what are the possible affects of gay marriage?

[Nanda]

I tried to come up with a plan that would accommodate you and all that you and Nanda have done is pick at me.

I think you may have a bit of a persecution complex there, Rick. I have no hatred for you. I'm not even angry at you, I just don't think your plan is going to work, and I think you assume too much. After all this time, I even kind of like you, to be honest, because I think that in your own misguided way, you're trying. But many of your ideals are self-serving and antiquated, and that's bound to clash with progress. People aren't going to be content to settle for the scraps you deem to throw their way - we want our place at the table.

 

[McBell]

I had nothing but good intentions and you all turned it into something ugly.

I disagree.
It started out as something ugly.
You seem unable to see the ugliness that is in it from get go.

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?

I disagree.
In this case, your beloved majority are int he wrong.
Plain and simple.

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?

Again I have to disagree.
Though it was a nice try, the fact is that you are not the victim here.
Same sex couples are.
So why are you trying so hard to make yourself the victim?
Interesting tactic, but I cannot help but wonder why you pretend to be so wounded when it does not work.

 

[Smoke]

I can't help but feel your hostility towards me.

It's entirely imaginary, Rick. Just because I'm arguing with you doesn't mean I'm hostile. Well, I'm not hostile to you; I'm quite hostile to your views -- but there's a difference.

Now you are telling me how I must believe because i believe in democracy?

I'm pointing out the logical conclusion of your expressed opinion. Either the majority should be able to give itself greater rights than the minority, or not.

If there is ever going to be a change, you must worry about accommodating everyone, not just yourself.

I'm old enough, Rick, and I think you are, too, to know that African-Americans would still not be voting in most parts of the South if we waited to accomodate everybody. If we waited to accomodate everybody, we'd still have public pools for the white kids, and open a hydrant every now and then for the black kids. It's not possible for the law to accomodate everybody, but it is possible for the law to treat everyone equally.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think you may have a bit of a persecution complex there, Rick. I have no hatred for you. I'm not even angry at you, I just don't think your plan is going to work, and I think you assume too much. After all this time, I even kind of like you, to be honest, because I think that in your own misguided way, you're trying. But many of your ideals are self-serving and antiquated, and that's bound to clash with progress. People aren't going to be content to settle for the scraps you deem to throw their way - we want our place at the table.

I kinda like you too Nanda. If everyone kept there legal rights equal and separate from religion and had the freedom to do whatever they liked outside the state's control of marriage and called our relationships what we wanted and had ceremonies or no ceremonies where we chose, how would anyone have a better seat at the table? I'm not throwing scraps, I'm proposing keeping the state out of marriage for the sake of not excluding anyone.

After all, the state is holding people back. I would not want the state deciding what is best for us against what the majority chooses. The state is suppose to represent the wishes of it's people.

What I propose is fair and equal to all and gives everyone more freedom with their relationships. What would be wrong with that?

 

[lunamoth]

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

It would be a very good thing. It would allow gay people to marry the person they love and make the same spirititual, material, and emotional committment heterosexuals already can. The 'sins' associated with any kind of sex do not have to do with sex acts, but with abuses of power, coveting, and idolatry. As it is our society more or less presses homosexuals toward these kinds of 'sins' since the legitimate expression of healthy relationship is forbidden to them, or at least made much harder.

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

It should make it easier to adopt but I doubt the social taboos will be eradicated as quickly as a law can be made. I think the marriage committment is a better relationship for the raising of children, although that does not mean you can't do a great job under other conditions as well.

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

Perhaps, although I personally feel that in our society polygamous/polyandrous relationships can't be sufficiently fair to all the people in the arrangement and that incestuous relationships can be unhealthy for physiological reasons, but only if among very closely related family members. It was not too long ago that cousins were allowed to marry.

 

[McBell]

I kinda like you too Nanda. If everyone kept there legal rights equal and separate from religion and had the freedom to do whatever they liked outside the state's control of marriage and called our relationships what we wanted and had ceremonies or no ceremonies where we chose, how would anyone have a better seat at the table? I'm not throwing scraps, I'm proposing keeping the state out of marriage for the sake of not excluding anyone.

After all, the state is holding people back. I would not want the state deciding what is best for us against what the majority chooses. The state is suppose to represent the wishes of it's people.

