Gay Marriage / Civil Union

Are you pro legalized gay marriage or civil union?

Are you against gay marriage, but pro-civil union?

I'm against civil unions but pro gay marriage?

Are you against any kind of gay-marriage/civil union legal recognition?

Let's hear your opinions.

Briana Dawson

i wish i had known how against marriage i was BEFORE i actually got married

I personally think they should ditch marriage entirely, as an outdated institution, and just have some sort of civil contract between individuals of whatever gender. Given that that's unlikely, then I guess I'm pro-gay-marriage, since discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is clearly and unarguably wrong.

Of course, I find laws mandating monogomy stupid, too, along with pretty much all morality laws. But hey, that's me.

Like Cross Lament... I would prefer if we didn't reduce love to a simple contract. But heck, if gay people want to get married, let them. Their problem

Everyone should have the same rights and priviledges regardless of sexual orientation.

The last thing we should be doing in this country is codifying bigotry into our laws. Those pushing for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

I've never understood for the life of me what reasoning leads people to believe that gay marriage is 'wrong' or immoral. Love does not have gender requirements. Procreation does, but haven't humans done more than enough procreation for a while? Have we ever had a problem producing enough children?

To me, the hatred and fear of gays is nothing more than an irrational carryover from ancient times when the survival of a tribe did depend on men inseminating women, plus a lot of slack for high infant mortality. Those days are past, but that need has morphed into some kind of modern day morality crusade that ostracizes a segment of people who TRULY did not choose their sexual orientation.

It's all just all a ploy by the church yet again. Leads me to beliefs that they control a vast majority of the government. In a legal court system gender or anything shouldnt matter i can see it being an issue with the church but.... How can you say seperation between church and state and not allow it? The U.K has legalized gay marriage. Shows the U.S is quite behind on that subject matter. Alot of stuff just seems to "off" to me to think my views are crazy...

I want to marry my sister

I started the above linked thread in order to open a discussion about incest marriage.

Curiously, some argued that incest was illegal because of biological/medical concerns. This argument actually tried to establish a "procreation" standard for marriage.

We soon dismantled that idea and moved on to social stigmas. Nodody really defended "feeling odd about marrying a relative" as a reason to outlaw sibling marriage.

Then there was a bit of discussion on "people don't want to marry their relatives anyway." It was quickly dismissed as a reason to outlaw inter-familial marriage.

I was suspected of trying to dupe the PRO-GAY MARRIAGE crowd. I thought it was ironic, considering I was helping to build VALID arguments FOR GAY MARRIAGE, but I do understand the concern and sensitivities of folks who have had to be defensive for so long about the issue.

Anyway, I can't find a valid CONSTITUTIONAL reason to oppose gay marriage (full recognition). However, religious institutions have the right to determine to whom they offer their sacraments, etc (I don't know the term for religions other than Catholicism).

I hope I haven't shattered my "arrogant, intolorant, ignorant asshole reputation."

Everyone in the thread I linked above acted honestly and treated each other with respect.

The problem with the word marriage is that it serves two functions. One is a religious function and the other is a civil function.

Marriage as a religious function is strictly up to the religion you're talking to. Many churches perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples in many states. However, the government does not recognize those marriages and so they do not function in the civil sense. This is the same way that polygamous religions can have marriages to several people, although the government only recognizes one partner (at most).

What gay couples are fighting for are the civil rights given to married couples. This is what has lead to the "compromise" of civil unions for gay couples. The problem here becomes the fact that laws up until this point have used the terminology of "marriage" making it questionable if they would apply uniformly to civil unions and marriages. Because of this I would much rather see gay marriage legalized. However, I would much rather see the government use the term civil union for everyone and leave the term marriage for the religious institution.

Agreed. Contemporary opinion, however, still hasn't completely separated church and state. The US government mentions married partners several times in law. Its unfortunate people get confused about the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage.

