I beg to differ (Rant, but about the LGBT community)

Yes, this is the correct forum for political stuff.

The argument that we should leave marriage to the churches and have universal civil unions is not uncommon, but I strongly disagree with it. Words have power. I may not personally understand the attachment people have to the word "marriage," but that doesn't mean I don't recognize it. And it's a common attachment. If the government were to start calling marriages civil unions, millions of people would feel like their marriage was being yanked out from under them, made invalid. I don't really understand why, but I know that they would.

Furthermore, saying we should start calling marriages civil unions for government purposes has some pretty nasty implications. It basically admits what the (social) conservatives already say, allowing same-sex couples devalues the concept of marriage. In fact, it devalues it so much that we can't even call it marriage anymore. There may be good, valid reasons for wanting to have the government stop calling marriages marriages (though I can't think of any), but making the argument alongside the argument that same-sex couples should be legally recognized is, at best, problematic.

 

not sure about the other stuff, but i also really find it annoying when people assume im liberal, being a conservative. people act like it's impossible to be both gay and a christian conservative.

 

I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it. I do think the word marriage should be used because LGBT people should have the same kind of "marriage" as straight people. Using the term civil union makes it seem less of a legal bond. I see civil unions as a different water fountain for gays. Like the different water fountains for blacks and whites.

I plan on getting married and having children someday and I think that all Americans should have the right to be protected under the law in the same way with the same terms. I doubt the word marriage will ever be erased from the legal system. I agree with Mogget.

And yes, not all gays are Liberals. I am but not everyone who is LGBT is.

 

I beg to differ with your beg to differing.

Where'd that idea come from? Married couples get tax benefits because (it's assumed) they live together and share all expenses. Parents get different tax benefits for having children; it doesn't start from marriage but rather when the 1st kid is born. Case in point: single parents get tax benefits too.

Not to mention that you seem to be implying that straight couples should get better tax benefits BECAUSE they can have children - as someone who's been a physically barren wife in a heterosexual marriage, I take major offense to that.

Nooo, it's because "Adam and Eve" (man and woman as sacred couple) is a religious thing. Marriage existed long before Christianity began. Don't act like it's their rightful territory. Marriage is a legal term, NOT a religious one.

News flash: most pregnancies are unplanned, even (probably especially) in marriage. Even planned pregnancies are usually no more than "let's stop taking the pill and when it happens, it happens". Surrogacy and adoption take YEARS, for good reason - potential parents need to be screened appropriately. You really think you can say "I think I'll go have a baby" and then pop! One year to the date, there it is?

Not to mention babies, and older children, take a LOT of money to raise. You're talking an extra room in the house, schools, food, transportation, health care, and entertainment to a person who outgrows all his clothes and shoes every 6 months and cannot possibly contribute to your household income in any way. A few dollars in tax benefits is NOTHING.

Pardon the guessing, but you sound like someone who's had very little experience in
- marriage
- child bearing
- paying taxes.

So excuse the old fart wandering in to tell you your "moderate" stance reeks of ultra-conservative pretentiousness.

 

^ this. I completely agree with Liam. If we start calling marriage something else in order to allow gay couples to marry, then we're basically reinforcing the fact that our marriages are less than those of a heterosexual couple. And marriage itself is a social contract, not necessarily a religious one. It has been around for thousands of years, way before many of the monotheistic cultures claimed it as its own. Despite what a lot of people think, marriage is not static. It changes with the culture and the society. Therefore, instead of erasing the word completely, we should continue to fight for our right to marry and give marriage a new definition that reflects all its people and the society we live in.

Also I do agree with you that anything to the far right or to the far left can be very frustrating. The world would definitely be a much better place if we could all understand each other's point of views or at least be more moderate in our positions.

 

Oops I realized I wrote Liam instead of Mogget lol Sorry, old habit

 

Sure, accuse me of incivility. Nothing in my argument alluded to anger.

How about instead of insinuating that I misunderstood, or giving lame excuses about how you can't support your argument right now you're too tired, or insisting that you know all about the burden of child rearing because you once heard about a friend you had once who adopted so that makes you an expert in absentia, you answer the questions I set forth in my previous post? I'll type them again if needed.

And there you go with the offensive statements again. Really, asyl, if you are truly following that Oscar Wilde quote you tacked on to your signature, it speaks volumes about either your intelligence or your efforts to be a gentleman.

There! Now we've both been offended. Fairness and equality to all!

 

One of my biggest problems with our tax code is that it is used for social manipulation. Want to promote a behavior,, give a tax break food that. Want to discourage a behavior tax it.

In my opinion someone's relationship status is not a valid government interest, so they should not recognize any relationship. Marriage should be a strictly civil concept.

 

I believe that it's important for the word marriage to be used for both gay and straight relationships. Calling it something different is demeaning same-sex relationships. I don't see how religious people think it's okay to keep LGBT people out of marriage. They don't have to allow LGBT people to get married in their church (although I think the argument religious people use against gay people is fundamentally flawed) but I don't think LGBT people should be kept away from the word marriage simply because religious people disagree.

I like the term marriage a lot more than civil union personally. Marriage sounds lasting and beautiful. Civil union sounds like a business arrangement.

Marriage isn't about religion. It's about the rights you have if you are in a marriage. Civil unions don't have the same amount of rights. Marriages have more legal rights. Settling for the term civil union to me is like the whole water fountain metaphor, as I said before. "You can get kind-of married and we'll call it a civil union." "Here's a water fountain where the water isn't as good but you can still drink water huh? But it's not called water." I want water (marriage) just like everyone else. With the same benefits and the same name.

 

I think the core problem are the morally corrupt beliefs behind the religion in question that's causing this problem to arise in the first place...

My opinion is that religion has no place in politics when they already have the right to have religious freedom. So they shouldn't shove religious beliefs on to others.

(Not sure if i worded it right...oh whatever)

 

I think you misunderstand Asyl (with whom I entirely agree on this point, btw). HE's saying that nobody gets a 'marriage' under the law. Legislation relating to family law would not include the word marriage at all. Religions, of course, could bugger off and do whatever the hell they want.

And it's not really as big a deal as everyone is making out. The law is full of terminology that means entirely different things to what it does in plain English. And there wouldn't be word police running around telling people that they mustn't call their union a marriage. And it basically guarentees the religions the freedom to act as they like - Catholics can restrict their marriage to whoever they like, so can Anglicans and Lutherans and Presbyterians and Evangelical types. It basically lets them discriminate as much as they like, so I'm not entirely sure why they'd be against it. Literally the only people who would have to use the terminology would be lawyers.

Which is fine. Because 'marriage' is all about religion. It has been an ecclesiastical matter since the start of every legal system that currently exists in the West. Further, even prior to Christianity, marriage has been infused in whatever religion was popular in the place and time. I challenge anyone to come up with a society that had a marriage tradition involving no religion (I'd also be interested in any examples of same-sex marriage, if you're going to be using the ancient past as a precedent). Certainly, there are none in European history.

More to the point though, we generally don't use ancient history to try and deny how laws came about in our society. And the fact remains that, while marriage is now entirely governed by secular (rather than ecclesiastical) law and courts, we haven't jettisoned the excess baggage that came with it. Including the name, which seems to be the only thing a lot of people care about.

Oh, and they need not be called 'civil unions' at law. Feel free to think up more enticing names.

(Hopefully that was coherent. I've gotta get moving, so no time to proof read or anything :S )

 

On a side note, I too hate being regarded as a liberal/left wing because of my sexuality. Even when I say I am centrist the odd person still seems confused as to why I would be anything but liberal. But I digress.

The main issue with this argument is the one who started it. Religion. Sadly, while it is nice to dream of a society where heterosexuals and homosexuals can be married in the same context, it is as achievable as Utopia. At least, if one considers that the desired scenario is for people to feel exactly the same about both sides saying they are married.

With religion in place and very much alive and kicking, for a homosexual couple to get married there will always be people who feel anger, even if we change the law to make the term all encompassing of unions for both straight and gay couples. As such, I highly doubt this battle will ever be won in the near future nor will it be won by a simple change of policy. People are not passive individuals who will change their minds once the law has. The reason why the connotations of marriage have survived is because of man and his memory.

While I would logically point out that discouraging religion absolutely would solve our problem, it would not. Marriage will always remain in some section of society as the bond between a man and woman before God/whatever-supreme-being-you-care-to-desire and as homosexuals are in small numbers and therefore the minority it is going to be a near impossible task to turn the majority to our favour. Even if, by some miracle, a homosexual world leader was elected into office in the near future he/she would not be able to miraculously solve the issue.

While we do not have the perfect lot, I would suggest that we take our time and dim down our argument over marriage because the more we demand, the more people are going to react negatively towards it. An analogy would be the petulant child: the more he demands the chocolate bar, the less chance he will ever get it. We should bide our time and move policy and Government in small steps as massive steps always anger and we end up back at square one.

Patience will always be the tool of the homosexual in our battle for equality, we do have millennia of prejudice to work against therefore forcing our way through will not succeed. While it may not happen soon enough in my lifetime that I may enjoy calling me and my partner married, I can only hope to work so that future generations of homosexuals can enjoy the benefits of being equal and not be regarded less because I selfishly demanded from the Government.

 

I agree ... "fair" and "equal" are not the same sometimes. But why does the term marriage have to change? Why does the term "marriage" have to be associated with Christianity or with any religion. In other countries and even in the states, people who get "married" are not all Christian. Being of a certain faith isn't a requirement for marriage, and neither is the desire or ability to bear children. There is a culture and history behind the concept of marriage. Denying same-sex couples this right to call their relationship a marriage is neither fair nor equal.

I'm not too sure where exactly it is, I think New Hampshire, but wasn't there talk in one of the states as recent as 2011 that they wanted gay marriages to be identified as civil unions AND make civil unions availiable to siblings and family members? I don't know about you, but that sounds like a slap in the face for me.

**** These are just some excerpts from Judge Walker California Prop 8 trial in 2010 ****
Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States...

The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic
partnerships....

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. .... The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship....

Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each
other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law.

Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals. ....
******************************************************************

 

Asyl, the way I understand your argument is that, since both sides of the debate can't agree (or more correctly the LGBT community wants the same rights as everyone else) that we should take the word "marriage" away from both sides. kinda like the parent who takes away the toy from one child when both children want it, correct?

I think you're conflating the religious concept of marriage and the legal entity known as marriage. right wingers (of the non-libertarian bent) want to deny both forms of marriage to gays. The religious concept is of no use in talking about since anyone is free to believe what they wish. The legal concept is the one that is at hand. The gay community isn't arguing for the Catholic Church to recognize gay marriage, they're looking for legal recognition.

speaking legally then, what do you think of this quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(emphasis mine)

This is taken from the 14th Amendment and was used as the basis for Loving V. Virginia, the SCOTUS decision that overturned the state's ability to ban interracial marriage.