The sanctity of marriage
 

http://www.komotv.com/stories/30719.htm

I'm not sure what kind of institution anti-gay marriage people are trying to preserve, given the disregard many people and, indeed, the law, has for any so-called "sanctity" in marriage. As long as heterosexuals so dishonor marriage and the law doesn't require anything more than the required genitals, and in some cases a blood test, what is being preserved? Why is the only thing the majority of the country REALLY seems to value about marriage is that it involves only a man and a woman?

Since it's already being abused....lets throw the entire thing out the window.

Yeah, that's a good attitude to have.

Re: The sanctity of marriage
 

We already talked about this in that other thread and towards the end all you did was insult and lie about being an investment banker - with grammatical mistakes in your post as well.

Why did you create a whole new thread for it?

-Rudey

How is letting gays marry throwing marriage out the window? How is letting people that love each other and care for each other, arguably what the sanctity of marriage is about, marry qualify as "abuse"?

Instead, our current policy is to allow people to marry that make a mockery of it and prevent people from marrying that truly want to celebrate a solemn commitment. It's a litte ass-backward

my feeling on this is that if someone loves someone- regardless of their SEX (sex and gender are different) then they should be allowed to get married...

plain and simple....

i just think people that try to force people into doing things that THEY want just isn't right...(abortion.... gay marriage... even legalizing drugs... why spend all this money locking people up... if we'd legalize it- it wouldn't be as expensive ((thus the drug lords... ending up as regular people) ... and then we could invest the money in rehabilitation programs....)

just let people live.... :rolleyes:

Forcing me to accept gay marriages, even though it is against my beliefs and making a further mockery of it is 'right' though...

I've heard both sides of the argument, as I am sure everyone has a thousand times. You are not going to change my mind and I'm probably not going to change yours. Bringing it up over and over again, and then letting it fall into insults certainly isn't going to do anything besides get people pissed off.

The bottom line is, most of the US does not want gay marriages. Unless the Supreme Court sets a new precedent for the 1st Amendment.

It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Most people can't even tell you the exact wording, all they know is 'separation of church and state' and act like they know what is going on.

Sorry, you don't.

No one's forcing you to accept it. You can still hate it, just like KKK'ers may hate that black people have civil rights, that certain people may hate that you have the right to go to your church, which they disagree with. Soem people might not want to accept that other pierce and tattoo their bodies in ways those people find offensive, disgusting and amoral. Nevertheless, they don't have to accept it to allow it to happen. Someone with "disgusting" tattoos and body piercings affects you about as much as gay people getting married. If you don't like it, you can look away and refuse to comingle with those people in social, professional or whatever situation you like.

You still haven't explained what how gay marriage is a mockery of marriage. The heterosexual marriage I mentioned was a mockery. Loving, caring relationships are mockeries? how so?

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God.

That is the definition of a marriage, without state involement. Which according to the 1st Amendment is how it should be interpereted.

Yes, I am being forced to accept it. If I was not forced to accept it then I would not have to recognize gay marriages, but by it being granted by the state means by law I have to accept it.

I am not opposed to a state sponsered civil union. If a gay couple wants to be recognized as partners by the state and recieve all the benefits and tax breaks etc given to a straight couple that's up to the state.

Using the term marriage is not accurate in the context of gay marriage.

Why would gay couples not accept civil unions with all the rights that accrue to a married heterosexual couple if the rights include child custody, estate issues, right to decide an incapacited partner's medical treatments, etc.?

I have no issues with gay couples and the depth of their commitment to each other. But I think that marriage in the traditional sense should be exclusive to heterosexual couples.

I don't feel the need to justify my position, and I don't ask anyone to justify their differing stance to me. And I think that my feelings are in the majority of the American mainstream. Something like 70%.

Could that change? It's possible. Marriage is under attack in a sense, so civil unions could be the wave of the future for all folks out there. It's certainly an evolving issue, whether hard liners on either side like it or not.

Well, separate but equal didn't work before, even though it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I think playing the semantics game is silly, frankly. If there is no qualitative difference between the two, why do we have to call it something different just to protect some people's delicate sensibilities or try to fool ourselves into thinking there IS a qualitative difference.

However, there COULD be a qualitative difference if, say, marriage was only done by churches and civil unions were done by law. Some people could get both, if they wanted to be recongized by God or Allah or whoever AND they wanted the tangible benefits. Some people could choose to do only the church wedding and be called marriedbecause, oh I don't know, maybe they don't want the guvmint all up in their business. Some people may just do the union through a justice of the peace or deputy, because they don't care for religious recognition. But, even in this case, some gays would get married because some churches are not against gay marriage. They are apparently reading a different Bible than Coramoor.

But, if the law simply made it that hetero couples that got married were called married and homo couples that got married were called "unionized" or something, I would be embarrassed for our country, that we are fooling ourselves into thinking that we are "preserving" something when really, both groups of people are doing exactly the same thing, in churches, out of churches, on beaches, etc., but we just call it something different. Ever heard the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?

He/She can't answer that for you. Search his/her name out to see some of his/her other responses.

Evidently he thinks that marriage is only about free benefits except can't explain why people choose to divorce and give up said benefits and even incur financial damage. Then he thought that a civil union wouldn't work even though those benefits are granted, because it's a case of separate but not equal. Logic does not flow.

In this other thread he also talked with such annoying speech (often) and ill grammar (once) that it bothered me - although not as much as when he lied and pretended he was an investment banker too...just like me!

-Rudey

Preach it Rudey! You are the man! I just hope you don't get burned out before Election Day - some serious education and enlightenment needed on this Board.
Check out : I'm voting for John Kerry and here's why" thread. :eek:

To start out, I don't particularly disapprove of homosexuals marrying. I think a stable home is important to a child whether there is a mommy and a daddy or two daddies or whatever.

That said, I think one of the problems those who are against the concept of gay marriage have is that it goes against the norm of what we have been conditioned to believe marriage should be. If gay sexual relations can be outlawed in many states and eventually become so accepted that marriage is allowed to ensue, what is next? Sex and marriage between adults and children? Goats? (j/k about the goats)

Perhaps they just feel that allowing something that is, to their minds, radical, is only a harbinger of more radical things to come.

Marriage is an economic union for the purpose of rasiing children. Anthropologically.

Shared assets shared labor etc.

Religiously its a whole different thing. . well not really but it has more mystical importance. However, at the end of the day, its still a union for the purpose of having kids.

The state has defined marriage over the years outside its religious meanings.

So the question is whether marriage is entirely secular and and is just an odd form of corporation either to raise kids or just pool assets.

In this case, it should be possible to have group marriages also because it could easily be argued that the combined assets of a group environment would exceed the assets of a nuclear family when it comes to raising kids.

As far as gays go . . . Marriage the way a lot of people are arguing it will be up to the individual churches. The state just has to make a dterminant on what the point of marriage is.

And don't think that the state has gotten involved in marriages out of respect for love. ITs money.

I don't believe in God. Does that mean I can't get married?

About money?

So people get divorced because they don't enjoy free money. In fact they hate money so much they're willing to pay on top of it to end marriages. Heck the rich marry when they have more than enough money...why? How come you don't just tie the knot with a friend for the tax breaks already james? None of you have to even see each other...you'll just enjoy the monetary benefits.

Valkyrie why do you want to get married? It's not about money obviously. You said it's because it's something nice to do...it's nice to have a piece of paper? Is it fitting in with the norm? I guess I don't understand that.

Marriage is an institution of family - plain and simple. To be fair I strongly believe in shutting down all the Vegas chapels that "cater" in marriage. I don't find the logic in couples getting married who don't even want children. So it's not just a gay vs. straight issue.

The only time I've felt scared of being around gays was in a gay bar in roscoe and only because I didn't know it was a gay bar and couldn't figure out why everyone was a guy and so many of them had their shirts off. Religiously I find it wrong and immoral to have it within my community but that is my belief and, whether or not you like it, you should respect that opinion.

-Rudey

I don't give a rat's ass about fitting in with the norm (I'm sure that's hard to believe!) but I guess I can't really explain why I might like to get married at some point. My opinion on the issue changes all the time, and right now I'm leaning more in favor of NOT getting married because I don't really think it's any of the government's damn business to define my relationship -- however, I like the idea of having health insurance even though I'm not employed and I also like the idea of my potential spouse being able to visit me in the hospital if something happens to me -- don't they often refuse to let "non family" in to see you?

I go back and forth on it all the time, really.

