Do you support gay marriage?

[foreigncorrespondent]

Poll question: Do you support gay marriage?

I have been reading a lot of stuff on gay marriage lately, so I thought I would start a poll.

I have read both sides of the fence, even when some Xian fundie site would really piss me to no end, I continued to read, so I could see what they saw wrong with it.

So I am creating this poll in the hopes to get a valid non heated (I know, I won't hold my breath, blue really isn't a nice colour for my skin) discussion about gay marriage started.

While I can't speak for anyone else who will participate in this thread, I do speak for myself, and I can honestly say I am willing to listen to what ever views you hold, so please talk, and explain your views.

Thanks,

FC

[Newsjock]

1. If you don't like gay marriage ...

... then don't have one.

Thank you and good night. :)

[Booberdawg]

2. Absolutely

I think the state sanctioned attitude toward gays in this country is barbaric.

[Kenneth ken]

3. I haven't voted yet

the options listed aren't all that great. I could easily pick three of the four.

I personally don't care one way or the other; I'm not gay, I've never married, I have no religious beliefs.

I definitely support the idea of legal equity "marriage" would allow.
I also see the religious viewpoint of marriage as something "sacred."
I also can see that calling same-sex marriages by a different name could open a path to subtle discrimination; by virtue of the different terminology.

When a couple is married, it doesn't matter if the ceremony was performed by clergy or JoP - they are still "married."

I guess that would be the best argument against the "sacred" aspect; so maybe my answer should be, 'yes to marriage, ok for any religious organization to refuse to marry same-sex couples; not ok for any JoP to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage (as long as both parties are age of consent)"

[foreigncorrespondent]

6. I agree with you.

I didn't touch on the thing about forcing churches to marry us, because that isn't the question, it is simply if you agree to gay marriage or not.

I am a lesbian and can't wait for the day to come when I can say "I do" to Sapphocrat. When we do get married I would love for that marriage to be accepted by the governments of both our countries. Neither Sappho or I care if our marriage is accepted by the church or not, and unlike the church we feel forcing our beliefs on them is simply wrong.

Sappho and I are planning for a beach wedding, with the ceremony performed by a JoP, celebrant (public servant who can perform wedding ceremonies out side of the church), or a minister from the MCC. We are not asking for a Catholic priest to perform our ceremony and we never will.

[Terran]

35. That's a very good assessment

Considering that there is no way to tell any religious organization that it has to recognize same-sex marriages, the only thing that matters is civil law recognition of these unions. To me it does not matter whether such unions are called "marriage" or not, but I can see it as reasonable to demand the use of that word--it conveys equality with heterosexual unions.

My partner and I have been together for nearly 17 years, and never felt the need for a bonding ceremony. But if I could obtain the legal recognition of my union with him, damn sure I would be "proposing" to him tomorrow!

Dirk

[Girlfriday]

4. I say live and let live

Whenever I hear someone argue against gay marriage they seem to always invoke religion. Leaving aside the fact that I find all organized religions bogus (no offense to believers) the argument doesn't hold water. It has been proven that homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom, so why would we expect anything less in man? Moreover, for true believers I would ask this: if God created homosexuals, how can it be wrong? And I think that the "free will" argument is crap! If tomorrow, somehow, the world turned upside down and homosexuality was the accepted norm, there is absolutely no way I could become "normal".

In other words, I am a firm believer that being gay is not a choice.
I can't imagine the hell it must be to find yourself "square" in a "round" world.

Let gays marry, it's no one's business but their own.

[madmax]

9. Well said, GF

I have a gay brother in law, a sister in law who has 2 gay sisters, and have many gay friends. I love them and want them to be happy and to have all the 'rights' that hetero-sexual couples enjoy.

The man who was my manager for 14 years was gay. He was like a father/brother/mentor to me. I will never forget how well he treated me as a single working mother in a corporate environment which wasn't (at that time) considerate of a single mother's need to take time off due to a sick child or the need to leave work early to attend a Christmas play. He covered my ass many a time and I will forever be grateful for his kindness and compassion.

[foreigncorrespondent]

11. You said it so well GF.

And from the bottom of my heart I thank you.

[Brucey]

25. Even if it was a choice, still

the laws, rights, and responsiblities of a nation should apply to everyone.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. I agree with you...however

Leaving aside the fact that I find all organized religions bogus (no offense to believers)

Perhaps you should have left that comment aside. It is devisive and doesn't help the coalition between the different groups of people religious and non religious who want the same thing, full equal rights under the law for Gay and Lesbian people.

I have many gay friends who belong to various organized religions. I think they would like to be married in the churches they attend.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

5. Yes but

only for gay people.

[Book Lover]

7. Recognize, not allow

Look, if 2 people aren't a married couple after years of washing your partner's underwear, after squeezing enough money together to pay for the groceries, after arguing over who left the lid open and let the toothbrush fall in, then nothing makes them married.

[comsymp]

10. Damn, well said, Book Lover

And (eyeing the pile of laundry overflowing the hamper) your logic is infallible.

Glad to have you at DU!

[PopSixSquish]

42. You're Absolutely Right!!!

well said again!!!

[fabius]

8. Marriage is a religious ceremony...

...let's leave it up to the religions.

For purposes of legal rights we can call it gay civil unions.

[MercutioATC]

15. Agreed. I want equal rights for all people, but religion DOES have

the right to make its own rules (which might explain why I'm Agnostic). There should be no gay marriage OR straight marriage. Let "marriage" be within the domain of religion and let the rest of us come up with a system that treats us equally, regardles of what some people think an old book says.