I vehemiantly support gay marrage, but will not put my energies behind civil unions. We've already witnessed what has happened when we implement seperate-but-"equal" policies.
==Chris

I don't know if my worldview will ever be the same.

Honestly, though. I don't think marriage as a secular institution should be measured by religious standards. It's a contract between consenting adults (which is why I'm also not against polyamorous relationships being recognised by the state, either).

I'm not against any sort of civil contract that consenting adults want to get into, whether it be same sex, different sex, large groups or incestuous. Adults should be treated as such, all this interfering into people's private lifes that governments like to do and religions like to do to people who don't even follow their religion should be stopped.

I agree with Champie on this. Legalize gay marriage and if certain religions don't want to preform ceremonies for gay couples, that's their right.

Here in Oregon the state doesn't care what kind of ceremony you have or who preforms the service. If you want to have your dog perform the marriage ceremony (or you don't want to have one at all) that's perfectly fine with the State. The only thing the State cares about is that you pay the fee and fill out/file the license correctly.

Which is how it should be. The State should only concern itself with the legal aspects of marriage, leaving each couple to decide what kind of ceremony they want.

I think that marriage should remain between one man and one woman. However, the core of this issue is the special rights that come with marriage like right to inheritence and who gets to see you in the hospital, etc.

These rights I think should be extendable to anyone to party wishes. If a gay woman wants to leave all her earthly possessions to her partner, that should be her right. It is her stuff after all. And if a gay man wants his partner to be able to visit him in the hospital, again, that should be his right.

-Kiamat Dusk
...flaming heterosexual...

Still a contensious issue in many states of Australia here downunder. To be honest I used to despise gay guys,seeing them as some sort of threat to myself. Thank goodness I've grown up since then. I've worked and socialised with a few gay guys and girls and they are just people like me and gladly call them friends and collegues. In the end love and respect is more than just a piece of paper or leglislation.

Cheers

Gay marriage would completely change my life. This month my partner and I celebrate our 14th anniversary. He is on disability. If we could get married I could put him on my insurance. Doesn't sound like such a big deal, but it is. He could work any job he chose, as many hours as he wanted. Right now if he goes back to work he loses his medical benefits. No meds, and he dies. So he feels he needs to get a full time job that has medical coverage. And I'm afraid he can't work full time without killing himself. But he can't work part time without losing his meds.

Right now the government regulates how much he can work, how much he can earn, inherit, save. We live together only because of a loophole in the rules. Otherwise the same government that refuses to recognize our relationship would require me to support him, but of course my insurance company wouldn't cover him. We aren't married.

So, if you're against gay marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex. But don't feel free to apply your beliefs to my life.

My fav line to give the hardcore "Anti-Gay marriage" people:

"If we let them marry, they'll breed and produce gay children!!"

You wouldnt BELIEVE the number of 'em that agree!!!


I always thought it odd- we give rights to everyone regardless of color/gender/religion, but it's ok to deny if they're gay? WTF??

Nice to see someone overcoming their prejudices. Well done.

Find me an acceptable Federal definition for man and woman in the context of marriage.

I'll wait.

I went through something similar with my partner of 12 years when he died. The State claimed his body, because there was no kin. They wouldn't release the body to me in order to take care of his final arrangements. I actually had to hire a woman to pose as his fiancee in order to convince them to release the body.

Mind you, I'm a transgendered woman and he was male --but I STILL had to find a biological female to help me bury my beloved.

Sobering huh?

I believe those that fear Gay marriage are afraid that if it was legal --they would have nothing to keep them from accepting they are Gay. Otherwise --why the hell would they even care?

Does this mean you'll finally pop the question, big boy?

This girl can't wait forever ya know

Unfortunately, that's the argument many stupid people use. "If we let gays marry, what's stopping pedophiles from marrying children, bestiality-fans from marrying their dogs, etc?"

Answer me these questions: do we let dogs drive cars? do we let children into the 21-or-over section in the local video store?

Then why should leglislation allowing two consenting adults wed lead to these practices?
==Chris

BINGO!!!