the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Gay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? posted 27 Jul 2004, 21:07 by Grantaire, Moderator

Why? This is a rather controversial issue, and I don't want this to degenerate into senseless ideological argument, so please back up your opinion. Myself, I am for it. I think that the institution of marriage should be allowed for anyone, because if you love eachother, you shouldn't be denied that formality in your relationship. I think that the religious right is freaking out about the issue a bit too much, and not thinking of the simple solution- if they don't support it, then don't get married to someone of the same sex. view post


posted 27 Jul 2004, 21:07 by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Couldn't agree more. This could turn into a philosophy thread. view post


posted 28 Jul 2004, 01:07 by Grantaire, Moderator

Maybe Sovin, but I placed it here first, because I think peoples religious and societal views are the major influence here, as opposed to philosophy. view post


posted 28 Jul 2004, 04:07 by legatus, Auditor

I see marriage as an affirmation of love and commitment between two people. A gay couple is no less capable of being in love and commited to one another than a straight couple, so it seems silly to disallow them the right to make an affirmation of those things by way of marriage. view post


posted 28 Jul 2004, 04:07 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Before I can be persuaded fully to be in favor of this, I want to see a complete overhaul of the custody system. Because if we have a situation in which there isn't an expected husband/wife duo, we better have a legal provision for how to divy up custody in case of divorce. Otherwise, all hell might break loose. view post


posted 28 Jul 2004, 05:07 by Clarkesworld Books, Peralogue

I don't mind this at all. I have several friends who are gay and don't see why they should be denied the advantages and disadvantages of marriage. (The big disadvantage is you pay more in taxes. The advantages far outweigh this, like healthcare, inheritance, etc) -Neil view post


posted 28 Jul 2004, 05:07 by legatus, Auditor

[quote="Aldarion":1jb8rclm]Before I can be persuaded fully to be in favor of this, I want to see a complete overhaul of the custody system. Because if we have a situation in which there isn't an expected husband/wife duo, we better have a legal provision for how to divy up custody in case of divorce. Otherwise, all hell might break loose.[/quote:1jb8rclm] I doubt all hell would break loose, as I imagine custody hearings could still be handled on a case by case basis, but I do agree that it would be wise to examine changes to as many related laws as possible when tackling the marriage issue. There have been a few stumbling blocks in the wake of legalised gay marriage up here, for example, since related divorce laws weren't revised to coincide with the legalisation of gay marriage. The situation with a gay couple being allowed to get married but having trouble breaking things off if the marriage doesn't work out because divorce laws still speak in strict terms of a man and a woman could've been avoided had legalisation been more thoroughly handled in the first place. I do worry that trying to be too inclusive when it comes to overhauling related laws may draw out the process to an unreasonable degree though. view post


posted 28 Jul 2004, 17:07 by Grantaire, Moderator

That's true Larry, but I think that if it were to be legalized, they would very likely address that point. Oh, and also, to counter another religious right point, they say that legalizing gay marriage will mess up family structure and all that, generally mess up the family unit- I think it would be better to be the adopted child of a gay couple who are kind and loving, than to be the child of parents who are alcoholics, abusive, etc- which there is certainly already a lot of in the world. view post


posted 29 Jul 2004, 03:07 by Orion_metalhead, Auditor

im for gay marriage. love is a bond between two people who love each other in every sense, emotionally, sexually, and whatever other ways you can love someone. just because someone loves someone of the same sex doesnt mean that they cant be married. plus for health reasons its probably much better. view post


posted 29 Jul 2004, 03:07 by Taliesin, Peralogue

I'm for it, for pretty much the reasons already stated. And, as far as the perceived threat to traditional marriage, no gay person actually wants to undermine marriage's place in our society, but rather to legitimate their own status as a part of society... or something like that. view post


