I must ask...

[McMurphy]

...because, State-side, the answer appears to be not nearly as common sense based as I had once thought.

Is there anyone here that thinks that gay marriage should not be legalized?

A logical arguement against gay marriages seem to elude me, and I have yet to hear one. With certain State counties across the nation voting to legally define a marriage as being between a man and a woman, it frightens me that those very people don't step up and offer a truly persuasive arguement.

Obviously, I think gay marriage should be legalized; I believe it is already legal---it just needs to be officially defended on a federal level.

Even if you are for gay marriage, can you give some examples of arguements that you have heard supporting the said discrimination?

[littlemissattitude]

I don't even know how to begin to answer this. You talk about logical arguments, McMurphy. I haven't ever heard an argument against gay marriage that I think is logical. But my threshold for logic may not be someone else's.

Honestly, almost the only arguments against gay marriage that I can recall hearing are the religious ones. I consider that those arguments include the supposedly secular argument that redifining marriage would be detrimental to the culture, being that I've only heard it from those who consider the culture to be specifically Judeo-Christian in nature. I won't even go into those arguments here because everyone has heard them, and my critique of them might offend someone. Best not to go there at all.

The only non-religious argument I can ever recall hearing at all, and it not very often, is an economic one - that it would put too much of a burden on business to have to extend benefits to partners in gay marriages as well as to those in traditional marriages. That argument, of course, was also extended to civil unions. Personally, I don't buy that one, either. It's just another way of trying to get out of paying benefits, which many corporations are trying to do just generally.

Oh, wait...there is one other argument that I've heard. I'd class is as religious in nature, in a general sort of way, but I'll mention it anyway. This argument goes that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation - having babies. Since two men or two women can't have babies, at least not in the traditional way, with the baby genetically related to both partners, so this argument goes, that means that gay marriage is not a legitimate form of marriage. The huge problem with that argument, as I see it, is that taken to it's logical conclusion, it would prohibit marriage also to straight couples who are either unable or unwilling to have children. Since that isn't going to happen, at least at a secular level, I don't think that argument is valid. Although I do remember reading about a couple a few years ago who was denied marriage by the Catholic Church because one of the parnters was either sterile or physically unable to engage in any act that would result in pregnancy in the woman (I can't remember which was the case). Which is why I consider this argument to be essentially religious in nature.

This whole subject just really frustrates me, since the people who want to prohibit gay marriage are, in general (at least among those I know out here in the real world), the same people who tend to walk around talking about how government needs to get out of people's private lives. Since government regulation of who can and can't get married is one of the most private parts of life, it just reeks of government interference in people's lives. So basically those folks are trying to have it both ways.

I'll stop now. I feel a full-scale rant coming on, and it wouldn't be pretty.

[Foxbat]

As far as gay marriage - I'm neither for nor against. The fact that I have no doubt that most argument against gay marriage is based in bigotry or religious claptrap annoys me greatly.

If we live in a free society then we should be 'free' to make personal choices regardless of whether other people approve or not. I think we'd get on a lot better if we just banned all sanctimonious idiots who claim to have a hotline to their God.

[polymorphikos]

Many claim that gay marriage would be an affront in the eyes of God. The solution is be that you (to my understanding) would only be able engage in a gay marriage on a legal, not religious, level, = marriage licences at the registrar's office. The churches have nothing to do with it, and the religious issue is skirted.

[Lacedaemonian]

Not being religious, this question is difficult to answer. 'The whole wedding' thing is an ancient tradition which of course has been denied to gays throughout time.

[I, Brian]

I really think we need to define "marriage", because there's the religious ceremony, and the secular tradition, which bother overlap the term.

Gay religious ceremony weddings? Only if the religious group in question actually sanctions it. It's a striclty religious question.

Gay civil unions? No problem. It's a strictly secular issue.

Do we need to use the term "gay marriage" or "civil union" though?

Also - the promotion of "gay marriages" rides roughshod over a larger minority group - "common-law" partnerships, which I'm advised technically assures no legal rights in having a recognised partnerships.

It would be nice to see the law address the wider issue of what consitutes a union recognised by the state, rather than distract into high-profile minority cases, that leaves the wider questions unanswered.

[Hypes]

Becayse gay marriage is a non-issue. Less than 1% of the American population is homosexual, they are simply an extremely high profile minority. So until it becomes an actual issue, why make such a fuss out of it?

Homosexuality bothers me, and on a personal level I want nothing to do with it. I regard it as a disease, though this is not what puts me off. I am against discrimination against any minority or majority, and this includes the homosexuals.

What puts me off is the flaunting of it - the waving of a defect as if it was a badge of honour. Because no matter what, homosexuality is a defect, as much as a gimp hand, or Parkinson's.

[McMurphy]

I suppose that is a fair distinction to make: religious marriages and civil unions. I don't believe it would be within a State's proper framework of power to force religious institutions to perform ceremonies they do not believe in. Seperation of Church and State goes both ways, afterall.

I do believe that civil unions (which is of the same legal standings as a marriage conducted within a church) between same-sex relationships is an important thing to officially uphold on the federal level. There was once a time in the United States that it was illegal for interracial marriages to occur (and be assured nay-sayers cited the Bible then, too); thus, religious groups refused to conduct them under the same guise of reasoning. Thankfully, that minority group issue was given serious attention by the courts and was rewarded its rightful legal status. Because of it, society (over time) accepted the unions, and churches started to perform the traditional blessings of the marriage. I realize that the relationship between law, religion, and society is far more complex than what I have suggested, but I do believe that if civil unions between gay couples are allowed to be performed by courthouses, the larger religious institutions will some day conduct religious-based marriages, and society will become more and more acceptive of the idea.

[mzarynn]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It would be nice to see the law address the wider issue of what consitutes a union recognised by the state, rather than distract into high-profile minority cases, that leaves the wider questions unanswered.

I agree, Brian. We're stuck on the definition of marriage when it's really about equality. If two people are willing to make a lifetime commitment they should be able to have a legal union. Does it really have to be defined as marriage? Not all heterosexual couples want to get married either.

Where were these religious marriage law critics when people were able to get married and divorced in a weekend at Las Vegas? Honestly, which is worse... Two people of the same sex in a committed relationship or movie star relationships that last two days. It drives me crazy when I think of which one is considered marriage and which is outrage. Don't we have our morals a little backwards?

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Hypes

Becayse gay marriage is a non-issue. Less than 1% of the American population is homosexual.

I averaged the results of five large surveys (National Opinion Research Council, General Social Survey, Louis Harris & Associates, Research Triangle, and National Survey of Men) and found that 5.3% of the United States population is openly gay. Within research papers, almost all conclude that the numbers are actually higher because of the "closet" factor.

Either way, 5.3% is a higher percentage of the population that some racial groups have in the United States, yet they have been assured civil rights.

[mzarynn]

Originally Posted by Hypes

Homosexuality bothers me, and on a personal level I want nothing to do with it. I regard it as a disease, though this is not what puts me off. I am against discrimination against any minority or majority, and this includes the homosexuals.

What puts me off is the flaunting of it - the waving of a defect as if it was a badge of honour. Because no matter what, homosexuality is a defect, as much as a gimp hand, or Parkinson's.

I'm glad you're against the discrimination of homosexuals. As for the flaunting, I haven't come across many gay people who act like the Fab Five or other gay Hollywood personalities. There are always a few but I think it's personality, not actually being homosexual, that makes them flaunt it. I have many gay friends and collegues whom you wouldn't know they were gay unless it came up in conversation. Not all blondes are ditzy, but a few ditzy blondes got famous, Hollywood held onto that stereotype, and now we're all labeled dumb.

[Foxbat]

Also - the promotion of "gay marriages" rides roughshod over a larger minority group - "common-law" partnerships, which I'm advised technically assures no legal rights in having a recognised partnerships.

Not true (at least in Scotland). I have been in a common law partnership in the past and both parties are afforded legal status as if they were actually married (my banker can confirm this as it cost me a helluva lot of money)

As for Homosexuality being a disease - I don't agree. To say it is a disease is to imply that there is (or could be) a cure. This is not the case.

[Lacedaemonian]

Perhaps it is an incurable social disease like glue sniffing.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by McMurphy

I suppose that is a fair distinction to make: religious marriages and civil unions. I don't believe it would be within a State's proper framework of power to force religious institutions to perform ceremonies they do not believe in. Seperation of Church and State goes both ways, afterall.

I don't think that this really plays into it, honestly. Different religious bodies, and different individual clergypersons decline to marry traditional couples for a variety of reasons, and the law doesn't stand in the way of that. In other words, just because it is legal for a man and a woman to marry, that does not require any church or clergyperson to perform a marriage ceremony for any couple that requests it. For example, many churches require a couple to undergo a certain period of time or number of sessions of pre-marriage (sometimes called Pre-Cana) counseling sessions before they will perform the ceremony. There really isn't any way, I don't think, that anyone could be forced to perform a religious wedding for any reason.

But a civil marriage, performed by a judge or a justice of the peace, is just as much a marriage in the eyes of the law as a religious wedding is. And the anti-gay marriage amendments prohibit those as well. And that is where civil rights problems arise.

[Hypes]

There is no cure for Ebola, either.