On Gay Marriage and Rights..

[Morgan Ellis]

I think that anyone who opposes - or even agrees with - Gay rights and Gay marriage needs to read this.

Hell, I think everyone needs to read this. What scares me is that some people will read it, and still think they have the right to say gay marriage is bad and wrong and scary.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/thebratqueen/417020.html

-- Morgan

 

[ocean976124]

Interesting article but ultimately it makes no real argument.
I believe gay people have the right not be discriminated against regarding employment, salary, housing, education, etc. However, my understanding of government and marriage leads me to believe that gay marriages should not be recognized by the government. Some form of civil unions I believe is necessary so that hospital visitation and medical choices can be made by the other partner. But I simply do not see the need for the government to give full marriage benefits (notice I didn't call them marriage rights) to gay couples.

 

[Morgan Ellis]

But, to insist that homosexual "marriages" be recognized arguably trespasses into the jurisdiction of the church (or synagogue, temple, etc.)

OK, fine - let's discuss this on a seperation of Church and State basis, then.

What about the churches and other religious institutions that WANT to perform same sex unions? Does the state have the right to tell them that they can't perform such unions?

People often argue this issue on the basis that we can't 'force' religious institutions into this, but in reality, there are many which are frustrated by their inability to recognize unions based on love, rather than sexual orientation. No one seems to have much sympathy for this argument, though.

-- Morgan

 

[Morgan Ellis]

I simply do not see the need for the government to give full marriage benefits (notice I didn't call them marriage rights) to gay couples.

Out of curiosity - why not?

I can think of some really good reasons why they *should* offer them, but right now I'd rather here your reasons why they shouldn't.

-- Morgan

 

[The Shake]

What was that about the separation of the church and the state?

What on Earth does that have to do with it?

Separation of Church and State protects individuals from state-sponsored religion - i.e. the government telling you that you must worship their version of God. How does permitting two men or two women to get "married" relate to that?

 

[Ophelia Black]

My view on this has always been pretty straight forward;

People hate at the drop of a hat - any love we can find between consenting adults is a bloody miracle we should be goddamn grateful for.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Separation of Church and State protects individuals from state-sponsored religion - i.e. the government telling you that you must worship their version of God.

FINALLY!

I hope people truly understand the meaning of this.

 

[The Shake]

1) The relevance of keeping the government out of marriage depends on whether you accept the proposition that "marriage" (as opposed to a civil union of two people) falls within the religious domain.

"Keeping the government out of marriage"? Its already there - hence the whole debate. I can see, however, an argument for getting the government entirely out of the marriage business, and moving strictly towards civil unions for all people.

2) If the government legislates homosexual marriage, that is arguably a form of imposed moral values in and of itself. (Are atheism or polytheism "religions"?)

You're making the mistake of confusing morals with religions. The government can, and does, impose moral values. Those values may be influenced by religion, but that does not equate to a state sponsored church.

3) Allowing a religious community to recognize homosexual marriage, if they choose to, is one thing. Legislating homosexual marriage is quite another. How long do you think anti-homosexual churches can withstand the pressure? How many lawsuits for discrimination can they defend themselves against?

A very valid concern that I share.

 

[ocean976124]

It comes down to individual liberty. No one on this board has the "right" to tell me who I should sleep with, or marry. Why would it be any different if my choice was to be with another male?

Their individual liberty is not being infringed upon. Two men or two women are free to make a life long commitment to each other. But why should the taxpayers be financially helping a gay couple?

 

[The Shake]

why should the taxpayers be financially helping a gay couple?

Why should gay taxpayers be financially helping a straight couple?

 

[ocean976124]

Out of curiosity - why not?

I can think of some really good reasons why they *should* offer them, but right now I'd rather here your reasons why they shouldn't.

-- Morgan

Actually its not on anyone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person who asserts something. What does a gay union contribute to society to justify taxpayers spending any more to support them...

 

[ocean976124]

Why should gay taxpayers be financially helping a straight couple?

Sociologically speaking the best place for children to be raised is within a commited family. Statistically children of single parents or divorced parents tend to have more problems regarding the law, school, and behavior. There's always exceptions on both sides, but the statistics are very clear.
The government gives certain benefits to heterosexual couples to encourage and help couples raise children in the best possible environment.
Now, I know, you're going to ask, "Then why can elderly or infertile people get married?" Well, we've got to draw an easy definable line somewhere and rather than spend extra money and time proving or disproving things, its easiest and more effective to draw the line at heterosexual coupling. A heterosexual relationship is naturally geared towards "procreation". We have to actually do something to stop it or some biological aspect needs to not work properly or stop working.
Homosexual unions include children by way of exception not by the nature of the relationship. Procreation plays no role in homosexual relations.
And we're yet to have any real data on the gender and relational effect on children if both "parents" are the same sex. I don't know about you, but I don't think children should be included as part of some grand scale social experiment.

 

[dax]

Frankly, I don't see a valid reason to withhold the foregoing from homosexual couples.

How about groups of three, rather than couples? How about "quads"? See where this is going? Who, in a representative democracy, should decide these things?

 

[ocean976124]

What about the assertion of equity?

I would find it useful for members to list the benefits that are conferred upon heterosexuals, but not homosexual, couples. Then, we can have a constructive discussion about whether homosexual couples are entitled to such benefits.

I can think of:
- Various tax preferences (tax free rollovers of property, spousal credits, RRSP contributions, etc.)
- Health plans
- Power of attorney (I think)
- Other???

Frankly, I don't see a valid reason to withhold the foregoing from homosexual couples.

The only concern I have, as I stated above, is legislating marriage so as to effectively impose a moral position on our religious institutions.

Other than power of attorney and medical decisions, I don't see any reason to grant anything by way of tax benefits to homosexual couples.
If a married person dies their spouse gets their social security check. I fail to see why as a taxpayer I should have to pay so that the surviving gay partner can collect. As a single person I can't give my social security to anyone else. At least a heterosexual couple is more likely to have had and raised children. Their marriage helped to raise society's future in the best possible environment thus I am willing to grant them certain benefits (notice I did not say "rights").
Shoot, why stop at homosexuals. Aren't the civil rights of polygamists being infringed upon? Why can't I marry 2 women or 2 men? Why can't a group of people get together and have a group marriage?
Let's just let any couple or group that wants to claim its married get anything they want....

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I have a problem with the so called "people" deciding the rights of others. For the longest time visible minorities were denied their rights simply because the "majority" deemed it so. It took the courts to strike down the law and change the way people viewed those rights. Slowly these rights were accepted and are undeniable today.

I don't see this issue as being any different. Equality for all.

 

[dax]

I have a problem with the so called "people" deciding the rights of others.

I take it, then, you'd support the NAMBLA political position? Or does somebody have to draw lines? But, then, what if they happen not to coincide with my personal ones?

 

[The Shake]

Wow - a rational post against gay marriage. Its nice to see someone present Ocean's POV without slipping into anti-gay rhetoric.

Sociologically speaking the best place for children to be raised is within a commited family. Statistically children of single parents or divorced parents tend to have more problems regarding the law, school, and behavior. here's always exceptions on both sides, but the statistics are very clear.
The government gives certain benefits to heterosexual couples to encourage and help couples raise children in the best possible environment.

Ah, but being gay does not preclude being a parent, or providing a committed family environment. If anything, gay marriage would increase the ability of gays and lesbians to offer such households. If anything, you've made an argument in favour of gay marriage, not against it.

Now, I know, you're going to ask, "Then why can elderly or infertile people get married?"

No, but I would ask why people can re-marry at all. Statistically, people entering their second marriages are significantly less likely to have children. This is not some tiny portion of the population.

/B]

Well, we've got to draw an easy definable line somewhere and rather than spend extra money and time proving or disproving things, its easiest and more effective to draw the line at heterosexual coupling.[/B]

Is it? Drawing the line at heterosexual coupling made a lot of sense when a man was solely responsible for providing for his "wife and kids". The entrance of women into the workforce has changed that dynamic forever.

Why, for example, does the tax system punish families with one-wage earner when almost every study indicates that having a stay-at-home parent is better for the kids?

I don't know about you, but I don't think children should be included as part of some grand scale social experiment.

Right or wrong, kids have always been (and will always be) part of our grand scale social experiments. If that weren't the case, then nothing would ever change in society (positively or negatively).

 

[Goober Mcfly]

*see my signature*

 

[Guy Lafleuer]

I've got about as much interest in this as I do with the Oscar's. If they want to get married, let them marry. If a church doesn't want to marry a same sex couple. No skin off my back. But there's no way a same sex couple shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Guy

 

[Morgan Ellis]

What does a gay union contribute to society to justify taxpayers spending any more to support them...

What does ANY union do to justify this? And since when does the rationale behind two people wishing to affirm their commitment to each other need a financial basis?

Are you saying that the basis for marriage is a strictly financial consideration? If so, then why the 'concern' about gay marriages 'undermining' those of straights?

-- Morgan