what are the possible affects of gay marriage?

[Sunstone]

Sometime when I'm drinking I'll share with you the gospel song I wrote a few weeks ago, "Gays and lesbians destroyed my marriage." It's the lament of a good Christian heterosexual whose life was wrecked when homosexuals destroyed the sanctity of his marriage. Probably be a big hit on Christian radio.

I'd love to hear that!

I think the notion that heterosexuals can somehow destroy the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage is on the same level with a belief in pixies.

 

[McBell]

I'd love to hear that!

I think the notion that heterosexuals can somehow destroy the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage is on the same level with a belief in pixies.

I like the story that same sex marriage seriously ups the number of children born out of wedlock.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

If the "safe sex" people had their way I would imagine that there would be an increase in the purchase of prophylactics and water based lubricants. I have numerous stocks invested in various companies that manufacture these types of items so I will vote for a candidate that will address these issues and give me the safest bet on them.

 

[MoonWater]

If the "safe sex" people had their way I would imagine that there would be an increase in the purchase of prophylactics and water based lubricants. I have numerous stocks invested in various companies that manufacture these types of items so I will vote for a candidate that will address these issues and give me the safest bet on them.

uhh... this thread is to discuss SAME sex not safe sex,:sorry1:

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

in what ways will gays having the legal right to marry the person they love affect society?

will it make it easier for gays to adopt? is that a good thing or a bad thing?

will it lead the way towards polygamous and incestuous marriages? can you open one gate so to speak, but not the others?

feel free to debate any other ways gay marriage could affect society.

This was a big topic in my marriage and family class. I actually wrote a paper on it, although it's probably gone by now.
What the class kinda concluded was that the major way it will affect society is through the traditions americans hold to, and traditions in the religious institutions. Traditions are very central to lots of americans, and allowing gay marriage will invite an intense feeling of unraveling there. In the religious institutions for many hetero couples they might feel like it has taken something away from the religious rite of "marriage." I still don't have an opinion set in stone about it, but I do know that allowing gay marriage would cause a big hot mess one way or the other.

I do think it would make it easier to adopt, although it still might not be allowed. What I believe they should do to avoid the "hot mess," it make a different process thats very similar for gay marriages. You can call it whatever you like, but being politically correct about it (and I hate politcal correctness 99% of the time) in this case might make a way for the gay/lesbian community to get all the same legal benefits of marriage and such without as much pushback.

 

[Smoke]

I do know that allowing gay marriage would cause a big hot mess one way or the other.

Why?

What sort of religious traditions will "unravel"?

How will same-sex marriages affect traditional marriages? Compare to interracial marriages and to divorce and remarriage.

Isn't the rage of people who feel they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others really the only "hot mess" that would result?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The religious right has a problem with the word marriage. Yes, I know, we think we have a monopoly on the word. The only solution to the problem that I see would be to call your union something different or get the state out of the marriage business all together.

Separate but equal is unjust, but much more fair that the current situation. It is a baby step in the right direction and is better than no step at all. Don't ask don't tell was an improvement was it not? Another generation will have to pass before total equality in relationships can be achieved.

My solution to the problem has always been, get the state out of the marriage business all together. The legal union would be called something different and make no distinctions about a persons gender period. It is not a marriage, it is a legal contract no different than a prenup.

People could enter these agreements and not be required to marry. You should be allowed to make legal agreements with anyone and for that matter, with as many folks as you wish.

Legal issues aside, people should be allowed to marry in their churches without state interference. These marriages would not endow anyone with any legal rights, that would be another issue all together and would be defined by a state controlled legal paper separate from the marriage.

In other words, you should not have to be married to have rights and agreements between any couple. The state should handle this and religion would have nothing to say or do about legal agreements.

Just as the state should stay out of spiritual affairs and getting married should be a spiritual union only. It would be up to a church to decide who gets married. Gays and Lesbians could get married in certain churches and that would be no different than say a evangelical Christian who refused to convert to Catholicism would not be able to get married by a priest.

Religion should stay out of the affairs and legal agreements people enter into and the state should stay out of religious unions. I would think this could be easily done because there should be a separation of church and state. How can the state be involved in marriages and say they are seperated?

We get to vote on what the state does, but we have no say about what churches decide to do or not do involving marriages.

Separate church and state in regards to the marriage issue and you have removed the stumbling block for same sex couples having equality in relationships.

As long as we can vote on issues like these, there will be a problem. The religious right looks upon the same sex marriage issue like we must endorse your marriage. That is not going to happen.

It is a whole lot easier to remove this stumbling block than to change public opinion. A whole generation will have to die first for that to happen.

 

[Nanda]

What becomes of the atheists who wish to marry in your plan, Rick?

 

[Reverend Rick]

What becomes of the atheists who wish to marry in your plan, Rick?

Good question Nanda. I would first say that many atheists would not get married but just enter into legal agreements and go home.

Another way of looking at it is atheists do have a religion and a right to a ceremony. If there would be a need for an atheist ceremony, there would be no restrictions from them having one. It could be in the park, their home, or they could even build an atheist church and elect clergy just like any other religion does.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

Why?