[soleft]

18. Marriage isn't a religious ceremony if it's performed at city hall

If they start calling same sex marriages performed by a judge civil unions, then I'm fine calling them all civil unions. If states recognize same sex non religious "marriages" then they should reconize same sex non religions and RELIGIOUS marriages, because there are some demoninations which perform same sex marriages.

[Liberator_Rev]

21. YOU can call it whatever you want, but CIVIL LAW calls

<-- that's Frederick Douglass, not me.
the civil union currently limited by civil law to a man and a woman "marriage", not to be CONFUSED with what the churches ALSO call "marriage". Gays and their advocate friends who are informed on the issue are aiming at "marriage" because that is the only way they get all of the rights they need EVERYWHERE, because marriage is an established legal construct. Any new legal construct like "civil union" means nothing in other states or countries that have not recognized that new construct.

Maybe, in order to avoid the confusion, we should require the churches to call THEIR institution "Holy Matrimony". See

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays


See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.

[arwalden]

28. Rev... Sometimes You Say Things That Rake My Nerves...

But on this one I want to shake your hand and give you a GREAT BIG HUG!

Bravo! Well said! --- Thank you!

Love, Allen

[Liberator_Rev]

22. Dupe.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. That's funny....

My Mom and Dad were married at City Hall and the document recording that union says "Certificate of Marriage", big as you please across teh front.

Are you trying to tell me my folks weren't "married"?

[rbnyc]

47. I'm married and I didn't have a religious ceremony.

Should athiests and non-religious people not be allowed to marry?

[Bucky]

12. My "Yes, but..."

I have gay friends, many of whom are in what they openly call marriages. I live in Texas. Other gay couples I know simply call them partnerships. I personally don't object to it. It's not my business, so how can I object to it?

Here's my "but":

BUT, it's not worth losing a single vote over. Not a one. Gay men and women who can't legally marry their life partners face some economic hardships, have to lie or misrepresent facts when getting home loans, and have a harder time adopting children when they want to start a family. That sucks.

But in the upcoming election, I don't want any of this to be an issue. Call me a coward if you want. But people are dying. Our future as a democracy is being assaulted by the BushCo clowns. This issue is one that the GOP will exploit to use to divide people, make them hate and mistrust each other, and ultimately they may win votes that way.

While the situation for same-sex couples is unfair, these people--many my friends--are adapting and surviving within this current state of affairs. Acceptance of gays into mainstream society has been moving steadily foreward for my entire adult life time. No thinking person can doubt that the trend toward acceptance will move foreward, however slowly. We are winning this argument, so we don't need to make it a fight.

I'm picking my battles. I'm getting old and I want to leave my daughter with an intact democracy when she grows up. I'll argue till I'm blue in the face about the rightness of people marrying whoever they want to. But if the Democrats nominate a candidate who can't meet me on this issue, I won't peep. I won't fuss. I'll line up and vote for whoever we put on the ballot.

Nothing could be worse than Bush.

[foreigncorrespondent]

13. I so understand what you are saying...

This issue is one that the GOP will exploit to use to divide people, make them hate and mistrust each other, and ultimately they may win votes that way.

The problem with the GOP is they like to use things as a weapon, and the issue of gays and lesbian is one of their favorites. I have also unfortunately been witness to a few here at DU using gay as a weapon to insult someone as well, which is a sad thing.

I think what the dems are going to need to do is simply focus on the issues at home, i.e the failing economy and the no Saddam, Osama Been Forgotten, WoMD fiasco, and ignore what ever the GoP says. They won't lose the gay vote, because the majority of gays know which political party is the one which will stand for their needs.

[Book Lover]

14. And I totally understand your logic

The eternal struggle between practical and principle. I think you are right: this will be resolved, pro-recognition in my opinion, in our lifetimes. The 2004 election is critical; we must win. Perhaps keeping this at the state level is the best option for now.

[rbnyc]

49. You said I could call you a coward.

;-)

I think that if we have candidates who aren't afraid to stand up for what's right, more people will be interested in coming out to vote and that will offset the very few people who will be put off by a position that's scary for their wee little minds.

[Duncan Grant]

83. I'm reminded of Fannie Lou Hamer...

who was 'sick and tired of being sick and tired'.

I've been out for 19 years now...and I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. The unacknowledged AIDS crises of Ronald Reagan, the gays in the military debacle of former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) and Colin Powell, battles over hate crimes legislation, Christian zealots, etc. have made me very impatient with your arguement. We do need to make it a fight.

I'm empathetic to your position but please tell me, how much longer should I wait? When will people of conscience find the courage to move forward on this issue?

A quick qualifying remark: I don't equate the civil rights movement and gay marriage as the same thing! I quote Fannie Lou Hamer because I find her to be one of the most inspiring women in history - her example fills my spirit. I wish she was more well known and loved in these challenging times.

[rbnyc]

89. I'm so glad you asked, "how much longer should I wait?"

You are right. It's time. It's been time for a long time. You put it perfectly in your post.

One interesting thing is that this exact dilemma is mirrored within the gay community and we're just starting to make headway on it. Even though people of transgender experience were there at Stonewall, they have been pushed aside in gay activism for years for the same reason some liberals are afraid to take on the issue of gay marriage. Many gay activists have been afraid that association with trans people would hinder their appeal to the mainstream. And for a long time the trans community has been asking, "How much longer should we wait?" As an activist in the LGBT community who has colleagues of transgender experience, my consciousness of this problem has been heightened a bit. I wonder what your experience with this issue has been.

EDIT: typo

[Duncan Grant]

92. This is our 'dirty little secret' isn't it?

My experience is probably very similar to yours. It wasn't until I had transgender colleagues that I began to understand how TG people have been marginalized within the larger gay political movement (and I'm not proud to admit that).

