American? Support Gay Marriage?

[Kabasares]

I go for yes. Granted, I live in San Francisco, so I'm used to LGBT people, and I have friends at school who are openly gay/bi. Like people have said, as long as you don't shove your beliefs down my throat, we'll be fine.

[Wells 1st MRB]

If you do care, you may like to know that Senator Rob Portman ® wrote an op-ed in support of gay marriage.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/ed...et-married.html

I'd say Yes! Getting married doesn't really influence stigma that's already in place so why the hell not!

He almost married his money-grubbing girlfriend... But thought better of it and went homo.

That's an interesting phrase. I'm wondering if you meant that the 'money-grubbing girlfriend' was your brother's catalyst for being gay?

[Alvarez]

I'm wondering if you meant that the 'money-grubbing girlfriend' was your brother's catalyst for being gay?

Not exactly, since his boyfriends have been latch-on losers, too... Hence the reason he won't marry. Although I'm sure it'd be nice to say he COULD marry if he chose to. Honestly, my family is a little on the "fucked" side, so we don't have a lot of folks with a high opinion on marriage. That's why I say: "I am FOR divorce equality".

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

I can't understand why some people would deny others the opportunity to be happy. The religion argument is, IMHO, ridiculous. The USA supposedly separated church from state centuries ago so it shouldn't have any bearing on the discussion.

[Hall]

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the subject of "gay marriage", please afford me the opportunity to offend. One: this is not a Federal issue. This is, once again, an intrusion by the Federal government into an area reserved for the States and The People. Two: there are far more IMPORTANT matters for Americans to be concerned with at this time. By all means, lets throw the gauntlet down when it comes to "gay marriage", but continue to ignore the fact that we've bankrupt our country for generations and are heedless of the deaths of our servicemen and women overseas. The media just does not find it titillating enough and America would rather be entertained with distractions. The country has lost any sense of its priorities. Three: When "gay marriage" becomes the norm, and it will be, please remember that "marriage" will be a relative term. Yes, Americans love a good dose of relativism. We can then move on to permitting polygamy. I won't mention what some people advocate in the enlightened European Union. Just remember, when we move in that direction, we need to treat everyone equally. Four: This is being labeled "marriage equality." Why? I know why. When you add the term "equality", it's intended to characterize an opposing position as one which serves "inequality." Don't disagree with the premise of the discussion, or you're just a bigot or homophobe. Guess what, I disagree. This has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with recognition. I support civil unions, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.

[Wells 1st MRB]

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the subject of "gay marriage", please afford me the opportunity to offend. One: this is not a Federal issue. This is, once again, an intrusion by the Federal government into an area reserved for the States and The People. Two: there are far more IMPORTANT matters for Americans to be concerned with at this time. By all means, lets throw the gauntlet down when it comes to "gay marriage", but continue to ignore the fact that we've bankrupt our country for generations and are heedless of the deaths of our servicemen and women overseas. The media just does not find it titillating enough and America would rather be entertained with distractions. The country has lost any sense of its priorities. Three: When "gay marriage" becomes the norm, and it will be, please remember that "marriage" will be a relative term. Yes, Americans love a good dose of relativism. We can then move on to permitting polygamy. I won't mention what some people advocate in the enlightened European Union. Just remember, when we move in that direction, we need to treat everyone equally. Four: This is being labeled "marriage equality." Why? I know why. When you add the term "equality", it's intended to characterize an opposing position as one which serves "inequality." Don't disagree with the premise of the discussion, or you're just a bigot or homophobe. Guess what, I disagree. This has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with recognition. I support civil unions, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.

That was very well said! I'm curious to know if you have a strong religious background? And I have to say, any support towards any minority will help with a movement pushing towards equality. Recognition in itself will help with the LGBT population. With that said, I won't hold my breath for any minority to receive equal rights in this country (but I'll continue supporting it).

[Hall]

Thanks Wells, For me, marriage is a covenant or contract between a man and a woman. Marriage has a specific definition in our society. It is true that other cultures have historically (some are contemporary) expressed alternative meanings and afforded the union varying degrees of weight, but for traditional western culture, it is a monogamous union between a man and a woman. This union is recognized by society and provides the couple with certain benefits. With this stated, we must recognize that it is an institution founded in both secular and religious tradition. However, this does NOT mean society cannot construct and recognize a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It may also (and should) prescribe the same civil benefits. Keep in mind, society can potentially construct unions which are polygamist, including those with multiple mixed or same sex members. It may go further and include, in my opinion, perverse unions between children and adults, or even non-humans (some societies legally permit these types of "relationships." I do not like altering well established definitions to suit any group. If I eat meat, I am not a vegetarian. If I condone violence, I am not a pacifist. If I believe in the Divine, I am not an atheist. We cannot alter definitions for the sake of equivalency. It's my personal opinion. In the end, I just think we have far more serious issues to contend with. This is not a crisis. We have bigger issues to contend with. "Winter is coming..." for all of us, Lannister.

