Is Gay marriage necessary today or immoral?

[Legal Diva]

@ IvySpice
That may be so, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer and law school was long enough ago that I don't remember that case, BUT, I am a lobbyist so I will just say this. . .tell that to our Congressional body and see how far it really goes. . .

Gay people can not CHANGE their sexuality (unless they are hiding it to avoid persecution, but they are still gay). I COULD choose to change my religion, but I don't think I should be forced to just to get equal rights.

I think that this issue is still up for debate.

[rho4life]

Originally posted by 33girl
No, I don't. I think that gays in long term relationships should be able to make decisions like whether or not to pull the plug on a comatose partner, and be on each other's health care.

But it isn't the same as being a different race. You CAN hide gayness (or your religion) if you choose to. You CAN'T hide blackness. If you try to, you will be found out.

I'm not saying the struggles of gays or religious minorities are not valid, but that DOESN'T mean they are the same as those of racial minorities.

Some people CAN hide their blackness. One of my co-workers didn't realize I was Black until I told her. I NEVER try to hide who I am, but b/c of my complexion and hair and eye color, people often are willing to believe I'm whatever ethnicity they're comfortable with . When I was in Europe people guessed I was American, but thought I was Mexican, Indian, Puerto Rican, Italian, damn near everything, BUT Black.

[Marie]

I'm not really clear on how being able to hide being gay affects the equl rights argument. (Note: I'm not trying to argue or start anything. I'm just honestly asking what makes this difference special).
It seems to me that the whole point of the equal rights argument is that you wouldn't want to hide who you were. No matter how many gay men choose to hide their lifestyles, if one gay couple wants to show PDA and live together, and wear tightly fitted pants, and even dress up in drag one day of the week, shouldn't they still be granted those same equal rights that they were granted when they were pretending to be straight? (Not just marriage, but basic needs like: getting a job, or an apt, or a seat in a restaurant)
Also, many African Americans pass for white everyday(or at least receive the "fringe benefits" of being light skin). Although your race is documented somewhere, honestly in day to day life people judge you based on what they see, not what your birth certificate/driver's license says. Again, it may be the basic things like getting seated in a restaurant quicker, getting a cab, or even a 1st job interview that may be affected by skin color.
Lastly, I'm just wondering how this mindset might affect men who are on the downlow. Don't get me wrong, I know that no one on this board encourages that lifestyle and that pressures of society are no excuse for lying/cheating/having unsafe sex. But honestly, we're kind of saying "Equal rights are only enforced for those who have no choice about their situation and cannot at all blend themselves in with the mainstream". However, at the same time we say "If you're gay, then just be gay. Don't try to pretend to be straight while being dishonnest with and jeopardizing your female partner." It seems pretty difficult for someone to abide by both scenarios.

JMHO, Marie

[IvySpice]

Religion is probably a better analogy than race because like a gay person, a member of a religious minority may choose not to act on his religious feelings/beliefs; the question is whether he should have to do so in order to get equal treatment.

[Wine&SilverBlue]

Marie -- I completely agree with you. That was the point I was trying to make. Regardless of whether you can or can not "pass" .. in my opinion you shouldn't have to. You should be able to get equal rights no matter what race, religion or sexuality you are. Now I *know* that some people still hate Jews, Blacks and gays and there's nothing we can do about that -- BUT -- what we CAN do is give them the same rights as the majority.

Ivyspice said: Religion is probably a better analogy than race because like a gay person, a member of a religious minority may choose not to act on his religious feelings/beliefs; the question is whether he should have to do so in order to get equal treatment.

I think that sexuality falls somewhere between religion and race. Religion is something you are born into but can choose to change if you wish. Race you can not change. In my opinion, sexuality is not something that you can change, but something you can "deny" or "hide" SOMETIMES (some gay men have voices/etc that broadcast them as gay regardless of how much they wish to hide that fact).

It all goes back to what IvySpice just said (and the point I was trying to make before):

SHOULD SOMEONE BE FORCED TO DENY WHO THEY ARE AND ACT LIKE THE MAJORITY IN ORDER TO RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS?

In my opinion? no.

[Conskeeted7]

Sexuality is totally different from race. There is no law prohibitng gays from public affection or working in certain areas. People may not like it, but there are no laws against it. There were however laws that prohibited Blacks from certain public areas and rights that everyday citizens had, not just married people. You cannot begin to compare the number of Blacks who were killed for simply LOOKING at whites (not kissing them, talking to them, or interacting with them) to the number of gays who have been killed. You cannot begin to parallel the struggle, because it is NOT THE SAME. And it is a valid point that Blackness, in the majority of Blacks, cannot be hidden or denied, while gays do not HAVE to display their sexuality. Like someone else said, race is with you from birth. Your teachers know it in school, you neighbors know it when they decide to let their children play with you. When a Black person walks into a room, few will doubt that they are Black. But when a gay person walks into a room, is it automatically assumed that they are gay? Probably not. There are VAST differences.

