Is banning gay's rights to marry wrong?

[Anonymouse]

But what I'm trying to say is, why is it such a big deal for them if they can't officially get married? It's not like their lifestyle is gonna change once they're married. Most of them already live together, adopt kids, etc. etc. etc. Why do they keep pushing this marriage thing when all it really is, is a piece of paper.

Well, they just like to whine. It's like that old saying, "Give them an inch, and they take a mile". They only want and want and want. That is usually how people who feed off the governments teat behave.

[winoman]

Yes - the "marraige has always been..." argument...

INTERACIAL MARRIAGE
March 18, 2004

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and
he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with
his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that
he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

This was a view held by those who opposed miscegenation, a term coined in
1863, to give a scientific connotation to interracial marriage. And, from
that period, until 1967, 30 American states passed law prohibiting
marriages between a white and a non-white.

It must be noted that a non-white was defined differently by different
states. In some, one-eighth of black blood made you black, in others, one
drop sufficed.

And, there were the penalties. People engaged in interracial unions would
go to jail for up to five years in states like Virginia. But, jail term
is minor compared to the lynching administered by the all too powerful
KKK, a white supremacist organization funded in 1860s after the Civil War.

Today, the head of the United Nations (Koffi Anan), an African, is married
to a Scandinavian woman. No couple can be any more interracial than this
one. It is then intellectually fair to inquire on the reasons why
interracial marriage was so ill-received in America.

The reasons were two-fold. The first one is biblical. Call it
pseudo-biblical, because fundamentalists assimilate Africans with
Canaanites, a fact that was never proven.

In Deuteronomy 7:3-4, God, as follows, warns the chosen nation against the
Canaanites: "Neither shall you make marriage with them. For they will turn
your son away from following me that they may serve other gods, so the
anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy you suddenly."

The second reason was scientific. Call it pseudo-scientific since all the
basis of Eugenics, the science of race improvement through better
breeding, were refuted by modern genetics. "White race-purity is the
cornerstone of our civilization," said the eugenicists, therefore marrying
a white to a species considered as inferior would only produce sterile
human mules. Eugenics theories led to the Holocaust.

The pseudo biblical and scientific notions that today oppose gay marriage
are similar to the ones that opposed interracial unions, not even forty
years ago. Now, like then, they go against the right of 10% of the
population of the United States.

Hollywood in its 100 year history has never showed a leading lady (not a
secondary, often prostitute character) in bed with her black co-star. A
black man openly making love to a white woman is as offensive to wider
America as is the view of two male homosexuals kissing. It has everything
to do with the way we feel, and nothing to do with the civil rights of the
involved citizens.

(OdlerRobert Jeanlouie, Thursday, March 18, 2004)

[winoman]

This is a must read IMO - pretty much covors the gamut

This author makes a great case for gay marriage - both for legal reasons (basic rights - property, inheritence, etc) - and because of love and family (that gay people are desirous of and have every right to expect in our society) - also talks about potential societal costs etc - really a very well presented piece - worth reading for anyone who isn't just overly judgemental & homophobic and/or just has their mind made up already...

http://www.loveisloveislove.com/discrimination_in_US.htm

Some excerpts:

In the United States it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation, yet by telling gay citizens that they are not allowed to marry, the federal government is doing just that. It makes no sense that discrimination would be outlawed for one aspect of homosexuality, but the law not upheld for another.

Those who oppose gay marriage, in almost all cases, do so because of religious beliefs, edicts, or affiliations. ... Denying someone their freedoms through law and legal action and justifying it with religious beliefs that are supposed to be separate in totality from any and all legalastic action of the United States is a direct violation of all that this country has stood for and was formed for.

Many are parellelling interacial marriage to gay marriage. Interacial marriage was made legal in the U.S. by Loving v. Virginia in 1974. Such a short time ago.

the word “marriage” appears more than 1,000 times in federal statutes governing inheritance rights, Social Security benefits, hospital visitation and tax law

As of right now, a long standing gay couple cannot bequeath to each other their belongings, they cannot be in a hospital room if an emergency occurs, they cannot hold the hands of their significant other as they pass away. This quest for equal rights is not only about monetary benefits, or even primarily monetarily motivated. This is a “social movement built around the quest for happiness” and the freedom of choice and love

Marriage. It seems that many opponents of gay marriage simply take issue with the use of the word “marriage.” Change it to civil unions and enough of the population forms a majority and says, “Yes, make it legal” (Smardz. B03). So why not accept civil unions? It’s just a word, right? Wrong. That is simply not so. If the word “marriage” has no value, why are so many fighting to preserve their idea of the “sanctity” of it? Obviously, this word means much to many.

Gay or straight, we have been raised in a society that has an expectation of marriage as a normal progression in one’s life. Calling gay marriage a civil union, and heterosexual marriage simply marriage is unfair. It is an example of separate but equal thinking and therefore unconstitutional. Married couples, gay or straight, should have equal right in all matters—equal benefits and equal taxes.

[winoman]

Some more good quotes and such

Oh here is a good one (for all of you anti-catholics - eh?)

Martin Luther:

In 1520 he had published three treatises...(included amopng his proclamations): Marriage was a civil affair to which the Church could give its blessing - and he further acknowledged that the practice/institution of Marriage predated the (Catholic) church...and indeed Christianity:

"There has been such a thing as marriage itself ever since the beginning of the world and it also exists amongst unbelievers to the present day. Therefore no grounds exist on which Romanists can validly call it a sacrament of the new law, and a function solely of the church. The marriages of our ancestors were no less sacred then ours, no less real among unbelievers then believers. Yet no one calls marriage of unbelievers a sacrement. Also, there are ireligious marriages even amongst believers, worse then among pagans."


Ah and another good one from Luther (see he wasn't all puratanical like - not at all BTW): "Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long."

[ArmenianKid]

Of course it does. Your argument is that homosexuals should marry because they want tax breaks, reap the benefits of the State. And I effectively demolished it by saying that, if that is what they want, to reap benefits from the State's trough, then they can get a civil union in which they get all those benefits, and not call it marriage. And now you will feel the need to respond to vindicate yourself.

well men and women marry becuase they are deeply in love with one another. are you saying gay's only want money with there way of life? are gay's no able to love or something?

[ArmenianKid]

I'll tell you why its a big deal. It is the seed of all that which makes our social fabric. It is the functioning unit which makes our society possible. That is why some of us actually have a concept of family, which has ensured the survival of human civilization. When you distort that, you distort the idea of civilization, and no society has ever been stupid enough to accept homosexuality into its mainstream institutions such as marriage. Even the Greeks who were by far the most supposedly sexually advanced of ancient societies kept homosexuality on the fringes, and allowed a man to engage in such so long as he promised later to marry, in order to continue their society.

so your saying letting gays marry would crumble society?

[winoman]

so your saying letting gays marry would crumble society?

Yeah - kill them all! eh?

Well these claims are quite a stretch. Allowing gay marriages in no way affects heterosexual marriages - they are free to florish (or not) independently. And gays do exist as couples...so should they not allowed to do such - should it be illegal? (enforce those sodomy laws etc) - yeah send them all to prison! ...that will teach them to not follow the "gay lifestyle"

[ArmoBarbi]

Yosef, I dont think he was suggesting that they just want money and dont really love each other.

Arman, the percentage of gays in our society (or any) is still small enough that it wont create a problem when it comes to procreation. Our population is growing as it is, and gay couples can have children through sperm banks and serogates etc... Its not an issue here. Even if you are talking social structure alone, there are so many more straight than gay couples that society can take it. I wouldnt worry about that.

Cat, I think that "getting married" is only a legal and social ceremonial thing. People can have the same relationship and family without the formality. I think this is what you were saying. I think their issue is getting certain legal benefits.

Now, my question is - does a "civil union" provide the exact same benefits as a marriage? Also, are civil unions legal in every state?

[winoman]

Yosef, I dont think he was suggesting that they just want money and dont really love each other.

no - he was (falsely) suggesting that this was my position. Only because I was concentrating on the legal/economic ramifications/descrimination/inequities etc

Arman, the percentage of gays in our society (or any) is still small enough that it wont create a problem when it comes to procreation. Our population is growing as it is, and gay couples can have children through sperm banks and serogates etc... Its not an issue here. Even if you are talking social structure alone, there are so many more straight than gay couples that society can take it. I wouldnt worry about that.

Was Adolk satisfied with that? Why should he have been when the "Final Solution" was available to him...and remember its just the idea of these people that is the issue...ewwww...(kill them all!) etc

Cat, I think that "getting married" is only a legal and social ceremonial thing. People can have the same relationship and family without the formality. I think this is what you were saying. I think their issue is getting certain legal benefits.

Its all of the above.

Now, my question is - does a "civil union" provide the exact same benefits as a marriage? Also, are civil unions legal in every state?

I think civil union is only recognized in Vermont - or some such. And no - its not quite "seperate but equal" - but nothing ever is eh?

[ArmoBarbi]

If civil union doesnt offer the same benefits as marriage and isnt even widely recognized then how does it really substitute of marriage??

It seems to me that its just something that was created so that they could say, "There you people go. You have your "marriage substitute". You cant complain now." Doesnt seem too helpful.