should like hot dogs more." That's so ridiculous!

Being gay is your own personal preference. Your parents can love Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches and you can hate them. That's called a personal preference. Believe it or not, not everyone has such a soft head that they completely duplicate those around them. If anything the child of same-sex parents would be more open-minded and understand of the world around them. They will be taught that they have choices in life and they can be happy despite what other people expect them to be.

Ok my rant is over.

I'd like to remind everyone again I'm not here to start any arguments. So please keep any personal attacks out of your replies. Valid points are welcome but I lose all respect for a discussion when it turns into a childish name-calling war. Thanks! :biggrin:

I disagree because having two parents of the same gender doesn't really suffice. They will always think there is something missing in their lives. If we openly allow same-gender marriages, there will be many children exposed to unconventional ways of life that could result in the slowing psychological development.

I could not possibly disagree with this statement more.

I grew up without a father and I never felt anything was missing in my life. I had a very good mother, a brother, a sister and grandparents that were very close with us. Never once did I ever think, "My life would be better with a father." I knew that's how it was and I wasn't missing out on anything in life by not having one.

From my personal perspective I think a child with two parents at all would be very lucky. I had only one and it was a constant struggle for her. Having two mothers or two fathers there to support you and guide you in life would be.... well.... twice as good as just having one.

 

[ChatIndia]

I don't see any problem in that cause in my opinion every person have its right to take his own decision. But If such couple is my neighbor then I'm disagree with it cause it seems very strange. When I look such stories in Televisions where homosexual people got married then I feel scorn. You may think that I'm in both side but the reality is that I don't like such activities but I don't have any right to take decisions about anybody's life.

 

[edyel190]

Disagree. How can they have a real family? they can get a baby for adoption or other method, but how that kid will grow up? Homosexual too? The society is not prepaire for that kind of things yet, and I will hope we never be.

 

[marley17]

If i am a gay i would certainly pursue to agree.. i may be one of those shouting in the street to be approve by congress or senate. but since i am a guy .. and only for girls, its a big NO .. i find it immoral in any sense. hate me , judge me , or even bring me to court, burn me alive the answer still is NO. you should probably ask yourself or imagine that you see gays and guys holding hands, kissing in the public utilities.. does it looks hot or it a yuck? iiiiiwwwwwwwwwwww... thats all i can say.. if you agree on this. better try to verify if you are a gay or not.. hahaha.. kidding. but i totally not agree..

 

[bradym]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230...5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawN2dGp1ZGdlYmlydGg-

I don't know if this link will work, but it's an article about a lesbian couple who married, then one of them had a baby after artificial insemination, then they split up and now there is an ugly custody battle. Now I know that this can happen just as easily with a heterosexual couple, but I believe that the incidence of break ups is far greater among homosexuals as is the incidence of promiscuity. So if gay marriage becomes common the problems resultling from broken relationships will be exponentially greater than they are among hetero couples. These problems would only compound the erosion of our society. Speaking of society, in what ways does a gay marriage further strengthen society the way regular marriage does?

 

[smurfboi76]

I think it really is a matter of personal freedom and that you should be able to marry a consenting adult (As defined by the state) of either sexuality. I think that marriage is two things it is a commitment from one person to another. I also thing that it is a legal document that grants certain rights to the persons partners.

Really when you start to look into it one of the reason people don't want LGBTQ people to be able to marry it the 1,000+ rights that they would gain. One of them being the person would gain all of the personal property that there partner has after they die without paying the estate tax as well as being able to be named as a recipient of life insurance. Another one is being able to visit there partner in the hospital and being able to move to any state and have there marriage recognized across state lines like "straight" people can. So it is a simple question of equality and that should be all that it is about. Right now the same thing is happening with the LGBTQ community that happened with the African American Community some years ago.

Separate but equal is not equal at all.

 

[viseth howl]

It’s sexism to deny a couple marriage based on their gender. It’s complete intolerance and pressuring others to conform to a set of moral views not everyone holds. It used to be that you could not marry someone who looked different from you, that if you had a bi-racial child they would live a horrible life. Let me tell you, that’s simply not the case anymore except when people step in and make it an issue just because they look different.

The argument about children is ridiculous. Many kids go without a parent and come out just fine. In fact, there have been recent moves in schools to have a more equal divide of genders so there would be more father/motherly figures for the kids without them in their homes.

