Will gay marriage be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election?

[platypeanArchcow]

What's with everyone saying "marriage is a religious ceremony/institution/whatnot?"  I'm an atheist.  Am I not allowed to marry?

[Keystone Phil]

But why do you value the traditional definition?  Why is what you value more important than what they value, so much that it justifies denying all-around equality?

I value it because that definition has meant something for straight couples. I don't know why a gay couple couldn't move on and recognize that they have a union that means something for them. Again, it's not about equality.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

I think McCain was asked about the California decision and he just said it's up to the people of California to decide. No real hectoring.

As regards this debate, can I state that marriage is not and never has been a solely religious institution.

[Alcon]

I value it because that definition has meant something for straight couples. I don't know why a gay couple couldn't move on and recognize that they have a union that means something for them. Again, it's not about equality.

Not to be obtuse, but aren't you pretty much saying "excluding gay people is very important to straight people.  Why can't gay people just realize this and move on?"?

Doesn't that sort of answer itself?

[Keystone Phil]

Not to be obtuse, but aren't you pretty much saying "excluding gay people is very important to straight people.  Why can't gay people just realize this and move on?"?

When gay people can reproduce (a major reason for many of us as to why marriage is between a man and a woman), get back to me.

[Alcon]

When gay people can reproduce (a major reason for many of us as to why marriage is between a man and a woman), get back to me.

Oh, so should post-menopausal or otherwise infertile women be disallowed from marrying too?

You keep mentioning things that marriage is traditionally...but then, when it comes to discluding heterosexual couples who do not match those definitions, you suddenly shy away.  It sounds less like you actually believe that is what marriage is about, and more like it's a rationalization for limiting it to heterosexuals.

(Edit: Or, I should say, that you do believe that marriage is about that, but you feel discomfort in disallowing heterosexuals who don't match your definition marital rights!  See where I'm going with this?)

Even accepting that "it's traditional" is a valid reason for not extending rights of equality, that doesn't make sense.

[Torie]

How about lesbians who "reproduce?" Of gays who adopt? They might not be "reproducing" literally, but they are shaping a young person into an adult, the most awesome responsibility that one assumes on this mortal coil. I think this is a very weak ground on which to tread really.

[Keystone Phil]

When gay people can reproduce (a major reason for many of us as to why marriage is between a man and a woman), get back to me.

Oh, so should post-menopausal or otherwise infertile women be disallowed from marrying too?

Knew that one was coming. I said reproduction is a major reason, not the only.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's put it this way - my reasons, regardless of what they are, just be argued to be just as irrelevant as your's. Why do you believe gays should be "married?" Because they love each other and want to be with each other? Ok. What's stopping them from either of those things? What's stopping them from being in love and living together? Marriage is very important to many of us but, benefits aside, there is nothing stopping people from being just as happy together even if they aren't "married."

[tik 🪀✨]

Why do you believe gays should be "married?" Because they love each other and want to be with each other? Ok. What's stopping them from either of those things? What's stopping them from being in love and living together? Marriage is very important to many of us but, benefits aside, there is nothing stopping people from being just as happy together even if they aren't "married."

"Benefits aside"? Homosexuals want recognition from their government that they have formed a committed, social pact together, as heterosexuals can. It's a validation of their relationship that brings in benefits because of its recognition. Churches would not have to recognize it. You, as an individual, would not have to recognize it. It's simply a matter of equality and recognition before it is a matter of benefits.

And for the record, I believe the government should drop "marriage" altogether and leave that to the churches. There would thus only be civil unions. Would you agree with that, Phil?

[Keystone Phil]

"Benefits aside"? Homosexuals want recognition from their government that they have formed a committed, social pact together, as heterosexuals can. It's a validation of their relationship that brings in benefits because of its recognition. Churches would not have to recognize it. You, as an individual, would not have to recognize it. It's simply a matter of equality and recognition before it is a matter of benefits.

Uh...this is what happens when you come in half way through a debate. I'm in favor of the government recognizing their union. I support civil unions. The government would recognize them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, follow the debate from the beginning.

[tik 🪀✨]

"Benefits aside"? Homosexuals want recognition from their government that they have formed a committed, social pact together, as heterosexuals can. It's a validation of their relationship that brings in benefits because of its recognition. Churches would not have to recognize it. You, as an individual, would not have to recognize it. It's simply a matter of equality and recognition before it is a matter of benefits.

Uh...this is what happens when you come in half way through a debate. I'm in favor of the government recognizing their union. I support civil unions. The government would recognize them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, follow the debate from the beginning.

But half-heartedly interjecting crap is my favourite thing to do here

[Alcon]

Knew that one was coming. I said reproduction is a major reason, not the only.

So, reproduction is only a major litmus test insofar as it's something only heterosexuals can do...right?  Then it's extraneous.

Let's put it this way - my reasons, regardless of what they are, just be argued to be just as irrelevant as your's. Why do you believe gays should be "married?" Because they love each other and want to be with each other? Ok. What's stopping them from either of those things? What's stopping them from being in love and living together? Marriage is very important to many of us but, benefits aside, there is nothing stopping people from being just as happy together even if they aren't "married."

I assume you mean arbitrary, not irrelevant.

