I don't think making gay marriage legal should be so important to us
-
Concur. Why are gays so hung up on the idea of doing what straight people do? THEY get married. It's a word. Why can't "union" be the word gays use for theirs? (The straight won that coin toss thousands of years ago. ) All it would really take is the amendment of a few federal laws.
Many gays were plenty happy to just have civil unions. The reason this became an issue over the past decade is many states started doing legislation to stop even allowing civil unions to be done. Made for basically two main camps arguing with each other, those wanting to allow gays to enter a legally recognized relationship with the protections they afford and those wanting to ensure their churches weren't forced to gay marry everyone in sight.
There's also just the problem that civil unions being an entirely separate legal realm just complicates everything when it comes to forming a union or dissolving one. With marriage there's already systems in place to protect either person as well as to provide opportunities for divorce. It simplifies a lot of things to just allow marriage licenses to be doled out to those wanting them.
-
It's important 30 years from now, when one of you die and you don't have the right to inherit.
There are also taxes, insurance, title and stuff that will get complicated fast without that license. So unless you live on an island, definitely get that paper signed.
-
I think what is important is to make the laws such that there is no discrimination of people in gay relationships in such things as taxes. The name marriage itself doesn't seem an important thing to fight for IMHO
This point may already have been made, but extending a basic right like the right to marry, to one group but not another is intrinsically discriminatory. It's the equality that's really the important part.
-
Concur. Why are gays so hung up on the idea of doing what straight people do?
There are those that came to terms with their homosexuality by completely shaping their identity around it, and creating a sense of "otherness," an us-versus-them sort of philosophy. I went through a phase like that myself, and it's definitely an important part of the pie that makes all of us up as a community.
Other people like having sex with their own gender, but don't necessarily feel the need for "otherness," though. Some people want the white picket fence, the family life, the whole Somewhere That's Green bit. It's okay to be suburban, mainstream, and gay at the same time. The beautiful cultural shift over the last few decades has allowed for more and more options for how any of us chooses to live our lives … including those who want the whole suburban thing.
While it's true that having gay marriage on the table does allow this option for more people (and I am on board with the idea of more options being a good thing), I do get a little bit concerned about how that option can be passed onto children as an obligation or as a limiting ideology. I remember growing up in blissful suburbia and living with what was basically an expectation to want my own white picket fence and dog and cute little family photos running up the staircase wall. If gay marriage had been readily available to me and I had been able to slide right into that sort of "pre-planned" future, I probably would have done so and thought nothing of it because I grew up learning that marriage is "good." Liking boys meant marriage could not be implied, so I had to think a little more deeply about what I want and whether or not marriage is actually the "good" choice or if it is simply "a" choice.
I guess I hate to be the guy that uses "indoctrination," but I feel like marriage does that. Our culture and media talk about marriage like it's some amazing thing - even in the supreme court ruling, the language was all about how marriage is the most important thing ever. We don't even give people an opportunity to reject the idea marriage, and when people manage to carve out their own path they're pegged as weird and lonely. Don't we value them, too? I think it's unfortunate that after the ruling everyone is like, "Great job, we finally did it! Let's go home!" when there is still a lot to talk about.
Gay marriage is great and I do think it's a good idea. But we are not talking about a society in which there are two choices (marriage or not-marriage) and people pick one. We are talking about a society in which there is a "good" choice (marriage) and a "bad" choice (not marriage). The "good" choice just got a whole boatload of new friends to help it shun the "bad" choice and I think that is lame.
**Also saying there are only two different choices is silly. There are LOADS of ways to live a life - I just want to see alternatives to the mainstream being given a chance as equal.
-
Concur. Why are gays so hung up on the idea of doing what straight people do? THEY get married. It's a word. Why can't "union" be the word gays use for theirs? (The straight won that coin toss thousands of years ago. ) All it would really take is the amendment of a few federal laws.
