Is anybody here at DU anti-gay marriage?

[Superfly]

Just wondering. Not to say that I'm against it, in fact I know I'm not that well informed on the subject, but is anybody here at DU anti-gay marriage or anti-gay rights?

Brian

[xchrom]

1. yes -- there are folk who are against it

some will say so -- and some won't.
i'm all for it.

[JitterbugPerfume]

5. as a straight woman

who is a bit "older"

I think it is about time that we recognise our Gay / lesbian brothers and sisters as what they are

full citizens with full rights , and gay marriage is a start

[ProfessorGAC]

19. How Would You Know. . .

. . .which were against it if they won't say so?

I do think there are a few here that might be anti-gay marriage, but you're statement really confused me. You know what people think even when they don't type it?

Hmmmmmmmm!
The Professor

[enki23]

103. i've seen several

but the rabid "no gay marriage" folks are a minority, even here. most are of the "civil unions, but keep marriage 'pure'" sort.

[xchrom]

104. i find people, even here,

peculiar when it comes to gay folk.
so, you're right technically of course, just highly suspicious of any straight person period.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. Not me!

But yes, there are some anti-gay marriage folks here at DU.

[gratuitous]

3. I have encountered a few

And I can't say exactly what their position is with regard to gay rights or gay marriage. I, too, would like to see some articulation from the "anti" side that clearly addresses a few points, such as what governmental interest is being served by denying uniform rights to any coupling of consenting adults, and how that integrates with the historic civil rights positions as advocated by the Democratic party, and other progressive folks.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. And then there are some "enlightened" gays who say...

...things like:

"Why would gays want to participate in this archaic institution?"

:eyes:

To which I generally respond with: If you don't want to get married, then don't, but I do want to participate in that institution.

[Superfly]

7. I'm straight and I've said that!

Although I love my wife, this archaic institution is costing me more money in taxes! Ha, ha, ha.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. I see your point....

Mine is those gays who think assimiliation into the structures that society already has is a fate worse than death. It is usually arrogantly stated by these enlightened types that we should strive to come up with something "better" than what those nasty breeders have created for themselves.

I have run into those types a time or two and it is all I can do not to say something crude to the effect that performing fellatio (although I would use the street idiom for that) does not bequeath a person with enlightenment.

[AntiLempa]

6. opposition to gay marriage. . .

Opposition to Gay marriage or "gay rights" is opposition to human rights. To say something is ok for straight people but not gay people is no different than saying something is ok for whites but not blacks.

"Gay Rights" are human rights.

[Iris]

112. I definately agree with you.

Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness. Thank God that is not considered true anymore by intelligent people.

I hope to be alive one day when educated people see that the way we have treated homosexuals is just as wrong as we have treated other groups that are perceived as "not fitting in."

[liberalnurse]

8. I think we should

take it one step at a time. Civil Unions are totally right.

[TahitiNut]

15. Are people married in a civil ceremony ...

... really "married"? Must a marriage be sanctioned by an established religion in order to be a "real" marrriage? :eyes:

[Snow]

79. Yes. No.

It does depend somewhat on state, but a major problem with the issue is the confusion between the civil institution and the (greatly varied) religious one.

[imhotep]

9. hope not

Anyone against gay marraige is not a democrat.

[HFishbine]

18. It's not just a democratic issue

Check out this surprising pleasure. Last night I was invited to a brainstorming session for a candidate running for city council. Although it is a non-partisan race, I soon learned that the candidate is a registered republican.

As the eveniing was winding down, I brought up the last issue on my list with the caveat that the candidate may want to at least think about this. My suggestion was to include in his platform chaniging the city's hiring policy to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians (no, our city does not yet have such a policy).

The candidate was right there with me. He agreed without any debate. He recognized it as an issue of fundemntal fairness. Now, while I recognize that this is far from gay marriages (something the city council can't do anything about anyway), the point is that a republican candidate is willing to stand up for equal treatment of gays and lesbians as part of his campaign.

Republicans have gay friends and family (some, I dare say, may be gay themselves). They are not all comfortable with the idea of denying gays and lesbians equal rights. If the republican party takes up the banner of denying equal rights to people because of their sexual preferences, they are going to lose voters, not gain them. The dems would be wise to recognize that some of our "liberal" issues have appeal to republicans.

[bearfartinthewoods]

36. something your city council can do

is to extend heath and life insurance benefits to the partners of GLB employees. see how the pubbie candidate feels about that.

[HFishbine]

39. Asked him already.

He's taking a one-step-at-a-time approach, which I think is wise considering the local electorate.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

146. Chris Shays

is the original sponsor of ENDA in the house. Shays and Johnson of CT are two of the most pro gay rights people in the entire congress, I believe Shays even supports gay marriage, if I'm not mistaken.

[MiltonLeBerle]

50. That's not true AT ALL.

Who made you the Grand High Arbitrator of just who is and isn't a Democrat?
But since you appear to have assumed the title, perhaps it would be best if you put out a pamphlet outlining the requirements for being a true Democrat...? I'd sure hate to end up on the wrong side of the line without even knowing it.

BTW-While I'm not necessarily against gay marriage, I see it as something that will ultimately be of the greatest benefit to divorce lawyers.
I might like to see something like another level of commitment added to the mix. Whereby you could have 2 types of "marriage", both types open to both hetero- and homosexuals.

A Civil Union would be easier to get out of by either party in a sort of no-fault divorce proceeding, and could be used by any type of co-habitating couple, even relatives- and possibly even polyamorous reltionships...in order to take advantage of some of the legal/social/medical/etc... benefits currently allocated only to married persons.

A Marriage would be a higher level of 'commitment' open only to couples(gay or straight), but not to relatives that are not currently allowed to marry. And a divorce would be much harder to get in this type of relationship.

I'm not that personally familiar with divorce and probably naive about the process- my parents, siblings, and myself have never been through it, and the same goes for my wife and her family- although both of my parents have a sister (2 of my aunts) who has been divorced- twice each in fact.
I'm just putting this out as a rough sketch of the idea, and was wondering what thoughts and input others might have- particularly to build on the concept.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Does That Mean

John Kerry

Howard Dean

Joe Lieberman

Bob Graham

John Edwards

Dick Gephardt

are not Democrats?


I'm in favor of gay marriage but we need to move slow and build a consensus.

[quinnox]

10. Yes

Of course there are those against however, I have noticed a labeling goes on though for those against, i.e. being accused of being freepers, or a right winger, so probably it discourages them from posting.

[kentuck]

12. I am not anti-gay rights but....

I don't think this is a good time for the gay-marriage issue. I do think Dean spoke on the issue very well yesterday by agreeing with the stance of Dick Cheney and by leaving it up to the states. Once a Democrat is elected would be the time to look at the issue more "thoroughly", in my opinion. The Repubs will try their damnedest to tie the Democratic Party to the "gay-marriage" issue because their polls show overwhelmingly that this is an issue in their favor. America is not just DU. America is not ready for "gay-marriage".

I understand the sentiments of those that are tired of waiting for equal rights but, in my opinion, the wait will be much longer if we lose the next election. You cannot step into the same stream twice. Patience is a virtue and never moreso than now. However, I understand that sometimes it is difficult to see the trees when one is standing in the middle of the forest. Just my opinion.