What I propose is fair and equal to all and gives everyone more freedom with their relationships. What would be wrong with that?

Here is one problem with your proposal.
The religious right does not want same sex couples using the term marriage.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Here is one problem with your proposal.
The religious right does not want same sex couples using the term marriage.

Ahhh, but the religious right is enforcing their muscle thought the state. Take away the states control of marriage and anyone could get married by any person, not just clergy and call their relationship a marriage or anything else for that matter.

 

[Francine]

The family unit was modified when homosexuality became legal. In what way would homosexual marriage modify it further and, if this sort of modification is undesirable, what steps should be taken to counteract that which has already happened?

In what way was the family unit modified when they stopped locking up people for making it with partners of the same gender?

 

[Somkid]

As long as the powers that be are in charge with their self righteousness gay marriage will never mean anything except a few more votes and a few more dollars for city hall. As most religion is prejudiced so are its followers.

 

[Nanda]

What I propose is fair and equal to all and gives everyone more freedom with their relationships. What would be wrong with that?

One problem is that rather than accept homosexuals into the existing system, you propose that we change the entire system to accomidate the religious right's need to not recognize same sex marriage, something that shouldn't be effecting their lives any in the first place. It's petty, it's unrealistic, it marginalizes the non-religious, and honestly, I don't expect that even the people who speak out against gay marriage would be happy with this system. People who fear change aren't going to gather behind this.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I would hope that a court might rule that the state having a hand in a religious ceremony violated the separation of church and state statutes. That could cause an inroad for same sex marriage by side stepping the state ruling on this. It was just a thought. What you are saying is that my idea is insulting and not of the real world.

I have nothing against gay folks and I have nothing against people who remarry, but I cannot in good faith marry either group. It is against my religion. My religion is a personal thing and I do not impose my religion on others, but I and others have a right to vote our conscience just as everyone else does. The religious right is never going to sanction same sex marriage and asking us to vote a certain way will not happen. As long as there are more of us than there are of you, things are going to change very slowly in this country. That is the real world.

My idea was trying to side step public opinion because I know that even though it is against my religion, denying everyone the same rights is wrong. It is wrong for us as Americans. I don't want to choose between being a good American and a Christian.

I still feel the best chance of everyone having more equality is getting the state out of the marriage business.

I see the other side of the argument. Some people want the state to say there is nothing wrong with same sex marriages and they are just as normal as any other marriages. It's not really all about rights it's about recognition as well.

 

[McBell]

I would hope that a court might rule that the state having a hand in a religious ceremony violated the separation of church and state statutes. That could cause an inroad for same sex marriage by side stepping the state ruling on this. It was just a thought. What you are saying is that my idea is insulting and not of the real world.

Thats just it.
Marriage is a legal contract.
All the "religious ceremony" you ADD to it does not change the fact that marriage is a legal contract.

I have nothing against gay folks and I have nothing against people who remarry, but I cannot in good faith marry either group. It is against my religion. My religion is a personal thing and I do not impose my religion on others, but I and others have a right to vote our conscience just as everyone else does. The religious right is never going to sanction same sex marriage and asking us to vote a certain way will not happen. As long as there are more of us than there are of you, things are going to change very slowly in this country. That is the real world.

As soon as the federal government gets off their arse and deals with the issue, same sex couples will not have to settle for the scraps you offer.
Since there is not a single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage, the Feds will have no choice but to declare all states allow and recognize same sex marriage.
And before you start, let me clarify that it is the state governments that will have to allow and recognize same sex marriage.
You will still retain the right to refuse to marry anyone you want.

My idea was trying to side step public opinion because I know that even though it is against my religion, denying everyone the same rights is wrong. It is wrong for us as Americans. I don't want to choose between being a good American and a Christian.

If the Feds would stop ignoring/sidestepping/delaying the issue and do their job, you would not have to worry about it.

I still feel the best chance of everyone having more equality is getting the state out of the marriage business.

What is the religious right going to "lose" when the Feds rules that it has to be allowed and recognized by the states?

I see the other side of the argument. Some people want the state to say there is nothing wrong with same sex marriages and they are just as normal as any other marriages. It's not really all about rights it's about recognition as well.

