This is a topic that has been making the news lately.  Same-sex 
marriages.  Currently there is a bill pending in congress that would 
define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and would deny 
federal recognition (and thus the ability to apply for benefits) to  gay 
couples.  President Clinton has said that although he wishes this bill 
hadnt been introduced and that this isnt something congress should be 
dealing with, he will sign the bill for political reasons if it hits his 
desk.  Since he got fried early in his term for trying to lift 
restrictions on gays in the military, his advisors have told him he cant 
risk vetoing this bill during an election year.  Also, Clinton is a 
baptist lay minister and admits that he personally believes based on his 
religious views, that "marriage" as an institution traditionally should 
be between a man and a woman.

I dont agree.  I know a gay couple, two guys, who just celebrated their 
fifteenth anniversary and are as married as two people could possibly 
be.  Although I am not married, it seems to me that most of what goes 
into making a marriage has little to do with sex.  It is a bonding of two 
people and their lives, into a shared experience that itself is even more 
wonderful than its parts.  

Being basically an athiest, maybe my lack of religious convictions plays 
into this view.  I understand that if one is a christian and believes the 
bible condemns homosexuality, that you couldnt support legalizing gay 
marriages.  But maybe the answer is to not have any legal definition at all

This item is being linked to Newsline, the politics/world affairs conf

475 responses total.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  It's the first thing
that the foounding fathers thought to add to the Constitution,
more important to them even then the freedom to speak your mind.
Therefore, let's talk all the sentences relating toreligion, all of the
anti-same sex marriage arguments based on religion, out of #0.
Let us now construct a complete argument based on all of the points
one can make against same sex marriage that are not based on religion.
Point #1:  Uh=oh, erp, uhhhhhh.... no religion at all?  Shit, this
is going to be tough.  Hold on, I think I have something, um, wait,
no nevermind, that was something else.  I've got it!  All religions 
ban homosexuality!  That's it!  So this isn't restricting religious
practice!  
Farrar and Farrar, Wolrld Famous Wiccans, wander through 
with the Charge of the Goddess:  "All act s of love and
pleasure are my rituals."  *All*.  So much for point #1.

Anyway, this is such a blatant violation of separation of church
and state, and such a blatant violation of powers reserved to the
state by default, that it'll fall upon first judicial review.  Clinton
knows it, and he's doing the same here as he did with the CDA... doing
the politcally sound thing and letting the checks-and-balances of the
court system fix it.  It's an expensive game for the taxpayers to be
letting him play, and a dangerous one.

Legalize same sex marriage.
Legalize polygamy.
In all 50 states.
NOW.

Moses may have written the Ten Commandments, but he did not sign the
Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.  'Nuff said.

This item has been linked from Sexuality 167 to Synthesis 94.

As for my own opinion - legalize it.  Now.

I consider marriage a bond of love between two people.  Marriage, according
to the Bible, sounds like it's simply for reproduction.  As I said earlier,
even though I'm not married, my systems work fine.  Legalize it...NOW.

marrage is just a tax break.

I support any & all legislation to restrict/ban/etc. same-sex "marriages" at
the federal, state, local levels.  Governor Engler is expected to sign a bill
that will have Michigan not recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.
I say "Right On!" it's about time to make a statement about the creeping
advancement of this garbage.  If two people of any combination of sexes want
to live together, fornicate if they want to, then I don't think the
government should try to prevent it.  But said people wanting to live that
way, and yet have it called marriage, that's where I draw the line.

Re 5 - Not a very effective one, actually.  When both people
have a decent income, marriage is actually a disadvantage
come tax time.

Kevin, on what grounds do you consider it "garbage" for two people to have
their life-long commitment legally validated?  Who is harmed by it? In what
way are you or yours affected?  I'm curious what experience has led you to
this opinion.  I'm glad that, at least, you support people's personal freedom
to live as they see fit.

Yeah LGEALIZE it NOW. Marriage is culturally defined.
You can fine plenty of places in the world where what
is defined as marriage is VERY different than your standard
christian definition, and it pisses me off that people can
be so self centered in thinking that their way is the
only way and is PERFECT and needs no UPDATNG or changing.
(maybe they should still be using slide rules because they
were prfect too)

i think albaugh needs a nice lobotomy..but that's just my opinion
now, engler's little bill is unconstitutionall BTW since sates
are FORCED to recognize marrages from each other, since it is a 
FEDRAL tax situation...so one state can't actually recognize other people..

Sigh, a lot of good stuff is being said here, but in some pretty intemperate
language.  I know this is an issue which provokes passionate opinions, but
I've seldom met anyone here on Grex who was not worthy of courtesy and 
respect.  If we all are cautious and polite in the tone we choose, the 
conversation will go a lot farther without degenerating into name-calling.
OK?

(kami, do recall this is cross-linked among three conferences, and the
standard voice tone in one conference may vary from that in another...
impoliteness is never a good thing, but it's more standard in some places
then others)

I seem to recall Kevin and I having this little dispute elsewhere,
or was it on a similar topic?  The upshoot being, Kevin, can you 
provide an argument that does not rely on religion?  If not, then
the signing of the bills, regardless of how moral or immoral, is
an unconstitutional act.

I've been puzzling over the topic since yesterday, and apart
from religious arguments, I honestly can't think of a reason
why there should be a problem with same-gender marriages.
(And my religion doesn't have a problem with them.)  (And even
if it did, I most certainly would not.)

I admit it, I know nothing about marriage.  I'm not married.
I'm unlikely to be getting married any time soon.  Maybe there's
some horrible secret that only married people know about...
(brighn, you're twice as married as most folks, comment?)

I'd genuinely like to hear what it is about marriage that
homosexuals cannot be allowed to have.

If the government recognized homosexual marriages, it would make it
easier for same sex couples to adopt children, buy homes and establish 
communal property.  The non-religious argument that opponents make is 
that same sex couples should not be parents, because like it or not their 
children will grow up ina hetero society and could end up dysfunctional 
based on the lifestyles they learn from their parents.  But surveys have 
shown that children of gay parents do not necessarily become gay 
themselves but generally are quite "normal" (as some would put it)

Without government recognition of same sex marriages, the gay couple I 
mentioned in #0 who have been married 15 years can/will be denied many 
things most married folks take for granted:

1.  If one dies, the other cannot legally get his spouse's social 
security benefits and cannot legally be defined as the next of kin.  
These guys sharea life together, yet if one is in a car crash and 
hospitalized, the hospital would call his parents and not his spouse.

2. They cant get loans from the bank to buy a house jointly, since the 
government doesnt view them as related


 

<nods in agreement>  Just because a child's parents are gay or bi, that does
not necessarily mean that the child will be.  My parents are Catholic,
conservative, close-minded to new ideas, and listen to John Denver
religiously.  ;-)  Am *I* anything like them?  A child is going to go their
own way, regardless of what their parents are like.  Kahlil Gibran wrote an
excellent poem about children in his book _The Prophet_, but I can't seem to
find it (the book)...  =(

   re #14: as far as the next-of-kin definition goes, gay couples (and even
unmarried hetero couples) can obtain and fill out durable powers of attorney
for health care, naming each other as their primary patient advocates. my
ex-wife and i filled these out for each other in the event of dire
circumstances. now, a power of attorney won't get you social security or other
financial benefits, but it does ensure two things: you'll be able to visit
your loved one in the hospital, and you'll be able to carry out your loved
one's final wishes even over the objections of family, since the forms also
include living wills. forms for durable powers of attorney for health care
are available free or for very little cost at most hospitals and doctors'
offices. i would strongly recommend that every gay and unmarried hetero couple
fill them out before they truly need them.

Selena and I are planning children eventually.  While that would
not necessarily increase the legal bond between Selena and I (we
also plan on getting powers of attorney for the Triad), it would
allow a bond between me and my children through her... and, possibly
by extension, between Valerie (my "legal" wife) and said children,
although that would be more tenuous.  =P
Kerouac raises a good point, the "community standards" issue which,
stated that way, is in fact independent of religion.  It's also
circular, since it comes down to, we can't allow lifestyles which 
go against the mainstream until such lifestyles are commonplace,
the immortal Catch 22.