[tuck]

72. i'm not racist, but...

that's exactly the same thing they said to king. ever read letter from a birmingham jail?

time to re read, i think.

i will concede: now is not the right time.

yesterday was the right time.

[kentuck]

74. I'm glad we agree...

No, I don't think you are a racist. :)

[tuck]

76. is that a response?

cuz it didn't sound like one.

we are overdue on this issue. that is my point.

FYI as a white person in a racist society, i am inherently racist. see the parallels?

[kentuck]

85. I see your point...

:)

[tuck]

119. see my post # 77

nt

[tuck]

77. shit...

that was way more confrontational than i intended it to be ... sorry

**sheepish**

[TahitiNut]

13. Well, I don't think ...

... any church should be forced to extend their sacraments and ceremonies to people who don't share their beliefs. Likewise, I don't believe a secular government (of the people) should be forced to comply with the dogma of any church.

[HFishbine]

20. Exactly TNut

Yes. That's the distinction. Church's are free to offer their screments, or not, to whomever they choose. The state should make its laws based on the Constitution.

[TahitiNut]

27. 'Marriage' has always been about property and entitlement.

Lost in the overly-emotionalized rhetoric is the historical perspective. We seem cognitively lost in our romanticism and religiosity. Going back to the 'god-given rights' of monarchs, there's been an unholy alliance between civil authority and supernaturalism (i.e. church and state). Consider the question of 'legitimacy' in ascendancy to a throne. Consider the rejection of Papal Authority when it ran contrary to Henry's libidinous (or progenistic?) proclivities. Monarchies relied for millenia on the notion that their authority was God-given and their (legitmate) progeny inherited such authority, along with their properties.

Indeed, marriage itself was a question of chattel ownership -- the (purported?) "father" ceding possession, along with other tangible considerations, of the female (human property) to another male. The burden of "husbandry" (a term still used to refer to the care of livestock) was often offset by dower rights. This is all about property. The female progeny were regarded as mere burdens, inferring some subsequent diminution of property as their breeding abilities were marketed to prospective "husbands".

In this regard, the 'church' is a mere AKC.

If it weren't for the considerations of property and inheritance of property and power, marriage wouldn't exist. The church's power to recognize marriage is a secular power, not a spiritual power. Even monogamy itself is about such secular considerations.

There's absolutely nothing inherently "religious" about marriage. It's an age-old political myth.

[Karenina]

99. Scrolling down to your post

My son and I were bantering. Upon seeing it I said to him, OK, full stop! TN is about to nail it. We read your post, slapped five and agreed, TN just NAILED IT AGAIN!!! :loveya:

[TahitiNut]

102. (Giggle)

It's a bit amusing to imagine the puzzlement this discussion is provoking. It's hard to give up familiar memes. (It has been for me, I know.) That's why I started a new thread with this one. :evilgrin:

[Liberator_Rev]

14. There are DU defenders of the PRINCIPAL OPPONENTS of

gay marriage, i.e. the Roman Catholic hierarchy, who not only oppose the sacramental marriage of gay Catholics -- which is of course their business -- but also oppose the Civil Union and/or Civil Marriage of Non-Catholics, which of course many people, including Liberal Catholics, find to be none of their business.
See more at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays

P.S. There are other religious fundamentalist opponents of gay marriage as well, but they aren't represented here at DU.

[sujan]

22. yes

[Blue_Chill]

23. PRINCIPAL OPPONENTS? more spin from DJ Rev

The Catholic church is not the principal opponent in the US. The pope and the vatican has very little political power in the US. The cheif opponents to this are the christian religions of the US, the same ones that blamed 9/11 on gays. You of course know all this but......

By the way what church do you belong to?

[IndianaGreen]

28. The archives of the old DU are full of venomous attacks on gay rights

by a handful of DUers that adopted the GOP mantra of the Left trying to force the so-called "homosexual agenda".

One of those posters even said "I am not a faggot" when another DUer suggested that the poster's opposition to gay marriage/civil unions was indicative of the poster's own struggle with his own sexual orientation (The Gaydars were all pointing in that direction).

When you get a chance check the archives of the old DU prior to 9/11/01, and you will see what I am talking about.

I haven't seen anything approaching such venom recently in the old DU, or in DU2.

[tuck]

121. yes, yes they are

that is something that really bothers me about this whole setup here. while DU users are for the most part progresive, the fact that it is computer based means DUers are for the most part affluent.

and what do we think of when we think of affluence?

upper class STRAIGHT white men who are loathe to give up any privlege.

everybody! knock it off with the homophobia, already .. it's getting annoying

[foreigncorrespondent]

130. IG thank you!!!!

I am so glad to see that myself and a handfull of the LGBT folks around here are not alone in our thinking, when we talk about the "anti gay movement" here at DU.

Unfortunately there is always going to be haters, primarily because governments who actually represent what the people of a country want forget that, and bring their own feelings to office with them.

If the governments stopped hating, then things would settle down a lot.

I am still so pissed about what my PM little Johnny Bonsai Bastard Howard said yesterday here in Australia, and really didn't need to see a thread like this, today.

IG, I thank you for the support you show the LGBT community. You are a true patriot. :)

[OrdinaryTa]

158. Queer Theory is Grayer Than You Think

A couple of days ago, my post about Michel Foucault was completely ignored, leading me to suspect the possibility that queer theory controversies haven't reached DU. These controversies have been part of literature and queer theory courses since well before Foucault's death in 1984. Foucault himself was something of a celebrity, the toast of Paris, and was for a time, an esteemed adjunct professor at Berkeley. Although gay himself, he said homosexuality is a social construct and a modern one at that. He dismissed gay liberation as irrelevant and counterproductive. He would no doubt denounce this thread as bourgeois. Perhaps not.

Declarations of unambiguous support for gay marriage strike me as uninformed. It's more complicated than that. Why did Jesus not speak about homosexuality? For the same reason Jesus didn't speak about the Internet. In his time, it didn't exist.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. So which DU catholics have said they oppose gay marriage?

Pehaps you could respond to the question asked.

[Rich Hunt]

128. prove it

You've WRONGLY accused me and other folks of defending the Pope or the RC hierarchy when we have done no such thing. You've failed to retract these accusations. If I were such a great defender of the Pope or the hierarchy, then why would I have left the church? Then you attribute my "ignorance" to my "atheism".

I'm going to have to put you on ignore. I do wish you would stop conflating disagreement with "conservatism" or "defending the hierarchy". No one did any such thing on those other threads. It is simply false and it is dishonest of you to bring up these slanders again and again.


BTW, I support FULLY same-sex marriage and always have, although I wish the government would ultimately get out of the marriage game forever. If polyamorists want a five-way civil union, I support that, too.

[madmax]

16. Live and let Live

and let love - who can say what constitutes love. I'm a straight married 'older female' and have many lesbian friends, homosexual friends. Either I found them or they found me and I'm grateful for their friendship. Why should it matter to me who people care to share their lives.

The world would be a lot better off if people concentrated thier energies on solving real problems instead of feeding off ignorant fears and their imagined moral superiority.