To say that same-sex couples are more promiscuous and likely to break up is also untrue. But even if it were… would we deny them marriage? Hey. Let’s deny the people in the bible-belt marriage by that logic. They are more likely to get divorced. Or poor people. Or uneducated people.

Seriously, this is all just prejudice.

 

[fractalfeline]

The argument about children is ridiculous. Many kids go without a parent and come out just fine. In fact, there have been recent moves in schools to have a more equal divide of genders so there would be more father/motherly figures for the kids without them in their homes.

To say that same-sex couples are more promiscuous and likely to break up is also untrue. But even if it were… would we deny them marriage? Hey. Let’s deny the people in the bible-belt marriage by that logic. They are more likely to get divorced. Or poor people. Or uneducated people.

Seriously, this is all just prejudice.

Ding! We have a winner.

Whenever people start talking about the psychological harm to a child from same-sex couples, I always kinda wonder where the numbers are. Is there's even enough data regarding same-sex couples with children with both short-term and long-term psychological evaluations of the child's development? I remember a time when people thought that putting a child in day-care while both parents work vs. the traditional stay-at-home mom arrangement would "psychologically damage" the child. And guess what? Years later, when the smoke has cleared and the numbers came in, turns out a) there's maybe some slight behavioral differences short-term b) long-term the day-care children didn't turn out "mal-adjusted" like the doomsayers thought. And ya know? Divorce DOES cause psychological harm to a child, short and long-term, and we continue to allow divorces. What about single-parent households?

I totally agree with that second paragraph. Show me some numbers on how they're "more likely to break up and divorce" and maybe I"ll believe it. As far as I can tell, the divorce rate is roughly 50% anyhow, so I'd imagine it is a systemic problem with society at large rather than a focal problem for gays. As for real stats about divorce:

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/24/national/main5334553.shtml

And like viseth said, if we start limiting marriage based on social, cultural, and economic groups prone to divorce, where does the slippery slope end? Are we going to have to make Marriage Licence Calculators to decide which demographics you fall into and calculate a "divorce risk" number, and compare it to some sort of cut-off risk?

Maybe something like this: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/pair/CaseStudy/DA.html

I dunno about you, but I can think of plenty of better places to put tax-dollars than into analyzing a couples' divorce risks.

 

[dharshan]

I disagreed..

IMO the Very Strong but basic Idea behind marriage is Reproduction (creating a new generation thus continuing the human race), and Nurturing kids looking after and etc.

and the humans have only 2 genders and both the Male & Female will be involving in this cycle...

 

[danprobo]

Looks like the difference between the agreed and disagreed very little, or maybe even the same. I love democracy

 

[ShadowmasterX]

Okay okay, im here to settle this crap =P

Okay so first of all, what is wrong about gay marriage? someone reply with a correct answer that is reasonable, and I shall bow down to you.

Look: Gay marriage might go against what has been going on for around 1000 years, but this doesn't mean it is wrong. Gay people have been around since the beginning, but society has prevented them from emerging out in the open until now, which I think is great.

If two people love each other, then they should be able to spend the rest of their lives together, which is marriage. I see nothing wrong with this.

And for those people who think you are right, answer this question:

Just because something is wrong, and you think it is wrong, is it truly truly wrong?

I disagreed..

IMO the Very Strong but basic Idea behind marriage is Reproduction (creating a new generation thus continuing the human race), and Nurturing kids looking after and etc.

and the humans have only 2 genders and both the Male & Female will be involving in this cycle...

I would like to announce that gayness was found in DNA gene, which means that nature created this. This is probably nature's way of limiting human exponential growth over the last few decades

Disagree. How can they have a real family? they can get a baby for adoption or other method, but how that kid will grow up? Homosexual too? The society is not prepaire for that kind of things yet, and I will hope we never be.

Like i said, gayness was found in DNA gene, which means that it was natures way of probably tell us to stop reproducing, and this is how it came out.

 

[fractalfeline]

I would like to announce that gayness was found in DNA gene, which means that nature created this. This is probably nature's way of limiting human exponential growth over the last few decades

Like i said, gayness was found in DNA gene, which means that it was natures way of probably tell us to stop reproducing, and this is how it came out.

Oh, really? Which one? I'd like to know which gene that is. What chromosome is it on? What are the most common alleles for that particular locus? Which mutation caused the "normal" gene to become a "gay" gene? What protein product is produced from that gene, and how does it act differently from the "normal" gene product? What cells express this gene?

Just a note to the author to please back up their position if you want it to be credible.