My decision requires some assumptions and beliefs -- every non-reflexive decision in the world is "arbitrary" if this one is.  Fundamentally, it goes like this:

Group A wants a right.  Does the negative effect on society outweigh the positive effects of allocating this right?

I recognize that there's a negative emotional impact on having to have society abandon traditions it's comfortable with.  That's a very difficult question, that could be used to defend a lot of things we find evil in contemporary society.  If not persecuting a small group made the societal majority feel worse, and the net effect was negative, would that make the persecution justifiable?  Personally, I think majoritarian society should err on the side of moral caution and equity.  That is, though, just me; you can default to tradition if you wish.  I think that has proven to be riskier.

[Keystone Phil]

So, reproduction is only a major litmus test insofar as it's something only heterosexuals can do...right?  Then it's extraneous.

Oh well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does nothing to address what I said.

[Alcon]

Not a right.

That's a definitional nitpick; "right" can mean either a power afforded by law or by ethics.  I was using it in the former sense.

Does nothing to address what I said.

You asked "why do you believe gays should be married?"  I answered your question, explaining how that belief fits into my moral sense.  How does that do nothing to address what you said?

[Keystone Phil]

You asked "why do you believe gays should be married?"  I answered your question, explaining how that belief fits into my moral sense.  How does that do nothing to address what you said?

Haha, ok. Don't see where you laid out why gays should get married but whatever. We're not on the same page so this is pretty pointless now.

[Alcon]

You asked "why do you believe gays should be married?"  I answered your question, explaining how that belief fits into my moral sense.  How does that do nothing to address what you said?

Haha, ok. Don't see where you laid out why gays should get married but whatever. We're not on the same page so this is pretty pointless now.

If it helps, Group A is gays and Group B is us (or the majority of us)

[Brittain33]

I have never quite understood the whole gay marriage thing.  If two fags get married and have a wedding, do they both wear dresses?

We both wore tuxedos. My partner wore a gray vest, I wore a black one, but that was a last minute thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We both cut the cake at the same time. Read into that what you will. (The word you're looking for is "top", btw, "dom" is about fetishes.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're both pretty easily identified as men by sight.

[Brittain33]

The gays can have the benefits all they want, but keep them out of my church.

Umm, I'm Jewish and don't give a damn what you do in your church, nor would any law force your church to perform gay marriage, any more than the law can force a rabbi to marry two Catholics even though the state says those marriages are legal. I also think that gay marriages are the last problem that churches in my state have had; frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

[Brittain33]

No cake. Gay weddings have pie.

We had several smaller cakes, yellow with butter cream frosting. Half had a passion fruit layer, the other half had, I think, blood orange. They were amazing and I was very upset that our baker closed up shop a few months later.

[Keystone Phil]

frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

The ignorance of the masses when it comes to "the Church" (Roman Catholic Church) and the role of gays is almost sickening. No one is encouraged to stay in the closet.

[Torie]

frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

The ignorance of the masses when it comes to "the Church" (Roman Catholic Church) and the role of gays is almost sickening. No one is encouraged to stay in the closet.

Just chaste right?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The gays can have the benefits all they want, but keep them out of my church.

Umm, I'm Jewish and don't give a damn what you do in your church, nor would any law force your church to perform gay marriage, any more than the law can force a rabbi to marry two Catholics even though the state says those marriages are legal. I also think that gay marriages are the last problem that churches in my state have had; frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

Stay in the closet? What are you talking about? Perhaps if you knew more about the church, then you'd realize no one encourages that.

[Brittain33]

Stay in the closet? What are you talking about? Perhaps if you knew more about the church, then you'd realize no one encourages that.

Well, you just said that they gays should "keep out of your church" on another post, so I'm not really seeing the place of welcome and dignity there. Are you saying it's not asking someone to stay in the closet if you're also asking them to not have any relationships or hide them if they are?

[Keystone Phil]

frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

The ignorance of the masses when it comes to "the Church" (Roman Catholic Church) and the role of gays is almost sickening. No one is encouraged to stay in the closet.

Just chaste right?

...yeah. Don't know if this is hostile like the early conversation (you trying to prove a point) but yes, that's the case.

frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

The ignorance of the masses when it comes to "the Church" (Roman Catholic Church) and the role of gays is almost sickening. No one is encouraged to stay in the closet.

If you are familiar with Catholic doctrine on this issue, then for you to characterize it that way is naive and Pollyannaish.

For a very long time, the only parth for young gay men growing up in devout communities to remain part of their communities was to joint the priesthood. My partner is Catholic, there are not surprisingly tons of Catholic gays in Boston, this is not some guesswork on my part. His parish priest when he was growing up in New York State kept a photo of Joan Crawford over his toilet. Everyone knows that the priesthood is full of gays and that celibacy is more often honored in the breach. 

Ok well just because it was the norm in certain communities to remain in the closet doesn't mean it's official Church teaching or even suggested today. And to suggest that the priesthood is "full of gays" is just further proof of your uneducated nature. Take your hostility and ignorance towards my Church elsewhere. Thanks.

[Keystone Phil]

If you think this is appealing to any lay people (ha, love that term here) other than those who couldn't get laid anyway, you're lying to me and yourself.

I don't care if it's "appealing" or not. It's not the job of the Church to compromise ideals for that which is "appealing" to the masses.