I believe that people who want to share their lives together deserve the same rights as 'straight' people.

[pbeal]

17. I dont get the whole issue

A gay couple being married doesn't affect me at all.

From what I understand "Marriage as a sacrament" means that its a religious institution and being one the federal government has no place in it period. It being religious to me means it needs to be kept private and out of the constitution, I really don't need to know about the private life of any couple gay or straight.

I fail to see when we are loosing a solider a day in Iraq, Al-queida is threatening to do something "big" again, and the economy is in the toilet where gay marriage is an immediate issue for the country to be getting in a uproar about.

[ibegurpard]

21. I think it would actually strengthen the institution of marriage.

As it stands now, the institution is being weakened. Why? Because, in the interest of fairness, many organizations and governments are offering recognition and benefits to couples who are NOT married. They are doing this because it would be unfair to offer them only to gay couples, who CANNOT be married. If gay marriage was legal then it could be fair to say: If you want the "benefits" of marriage then you have to BE married.

[drdigi420]

71. excellent point

It seems to me that a lot of self-proclaimed straight males are overly obsessed with where other men want to stick their penis.

[ohmyman1]

24. live and let live

I really don't care. It causes no harm to me or anyone else that I can see.

[WoodrowFan]

25. yes

I have no intention of marrying another man, I mean, ewwww, and I'm happy with my wife! And, huh? Ohhhh, you mean am I for or against gay marriage for other people!!?? Well, that's different. Never mind.... 8-)



Seriously, I am undecided as to whether I want my church to conduct them (leaning in favor), but I don’t think it’s any of my business if any two single adults want to marry, regardless of gender, so I think civil unions and marriages in other churches are fine. That’s THEIR (the couple’s) business, not mine!

[jagguy]

26. civil unions are fine but not marriage

Marriage is primarily a procreation mechinism that grew all the rest. There are no children of homosexual unions.

Civil unions can function for the legal matters relating to relationships.

[buddhamama]

29. sex is the procreation mechinism

not marriage.

there was sex/procreation before the religious tenets of marriage.
and there still is.

[jagguy]

37. yeah, and then there came civilization

marriage was a way to build on guidelines related to this that benefited the gene pool and application of morals related to this.

And just because people have sex outside of marriage doesn't make it right.

If we kept to the pre-civilization rules regarding sex then the only guy having sex would be the biggest, strongest and meanest of the lot. And I doubt foreplay would ever have come about.

[Liberal Veteran]

42. So let me see if I understand this?

All that fucking that went on for thousands and thousands and thousands of years before civilization and marriage came along was wrong?

Or did it perhaps fall under a grandfather clause?

[jagguy]

43. enlightenment comes as we are able to understand it

but feel free to rationalize, its a free country

[Liberal Veteran]

51. Okay then try this on for size....

I am gay. I cannot get married. Are you saying that the 13 years of sexual relations I have had with my partner are wrong?

[jagguy]

58. I don't care

but I am Christian and the creed says yes.

However the creed also says that it's not for me to judge anyone and I don't. I wish more Christians did the same but I can't judge them either.

[Liberal Veteran]

69. What a nice little catch-22 for gay people....

Can't have sex until we are married, but we also can't get married.

Sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

And people wonder why a lot of gay people have "issues" with the religious community?

[jagguy]

82. you have a point

but its not like the rules have changed recently. Scripture has been around for quite a while.

[jono]

93. Oh yeah?

Read a passage - any passage - from the King James version, then read it in the New International Version.

Scripture has been interpreted and re-interpreted thousands of times. The rules "change" with every interpretation, which is why they seem to contradict themselves in so many places.

[jagguy]

95. read all the versions and take an average

sure you can play games like this but at the end of the day and over the centuries the rules are consistant.

[jono]

123. Not a game at all

Sorry, I don't think "taking the average" is good methodology when you're basing your entire belief system on the results. :eyes:

And I'd like to see you respond to the poster who asked to which "creed" you might be referring. My family's church recites the Apostle's and Nicene creeds, and neither of them say anything about homosexuals not being able to marry. If you're interpreting "we are by nature sinful and unclean" as "gay marriage is not OK" then by all means, please share some of whatever you're smoking.

[foreigncorrespondent]

131. Oh it may have been around for quite a while.

However the one problem I have with the scripture is it was written by man, regardless of what it tells us. Those are the hateful words of man.

Just remember, there won't be any hate, any wars, but only love and peace in the world, if man would just learn to get along.

[geomon]

117. What creed says this??

??

[buddhamama]

53. are you saying that,

religion is the basis of enlightenment?

[jagguy]

59. it tends to be more often than not

sort of by definition

[xchrom]

109. baloney! i'm christian

and i'm tired of christians playing this superiority game with religion -- geez we can't even stop ''enlightened'' people like this ridiculous pope from making 12th century proclamations about the evils of gay parents.
most of the laws -- if not all of them -- regarding gay people are about purity. well they used to stone people for doing the wrong thing on the sabbath -- and that's not right either.
the christian bible is a story -- a metaphor of relationship. but it's up to us to use the metaphor wisely. not to do so turns the faith to stone i.e,. an idol -- it's not complicated.
do unto others as you would have them do unto you!

[geomon]

116. we are not worthy ...great one..we bow to you...

give me a #%$^&@$ break!

"enlightenment comes as we are able to understand it"

LOL and then shaking my head.

[buddhamama]

48. okay...

i can see where this is going

"And just because people have sex outside of marriage doesn't make it right."

'right' according to whom?
i have absolutely no problem with it.

ya' know it is funny because marriage with the creation of this 'civilized' world was based on class and geneology,
cousin marrying cousin didn't do that much for widening the gene pool.

the religious promoters allowed for extra marriatal affiars and multiple marriages, especially among the favored classes, how does that fit in?

[xchrom]

108. marriage was about which heir

would inherit the wealthy man's money.
no one became enlightened -- the nobility bit the dust, bought the farm, died on the vine.
today we skew tax codes in favor of the wealthy.

[paulk]

38. what about heterosexual marriages that don't produce children?

Like mine?

Does this mean that that I should rescind my marriage vows?
I'll stop there... 'cause your post really pisses me off, jagguy.

[WoodrowFan]

40. I Agree Paulk

I once saw an old family life textbook from the 1940s, it said "there are marriages without children but no families because if there are no children, it's not a family." I about threw the book across the room!!

[jagguy]

45. sex is about procreation

procreation is not always the result. I was married for 15 years before our daughter appeared. Prior to that I had no interest in children.

[paulk]

52. it's not about WANTING to have children

Infertility. Look it up. Count your blessings, guy.

Marriage is about procreation, Sex is about procreation.

Do you have any idea of how insulting you are?

[jagguy]

55. My wife and I went through 3 years of infertility treatment

I know about it. We were fortunate.

[TahitiNut]

127. Ahhhhh...

... the power of prayer. :eyes:

[soothsayer]

118. Well my girlfriend and I (same sex) try and try, but still no kids

Go figure!

But under yer rules, when they can finally produce a baby out of genes from 2 folks of the same sex (no reason they can't do that now, from a science standpoint; a sperm and an egg have the same number of chromosomes---when I learned that in high school, I planned to invent a process for 2 grrrls to have a child together), THEN can us gays marry?

[Sapphocrat]

145. I did the same thing!

That is, try to find a way, in high school, to combine girl-girl chromosomes to make a sperm-less baby. LOL

(Unfortunately, my biology grades were lousy!)

[foreigncorrespondent]

132. 15 years before you produced a child?

And tell me during this time, were you having sex, be it once a month or 4 times a day? If sex is for procreation buddy, then you should NOT have been having sex with your wife until you knew she would fall pregnant.

This is what your words are saying. Do you even realize what you are saying? I don't think you do.

Sex isn't a special thing for heterosexuals, mate.

[catpower2000]

46. Um, straight female here, and I'm NOT having children...

Am I not allowed to get married? Because a civil union will be just fine for me?

Cat

[jagguy]

56. I had no intention of having children

and I changed my mind. It happens.

[catpower2000]

87. That is not my point.

My point is that marriage is not just for procreation. What right have you to impose your own personal beliefs (that marriage must include procreation in order to be "valid") on others, who obviously don't agree?

And I do not appreciate your condescension. I had tubal ligation surgery to insure that I will never procreate. Not that it's any of your business.

Cat

[jagguy]

94. Meant no offense

and these are not my ideas. You have to go way back in Western culture for this.

I respect your choice and I don't judge.

[catpower2000]

97. Thank you for your civility. My response...

these are not my ideas

Well, you didn't come up with them. But they ARE your beliefs. Surely you know that not everyone in the world is a Christian. You don't expect people who aren't Christian to follow Christian beliefs, do you?

So why would you oppose a law that says gay people can get married, when it's only your (Christian) interpretation of the word "marriage" that is standing in your way? In other words, can gay Buddhists get married? Would that be all right with you? As far as I know, Buddhism does not specify gender in its marriage vows.

Cat

[jagguy]

137. actually gay Christians get married all the time

scads on them in the Episcopal church. I'm sure others as well.

Problem is that the state doesn't recognize them and therein lies the dispute.

Civil unions solve the problem.

I don't expect anyone to follow my beliefs. Everyone has their own heart to follow.

I think I'd be safe to say that this Christian interpretation is not just mine, there are many who would concur. I see today that quite a few Episcopal bishops agree and are rather conflicted with the others that do not.

[Sapphocrat]

114. So then, jagguy...

If sex is for procreation (your words), and recreational sex is "against the creed" (implied), then I take it you neither had sex nor married until you decided to have children -- and that you do not now engage in sex (male-female intercourse, that is, since anything other than penis-vagina contact does not result in reproduction) without the express purpose of propagating the species.

Funny, but I thought even the Christian faith recognized lovemaking as a "gift from God" in itself. If that's not correct, then why did He make orgasm so pleasurable? You'd think He would have made intercourse as painful as childbirth -- or at least not so much fun.

Funny too, how so many heteros who are vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage (and LGBT rights in general) tend to reduce homosexuality to nothing more than a function of one's genitalia.

If we are defined by genital function, then I guess all men are nothing but a species of pissers. Pardon the vulgarity, but as long as we're reducing it to genital function... After all, urination seems to be the only proper use of a penis, if you're not going to restrict it to making babies.

Women, by the way, are exempt from this categorization, as the female urethra is quite separate from our reproductive organs. Gee, does this make us more physically evolved than men?

Oh, darn, I forgot -- where does this leave the intersexed ("hemaphrodites," if you prefer the archaic term)? Well, since so many "two-spirits" are physically incapable of reproduction, I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone, of either "proper" sex.

But enough pondering these great mysteries of the human anatomy. I have more important things on my mind now, such as seeing what I can do about having the marriages of two of my "barren" aunts annulled as soon as possible. Oh, and then there's my widowed grandmother's second marriage... Of course, that's going to be difficult, since they're all dead... Oh, wait, there's always my sister's marriage! But then, she was married to a Jew, so as far as the Catholic church is concerned, she wasn't married at all -- just fornicating for 16 years. And she can be forgiven for that.

Yes, we can play these games all day.

[CheshireCat]

49. "a procreation mechinism" ??????

That is BS. I am hetero, married and have no children - never intended to have children. Why did I marry? For protection for me and my spouse in regards to property rights, inheritance, insurance coverage, and medical rights.

Are you saying that anyone without children should not be married? Procreation is NOT the basis for marriage in this country.

"Civil unions can function for the legal matters relating to relationships."

Maybe they could, but they don't. If so, I would not be married.

Basically, I don't care what it's called - marriage, civil union, domestic partnership - WHATEVER! As long as it come with identical benefits for the couple.

No government has NO RIGHT to tell limit a person in choosing a partner. Same sex or opposite sex couples should be treated the same in their partnership aggreements or marriages.

[jagguy]

54. marriage goes back WAY before the USA

as in many thousands of years. Procreation was a huge concern then for many reasons. Most of those reasons no longer apply in western civilization but some do. For this reason, its still valid.

Civil unions hadrly exist today so they would not have even been an option for you. Thats another reason for creating them.

We're actually in agreement when you match perspective.

[tuck]

75. i disagree, but i won't argue

you obviously have some pretty strong beliefs here, and our differences are merely differences of opinion. for that reason, i will douse my urge to tell you how wrong i think you are.

thank you for staying civil. dialogue is the only way to solve this problem.

one consideration point: it hurts a whole helluva lot to be told you just aren't good enough to be included in a cornerstone of stable society. a whole helluva lot.

[jagguy]

86. excellent points

and it all points to why there needs to be real seperation of church and state.

It was probably wrong to call the thing that happen in from of the justice of the peace the same thing that happens at the altar. They're not the same and really never have been. Way back when they didn't see it as possible to view them as apart but that changed.

Yelling and pontificating never achieved anything. You can't listen if your mouth is open and your mind closed.

[Snow]

84. I think some references might be appropriate here,

since often we assume a cultural institution has been around for eons when in fact it is of fairly recent inception.

[jagguy]

88. you baffle me

but lets see...

Jews have been operating with marriage for however many thousands of years they've been around.

The Celts had a form of it and that goes back thousands of years as well.

I believe that Native Americans had a form as well and they've been around a while.

While the whole Christian BIG CHURCH WEDDING thing is relatively recent and a scam to MAKE BIG BUCKS, marriage has been part of Christianity as it was a part of Judeaism (Christ's first miracle came at a wedding you'll recall, water to wine, the original party anmal).

Afraid I'm not much of a historian, perhaps some others are...

[Snow]

107. What's to baffle?

I'm simply asking you to back up your assertions, since you're basing an argument upon them ("it's been around for eons; we should respect an ancient tradition"). How universal was marriage in Europe, especially among the common folk? What was marriage like in the middle east in Jesus' time? Did it involve procreation as its center; did it involve plural marriage? Do you see the problems with using that particular argument? I'm not much of an historian either, but there's a lot more to the world than Europe and the tribes of Juda, and a lot more ways of forming partnerships than I've ever heard of. For example, even in contemporary Korean society a marriage is acknowledged by an entry in the 'family registry' -there is really no such thing as a marriage certificate. This causes Koreans to have nutsy problems with the US bureacracy. Any, digression - if I understand your argument correctly, then you need to back off from that point unless you are a good historian, because you could be a) wrong 2) making an argument that doesn't have much relevance to current society.

[foreigncorrespondent]

133. Homosexuality goes WAY back, before the USA even.

And during those times homosexuality was accepted. It is modern man and the religious right that has made homosexuality a sin.

[OrdinaryTa]

156. History of Homosexuality

There is unquestionably a history of homosexual acts but it's unclear whether these establish a history of a sexual orientation as such. Sex researchers Masters and Johnson were enthusiastically in favor of gay sex but denied the existence of sexual orientation.

People who know nothing about queer theory have the idea that they can select the various tenets of essentialism versus constructivism as though ordering from a Chinese menu. But it's not a Column A, Column B kind of deal; because of the contradictions, each package precludes the other.

Why did Jesus not speak about homosexuality? Some say, because it didn't exist in his time.

[Sapphocrat]

160. Any Bible-believing Christian...

...would point out that the Old Testament, which predates Jesus, certainly did mention homosexual relationships (as opposed to mere "acts").

Now, I personally happen to believe that all OT passages regarding the "sin" of homosexual "acts" have been wildly misinterpreted, so kindly refrain from arguing whether or not they are valid "homosexual" passages. You'll have to argue that one with Christians who believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the "sin" of homosexuality, and that Leviticus contains all sorts of dire warnings about a man who "lies with a man as with a woman."

Anyway, as relationships go, I can't think of a better one than that of David and Jonathan. And guess what? That was a relationship based on love (which -- and I paraphrase -- "surpassed the love of any woman"). Did they engage in homosexual "acts"? Who knows? Who cares? Your point was that sexual orientation is a social construction, apart from "acts."

But, seriously, are you proferring the theory that homosexuality may not have existed in Jesus' time -- a mere (estimated) 2,000 years ago?

You're really serious?

How many examples of homosexuality do you want from ancient history? The tomb of Saqqara depicting two male manicurists as male-female lovers, ca. 2400 B.C.E.? How about the affair between Pepi II and one of his generals around (if memory serves) the Middle Kingdom era? The ancient Egyptians even had a couple of gay gods -- Set and Horus, who had one fiery relationship indeed (with Set giving birth to their child -- remember, these are mythical gods). Horus was a top -- and that's as far as I'll go here, but the tales invented about the pair were pretty racy stuff... and told around 3000 B.C.E.

Need I even touch upon ancient Greece? Ancient Rome? India? China? Japan? How about Native American two-spirits, a.k.a. "Berdache"?

Finally, if you actually believe homosexuality is nothing more than a social construction, how do you explain its occurrence in nature -- among the "lesser" animals?

[paulk]

61. what is the difference between

civil unions and marriage?

This is just semantics, no? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, why not call it a duck? I don't find the argument that marriage is for producing children persuasive. If heterosexuals can enjoy the legal privilages of marriage without having children, then why can't gays and lesbians?

Why get hung up on a word?

[jagguy]

63. because the word has a long and distinct history

and this would change the definition. I don't agree with changing the definition just to suit current social thought. Social thought changes, definitions don't.

[paulk]

67. so you would accept civil unions

between gays and lesbians that grant them the same legal rights as heterosexuals as long as we don't call it marriage?

[jagguy]

89. absolutely

.

[Greyskye]

73. Definitions don't change?

OK. What is your definition of faggot? Because a mere 100 years or so ago, the only definition of that word was "a bundle of sticks".

On edit: same thing goes for the word 'gay'. Used to be that this just meant 'happy'.

[jagguy]

90. lets not confuse lingo with terms

Gays and "faggots" are homosexuals. Lingo vs term. The term is constant.

[Runcible Spoon]

98. lingo vs. term?

that's pretty much a bogus argument. Within the discourse of American English, most speakers of the language recognize "gay" and "faggot" as referring to homosexuals, perhaps more specifically male homosexuals. Whether or not they are considered slang (lingo is an inappropriate term since it desginates terminology that is specific to a certain discipline) or "formal" terms is irrelevent. Language changes just as social behavior does, and most likely this evolution is linked. Sorry to pick nits, it's the linguist in me.

[jagguy]

138. I yield to your clarification

I tend to think of slang and lingo as nearly interchangable terms. But I'm clearly no linguist.

[Greyskye]

110. Huh?

Lingo vs. Term? :wtf:

What do you mean by 'the term is constant'? Over time, definitions of words will sometimes change or aquire additional meanings. Here are some definitions for you straight from an on-line dictionary:



From www.dictionary.com
fag·ot also fag·got ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fgt)
n.
A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

tr.v. fag·ot·ed, also fag·got·ed fag·ot·ing, fag·got·ing fag·ots, fag·gots
To bind into a fagot; bundle.
To decorate with fagoting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



faggot

n 1: a disparaging term for an openly homosexual man 2: a bundle of sticks and branches bound together


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


gay ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g)
adj. gay·er, gay·est
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
Given to social pleasures.
Dissolute; licentious.

n.
A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gayness n.
Usage Note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to homosexuals, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexuality as opposed to sexual practice. Many writers reserve gay for males, but the word is also used to refer to both sexes; when the intended meaning is not clear in the context, the phrase gay and lesbian may be used. Like the other names of social groups derived from adjectives (for example, Black), gay may be regarded as offensive when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in There were two gays on the panel; here phrasing such as gay members should be used instead. But there is no objection to the use of the noun in the plural to refer collectively either to gay men or to gay men and lesbians, so long as it is clear whether men alone or both men and women are being discussed. See Usage Note at homosexual.

[Mairead]

81. So I presume you'd be against marriage for infertile het couples too?

[jagguy]

92. no, of course not

Its a sex thing. As I know, mine being one, children are a gift from God. My wife and I are infertile and yet we have a child. I have many friends that had the same thing happen. I have other friends for whom it has not. Science was the same, I (and I don't say that you have to as well) have to believe that it was God's will.

[ulysses]

115. ok then

Just wondering if you've ever really followed your line of reasoning out to its logical end. Ms Uly and I can't conceive because of the cancer treatment that saved my life years ago - my mother certainly believes that my receiving that treatment was God's will, even though it meant that I couldn't father children "naturally".

Having decided that it is NOT God's will that we pursue medical options, we're adopting - which we could have done even if we had never had sex at all. If it's God's will that we be united in marriage and adopt, why should it not be God's will that a gay couple be united in marriage and adopt as well?

[Heddi]

124. it's not all about sex. it just isn't

Just because 10,000 years ago people started forming family unions doesn't mean that we do the same for the same reasons now.

I didn't marry my husband for the sex. I didn't marry him to have kids---in fact, we're doing everything we can to prevent kids aside from abstaining. We don't want kids now, or ever. Period. My mind will not change, I won't see things differently. We're adults and our mind regarding children has been made up for quite some time.

We married for the inherent stability that comes with marriage: Joint property, power of atty, visiting priveldges in the hospital, medical and financial decisions--a MERGING of lives.

If it was just for sex, why not stay single?

I do not understand why my husband and I, who love each other, are able to benefit from certain privleges, when other people who happen to be of the same sex love each other and are prohibited from doing ONE thing that will make all the difference in the world for them.

And you keep bringing up children and sex---are you blind to the fact that a SIGNIFICANT number of homosexuals and lesbians adopt children? Are you saying that because 2 people in a homosexual relationship cannot fertilize egg with sperm (with eachother---if they're both female or both male), then the sole REASON for marriage is kaput, therefore no marriage needs to occur?

That's just insane. They adopt children--shit--some of them HAVE children----but because they're not biologically able to reproduce naturally then they're shit out of luck in the marriage department???

I'm sorry---that's bunk.

[foreigncorrespondent]

136. Oh, so only church goers and religious people can have sex?

Now that makes sense to me. </sarcasm>

[jagguy]

139. clearly, anyone can have sex

but without marriage there are complications. Many folks related to Sally Hemmings feel that they are descendants of T.Jefferson.

In the eye of society (at that time and largly even now), the Church and the law, they are not.

[foreigncorrespondent]

141. Oh but we are ALL decendants of Adam and Eve...

...which makes us all brothers and sisters, does it not?

Well in my eyes and the eyes of the law, no one should be having sexual relations with their siblings or other family members (pun intended.)

So no, no one should be having sex in that case, and for that matter, no one should be allowed to marry either.

So it boils down to equality for all. If it is good enough for any het to go out tie the knot and begin a life with the person they love, then it is good enough for me to grab my same sex partner when she comes to Australia to visit me (from California) next month and marry her, so we can begin our life together.

But you see we have bigger problems than you. It is because of this discriminating way of thinking that I am only getting to see my partner for 4 weeks every year. Because the United States still doesn't recognize our relationship. Just like they will discriminate against us and refuse to recognize a legal marriage certificate from Canada, if we chose to marry in Canada. Yet Mr and Mrs Heterosexual from Alberta can go to the USA and have their marriage recognized. Is that fair?

[jagguy]

142. all good reasons for seperation of church and state

and civil unions are a viable answer that noone can reasonably have a problem with.

[foreigncorrespondent]

147. Oh well in that case....

....if we are talking about the separation of church and state, then your whole arguement is lost.

If there was a separation of church and state, then there would marriage for same sex couples. The only reason there isn't currently is because there is NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

[jagguy]

151. if there were sufficient seperation between church and state

the state would not be in the "marriage" business and they would all be civil unions.

[foreigncorrespondent]

152. Oh but you are dead wrong.

If there were separation between church and state, then the church wouldn't be ruling the government body. Hence no more hatred towards my community.

[sujan]

101. check this out

http://www.canoe.ca/Health0107/13_sperm-ap.html

[foreigncorrespondent]

129. Hey jagguy?

Your way of thinking is right out of the dark ages, mate!

By your own words (Marriage is primarily a procreation mechinism), then you are infact saying that heterosexual couples (including yourself and any silly person stupid enough to partner up with you) shouldn't be having sex either.

Furthermore, you are saying that because marriage is for procreation, then sex should ultimately be for procreation ONLY. Guess what buddy? You can have sex for the simple reason of having a baby, but if she doesn't fall pregnant straight away, then you have infact had sex for pleasure. So then, all babies should be concieved through IVF ONLY, which means, gay and lesbian couples can marry, and have children.

[jagguy]

140. the ideas are not new

the rationializations are. But they're diverting. Have fun !

Actually though, my wife and I DID have IVF... does that make us gay and lesbian ?

[foreigncorrespondent]

143. Well my girlfreind straps one on...

....does that make us heterosexual?

[Sapphocrat]

148. ROFLMAO!

You owe me a new keyboard, fc! And a Coke.

Too, too funny -- and too dead-on! :7

[foreigncorrespondent]

149. Sappho, would you like an Aussie coke or a Yank coke?

And the keyboard is in the mail. ;)

[lanlady]

30. Social norms can't be changed overnight

I'm all for recognizing gay unions in some legal context, but male/female marriage has been the norm in all societies, all countries, practically since prehistoric times. Gays have to realize that you can't just toss all that out the window overnight. Besides, the real purpose of marriage over the centuries was procreation, which gays can't do on their own. So I haven't seen the compelling argument yet for granting gay marriage the same legal status as straight marriage right here, right now.

Anyway, why does another friggin' divisive issue have to come along?

[election_2004]

32. question on your position

Is your position that civil unions would be the most logical starting point, in our country?

If not, then how would you confront the issue of marital rights for homosexual couples?

[election_2004]

33. Let's not forget

"Gay marriage" (or some equivalent) isn't just an issue that Democrats should be expected to support.

There are plenty of Greens, Independents, and even some Republicans (such as former Congressman Steve Gunderson of my homestate) who have no problem with same-sex unions being recognized.

[catpower2000]

47. What is the compelling argument? It is this: WHY NOT?

Give me ONE reason why gay people shouldn't be afforded the same rights as straight people in this matter.

Cat

[Sapphocrat]

120. How about this compelling reason...

Shutting African-Americans out of white society was justified by the "separate but equal" argument, too -- when it was in fact nothing but legally-sanctioned discrimination.

Or how about this compelling argument:

We are being forced to jump through hoops to eke out, one at a time, each of the 1,049 rights denied to us, but automatically bestowed upon married couples. (See: http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=1049_federal and read the GAO report.)

Or how about this compelling argument:

What you take for granted as "rights" are not rights at all, but privileges. If they were "rights," we would all have them.

[DemLikr]

31. the institution of marriage, as practiced in this country, has long been a

joke. No reason we gay folks shouldn't get in on the laughs!

[shimmergal]

34. Gay marriage is as OK with me as any state-sanctioned marriage.

But I don't really understand WHY the state should be in the business of legitimizing certain sexual and interpersonal bonds and dictating the expected terms (sharing a household, sharing the finances, etc.)

I guess I'd prefer "marriage" be treated as a sort of Limited Liability Partnership, with each couple filing the contract they've worked out between themselves.

But this isn't gonna happen--it's too easy to let the state or tradition do it for you. . .

[OrdinaryTa]

155. Couples vs. Singles

I don't really understand WHY the state should be in the business of legitimizing certain sexual and interpersonal bonds

Good point. Why should anybody enjoy special rights simply because they're part of a couple? I've noticed that couples automatically assume they are more deserving than singles. They assume they are more grown up, and I've also noticed that couples walking towards me automatically take up the whole sidewalk. Sometimes, rather than step aside for them, I stand where I am and let them by single file. Invariably, one of them shoots me a look like I've done something gauche.

This discussion has to do with whether gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, but it's a little bit unbalanced. Why should the government promote couples as opposed to singles? Why is that a matter of official concern at all?

[Maeve]

41. How can a progressive be anti-rights?

:shrug:

I think the move toward gay marriage began more than a century ago, when the states stopped prohibiting marriage due to infertility (some prohibited folks who couldn't reproduce from marrying, believe it or not!). If legal marriage does not require the production of(or intent to produce) children, the state's interest in regulating the institution shifts. Let there be a civil marriage/union/whatever for gays as well as straights, and let churches keep their sacramental ceremonies seperate (seperate civil and religious weddings are already the norm in many countries as it is)

[jagguy]

144. boy, I've been trying to make that point and getting nowhere

you've stated it well.