posted 17 Aug 2004, 22:08 by drosdelnoch, Subdidact

I really dont see the problem with it. After all if two people are in love why shouldnt they be able to show thier commitment before thier deity. The fact that it doesnt increase the religious population is probably why its been frowned upon for so many years by the religious bodies, after all in the Roman Catholic church after so many children you get a telegram from the pope. view post


posted 18 Aug 2004, 07:08 by Epitaphs, Candidate

It's a real love fest for homosexuals in here, isn't it? Which is nice. It's good to see people not breaking down into societal moles and preaching about the undermining possibilities of two dudes/dudettes marrying and realizing that hey, they're just people too. And that if John and Jeff get married, it isn't nearly the same thing as me wanting to marry a turtle, even a female turtle. Some dumbass Senator(or Rep., but definitely a man voted into office by we the people)actually compared the two! Jesus. view post


posted 18 Aug 2004, 08:08 by Taliesin, Peralogue

Actually, the box turtle remark was apparently in his written remarks as given to the press ahead of time, but he decided it was inappropriate and didn't include it in the actual speech. Here it is, though: "It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife." -- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation. view post


posted 18 Aug 2004, 17:08 by Wil, Head Moderator

Texas, suprise, suprise. view post


posted 18 Aug 2004, 19:08 by Taliesin, Peralogue

Hey, I didn't vote for him! :wink: view post


posted 26 Aug 2004, 23:08 by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Sure, Buddy! view post


posted 04 Sep 2004, 04:09 by AjDeath, Didact

Gotta love The Heritage foundation, pshh. My take on this is that I will treat everyone how I wish to be treated myself. I do not want people telling me what to believe, how I should live etc. So, I will not tell anyone else how to live. Even though I myself cannot see why they are what they are, I realize that they are human beings and deserve every right that we have made up for ourselves. As long as nobody murders and such(insert morally unexceptable crime here), people should generally do what they want. But I am an optimist... :roll: :P view post


posted 10 Sep 2004, 01:09 by tellner, Peralogue

[quote:2j9pcg8s]"A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin."-H.L. Mencken [/quote:2j9pcg8s] "Cynic - a blackguard whose faulty vision causes him to see things as they are, not as they should be. Hence the custom of the ancienct Scythians of plucking out the eyes of a cynic to improve his vision - Ambrose Bierce" :wink: In any case, I hope the courts finally allow the Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) ordinance permitting gay marriage to stand. We have the highest unemployment in the US; our tourism industry could use the boost. view post


posted 10 Sep 2004, 06:09 by Wil, Head Moderator

you're in portland? I am too. view post


posted 10 Sep 2004, 19:09 by AjDeath, Didact

@Tellner-Please do not rip out my eyes. view post


posted 09 Dec 2004, 05:12 by Nauticus, Auditor

I'm for it. Though I'm Canadian and have little say in the US Constitution, I support the idea of marriage = love, not genre. That said, though, my stance is a bit biased... since, of course, I'm gay myself hah. So obviously, I'd likely not be against my own rights... Even so, the only argument against it is the religious one, and the government shouldn't be influenced by religion (separation of church and state), so I don't see a very good argument against it. Luckily, I'm in Canada, where it's already legal in many provinces. view post


posted 09 Dec 2004, 14:12 by Aesmael, Candidate

In a religious sense, provided there is some quality or role set aside specifically for the union between man and woman, probably not. I could not say if this is in fact the case, however I presume it is on the basis of the strenuous objections I hear about from religious figures. In the legal sense, absolutely yes, with all the rights and obligations that 'make sense' (the previous phrase being used on the basis of my not knowing what, exactly, that entails). I strongly suspect (or perhaps would like to believe) that in most cases where religious concerns would make gay marriage inappropriate, it is the religion that needs changing. Huh. Is that the first actual stance I have taken on anything here? view post


posted 10 Dec 2004, 04:12 by Nauticus, Auditor

[quote="Aesmael":2zl7f371]I strongly suspect (or perhaps would like to believe) that in most cases where religious concerns would make gay marriage inappropriate, it is the religion that needs changing.[/quote:2zl7f371] Very well said. view post


