Run away! Jennifer starts a political argument...

[Mitsukara]

Okay, more seriously, I really don't want this to turn into some sort of a fight or argument. I do understand that it's a subject that's extremely emotional to many people, in completely different ways. I understand that my bringing it up and stating my views on it is in a way arguing for one side, but I really don't want to start an outright fight. I'd just like to have the opposite viewpoint clarified to me, if possible, more so than the generalazied impression I already have.

That said... what exactly is the justification of this Constitutional ammendment George Bush seems to be pushing for, banning homosexual marriage? So far as I understand, such an act would make it illegal for any two people of the same sex to be considered legally married under any circumstances, and ensure that they are not allowed the bonuses given for other married couples. Two things that being married allows a person, unless I'm mistaken (which I easily could be) is having a chance at adoption of a child (the circumstances and nature of the couple planning to adopt is always investigated anyway and if it's determined that they would provide an insufficient environment for the child, they aren't allowed to adopt anyway; but, while I'm not sure, I get the impression single people are usually not allowed to adopt under any circumstances. I think this can vary depending on very specific circumstances or perhaps state law, but I don't know. My knowledge is a bit light here), and some sort of payments/insurance. I'm unsure what other benefits are given to married couples.

Now, obviously, many people's religious beliefs state (namely Leviticus chapter 30, verse 13) that homosexuality is "wrong" (something about 'their blood shall be upon their heads', which thankfully the U.S. Government does not follow). An individual should be allowed to believe what they wish, but I don't quite see how others having a fully consentual homosexual relationship actually causes those who believe that it's wrong any direct, tangible harm (believing differently or one having hurt feelings because of someone else's actions isn't very tangible). It's been pointed out, however, that the abilities of a married couple under U.S. law do allow things that might cause harm to other people; it would affect the balance of the payments/insurance given out, and allows them to potentially adopt children. Some believe two homosexual persons cannot provide a good home for children. However, the adoption agencies do, so far as I understand, very thorough background checks and inspect the conditions under which an adopted child will live, and the capabilities of the couple as parents, long before the couple is allowed to adopt the child. If it's determined that they can provide good living conditions and emotional treatment for the child, then how does this cause any harm that a heterosexual married couple adopting a child would? It would affect their religious beliefs and make them open to things that many people believe are "wrong", but is that tangible? That's a matter of opinion and personal feelings. Therefore, I wouldn't think it is.

As for the financial impact of a couple getting married, how much harm is this actually going to cause others? It might lower the funding of wherever this money comes from. Is this going to cause some sort of massive shift for that group, however? Even so, how is it any more wrong for a homosexual couple to cause problems in that way than it is for heterosexual couples to cause such problems?

I know my knowledge is just a bit shaky and general here, and no doubt my own emotions and viewpoint are extremely skewed, because of my personal position. So I'm sure I'm biased. But I see no truly tangible harm that would come from homosexual marriage, other than hurting the opinions and beliefs of others- most of whom will likely be little otherwise affected by it, I would think. Sure, it says it's "okay", and some parents seem concerned it will cause problems for their children, turning them away from the beliefs they want to instill in them. But isn't it their choice anyway? And besides for that, clearly a child can be influenced in such a way anyway; there are many things that oppose Christian and Jewish beliefs in the world. Television, marketing, stores, anything outside the doors of a christian person's home can potentially have anti-christian statements to it. If you feel it neccesary to raise them to believe as you feel they should, you can hardly hope to significantly protect them any more by stopping this one issue. I myself am living proof of this. An individual will ultimately do what they feel in their heart and minds- outside influences only bounce off of them. It can teach them things, but ultimately it depends on what feelings they form about it, unless it's outright on the brainwashing level- and I hardly think that homosexual marriage being legal (and after a while, I bet, less in the news and thus less heard of because of it no longer being such an issue) would seriously affect how much your child sees that way, one way or another.

It looks to me exactly like the issue comes down to individual beliefs and personal feelings. I see not one direct piece of proof to state that there should be anything wrong with it- only that it's wrong to some people on an emotional level. Isn't it supposedly (although I'm sure this is by far not the only issue affected this way) one of the main directives of this Government, to not make laws based almost completely on emotional claim?

I'm not saying my viewpoint is neccesarily correct... I just think that people should be left to do what they choose to do with themselves. If two people love each other and want to be married, then I see no harm in them doing exactly that. Stopping them would be oppression, and would only hurt them. It's not like if they aren't married, they're not going to be that way anyway; so why should others be concerned on those grounds? Homosexuality exists. Love, as well as different kinds of physical attraction, can happen anywhere. I don't see how it's going to prove a point or affect that to deny it being official- it will only hurt feelings and keep the argument going even stronger. Therefore I think it's wrong, and that if two people want to get married, they should be allowed to.

