Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a gay male who is, believe it or not, neutral on the issue of same-sex marriage, I'd like to ask those of you on both sides of the fence to use this new thread to try to sway me to one side or the other. In my opinion, I don't need some legal document to flaunt around in order to prove that I've committed my heart to a lifelong of loving and caring for another human being, and even if PA pushes onward with a proposed ban on same-sex marriage in the upcoming years, that won't stop me from calling my significant other "hubby" in a non-legal sense. To me, with how volatile things are currently in this nation with the ongoing war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the turbulent economy that has yet to replace all of the manufacturing and white-collar career opportunities that have been slashed over the past seven years, the growing minority of Americans without health insurance, etc., I don't think any more "breath" should be wasted over "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Then again, to the Pennsylvania Conservacrats (Socially-Conservative Democrats), this issue alone seems to trump any and all other issues brought to the table. WHY?
Someone please convince me one way or the other---Should I be fighting for equality or fade into obscurity and be grateful that the locals have matured enough to not chase us around with torches and pitchforks any longer? (Even though there's currently a local trial underway for a man who murdered another man due to his sexual orientation, but I digress). Republican Conservatives, what say you? Democratic Liberals, what say you?
If you decide to fade into obscurity, who's to say that the locals won't think that it's now ok to grab the torches and pitchforks again? Do you feel it's ok to only gain "limited" equality and sit back and relax?
To me it's like preparing for a marathon, you're at the starting line, only run a few feet, give up and say, "well at least I ran IN a marathon". Shouldnt the goal be completing the task?
The problem, as I see it, is that marriage is two separate things.
1. Marriage is a legal contract. It is helpful in regulating alllll kinds of things in our society. From real estate, to child rearing, to health benefits, to taxes. To exclude one group of people both from the benefits, and the responsibilities, of such a contract seems wrong to me.
2. Marriage is a religious construct. Many people have deeply held religious and spiritual beliefs about marriage. To deny people these feelings also feels wrong to me.
So....
I suppose, what I envision, would be a splitting of the two. The legal contract could be a "civil union". All couples, mixed-gender and same-sexed, hoping to forge a committed life together, would be eligible and would enjoy the same rights and responsibilities.
The religious side of marriage would best be left to the churches, IMO. I hate the idea of the gov't telling churches what they must and must not do.
Wow, I agree with both Madicaras and Plaidmom (and love the Where the Wild Things Are reference )
It's a tough problem, I know gays who wish they could be *formally* married.
They would like more than merely a civil union.
But you gotta start somewhere. A civil union is a beginning.
The problem, as I see it, is that marriage is two separate things.
1. Marriage is a legal contract. It is helpful in regulating alllll kinds of things in our society. From real estate, to child rearing, to health benefits, to taxes. To exclude one group of people both from the benefits, and the responsibilities, of such a contract seems wrong to me.
2. Marriage is a religious construct. Many people have deeply held religious and spiritual beliefs about marriage. To deny people these feelings also feels wrong to me.
I am only "against" (or perhaps more accurately "unsupportive") towards same-sex marriage because I spent my much of my childhood with the assumption that marriage just meant a religious union, as described in plaidmom's point #2.
I am also unimpressed about the idea of officially recognized civil unions (aka common-law marriage) among a man and a women. I think it's unfortunate that there as so many legal advantages to married people that it leaves (or left) unmarried people at an economic disadvantage.
(Obviously, this is because it helps downplay ideas of reverence towards the the title from point #2.)
Well, I think this is where PlaidMom explained the "religious" component of marriage. Most Conservatives think that by enabling same-sex marriages to occur that their own marriages will somehow be "invalidated." As for me, I couldn't care less about what others think. I attend church weekly, volunteer in my community, and I'm enthusiastic about trying to help make this area an even finer place to live for future generations. If others are going to allow my orientation to overshadow my positive contributions to their neighborhoods, then that speaks volumes moreso about their priorities and insecurities in life than my own.
I can see the dispute as follows: Most Christian denominations preach that homosexuality is an immoral sin that destines one for an eternity of brimstone. As such, by turning around and allowing same-sex couples to wed in holy matrimony in "God's house", they'd be sending mixed signals to their congregations. I must say, though, that I'm thankful that there are indeed a few GLBT-friendly churches in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, most notably among them being St. Stepehen's in Wilkes-Barre, in which around 10% of the congregration is openly-gay/lesbian. My views on religion are as follows: If someone wants to have their souls enriched with the word of God and live a productive life replete with chivalry and generosity, then why discriminate against him/her due to whom he/she loves? With how self-centered and "keeping up with the Jones's-oriented" our society, overall, has become, why alienate anyone who seeks to do good in their communities, be they straight or...gasp...even not straight.
