Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gay Marriage Threat; What is it?
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 06:50 PM (864 Views)
Newarts
Member
This is not a troll and I seek serious responses.

A word different from "marriage" would be more suitable for same-sex civil contracts which have all the legal prerogatives and responsibilities of a heterosexual marriage. But how would the existence of such contractual arrangements "weaken" the institution of heterosexual marriage?

I simply do not understand what threats to a traditional civil marriage contract result from equivalent same-sex civil union contracts (regardless of what they are called.)

I firmly believe that the protection of the family is the first order of business for a society that will propagate but fail to see how civil unions interfere with that goal (especially since the existence of children plays no role in the legal definition of marriage.)

I am speaking of only the civil aspects of this matter, not religious aspects.

If Gay Activists were to stop using the word "marriage" would it help their cause?

Dave
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Personally I don't see what business it is of the government to regulate the social aspects of such matters. Yes, there are legal aspects, but those the government ought to protect, not prohibit.

But let me play devil's advocate and give your question a shot.

The movement to define marriage by amendment comes from the social conservative, big-government, religious right.

To these folk, homosexuality is an abominable deviation from social norms. Despite saying hate the sin not the sinner, accepting it in the form of same-sex marriage would demoralize the institution of marriage.

There was story recently submitting as evidence of this deterioration the fact that in the Netherlands where same-sex marriage is legal the rate of out-of-wedlock births is increasing.

Marriage is the fundamental institution of society. Therefore government has an obligation to protect it.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
Member
Dave,

A traditional marriage is when a MAN and a WOMAN take a vow before GOD and witnesses that they will remain together till "death do us part!!!' This union is approved by the state, blessed by the church and 50+% of the time end in divorce. Apparently the danger of gay marriage is way more important to our President and Congress than boring stuff like say Iraq-Nam or deficits...

To those who don't care adding or removing the term "marriage" likely won't make a difference. To those who believe that homosexuals are cursed by God a civil union or anything else that in any way gives gays legal standing is unacceptable.

Ken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
Marriage has two aspects. The first being primarily religious or of religious origin. Things like vows, and pronouncements. Considering two people joined as one (a union).

The second aspect is primarily secular and includes things like marriage licenses, community property, joint filing of tax returns, survivor and spousal benefits etc. etc.

Although, that is the way it has been done for a long time, this is really a matter of the government accomodating a religious ceremony in most cases. And, as such is an unhealthy partnership of church and state.

For this reason government should change the name of the service they provide and call it something like domestic partnership. This should be available for all who wish to live together, share resources and obtain the rights and benefits afforded currently afforded under marriage. This should include hetrosexual couples, homosexual couples, asexual couples or anyone one else wether they be having sex or not. For example two aging relatives living together should be entitled to the benefits of a domestic partnership. Provisions like in "marriage" today should be made for disallusion of the partnership, child custody etc. I do think some limitations should apply to domestic partnerships though. Perhaps monogamy (only one partner at any one time), and partnership must be between to human beings (sorry beastiality advocates).

This gets government out of the bedroom, and out of religion.

Then the religious side of marriage, with the vows and all can be free to be performed without any government involvement. With the rules and guidlines being established by the couples church affiliation. Both process should and could be completely separate. For example a couple could opt for domestic partnership. with no religious vows. Or could opt for the religious ceremoney only and for the purposes of law and the state remain "single".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pentax
Member Avatar
Kamloops - BC Interior
To answer your question both in a nutshell and NOT in the first person (MY opinion), yes it probably would show a small improvement in acceptance. (please note I say "acceptance", not "approval" - they are NOT the same thing.)
For myself I couldn't care less - no one has even approached showing me how I am adversely affected yet.

But I sense such underlying vehemence in some people's opinions, that I don't think it would be long before they found something else to fault two people who love each other, and happen to be constructed similarly.

As far as Governments go, in Murray's perfect little world they would just mind their own bloody business. Taxation and health-care premiums be damned, there are SO many different permutations of relationships and parental situations already, that this one is little more than a red-herring argument, IMO.