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by Conskeeted7
Sexuality is totally different from race. There is no law prohibitng gays from public affection or working in certain areas. People may not like it, but there are no laws against it. There were however laws that prohibited Blacks from certain public areas and rights that everyday citizens had, not just married people.

I'm not going to get into the civil rights vs. gay struggle argument, but I wanted to point out (again) that gays CAN be discriminated against in this manner as they are not protected.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by SigmaChiCard
wasn't there a time when marriage was between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman?

What's the arguments?

For the kids?
Gay couples who who adopt kids probably do it because they ACTUALLY WANT children, unlike the absurd amount of proper families out there, my friends included, who are unhappy little families because of an untimely accident. At least these couples weigh the concerns, the expenses, the consequences, etc...and chose to accept a child...I don't see an argument for the kids.

For traditional religious purposes?
Let the churches forbid it, that's fine. I try to be very open-minded about it all, but I'll be the first to admit when I see gay PDA it freaks me out a little bit. So what...I'll get over it. The church can ban it, but what right does our gov't (mine being one of the 11) to deny these people? They don't even get a claim of separate but equal here where civil unions are now banned.

Are we trying to force people into lives of heterosexuality? Is it a choice......I can't say, but I can say it's absurd to deny anyone the right at the governmental level to be married...churches can ban it all they want...and if it has the same effect, I don't care...its just not a governmental role...we live in such a conservative land right now...at a time when I genuinely thought that we were as a people becoming somewhat more liberal.

I personally think Civil Unions are BS...I think its another separate water fountains/separate but equal diversion from the real problem and that there is but one proper solution.

That's just my thoughts...

...gave proof through the night, that our land was filled with homophobes...

Best post ever on this subject.

I would rather see Tyrone and Dave in a committed relationship, who are financially capable of raising children, and take a child into their home than LaShawn with 4 kids by 4 different men, without a clue on how she's going to provide for all of them.

But, for what I've heard on this board--heterosexual promiscuity is more accepted than homosexual commitment.

[Marie]

Ya know,

I don't think people are trying to compare the gay rights and the civil rights struggle in terms of the scale of the two or in terms of the losses (in life, history, family, culture, etc) they both groups have suffered. It seems undeniable that African-Americans have suffered losses and set backs from 400 yrs of slavery plus another 100+ years of discrimintation that we can't even measure yet.
However, I think people are just saying that there are some commonalities amongst the actual rights that each group was/is looking to obtain. There is a similarity btwn blacks not being permitted to marry whites at a time when it was considered sinful and an abomination & two men not being able to marry one another at a time when it is considered sinful and an abomination. There is a similarity between blacks not being permitted to rent or buy a home in a predominately white neighborhood & two women not being permitted to rent or buy a home in a predminately straight neighborhood. Just like there was a similarity between blacks not being allowed to vote and women not being allowed to vote.
Now not being able to hide your race certainly does make the struggle more difficult. You don't get the benefit of people assuming that you are "like them", and treating you fairly by default. However, you shouldn't get equal rights by default. You should be able to live your live out loud and in the open, and still receive equal opportunities. I mean, are we really ok living in a society where you have to pretend to be something that you aren't just to receive basic rights like getting a job or an apartment.
On a side note: I know we got away from the gay marriage issue. This discussion seemed to be interesting too, but my bad to whomever began the thread.

Marie

[SigmaChiCard]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
Question: If gay marriage was "legal" but churches, insurance companies, etc. refused to recognize the union or give them the same benefits...wouldn't they be able to be sued? Wouldn't this affect Straight people? This couldn't happen in a vacuum. This will affect other people because they will have to do everything from performing the ceremonies to changing policies etc. You may have some ministers being sued because of this. This is ONE way gay marriage affects those who are non-gay.

equal protection rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment. This would affect people the way people were affected when they were no longer able to legally discriminate against people for other reasons such as race or sex.

True it couldn't happen in a vacuum...but the the thing is that it wouldn't deny anyone else any legal right...states should not have the right to chose which constitutional marriages they recognize no more than the officer should be able to pull the kid's car over because he is ____fill in the blank___. That isn't a right they have, so to deny them doing it, isn't exactly imposing.

If I have a no black person hiring policy, you can sue me. That is how straight people will be affected by constitutionally recognized same-sex marriages.

[SigmaChiCard]

Originally posted by Conskeeted7
Sexuality is totally different from race. There is no law prohibitng gays from public affection or working in certain areas. People may not like it, but there are no laws against it. There were however laws that prohibited Blacks from certain public areas and rights that everyday citizens had, not just married people. You cannot begin to compare the number of Blacks who were killed for simply LOOKING at whites (not kissing them, talking to them, or interacting with them) to the number of gays who have been killed. You cannot begin to parallel the struggle, because it is NOT THE SAME. And it is a valid point that Blackness, in the majority of Blacks, cannot be hidden or denied, while gays do not HAVE to display their sexuality. Like someone else said, race is with you from birth. Your teachers know it in school, you neighbors know it when they decide to let their children play with you. When a Black person walks into a room, few will doubt that they are Black. But when a gay person walks into a room, is it automatically assumed that they are gay? Probably not. There are VAST differences.

Correct. Fortunate for the gay population that the black community fought that war first for them. They got the benefits of the equal protection clauses in the Amendment b/c of the struggles in the civil rights movement, mostly made by the black community, but also by gays, indians, etc.

But nobody is saying that the struggle they see now is the same type the blacks once (and in some ways unfortunately still may) faced. There are similarities though. I saw on TV one day after the Mass. Supreme Ct. legalized same-sex marriages some black priests were on TV preaching how "these gays are going to destroy the sanctity of marriage" and I couln't help but envision that man hiding under a white cloak preaching to people carrying torches years before that "the blacks are going to destroy the sanctity of marriage." The irony is disturbing and discouraging. I thought we'd come so far.

Race is with you from worth. Take this for what it is worth...which do you find more unfortunate...people who are black and are unfortunate, but accept it...or people who stay inside the closet b/c they are shamed and society views them as the cause of corruption of the family (and perhaps even society?). Can you imagine being afraid...so afraid that you hide your identity to everyone around you? Afraid to fall in love. They face hardships...but those aren't the people we're talking about directly here (though perhaps if society could recognize gay marriage, perhaps that'd be a huge step forward in accepting gay people into our society).

We're talking about the people who have come out and not been afraid to love someone else. We say "no, your people aren't meant to be married - marriage is b/w a man and a woman." "You're destroying the sanctity of marriage." Yes, you're existence is impeding upon my religion...so I'm going to use the gov't to stop you. I'm sorry...I just cannot find anything noteworthy in any argument I've heard yet.

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by SigmaChiCard
Correct. Fortunate for the gay population that the black community fought that war first for them. They got the benefits of the equal protection clauses in the Amendment b/c of the struggles in the civil rights movement, mostly made by the black community, but also by gays, indians, etc.

But nobody is saying that the struggle they see now is the same type the blacks once (and in some ways unfortunately still may) faced. There are similarities though. I saw on TV one day after the Mass. Supreme Ct. legalized same-sex marriages some black priests were on TV preaching how "these gays are going to destroy the sanctity of marriage" and I couln't help but envision that man hiding under a white cloak preaching to people carrying torches years before that "the blacks are going to destroy the sanctity of marriage." The irony is disturbing and discouraging. I thought we'd come so far.

Race is with you from worth. Take this for what it is worth...which do you find more unfortunate...people who are black and are unfortunate, but accept it...or people who stay inside the closet b/c they are shamed and society views them as the cause of corruption of the family (and perhaps even society?). Can you imagine being afraid...so afraid that you hide your identity to everyone around you? Afraid to fall in love. They face hardships...but those aren't the people we're talking about directly here (though perhaps if society could recognize gay marriage, perhaps that'd be a huge step forward in accepting gay people into our society).

We're talking about the people who have come out and not been afraid to love someone else. We say "no, your people aren't meant to be married - marriage is b/w a man and a woman." "You're destroying the sanctity of marriage." Yes, you're existence is impeding upon my religion...so I'm going to use the gov't to stop you. I'm sorry...I just cannot find anything noteworthy in any argument I've heard yet.

Well said!

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by SigmaChiCard
equal protection rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment. This would affect people the way people were affected when they were no longer able to legally discriminate against people for other reasons such as race or sex.

True it couldn't happen in a vacuum...but the the thing is that it wouldn't deny anyone else any legal right...states should not have the right to chose which constitutional marriages they recognize no more than the officer should be able to pull the kid's car over because he is ____fill in the blank___. That isn't a right they have, so to deny them doing it, isn't exactly imposing.

If I have a no black person hiring policy, you can sue me. That is how straight people will be affected by constitutionally recognized same-sex marriages.