posted 10 Dec 2004, 06:12 by neongrey, Peralogue

Shouldn't even be a religious issue. It's not like any of this is tying down religions of -any- nature and saying, 'you have to recognize these marriages in any way, shape, or form'. It's the legal things of it that are being permitted/not permitted. Anything else, I mean, would be a violation of the church/state separation you've got down there, right? ... of course, so would failing to legalize it for religious reasons, no? view post


posted 15 Dec 2004, 05:12 by Fell, Peralogue

I used to have some serious doubts about the federal government here in Canada, but now I can say I am proud of the parliamentarians that pushed ahead with the legalization of homosexual marriage. I do believe it's a bond between two people in love, and as gender lines blur with the advent of our ever-increasing communication culture, lines of love, lust, and friendship will continue to blur even more (or so I presume). I am comfortable in who I am and even though I do not find men attractive, I am not so ignorant to rule out that there might be a chance that my soulmate could possibly be a man. Ya just never know. Unfortunately, here in Alberta, a.k.a. Texas North, King Ralph and his goons are trying to find a way to shift marriage licences wholly over to the realm of the Church to take away the effect of the federal government saying that marriage is constituted only by them — and they say gay marriage is legal. I so despise Klein. view post


posted 17 Feb 2005, 13:02 by Echoex, Auditor

"King Ralph and his goons are trying to find a way to shift marriage licences wholly over to the realm of the Church to take away the effect of the federal government saying that marriage is constituted only by them — and they say gay marriage is legal." The state of matrimony is a purely religious institution. I'm not defending it -- I assure you. I'm a devote aetheist. It wasn't until the last couple of centuries that marriage became a government institution and it was done for three major reasons: 1) It was a great way to ensure that people weren't having little bastard children. 2) It was a great way for the government to register people once they reached the 'age of reason' (as though reason and marriage have any business hanging out together). 3) The Church refused to grant people divorces (divorce is a sin), and marriages can't be annulled once they've been consumated. The government recognized this as a threat to the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so effectively began granting divorces (in the eyes of the law). In fact, if I recall correctly, one of the first few divorces granted in Canada was done as a favour when a high-ranking government official wanted to marry another man's wife. So it would be more correct to say that Ralph Klein is trying to force the statutories of marriage BACK onto the Church. As for my position on this issue: Let gays marry. Everyone should have to suffer the fates of the wedded. view post


posted 25 Feb 2005, 16:02 by sukoudo, Commoner

First of all, I think I should say that in my opinion, marriage should stay 'under the rule' of the government. If granting marriage liscences was left up to the churches, half this world would not be allowed their inherent right to marry whom they choose. Not everyone lives their life under the rules of a certain religion, but we [b:15ljek7c]all[/b:15ljek7c] live under the rules of the government. Does that make sense?? Anyways, I'm all for gay marriages, and being here in Beautiful British Columbia, if I decide that I want to marry the woman next door, I certainly could. Marriage is certainly about the love, not the gender, religion or any other factor. If two people are in love, they should be able to make the commitment of marriage. That's my two bits. ~Meg view post


posted 07 Mar 2005, 12:03 by Echoex, Auditor

I'm not disagreeing with you, but let me play the devil's advocate. What if the love is between a 40 year old man and a 14 year old boy? Should they be able to marry? They know they're in 'love'. By your definition of marriage, any two sentient beings who are in 'love' should be able to get married. Marriage laws are in place to protect more than just gender. Opponents argue that -- once the current definition of marriage is changed -- it leaves room for the entire definition of marriage to erode to nothingness. view post


posted 07 Mar 2005, 19:03 by neongrey, Peralogue

A 40 year old man can marry a 14 year old girl, too, or at least screw her. That's an age of consent issue, not an issue of orientation. view post