It took ages for the HRC (Human Rights Campaign fund) to include transgender people in their publications and web-site. Here in San Francisco, the unemployment rate within the trans community is about 70% (I'd have to dig for that source document but I could PM it to you - given a little time). Health care for transgender people is terribly inadequate and prejudicial. Trans people are still widely pathologized within our culture - and your post about 'gender betrayal' illuminates that point a bit.

I'm feeling a bit guilty here about a possible hi-jacking of this thread...apologies to foreigncorrespondent. We should talk more rbnyc, we're on the same page. Best wishes - :hi:

edit: a silly boo-boo

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. I support the legal right of all people...

regardless of sexual orientation, to receive the same legal recognition of life partnership as a married heterosexual couple, and the financial and other benefits pertaining thereto. Call it "marriage", call it "civil union", call it life partnership" or whatever you want, it should be accorded the same status. And for those who say "marriage is a partnership between a man and woman for the purpose of producing children", and discount gay "marriage" on the grounds that it's nonreproductive..well, many heterosexual couples don't reproduce, don't want to reproduce, and in many instances can't, yet no one would think of denying them the right to marry. Silly, if you ask me. Not to mention discriminatory.

[Don_G]

17. If A Couple Of People Are Happy Together

I have no problem with it. Love is rare enough anymore.

[SoCalDem]

19. Every human being should be able to pick their life partner..

Lots of people marry, and have no children, so the procreation part should not be the "end all and be all" of a marriage..

I have been married for almost 34 years, and it does not matter ONE BIT to me, what my neighbors/friends/co-workers/aquaintances, etc do in the privacy of their own home..

Their private lives do not impact me one bit..

In the 21st century , one would think that we might have evolved enough to accept the fact thet ALL people are NOT alike.. One look down any street at quitting time should prove that..

There are also people who never marry.. Why couldn't they be able to designate their aged mother, or their sister, or their roommate, as their "partner" ..(for legal reasons and for insurance purposes..??

In every company, there are people who have been married several times.. When they divorce and re-marry, they just call HR and change the name on the paperwork.. It should be just that easy for everyone..

Pick ONE. (your choice)..easy as pie :)

What you do privately, is YOUR business..

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

20. Call it a "Civil Union"

The fact is that religious folks get up in arms because "marriage" is their term. If you simply call it a "civil union" and a "common law union," then some of the opposition would disappear.

Marriage is a holy sacrement based on church teaching, and unfortunately the government stuck its nose in where it doesn't belong by creating a host of laws (mostly in the realm of taxation) that treat citizens differently based on their participation in a church ritual.

Hey! What's my "Baptism Deduction"!!

Gay couples should get the same tax treatment as common law hetro partners (who haven't participated in the ritual) and have the same rights of adoption and estate transfer.

...and we can solve the whole health benefits issue by creating universal health care that isn't based on who's married to whom!

[Liberator_Rev]

24. Please see why that's NOT true, in response #21

[arwalden]

27. "Marriage is a holy sacrament based on church teaching"

Blah, blah, blah... yadda yadda yadda. You're quoting the same 'party-line' drivel that's become so rote that even those who spout it can barely comprehend its meaning.

I get the feeling that you're NOT expressing your OWN belief. I'm hoping (please) that you're merely playing devil's advocate and simply verbalizing your understanding of how OTHERS feel.

In any case---whether it's your OWN beliefs, or whether you're expressing the beliefs of others---you clearly have some deeper understanding of this issue that I can't quite grasp.

Please explain it to me in simple terms... terms I can comprehend: When it comes down to the way some queer couple chooses to practice their religion and how they choose to celebrate their relationship---whether it be with a home-made ceremony or a church-wedding... how does that effect the happiness or quality of life for those who are TRULY OPPOSED TO IT?

Why should they care? Why should THEIR version of what's "holy" interfere with what someone ELSE thinks is "holy"? Why should their interpretation of their brand of religion prohibit someone else from practicing and applying their flavor of religion to their relationship?

Whether you call them "civil unions" or "marriage"... the ones who are blindly opposed will CONTINUE to oppose and fight them simply because it looks-like a traditional christian marriage. And we can't have THAT now can we?

I could go on and on... but that would distract from my question.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

39. Mucking up the waters...

Let me defuse a little by saying the I entirely support gay marriages. Whether they're called "civil unions," "holy matrimony," or just plain "getting hitched," I support the rights of any group or individual to live a life that's meaningful, and to live that life with whomever satisfies their soul.

If a particular denomination (or congregation within a denomination) is opposed to gay marriages, that's their right to interpret the scripture as they want. There are other congregations and denominations that fully welcome gay congregants, and I applaud those congregations for welcoming all people in God's name.

What I don't like is the federal government getting involved in what's essentially a religious ceremony -- deciding that marriage needs "defense" by determining that only straight couples can be considered married under the law. To do so denies a whole class of persons from due process because certain members of Congress do not agree with their religion (because their religion recognizes gay marriage).

Imagine if the Bush Administration decided that it wouldn't recognize marriages condoned by black churches. I know, I know. It's not that hard to imagine, is it?

Now let me rephrase my initial point: gay marriages might have a better chance of being legalized if it went under the name of "civil union" and were bestowed with the same rights now recognized by common law marriage. People who suffer from milder forms of homophobia might be willing to go along with a dull, boring and legalistic definition that leaves their religion out of it.

I have no use for moral victories. I want gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples, and I don't care what semantics we have to use to get there.

[arwalden]

41. I Knew That... I Just Wanted To Make Sure

Your point is well-taken. Abandoning the term "marriage" might help to take the edge off of it.

Sadly... those who are truly opposed to it will continue to be opposed no matter how it's packaged and sold.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

52. Ain't it funny...

How gays "threaten" marriage when straights who treat the sacrement of holy matrimony as though it were a carnival prize ("Who Wants to Marry My Dad?") aren't held to the same standard.

Here's a little trivia for you: the children on "Who Wants to Marry My Dad" are all current or former students of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Just Good Christian kids pimping their father on prime time television.

On Edit: Atheist Typo's

[arwalden]

54. That's Hilarious!

It always tickles me whenever things like that are brought to light. The hypocrisy is just STAGGERING!

-- Allen

[Duncan Grant]

84. Now that's the fresh perspective that I've been looking for! LOL!

I think you've exposed the hypocrisy of the arguement here! :hi:

[Cheswick2.0]

31. this religious person disagrees with you

I don't think marriage is a term that belongs to a religious ceremony alone. I know many people who were not married in a church but are "married". Marriage is a legal contract.

the only thing a church gets to decide is whether they will or will not be celebrating the legal marriages of same sex couples. Some churches will and some will not and that is fine. But I don't think we should be making distinctions between the legal contract of heterosexuals and homosexuals by calling them different names. If so what about the staight couple who is married by the JP?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Arwalden and Cheswick are right

In many countries, including European ones such as Switzerland, you can have a church wedding if you want, but your marriage isn't legally recognized unless you also go through a civil ceremony before a judg

Most Japanese weddings are performed by Shinto priests, but what makes a marriage legal is registering it at city hall. You don't even have to have a ceremony.

In Chinese tradition, there's no religious ceremony at all. Even in the old days, marriage was simply an arrangement between families, and although there were some traditional customs (the bride being carried to her groom's home in a red sedan chair, throwing a big party, etc.), religion didn't enter into it.

Even though clergy can perform marriages in the United States, and you don't need a second ceremony, you're not legally married unless you apply for a marriage license beforehand and file the papers at the courthouse afterward.

Maybe marriage was a completely religious institution in medieval Europe (although early medieval Europe apparently had an equivalent to gay marriage), when the government and the Church were closely intertwined and everyone in Europe was officially Roman Catholic.

But my recollection is that the French Revolution, which secularized the French government, among other things, created the idea of secular marriage.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Why not?

Hey, if this counts as a marriage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3004930.stm

I don't see a problem. (a bit extreme, but you get the idea) Yes, a church might refuse to do it, although some wouldn't: I'm a pagan priest, and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest so long as you're serious about each other (I'm talking in general here, not about you specifically). If Oz law - or the law of anywhere else - is so wrapped up in Leviticus that they'd stone you to death for trying, then either it needs to change, or you need to move... I hear Canada's nice...

Good luck to you both!

[arwalden]

26. It All Boils Down To The Bigots and Stealth-Bigots...

... who use their bible as justification for discrimination. It makes me sick.

Yes... there are Stealth-Bigots... even here. You know who they are. You've seen and heard them before. They are the ones who are "okay" with folks being "that-way"... as long as they don't "flaunt-it". And it's okay, if they don't try to do anything at all that would legitimize their families in the eyes of the law... and that would (horrors) bring their relationship in par with theirs.

For those folks who are against gay unions... and who are against them being called "marriage"... and who believe that a domestic union or marriage is a holy and religious entity---for those folks, I have to ask: What is it about my comfort, protection, and happiness that SO DREADFULLY interferes with YOURS?

Marriage smarriage! So... let's say EVERY church in the United States somehow MAGICALLY and mysteriously decided to perform gay "marriage" ceremonies. How nice. --- What legal protections and benefits does that offer me and my partner?

How does that (a "church-marriage") ensure our inheritance rights? How does that guarantee our visitation rights? How does that guarantee the WHOLE HOST of other protections and benefits that are automatically assumed and afforded (by LAW) to hetero married couples?

ANSWER: It doesn't. It's just a nice romantic (mostly) RELIGIOUS ceremony where both individuals get to publicly proclaim the love and devotion and commitment to each other.

Now, while a marriage ceremony may be lovely and spiritually uplifting and fulfilling (for those folks who go-in for that sort of thing)... IN AND OF ITSELF it provides nothing substantive to the couple and their family unit if its not recognized by the state.

Conversely... a hetero union that's LEGALLY RECOGNIZED by the state does NOT require that a religious ceremony be performed in order to be legal. A city hall magistrate will suffice. HELLS-BELLS! In some areas, just *living together* in a husband/wife style relationship is enough to qualify as a "common-law" marriage and even *without* having gone through the trouble of actually getting married, a straight couple gets those benefits and protections. (How nice for them.)

And what is the source of the hatred? How did this come to be? Whether it's a bible-thumping bigots, or stealth-bigots, or self-loathing closet queers in denial... the origins of the hatred are all the same: FUNDAMENTALISM! --- Whether it's something they read in their scriptures and concluded on their own... whether it's learned from parents, or buddies... or whether it's something they blindly and questionlessly follow because their anointed leaders merely tell them so... the source of the hatred can usually be traced back to one source.

And to think... some folks still wonder why I feel the way I do about Christian fundamentalists. It has nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist. My disdain for Christian fundamentalists has nothing to do with the fact that they believe in gods.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that that EGOTISTICAL and narrow-minded and myopic view of the world around them has extended BEYOND their hateful little bubble and permeated into the everyday lives of folks who would NEVER consider themselves to be "fundamentalists".

These are the stealth-bigots... they don't even KNOW it themselves. They "pass" in everyday life as being open minded and progressive and having a truly modern view of their scripture's teachings. --- What nonsense! Bullshit.

("Oh, Allen... don't talk that way. You'll turn them off. You're making more enemies than friends.")

I'm not trying to win them over. I'm not trying to change their "hearts." That's too big a job. --- Instead, I'm merely pointing out the obvious to the rest of us who haven't yet spotted it.

-- Allen

[Cheswick2.0]

33. stealth bigotry goes both ways..... and some people don't even realize it

You don't take into account those people who are anti gay rights, who are Jewish, Muslim or simply not religious.

I think your hatred blinds you and makes you not entirely consistant on the topic and you don't KNOW it yourself.

First you claim it is only fundametalists who are the problem and then at the end you condemn those who are not fundamentalists, they are all supposedly stealth bigots and don't know it. How about gay and lesbian people who are religious, some of them members of the clergy? Are they all stealth bigots too? Or are they simply self hating?

It seems like your issue is not as much with who is with or against you in terms of equal rights, as it is with religion in general. You say you have no problem with people's beliefs. The evidence suggests otherwise.

[arwalden]

40. Cheswick, Cheswick, Cheswick.... Oh Dear.

If that's the way you want to be, I can't do anything about it.

But I can defend myself when you accuse me of saying things I didn't and when you purposely misconstrue my meaning so that you can be all righteous and sanctimonious.

> You don't take into account those people
> who are anti gay rights, who are Jewish,
> Muslim or simply not religious.

Nor did I EXCLUDE any of these people. I DID say however that no matter WHERE it's learned, the origins of their prejudices could be traced back to FUNDAMENTALISM. I think this applies to fundamentalists of all flavors. --- I also think any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion.

> I think your hatred blinds you and makes
> you not entirely consistent on the topic
> and you don't KNOW it yourself.

My hatred blinds me? My hatred?!

What hatred? Where is this coming from?

If this is what you think... what you TRULY think... then you're going to have to do better than this, Cheswick.

Time to put-up or shut-up! What exactly have I said that leads you to believe that I hate anyone other than the myopic and bigoted fundamentalists and their fundamentalism?

You've accused me of being inconsistent. Okay. Where? What? How?

You know good and well that I try to be consistent and fair. --- If I have some character flaw that I'm not aware of... or if I've been unfair to anyone, or if I've unintentionally slighted or insulted anyone... then I'd like to improve. I don't want to be that way.

You've made an accusation, but you've not been very specific. Can you help me by pointing out exactly what it is that I'm not consistent on?

Either I'm blind or you're making things up. Which is it?

> First you claim it is only fundamentalists who are the problem
> and then at the end you condemn those who are not fundamentalists,
> they are all supposedly stealth bigots and don't know it.

There is nothing inconsistent about this. Indeed FUNDAMENTALISTS *are* the problem, Cheswick. This observation of mine by no means is intended to imply that ONLY FUNDAMENTALISTS are the problem. -- I did not say that! I do not know how you came to that conclusion.

What I *did* say is that whether it's fundamentalists or anyone else... the ROOT CAUSE is fundamentalism. Even for those people who don't self-identify as fundamentalists, their hatred and bigotry is rooted in fundamentalism. Even for those people who are not commonly considered by the public to be fundamentalists... their bigotry has fundamentalist roots. It all can be traced back to fundamentalism.

I think I was pretty clear and forthcoming about this. What exactly about this causes you distress? What's unfair or incorrect about my observations?

> How about gay and lesbian people who are religious,
> some of them members of the clergy? Are they all
> stealth bigots too? Or are they simply self hating?

Wha-wha-WHAT? What the fuck is this about? --- Yes? You brought them up... so... What about them? This is the first time that they've been mentioned here. This cluster of questions is so far out-there that I don't know how to respond.

Perhaps if you can clarify what you mean... or if you can point out EXACTLY what it is I said that makes you think these questions actually APPLY to my message... maybe THEN I could address them in some meaningful way.

I haven't specifically attacked these people. You know it and I know it. Yet you're acting as though I have. Why are you behaving this way, Cheswick?

Also... I haven't IMplicitly attacked these people, either. The only thing I can figure, Cheswick, is that because I didn't take the time to offer any "fine print" of all the groups and sub-groups about whom my criticisms did not apply, you have incorrectly ASSUMED that it must apply to EVERYONE.

Again... any reasonable person reading my words would be able to determine my meaning. If you can point to any examples that are confusing to you, I'd be glad to try and clarify it for you.

> It seems like your issue is not as much with who is with
> or against you in terms of equal rights, as it is with
> religion in general. You say you have no problem with
> people's beliefs. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Then you would be wrong about that.

From my perspective, you appear to be implying that the fact that I'm an atheist somehow disqualifies me from being objective... or from being allowed to criticize those who would use their religion against others.

I find it truly odd and puzzling. Obviously, you've read my other messages throughout DU in which I've tried to explain how I feel about religion. In THIS THREAD, however... I've taken a much more even-handed approach and I've been very specific and less inflammatory in my comments.

STILL... somehow... you've managed to transpose my earlier comments and overall tone from my OTHER messages into THIS ONE. You're being unfair and unreasonable. This isn't like you at all.

Yes... as an atheist, I personally have a problem in believing those people's beliefs. That's the whole point! (Duh!) --- But other than the fact that I'm an atheist... nowhere have I said or implied in any other fashion that I "have a problem" with their beliefs.

Your hyper-sensitivity on this issue appears to me to be directly related to the fact that I AM indeed an atheist. You're drawing conclusions and reading things into my words that most folks wouldn't.