If you believe this amendment should be passed, please state why you think so. I don't understand that viewpoint, but I'm not trying to dismiss or attack those that do believe that. I just feel that explanation is sorely needed.

And again, I don't want this to turn into a fight. Please be calm and rational in replying to this.

[Ich]

It's based on religious convictions. I have no problem with the church defining what marriage is since the church is a private institution. I do not feel the state has a right to discriminate. Gays or lesbians getting married isn't really something I think may necessarily be good, but I'll fight to the death to defend their right to do so. The church has every right to deny marriage to gay couples, the state does not.

Equal rights.

[Starkist]

See, the problem is that the State was originally not involved in the marriage business. It was instead the purview of whatever church or group you were affiliated with. The State began taking records of marriages, then that evolved into licenses. A license is essentially the State granting permission for a couple to marry. When given a State license, a couple is entitled to certain legal benefits such as joint tax returns and automatic inheritence. I'm sure a law student could explain the legalities a tad more than I.

Anyway, marriage is now controlled by the State. It is possible to get a totally secular, legal marriage. I agree with C.S. Lewis when he says that there should be two marriages: a state run legal contract; and a holy ordained religous union.

You see, marriage by defination is not a mere contract between two people who love each other. It is a union between a man and a woman, two human beings who are different in so many respects. It is a union that has the possibility of bearing children, people who will continue our society through a new generation.

The Constitution, incidently, does not allow same-sex marriage. Nor does it deny it, at this time. Contrary to what the activists are trying to say, this is not a civil rights issue. Homosexuals can get married, just not to each other. Again, marriage is by definition a union between a man and a woman. If 'love' is the only requirement, why not allow siblings, or more than two people to marry? There is no way to advocate gay marriage while denying those others that I mentioned.

My solution is similar to my favourite author's: Two separate marriages. You go with your loved one (Be they the opposite sex, the same sex, a relative, whomever) and get a civil union license from the government. This gives you joint property rights, inheritence privilages, and all the other legal perks. Then, if you wish a religous aspect, go find a church that will marry you. A man and woman can go to a church and enter into holy matrimony. A same sex couple can go find a church that will endorse their relationship. This is fair for all sides, because the government will endorse each relationship equally. It will also remove the State from the marriage business, and leave it to churches, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever.

I believe this to be a better option than taking an institution like marriage that has stood for thousands of years and totally redefining it for everyone.

[Mitsukara]

I've always just thought of marriage as being a joining between two people who really, truly, romatically love each other- I mean, it's not really quite right it say it's "commitment" because you should be commited to be with each other before then, but it's special, because it's a way to really tie yourselves together, and pronounce your love for each other. A way for people who love each other to be united in every way.

Admittedly, a union between a man and a woman has it's advantages as far as phyiscal matters go- but many homosexual couples love each other just as much, in the same way. Their bodies are merely different and they cannot have children of their own together. I see nothing less wonderful about this, other than that the Bible says it isn't. You may not believe it to be as perfect, but I bet you can find many couples who absolutely love each other, and to them, it is. If you can't find anyone else I stand as an example for this.

Legality isn't really that important an issue, I suppose, as it won't stop those people from loving each other in any way- but I think they should be allowed the chance to be that closely united. And if you're going to afford legal benefits to one kind, it seems unfair to deny it to the other.

But that's just my opinion. Like I said, I'm very biased. *shrugs*

[Starkist]

You'll notice I that my bias, my biblical beliefs, never played into my argument. :)

[Ganonator]

One comment, then I'll quit (not counting the comeback comment in future replies regarding this one comment):
Of the one constitutional Ammendment banning something, it was corrected with another only a few years later because the people of this country found it unjust. The constitution is about people's rights. Let's not eliminate rights because a few people feel dark on an issue.

[Eckels]

One of the biggest reasons that republicans are against gay marraige, whether it be morally against their values or not is as follows:

If gay marriages were allowed, the amount of legal marriages across the country could double or even triple. Not all of the marriages would necessarily be labors of love, where the couple would be romantically involved. It would open the door for marriages of convenience, whether it be between two roommates, two friends, two complete strangers, doesn't matter. Many people would legally wed for the sake of collecting on benefits afforded to married couples.

Sure it happens now, all the time... But not quite as often with heterosexual couples. With A gay marriage law, two people simply sharing an apartment in the city, could wed themselves for a temporary period of time and just divorce when they're ready to move out. With all the Tax Breaks given to married couples, and Insurance Costs dramatically reduced for couples and families, the incentive would absolutely be there.