What sort of religious traditions will "unravel"?

More like the people just feeling the sanctity will be encroached on I guess.

How will same-sex marriages affect traditional marriages? Compare to interracial marriages and to divorce and remarriage.

Interracial, and divorce and remarriage are in a completely different category because they are still hetero I'd imagine.

Isn't the rage of people who feel they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others really the only "hot mess" that would result?

yes. I believe that woud be hittin it right on the head. If there are denominations that will have gay pators and such, if gay marriage were passed, it probably would be possible to go to these places and have the marriage done in a church.

 

[Nanda]

Good question Nanda. I would first say that many atheists would not get married but just enter into legal agreements and go home.

No, no, no... There are several homosexual atheists in this very thread fighting for their right to marry, why would you think that?

Another way of looking at it is atheists do have a religion

*sigh* No...

and a right to a ceremony. If there would be a need for an atheist ceremony, there would be no restrictions from them having one.

Not if religions are solely in charge of who gets married.

It could be in the park, their home, or they could even build an atheist church and elect clergy just like any other religion does.

Please tell me this is a joke. I really want to believe that you're kidding.

 

[blackout]

The state/govt should allow for legal unions/partnerships
between any gender/number of partners/parties ... or else none.

This is true for business partnerships,
is it not?
That is how the state should see/handle it.

Now as far as things like meaning...
ceremony, vows, expectations, traditions(or not) and the like...
that is for the individuals involved to create/arrange/make
and should have nothing to do with the (mass) state at all.
(after all it is not the state's "business"/entity)
Only the individual's state of mind, outlook and being.

I just don't see any issue there.

 

[Smoke]

As long as we can vote on issues like these, there will be a problem. The religious right looks upon the same sex marriage issue like we must endorse your marriage. That is not going to happen.

That is because you believe the state must reflect your religious opinion. You are unable to distinguish between the things of god and the things of the world, and you imagine yourselves to have authority over all other citizens.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No, no, no... There are several homosexual atheists in this very thread fighting for their right to marry, why would you think that?

*sigh* I said "many", not all. You are good at finding exceptions Nanda. Who would stop them from having a ceremony under my plan?

*sigh* No...

I know of many members of RF who consider atheism a religious belief.

Not if religions are solely in charge of who gets married.

I never meant that. Where did I use the words solely in charge? Anyone could perform a ceremony, geeze!

Please tell me this is a joke. I really want to believe that you're kidding.

Why? are you saying you could not build an atheist church? If there are so many folks who are atheists who want to be married they even could start a gay lesbian athesist church if they wanted, or just have the ceremony where ever they like. Who would stop them if the state was out of the marriage business?

 

[Reverend Rick]

That is because you believe the state must reflect your religious opinion. You are unable to distinguish between the things of god and the things of the world, and you imagine yourselves to have authority over all other citizens.

No, I believe the state should represent the wishes of the majority and not the minority. As soon as we remove the state out of the marriage business, this also removes the religious right from having the majority control of the state that excludes you.

In my state, 75% of the voters said that a marriage is between one man and one woman. Why am I the enemy when I am trying to help your plight?

 

[Francine]

I know of many members of RF who consider atheism a religious belief.

If atheism is a religious belief, then baldness is a hair color.

 

[Nanda]

I know of many members of RF who consider atheism a religious belief.

So do I, but they're not atheists. :sarcastic

I never meant that. Where did I use the words solely in charge? Anyone could perform a ceremony, geeze!

Well, when you state that marriage will be something left up to religions, what else am I supposed to think? Atheism is not a religion, so that would leave us out.

Why? are you saying you could not build an atheist church? If there are so many folks who are atheists who want to be married they even could start a gay lesbian athesist church if they wanted, or just have the ceremony where ever they like. Who would stop them if the state was out of the marriage business?

Atheism is not a religion, Rick. To suggest that we build churches just seems...ridiculous to me.

 

[Smoke]

No, I believe the state should represent the wishes of the majority and not the minority.

Do you believe it was wrong to overturn Jim Crow laws in the South? You must believe it, if the state should represent the wishes of the majority.

 

[MoonWater]

No, I believe the state should represent the wishes of the majority and not the minority.

Even if the majority wishes to suppress and/or deny rights to the minority.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you believe it was wrong to overturn Jim Crow laws in the South? You must believe it, if the state should represent the wishes of the majority.

I can't help but feel your hostility towards me. Please don't kill the messenger. Now you are telling me how I must believe because i believe in democracy?

I tried to come up with a plan that would accommodate you and all that you and Nanda have done is pick at me. While you condemn the religious right, you make no bones about not having a problem offending these folks but want everyone to worry about how you feel. How does that work?

I had nothing but good intentions and you all turned it into something ugly. If there is ever going to be a change, you must worry about accommodating everyone, not just yourself. If I was to do this right now, I would be satisfied with the status quo now wouldn't I?

Why would I propose a change to your benefit?

The hatred that is spewed here is no different than the hatred you rail against. Two wrongs don't make a right. I can honestly say i don't hate anyone, can you?