posted 09 Mar 2005, 06:03 by Faelcind Il Danach, Peralogue

I can't think of any good reason the State should dicate who can get married. Homosexuals have every right to form long term domestic partnership with the same benefits as heterosexuals, I don't get the attachment to the word marriage on either side but I think a logical comprimise for the goverment to give up on marriage completely and give out civil union instead with churches deciding who gets "married" or not. view post


posted 29 Mar 2005, 13:03 by Echoex, Auditor

The government dictates who can marry because the church is too irresponsible to make that decision. I'll go back to an earlier analogy (and modify it slightly for my purpose): What if a 60 year old man wanted to marry an 8 year old girl and he found a church that condoned that behaviour? Now, assume that the girl's parents belonged to that same church and 'allowed' that man to marry their daughter. Organized religions pass laws based on mythological precedence. This is imperfect for a couple of reasons: 1) Mythos doesn't change or evolve. What was considered acceptable 2000 years ago might not be considered acceptable today. 2) Mythos is created in the mind. In the mind, anything can be considered 'true' or 'correct'. But that doesn't mean that these things translate correctly in the real world. Government (when at its most perfect state) passes laws based on facts, protection, free-will, and morality. If given the choice, I'd rather sleep with a beast I know than a beast I only think I know. view post


posted 01 Apr 2005, 05:04 by Wil, Head Moderator

[quote="Echoex":10mn4tax] Marriage laws are in place to protect more than just gender. Opponents argue that -- once the current definition of marriage is changed -- it leaves room for the entire definition of marriage to erode to nothingness.[/quote:10mn4tax] I know that you are playing devil's advocate, but the above argument is a "slippery slope" argument and is considered an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator. I do not think it is fair to say that allowing homosexuals to marry will cause the meaning of marriage to erode into nothingness just like I do not think that letting women vote will erode the definition of voting. To take another's argument and taking it to the complete extreme is not fair and I think its dirty debating. Just my two cents. view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 13:04 by Echoex, Auditor

Oh, I agree with you (to a point). I certainly don't believe that allowing same-sex marriage will cause any significant snags in our moral fabric. I'm a 'worst-case scenerio' kind of guy and approach each situation as such. You're from the United States. I'm amused that you're not a little more gun-shy on this topic, considering the United States' history of abuse of its own Bill of Rights. Perhaps if someone had played the devil's advocate on that fateful September 25th, 1789, there would have been a 13th Amendment that would have went something like: "No man or woman, having spilled a hot beverage on him or herself by his or her own stupidity, shall place blame for that stupidity on the establishment where which that beverage was purchased..." Or perhaps: "No persons who have knowingly eaten too much fast food and grown obese as a result, may charge another human being for his or her own lack of restraint. Instead, that person must 'suck it up' and take responsibility for his or her inability to function in a logical society." The moral of this story is that the most extreme and seemingly unbelievable results come from the slightest of decisions. view post


posted 05 Apr 2005, 01:04 by Wil, Head Moderator

To be fair, in the McDonalds case, the store in question was keeping the coffee at above regulation temperature so they did not have to make more. Not to mention their containers are for shit. (I do not believe that it was appropriate for her to sue the company, she did put it between her legs after all) I'm confused, what were you suprised I wasn't gun-shy of? view post


posted 05 Apr 2005, 16:04 by Echoex, Auditor

Sorry. I was a little vague. I'm surprised that you were so blatant in dressing me down for my earlier comments. I would think that -- coming from a nation where the worst-case scenario is the norm -- you would have supported someone who examines all possible outcomes. view post


posted 11 Apr 2005, 20:04 by Wil, Head Moderator

I apologize if you thought I was being agressive, I in no way ment to. This is a sensitive subject for me, as a Gay Male American. I can get a little defensive because I feel like it is my rights that are being denied. I also cannot stand the "slippery-slope" argument because it applies to almost all situations and you can use it in any way you want to get the resutls you want. view post