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

Thanks Wells, For me, marriage is a covenant or contract between a man and a woman. Marriage has a specific definition in our society. It is true that other cultures have historically (some are contemporary) expressed alternative meanings and afforded the union varying degrees of weight, but for traditional western culture, it is a monogamous union between a man and a woman. This union is recognized by society and provides the couple with certain benefits. With this stated, we must recognize that it is an institution founded in both secular and religious tradition. However, this does NOT mean society cannot construct and recognize a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It may also (and should) prescribe the same civil benefits. Keep in mind, society can potentially construct unions which are polygamist, including those with multiple mixed or same sex members. It may go further and include, in my opinion, perverse unions between children and adults, or even non-humans (some societies legally permit these types of "relationships." I do not like altering well established definitions to suit any group. If I eat meat, I am not a vegetarian. If I condone violence, I am not a pacifist. If I believe in the Divine, I am not an atheist. We cannot alter definitions for the sake of equivalency. It's my personal opinion. In the end, I just think we have far more serious issues to contend with. This is not a crisis. We have bigger issues to contend with. "Winter is coming..." for all of us, Lannister.

While yes, I do agree that there are other issues that are of at least equal importance, I'm not sure how you have, seemingly arbitrarily, decided that you can not "construct and recognize" homosexuality, or how you justify equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Somehow you jumped to the conclusion that American society is founded in both secularism and religion, despite the evidence which clearly states otherwise. Finally, are you suggesting that America allow same sex marriage but use a different name for it?

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I don't think that you are bigoted, nor homophobic (etc), I am simply trying to understand your point of view.

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

I think Hall's point is if we change the definition of marriage in this instance, which we have NEVER done before in our western society, it is a slippery slope to changing it again to allow perversions such as polygamy and pedophilia. I don't think he is intentionally equating homosexuality with pedophilia and polygamy.

But yeah I have the same question as Gooderham, would it be okay if we called it, say, darriage instead?

[Lafy BAR]

The idea that changing definitions is somehow problematic doesn't really make any sense. Read any law at all and you'll find a list of definitions at the top, read 2 or 3 amendments and you'll find one that prescribes a change to a definition in its law. A huge part of passing laws is changing definitions.

The suggestion that there be a separate name for gay marriage is precisely what the prop 8 case is about. I see two issues with "civil unions." It does seem like its only purpose is overt disrespect of same sex couples. Telling a group of people that they are to have all the exact same benefits as another group, but that it will be called something else, because the second group doesn't want their title associated with the first... I don't see what else that can be.

There is also a potential for accidental or intentional unequal treatment. When the law requires that two terms be used to define the same rights and responsibilities, every law has the potential to omit one term or the other. Obviously, if there's one overarching law that states that the two terms must be equal, then court cases would resolve the problems, but having the two terms keeps an avenue for legislators to try to separate their benefits.

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

Yeah my question was more rhetorical, to show the absurdity of that argument. You stated it better anyway

[Wells 1st MRB]

While yes, I do agree that there are other issues that are of at least equal importance, I'm not sure how you have, seemingly arbitrarily, decided that you can not "construct and recognize" homosexuality, or how you justify equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Somehow you jumped to the conclusion that American society is founded in both secularism and religion, despite the evidence which clearly states otherwise. Finally, are you suggesting that America allow same sex marriage but use a different name for it?

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I don't think that you are bigoted, nor homophobic (etc), I am simply trying to understand your point of view.

I did not interpret Hall's opinion as him paralleling homosexuality with pedophilia. It sounded as though he was using examples to make a point that different words are used for different unions. Pedophilia isn't a union between two people because it's against a child's will, this is known in Western culture. In some cultures however, there are instances where underage unions occur and they aren't necessarily called (or in Hall's case) should not be called marriage. It sounds like he's saying civil unions are a good term for same sex marriage if they offer the same amount of "equality" that marriage has.

I'd also like to add that marriage itself changes throughout our history and today is not the iron bound contract it used to be. As it modernizes with society, the word marriage and its defining attributes change with each generation. Just something to think about!

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

I did not interpret Hall's opinion as him paralleling homosexuality with pedophilia. It sounded as though he was using examples to make a point that different words are used for different unions. Pedophilia isn't a union between two people because it's against a child's will, this is known in Western culture. In some cultures however, there are instances where underage unions occur and they aren't necessarily called (or in Hall's case) should not be called marriage. It sounds like he's saying civil unions are a good term for same sex marriage if they offer the same amount of "equality" that marriage has.

I'd also like to add that marriage itself changes throughout our history and today is not the iron bound contract it used to be. As it modernizes with society, the word marriage and its defining attributes change with each generation. Just something to think about!

no definitely. i mean in ancient times, human society usually commonly defined marriage as a relationship between a very young girl, say often 13-15 marrying a man twice her age, or at least 5-10 years older. I mean we'd call that pedophilia now. Sexual relationships between older men and younger boys in Greece were common and not taboo. Shit the Egyptians used to marry brothers and sisters! Interracial marriage is only an accepted common practice in the last 100 years. So i definitely think that as human society progresses, our conception of an idea changes.

But i think the real issue, is a denial or certain rights and privileges is unfair. I think it really is a gay rights' issue more than a gay marriage issue. Gay couples should be allowed the same rights and rituals as a straight couple. It damn sure isn't the federal government's job to say that they can't. DOMA should not have been passed, and it should be struck down because its not constitutional. Period. End of story.

[Parker 1st MRB]

The aim of this topic was to discuss gay marriage rights with a clear bias towards supporting it, for example, the topic title includes "no? go away" as a subtitle. You've managed to discuss it thoroughly enough that now the points are starting to get repetitive. In the interest of avoiding any future conflict or any derailing of the discussion, I am closing the topic now.