You appear to be SEARCHING and STRIVING and STRETCHING for meanings that don't apply. You're inventing insults that aren't there. This is totally absurd.

I haven't suggested that they STOP believing, have I? If so... I'd like to know what it is I said that appeared to be suggesting that. If that's something implied, then an apology from me will be forthcoming.

> The evidence suggests otherwise.

Sorry... your imagination suggests otherwise. It's not ALL ABOUT YOU. Not every criticism of fundamentalists (christian or otherwise) is about YOU. Whether it's fair or not... whether it's about fundamentalists or mainstream-ers... not every criticism about Christianity... is about YOU. So there's no need to take things so personally and no need to imagine insults where none exist.

-- Allen

[rbnyc]

50. Another source of stealth bigotry is the notion of gender betrayal.

I think you're right about fundamentalism, but a lot of homophobia stems from the notion of gender betrayal--a fear of being perceived as acting outside gender norms and being associated with the opposite gender. That's why in some cultures a man who is a "top" isn't even considered to be gay, because he does the penetrating and stays within the gender norm.

And of course, the other source of homophobia is repressed homosexuality. Remember that study where they took a bunch of "straight" men, measured their attitudes toward gays and measured their sexual response to gay porn. The straight men who weren't turned on by the gay porn were the least homophobic, while the men who got big erections were the most homophobic, and included many men who were in jail for gay bashing.

[arwalden]

53. Damn! "Gender Betrayal".... WOW!

Where have I been that I would miss hearing about or reading about this concept?

It makes so much sense to hear you explain it that way... I'm embarrassed that it hasn't come up in other conversations I've had with folks about this topic.

I should have thought of it myself.

-- Allen

[rbnyc]

59. First time it occured to me...

...was when I heard our Public Policy Director at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center talking about it in a meeting about transphobia within the gay community. I had the same reaction.

:hi:

[Duncan Grant]

85. Brilliant addition to the arguement, rbnyc!

I would also add that misogyny is also a part of this equation.

Many arguements of the feminists movement are applicable here, too.

Thanks for posting about gender betrayal - someone here really gets it!

:loveya:

[rbnyc]

91. Thanks. I just replied to your post above...

...before you read this one, and it looks like I was probably preaching to the choir. ;-)

Thanks so much for your kind words. And for adding misogyny to the brew. That's a contibuting factor for sure.

[Aristus]

30. I'm all for it.

I'm a Christian, but a liberal one, not a crossed-ass fundie. Fundie Christians call marriage 'sacred' for the same reasons anyone calls anything sacred. To demonstrate that the sactified thing belongs to 'US', and 'YOU' can't touch it. (How dare you?)

It's just a lot of sanctimonious selfishness. I think two people getting together and promising to love one another, through thick and thin, forever, is a wonderful thing. I believe God blesses gays the same way He blesses everyone else. We are all His children, and He made us the way we are, gays and straights (like me) alike.

The sooner we have gay marriage in this country, the better.

on edit: capitalizing the Godly 'He'.

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. It comes down to what is meant by the word "marriage".

Since the government issues marriage licenses - which make a marriage legal - then there is absolutely no logical reason for the government not to issue that legal document, and the legal status that comes with it, to a same sex couple.

The church ceremony, of course, would have to be left up to the individual church and/or their affiliated hierarchy. No doubt some would allow such ceremonies and others would not, but it's not up to the government to tell churches what to do, even when they have their heads buried in their asses.

It's likely that even most reasonable minded conservatives - probably all but the most moronically hateful - would support gay marriage (in the legal sense) if they actually took 5 minutes to think about it. When it comes to issues like health care coverage, hospital visitations, survivors benefits, etc. there's no logical argument that could me made for homophobia "benefitting" society.

[Love Bug]

34. Here is why I voted "yes"

I've known gay couples with relationships that lasted longer than my own marriage, so who am I to judge?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. I've known a lot of gay and lesbian couples over the years

and my overwhelming impression is that the emotions and issues are basically the same as with heterosexual couples: first infatuation, deciding that this person is "the one," figuring out how two people with different habits and attitudes can live together without driving each other crazy, temptations to stray, being partners in the routines of everyday life, turning weird and vengeful if the relationship goes sour, or suffering devastating grief if one partner dies before the other.

If an individual has found true love and wants to spend his/her life with another person, who am I to say that their choice is invalid?

People who go into a frenzy over gay marriage really need to get a life.

[populistmom]

38. Who you love shouldn't make a difference...

in regards to tax benefits and property inheritance. Marriage is a contract. Doesn't make sense someone couldn't get into it because they love someone of the same gender.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Yes for marriage...

While I don't believe that you can FORCE religious groups to offer the sacrament of marriage to couples that are not in keeping with their doctrines, I believe 100% that every citizen of this country has the same civil rights and that includes the rights of gays/lesbians to enter into a civil marriage.

(BTW, I do love the many SF churches and temples that HAVE offered the sacrament of marriage to gay/lesbian couples in spite of the narrow views of their hierarchy.)

[blondeatlast]

45. Absolutely! That was this Christian's vote.

[Lars39]

46. Just finished reading some old American Heritage Magazines.

Even the Puritans didn't believe that marriage was religious. They believed in civil unions. :) I say we need to get back to that. Everyone who wants to be united by civil union can. If you are religious, aim for a second religious ceremony, if your church allows. If your church doesn't allow, then that's something between you and your church/religion; for you to personally fight for or not.
Government recognition of ALL civil unions would seem to be the first step. Just my two centavos. :)

[Kamika]

48. I dont but hear me out

Im 100% for "union" between homosexuals, but not the conventional religious one. The religious marriage was made between a male and a female. But any other kind of commitment is ok..

