I read post after post about the debates of legalizing gay marriage, and the reoccurring theme seems to be the preservation of a "traditional marriage". Truthfully, I don't know that much about politics or religion, for that matter. I am under the impression that marriage in the eyes of the gov't is just a contract between two people that allows them certain special rights or privileges under the law (as in tax benefits, visitation rights, beneficiary rights, and so on). My issue is that I don't understand what the argument for traditional marriage in the eyes of the gov't. Maybe some of you here can explain the moral issues or other arguments from the opposition so that I can begin to understand the argument. Are they saying the founding fathers didn't want this changed? How is this debated in other countries with similar governments? Why are their so many issues with trying to make it acceptable in churches? Why do they even refer to religion within this discussion? I am just confused why religion is central to the debate. I would think it would be the churches decision whether or not to allow or perform a ceremony, but wouldn't the only thing that would matter is the binding contract in the eyes of the gov't. Also, why does the gov't differentiate between married couples and single people? I don't see why it should matter when it comes to taxes and benefits. Why would it not be the same for everyone? As an example, I pay into a retirement plan that will payout a certain amount when I turn a certain age. Someone who is married for 10 years and pays the same amount into the same retirement plan will receive the same benefit for themselves and then their spouse will also receive and additional benefit of exactly half his retirement earnings. This plan is setup and regulated by the United States government. I'm not sure why we wouldn't receive the same benefits? Your thoughts?
It's the conservatives. They vehemently fight against the breaking of their religious convictions. Some Dems do too. With a majority of the people in the political scene holding their religious beliefs over what can help people, not much can be done. Some people can't get past the whole separation of church and state thing, I guess.
Thanks for the response. I guess I'm looking for what the arguments are from either political party. I catch clips of a persons stance on an issue from time to time, but I never see a detailed response on how they come to that conclusion and how it is interpreted within our constitution.
http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/001012.html http://hiphoprepublican.com/general/2010/02/10/a-conservative-argument-against-same-sex-marriage/ Hmm... a couple links...they don't really say much about specific reasons relating to the Constitution, though... Someone will probably be along soon to post something better than I can. I personally don't see why socially conservative people absolutely cannot tolerate the idea, but I'm probably a little biased.
Currently in the U.S., marriage is a legal institution that two people (of opposite sexes only, in most states) may enter into for the benefit of themselves. There is no obligation to society attached to the union. Two people who each consent to marry the other is the only prerequisite. Some people hold their marriage ceremonies in a religious establishment, but this is irrelevant. It is a legal institution. There is no threat to the legal institution of marriage that comes with allowing same-sex marriages. However, increased social acceptance of homosexuality is a giant threat to the already-crumbling credibility of religion, ergo religious zealots have no problem butting into the -legal- matter with poorly-veiled excuses and platitudes to try to make their cause seem like anything other than a desire to hold on to as many sheep as they can.
The main reasons marriage is important as far as the people involved are concerned (in a legal sense) are things like getting automatic power of attorney, hospital visitation rights etc. The taxes and pensions thing doesn't make sense to me (though I guess the pension thing is to do with supporting the partner who stayed home to raise children and therefore couldn't save as much). In the end it all comes down to kids. Men wanted to marry some chick so no one else could knock her up, now the descendants of men who thought like that want to stop marriages if there are no babies involved. I kind of get the feeling that some of these men are one step away from pregnancy coercion.
Religion claims that marriage is theirs and has to be protected. Marriage has existed since before any modern religion. It is a legal institution not a religious one.