If this were to happen on a national level, then it could be a bigger problem than anyone would expect. Insurance Prices would inevitably rise, and Taxes would probably have to be raised too. And remember, these are only two examples. There are many others where a married couple would face lower charges than two single people. For instance, when renting certain types of housing, or buying a car (combined credit rating), or any number of other discounts available to married couples.

I'm sure somewhere at the core of it, some republicans simply think "I dont want to see bob and bob holding hands with wedding rings on", but frankly that's just stupid. I'm sure the majority of them understand the possible legal and financial implications that would incur if homosexual marriage was legal, and that is why they oppose it.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's why.

[Starkist]

If gay marriages were allowed, the amount of legal marriages across the country could double or even triple.
Even taking into account your convenience marriages, this is still a huge exaggeration. Homosexuals account for around 3% of the nation's population, meaning that while marriages might increase, it will not be on the order of 100% or 200%.

[deathbyhokie]

Even taking into account your convenience marriages, this is still a huge exaggeration. Homosexuals account for around 3% of the nation's population, meaning that while marriages might increase, it will not be on the order of 100% or 200%.

i don't think that's quite eckels's point. if i read it right, he's saying marriages will. not just gay marriage. for example, my roommate and i are not gay. but if we were so inclined, we could get a "marriage" and enjoy the insurance breaks and such. and when one of us moved out, then we just have a "divorce". so neither of us are gay, but we enjoy the benefits of married couples. not that we would do this, but it's just an example.

[J.J. Maxx]

Yeah, but it's all about precedence.. say it with me, kids "precedence"... Good.

What most of you don't seem to understand is the fact that every other group is waiting in the wings to use this to legalize things such as polygamy or incestual marraiges. I mean, why not? If they are consenting adults who 'love each other' than why would they be less priviledged than the homosexuals? How could we possibly say to the american people that this group can marry but this group over here cannot.

Think about it.

[Kirby of Doom]

Just to kind of clarify things, as far as I know the proposed constitutional amendment would be to define what marriage is, not what it isn't, and if I'm wrong then I think that's the way it should be. Marriage throughout history has been the union between a man and a woman. However, there are people of the same sex who do love each other and want to live with each other for ever. I personally believe that gay people aren't morally bad, but on the other hand homosexuality isn't exactly normal and not the way sex was originally intended to work. So, what we need is something in the middle which would benefit everyone, and that is why I'm against gay marriage but for gay unions.

[bigjoe]

Yeah, but it's all about precedence.. say it with me, kids "precedence"... Good.

What most of you don't seem to understand is the fact that every other group is waiting in the wings to use this to legalize things such as polygamy or incestual marraiges. I mean, why not? If they are consenting adults who 'love each other' than why would they be less priviledged than the homosexuals? How could we possibly say to the american people that this group can marry but this group over here cannot.

Think about it.Gee, good argument. Maybe we should ban interracial marriage while we're at it. If homosexuals cant marry then why should people of different races? -_-

sar·casm (särhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifm)
n.

A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wit)1.
To shed more light on this:

Incest is different. Incest can result in the birth of an unhealthy or retarded individual. Homosexuality, however, actually works as a form of birth control.* Not only that, if theyre happy that way, let them be.

Humans are , in most cases, not attracted to members of their family, because they are unable to detect the pheremones of one another.

Comparing homosexuals to those who commit incest is pretty shallow and shows intolerance. In my opinion, it could even be called a cheap shot.


*(See Biographies: Eckels)

[Mitsukara]

Well, now that I think about it, the issue of people taking advantage of the legalities of it is a bit worrying. Males and females could already do it now, but potentially you could have a lot more if it were allowed between any two people regardless of sex. Even more so if you could have families doing it... soon you'd have millions of people just taking advantage of the system, and that would no doubt cause huge problems. Theoretically.

Perhaps it would be a better solution if the benefits given with marriage were limited somewhat- not neccesarily issues such as adoption, but the insurance/inheritance given to those who are married, could be lowered somehow (perhaps it could be changed so that those benefits are only allowed, at least in such proportions, if the individual couples request it and are approved as needing it- something like WIC, I think; if their financial circumstances were poor enough that they really did need it). Then it would provide less harm to allow homosexuals to do it, as well as eliminating some of the cases where "couples" already take advantage of it- but not neccesarily totally denying such things to those who request and are proved to actually need them.

Otherwise, though, after talking with Starkist it in chat about it, and better understanding the general idea of what C.S. Lewis proposes- that the state not give "marriage" liscenses just so much as liscenses, and any ceremonial/religious/personal activity to take place be regarded as totally seperate- sounds like a very good system, and not really much of a shift at all from what's currently being done.

Just to add my two cents, the issue of incestral marriage is in a way different from homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage would stil bel done between two seperate people from seperate families- just like heterosexual marriage, except that the individuals involved would be of the same physical sex. Physical sex is not something one can completely change in any case (though that goes into other issues), so if two people really do love each other, they don't have control over how their bodies were made- so why should that be of so much consequence to them?