Because of separation of church and state, I would not want to see any
religiously motivated arguments used to determine whether the government
should recognize such unions.

I can certainly see why there is going to be immense resistance to the idea
of permitting same sex marriages. It is a redefinition of marriage, even 
secular marriage, as we have always known it.

Perhaps it would be more accepted if the economic benefits were tied to a
different word than marriage. A secular condition which accrued with marriage
but could be obtained separately. This may sound like wordplay, and maybe
that's all it is, but I wouldn't call same sex union a marriage.

        re 11 Why shouldn't we use "intemperate" language against bigots like
albaugh.  Sometimes I think the progressive community is too polite for it's
own good.  Unless progressives rally and fight narrow minded cretins like
albaugh we aren't going to win these battles, they will win them by name
calling and using circular religious arguments.  Backbone is a good thing
see Clinton's policy on gays in the military for an example of lack of
backbone.
                <set rant=off>

Oh, so anyone who disagrees with you raven is a "bigot" or a "cretin" or
"narrow minded".  I think you quite impressively demonstrated that *you*
are all of those things.

So, raven, instead we should win these battles by name-calling
and circular non-religious argumetns?  Kevin's response says it all... 
if we act as bad as he does, we *are* as bad as he is.

And, brighn, how have I "acted bad"?  Merely by having an opinion on 
something and expressing it?  Or having an opinion that isn't particularly
popular with a certain group of conferencers?  Instead of "acting bad" I
thought that was called "conferencing"...

the phrase "creeping advance of this garbage" is name-calling, IMHO

I think same-sex marriages are not likely to be accepted any time soon.
Maybe never. Most people just don't think of it as marriage.
I know a lot of people in this item find this very distressing, and I would
encourage you to work against it, but don't expect much. 

Believe me, srw, you're saying that isn't oing to stop us.  >8)
I think most of the people here already know what a struggle it's
going to be.

        re # 20 no it isn't you disagreeing with me that makes you a bigot 
and a cretin it's the fact that you would my potential freedom if I would
want to engage in a same sex marriage.  If you try to limit peoples
freedom you can expect a fight just like what happened in the 60s with
sergeation.  Albaugh you are on the anti-civil rights side of the line
so don't expect me to pretend to have one iota of respect for you.
Furthurmore I would like to see one substantive reason from you why you
oppose same sex marriages other than christian bigotry, or "I don't like
it,' subjectivity.  The ball is in your court...

(Raven, the ball has been in Kevin's court since before your comment,
and he's failed to comment, indicating he doesn't have a comment,
so further ad hominems on your -- or my -- part probably won't be
constructive.  =} )

Social acceptance of a situation shouldn't be related to legal 
acceptance of it.

        Legal acceptance of something that isn't socially accepted is a dicey
proposition ... as is it's reverse.

Raven, more time and energy is saved for constructive activism, for making
good arguments until we find those the powers-that-be will respond to, if
we don't waste it on invective and on reacting to non-productive rhetoric.
And those that might be convinceable are less likely to turn off in disgust.
The "higher moral ground" of reasoned and measured speech is worth a few
brownie points, at least.  And it saves indigestion. <g>

Within Beth Israel Synagogue (Conservative) there is great deal of difference
of opinion on gay lifestyles. There has been serious Halachic (Jewish Law) 
debate within the Rabbinical Assembly on the issue of homosexual behavior.
There are many within the Rabbinical Assembly who, basing themselves upon the
book of Leviticus view homosexual behavior as an abomination. However, there
are many other Rabbis who believe that homosexual relationships can have a
great potential for holiness if they are long term and exclusive and based
on shared values of compassion and sensitivity.

At Beth Israel, we passed a resolution several years ago in which we welcomed
all Jews to membership, involvement as individuals and families, and
employment in the Synagogue regardless of sexual orientation. We are proud
of this resolution, but realize that we must continue to work for the day when
all will be completely welcome.