Posted Image
(thumbnail)

Posted Image

"Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
I agree with tomdrobin's idea. separate religious marriage from secular partnerships and be done with it.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pentax
Member Avatar
Kamloops - BC Interior
TexasShadow
Jun 7 2006, 10:52 PM
I agree with tomdrobin's idea. separate religious marriage from secular partnerships and be done with it.

no arguement here....
Posted Image
(thumbnail)

Posted Image

"Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
pentax
Jun 8 2006, 03:31 AM
TexasShadow
Jun 7 2006, 10:52 PM
I agree with tomdrobin's idea. separate religious marriage from secular partnerships and be done with it.

no arguement here....

And there should be no debate then because that's the way it is now.

Where'd this notion of government approving religious marriage come from?

My wife and I went down to the prefecture office, filled out some papers, the official handed us some papers, we took them to the US embassy. If we'd been in the US we could've gone to the county court house and applied. Six months later when we came to the US, for family,we had a ceremony in a church.

In Las Vegas you can get married in a drive thru.

What do you think common-law marriage is? If not the oldest form of marriage.

What, people didn't marry before Christianity came along? Judaism? Religion at all?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
It is my opinion that those folks pushing for constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man - one woman, changing the title of "Civil unions" would mean absolutely nothing. Those folks attempt to change any discussion of same sex marriage or civil unions for all into a discussion of the evils of homosexuality. It is the desire to force folks to accept their religious beliefs that those folks insist has to be the center of any discussion that in any way impacts homosexuals.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Actually some people that are vehement about this issue, claim that the homosexuals will convert their childern to the perversion.

Come to think of it the young college stud accross the street is starting to look good. ;)
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
bikemanb
Jun 8 2006, 06:50 AM
Actually some people that are vehement about this issue, claim that the homosexuals will convert their childern to the perversion.

And I think you will agree, that claim comes from nothing but absolute ignorance.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom
Member
Using the word married. Gives the survivor if one of them dies. The right to there partners Social Security and Insurance Benefits. Without the word married they might not get those benefits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Newarts
Member
bikemanb
Jun 8 2006, 06:50 AM
Actually some people that are vehement about this issue, claim that the homosexuals will convert their childern to the perversion.

That's the best rational reasoning on how civil unions threaten hetrosexual marriage I've heard so far.

I think the logic may be that legally recognizing civil unions encourages gay behavior. In turn, that encouragement will lead to a decreased number of children who will enter hetrosexual marriage.

Dave
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Gay marriage threatens normal marriage because it cheapens what marriage is. If two guys or two girls can get married so they can share health insurance, then what has marriage really become? It just becomes a vehicle to share benefits with some one else.

Marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman that agree to share their lives together (till death do us part). It is a comitment to stay together for the mutual benefit of the family (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health). It is also done in front of witnesses to verify the contract.

It is a well known and much ignored fact that the nuclear family is the best way to raise kids. It is also well known and much ignored that divorce causes harm to kids. The purpose of marriage is to be a permenant bond to provide kids and grand kids the stability they need to develop properly. It is unknown how much a gay marriage would harm kids.

Yes, 50% of marriages end in divorce. This is because the concept of permenance in marriage is lost these days. Does anyone think that gays will embrace this permenance also? Most likely they won't.

If something is broken and in need of repair, do you break it more before you try to fix it? Adding gays will only make things more difficult to fix.

When does the re-definition end? Will they stop with just gays? I don't think so. You will see all sorts of crazy things being offered to us for legitamicy though marriage.

This is what gays are really looking for...legitimacy, not marriage. No matter how much acceptance they get, down deep what they are doing in their bed rooms, bathhouses, and bar bathrooms is not normal.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Anyone telling you that the amendment is not needed is purposely trying to fool you. The fact is, once you are married in Mass, you are married everywhere. This means if a state doesn't want gay marriage, it gets it anyway, as long as the gays get married in Mass or some other state where gay marriage is legal. What are you going to say to them? You are now in Mississippi, so your not married anymore?

The way it is now, a minority of people get to deside the gay marriage issue. Your opinion doesn't count, unless we have a constitutional admendment.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply