Lesbian Couple Married in San Francisco

[Rudey]

In regards to heterosexual couples - I think the whole idea of couple beings married but not in families is ridiculous. Then why marry? What is the point? You can stay together without a piece of paper. Heck you can have a ceremony and make vows towards each other. Why marry? The disintegration of the family is something that has occured gradually and I believe firmly that it should be prevented.

In regards to Gays adopting children. Yes I agree that a child is much better off with people that care for it than being in a lonely home. What idiot doesn't? That question is very much entrapment. However say there is a straight couple and a gay couple, then who gets the adopted child? "Equal rights" aren't about the lesser of two evils (orphanage vs. gay parents), but about the better of two goods.

And in that case, I hold my own view and so do many others. It is a view that is being attacked alongside an attack on the family structure.

-Rudey

Originally posted by pirepresent
Alright, I'm not sure, but I think I'm with you... so marriage is, at its roots, about a family, right? I can agree with that, in principle.

So should heterosexual couples who don't want to have children not be allowed to marry? My godparents have been married for 27 years, but they decided early that they didn't want to have children, and so my godmother had her tubes tied.

However, they are very much in love, and very much a family... they breed shelties. It's kind of cute. That's just an example, there are lots of married couples out there who aren't families, in the traditional sense of the word, but they're still in love, right?

Should they not be allowed to marry because they don't want to produce offspring? And what about homosexual couples who want to adopt? If they are allowed to adopt a child, can't they be considered a family then?

[pirepresent]

Originally posted by Rudey
In regards to heterosexual couples - I think the whole idea of couple beings married but not in families is ridiculous. Then why marry? What is the point? You can stay together without a piece of paper. Heck you can have a ceremony and make vows towards each other. Why marry? The disintegration of the family is something that has occured gradually and I believe firmly that it should be prevented.

In regards to Gays adopting children. Yes I agree that a child is much better off with people that care for it than being in a lonely home. What idiot doesn't? That question is very much entrapment. However say there is a straight couple and a gay couple, then who gets the adopted child? "Equal rights" aren't about the lesser of two evils (orphanage vs. gay parents), but about the better of two goods.

And in that case, I hold my own view and so do many others. It is a view that is being attacked alongside an attack on the family structure.

-Rudey

I agree that the "traditional family" has disintegrated somewhat. But you can't legislate against that. Part of why it has done so is for good reasons - like women having more time consuming and challenging careers, as one example. The classic family - i.e. Dad goes to work, Mom stays at home, raises the two kids, feeds the golden retriever, etc. - is, to a degree, a thing of the past. And preventing gay people from getting married is not going to bring it back.

As I said before, it's not my personal preference. And it's a challenge to think of the idea of homosexuality and try to embrace it for what it is. But, in a new and different way, it IS trying to have a family. Marriage is a good thing, across the board. People staying faithful to each other is a GOOD thing. Even more so, people wanting so desperately to promise to stay faithful FOREVER, is an even BETTER thing.

Even though they're different from us, the love they feel for each other is, I'm sure, not bad for the world. It's love, and that means caring about and cherishing another person. And even though it doesn't bring about offspring, or a traditional family, it's still projecting positivity into our society.

Seeing this battle and confronting the idea of how I would feel if I weren't allowed to be married has made me think long and really hard about the sancity of marriage. I'm sure many people have. And I would hope that watching people fight so hard for it would bring about the same general type of reaction that I feel - that marriage is special, and when two people truly love each other and want to be together, it's a wonderful thing. I don't feel that marriage of any sort should be wrong. If we want to stop the breakdown of the family, lets pass some legislation against divorce. Or infidelity. THOSE are what's causing the disintegration of the family....

At least that's my view on it.

[GeekyPenguin]

Civil unions = a-ok in my book
Marriage = not okay in my book

I'm all for them getting the benefits, the visitation rights, etc - but that doesn't belong in my church.

[pirepresent]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
Civil unions = a-ok in my book
Marriage = not okay in my book

I'm all for them getting the benefits, the visitation rights, etc - but that doesn't belong in my church.

I'll buy that too

I don't know, I guess I'm just trying to say that I think it's nice that two people love each other that much, and that they should be allowed to have that special bond when what they have together is meaningful to them... even if it's offensive for other people, mostly heterosexuals.

[Rudey]

This has nothing to do with women working and men staying home - it has to do with being a family, children and all.

-Rudey

Originally posted by pirepresent
I agree that the "traditional family" has disintegrated somewhat. But you can't legislate against that. Part of why it has done so is for good reasons - like women having more time consuming and challenging careers, as one example. The classic family - i.e. Dad goes to work, Mom stays at home, raises the two kids, feeds the golden retriever, etc. - is, to a degree, a thing of the past. And preventing gay people from getting married is not going to bring it back.

As I said before, it's not my personal preference. And it's a challenge to think of the idea of homosexuality and try to embrace it for what it is. But, in a new and different way, it IS trying to have a family. Marriage is a good thing, across the board. People staying faithful to each other is a GOOD thing. Even more so, people wanting so desperately to promise to stay faithful FOREVER, is an even BETTER thing.

Even though they're different from us, the love they feel for each other is, I'm sure, not bad for the world. It's love, and that means caring about and cherishing another person. And even though it doesn't bring about offspring, or a traditional family, it's still projecting positivity into our society.

Seeing this battle and confronting the idea of how I would feel if I weren't allowed to be married has made me think long and really hard about the sancity of marriage. I'm sure many people have. And I would hope that watching people fight so hard for it would bring about the same general type of reaction that I feel - that marriage is special, and when two people truly love each other and want to be together, it's a wonderful thing. I don't feel that marriage of any sort should be wrong. If we want to stop the breakdown of the family, lets pass some legislation against divorce. Or infidelity. THOSE are what's causing the disintegration of the family....

At least that's my view on it.

[godfrey n. glad]

Originally posted by Rudey
In regards to heterosexual couples - I think the whole idea of couple beings married but not in families is ridiculous. Then why marry? What is the point? You can stay together without a piece of paper. Heck you can have a ceremony and make vows towards each other. Why marry? The disintegration of the family is something that has occured gradually and I believe firmly that it should be prevented.

So marriage is only about children now? That doesn't hold up historically at all. That's a recent thing. Marriage was originally, and for several millenia, about merging powers, economic benefits and alliances. Children, if they had them and they lived, were about extending the families power. Conservatives have rewritten marriage to make it into something ultra-romantic, which it has only become in the last century, possibly.

It's nice that we have the luxury to make marriage about love and security nowadays instead of power and alliances, but you can't change history, even if you try. Marriage has been an evolving institution since it was created.

[godfrey n. glad]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin

I'm all for them getting the benefits, the visitation rights, etc - but that doesn't belong in my church.

No one could ever force a private institution to allow gay marriage within their hallowed halls. Just like they can't force the boy scouts to let homosexuals be troop leaders. Churches still have the opportunity now to refuse to marry anyone they want on any grounds they want, sexual orientation included. This isn't about whether or not all churches would perform or approve of gay marriage. Undoubtedly, many chuches would never, and some would (much like some don't allow female priests and some do). This is about the government allowing those institutions that do want to perform marriages for gays to do so, and to allow gays to have those benefits that anyone else would have. The idea that someone's church or town would be forced to actual perform or hold gay marriages is at least a misunderstanding and at best a red herring.

Actually, the idea has been suggested, and I see no reason to oppose it, that civil union or whatever become strictly a legal term, while marriage is strictly a religious term. So, if you are religious, you could get married and not get legally unionized (or whatever), or you could do both (at once as we already do, since the religious ceremony and the legal aspects are often done separately). And, if you aren't religious, you can avoid the religious connotation, or perhaps you are refused service by a religious institution, but you can still get the secular, legal benefits and social recognition. Basically, whether you are unionized (hopefully they would have a better term) or married would say more about your faith and beliefs than about what kind of discrimination you are the subject of.

[sageofages]

Originally posted by Rudey
That's just it. Marriage and all the incentives for it aren't for "2 people". 2 people a family does not make.

-Rudey

Tell that to a single parent raising their child. Tell that to the grandparent raising a grandchild because their parents have died. Tell that to the aunt or uncle who is raising their niece or nephew because the parents have disappeared. Tell that to the older sister or brother who is struggling to make sure their younger sibling doesn't end up in foster care. Tell that to the new couple who have just moved in together (married or not).

Two people *can* and many times *do* make a family, even by legal definitions.

[AXO_MOM_3]

Originally posted by pirepresent

I see what you're saying, about how some could think this would lead the way for incest, etc. Where should the line be drawn? The line between homosexuality and incest is VERY clear however - homosexuality harms NOTHING (aside from the people who are opposed to it). Incest has serious, often severe genetic consequences. If two closely related people have children, such extremely similar DNA from both parents causes serious defects.

So there's the line. But homosexuals can't even have children, unless they adopt. So why, why can't we just let them have each other and share the happiness of being married?

The line on incest is not as clear as you might think. As long as one partner is sterile, and the sex is CONSENSUAL as well....
Let me break it down for you people that only define incest as sex that can produce offspring or sex between parents and little children:
Father/son = no babies
Mother/daughter = no babies
Sister/sister = no babies
Brother/brother = no babies
Mother/son + one of them sterile = no babies
Father/daughter + one of them sterile = no babies

These folks will be wanting to add their relationships to the civil union services too.

[godfrey n. glad]

Originally posted by AXO_MOM_3

These folks will be wanting to add their relationships to the civil union services too.

So you don't want to open the door to legitimate relationships because some illegitimate relationships may slip in through the cracks? Sounds like arguments some people used during the miscegenation controversy...

[DWAlphaGam]

Originally posted by AXO_MOM_3

These folks will be wanting to add their relationships to the civil union services too.

What leads you to that conclusion? Usually, incest is not consentual, and even if it is, the people are related and therefore given family rights in the eyes of the law (i.e., they can make decisions concerning medical issues, they can inherit property, etc). Therefore, they would have no need for a civil union or marriage.


By the way, I think that this "homosexuals marrying could lead to the legalization of incest" argument is a bunch of nonsense. A line can still be drawn not allowing incest but allowing homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals, i.e. getting married.

[AGDee]

The definition of marriage, per dictionary.com is this:

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.


There is nothing about religion in there. For some people, religion is a part of marriage but for many it is not. When you are married by the Justice of the Peace it IS marriage, even though there is no religion involved. THIS is what they are doing in San Francisco. This has nothing to do with religion, this has to do with law.

Homosexuals can live together and be committed to each other without being legally married. But, they can't visit their partner in ICU because visitors are limited to "family" only and they aren't legally family. They don't inherit anything from their loved one and can end up in legal battles over joint property after their loved one's death. In most cases, they aren't entitled to their partner's benefits. How is any of that fair? Add me to the list of those who don't understand why these people should not have the same legal benefits as heterosexuals.

Now for the definition of Family per dictionary.com:

fam·i·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-l, fml)
n. pl. fam·i·lies

A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.


Note, the second definition says "two or more people". How are heterosexual couples who decide not to have children leading to the dissolution of the family? I think if people don't want children, they shouldn't HAVE children. What a horrible situation for those unwanted kids to live in if they did.

Incest holds issues other than the genetic factor. Generally, there is a power issue there. Just as it is unethical and illegal for a boss, psychologist, doctor, pastor, police officer, etc. to take advantage sexually of someone who is in the scope of their care, it has to do with equal power in a relationship. It is too difficult to determine whether it is consensual in unbalanced relationships such as these.

I truly don't understand what it will take away from heterosexuals to allow homosexuals to marry. I hope those of you do feel that way, thank God every day for making you heterosexual so that you don't have to deal with those issues.

Dee

[AXO_MOM_3]

Originally posted by godfrey n. glad
So you don't want to open the door to legitimate relationships because some illegitimate relationships may slip in through the cracks? Sounds like arguments some people used during the miscegenation controversy...

That is not the argument at all. My point is that if you want homosexuals to be allowed to get married, then you cannot discriminate (draw a line) against "appropriate" incestuous relationships too. They loooooovvvvvvveeee each other and want to get married too and want the relationship to be recognized by others as such.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by AXO_MOM_3
That is not the argument at all. My point is that if you want homosexuals to be allowed to get married, then you cannot discriminate (draw a line) against "appropriate" incestuous relationships too. They loooooovvvvvvveeee each other and want to get married too and want the relationship to be recognized by others as such.

Or relationships where there are WILLING participants who want to have mutiple wives or husbands (they do exist outside of the Mormon faith).

I think some people are too quick to call it semantics when these types of relationships are brought up, quickly forgeting that not so long ago, a gay marriage was considered to be on the same level as an incestuous or multiple-partner marriage.

A new "enlightenment" I guess...........

ETA:

On DST Blvd there is an article about a WILLING, full-blooded father and daughter couple who are married. These are the "incestuous couples" that I'm referencing.

[godfrey n. glad]

Originally posted by AXO_MOM_3
That is not the argument at all. My point is that if you want homosexuals to be allowed to get married, then you cannot discriminate (draw a line) against "appropriate" incestuous relationships too. They loooooovvvvvvveeee each other and want to get married too and want the relationship to be recognized by others as such.

The line between heterosexuals and homosexuals is just as "artificial" as you are trying to make the line between incestuous and gay relationships seem.