(REALLY?!?!?) :D

For me, part of the reason I oppose the word "Marriage" is because in my faith, it is a Sacrament-holy and bestowing special graces upon those who receive it. Is it the same for other religions?

I agree though, that within a "union" all benefits like insurance-visitation rights- tax breaks should be equal. I'm a little squeamish about adoption. I thought Rosy O'Donald made a beautiful case for it though. Jury is still out on that one!:confused:

The way I see it is that people are getting really hung up on a word: marriage. It means different things to different people. For some, it's a holy sacrament and sacred. For others, it's a contract between two people that involves a property sharing arrangement, financial issues, issues of insurance benefits, etc. In my mind, it's not one or the other, it's sometimes one, sometimes the other and sometimes both.

In the government's case, they can't tell the church what is and isn't a marriage. Just because the government may decide that gay marriage is permissable, it won't require churches to perform or recognize gay marriages. Didja know that the Catholic church already doesn't recognize marriages that aren't held in the Catholic Church? My folks had to get married twice -- once in a courtroom, and again several years later when they decided they wanted to raise their kids in the church. The priest told them that they weren't considered married until they went through with it.

In my opinion, it's arrogant as hell to force your own definition of marriage onto someone else's life. Especially if your concept is founded in religion. Marriage by the government and marriage by the Church can be and in fact are two different things! In a poll recently held by the Washington Times, interviewing about 1200 folks, they found that a slight majority actually supported civil unions. While the majority of folks still disapprove of calling it "marriage".

Homosexual behavior is against my moral code. I also believe that there are folks out there who really can't help themselves. Whether it's psychological or something in their DNA, they are, and always will be gay. If you'd have partied with all the musical theater people that I did (and still sometimes do) it'd be tough to come to any other conclusion.

So we're getting hung up over a word. If two gay people love eachother and want to enjoy the same financial benefits as two straight people who get married get to have, I can't really find a problem with it. Even if the government says it's okay, they can't force the church to recognize it and conduct said ceremonies. So I guess I just can't anything wrong with it.

ktsnake-I basically agree with your entire post. The exception does evolve around terminology. I honestly don't know what is "wrong" specifically, but it just seems like terminology becomes very important, legally, sooner or later.

Maybe part is wanting to retain the distinction between that which is condoned through religion and that which is condoned through the courts. There is an effort to diminish, by legal means, the role "faith" plays in our lives, from The Pledge of Allegiance to removing monuments like the Ten Commandments. I think, as a person of faith, I prefer to see the distinction made. Is it the "rights" people are seeking or is it a way for everyone to be indoctrinated into the erosion of the part religion plays in this country? I see a bigger picture here.
BTW- I happen to believe that God would not judge any "union" based on love and respect. I know that flies in the face of many religions.

Yes the state gets invovled with marriage because of economic issues.

So you'll ignore what I wrote and throw in a one-liner? OK check this one out:

The state doesn't get involved with marriage just for economic issues.

-Rudey

I didn't know we were arguing actually, thats the only place we substantially seem to disagree.

Marriage is a union for having kids. I don't see the point of getting married if you don't want them . . although i know there is a certain neurotic validation to marrriage as well as economic perks.

I didn't argue with you and I don't see this as a matter of opinion. When you can figure out why people hate free money then we should talk because i want to find these idiots and take them for all their worth.

-Rudey

I must be used to a less restrictive hospital, because I've gone into ICUs to visit people and no one ever asked if I was family.

I often see things like this used as a reason for legalizing gay marriage. I have big news, there are LOTS of people who have broken ties with their biological family and don't want them to inherit their $$, see them in the hospital, make plug-pulling decisions etc. Gay or straight there are lots of people nowadays who do not want their bio family making those decisions. I think that's entirely another matter and one that needs to be addressed (and very very soon) without tying it all up with gay marriage.

I think (if I'm not mistaken) that even if you are not related by blood or marriage to someone you can still grant them power of attorney to make decisions like pulling the plug. When my parents first decided to split immediately they both assigned p.o.a. to me so that the other one didn't have it anymore. I believe that as long as you are considered mentally competent, then you can have it assigned to anyone. Someone back me up on this?

This thread actually has me thinking, and I've been trying to find a good list of the benefits of marriage that isn't put out by some ultra-conservative group. Here's one from this site:

-Insurance benefits through a spouses employer
-Insurance discounts offered to married couples and related persons living in same household
-Government benefits such as Social Security and Medicare
-Veterans/military benefits offered to spouses (education, medical care, housing loans)
-Income tax deductions, credits and exemptions
-Tax relief for natural disaster losses
-Immigration of foreign partners
-Witness and court testimony rights
-Continuation of lease rights (renewal of lease)
-Community property rights
-Inheritance rights
-Payment of wages for deceased partners and workers compensation benefits
-Right to enter into pre-marital agreement
-Automatic rights of survivorship
-Consent to post-mortem examination
-Right to make burial arrangements
-Bereavement leave for partner, child, or partner's close relative
-Family leave to care for partner or child during illness
-Right to make decisions in medical emergencies ( "next of kin")
-Visitation rights for partner or child in hospital or other public institutions
-Custodial rights for a seriously injured partner
-Right to file a wrongful death suit
-Tuition discounts/use of facilities
-Company benefits/perks offered to spouses
-Commercial discounts/incentives offered only to married couples or families
-Joint child custody, adoption and foster care rights
-Equitable divison of property, child custody, visitation rights and support in the case of divorce
-The right to obtain domestic violence protection orders

Many of these benefits could be obtained in other ways -- you don't need the inheritance rights if you have a will, for example, and I'm pretty sure you could set up a power of attorney to give your partner the ability to make medical decisions for you.

Doesn't the importance of marriage come, most of the time, from religion? If you're not religious, why is marriage important even if you do plan to have children? What's the real point of it?

BINGO

some people may get married for economical purposes like valkyrie posted. i just don't think it's right for someone to tell someone else that they can't marry thier loved one. i would be mad as hell if people told me i couldn't marry whoever i wanted to marry. i don't mind gay couples, if they aren't bothering me, it's fine. i think the gay couples that do want to get married, or whatever, trully love eachother. if people are saying it's against the sanctity of marriage, what about all these "reality t.v." shows about people getting married. some of them are fake marriages like "my big, fat obnoxious fiance" or whatever it's called. or people that go and get married, and two weeks later want to get it annulled. i just don't think it's right. if they're happy together, then more power to them.

i completely agree.... its NOT right... i think that its amazing that people run around trying to tell other people what they can and can not do.... we have enough issues in this world... just because YOU think its not right... then all the sudden other people have to believe it too?


(i'm not attacking anyone on this board- this is what i believe... i would be a complete hypocrite if i said that this is the way all people should think.... i don't think that everyone should have my beliefs... we have one of me in this world- we don't need a bunch more :p )

The function of government is to tell its people what they can and cannot do. That's why we have laws. So the age old argument that it's not "right" to do that is an oversimplification of the issue. It's much more complicated.

There is the school of thought that America is a country founded on Christian virtues. Among the many beliefs that Christians hold, there is the belief that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred thing. In the Catholic Church, for example, it's a sacrament -- on the same level as baptism, the eucharist, confession, last rites, etc. Their main point of contention is that this is just another step on the slippery slope that will eventually remove all semblance of moral values from the fabric of our legal system.

Another group of people (and often the same people) have financial reasons for not wanting gay marriage. There is no question that it will cost society money. The biggest hit will be on our insurance premiums. There are many gay people, for example, that are HIV positive. They would be taking money out of the insurance system by qualifying for benefits through their married partner, resulting in potentially higher rates for everyone. Financially, there is also the question of gay divorce. Marriages without children are (and this is just a guess) probably more likely to dissolve. I'm guessing a lot more gay marriages end up in mediation, but that's another potential argument -- the hit it'll take on the family court system. There are many financial arguments opponents use against gay marriage, these are just a few of them. They question whether it's right that they be made to pay for something that they find morally reprehensable.

Those are the two biggies as far as opponents to this go.

If they can get past the former of the two objections, which I think many have. As I mentioned earlier, the Washington Times did a poll involving over 1200 people that found a slight majority favored civil unions -- all of the same legal benefits as "marriage" without the m-word.

What does that survey show? To me it shows that people are getting hung up on a word. "Marriage". As I said in an earlier post in this thread, the church defines marriage as a contract between the couple and God while the state defines it as a contract between two individuals under the laws of the state. To the church being married in a courtroom and married in a church are in fact two different things. My parents were originally married in a courtroom. Later, when they started attending church, the priest got on 'em to be married in the church. I see much of this argument as the Christian-led moralists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

People are way too hung up on labels and semantics. The only valid argument against gay marriage in my mind is the financial one -- and for that, to be consistant, one should also be against civil unions. Folks are not consistant on this point, therefore, they are inconsistant and really don't know what they believe.

Given that some churches, members of which would call themselves Christians, although some other Christians would say they are not, currently DO marry gay couples, I will find it supremely ironic if and when (and arguably that is now) gay marriages are only sanctioned by (some) religions, the exact entities that everyone is saying make gay marriage taboo, yet the law continues to reject gay marriage.

There are many gays that are already married, and I am not just talking about people that have been going to San Francisco. Ones that participate in denominations of Christianity or other religions that choose to recognize and sanctify marriages of homosexuals. In addition, no church will ever be required to perform gay marriages, even if the law changes to disallow the illegality of it. As another poster said, all churches already have the right to recognize or not recognize whatever marriages they so choose, on whatever grounds they so choose. So, really, it only comes down to whether or not people want to see gays have those legal rights. As valkyrie posted, there are a host of them, most of which may be entered into through other types of contracts, although some of which are only obtainable through actual marriage. Is there some compelling reason that heteros should have the convenience of one-stop shopping for all these benefits, whereas homos should have to go through much more contractual work to obtain the 80% or so of them they can legally access?

Again, I see that it comes down to the word "marriage." And again, I would say that separate but equal didn't work before, although it's better than acknowledged inequalities.

Why can't you marry your brother or your sister? Father or mother? As long as your consenting adults?

In Florida not to long ago they put a father and daughter in jail for getting married. They were both of the same legal age.

Don't use the genetics argument either, it isn't valid.

I think that arguably in the case of a parent/child marriage, there is a huge imbalance of power and there's a good chance that the parent may be abusive/exerting undue power over the child. In that case, I can see why there would be a safeguard to protect people from that, even adults.

Actually, I think the genetics argument is valid -- when it comes down to it, aren't marriages between close family members prohibited because of genetics -- because of the likelihood that a child born from such a relationship would be more likely to have serious physical problems? Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if brothers and sisters want to marry each other. It creeps me out, but who am I to say what they can or can't do?

ETA: James, I don't think it's possible for a father and daughter to be the "same legal age" -- did he impregnate someone while he was an embryo? ;)

The slippery slope argument is sometimes useful, and sometimes not. It was also used when anti-miscegeny laws were in the process of being struck down. Did interracial marriages lead us down a slippery slope? If so, was it wrong to allow them? If not, how do we know WHERE to draw the line. The answer to that, it seems to me, is to take it on a case by case basis. If the only reason in keeping something illegal is because it may lead to making something else entirely viewed more favorably, is it ok to keep that thing illegal?

Lol I didn't mean same age, I meant over legal age. I think she was maybe 30 something and he was 50 something.

Its more of a sociological argument. You figure a lot of societies are built around the nuclear family. It could destabilize the family if the father and son are competing for the sexual attention of the mother and daughter. OR in the case of this thread where the same sex relatives might also be having sex . .. contented family.

So the taboo grew up more around that problem than a problem with sex-linkd defectives. Actually statistically you have no greater chance of having a defective child with a close blood relative than a total stranger.

Its a social tabo. Much like gay relationships or marriage is a social taboo.

I threw it out there just to present a framework.

What we are really talking about is what people are comfortable with. And a lot of poeple aren't comfortable with gay relationships, let alone gay marriage.

Along the same vein as Valkyrie pointed to "genetics", why not have testing done to see if a couple carry a recessive gene that will increase the likelihood of any number of diseases-diseases, that will cost the insurance company the school system or government programs for assisted living? There have been children born to such genetically close unions that are "OK". It isn't always a scene from Deliverance.

If it were JUST money, then you would have to include so many other benefits that are handed out. Benefits tied to irresponsible or "risky" behavior. Abuse is inevitable.

Sometimes seeing a grey area simply means it's a grey area. Not that one is unclear about their thinking or their belief system.
It's sometimes harder to show compassion by looking for grey than it is to draw the line because you only see black and white.
Maybe that is where our "humanity" or our conscience comes from, the grey areas.

I want to thank Valkyrie, because she pointed out some things I was not aware of.