Just dont call it marriage, call it a civil union but do the whole "marriage" thing if you want, dancing, food, all that stuff. Fine by me

[arwalden]

51. One Question: WHOSE Religion Are You Talking About?

One more question: There are plenty of churches and ministers who DO perform religious marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples... why should your interpretation of your religion have precedence over theirs, and how does this interfere with your happiness or your beliefs?

Sorry---I'm probably being a bit hypersensitive---but when I hear other folks offer up similar platitudes... they usually follow-up with things like: "Some of my best friends are gay. I don't have anything against them as long as they don't flaunt it in front of the children. It's not gays I'm opposed to... it's what they do in bed. I just don't understand the nelly ones."

I know it sounds like I'm being unfair to you. I'm guessing you didn't mean for it to come off that way. But for years I've been listening to folks really ARE hollow and insincere and sanctimonious when they speak similar words.

Isn't that sad? Sad that they are that way to begin with... and sad that it makes me so suspicious.

== Allen

[Kamika]

55. My religion ofcourse

Normal non fundie christianity.

Those ministers that do perform ceremonies have their own interpretion and i have my own.. do you have a problem with that too?


Anyway dont try and make me sound like some homophobic cuz you cant :)

Im 100% sincere in everything i say.


:hug:


Now let me get back watching ds9

[arwalden]

56. What I'm Hearing Is...

... it's good enough for heteros, but it's not good enough for queers. Or perhaps it means that heteros are good enough for your ceremony, but queers aren't.

I'm sure you mean well... and you aren't homophobic in the mean-spirited way... but if you stop for just a second and try to look objectively at what you're saying, you might see it the same way I do.

-- Allen

P.S. I had to laugh when I read the word "normal" in your description of your flavor of Christianity. Who's to say what "normal" is anymore? (But in this case, I'm assuming you mean that you don't handle snakes and bite the heads of chickens as part of Sunday services. ;-))

[Kamika]

57. thats not the matter

im not saying its good enough for heteros etc, im just saying the religious institution meant it to be between a man and a female, end of story. thats all. Im sorry to dissappoint you since i dont have any anti gay stuff in my message, Im not saying it to be mean, thats just how it is and thats that.

homosexuals could start a sort of union that is meant only for them ? then they would have something that we straight ppl couldnt do :D


And normal.. as i see it its like this. everything about me is normal and just the best thing in the whole universe.

its everyone else that arent normal :D

[arwalden]

60. I'll Be Sure To Tell My Religious "Church-Married" Queer Friends

... that they aren't really married.

> i dont have any anti gay stuff in my message,

You just don't see it.

> Im not saying it to be mean,

I know you're not mean.

> thats just how it is and thats that.

I'm delighted to meet such an authority on religion. I'll have to come to you for advice and research answers.

> homosexuals could start a sort of union that is
> meant only for them ? then they would have something
> that we straight ppl couldnt do :D

Uh. Wait a minute! Let's see... where have I heard this before? Hmmm. Oh YEAH! Now I remember.

This is almost the same thing as "Separate-But-Equal". No... it IS the same thing.

-- Allen

[Kamika]

63. ok ok

i can see i can reach out asmuch as i can and you still wont grab it so ill end it here.

I didnt mean anything other then a friendly (jokingly) suggestion about homosexuals starting their own thing and you take it like im antichrist.

also you're welcome to ask me about advice :)


Anyway im sure youre a much nicer and not such a suspicious guy in real life. Over and out

[arwalden]

64. I Saw The Smilie Faces...

... I know what those mean.

But they still don't do much to soften the sentiments behind the words. You do know that there are many folks who actually MEAN the things that they say "in gest".

Trust me... I've watched enough episodes of Designing Women to know how that works... and I've met a few of them them in person... and I'm actually related to a few more of them as well.

-- Allen

[foreigncorrespondent]

79. I respect your answer, but...

....no one is saying anything about RELIGIOUS gay marriage, simply GAY MARRIAGE.

The church does not hold copy right or trademark to the word marriage. Us gays and lesbians aren't asking for the religious right to marry, simply the right to marry. There is a big difference, and until people realize this difference, we are going to face the same thing over and over again from people of all religions.

[Kamika]

88. allright

If thats the case i dont see why anyone would be against it.

[Scottie72]

90. I thought

the argument of Seperate but Equal was decided years ago.

[hooligan]

58. Here's the problem

I have several gay friends. If gay marriages are allowed, that will mean several more weddings I have to attend and several more wedding presents I have to buy. On the other hand, the receptions would probably be kick ass parties.

I was wondering, FC, would you have a bachelorette party? If so, what would it be like?

[arwalden]

61. Oh... I Forgot The Benefit Of All Those Gifts...

... of course I wouldn't need any toaster ovens. I've got three already.

-- Allen

[rbnyc]

62. Forget the gifts...ask for $$$

:D

We cleaned up at our wedding.

:evilgrin:

[foreigncorrespondent]

80. hooligan, you might have to ask Sappho that one.

I am femme through and through. Hell Sappho laughs her ass off at me when I play pretend butch for a day. LOL

If I was going to have a party it would most likely be a traditional hens night complete with stripper/s. I say two because I would want a female stripper, but my straight friends would most likely prefer a male stripper.

But I think Sappho and I will end up going to Canada to get married, so we most likely won't be having any form of a party until after the ceremony is complete.

[ploppy]

65. Yes

I support gay marriage. Two people who love one another should be able to get married if they want to. It seems so simple to me.