I look at it this way. If homosexuality truly is a sin worthy of damnation, then allow those of us who are GLBT to dig our own graves and jump down into hell. Who are any of you to decide that you can take away that option for us just because "God wouldn't want it that way?" You Conservative Republicans aren't the "moral watchdogs" of America; if my partner and I wish to be entitled to the same financial and legal benefits that our straight counterparts do at some point down the line, then we should be afforded that option. You can call it "marriage", "civil union", or even
"the gay knot" for all I care. Words mean nothing; it is the action behind them that speaks volumes about those involved. If my future boyfriend and I are hellbound, then what right do people like President Bush have to try to stop us?
I relate this to the issue of public bans on smoking, trans-fats, and cell phone usage while driving (all of which have become a heated issues lately in Scranton). In each of these three cases, either other people or society as a whole are potentially harmed without a ban being enacted. For example, second-hand smoking is harmful to the health of non-smokers, as is the risk of getting rear-ended by an inattentive driver in an SUV yammering into his/her cell phone (which happened to me last year and left me with a painful minor neck injury). In the case of trans-fats, society as a whole is harmed in its collective pocketbooks to pay for medical care for those who overdose on the substance and end up with a medical condition. Now, as for gay marriage, other than "God wouldn't want it to be Adam and Steve", what concrete physical or financial harm do gays represent to non-gays by getting married? Please explain that for me. For the thousands of new same-sex couples in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont, how have they brought ill-will towards their states? When was the last time a gay couple threatened you with lung cancer, a neck injury, or skyrocketing insurance rates due to their actions (and don't chime in with the AIDS epidemic as that problem is very highly-evident in both the gay and straight communities).
I'm waiting for an answer as to how we're hurting anyone?
I'm waiting for an answer as to how we're hurting anyone?
To me, they aren't. Did you read my post?
It's not too big a big deal the government allows things I don't agree with, generally speaking. I was hoping by being candid an honest, instead of silent, you might appreciate hearing my opinion.
It's not too big a big deal the government allows things I don't agree with, generally speaking. I was hoping by being candid an honest, instead of silent, you might appreciate hearing my opinion.
I wasn't referencing you in particular at all. I did read your reply, and I respect your opinion. I actually agree with it to a large extent; it's difficult to appear to be "devout" while, at the same time, supporting gay rights. I'm moreso referring to those who have a problem with us personally, not even on a political level. In my opinion, if these people would spend more time worrying about their own marriages and less time worrying about everyone else's, then perhaps the straight divorce rate in the U.S. wouldn't be over 50%?
Please don't be so personal! LOL! ColdCanadian, I agree with you, and by "you people", I'm not referring to "ColdCanadian." I'm referring to people like President Bush.
Technically you're not directly hurting anyone. Just as coldcandian, ooh, now I desire a Molson but I digress, said that it has to do with a lot of how people were raised and what they were brought up believing. If you were brought up believing it was wrong, then you may continue to feel it is wrong. But times thee are a changin’.
I’m fully aware of the biblical verse in Leviticus that many people refer to. To them I say read Leviticus 11:10 “11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you” Hmm, I see more people openly eating clam chowder, having clam bakes, sucking down raw oysters, et al and no one seems to mind. I once used this argument against a religious person who used the anti-gay reference in Leviticus and they told me that the New Testament “mentioned” that shellfish was ok, but couldn’t tell me where exactly it said it. It’s called selective reading in my opinion.
I’ve been married for over 10 years and the only thing that could threaten my marriage is if I, or my spouse, does something to threaten it. No one’s relationship threatens ours. I have family members and lots of friends who’ve been married more than once and even more than 4 times. None of their relationships were broken up due to the “threat” of gay marriages. I’ve known people who got married to be in a committed relationship and do not desire children, some were young couples and some were much older couples. So procreation wasn’t their need. Should they be banned from marriage?
It was only about 40 years ago that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the laws against interracial marriages. Now they are common-place. Ok, some people in some places may not “approve” of them, but that’s their problem. It is only a matter of time when the youth of tomorrow will ask “why was gay marriage banned? What’s the big deal? Who’s it hurting?”
Last edited by madicarus2000; 01-24-2007 at 05:55 PM..
Reason: runoff
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my opinion, I don't need some legal document to flaunt around in order to prove that I've committed my heart to a lifelong of loving and caring for another human being, and even if PA pushes onward with a proposed ban on same-sex marriage in the upcoming years, that won't stop me from calling my significant other "hubby" in a non-legal sense. 
To me, with how volatile things are currently in this nation with the ongoing war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the turbulent economy that has yet to replace all of the manufacturing and white-collar career opportunities that have been slashed over the past seven years, the growing minority of Americans without health insurance, etc., I don't think any more "breath" should be wasted over "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." 
Then again, to the Pennsylvania Conservacrats (Socially-Conservative Democrats), this issue alone seems to trump any and all other issues brought to the table. WHY? 
)
