Looking for feedback

OK.. I'm *not* looking to start a flame war, just merely looking for some insight here.

I would like to know the opinions of those who are opposed to gay marriage. Before you respond, I think it's important to clarify that we're talking about 'civil marriages', not those that are performed in houses of worship.

So, I'm interested to hear your opinions on this matter.. pro or con. Please be respectful of *all* and keep the name calling and bashing inside your gray matter.

With that.. are you for or against.. and why?

I'm in the Pro camp on gay marriages.

Why? Why not?

Equality
Freedom
Love
Recognition
The pursuit of Happiness

Being a "straight" yet somewhat "bent" "all American" "white" but actually mostly "red" woman, I sat here for sometime contemplating on how I could open a reply to this thread or if I even had a place in replying. You have seen my answer to the first and as for the latter... yes I do have a place in replying because I am in and live in a society where I believe liturgical standards often drown out morality and ethics causing violation of the basic premises of individual liberty and equality that is supposedly protected by our constitution.

I think when people are looking to judge samesex marriage or gay society in general they tend to lean too heavily on the Catholic idea of marriage being an institution of "God" that should be an exclusive, lifelong union between Man and Woman. It's interesting how these same people don't shun and judge the people who choose to end opposite sex marriages.

Bruce Bawer, author of A Place at the Table, argues that gay couples almost unwittingly join a social vanguard. "All other things being equal," writes Bawer, "the gay man who lives alone and makes regular trips to a pickup bar is confronted with considerably fewer social and professional problems than one who lives in a committed relationship with another man. The regular bar-goer can compartmentalize his life very easily; all he has to do is keep his pickups secret from family and friends and co-workers. But a member of a gay couple is automatically confronted with moral problems. When co-workers talk about their spouses, what does he do? Keep quiet? Lie? Mention his companion as matter-of-factly as they mention their spouses? If he keeps it a secret, he may be disgusted with himself for behaving as if his love is something of which to be ashamed. What hope is there for a committed, loving relationship between two people when it is hidden in this way? On the other hand, if he does mention his companion, he is liable to come up against some who find his homosexuality anathema and who are in a position to threaten his livelihood. Even if he doesn't mention his relationship, the people he works with will probably find out eventually; it is difficult to live with another person for long without one's co-workers knowing about it."

So I wonder, to what purpose does society force the suppression of free expression of individual belief or emotion? It obviously does not foster higher ethical behavior, unless of course we are metering the ethical behavior on liturgical rather then moral law.

If two people of the same sex choose to form a union of civil marriage I commend them for not only their own self acceptance but their commitment to honesty and the boldness that honesty and self acceptance breeds.

To keep it simple, I am not only “for it” but I support and commend those who do it!

A "good" marriage is any healthy, working union between any two people no matter what their gender, ethnicity, religion, age, etc. It takes so much to make a relationship work that I commend anyone truly committed to another person.

Juno, you were looking for opinions "against." This isn't a very strong reason against, but it is the only rationional one I can come up with.

One of the historical civil reasons for marriage was that in western society, women were severly limited in their rights to own property and support themselves. So, while a man could and was expected to go out and find a job to support a family, a woman did not have this option. Marriage was a way to provide for the woman if her husband died or left her. By offering lower insurance premiums it both encouraged husbands to provide coverage to their wives, and was a perk for (male) employees. I haven't researched it, but I am pretty confident that in the past women employees did not have benefits that helped to support their male spouses.

Although we are still far from achieving it, we are moving towards a society when women have the same opportunities for supporting themselves as do men. Since rights and responsibilities are (or should be) inseparably linked, we are also moving towards a society in which women will be *expected* to support themselves just a men are, or to be equals in the support of a family unit. This removes at least one of the justifications for spousal benefits. Both partners in a marriage would be equally able to obtain benefits, and the decision to have one stay home as a home maker would be more of a personal preference than a societal requirement. If anything, this suggests that spousal benefits would be reduced for heterosexual unions, not expanded to alternative unions.

Of course, none of this applies to certain legal concerns, such as inheritance, community property, decision-making in case of medical disability, etc. Child custody still remains problematical, since in a same-sex union only one of the partners can possibly be a biological parent.

Well, those are my thoughts on the matter. I hope that I have expressed myself in a manner that provokes thoughtful discussion and not divisive arguments.

Oh, and odalesque: your choice of the term "catholic" rather than "christian" forces me to point out that, in strict catholic doctrine, marriage IS for life. Divorce in the eyes of the church is not a trivial thing. People who divorce are looked down upon, and once separated by divorce or death are expected never to marry again.

Thanks Dusty for the 'against' comment.

While I'm for civil marriages between any 2 consenting adults, including same sex couples, I'm very interested in the learning more about the opposing viewpoint.

Everyone has an opinion, and while I might try to persuade someone to change thier opinion, I think it is my duty to try to get an understanding of the opposing view, hence why I started this thread.

Thanks for sharing Dusty!

Yes I agree Dusty, my comments regarding that were based on people who use that doctrine as a moral grounds for opposing civil marriage, and then neglect to oppose other parts of the doctrine that are not followed.