[janx]

44. The marriage part is for churches to decide. Equal rights, on the

other hand, civil unions, belong in the realm of government.

I hesitate to get the governement involved in any aspect of religion, and marriage is one aspect.

[TahitiNut]

105. There's nothing religious about 'marriage'.

No more so than any other 'promise'. Absent the considerations of property rights and inheritance, 'marriage' would merely involve jumping over a broomstick ... or some equivalent.

Do you understand the allusion? ;-)

[Sapphocrat]

125. No one is asking...

...for same-sex marriage to be mandated in any church.

Every church already decides who it will and will not marry -- and this isn't going to change (nor are we asking that it change). The Catholic church won't marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic. LDS won't marry a Mormon to a non-Mormon. And I'd bet good money that there are plenty of churches out there with much more restrictive criteria than that.

I'm not saying you're agreeing with the right-wingers (honest, I'm not), but I am concerned by the idea that many people (pro-civil union, anti-gay-marriage) seem to have been influenced to some degree by the RW's scare tactic; i.e., "If we allow gay marriage, churches will be forced to perform these marriages against their beliefs."

That's exactly what the anti-same-sex-marriage brigades are trying to mislead you into believing.

And that's a lie. When we say we want to get married, we're only talking about legal recognition (and protection). The only time religion should ever enter into the argument is when religion is used to justify denying us a legal right (or more accurately, privilege, as I mentioned earlier).

So the whole religion argument is absolutely backwards: We have no wish for the state to influence the church -- it's the church that's trying to influence the state. (And succeeding.)

And no, for the record, civil unions aren't good enough. If they were, then straight couples would be satisfied with a five-minute formality performed by the justice of the peace, and forget all about caterers and bridesmaids' dresses and rings.

And if it turns out civil unions end up granting us all the same privileges afforded to straight couples through marriage, then what's the point in differentiating between the two anymore? If we're to be equal, then all marriages should be nothing more than civil unions. Straight ones included.

See what I mean? It's not just a matter of semantics to us.

[OrdinaryTa]

153. Catholic Marriage

The Catholic church won't marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic

I don't think this is correct. The Church doesn't actually marry anyone, even two Catholics; it recognizes the marriage contract that they form with each other.

This Summer I attended a wedding in which the bride was Catholic, the groom was not. Sure looked authentic to me!

[Sapphocrat]

154. It's been a few years...

...since I subjected (or is that subjugated?) myself to the Catholic church. When I was younger, the non-Catholic had to convert, no ifs, ands, or buts, or no priest would even consider such a union.

Also, if two Catholics wanted to marry in the church, and one had done so previously but gotten divorced, the divorce wasn't recognized -- so the divorcee had to get the first marriage annulled. (This was my grandmother's second husband's problem -- he had to go look up an ex-wife he hadn't seen in 25 years. He got the annulment... but I always wondered how his grown children felt about suddenly becoming "illegitimate"!)

Guess things have changed (maybe on a parish-by-parish basis?). Let's hope!

[OrdinaryTa]

157. Two Untrue Statements

the non-Catholic had to convert, no ifs, ands, or buts, or no priest would even consider such a union

This is totally untrue. The person who was not a Catholic had to agree that the children would be brought up Catholic.

I always wondered how his grown children felt about suddenly becoming "illegitimate"

This is equally untrue. A Church annulment does not invalidate a civil marriage.

[Sapphocrat]

159. Okay, Father Ta...

This is totally untrue. The person who was not a Catholic had to agree that the children would be brought up Catholic.

Not quite so easy as that.

First of all, I told you what I knew based on what I was taught, by the nuns and our parish priests, throughout eight hellish years of parochial school during the 1960s and early 70s.

I just consulted the current Catechism, and here's the deal:

According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Article 7 - The Sacrament of Matrimony
Mixed marriages and disparity of cult
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/matri.html

And, aside from the fact that permission is not automatically granted (in fact, it is strongly discouraged), it gets even dicier when the non-Catholic is not a Christian (or is a Christian but unbaptized):

In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband." It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith. Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

-- ibid.

IOW, they may do it, but there are no guarantees.

So there you go. Neither of us was 100% correct nor 100% incorrect on this one. Remember, I am telling you exactly what I was taught for the first 15 years of my life -- and that was, simply, that Catholics may not marry non-Catholics. (Yes, we were also strongly discouraged from even associating with non-Catholics as children -- and God help us if we even considered setting foot in a non-Catholic church.)

If the nuns were shitting us, take it up with them.

And I guarantee you that, at least up through 1979, my own sister found it impossible to find a single Catholic priest in Northern California, liberal bastion of the West, to marry her (yes, still in good standing with the church) to a Jew, unless he would convert (and if the two of them underwent some six-month-long counseling program first).

Re: "I always wondered how his grown children felt about suddenly becoming 'illegitimate'"

This is equally untrue. A Church annulment does not invalidate a civil marriage.

Hello? I was shooting for a little levity there, but I didn't think I needed to point out the sarcasm. I'll make sure to do so in the future.

For God's sake, of course a church annulment does not invalidate a civil marriage, nor does it suddenly change the status of children to "illegitimate." Even Canon Law doesn't declare children of an annulled marriage "illegitimate" (as long as at least one of the spouses genuinely believed s/he was entering into a Sacrament).

All it does is invalidate the previous church marriage. And just as a church annulment has no effect on the status of a civil marriage, neither is a civil divorce recognized by the church. Annulment is not "Catholic divorce"; annulment is the church declaration that the marriage never existed in the first place.

Come on, man, I'm not an idiot, and I have no reason to pull anything over on anyone. I was speaking from experience, and that is the way it was (excuse me -- that is what I was taught) when I was a good little Catholic.

[foreigncorrespondent]

161. Sappho, you are still right my girl.

The rule still stands with the Catholic church.

If I was to marry my ex in the Catholic church (he was Catholic, I wasn't), I would have had to join the Catholic church in order to have that marriage happen in the Catholic church and to have that church recognize our marriage as being valid and legitimate.

[Sapphocrat]

162. I don't know which would be worse...

...being Catholic again, or being an Australian Catholic. :) I say that with no offense intended; I mean, from what I've heard about the church down under, you guys are stuck about 30 years behind the American church, at least in practice. (I know the church, worldwide, has to follow the Vatican, but I suppose it's the prerogative of each diocese to be even less liberal than allowed. No, I don't know that -- I'm guessing.)

Anyway, if you don't mind my asking, did you actually meet with a parish priest? If so, what did he say? Did he just discourage the marriage without conversion, and offer you the option of being married in the church as a non-Catholic if you swore your children would be raised Catholic? Did you ask him if that was even a possibility (to marry without converting)? Or did he just flat-out say, no way, you must convert, period, end of discussion?

And this was a Roman Catholic church? Not, like, Russian Orthodox?

[foreigncorrespondent]

163. Answers to your questions.

Sappho, it was the Roman Catholic church.