[Blue_Chill]

66. Question: Who's last name would they both use?

lol.

As for the question of the thread: Of course I support gay marriage. There is no reason not to. Even the moralists should support this because it promotes committed long term relationships with in the gay community.

(note: I am NOT saying such relationships do not exist currently within the gay community, I am saying it could further promote such relationships.)

[arwalden]

68. My Friends Took Each Other's Last Names

Jim Avery became Jim Avery-Knight
David Knight became David Knight-Avery

Confusing, huh? Sweet... but confusing.

They should have just flipped a coin and settled on one version... or kept their own names.

[foreigncorrespondent]

81. I am going to be taking on Sappho's surname.

Because I am femme I think it is more appropriate for me to take on her surname rather than she take mine on.

[SiobhanClancy]

67. I support it without reservations

I don't understand why anyone would object,except for the tedious people who want to inflict their religious views on others,and why should anybody care what they say?

[rbnyc]

69. I don't understand either.

I know that most people vote yes without reservation, but I was surprised to see the votes of a few others. I read the explanations, but it still doesn't make sense to me.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

76. I wonder if the Founding Fathers ever thought...

that "freedom for all" would include same-sex couples.

Conservatives love to spout about the intent of the Founding Fathers; and I must admit that I doubt they ever thought America would undergo a sexual revolution that would bring about open discussions about the most personal aspects of our lives.

At the same time I think that they understood that their vision of democracy was limited, having not experienced it themselves. Because they recognized this impairment, I doubt any of them would simply dismiss the same-sex marriage issue as something immoral. They would at least consider the arguments for and against carefully before determining how to vote.

[ProfessorGAC]

70. I Support Marriage

No qualifiers whatsoever.
The Professor

[5thGenDemocrat]

71. I support whoever wants to marry

First, what two other people do is none of my business. If it makes you happy and doesn't scare the horses, I say go for it.
I don't look at it so much from the perspective of eternal betrothment as I do a matter of civil rights. Property, taxes, medical care, so many things revolve around your marital status. If straights can take advantage of these breaks and these privileges, then gays should be able to do so as well. Discrimination based on orientation is wrong. Period.
I've been down the marital road twice. First marriage lasted 22 months, the second 24 months. If the state (actually states -- MI and NV) allows a numbskull like me to dive into the shark tank, I don't see why my gay brethren and sistren shouldn't be allowed to do the same -- hopefully with happier results (but, then, my brother just got his fourth divorce -- I'm not even the most incompetent partner in my family).
John
But, unlike Chuck, I have absolutely no inclination to do it a third time. Here's hoping for a happy result for all my friends in "love," gay or straight, who are wishing to take the plunge. Send me an invite -- I still have several toasters I need to get rid of.

[noonwitch]

72. Why should straight people be the only ones paying the marriage tax?

Seriously, love is love and commitment should be honored by the government. Churches can decide whether they want to recognize gay marriage.

[Nikia]

73. I completely support marriage

There is no reason that same sex couples should not marry in my mind. Religious groups can choose to perform these cermonies or not, but gay marriage should be legal.

[SPICYHOT]

74. I'm against the abortion

that could be the only thing that i could get really mad at discussions, the marriage is for people who think that they can stay forever together and love each other, is was created for those who can take a good relationship for long time. I don't think that "normal" people should stop gay people because they think they are "abnormal". We need to grow up, learn about tolerance and learn how to take the monkey out of the main chair!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

75. We have no problem with the marriage of two corporations..

What's so difficult about recognizing the marriage of two people of the same sex? Call it marriage, union, or merger...it's all the same relationship.

I perceive the issue to be more of money than morality; though homophobia certainly runs rampant in Congress...especially among repressed homosexuals.

Big Insurance certainly doesn't want to recognize same-sex marriages. If they had their way, they wouldn't recognize straight unions either. Repiglican politicians don't want to lose the revenue the government gets from same sex couples filing as singles.

[HEyHEY]

77. Wanna have some fun

Go to www.news1130.com check out the forums. They aren't moderated and have an interesting mix of left and right wingers. There is always some debate about this topic... I'd love it if someone who really has some good mature points would post a couple things

[ForrestGump]

78. YES!!! I'm not so sure about heterosexual marriage, though,

at least for me....

:o

[RobinA]

82. As Far As I'm Concerned,

people should worry about their own marriages and not anybody else's. If you keep your own marriage sacred, how is the fact that Bob and Ted next door happen to be married going to make an iota of difference in your marriage? Live and let live, I say.

[FloridaJudy]

86. What is the *problem* with these folks who oppose gay marriage?

Two people promising to love and support each other - come what may - makes me bawl like a maniac, regardless of their genders...

Love and commitment between two grown-ups is beautiful! Anyone who believes otherwise is probably some small-minded bigot.

Judy (straight, but not narrow)

[foreigncorrespondent]

87. Judy, I wish I knew what the problem was.

I am sick of those who tell us it will harm heterosexual relationships if we have the right to marry, or the ones who claim that we want to force the church into accepting our marriages, and of course all the other crap that comes with it. They are all so far from the truth.

I have no intentions on busting my relationship up, let alone anyone elses. Nor do I intend to go to a church that doesn't accept me, and force them to accept my marriage. If Sappho and I choose to have a church wedding, then we would most likely have that wedding in a MCC church.

I truly love Sappho with all my heart and soul. The love Sappho and I have is based on unconditional love for one another, trust, and friendship. The day I met Sappho was a day my life would change for the better. It is Sappho who brings out the me in me, and when I look in her eyes, have her brush past me, chat with her online, or chat with her on the phone, I know that she is the one person in this huge world of ours that God created for me.