Gay Marriage / Civil Union

Actually - that's my opinion as well. And I will gladly give up my marriage in trade for a civil union as soon as it's possible so long as it offers the same protection to my children.

The right of free contract between consenting adults in a secular country should not be abridged by religious bigotry.

I don't think there's any constitutional reason to think anything about any kind of marriage. Marriage is not a constitutional issue.



That's not how it should be at all. The state shouldn't recognize marriage legally in any context, since marriage is a religious institution, any more than the state gives special privileges to people who take mass. The state should only recognize civil unions, and it should be between anyone, regardless of theier gender or relationship. There are certainly people of the same gender out there who would like to form a civil union but aren't in a sexual relationship; civil union is a more appropriate, legalistic term and should be adopted in place of marraige.


This belief, while portrayed as reasonable by our mainstream media and present administration, is as regressive as thinking that voting and property owning should only be between white males.

On a personal note, I've just recently moved to the Commonwealth of Massachusuetts, and finally legally married my longtime partner. We've been married once before, in San Francisco (my prior residence) thanks to the efforts of Mayor Newscom, but that license was revoked by the California Supreme Court. So while I'm hardly a political activist on this issue or any other, I have been thrust to the forefront of it by circumstance, and it has been emotionally trying.

Even now as I've had my human rights recognized thanks to Massachusetts, there are people out there who feel that I somehow "threaten" their marriage, or am part of some bizarre conspiracy to attack their values. Let me tell you folks, bad spouses of any gender threaten marriage more than a loving relationship between two people of any gender. In other words, divorce is a much bigger threat to marriage than I am.

Moreover, unlike many people out there, I really don't care about anyone else's values, as long as they don't try to apply them to me. That's why I don't get all worked into a huff about the various SL lifestyles which I happen to not be involved with. My basic philosophy on social issues is that if it's two consent adults, go for it. As long as you're not forcing it on me, I don't care what you do in private.

Many people seem not to see it that way, however. Many people want to enforce their code of morality on everyon else - and some of them don't even follow it themselves! I'd like to be able to just laugh off these misguided folks, but unfortunately they're the majority now, not only in Washington, but the nation. So instead I have to try to fight it where I can. But I honestly wish I didn't have to - I'm tired of fighting; I don't really want to fight anything.

we may be working with two different definitions for "Queen"

No.

You said it yourself - marriage is a religious institution. It's no more "regressive" than, say, the belief that one should eat kosher, or not blaspheme. It's simply the way the faith says things should be. It does not inherently imply homophobia.

Now, you could argue that the Bible actually addresses homosexuality very little, and you would be correct. But the truth is, most every sect of Christianity has put their own spin on what the Bible actually says, some more than others, or else there wouldn't be a multitude of sects of Christianity.

I don't think purely a religious marriage should be legally recognized without the civil union to back it up, but religions absolutely should have the right to say who they will recognize as "married" or perform ceremonies for, within the limits of their faith.

Crap. I agree with you again ::::::grumble:::::

You mean it doesn't imply homophobia to YOU. It does to me, and to many other people.

Besides, just because a belief is religious doesn't mean it can't be regressive. By your logic, as long as you think something for a "religious" reason, I can't label it regressive. When did you get to decide what words I can use, and what things imply to me?

There are other matters of public policy that are condoned by the Bible, but that we now consider regressive. Slavery and torture are both condoned by the Bible, but as a progressive modern society we don't practice them anymore (at least, not in-country.....heh.....)

Hey it's a moot point really. A religion has it's own set of beliefs. Shall I assume Catholics are anti-semitic because they adorn their place of worship with a dead jew?

I'm not saying any group believes anything, per se. I'm saying the belief that a legal right shouldn't apply to a specific group is bigotry, whatever root those beliefs have. To call it anything else is to discount said persecuted group. Hatred is hatred, and it's all based on ignorance, whether you justify it with religion or not.

Besides, one might argue that any public policy belief justified by 2,000-year-old wrritings is necessarily regressive.

You can see whatever you want into it, I suppose, but it just makes you look as bigoted as you accuse them of being. "Agree with me or be labled a homophobe" is no better than "Be straight or don't get married".