posted 21 Apr 2005, 11:04 by Echoex, Auditor

No offence taken, I assure you. I appreciate healthy debate. I'll find another context, and perhaps you can offer me your position on the subject. The Miss America Pageant is designated for women between a certain age-range. We're talking women who were born women. Assume, now, that a pre-op transgender male (who is absolutely certain he/she is supposed to be a woman) wants to enter the contest. Let's also assume that this transgender male has fulfilled all the prior requirements to entering the contest. Is it a violation of his/her rights if they deny him/her that opportunity? view post


posted 21 Apr 2005, 19:04 by Scilvenas, Auditor

Well, if said transgendered person had already won all the contests that would allow him to enter the Miss World pageant, he's obviously good. If he can compete, why not? Unless we all just admit that the only reason we really watch such things are for the hot chicks and ensuing carnal desires that arise. view post


posted 27 Apr 2005, 11:04 by Echoex, Auditor

I watch it for the hot chicks. I wouldn't want to be the lucky fellow who unwraps that Lil' Debbie Snack Cake only to discover a wiener in my twinkie. Assume that this transgender somehow slipped past all the pre-pageant qualifications some how. view post


posted 02 May 2005, 03:05 by neongrey, Peralogue

So they look exactly like a woman. They act exactly like a woman. In six months or a year, they're going to -be- a woman. I don't see a problem. view post


posted 02 May 2005, 16:05 by Echoex, Auditor

Really? Okay. Let's change the context (yet again). A straight male picks up a post-op transgender at a bar under the assumption that this transgender is, and always has been, a female. Is that transgender under any obligation to reveal his/her dark little secret? view post


posted 03 May 2005, 05:05 by neongrey, Peralogue

Obligation? No. I think it would be -nice- of them, if any real relationship came of it, but I don't see that they should feel they have to. view post


posted 05 May 2005, 11:05 by Echoex, Auditor

So if you found out somehow, would you stay with that person? And answer honestly. It's easy to take the moral high-road and say "love is love", but the desire for humans to codepend on like-sexually oriented humans is too strong. view post


posted 08 May 2005, 05:05 by sciborg2, Candidate

A post-trans person *should* tell the person they are going out with. Now, if its just casual sex or less, its more grey in my mind. I'd like to know if the person I'm with was born a certain gender or not. As for gay marriage, I have no problems with it. Now, I don't think anyone should get any marriage benefits for at least five years, unless they have children in that time. But anyone raising a child should get benefits. What I hate is the idea that marriage is some magical solution to problems that are created through economic decisions. The end truth is that gay marriage is a smoke screen for the abuse of corporate/governmental power by both parties. But people are apparently dumb enough to believe you can feed your starving children homophobia. view post


posted 09 May 2005, 18:05 by neongrey, Peralogue

[quote="Echoex":3gew7iqj]So if you found out somehow, would you stay with that person? And answer honestly. It's easy to take the moral high-road and say "love is love", but the desire for humans to codepend on like-sexually oriented humans is too strong.[/quote:3gew7iqj] Depends on the circumstances, on how it was kept from me, and on how the relationship was going, and so on and so forth. In the end, if I did dump him, it would probably because such a majour, life-affecting event was kept from me, and not from something like 'he used to be a girl'. view post


posted 12 May 2005, 11:05 by Echoex, Auditor

Well, kudos to everyone for successfully painting over their real feelings. I'll be the lone dog who bites the baby. If I found out that my girlfriend / wife / lover (whatever) used to be another gender, I would run. I would rinse my mouth out with cyanide and Javex, and I would scrub my flesh to pristine bloody shreds with sulphuric acid and an SOS pad. When I was young and I learned that Muffy from "Today's Special" was actually a little boy mouse, I was upset because it fractured my own inherent understanding of gender-identification. view post


posted 17 May 2005, 08:05 by neongrey, Peralogue

My morals are clearly different than yours. Please do not state my feelings are not 'real' simply because you feel differently. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.