The Ufruf ceremony (a celebration of marriage, but not a marriage) was
conducted recently for a lesbian couple. Many of us are not sure that this
wasn't going too far. In any congregation, it is the Jewish way that not all
agree.  I'd be less than honest to  say I was comfortable with it.

Things that are (generally) socially acceptable that are illegal:
underage smoking
underage drinking (about 17 and up)
most forms of consentual sex between mixed-sex adults

Things that are legal but (generally) socially unacceptable:
adult purchase of pornographic magazines
adus going to strip clubs <-- adults, back there
Paganism

Both lists could go on, John, but I don't quite see the point of your comment.
There are examples of both things, and yes, that's unfortunate. but the law 
is *not* society, nor vice versa.

And neither one is necessarily right or wrong.

Believe me, raven, I couldn't care less what you think of me.  But just look
at your own words:  "christian bigotry".  So you have set yourself up as the
supreme determiner of bigotry.  And apparently anyone who would express an
opinion on a subject based on Christian beliefs is a de facto bigot, unless
of course said opinion happened to agree with yours.  Great, get worked up
all you want to.  Attack people with labels if it suits your needs.  It 
doesn't make your opinions any better or more correct by doing so.  And it's
certainly not likely to give anyone food for thought about changing views on
a particular topic.  That's the problem when someone enters an item such as
this and expects that the entire grex community will rally to the flag of
whatever opinion is sure to be unanimous grex-think:  Some SOB like me comes
along and voices a dissenting opinion, and spoils the fun...

        re #33 Again (for apparently you are comprehension impared) it's
not your *opinion* that bothers me. believe me I am a free speech advocate.
It's the actions you advocate taking against gays who want to affirm a
lifelong comitment.  When you advocate taking unfair actions against an 
entiregroup of people you should expect a *hostile* reaction from that 
group of people and their friends.
        You advocate limiting the freedom of an entire group of people
who are doing no harm to you, and then you seem offended when I react to
that with some spleen. Try to imagine how you would feel if the 
government tried to ban christian wedings like the communists did for 60 
years.  How is it your business to define whether gays can be married 
anymore than it was the communists business to try to ban chrisitianity?  If 
you want people to be more tolerant of your opinions be more tolerant 
yourself.

        P.S. I still have yet to see a substantive comment from you about the
same sex marriage issue, just some pot shots and labeling like you accuse
me of doing.  As I said before the ball is in your court...

Personally, I am against Special Rights.  Not just for homosexuals, but
for heterosexuals.  Presently marriage is a special right reserved for
heterosexual couples.  That is wrong.

Furthermore, marriage is the domain of the States, not the Federal government.
Clinton should veto (or at least "pocket veto") this bill on the basis of
being against big government (that should give Republicans some pause).

Steve: Reform Judaism officially recognizes homosexual marriages.  I'd have
to reread the Ketubah (Jewish marriage license) carefully, but I don't see
why it can't apply to a same sex couple -- which can even raise children.

Brighn: As other denominations (Episcopalians, Quakers, Unitarians) continue
to recognize same-sex marriages (not to mention that the early Church did,
too), the "catch-22" should be diminish.  Perhaps I'm the eternal optimist,
but I think that in 25 years children in this country will view same-sex
couples as naturally as today's children view inter-racial couples.

Albaugh: could you expound upon your "garbage"?  Given our tradition of the
separation of Church and State, why shouldn't the states recognize same-sex
unions?

I think 25 years is optimistic, but I certainly hope to see
that happen within my lifetime.

"Ball is in your court" presupposes some sort of contest is going on.
I am not personally into conferencing for a form of debate where there will
be some adjudged winner and loser.  I'm into it to share opinions, possibly
help out someone else  where I might have knowledge, and hopefully learn
something where I lack knowledge.  If I don't happen to supply background
info on how I have come to form an opinion on something, and that bothers
you, feel free to dismiss me, feel free to feel you have "won" the argument.
That doesn't change anything...

You've stated your view, Kevin.  The ad hominems are getting annoying
(same for Raven, but at least he's interspersing it with content).

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss