To those who oppose gay marriage on the grounds...

[roguenuke]

Just chiming in here, haven't even read the thread, or the OP, but something occurred to me. How many people do you know that have no kids, remain married past 5, 10, 20 years? Just curious. I ask, because, although clearly married with children is no guarantee of stability, it does seem intuitively to be superior to childless marriages? Too lazy to look it up, but if anyone was so inclined I'd bet money the figure is illuminating?

Seriously, I don't know of ANY childless couples married for any extended period of time?


Tim-

I know a childless couple that has been married for at least 15 or 20 years. (I'm not sure exactly, I just know that I was 15 when I met them and they had been married for at least a couple years before that.) They can't have kids of their own because the husband has been paralyzed from the neck down since he was 30 (they are my mother's age), and fell out of a tree. They both do have children from previous marriages, and now they have grandchildren. I don't see them getting divorced anytime soon.

My parents on the other hand, have 6 kids, and still got divorced after 20 years of marriage, despite 5 of those still living at home, the youngest was 9.

 

[hallam]

Then so should everyone else. It is not an equal thing if we have two different words describing the same thing, especially since that word only would apply to two types of couples who would not fit into the "normal" reasons given for why gay marriages should not be accepted as marriages, despite the fact that many heterosexual marriages would meet those same things. It is separating things based on a characteristic being used to create bias.

And there are many opposite sex couples who do not get married in a church, synagogue, temple or other holy place. I was wed in the front yard of my husband's aunt's farm. My husband and I not only have different religious beliefs than each other, but we also have different beliefs from our family, and probably most of the world. We both believe in a higher power though and take our marriage vows to each other seriously. Very few anti-gay marriage folks however, would include our union in one that would not get to use the word marriage. That is discrimination, because it means that the one characteristic that matters to those who want the word "marriage" to remain with religions, is not whether a marriage fits into religious marriages but rather, that the genders of the people involved in the marriages are "correct" according to them.

I am aware that there are many heterosexual couples now who do not get married in a place of worship. That is why in my second comment to you, I added the caveat for the last few decades. Marriage is not the same thing as a government contract under civil union. Marriages are religious and have specific religious attributes.

 

[stars2heaven]

Those religions should be allowed to observe and celebrate same sex unions.

And why not marriage?

However, if a religion doesn't celebrate it, it shouldn't be forced to celebrate same sex unions.

Sure, there is no reason they ought to be. Nor is there any danger that they would have to if gay marriage were legalized.

The First Amendment here is not in play. And neither is the rest of the Constitution. We are not talking about governmental laws. At least I am not. I am talking about social context and norms. Further, I know of no major religion or major denomination in America that condones same sex marriage to the point of having ceremonies within a Church, Synagogue, Temple, or Mosque.

First, whether the religion or denomination is major is irrelevant. Also, when laws are being passed that represent the views of a single religious group while at the same time prohibiting the free expression of another religion I'd say the First Amendment does have something to say. With that said, the denomination which currently support gay marriage are few but growing in number. United Church of Christ is one example. The Presbytarian church is clearly still divided over the issue. Though their current official position as a whole is to not allow same sex marriages, some of it's ministers have performed them in the past.

Maybe Unitarians, but even then that may be a hit and miss as to what a ceremony would be in that church. These religious people may be okay with gay unions as I am. I have no problem with it and support it as my church does. However there is a difference between saying that homosexual couples should have the same rights as everyone else, which is covered under equal protections, and allowing homosexual marriage within a place of worship.

Clearly that should be decided by the individual organization. No one religion should be able to dictate what another can and can't do when it comes to marriage.

I see no reason why equal protections and the sanity of the concept of marriage, as America understand this, can't both be supported here. If a word is just a word as roguenuke states then homosexual couples should be fine with civil unions and equal protection.

As roguenuke also says, then so should heterosexual couples. The point I am making though is not just about the civil benefits that come with marriage, but who is dictating for everyone else what they think marriage ought to be. The "sanctity" of marriage is something that is clearly subjective. There are some Christians who feel it is threatened by gay marriage. There are others who do not feel this way, and even some who feel that by prohibiting it the sanctity of marriage is threatened. There is no ground to stand on for the Christian who says that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage and should not be permitted so long as there is another Christian or non-Christian who says the opposite.

 

[roguenuke]

I am aware that there are many heterosexual couples now who do not get married in a place of worship. That is why in my second comment to you, I added the caveat for the last few decades. Marriage is not the same thing as a government contract under civil union. Marriages are religious and have specific religious attributes.

Marriage are about making people family. They have existed prior to religious beliefs. They will most likely exist even if there was no religion. Especially considering the current status of marriage. In most countries, especially Western cultures, marriages have two forms. This is becoming more and more true, not less. Marriage is not likely to go away, even if a country became completely atheist. Marriage provides rights to people, as it should, that wish to be each other's legal family.

Maybe the original government marriage contracts shouldn't have been referred to as marriages, but that is the only thing they knew to call it. Along with this, they were much more religious then than we are now. Heck, even the US's first marriage licenses weren't really based on religion but rather they were meant to restrict who could legally marry (based more on race then).

There is no way to change the past, but that doesn't mean that we cannot change the way we think about things from the past. Marriage has been changing for a long time, and especially during the last 60 years or so. Whether it is the personal marriages or civil marriages, both have been changing. More people are getting married outside of a church. More people of different races and/or religions are getting married. How the marriages are performed are changing in at least some religions. Views on divorce, even on the religious level, are changing. Why someone should get married is changing, along with reasons why a couple shouldn't get married. Young couples no longer always feel pressured to marry just because the girl got pregnant. And many new religions and beliefs are emerging. There are same sex couples who can get married in churches or whereever they worship. In these cases, it is not the religion that would restrict their marriage, but rather the state. They would be married under their religion.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

I think the bottom line is people in the US like this tradition, and want it to remain as is.

 

[roguenuke]

I think the bottom line is people in the US like this tradition, and want it to remain as is.

Many people in the US liked the "tradition" of preventing blacks and whites from getting married too. Luckily, their "liking" a tradition did not stop the law from being struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[stars2heaven]

I think the bottom line is people in the US like this tradition, and want it to remain as is.

There have been a plethora of "traditions" thoughout US and world history that many people prefered to "remain as is" but were changed for the good of the people affected by those traditions. The bottom line is that traditions should not be preserved for the sake of it, and certainly not when those traditions are the product of prejudice and serve only to preserve it.

 

[Bodi]

There have been a plethora of "traditions" thoughout US and world history that many people prefered to "remain as is" but were changed for the good of the people affected by those traditions. The bottom line is that traditions should not be preserved for the sake of it, and certainly not when those traditions are the product of prejudice and serve only to preserve it.

"Tradition" is held up as some lofty notion, as if it should be revered. Those that hold to this idea cannot seem to fathom change. My dad and Christmas come to mind... he cannat fathom any change in what we do for our family Christmas "traditions". That is like speaking heresy... It is fine there, since it is innocent enough, but like you mention, "traditions should not be preserved for the sake of it, and certainly not when those traditions are the product of prejudice and serve only to preserve it".

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

There have been a plethora of "traditions" thoughout US and world history that many people prefered to "remain as is" but were changed for the good of the people affected by those traditions. The bottom line is that traditions should not be preserved for the sake of it, and certainly not when those traditions are the product of prejudice and serve only to preserve it.

This is true, but it's been quite sometime that the marriage issue has been around, so somehow the issue will have to go Federal to get shot down. You can't have all states not acknowledging other states marriages. It won't work.

 

[Hicup]

I know a childless couple that has been married for at least 15 or 20 years. (I'm not sure exactly, I just know that I was 15 when I met them and they had been married for at least a couple years before that.) They can't have kids of their own because the husband has been paralyzed from the neck down since he was 30 (they are my mother's age), and fell out of a tree. They both do have children from previous marriages, and now they have grandchildren. I don't see them getting divorced anytime soon.

My parents on the other hand, have 6 kids, and still got divorced after 20 years of marriage, despite 5 of those still living at home, the youngest was 9.

No I know, I guess I was just wondering what, if any correlation there might be to the success, or lack thereof to marriage in general? I don't recall ever seeing any studies on it?

Tim-

 

[stars2heaven]

No I know, I guess I was just wondering what, if any correlation there might be to the success, or lack thereof to marriage in general? I don't recall ever seeing any studies on it?

Tim-

This somewhat answers the question. It's more of an overview of lots of different kinds of studies, but it does mention a statistic on gay couples who are raising kids and compares it to straight couples raising kids and how long they have been together.

Of same-gender partners raising children, 41.1% have been together for 5 years or longer, whereas 19.9% of heterosexual unmarried couples have stayed together for that duration.

That is the quote from the article. Of course, you have to take into account that fact that many of the same sex couples can't get married to begin with. So it's not really accurate in describing how their relationships fair compared to married heterosexual couples.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

One problem with leftist intellectuals is that their thinking on gay marriage seems to be based on nothing more than emotion and sentiment. Emotion and sentiment are unreliable because they change so radically so quickly.

As a conservative I support full civil rights for lgbt folks because of the US Constitution requires it. I looked at the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to find where it says "...except for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people."

I didn't find that precatory language in the Equal Protection Clause. So I read it again. Same result. That means the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't contain an exclusion for lgbt people.

Since there is no exception, a strict construction of the Constitution means that the laws cannot be applied unequally to lgbt folks.

Conservative intellectual honesty requires that the legal arrangement known as marriage be available to all consenting adults. Case closed.

 

[stars2heaven]

One problem with leftist intellectuals is that their thinking on gay marriage seems to be based on nothing more than emotion and sentiment. Emotion and sentiment are unreliable because they change so radically so quickly.

As a conservative I support full civil rights for lgbt folks because of the US Constitution requires it. I looked at the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to find where it says "...except for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people."

I didn't find that precatory language in the Equal Protection Clause. So I read it again. Same result. That means the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't contain an exclusion for lgbt people.

Since there is no exception, a strict construction of the Constitution means that the laws cannot be applied unequally to lgbt folks.

Conservative intellectual honesty requires that the legal arrangement known as marriage be available to all consenting adults. Case closed.

Well isn't that a wide net you cast there in the beginning. Kind of off topic I suppose, but you could make the same claim against alot of conservatives who rely on emotion and sentiment when trying to preserve traditions and certainly when trying to impose their religious views on others.

I think both sides of the issue should stick to the facts.

 

[Paschendale]

Well isn't that a wide net you cast there in the beginning. Kind of off topic I suppose, but you could make the same claim against alot of conservatives who rely on emotion and sentiment when trying to preserve traditions and certainly when trying to impose their religious views on others.

I think both sides of the issue should stick to the facts.

The facts are that the 9th and 14th amendments protect gay marriage. That's it.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The facts are that the 9th and 14th amendments protect gay marriage. That's it.

Equal protection under the law is an elusive concept for some people.

 

[Black Dog]

Equal protection under the law is an elusive concept for some people.

Just like hate laws huh? I mean if a white man hits a black or gay man it is much worse than if a gay or black guy hits a white man. Lets not even mention affirmative action.

 

[Kali]

Just like hate laws huh? I mean if a white man hits a black or gay man it is much worse than if a gay or black guy hits a white man. Lets not even mention affirmative action.

There could be valid reasons for this and would suggest you start with slavery and then work your your way up til you get it, ok?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

There could be valid reasons for this and would suggest you start with slavery and then work your your way up til you get it, ok?

One lesson we should have learned during the Civil Rights era was that separate is never equal. Treating people as different under the law means that they will always be separate.

 

[Black Dog]

There could be valid reasons for this and would suggest you start with slavery and then work your your way up til you get it, ok?

Slavery ended a long time ago. Blacks need to get over it like every other slave in the Western world.

Those laws are stupid, period. We don't need a protected class. If you assault someone, does not matter who, we should be equal under the law.

 

[Kali]

Tell that to all the parents who have lost children due to being tortured and killed due to hate over their sexuality, race or gender.

 

[Black Dog]

Tell that to all the parents who have lost children due to being tortured and killed due to hate over their sexuality, race or gender.

Tell it to all the parents who lost children to wars, plague and famine while you are at it. Life is hard and no one said it would be easy. If people would pull themselves up and stop blaming everyone else for their own failures, this would be a much better place.

Suck it up and drive on troop. That WAS the American way. Now we are a country of whiners.

 

[Kali]

Tell it to all the parents who lost children to wars, plague and famine while you are at it. Life is hard and no one said it would be easy. If people would pull themselves up and stop blaming everyone else for their own failures, this would be a much better place.

Suck it up and drive on troop. That WAS the American way. Now we are a country of whiners.

Or if people full of hate would simply suck it up and accept the fact that not everybody is exactly like them this world would be a better place.

 

[Black Dog]

Or if people full of hate would simply suck it up and accept the fact that not everybody is exactly like them this world would be a better place.

We can't control other people, we can only control ourselves. This includes excepting responsibility for failure or success.

Like I said a bunch of whiners constantly bitching about how someone else is causing them to fail, instead of placing it where it belongs, squarely on their own shoulders.

 

[CriticalThought]

Slavery ended a long time ago. Blacks need to get over it like every other slave in the Western world.

Those laws are stupid, period. We don't need a protected class. If you assault someone, does not matter who, we should be equal under the law.

Institutional racism is the new slavery.

 

[Black Dog]

Institutional racism is the new slavery.

I did not even know what that meant. I had to go and look it up...

Definition: The term "institutional racism" describes societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Jim Crow and the oppression of the Japanese on the west coast ended a long time ago. I am not sure what you mean unless you are talking about gay marriage, DADT, adoption by gay couples etc? They are not race or ethnicity? I mean if that is what you are saying, I agree for the most part.