At the same time, you could say that if two people love each other, they couldn't help being born in the same family, either. However, in most cases such people have lived together since a very young age, being raised together, and normally being less physically drawn towards each other in such a way as people from different families seem to be. I guess it's something of a matter of opinion, but in mine, it is indeed a very different matter.*shrugs*

[slothman]

Ok there are two types of marriages: religious unions and civil unions. Only religions can define religious unions while only the state can define civil. Both though count as "marriage." I'm all for religions saying they don't want gays to marry, really a gay marriage but that is quicker to type. I'm not for the state saying they can't. The religion can say if two people have sex but aren't married, religiously, they go to Hell all it wants but the state is different. It shouldn't discriminate based on being gay or straight. Since two people, or more but that's a different conversation, can love each other without having children or even having sex they should be able to marry, civilly, without regard to their status. Some people and even marriages might be prone to "bad" children but the marriage itself doesn't guarantee that. If they do have children maybe they can be taken away or the parents punished but that's separate. They should still be able to have legal rights of a marriage. Now saying companies should be able to decide doesn't quite work. An insurance company shouldn't be able to discriminate based on if the marriage is same sex just as it can't based on if the couple is black. You wouldn't want a store not selling goods to people just 'cause of their color so they can't based on their marriage type. That means only the state can define marriage undesciminately. Now I'm not sure what all this fuss over "civil unions" vs. "marriage" is. A civil union is a marriage. Though a marriage isn't necessarily a civil union. With respect to what the state can and should define they are one and the same.
P.S. I myself am not gay and wouldn't marry a man but I am not against people who do.

[Rainman]

The Constitution, incidently, does not allow same-sex marriage. Nor does it deny it, at this time. Contrary to what the activists are trying to say, this is not a civil rights issue. Homosexuals can get married, just not to each other. Again, marriage is by definition a union between a man and a woman. If 'love' is the only requirement, why not allow siblings, or more than two people to marry? There is no way to advocate gay marriage while denying those others that I mentioned. - Starkist

I find this to be one of the predominant arguments against gay marriage. At first glance it does seem like a very effective argument because virtually no one condones things such as polygamy or incest. There are, however, several reasons why this argument isn't valid which I wil explain.

First thing that I must mention is the argument is a classic example of the "slippery slope" theory. People tend to think that giving a little leeway on an issue will lead to bigger and worse things that are supposedly analogous to it. The reality is that if you go into it by defining clearly the reason why one thing is allowable and the other is not, you shouldn't have much trouble with it leading anywhere else.

From a religious standpoint, homosexuality is equated with things like incest, bestiality, or polygamy. I don't believe that such a comparison is warranted. The difference to me is that all those other things are inherently destructive by nature and to its order. Homosexuality seems to have a natural role in that it helps to stem rapid population growth. It always appears shows up in populations (not necessarily human) that need to limit that growth. The homosexual relationship has most of the characteristics of the tried and true heterosexual kind. Indeed, the only difference in the two individuals that partake in such a relationship is their attraction to the same sex. Therefore, they have just as much of an ability to sustain a healthy life-long relationship. So, theoretically a homosexual couple has just as much of a right to marriage as their heterosexual counter parts.

What about the others? I believe they can be termed as naturally destructive. I’ll take them one by one:
Incest – This is an obvious one. Incest causes genetic defects and prevents the species from intermixing its genetic code. Therefore, incest works against the species ability to adapt or, depending on whether you believe in it, to evolve.
Bestiality – The relationship provides no positive results. There is no chance of offspring, which could be said of homosexuality. In addition though, the relationship provides no apparent benefit to either species. It’s just a twisted method of deriving sexual pleasure from a ready source.
Polygamy – This seems to be the most likely “slippery slope” effect. There are already people in Utah fighting for such a union. However, relationships of this kind have always been apparently destructive by nature. This can be most vividly seen in the classic “love triangle.” Jealousy always causes tension and this 3-person relationship undoubtedly ends destructively. Of course, love triangles are established on competition. What about willing polygamist relationships? Like incest, it works against the species ability to adapt. A relationship of 1 man and 9 women provides far fewer genetic variations then 5 bigamist relationships. In addition polygamist relationships have no apparent benefits.

So that’s where homosexuality differs from those other things. It has a natural positive effect and the other at the least have far more negative than positive. As I said, if you set a clear boundary between the homosexuality and the others, then there should be no problem. Of course, Christianity provides no line so it is easy for most to view a possible “slippery slope” effect. Also just because there are possibilities of negative side effects doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t occur if the thing in question deals with basic human rights which I believe it does.