I think the major argument on the right to the "preservation of a traditional marriage", is not so much to block gay rights as it is to prevent a change in what they understand or believe "marriage" is. The left always argues that marriage is just a "legal" word, but to many on the right, the legallity of marriage is not what's important. To many on the right, "marriage" is the recognition of the binding of a man and a woman before something more important than themselves, usually God. Thus, many on the right see the state permitting gay-marriages which are relatively new to the "marriage scene" as changing how they understand marriage. This is the reason why many states cannot pass "gay-marriage" but can politically permit "civil unions". Moreover, in many states there is legally little or no difference between marriage and civil unions. Again, its the meaning of the word which is important. While "marriage" is now a legal institution as well as a religious one, it has been largely an institution of religion for hundreds of years. The benefits of marriage which come from the state are relatively recent, considering the Church for so long was the only institution that recorded marriages & deaths. I guess, that's generally how I see the argument from the right. Don't get me wrong, there are bigots that hate gays on the right and extremists that hate the Church & religious people on the left -- neither of which help this debate. But I think for most on the right, the above is true.
The reasons for marriage started from the desire to protect the women and any children had from the union from being left wanting should it dissolve as women typically didn't have a job traditionally. However now those reason no longer exists, and child support laws replace any need to protect the children via marriage. The pageant itself is totally the showcasing of the women passing from the protection of her family to the the care of her husband. Anyone that thinks that the pageantry isn't all for the women and her female family and friends is out of their skulls. Thus in my opinion the institution is moot and dead. You want a ceremony have one for you two and don't bother to get the state involved. Want the legal protections there are a million other ways to get them. To be honest marriage in my opinion is just some peoples way of getting the state and thus society as a whole to tell them their union is ok and well if you really need that..... I don't have a lot to say.
I find it really pointless that straight people argue about our right to marry. Is it really going to change their lives if we have the same rights as heteros?
Yes it is, but I challenge you to name an historical society where marriage was not strongly linked to religion. Nonetheless, when we are so strongly informed that marriage is a legal institution, I can never understand why some people are unwilling to accept the same legal rights under a different name.
There's three rings: The Engagement Ring The Wedding Ring The Suffering ok now seriously, Religion lay claim to the rights to marriage, however it's an institution much older than modern religion, like other 'borrowed' traditions like Christmas & Easter, it had its roots in older institutions first, and was appropriated to become part of their institution in order to draw the masses peacefully.
My concept of marriage is this: If you wake up next to someone and they haven't brushed their teeth, washed their face, are wearing elastic waist pants, and you want to kiss them anyway, then that's marriage. Marriage is loving someone so much that you think about them before you think about yourself. Marriage is knowing someone so well you can get their Starbucks order right in your sleep. Marriage is bringing your partner home something to make them smile because you had a bad day and just seeing them be happy can brighten it. Very rarely can you find this type of love anymore, which is why I think marriage has become obsolete in a romantic sense. Legally my opinion is different: The legal institution of marriage is total bullshit. Who wants to willingly enter an institution anyway? Clearly the legal side is crucial in our fight to equality, but only because if someone we've invested 50+ years with dies we could be ousted from the life we built with that person just because the government refuses to recognize our union is the same as theirs. Maybe not the argument we're going for, but its how I feel.
I completely agree. Purely for this thread, I decided to pollute Mr Eames (my laptop) by going to the ProtectMarriage.com website, who were for Proposition 8. The subject that kept cropping up was children and schools. If same-sex marriage is legalized, it will be taught alongside opposite marriage. They don't want it to be taught in school because children will begin to ask questions and they don't want their children to learn about homosexuality, thinking it's acceptable etc, how is that NOT homophobic? If people are not arguing for it not because of the children, but to keep marriage 'traditional', how does NOT keeping it 'traditional' affect you? You're not going to have to marry someone of the same-sex, you don't have to divorce your husband/wife, you're going to be forced to even make friends with a same-sex couple, it's just ... there. When I was little, I ask to say what I thought marriage was (I was about 11 at the time when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was passed) and I said "When a man and a woman love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together." Or something along those lines. When my teacher told the class about Civil Partnerships, I didn't bat an eyelid. It didn't turn me gay, it didn't confuse me, nor did it make me cry or question my parents marriage. I know I'm bisexual but I knew I was before I was 11. Definition now: When two people make a promise to love, be loyal, protect each other, be faithful to one an other for the rest of their lives.
Religion gets involved namely because they believe marriage to be a religious institution and want to create a theocracy. Re-fixed.