To put this in more elemetry terms, lack of support for a thing, or even even a preferance against a thing, does not equal hatred for a thing. For instance: I think siblings should not be allowed to get married. Do I hate people that are having incestuous relationships? No. I think it's dangerous, if children can result, but I don't hate people for it. But, I would not support any law that tried to make such a marriage legal.

This tendancy to label anyone who disagrees with "GAYS MUST GET MARRIED!" (or whatever crusade the gay community is on at the time) as a homophobe in an attempt to silence their viewpoint is one of the biggest reasons I do not consider myself a part of the "gay community", regardless of my sexual preferences. We (generalizing for all gays, there are specific exceptions of course) have become as bad as the zealots who tell us we're going to hell every time we dare poke our head into the public arena. No rational discussion, no trying to work with the other side towards a productive end, just blind, stupid, self-destructive bigotry.

Gay or not, we are sadly still human



I reserve the right to call you foolish for your beliefs, but I will concede that perhaps "more regressive" may have been a better choice of words, as you seemed to imply that it was somehow spectularly outside the bounds of what you could expect from a faith. It's tradition, though, and humanity tends to hold on to tradition. Particularly when it is codified into a belief structure.

Well said, and my experience precisely.

Actually this is the opposite of my experience. Granted there are quite a few "militant gay activists" who do espouse those sorts of things, but that isn't what I see from the majority of gays that I know. Sadly, they are the most visible and hence the ones that most people think of as "the gay community". In some ways they are good, since they do bring important issues (like gay marriage) into the public spotlight. Other times they do harm by generating a negative sterotype.

This sort of thing happens for almost every group: Rabid anti-war protesters, militant evangelicals, in-your-face flag waving patriots, browbeating atheists etc.. most of the time both sides have important points, but the loudest and most obnoxious become the targets of the other side and it becomes a giant poo flinging contest.

Agreed. You are completely right, Zuzu. Well said. Polls have proven that people who otherwise would have voted in favor of gay marriage or civil unions switched their thinking because of the over the top demonstrations by hyper-activists. The only thing zealots on either side do is polarize their respective base. Reasonable people can disagree, unfortunately reason seems to be the first victim of these arguments.

-Kiamat Dusk

Yayyyyyy! It's time to blame the victim!!! Priceless, Kiamat --absolutely priceless.

Who am I to say how someone else choses to live their life. I just wish that some religious nutters would take the same perspective.

Anyhow, consider 2 gay identicle twins as a couple. Is it like f*ck*ng yourself? woops, I just re-edited the obvious in fear of being banned on my first post

Have fun!

Just because its uncomfortable doesnt make it wrong.

Exactly. And the religous nutters who want to stop gay marriage know that this is true and exploit it.

Yes, voting against gay marriage because of "hyper-activists" is a form of "blaming the victim" and it is a very effective strategy to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal.

It doesn't change the facts. More often than not zealots hurt their own causes. Just look at how much harm people like Pat Robertson and televangelists do to Christians.

-Kiamat Dusk

I've seen a study that shows that they are more likely to try same-sex acts. But they are not any more likely to identify as gay/lesbian/bi/trans, or to primarily have sex with the same gender as themselves.

I would like to see more studies becore drawing conclusions, but these results feel correct to me. I can think of two mechanisms, both of which are likely to be at work.

First, the child of gay or lesbian parents is unlikely to raise a child to think that same-sex relationships are wrong. The parents are also likely to choose to live in a neighborhood of like-minded people, and spend their social time with such people. As a result, should the child be curious, he or she is less likely to reject a same-sex encounter for moral reasons.

Second, the child probably grows up in an environment where same-sex partners are easier to find than for the average person. THe parental social network will be made of up of people who accept same-sex relationships, and probably an above-average number of people that are personally interested in them. THe child may attend social and community events were gays and lesbians are thick on the ground. So if the child is curious, he or she will have less difficulty finding a partner.

What you make of these results depends a lot on your own attitudes. If you are one of the people who feels that same-sex acts and relationships are always wrong, you will be disturbed, because same-sex parenting will mean that more children will try them. If your concern is with the social fabric of the nation, you will be happy, because it shows that the sky isn't falling; kids aren't being turned into homosexals by their parents. Finally, if you're one of the queer activists who feels that everybody should be bisexual, you might be disappointed to find that nurture doesn't seem to advance your agenda.

Which facts? Things are jumping around too much and I've lost track.

Which is exactly what I said.