In response to those who responded to this, my first response, I'd like to stir the pot with a bit of irony by asking a (presumably) rhetorical question: "What genders were the two people credited for engaging in 'history's most famous (if not first) kiss'?"
[ [b]A: http://bfy.tw/3MQP ]
-
It's important 30 years from now, when one of you die and you don't have the right to inherit.
There are also taxes, insurance, title and stuff that will get complicated fast without that license. So unless you live on an island, definitely get that paper signed.
Most western countries had that stuff sorted without recourse to the word 'marriage'
-
I've read every word of every comment posted, and I have to say I can find nothing to disagree with. In particular, I felt as if several accurately expressed my "white picket fence in suburbia" childhood expectations (and better than I could have).
But I have to admit something I really didn't know until just now, when I decided to go to the primary source: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title1/pdf/USCODE-2011-title1-chap1-sec7.pdf (see § 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”) … the definition of “marriage” is not simply a religious interpretation, and it's not singularly discriminating against homosexuals.
I have always assumed it to be solely Judeo-Christian in origin, extended to apply to our governmental definition because our country, thanks to King James I and the landing of the first settlers at Cape Henry on 26 April 1607, was founded as a Christian nation. (The irony of the King's historic homosexuality notwithstanding, the perception of homosexuality as a Biblical sin disproportionately worse than anything a heterosexual might engage in, seemed to me to be completely subjective in its discrimination against the practices of many other religions and lifestyles.)
Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe Abraham was their ancestor; but the Islamic defenders descend from the union of Abraham and his mistress and not from a man and his spouse, as do the Jews and, later, the Christians. Even today, the concept of "marriage" in most Muslim nations is not "between one man and one woman." (Muslim men, for example, in accordance with Islamic Sharia law, are permitted mistresses and legally allowed to take up to four wives.) So if we're to believe that all American citizens must agree to abide by the laws of the country, by definition, Muslims practicing the Islamic faith are no more "acceptable" as citizens (or, for that matter, legally represented) than homosexuals in America; yet the homosexuals never joined forces with the Muslims to argue their obviously shared case of marriage discrimination and no one, to my knowledge, has ever once mentioned it.
Don't get all excited about it, either. We shouldn't be too surprised about the laws in America; at least not if we have studied them. They are replete with religious discrimination. (Just look here: https://t.co/ixFqIYRZtI ) In the U.S. Code, 153 federal laws apply solely to Christians, five apply to Jews, and only TWO apply to Muslims; but, again, no one seems to care enough to notice.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that homosexuals may be a bit to blame for making the case of discrimination against their sexual/lifestyle preferences, because, clearly, they are alone only in having made the noise - and not alone in the law. (My grandma used to say, "Those who cry the loudest, are the most guilty.")
In a perfect world, religion wouldn't be a factor, all men (archaic term including women) would be treated as equals, all laws would be objective and there would exist no discrimination. But it's not a perfect world, is it? Why, then, should America be any different?
(Please don't misunderstand me… I am like the rest of you... stuck here, too!)
-
I think gay marriage become legal is a huge step for us regarding our rights. As someone state earlier 'civil union' or 'partnership' aren't the same as 'marriage' regarding all the legal and social norms, failsafes and legislation.
Now we have many rights protected by law. Specially inheritance and legal guardianship of minors. No more moving out because your partner died and never specifically stated in his will that you had right to the house, no more battles with your late hubby's family over the children that you BOTH raised.
Personally, I don't plan in getting married ever…but for our gay brothers and sisters who did or plan to marry they have now goverment acknoledgement and most importantly, a safety net.
-
What this whole thread's argument is really about is a bunch of people with libertarian political philosophies wishing the government in the U.S. didn't wrap so manylegal rights, tax status, and frankly … life legal standing ... up with marriage itself, thus making a marriage license itself a legal license.
Unfortunately, it does. You're actually asking for a whole lot more that's way tougher to get done and change by saying you want government out of the business of marriage, period, than you would be if you just acknowledged reality as reality and simply asked to be treated the same as a heterosexual pairing and gain that legal word -- "marriage."
It was the path of least resistance, and honestly, there are few enough people on a cultural level in the U.S. to make your anti-government-involved-in-your-married-status stance a viewpoing of a clear minority. It might thrill you to your core when you talk about shrinking government, and it might make you tremble in excitement when you envision a world in which Uncle Sam is less of a presence in your lives .... but still, acknowledge reality and understand that you could pull 100 people in the country at random and teleport them into your living room right now, poll them all, and you're almost guaranteed to be in a CLEAR MINORITY with those viewpoints. Most people like the fact that marriage licenses are a thing. In a democratic republic, that means your deepest desires for the exact approach about how this thing would happen is probably NOT going to happen.
This whole argument boils down to a moot point about a hypothetical country that exists in another universe -- it's also a moot point now because we've already won the battle, it's the law of the land, and it's a done freakin' deal. We did it the easiest, most rapid way possible for us, and it was a giant stride towards equality. I wasn't about to wait for six more decades for a glorious Libertarian revolution to gain momentum so you types could have your cake and eat it too.
Why are we still talking about it?
-
Why, though? The quickest route is just to say LET GAYS GET MARRIED. It's less complicated, and it also means an important cultural victory for us. It fixes all 1,001 laws of those little issues in one fell swoop, and ensures that the particularly uptight people in the societies in which we live are forced to adjust to a mainstreaming of us. It basically means that a homophobe's grandchildren are going to understand, a few decades from now, that we are a part of humanity and a certain ratio of gays, lesbians, gender-swapped, yadda yadda individuals in the general population is a NORMAL THING.
…you wouldn't achieve that cultural victory without fighting for the word. The word is important. I want the WORD "marriage." Fuck not getting it. Yes, it's important.
Yayyy!! Nicely said… I passionately agree with your line of argument. I never wish to get married, but I think that having the right to marry sends the right message about equality, and blurs the demarcation of gays as 'abnormal'.
In any case, I'm from a Malaysia, a country whereby Islam is the prevalent religion (although atheist myself), and there are anti-LGBT laws that make 70+ acts associated with homosexuality a crime here. I'm doubtful, but I hope that I will live to see the day when arguing for gay marriage is even on the table!
X
-
I'm proudly part of " La manif pour tous" the big french movement against gay marriage.
gay marriage is only ( at least in france) requested by a tiny group among political gay association and they think they represent all LGBT . my ass ! they represent nothing, there is no "community" among gays in france. Because being gay or bi is just a characteristic like having blue eyes. there can't be a community based on eye color because the representation of the whole population is included in this characteristic. It means if you' r gay you can be from the left, extreme left, right, far right and so on.. Maybe it was different 40 years ago but now being gay is just as random as having curled hair in our modern occidental societies. Therefore those LGBT very politically engaged in left parties represent only gay who are indeed from the left and that's it. marriage was created by religion to make children. gays cant make children and most religion don't approve gays then why asking the right to " get married?" . Therefore civil union is great and is all that's needed and already exist.
Then again what I say here only works in rich occidental countries not 3rd nor 4th world countries. -
Maybe because it has something to do with certain privileges and rights that can only be acquired by getting married? Example, like, a gay couple want to stay together and raise a child, they need to show some sort of prove that indicates that they are married right? Don't we need to have a certain certificate or so in order to adopt children?
-
Laws in most (western) countries have fit things so that gay relationships are not discriminated against financially
-
always though that if the state recognizes civil unions and grants the couple all the rights as a straight married couple gets - then thats fine. But so many guys i spoke with on this says its not abt rights, its abt being equal. and i guess its not equal rights but rather equality to go abt getting those equal rights.