There's no distinction. (Catholics are just as christian as any other sect.) In strict christian doctrine (or any christian doctrine really) divorce is only allowed in cases of adultery. Period.

For that matter the Church didn't even really get involved in marriage to begin with until about 1200 years ago. Up through the dark ages the Church's role in the whole thing was pretty much just an advisory one.

As far as arguments against gay marriage, I can't think of any that aren't religious. Hence, they're irrelevant as far as american civil law is concerned. Likewise with group marriages. The reasons against both are entirely religious... and if they were put before the Supreme Court would have to be struck down since they can't pass the Lemon test. (Although with the current Court... I'm not so sure I trust them to find according to law...)

I couldn't possibly put it any better than Oda did, so I'm not going to try.

I dont really see the point of marriage, gay or otherwise.
It's just a silly tradition without much logic behind it.

I'm with you Eggy, but the custom exists and some people like it. And I suspect that you and most of the other people who have responded here would agree that to extend the legal benefits of marriage to one group and deny them to another based entirely on a religious proscription is unfair and discriminatory.

Ah, but marriage is a ritual, and rituals are what make life fun. F'rinstance, one of my near-daily rituals is making the pilgrimage to my favorite coffee shop, and purchasing a double tall soy mocha to drink while I'm stuck in gridlock in the mornings.

Then there are things like graduation ceremonies. They serve as an acknowledgement that you did something. Sure, the speeches are usually dead boring and you get to be shoehorned into nice clothes, but in the end, it's much nicer to have a nice diploma and the memory of going through this with a few thousand classmates, rather than getting it in the mail a few days later. That's my take on graduation ceremonies, YMMV

The first time you voted in an election. That's another ritual/coming of age/milestone/etc.

Regardless, these events help make life worth remembering.

-----

As for gay marriage, I agree with the assessment that the people who're agin' a civil version of marriage seem to be using moral/religious frameworks as their base reasons for saying no.

Oda and Corwin said it all.

A reason for marriage: The are a LOT of laws (in the US at least) that, in their legalese jargon, refer to spouses. Without a legal, formalized system of marriage, those laws all become meaningless, or at least very difficult to interpret reliably. You can only get rid of legal marriage if you get rid of or change all the laws that make use of that hallowed institution.

And one of the main, non-religious reasons why people are opposed to same-sex marriages is along the same lines: How will same-sex spouses fit into the existing laws? Some of those very laws are gender specific, and are written with the expectation that there is one male and one female involved. Those laws will need to be re-interpreted, and that leaves room for the unscrupulous to make changes to those laws for their own interests (or interest groups), or for laws to be completely thrown out or re-built from the ground up. It is the fear of how these legal changes will effect others that will make them drag their feet at the idea of legalizing same-sex marriages.

But I'm for it. Besides a basic humanistic disdain for restricting by race or gender, I like to see the system shaken up every now and then. Keeps the dark underbelly of administration from becoming fossilized.

You mean like how they got on the books in the first place?

[rant]The influence of religious dogma needs to be removed from all law and all government. As our laws stand now, a great many of them are inherantly discriminatory. I think much of the feet dragging involved in weeding that stuff out is the evangelistic nature of religion. You can't truly be tolerant of someone if you believe your mission is to make them more like you. Because religion incorporates the mandate to convert the unwashed masses, they will always try to codify it into our laws.

Until we have a true seperation of church and state we'll never achieve real tolerance or equal rights. IMHO. It's nice to see that we're slowly moving in that direction as the US becomes increasingly secular. It's strange and sad that the concept of live and let live is still such a mystery to so many. The average person just wants to feel like they're in the majority and feels threatened by anything that deviates from it by too much. Him not of my tribe... must warn village! Even without religion we still have the herding instinct to contend with, but religion is like a lens that focuses that bit of human nature to even narrower points of view.

Laws should simply be based on the best compromise between everyone's inalienable rights. The right to the pursuit of happiness most of all. I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to tell others how they can and cannot live their lives. We shouldn't be legislating morality. Government should just be in the business of providing services and a reasonable level of protection. Aren't they supposed to be working for us? I don't remember checking a box on my tax return that said "Take over world" or "Tell everyone how to live their lives." [/rant]

Hell, I have no clue why not to allow gay marraige. Who's it hurting?

In portugal we have something called "de facto" unions.
The state recognizes that two people may want to live together with a shared economy and grants them certain rights independently of gender. This union doesnt actually have to be romantic in nature. You could probably live in union with your brother or something... I dunno I'm not a lawyer =)
This was done recently so that politicians could grant gay couples rights without shocking the hordes of illiterate catholic farmers that make up most of my country.
I dont know what are the pros and cons of each but some straight couples apply for a de facto union status just to look more "in" or "sophisticated" than traditionally married couples. Oh well. There will always be weirdos.

What Sean said!

Not all religions are evangelical in nature. For instance, we Jews don't really want converts. Really. All we want is a good Chinese restaurant to eat in on Christmas.

LOL Bhodi You make a good point. I have the most respect for the Jewish faith of any of the major religions. The christian right is the big trouble maker in this country. If you're making reservations, I'd like the general tso's chicken please.

You got it, Chip! Watch out for the dim sum, though. We like to trick the goyim into eating jellied duck foot web.