Cry me a river.
The ones having their rights ignored/trampled/revoked/etc want the states to recognize the fact that their rights are being violated.
What an asinine attitude to have towards the ones who have to fight in order to have equal rights.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Thats just it.
Marriage is a legal contract.
All the "religious ceremony" you ADD to it does not change the fact that marriage is a legal contract.

So which came first, the legal contract or the religious ceremony? All this legal mumbo jumbo is fairly recent compared to the sacrament of marriage. Thousands of years compared to a bunch of recent lawyers in the last century.

As soon as the federal government gets off their arse and deals with the issue, same sex couples will not have to settle for the scraps you offer.
Since there is not a single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage, the Feds will have no choice but to declare all states allow and recognize same sex marriage.
And before you start, let me clarify that it is the state governments that will have to allow and recognize same sex marriage.
You will still retain the right to refuse to marry anyone you want.


If the Feds would stop ignoring/sidestepping/delaying the issue and do their job, you would not have to worry about it.

I believe you have forgotten all the supreme court appointments lately. How do you know they will rule in your favor? They are going to challenge Row vs Wade and decide what the second amendment means way before they will even CONSIDER hearing what you propose.

What is the religious right going to "lose" when the Feds rules that it has to be allowed and recognized by the states?

Not a single thing brother!

Cry me a river.
The ones having their rights ignored/trampled/revoked/etc want the states to recognize the fact that their rights are being violated.
What an asinine attitude to have towards the ones who have to fight in order to have equal rights.

Oh, my attitude is asinine. I was trying to find a way to expedite equal rights and was shot down and offended folks.

Now when Bill Clinton came up with don't ask don't tell, you all threw roses at his feet and want to elect his wife to the highest office.

Kill the messenger should be your motto. I am sorry I tried to think of anything that just might help.

 

[Smoke]

So which came first, the legal contract or the religious ceremony? All this legal mumbo jumbo is fairly recent compared to the sacrament of marriage. Thousands of years compared to a bunch of recent lawyers in the last century.

Actually, legal marriage predates the sacrament -- and since when do Evangelicals consider marriage a sacrament, anyway?

 

[Sunstone]

Rome had five different kinds of legal marriages 200 years before Christ. Legality has always been wrapped up with questions of marriage, even in ages prior to Christianity.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Actually, legal marriage predates the sacrament -- and since when do Evangelicals consider marriage a sacrament, anyway?

Actually it is a holy covenant to be exact.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Yes, strictly politically you're probably right. Then at the end of the day it won't make much difference, and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Yes, I understand you're thoughtful opinion. After all, you do have to deal with reality. I think the idea that legalizing gay marriage means endorsing it is the hangup. It's that idea that everyone has to be the same.

The rest of your post is pretty close to reality--the state right now has no say in who can get married in what church--and that would remain the same.

My big question is: Why isn't the religious right campaigning against the right to remarry after divorce?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K. people I'm going to pretty much agree with and defend Rick here. I think what he's advocating for is pretty much equality. What he's saying is, everyone, gay and straight, can get the same thing from the state. Call it a civil commitment. And the state cannot force any church to perform, or forbid any church from performing, a marriage ceremony, for spiritual/religious/customary purposes. So under his proposal, gay people could get a civil commitment--just like straight people--and gay people could go to the gay church and get a gay marriage if they want one. As for us atheists, I'm sure we could come up with a creative way to celebrate our marriages as well.

The problem, Rick, is that straight people are not going to give up something they have now: marriage by the state. It's actually too big a change, rather than too small. Probably the state shouldn't be involved in marriage, but they are, and it's not realistic to expect that to change. So it's one of those things where it would actually be an obstacle to real change, because it would require too big a societal overhaul. It would actually be simpler and more realistic to keep what we've got now and just let gay people in. Which would not be the end of the world.

 

[Neo-Logic]

There is no logical argument against homosexuality except the reference towards religious beliefs. So realistically, there would be nothing logically wrong with the marraige of homosexuals. However, given the fact that American system of Democracy and system of politics have many derivitives from Judeo-Christian beliefs, the main problem against gay marriage is more religious than anything else. And most arguments against gay marriage (not homosexuality) are logical fallacies than anything else, referring to grander scheme of things and larger implications which doesn't make sense. Some public figures even dared to ask that if a society allowed gay marriage, that whether or not marriage with animals would be next.

Some, I'm afraid to say, would let great be the enemy of the good.