There has been a lot of good discussion on this subject since I last posted, but here's what I think. The reason I pointed out the legal ramifications that will result from legalizing gay marriage was to refute one of the main defenses of gay marriage, which is "what business is it of society's what someone else does in their bedroom." There's no way possible for everyone not to be affected. And because of that, you have to deal with society's opinion on the issue. Second, people have a right to sleep with goats if they want to, but when you want to tamper with marriage, the bedrock of society, everyone's opinion does matter. I mean where does it end?? When people shoot up cocaine in the privacy of their own homes..its a victimless crime. WHy do we care? Because of the effects people feel it will have on society. And people look at legalizing gay marriage as threatening the bedrock of civilization, the erosion of morals, and the beginning of a downward spiral in to a moralLess society. I know everyone on here things 2 daddies and 2 mommies are ok..but the Americans that went to the polls last week showed overwhelmingly that they dont think its ok.

Third, it is very ignorant to compare any aspect of the civil rights movement to the homosexual movement. The jury is not out on whether people are born black..That's pretty much a fact. I cannot turn my life over to Christ and change my race. I cannot decide I'm going through a phase..and stop being black.

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
I mean where does it end??
....
Third, it is very ignorant to compare any aspect of the civil rights movement to the homosexual movement. The jury is not out on whether people are born black..That's pretty much a fact. I cannot turn my life over to Christ and change my race. I cannot decide I'm going through a phase..and stop being black.

The slippery slope argument (if we allow this, then what) has been used throughout history and has been repeatedly rejected. I believe our Courts and legislature are prudent and intelligent enough to discern when A, B, C, D and E are okay, but F is not.

Additionally, many argue that there is no such thing as race, so in some regards its not "pretty much a fact." Race, in my opinion, was created as a social construct (just like class) to separate. Humans are 99.9% the same, we have all this racism drama over a phenotypic difference that accounts for .1% (that is .001 in decimal form instead of per cent) of our differences. If race were a real God-made difference then interracial child-bearing would be impossible.

Your skin color won't change- and even that is not true, consider Michael Jackson's disease- but your race is made up. So actually, you could stop being black- because you only "are" because you have accepted that you are.

Race is a social construct.

Now, don't get me wrong, I consider myself black, too. But that is because that is what I feel comfortable saying and that is the culture I have been raised to understand. But as a bio-engineering major in undergrad I know, genetically, race does not exist- it is a social construct DESIGNED TO DIVIDE.

(If you don't believe or understand please read some articles or books on Critical Race Theory.)

As a Christian, I consider homosexual behavior sinful. I also believe
marraige is a religious institution. However, I beleive that two men of legal age or two women of legal age should be allowed to consent to a Civil Union which under the eyes of the law , not the church, will afford them the rights and privileges of marriage. Just as two athiests can get "married" in a courthouse, I beleive that two homosexuals should be able to enter into such a union as well. The difference here to me is that even though athiests fundamentally don't believe in God the consumamtion of their marriage will not be sinful, but I cannot give the word "marriage" to a union whose fundamental act of consummation will be sinful.

I DO think however that has nothing to do with the STATE. Therefore, a Civil Union should exists and those who enter into it should be able to receive insurance payments, pension payments and everything else UNDER LAW married couples receive. I also believe if their right to be treated the same way similarly situated people are (married heterosexual couples) then yes, they should and CAN sue.

I sincerely beleive it is inappropriate in America to legislate morality.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by Exquisite5
...As a Christian, I consider homosexual behavior sinful. I also believe
marraige is a religious institution. However, I beleive that two men of legal age or two women of legal age should be allowed to consent to a Civil Union which under the eyes of the law , not the church, will afford them the rights and privileges of marriage. Just as two athiests can get "married" in a courthouse, I beleive that two homosexuals should be able to enter into such a union as well. The difference here to me is that even though athiests fundamentally don't believe in God the consumamtion of their marriage will not be sinful, but I cannot give the word "marriage" to a union whose fundamental act of consummation will be sinful...

This is a very good point to make. Whatever one may think about homosexuality, I think it's important to note that there are differences between a "civil union" and a "marriage".

Forexample, if a heterosexual couple gets "married" in a church they are married under the eyes of God, however if they don't have their marriage license, they are not LEGALLY married.

Having a "civil union" is a legal joining, not a religious one.

Right now, a bill to legalize gay "marriage" is in a reference stage in the House of Parliment here in Canada. One of the questions on the reference is concerning whether or not religious organizations would be compelled to marry homosexual couples. This a ridiculous question only because I don't see how churches and other religious groups would be comepelled to marry homosexual couples when they are not even compelled to marry heterosexual couples. Churches, etc can refuse to marry anyone and they do not have to give a reason, (or at least here they can).

I see no reason why a homosexual couple cannot legally join and be afforded the same rights and responsibities that heterosexual "married" couples have. There is no reason that their union should be recognized by God.