Ok my ex and I had an appointment to see the preist of the local Catholic church, which was my (then) fiancees church. It took all of about ten minutes for the whole appointment to begin and to end.

He basically told me, that unless I joined the Catholic faith and was a practicing Cahtolic for no less than 12 months, then the church wouldn't be able to marry us, and our marriage wouldn't be recognized as being valid and legit in the church.

He also told me that any children that came about that we have to guarantee they will be raised in the Catholic faith.

I of course refused to do any such thing, because as far as I was concerned it wasn't up to me to tell the children I would have which church they should belong to.

I also refused on the grounds that if we chose to marry in the church which I was brought up in (Church of Christ) my fiancee would be able to marry me without actually joining the church and being a practicing member for 12 months. I believe in a person having a right to choose if they wish to follow a faith or even belong to a faith. The Catholic church was wrong to try and force their ways on me.

[jody]

57. Karl Rove is using the "gay rights" issue to divide Dems just as he's

using the "right to keep and bear arms" (RKBA) issue to divide Democrats. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind to the facts.

The important question is what do independent voters believe and don't forget the 60% of elgible voters who didn't vote. For RKBA, the majority of those citizens will not support a candidate who has an overt or covert agenda to "ban handguns" or "ban all guns".

[Upfront]

60. Not Me

I don't care what they do as long as they don't hurt anyone. As long as they have every right everone else has, who care's?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. On social issues I am a liberterian

so I'm ok with gay marriage but this issue has to be finessed or it's an electoral loser.

[sangha]

64. I am anti-gay marriage

I am also anti-straight marriage. Marriage is a state-sanctioned form of religious observance. IMO, the State should only recognize civil unions (available to all) and ignore marriage.

[TahitiNut]

91. Interesting.

I can agree with that. After all, why not call a spade a spade? Why not cease vesting "clergy" with civil authority? :shrug:


On edit: The answer, of course, is that the clergy themselves would fight venemously for keeping their secular power. There is probably no more ubiquitous a contradiction of the "separation between church and state" than the power of (established) clergy to sanction a secular contract with extensive civil rights ramifications.

I wonder whether we could ever get married by just jumping over a broomstick together? :evilgrin:

[robbedvoter]

66. I am anti-marriage - based on personal experience. But

everyone - gay or straight is entitled to their own experience in the field. It boggles the mind why any married people would feel threatened by other people - not quite like them - getting married too. The "diluting" of the institution ought to be the most cretinuous wingnut slogan since Oral Roberts' being blackmailed by God for money.

[Sapphocrat]

126. robbedvoter...

Not so mindboggling, really. It's just the same old root of oppression that goes back to the dawn of man: If Billy's got a toy everybody else wants, it makes Billy feel "special." If every kid on the block gets one, then that toy is no longer unique, and Billy doesn't feel "better" than everybody else anymore.

Some people can't handle not being on top of the heap, and use all sorts of arguments to justify keeping somebody else down so they can feel "special," like Billy.

That's where the fear comes from. That's why some people see same-sex marriage as a threat. The only "threat" is to the exclusivity of the "straight-only" country club.

Yeah, I truly believe that's all it is. A lot of the same arguments being used against equal rights for lesbians and gay men worked to keep African-Americans in chains and jumping the broom for a long time, too.

[LeftHander]

68. Every wedding is a gay event....

Happy people dancing and feasting...

Such a gay time..

[StandWatie]

70. all the arguments I hear opposing

are exactly the same speechs made by people defending miscegenation laws fourty years ago "polygamy and bestiality will be next!", yadda, yadda, yadda...

[Mairead]

78. I wonder whether this might perhaps be true

I could see that SCOTUS decision having been a calculated move to open the gate just enough to get people fixated and polarised on the issue. What a gift to the GOP, eh?

[Maeve]

80. I like this one by Toles

[Mairead]

83. Yes! That's a beaut. I'd forgotten about that one. Thanks for

remembering it.

[ott]

96. I'm a heterosexual atheist about to get a vasectomy

I could go to the court house and most churches to get married, no sweat.

The arguments opposing equal rights to those of us, who are 'just the way God made 'em,' pretty much just confuse me.

[northzax]

100. Certainly

Just as I am opposed to the State being involved in the Marriage business at all. Marriage is a religious institution. The state should recognize any two people who wish to legally entwine their lives equally. There should be no tax benefits to this relationship, however, it should basically entail a power of attorney over each other and an financial obligation to each other. You should certainly be able to do this without needing permission from the state, or sacrament from a religion. The state should automatically approve any such application from two adults, free of other such commitments, who elect to enter into such a contract.

Any organisation that recognizes, and provides benefits to, any such union must do so for all such unions.

Anyone who wishes to can then proceed to engage in any such religous ceremony as they choose, as long as they can find a venue for such a ceremony willing to perform it. Such religous organizations, certified as non-profit religious groups, may, by making a public announcement, choose to only provide recognition to such unions that have the appropriate sacrament. (for instance, I would not expect the Catholic Church to be forced to give benefits to a couple not married in the Catholic Church, but I would expect it of Pepsi.)

[JohnKleeb]

106. not me, I am all for gay marriage

I've been told and I think mistakely that gay marriage and civil unions are one and the same.

[MissMarple]

111. Let the churches decide on the marriage thing. To be fair, perhaps

domestic partnerships that would be open to a domestic family of two or more people who may not want to be "married" could be civilly recognized. Recogniton doesn't have to assume or define the existence of sexual relationships.

[Iris]

113. not me - I say live and let live.

I think civil unions are even more important these days when things like insurance, retirement and medical decisions are at stake.

[ButterflyBlood]

122. I am

and I'm also against straight marriage. Marriage is a religious institution that has no reason to be recognized by the state. Just grant civil unions to BOTH heterosexual and homosexual couples.

[rabid_nerd]

134. as a straight man,

I am against entering a gay marriage.

I just don't think I'd like it.

[rabid_nerd]

135. Besides,

I'm already married...

[liberalpragmatist]

150. I'm not, but I try to be practical

I have no personal issue w/ full gay marriage (which would only be a civil marriage after all, leaving the religious marriage question open to the different religious groups) but I also don't think Americans, for a variety of reasons, are willing to accept them.

For that reason, I think civil unions ought to be instituted by states and the federal government should recognize them and give them benefits of married couples in those states in which they are declared.

Let the states that do declare full gay marriage go ahead and do it too, and let the federal government extend benefits to them in those states.

Basically, make sure there's progress, but don't go too fast. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are politically more likely to pass and in more states than gay marriage. If the electorate's willing to accept gay marriage, great, but if they don't and can accept civil unions, than by all means, go for the civil union.

Eventually, civil unions could be expanded so that they virtually are marriage -- churches that recognize gay unions could bless them in a church same-sex marriage ceremony and authorize the civil union at the same time, just like in a heterosexual marriage, and eventually, rights could be extended so that, say, a Canadian gay couple immigrating to Vermont would automatically be registered as being in a civil union. Those kind of incremental changes would make the difference in names totally irrelevant.

Basically, go for what accomplishes equal rights and can be passed. If that can be done w/ civil unions but not w/ full gay marriage, so be it.