-
In some ways though gay marriage can never be equal to straight marriage- those 2 partners can never have kids together for example
-
In some ways though gay marriage can never be equal to straight marriage- those 2 partners can never have kids together for example
Hmmm…I don't know if having children is part of the equation, though. After all, there are many straight, married couples that are unable to biologically have children. Of course, they can adopt, but an unmarried, gay couple will have a much more difficult time adopting.
Anyway, not all gay couples that want to be married are interested in having children. I think it's probably more about the rights/privileges given to people who are married vs. the ones who aren't. Gay or not, a married couple would probably have a much easier time adopting a child than if they weren't.
If a gay person wants to live a married/suburban/picket fence life, I think they should be allowed to (of course, I think that's a very narrow way to view marriage). All people want is the legal rights and advantages that come along with the title, not to be just like every other married couple on the planet. Being married doesn't have to mean being tied down--it depends on what you and your partner want and expect from the relationship that can turn it into a ball and chain situation.
I also don't think gays are naive enough to think that marriage is some perfect world, either. You have to work to maintain a marriage, just as you have to work to maintain ANY type of human relationship. Straight couples are quite the testament to that--there are enough married, miserable straight couples and thrice-divorced singles in this world already. If you're not cut out for marriage, you're just not, and you don't have to pretend you are. However, I think there are many gays who ARE perfectly suited for marriage, and they should have that option.
-
In some ways though gay marriage can never be equal to straight marriage- those 2 partners can never have kids together for example
Firstly. what on earth has marriage got to do with children?!
Secondly
those 2 partners can never have kids together for example
Not true, it is possible for 2 men to have a baby together which only has 0.00000000000000000000001% of the female donors DNA. Its just not legal yet. So you can't say they can never have children.
Again…
Marriage is the process by which two people make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joining of two people in a bond. -
Firstly. what on earth has marriage got to do with children?!
It has everything to do with it as it defines the filiation, That's why millions of people went into the street against gay marriage not because they give a shit about 2 gays being together but because this opens the right to have children and it legally defines 2 guys as parents hence on official papers a kid would have 2 fathers or 2 mothers and not a male and female as "pro creators" It also opens doors to surrogacy which is terrible, women renting their womb for money is disgusting and far worst than prostitution.
Marriage is the process by which two people make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joining of two people in a bond.
that is also not true at all in my country and I'm pretty sure that's the same in yours. A marriage is the legal foundation for building a family and defines inheritance from the filiation, child rights and such and it's defined as such in the legal text. Civil unions were made for that purpose.
-
Firstly. what on earth has marriage got to do with children?!
It has everything to do with it as it defines the filiation, That's why millions of people went into the street against gay marriage not because they give a shit about 2 gays being together but because this opens the right to have children and it legally defines 2 guys as parents hence on official papers a kid would have 2 fathers or 2 mothers and not a male and female as "pro creators" It also opens doors to surrogacy which is terrible, women renting their womb for money is disgusting and far worst than prostitution.
Marriage is the process by which two people make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joining of two people in a bond.
that is also not true at all in my country and I'm pretty sure that's the same in yours. A marriage is the legal foundation for building a family and defines inheritance from the filiation, child rights and such and it's defined as such in the legal text. Civil unions were made for that purpose.
WOW. The good old Russian propaganda machine has brainwashed you! Even makes the gays hate themselves. I feel so sorry for you.
Firstly. In the UK we had civil partnerships before marriage, which enabled you to adopt, surrogate etc etc. So marriage hasnt change anything.
Secondly, The legal definition of marriage at least in the UK has NEVER mentioned children. Even after religion hijacked marriage it was never mentioned.
Thirdly who the hell cares if a kid has 2 fathers or 2 mothers? As long as it is a loving family what difference does it make?!
Please show me where (apart from Russia - it doesn't count, it's not a normal place) it mentions anywhere that marriage is about children.
-
Surely any definition of marriage which insisted on procreation would exclude any couple where the woman was post-menopause or any relationship where one or other of the people was infertile for whatever cause.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login